This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Images. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
How should a copyrighted image that has been modified be tagged? A user took the Japanes cover of Pokemon Battle Revolution (Image:PBR_case.jpg), removed the Japanese text and replaced the CERO logo with the ESRB log (Image:PBR Case.PNG). He tried putting it in two pages saying that is what he thinks the US box will look like, but it has thankfully been removed. Since he took a copyrighted image, modified it (which isn't that illegal?), how should it be tagged? TJ Spyke03:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether UN, European Union, and EU national images are copyright-free? I'm trying to use some maps on fishery management, and I've searched through assorted EU sites but failed to find either a waiver or a permission-to-publish contact. Howard C. Berkowitz03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Images on other language wikipedias
Is there a way to insert images from other langage wikipedia's into english articles, etc. Without saving and re-uploading them? Flymeoutofhere15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Only if they are on the Wikimedia Commons... for which reason it is strongly recommended that, if you discover such images, you re-upload them to Commons rather than here. -- Visviva15:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Checking free use pics
If a user uploads a pic and says it is a public domain pic (saying they took it) but it looks like one taken by a company (and thus fair use), how can we check? I am referring to Image:Jeffenigmahardy.jpg, which suspiciously looks like a TNA promotional picture based on the quality of the pic and the angle/positing of the camera. It looks like all the other pics the user is uploading are also fair use (2 of the most recent even have the IGN watermark on them). TJ Spyke09:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like that particular problem has been dealt with... but for general reference, I believe {{wrong-license}} is the standard tag for such situations. -- Visviva15:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Inline linking
The section "Using images" deals with inline linking on Wikipedia. Does anyone know of a policy on inline linking from external websites to images on Wikimedia servers? --Bensin13:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that which is not forbidden is permitted, no? Certainly there are server-side ways to prevent hot-linking of images, and certainly the site-maintenance team are clever enough to handle this task if needed. However, in terms of legality for the end user, generally I would have thought that hot-links need to also link through to the image description page in order to comply fully with the GFDL. -- Visviva15:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, Is there a place on Wikipedia where one can bring old photographs that need some cleaning up? This image has been uploaded to the commons, but it has some ugly bits associated with its age. Can anyone suggest people that might use their photographic computer wizardry to clean up the junk? Thanks.--Evabd14:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post an image specifically for that purpose, but I'll check. I am hoping to get a copy of Adobe Photoshop in the near fututre and may be able to help out. In the mean time, I liked the image and added it to the article here: George_Pullman#Marriage_and_children. —Gaffταλκ15:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Kind of the inverse of the above: I love 'cleaning up' photos in Photoshop, and wonder how I would go about finding them, and if there are any special considerations to be aware of. I can't find [i]anything[/i] pertaining to what I'd like to do, which surprises me. Fogster19:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Relevant images?
Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic). — I am confused to what relevant means. On Decriminalization of marijuana in the United States would it be relevant to have a images of Richard Nixon and Jon Gettman because Nixon commissioned a study on marijuana use and Gettman published "Marijuana Production in the United States"? I didn't think it was reveant to have these pictures, as they are losely related to the topic and provide no constructive informaiton to the article. Am I wrong to delete these images? Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk19:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well Nixon is given treatment in the article so I think an image relating to him, most so if set specifically in the Commission context, would be appropriate. Depends on what the picture depicts sometimes. Chensiyuan21:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Using images form Wikimedia Commons
This page doesn't seem to have any guidance, nor an example, for linking to images form Wikimedia Commons. Could someone oblige, please? Thank you. Andy Mabbett09:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You link to Commons images the same way you link to Wikipedia images, that is why Wikipedia images can't have the same name as Commons images. For example, to add Drug bottle containing cannbis.jpg from Commons you link it just like a normal images: [[Image:Drug bottle containing cannbis.jpg|100px|thumb]]. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
What about interwikis? Such as using an image that's already loaded onto, say, the Spanish Wiki? Is there a way that that can be done, or only via commons? --lincalinca14:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Other sites?
