Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Why are we telling users to place |right when it is a default?

On the project page it is stated "As an example in its simplest form..." followed by example image markup that includes |right, despite that right hand placement is a default parameter everywhere, as far as I am aware. Is there some reason this is included in this "simplest form" example? I have many times at the help desk/new contributors help page advised users that the "simplest form" (even serendipitously using that exact language independently) is [[File:example.png|thumb|caption description]] and gone on to describe the ability to change the right and size defaults using |left and |???px. So why is this in there? Is this possibly an artifact from a time when images did not automatically default to the right, or am I missing something?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made the change to the page reflecting that right it is the default, highlighting that right placement is preferred in most places, and describing how to override.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about a photographer's displeasure with my crop of his PD pic

User:K72ndst added a nice photo of Jim Steranko to Steranko's article, as seen here. I didn't think it made the best use of the available space, so I cropped it, and added the cropped version to the article, see here, which devotes more of the space to Steranko, as seen here.

K72ndst then left this message on my Talk Page: "Hello: I really do not like how you cropped and edited my photo of Jim Steranko, so I am changing it back. I am a photographer, and I made a serious and thought-out decision how I wanted to best present my image. I took more than 20 of Steranko at the con, and could have had a boring photo like you have cropped my photo down to be. The reason I presented it in this way was to show the con around him. I do not want it presented in this fashion. Or I will take the image down. I have contributed many many images to Wikipedia, and never has anyone just gone in and chopped up an image of mine this way."

I cropped the photo because the article is about Steranko, not the convention, and I think the cropped version shows him better. If I understand copyright law and WP policy correctly, K72 released the photo into the public domain, so he has no authority to determine how it's presented, he has no authority to "take it down", and to declare that the article MUST present the photo as he declares, simply because he's a photographer, without discussion, sounds like WP:OWN. I myself have had photos of mine cropped, as with the pic that currently serves as the main accompanying photo in the Richard Dreyfuss article, which was cropped from a more full shot that I took and added, and I did not react this way. I want to tell him this, and suggest a consensus discussion, but don't want to inflame the situation. What do you think? Nightscream (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why you asked several seemingly random people to comment on this, but since you asked me to, I will. I too am no expert on copyright law, but the license that this is released under seems to allow you to crop the photo. I personally think that the cropped version looks much better in his article, but also you should note that the photo is included in the New York Comic Con article, which is about the convention. Therefore, I recommend that you make a separate cropped image. I also recommend that you verify that the editor cannot in fact remove the image. Then the issue will just be an arbitration of which image should be included in the Jim Steranko article, which I think shouldn't be too hard to reach a consensus in your direction for, considering how much better the cropped image looks. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 18:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. The photographer chose the "by" (attribution-only) license restriction; it's therefore safe to modify (such as by cropping). If the photographer didn't want it modified, then s/he should have chosen a license that included "nd" (no derivatives) restriction.

CC licenses are irrevocable, so I suggest that the photographer consider this one a learning lesson. If you are interested in a reasonable compromise, it sounds like the author has plenty of other shots, and perhaps a different one would make a better head shot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the original photographer does not have the authority to revoke the license or the image; but I also agree with him that the image as he originally presented it does a better job in the context of the article, showing that guy in a relevant situation. The image is not sharp enough to make a decent head shot, and the cropped one is too tight, and looks very awkward. I've also gone in and cropped or enhanced photos of others, but I do try to be respectful; in most cases, it's just amateurs who wouldn't know a good photo from a hole in their head, but in this case it's a photographer who cares, and I'd say respect his art. Just because we can legally change it doesn't mean we should. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How can there be a "no-derivatives restriction" on a free image? By definition, as a free image, anyone anywhere can modify the file as they please, as long as the author(s) or licensor(s) is attributed. Nightscream did not overwrite the original image – he created a second, derivative image and it's properly annotated as "other version" at Commons. As to which image should be used in the article's infobox, that should be decided by consensus on the article talk page. The original uploader gets one !vote, the same as any other editor.  JGHowes  ^talk 20:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Because there isn't a "free/non-free" dichotomy with copyright. What WhatamIdoing is suggesting is that the author could have chosen a copyright license doesn't allow derivatives to be created from it. Such a license is still broadly "free" because it can still be used as you like, except that you can't modify it. I suspect such a license may not be acceptable at Commons, however. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about licenses, not copyright. Of course, the original photographer retains the copyright to his work. But what free license will Wikipedia accept that doesn't allow derivatives? Such a restriction makes it a non-free image which could only be used with a justifiable Fair Use Rationale at en-wiki, i.e., "The license must not prevent commercial reuse or derivative works", re WP:ICTIC.  JGHowes  ^talk 20:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Legally Nightscream is correct, but I personally think he should act in good faith and respect the photographer's wishes. Timeshift (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have also been asked to comment on this cropping, though I'm not sure why. It is legal and acceptable to crop the photo. I think it just has to be handled the same way as any other content dispute is handled... through discussion and consensus-building. The photo is out of focus and grayscale (sepia), so I don't have a strong opinion about which version looks better. They both look out of focus and colourless. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the image should be moved to another section (as in not in the infobox) and another image should be used. The current picture has good composition but I think a replacement can be found to better illustrate the subject. So basically, move the picture to another section and find a picture that better illustrates the subject, so, a close up picture of his face. Jerry teps (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To Asmeurer: I did indeed create a separate image. As for why I asked random people to comment here, well, I needed info on the legality and policy concerning images, and since you were all in this Talk Page's History, I notified you. I do not see what Good Faith has to do with respecting a photographer's wishes, since consensus may decide that the cropped version is better. I do not think moving it to another section makes sense, since there is no other image available. Nightscream (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, too. There's no issue for here; let's take the image choice question to the article talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the photographer and I thank you all for your input. I asked that it not be cropped, because this is how I wanted it to be presented. I already stated my reasons for this. For this article to go from C class to B class it will need a photo of the subject, and this is the one I have taken the time to create for the article. This article is well-written and researched; my contribution will be this photo. That is really all I have to say on this. -- K72ndst (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with several above - consensus is clear that a modified image may be used regardless of contributor's wishes - whether a particular image should be used in a particular article should be taken to the article discussion page. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Raster

I like raster images they are cool. --98.162.148.46 (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Namespace

Why are images in the File namespace instead of the Image namespace now? --Fangoriously (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

images in lists

Is there a policy, guideline, or style guide that excludes images in lists as referenced in this edit? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Number of images in an article

Is there a policy or guideline governing the number of images in articles? My understanding is that the more images in an article, the longer it will take to load on slower connections. Is that accurate? Would someone be so kind as to check out Whale tail, there are 6 images in the article but 2 of them essentially duplicate the same thing. I've tried to remove one but one of the article's more prolific contributors objects. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Image translation

So, what would I need to do to go about translating the contents of this very useful page? Do I need special permissions? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to new name

Maybe we should move this to Wikipedia:Files. --— HK22 \my contributions/ ^{(my talk)} 06:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)