Wikipedia talk:Image description page

See also: wikipedia talk:image use policy

Suggested Standard Format

I didn't notice any standard format for image information pages, and I think it would be a great idea to have one. Please view an example of the proposed format by clicking the image on the right. Let me know what you think, and what changes you'd recommend, and if you'd like to see this format specification (either as a suggested or official guideline) on the main page. I simply think it looks neater to have the information divided up like that rather than in one blob (e.g. "this picture was taken by X at X on X"). The proposed format specifications are as follows.

Jeff 03:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Summary/caption for photo

Photo credit: Author/Organization
Capture date: Month Day, Year (if know)
Location: capture location (if known)
Source: optional-if different than photo credit-move to first position if no photo credit available
Caption: optional-if different than main summary/caption above

other possible bullet points: camera type, resolution, ???

More Info

optional-how this picture was taken, more about the picture, etc

copyright tag

Display

Concerning point 5: I agree that the image itself should not be visible in the description, but IMHO it would be great to display a larger version of that image there. Reason: Someone clicks on a small image in an article, and goes to the description and a larger version (if such exists). -- Magnus Manske

This point does have some merit and should be explored. However, there is a strong argument that we shouldn't have large images on the description pages of smaller images because the vast majority of images we have do not have larger versions. This leaves our visitors with confussion and doubt about whether a larger image is actually on the thumbnail's description page. It is far better, this argument goes, to be upfront and explicit about whether a larger version of any particular image exists (read: place a media link to it in the article). There is also the horizontal scroll issue that crops up when large images are placed on description pages -- the sidebar takes up extra space and the page rendering doesn't allow for IE's automatic max-aspect image resize magic. --mav

(I edited the above to reflect a bug being fixed)

Personally I strongly prefer the use of a media: link on the article where there's a larger version. Martin 18:53 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Martin, I can't tell what you are trying to do to the Rachel Corrie images, but you don't appear to be doing it correctly. I think you are a little confused about the image pages. I'll try to explain, sorry if I don't make this clear, it is hard for me to describe the difference between the imagefile on the server, the tag that links to the image, and the page that describes the image.

The server has uploaded images on it, for example there is one at http://www.wiki.x.io/upload/7/7c/Rachelcorrie01.jpg. The page [[Image:Rachelcorrie01.jpg]] that corresponds to the image is intended to describe (and perhaps show) the underlying image. When you do something like insert the tag for [[Image:Rachelcorriemar.jpg]] into the entry for [[Image:Rachelcorrie01.jpg]] you just make things confusing. What you did doesn't change the underlying image, and doesn't change what the [[Image:Rachelcorrie01.jpg]] tag links to, it just makes the page no longer describe the image.

Could you experiment with one or two images before you make the bulk chages that you are currently doing, I really don't think you are accomplishing what you intend to, or at the least you are producing some unintended effects -º¡º

It was deliberate, not accidental. I was linking to a larger version of the same photo. After all, what better way to describe a photo than to show a larger version of it? However, I do see your point, so I'll stick to adding larger version links for now. Martin

Hi Martin. If you are deliberate in what you are doing then I'll just leave you be until you are done. It just looked to me that what you were achieving wasn't what you intended. -º¡º

Nope, you were right Buddha - see Wikipedia:Image use policy - "Don't put rendered images on the description pages; they are for text". I've changed the images to links, as you suggested. I'll sort the text later, when I get a response from the various other people who uploaded the photos as to the copyright status. Martin

As I mentioned at meta:image pages I think it would be good to display the image itself on the image description page - this would make it easier to manage images, and could be done automatically by the wikipedia software.

For larger versions I definitely like the [ [Media:blah|larger version] ] links on the article itself - better than putting the large version on the image description page.