What about putting up an image from another site without uploading it? like on two of the userboxes here? (the one about the wii and the one with the spinning logo in it)— Supuhstar * —
Moving files to Commons
I'm trying get more images moved to or uploaded at Commons. I'm hoping to get a template made so people can easily notify others about it, and I add a link to Commons on any article I can, but I'd also like to see a 'move this to Commons' link on image pages themselves, just like the 'upload a new version of this file' link. This would only appear on images that were a) On Wikipedia, not Commons, and b) Had a Commons compatible license (e.g. fair use images would be automatically excluded). This would make it clear to people that the image can and should be moved to commons, and would hopefully make the process as streamlined as feasibly possible. Richard00103:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
3D models
Is there an open format with a plug-in that allows for the viewing of three-dimensional parts? Specifically, I was working on some illustrations in Autodesk Inventor only to realize that there's no easy way to go from that to .svg. Then I thought, "What if we had 3D models on Wikipedia?" There are surely some articles that would benefit from that sort of thing. What do you guys think? --W0lfie14:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I believe that's the best idea I've ever heard about on Wikipedia. As an owner of Autodesk's Inventor 10, AutoCAD, Arcitectural Desktop, Viz Render ADT 2006, and Revit 8.1, I know well the benefits of 3D images, and I, too, believe that there should be a file similar to DWF to show a model in 3D. Perhaps spun by using the middle button? Perhaps spinning automatically on all 3 axes? Who's to say? I'm just saying if I was a developer of Wikipedia, I'd find a way to do it. — Supuhstar * —
"Clarify that hotlinking to Wikipedia is not allowed when terms in article inline linking has been clarified." I think, nothing can be vaguer than this. Can anyone give a clear cut answer to the question - whether images of wikipedia can be hotlinked in other websites with or without permission? Thanks. -59.152.1.15520:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
What are the differences between uploading images to Wikimedia and Wikipedia? Also what are the advantages and disadvantages to both? Simply south13:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Free images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so all Wikimedia projects can use them (other language Wikipedias, Wiktionary, Wikinews, etc.). 84.108.245.22222:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Personality rights question
What are the practical considerations regarding the use of images that are (or ought to be) tagged with the {{Personality rights}} template–in other words, images that depict public figures? Current practice is to allow the use in article space of images released by the creator under a free license (cc-by, GFDL, etc). If the image depicts a celebrity, do personality rights mean there are additional considerations and/or restrictions on how we use the images? --Muchness05:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You can use them like any other free image in most articles and definitely in the article about the person. If you wanna use a picture of a fat person in the fat people article, however, you would probably need a photo where the subject consented to this use or a photo where he is unrecognizable. The considerations are really mostly regarding reuse of the picture (mostly commercially). 84.108.245.22222:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The image was restored, all you need to do in the future is click rev, and choosing a more descriptive filename will help you avoid this problem in the future. 84.108.245.22222:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea, I tried reverting back to a previous version on the commons, which looked ok, but it still has that text on it again ! Jackaranga16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
On Calvin Johnson, Image:Calvin Johnson GT.jpg is being used. According to the file the author "requires" attribution. Is this standard practice? The attribution links out to his website (which seems a bit on the "self-promotion" side of it) and the EL doesn't actually offer anything unique. If the attribution is a necessary thing - is it appropriate to have it hyperlinked? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 21:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Attribution can be required, but not the manner of attribution. That would create an unreasonable restriction for some reuse, and couldn't be considered free anymore. In this case the chosen license text says "You must [...] provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author [...]. Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner [...]; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work". On Wikipedia that manner is click-through to the image page with all its information, as stated on Wikipedia:Image use policy: "All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page." --Para11:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know the link to upload images via the secure server? My internet provider has issues with keeping me logged in on the regular server, so I'm forced to use the secure alternative, and the upload file link doesn't seem to work. FrogDogz00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What is the policy/guidelines for use of extremely high resolution images? I am the creator of dozens of truly monstrous, high quality images (tens to hundreds of megapixels) covering all sorts of things, from thermophilic bacterial mats to Devil's Tower (the latter with such detail that you can clearly see what climbers on the mountain are wearing), and plan to release them under a free license. They're very professional images that I think would add a lot to articles on their topics. The obvious problem is that they're, well, huge. I don't know how well Wikipedia would handle an image that is, say, 25000x14285, or how well people's web browsers would deal if they clicked on "full resolution".
What would be appropriate guidelines for such images? Here are a couple possibilities I've come up with.
1) Use on Wikipedia as normal
2) Upload to Wikimedia Commons (so that it's available for people to use as they please), but only use cropped/scaled versions on Wikipedia.
3) Host on another site and possibility use as an external reference/site
{{unanswered}}
I can't find anything about this subject. Images that are free should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, no? So therefore, entire categories like Category:Public domain images should be close to redundant, right? However, I see some images that are not only free, but are also at Commons already. Some are featured pictures, and I guess we have to provide a category for them if we are to avoid sending people off to Commons to view them (and that would kind of defeat the purpose of having a separate featured picture system here), but what about non-featured pictures? I see some categories made entirely of free pictures from Commons, many not featured. Isn't that just pointlessly duplicating Commons? Commons already has categories for images and galleries for the best ones, so I don't see any utility in having such categories. Is there anything besides a featured picture that should be kept on Wikipedia? Perhaps one with additional encyclopedic information, provided it is also uploaded to Commons and doesn't duplicate that information in full there? Richard00100:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Commons suggests categories based on the photo for the subject. For example, it suggested that George Romero's image (Image:Romero2007.JPG) belongs in the same categories as Romero himself. Should we categorize the images similarly here in Wikipedia? Doczilla21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why we shouldn't categorize images here as well, although we should only really have fair use (and perhaps featured pictures) here, and fair use categories may be considered excessive (you're not really supposed to link to them or show them anywhere but on the article used, and it is enforced pretty strictly).
An example: Image:Aplomado.JPG. Should this be deleted? What purpose is being served by adding it to the category here? If we are to be consistent, shouldn't we do the same with all bird images (which seems, to me, a bit absurd)? Richard001 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are Commons images disappearing?
It seems people are deleting images available in the Commons, but then they disappear from their pages. You can still link to them, but they don't appear on their pages. What is going on? Serendipodous11:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I found messages about this on Commons. There has been some image difficulties since yesterday which they are trying to fix. Best regards Rhanyeia16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed the same problem, its widespread on English Wikipedia, numerous pages are displaying "deleted" and blanked out images, while the images are indeed still on Wikipedia Commons. Also my editing toolbar isn't working either, is anyone else having this problem as well? User:R-41 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Why can't I upload an image?
I've been trying to upload my first image, but when I click on the "Upload" button, nothing happens. I've tried registering with Wiki Commons and uploading from there, but still, nothing. I've tried all the different upload pages too.
The only thing I notice that's a bit odd is that when I'm typing in a new name for my image, such as ussclayapa39.jpg, I get a funny red light blinking on the right hand side of the text entry box. But I have no idea why that happens or what it means. Can anyone help? Gatoclass03:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes you just have to wait a long time for an image to upload. Image size can greatly affect this. You might consider resizing the image and saving it as a smaller file. If it's too big, it won't appear in that form on Wikipedia anyway. Doczilla21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, I figured out the problem a while ago, basically I have to save the file to my hard drive in a paint program before Wiki will recognize it.
I've also since figured out that it's a much better idea to ask technical questions at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) than to ask on individual help pages, as you will wait a long time for a reply on pages like this assuming you are lucky enough to get a reply at all :) Gatoclass01:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Bad Images
I noticed that the MetaWiki Bad Image List contains mostly pictures of genitalia, STIs, etc. These images are obviously on the list for a good reason, as they may easily offend or disturb some viewers. However, the issue I would like to raise is that of disturbing images containing disfigurements, deformities, etc. The Bad Image List contains no such images, and there are images on the pages for Anencephaly and Leprosy, and on the Polish Wikipedia there is an image of a human baby suffering from Cyclopia. In the case of the anencephaly image, there is a good reason for the image's presence on Wikipedia, that being that there is a general lack of information about the topic elsewhere on the web, and some people may turn to Wikipedia to find detailed information, in which case the image is very helpful. At this time, there is no criteria, other that the Bad Image List, regarding what, if any, graphic and potentially disturbing images can and cannot be used, therefore it is always a subjective decision. One would hope that editors would take into account those people who are squeamish and would click on links to pages with disturbing images unknowingly, to find the image jump out at them. I would like to make one thing clear: I am not supporting the idea that Wikipedia be censored. I am in favor of finding a clear, objective solution to what may become a bigger problem. Thomasiscool01:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Images found using google, etc.