One current exception to the rule of "no images on image description pages" is photo montages. However, I'm unconvinced that this is the best way to go about things - confusion and doubt issues apply.Martin 10:49 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

I would like to see a "rule of thumb" added that the image's description page ought to (ideally, but realizing it's hardly going to always happen) include the size (pixels, not bytes) of the image, or at least its width. Every time I'm changing someone's <table> to a <div>, I end up clicking on that picture to bring up the Image: page, then click on the link there to open up the picture itself where my browser will then tell me (in the titlebar) what its width and height are. On a friend's computer, I can't even do that; IE doesn't seem to have a handy way to indicate the dimensions. So, for instance, on Image:Bucket in the sand.png, there would be a line saying "216 x 147 px", or maybe "216 × 147 px" if you want to get fancy. Opinions? Suggestions? -- John Owens 23:27 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In IE, right click on the image, and select properties. I'd like to see the image size automatically generated in the image description page. Martin 23:49 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and I would also like to see "rule" #7 go bye-bye, I feel it's quite fitting to put the image (or a thumbnail of it) on its description page, so that when you click on an Image:Bucket in the sand.png-style link because someone's asked you to take a look at it, or it's on VfD, or whatever, you can see it right away, without the extra click-and-wait. Granted, it's not useful when you're following the link by having clicked on the picture itself from an article, but that's not the only way we use pictures around here. -- John Owens 23:37 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree, but I think that should be done automatically. See meta:image pages. Martin 23:49 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In the meantime, though, I'd be fine if you do it manually, but please only include the actual image - it gets a bit confusing when you put the thumbnail on the large version, or the large version on the thumbnail... Martin 23:50 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Fair use

I have added text about keeping track of fair use in each article that a fair use image might be used. I find that people talk about fair use as if it is a general subject; "Oh, that is fair use, so you can use it." Fair use is contextual and should be explained contextually. I've gone ahead and added the information about providing fair use information because it can help others to make a reasoned determination if the image use is fair use. We should not be encouraging people not to use fair use images if such use is covered by the GFDL, some people think that are compatible. Alex756 22:10, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Should this info be in the article or the image description page?

I would prefer on the image description page, something like the below:

Fair use on Rachel Corrie

I believe this image is compatible with fair use on the Wikipedia article embedded/linked to on Rachel Corrie, given the state of that article now, because:

She's a good looking gal
The image is in greyscale, not colour
It informs people about her hair colour (a shade of grey)
umm, the other reason, I forget

Martin 00:04, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The article would simply say Fair use image: see image description page for details in a comment block. Or, alternatively, have "fair use" as a caption, which links to the image description page.

Would that be appropriate? I think that it would be practically easier to manage that way. If a fair use image was used in two places, it'd need two fair use justifications on the image description page. Martin

Having it hidden in the article itself would be useful for someone looking at the article, but having it on the image description page next to the article link would be also useful (multiples uses could be compared). How about a box next to each link, if someone checks it (if you think this is fair use check here, and press "list fair use factors") bringing up a formated edit box that lists the preamble considerations and the four factors. The edit would require an entry in each part (maybe I am getting carried away here). At least some kind of mandatory listing would be good (this would also create some kind of flag that could bring up all alleged fair use images so they could be reviewed). Alex756 04:35, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

IANAL. I think it's going to be problematic to have the information in two places - that will create redundancy, and on a wiki redundancy lowers accuracy. Thus, I believe good practice is to place the information on the image description page and reference it in the comments. It's also a lighterweight practice, making it more likely to happen.

By the by, I've just done this for a fair use image of mine on Rachel Corrie, so feedback is welcome. Martin 18:13, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Image fair use

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Sunday, September 21st, 02003.

Where can I find information about fair use for images on wikipedia ? Anthère

Info on images is here --Flockmeal 23:27, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Flockmeal. There is nothing on fair use though. I supposed I am good for heading to the ML... Sigh ! Anthère

There's some stuff on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy and a bit on the Copyrights page but the mailing lists seem to have the most discussion about this. Angela 23:42, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Angela. I go and check.

Thumbnailed pictures are badly implemented

Pictures that can be enlarged by thumbnailes, will give you the detail screen. This means that pictures with a high resolution will exceed the size of the screen. Implementation with the "media" option is much better.

The argument for high res pictures is that they are public domain and there is a great need for such pictures. By uploading good quality high res pictures we provide a service.

The argument that they use up disc space is a fallacy. Yes they use disc space but the cost argument made sense 10 years back; now you buy a terrabyte for what a gigabyte used to cost..

The download time (client side) is also less and less of an issue. The pictures that are thumbnailed ARE small....

Thanks, GerardM 18:09, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)