I'm not sure what the wording should be but something is needed in the Wikipedia:Images#Finding images on the Internet section to indicate that the images found may not be free. I've had a least one editor tell me that the images they uploaded were free because they found them using Google images, and I suspect that others may think the same way. Picsearch is the same in that the images are not necessarily usable in Wikipedia. yotophoto looks like it works as it should. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)21:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
WH) IS KIDDING WHO?
I've uploaded images which were perfectly fine -- designed by the New York Public Library Picture Collection for uses such as Wikipedia -- and identified as "Courtesy the NYPL Picture Collection," but which were deleted because they were unsatisfactory somehow according to some robotic logic I never understood nor which was amenable to any discussion, conversation, or communication -- what about that?
And it's not just me. I've secifically seen uploads from the Australian National Library were refused. disallowed, rejected by mindless robots for reasons which made no sense to me nor to the Aussie uploading the images. Who's kidding who? Something is amiss here.
Has no one here ever heard anything like the phrase "throwing out the baby with the bath water"?
Bluntly, I have to ask why I should even try to upload an image? Where is the robot which can explain how to respond to a robotic warning that there is something wrong with the "Fair Use" rationale? Or the "ublic Domain" explanation?
Your image needs a legitimate template or it will be automatically deleted. I'm not totally up with the nuances of policy in this regard but I believe that images uploaded with a "fair use" template are suspect, and probably need to be submitted along with written permission from the copyright holder.
Hi all, forgive me for ranting, but I've become fairly frustrated with (a) the process of converting images to SVG/vector format, and (b) the process of moving free images from WP to commons.
User:Hotshot977 was good enough to recreate it in SVG format with Adobe Illustrator, which he then posted on commons as commons:Image:SensorSizes.svg. I then made a few small modifications to clean up this vectorized version.
First problem:MediaWiki doesn't render SVG flowed text correctly. Without flowed text, it's impossible to have multi-line text boxes in SVGs, which makes editing them a real pain. My modified version uses flowed text, for ease of future editing. But I had to upload a rasterized version as well, commons:Image:SensorSizes.png, for actual use in article pages. That way a viewable version and an editable version are both available. I also explicitly linked between the two versions' summary pages. Conclusion: MediaWiki should use inkscape to render SVGs, or something else that can handle flowed text.
Second problem: After all this, the en:Image:SensorSizes.png on wikipedia and Image:SensorSizes.png on commons were not the same, so I had to manually re-upload the rasterized version of the SVG to wikipedia, and add a {{nowcommons}} template to its summary page. Which I did, but then it got reverted due to a spelling mistake in the SVG. So...
I had to go back and edit the SVG...
Re-rasterize it with Inkscape...
Re-upload the SVG and PNG to commons...
Re-upload the PNG to Wikipedia...
... and re-add the {{nowcommons}} template
Ugh. This would have taken me about 1/10 the time if there were (a) a way to render flowed-text SVGs properly in MediaWiki, and (b) a more automated way to move images to Commons. Or at least a way to disable the wikipedia version so that it wouldn't be so easy to edit it out-of-sync with the Commons version. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 21:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Flowed text is asked for a lot - here's to hoping it will get implemented. As an intermediate solution, you can save the original file on Commons, as well as a version in which all flowed text has been converted to paths. Edit the first one, but include the second in articles. Shinobu (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing that hope, Shinobu! What I have been doing for now is just including a rasterized version along with the SVG, but I guess including a modified SVG would probably be easier and more flexible. Good call! ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 19:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if it helps, but if you want to know what an image looks like before you upload it, then use rsvg - which wiki uses as its rendering engine. Which *version* of rsvg I don't know. If you use a linux box, just install with yum or apt-get or whatever (eg. yum install rsvg), then rsvg svg-infilepng-outfile`` User A1 (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
On Cillian_Murphy, the infobox free image has a page that exists but doesn't exist: when you go to Image:Cillianmurphy.jpg the image tab lettering is in red, and it also shows in red on my watchlist, as if the page doesn't exist. Is there a problem, and if so, where do I go for a fix? If not, what's the explanation for this? Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Help! Inkscape makes colours black in generated SVG.
Hi,
Please check out Image:TestParlSVG1.svg, a test image generated by User:Slashme/parliament.py. It looks fine, but when I save it with Inkscape, all the colours suddenly become "undefined" according to inkscape (i.e. everything turns black) but the colour specification in the svg remains unchanged. What is going on here? Am I generating non-standard svg of some kind? --Slashme (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't have any problem. I opened it in Inkscape, edited it, saved it, and opened it again. Everything was fine. I'm using 0.45 in XP. --W0lfie (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's strange. I was also using 0.45 in XP and on Linux. Anyway, I solved the problem by using "style=fill:#xxxxxx" instead of "fill=#xxxxxx" --Slashme (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
How come there doesn't seem to be some sort of image request system? There's a exists Bot request page, why not something similar for those who specialize in photography. A system could be beneficial for planning a trips with high end gear. Or what specimens to photograph with high quality microscopes. — Dispenser03:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we not use images because we don't like the circumstances?
Two people arguing during a political protest. Both protesters became angry and aggressive, as evidenced by their body language and facial expressions. To hear the angry exchange, listen to the audio below.Audio file of an angry exchange at a protest.
Of the 3,000 images I have on Wikipedia, a handful were taken at Columbia University when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke there last September. I have many of the crowds that illustrate quite a few articles rather well. One image in particular, at right, shows a Jewish guy and a Black Christian lady arguing angrily. I put the photo on the Anger page (with audio), and an editor who frequently edits Muslim articles took exception to a "political" photo taken at an Ahmadinejad protest used on Wikipedia. In order to accommodate, I changed the file name and removed a reference to Ahmadinejad in the caption. The audio file of the two arguing (which is a great expression of anger, as well as their body language and facial expressions) is over religion and has nothing to do with Islam, Ahmadinejad, Iran, etc. User:Aminz continues to edit-war because I have not photoshopped a crumpled flier out of the Black woman's hand, that is illegible (see photo) and has taken to edit-warring over the image: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Additionally, he removed the photo from other articles where it demonstrated concepts [8], [9], [10]. My question: Can someone please either point me to a policy that says just because a photo is taken at a political event, it can't be used on articles because it is "political"? There is no policy, and the photo, especially on the Anger page, demonstrate the concept well. Currently on Anger the only thing we have are a bunch of old statues and paintings, many of which I don't think convey Anger. Thoughts? Suggestions? Policy? Guideline? This user is the only one who has a problem with these, but continually reverts. --DavidShankbone05:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi David. The answer to your question, though you will probably not like it, is WP:CONSENSUS. That being said, I like the picture, and I find the arguments advanced against it spurious. WP:ANI seems to agree. I do have the same general concern I expressed previously, namely that I have my doubts about using images specifically showing non-public people (I have no concern about images that show people only incidentally as part of a larger scene) without their assent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
"This photo can be used to illustrate anger." "No it can't!" "The hell it can..."
Irrespective of politics, it is a bad example. What you are trying to illustrate (the facial expressions etc) only appear in a small portion of the photo. If I didn't know the context I might have thought he was telling a joke or animatedly arguming a point. And why did you add a link to the protest, which is irrelevant to the topic at hand? Kransky (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Inline external linking of images
I am noticing articles (such as Monhegan, Maine#Art and Equine conformation) where editors are inserting inline external links to images. The "Using images" does not cover this practice since it is not "Inline linking" (i.e. "leeching"). WP:EL says "External links should not be used in the body of an article". Is there a policy on Inline external linking of images somewhere? Should it be added here? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently submitted 2005 ACC Championship Game to WP:FAC, and someone flagged [[Image:2005 ACC Championship Game tickets.jpg
|this photo]] as not having the correct license. It's a self-created work — I took the photo, and released it into public domain. But the question is whether or not I have the right to do so because the image contains logos. The logos aren't the main focus of the photo, and the logos themselves are but a small portion of the image. Any suggestions? Can someone provide some advice as to the correct license? JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
No. Why would you want to do that? If the new image is better than the old one and both are on Commons, the old one should be marked as commons:template:superseded and then all instances replaced with the new one. I'm not aware of the same thing here on Wikipedia. If it's free, the image should be moved to Commons then anyways. If there are a LOT to replace, there are some bots that can help with this. If you give the exact image(s) in question, we can provide more help. MECU≈talk19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If the image was actually on the German Wikipedia, you would have to "move" it to Commons. But the good news is that the image is already on Commons! You can just use it as if it were already uploaded here. This is the power of Commons. See, I'm showing the image on this page (see right). Pretty cool, huh? MECU≈talk19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
A couple of days ago, I write an article about The International Conference of Nuclear Disarmament”, in the web sit of this conference is a picture that they use as a logo. I would like to now is I can use the picture in the article of the conference. Is this possible or is against the copyright law? Mmbello1504 (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Image content guidelines
Please see Wikipedia:Image content guidelines for an attempt to start a guideline to consolidate and improve our guidelines on image content on Wikipedia. Please discuss at the talk page and help improve this new guideline, which was inspired by this and other recent image discussion controversies. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What is Image Quality and does it factor in timeliness?
A broader, outside perspective could be helpful here with an an ongoing [discussion] in the Wikipedia Automobiles Project.
The project guidelines for images rank quality as the guideline listed first — though "quality" isn't defined and the guidelines don't say the list is prioritized. This part of the discussion defers to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which is why I turn here.
With automobiles that have many generations, sometimes a seperate lead in box will have one photo and the specific generation boxes will have their respective photos. The photo in the introductory or lead box could have a photo that is super-current (timely), a photo of taken at a show or exhibit hall likely having some glare because the cars haven't yet made it to the "street." These are otherwise clear, detailed photos.
PHOTO A, just introduced model, with glarePHOTO B, model nolonger in production, no glare
One editor, a very prolific editor, argues this isn't a "quality" image because it has glare — he took both photos, so there is no issue there. Another editor suggests PHOTO A offers timeliness and currency in trade for having glare.
The prolific editor takes and places many of the pictures within the scope of the project, and says PHOTO B has higher "quality" than PHOTO A because it has no glare, empty background even though its not current.
A second editor suggests PHOTO A, a timely photo with some glare is roughly equal to PHOTO B, an old photo without glare.
1) Does lack of background clutter and glare necessarily trump timeliness? Is PHOTO A a "quality image?"
2) In enclopedia photograph or image standards, does the issue of quality include timeliness, and allow or include flaws that it otherwise wouldn't? Again, we're not talking about photos that are blurry or lacking detail.
The guidelines within the project should ultimately guide this issue, but they are mute on the subject of quality. They do say the photo need not be of any particular generation, ostensibly allowing either photo.
The following seems to contain a typo "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." The intended meaning, however, is slightly unclear. Should it be "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic" or "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relevant to the article's topic"? The former makes more sense to me... Jakew (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Animated Image
I was under the impression that we should avoid animated images on wikipedia and have vague recollections of seeing some removed from some articles for this reason. However I can't seem to find any text on this. Anyone know if it exists?--58.230.124.16 (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Image stumper
I have an issue. I am working on an article, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, and would like to add some images from Wisconsin Historical Society, like this one. I am unsure of the licensing issues, though. I emailed the Image Production and Licensing Manager, and was told that we could use the images gratis, so long as they are credited to the society. As some of the images are at the 90+ year mark, they are not free images. I could use some guidance on how to approach the situation of implementation and obtaining of free usage, either here or through offline wikimail. - Hexhand (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Including images from other Wikipedias
I just ran across an article at en:WP about a China-related subject, and there was an image displayed that was from zh:WP (but not at Commons), which was being displayed by using some code that allows images at foreign Wikipedia (but which are not at Commons) to display. However, I've forgotten which article it was. What is that code? I just remember that it seemed to use braces { } rather than square brackets. Badagnani (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone added Image:NMDP_name_blue_square_small.jpg to NMDP today. I seriously doubt that the organization has authorized a GFDL license for their corporate logo, but I don't know how to change it to something more reasonable. Would someone more experienced with these things please deal with this? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC) (who is not watching this page, but can be reached on her talk page)
I was looking for some guidance on choosing images, specifically for the case of biographies. My logic would be that photos of people doing something involved with what they're famous for would be more appropriate than perhaps a paparazzi style photo at a charity event (for example); So actors and actresses may be at a film première or awards ceremony, a musician may be performing, a footballer playing football, a gymnast doing gymnastics, etc. This doesn't seem to be immortalised in any real guidelines other than "avoid group shots" and "make sure the subject is clear" type advice (which would obviously still hold) -- am I getting the wrong end of the proverbial stick on this? Am I missing where such guidance is already laid down? Appreciate any advice on this -- ratarsed (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to fight a request to have a image renamed? A user is trying to have a image I uploaded over 2 years ago (Image:CTR.jpg) renamed in favor of a image they uploaded to Commons TODAY. Besides my image having been uploade on October 16, 2006, mine is also more fitting for the title ("CTR" is short for "Chi-Town Rumble", the name of the event the image is for. The commons image is just a horse). TJSpyke15:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Is mentioning 'mobile phone with integrated digital camera' really necessary?
"You can take a photograph with your digital camera, mobile phone with integrated digital camera"
Is mentioning 'mobile phone with integrated digital camera' really necessary? I mean, either way it is still a digital camera regardless of whether or not it is part of a mobile phone. I could equally add to the list with 'camcorder with integrated digital stills capability' or 'telescope with integrated digital camera'. --SaintDaveUK (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Image consent
The last three people I have requested image consent from have withheld consent and expressed concern about commercial reproduction. Is there a way to address this concern. There are currently 20 articles on WP from the most recent of these counterparties that will have to be remvoved if I can not get it resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it at all possible to just show a certain area of an image rather than the whole thing, or do you have to upload a cropped version? Richard001 (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
When was the Image: listing changed to File:? Why was this changed? How will this change affect future image (now file) uploadings? Please advise on my talk page. Thanks. Chris (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Better idea - please reply here, as it is a general concern. I expect to hear about it in the WP:SIGNPOST, but until then...will this change anything? Are current Image: files changed to File: ones? Do links automatically redirect from Image: to File:, etc.? --PhilosopherLet us reason together.22:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Because Wikimedia are adding support for videos to be uploaded as well, and the image namespace wouldn't be appropriate. – Jerryteps01:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Can some one take a look at the image uploads by Hoocares (talk·contribs). This user has uploaded many images of the iDog product and is using the Template:Wikipedia-screenshot on them. I have been away from WP for a bit, so I am still a bit rusty again when confronting image violations, so I was hoping someone better suited can take a look. Thanks! -- moe.RONLet's talk | done21:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
How to identify whether an image has been taken from the Net
Hi,
Given a particular image on wikipedia, is there a way to search for that exact image on the Net? That is to say, to find that exact image on a copyrighted website and therefore to know that the image has been lifted without a proper license? I want to do what CorenSearchBot does with text, I suppose. But is there any way to do a pixel-by-pixel search? - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It sounds very difficult, but I suppose there are three ways to do it:
Sometimes, stolen images might still be using the filename from the original website. For these you could do an ordinary Google Images search with the inurl: operator, though it's certainly not foolproof.
If there was a search engine that allowed checksum-based file searching you could do an MD5 search and it would detect all directly stolen files, though it would fail to detect them if the images were trivially changed (e.g., resaved, resized, retouched, etc). I don't know any search engines with that feature though, which is a shame since it would probably be easy for them to implement.
Theoretically the best solution would be full content-based image recognition. There are some links on that page which are interesting, but it doesn't look like there are currently any online search engines for it.
![[2]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Bigbullmoose.jpg){kind=link}
Resolved