Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 4

While one may know that something is WP policy violation, other than making an educated guess, nobody in Wikipedia ever really knows that an image use is a copy vio. A copy vio is use without permission for that use. This is because Wikipedia is unwilling and unable to record all of the normal type permissions for use, such as permissions for specific uses, permissions restricted to not-for-profit uses etc. The only thing that it is willing or able to record is essentially unlimited permission for unlimited use (including for-profit) by others which is a rare and tiny fraction of permissions. So, in Wikipedia, completely lacking that information, other than taking a guess, nobody has any frigin' clue as to what other permissions have been granted and thus no basis for saying that something is a copy vio. North8000 (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In Harold the Dauntless and The Bridal of Triermain, Balder Dead, Tristram and Iseult, Sohrab and Rustum, The Battle of Marathon: A Poem, The Divine Enchantment, Cycle of the West, Lara, A Tale, The Wanderings of Oisin, Lays_of_Ancient_Rome#Horatius, Eros and Psyche (Robert Bridges), The Lost Princess, and others, User:Star Reborn has created alleged "covers" based on crops of famous paintings, with added text. These works are not presented as "fan art" or historically significant or relevant art, but as artwork used on actual publications, which is untrue. A scan of the user's history shows many similar examples of synthetic work presented as actual. A visitor to Wikipedia will be misled into thinking that there were actual publications with these images, titles and author attribution. Which images policy applies to this? --Lexein (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yunshui

WP:OI may apply, though: It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. " --Lexein (talk

) 12:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not the image but what it is represented to be. I would handle this by flagging the image caption in the article as citation needed. If the response is made that the edition is privately published, I would challenge under verifiability (not available for verification) or NOR. If the contributor actually published such an edition, perhaps as an ebook, I would insist that the citation in the article note also the original artwork, and congratulate him/her for persistence and creativity. If not actually published, the Commons entry should say "proposed cover" or some such, the image should not be presented as cover art, and the illustration should not appear in the infobox. In some cases the images may be suitable with other locations and captions, if care is taken to avoid blatant anachronisms or if it is clear the image is symbolic (for instance Tristram and Iseult).Dankarl (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I have a problem with the Commons descriptions that say "art for"; the reader needs to think a minute but is not left seriously confused. The issue of the WP caption remains, but I think in most cases it could be handled by footnoting the image caption. Battle of Marathon has another, more appropriate image, and the image for Lays of Ancient Rome is anachronistic and too recognizable, but that is not a policy issue and can be decided on the article talkpage Dankarl (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. However:

1. If they were cover art of something, one of them surely would have said what they were covers of. I'm pretty darned sure they're covers of nothing. Neither Google Image search nor Tineye turns up anything.
2. In most of the above cases, no part of the synthetic images have anything to do with the article subject, and are just pure decoration. I thought purely decorative images (undiscussed non-illustrative images having no relevance to the article subject) are not allowed in WP articles. Or infoboxes. Couldn't find the policy about this.
3. (Commons has their own restrictions against "watermarks" or "superimposed text", but that's not a WP issue).
4. If the images are captioned truthfully, as a WP editor's fanciful imaginings of cover art, they would be pure decoration. I would think they have no place in the above WP articles, because we as editors don't make stuff up.
5. I'm very curious about actual policy about this sort of situation. I know what to do about
   WP:OR
   - but this is new territory.

--Lexein (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The key distinction is saying "for" rather than "of"

Insisting on historical accuracy for a Walter Scott poem is a stretch. Actually several are relevant, at least when treated as symbols (Baldor, Tristram) and sometimes literally (Lost Princess - author image). I have not checked them all.

Purely decorative images are not allowed but illustrations that are symbolically illustrative are allowed. The question of repurposing an image (Harold the Dauntless) is not to my knowledge addressed, but conventional publishers do so.

The Commons watermark restriction is intended to prevent end-run credit claims. Word art is allowed.

WP:OI applies and if the images are properly footnoted there is no question that they are misleading. If you simply don't like them being there, take them down and state your reason on the article talk page, but as nearly as I can see the only policy issue is proper identification and attribution.Dankarl (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want another read on this, I'd try village pump.Dankarl (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point about historical accuracy - I could see using some of the images minus on-image text, plus accurately representative captions, like "Period-similar infantry, from Painting by Artiste"^ref. This would be helpful to readers. (This is pure

WP:OR, of course, addressed below. --Lexein (talk

) 01:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

I never intended "I don't like it", sorry. In your second-to-last sentence, "WP:OI applies...", did you mean improperly footnoted? I'm beginning to wonder if these images, as used, are simply not addressed in existing policy, because of the multiple issues, and even meta-issues.--Lexein (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Lexein here; the images serve no purpose except as illustration - and can be viewed as a subjective interpretation anyway. They add, unfortunately, no real value other than looking nice. They are also not of an overly high quality. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that coupling a late 19th century painting with an early 19th century poem without any verification whatsoever that anybody else has ever done so constitutes at best original research. I've removed this image accordingly. This is clearly intended to represent a cover; it says as much in the description. I see no encyclopedic purpose in creating faux editions. :/ Indeed, I think Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes applies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed them all per

WP:HOAX until there is either (a) evidence that they do represent professionally published covers, or (b) some consensus that our users can make up covers for inclusion in articles. I've mentioned this issue at VP in case (b) is forthcoming. I've also added a note clarifying what they are to the Commons descriptions so that others are aware of what they are using if they choose to make use of them. It is arguably not out of scope for Commons to create cover art (although I've mentioned it to them), but it is certainly out of scope to even inadvertently imply that they are something they're not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

01:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Ancillary "doh": I hadn't noticed the late- vs early- 19th century disparity, and even went so far as to improperly suggest "period-similar" imagery above - now stricken. --Lexein (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Use case: The image for Harold the Dauntless was used at Librivox. Article history, and the Balder Dead image was used here. Librivox is not mentioned in any of the poetry articles or image pages. Librivox links were provided in EL sections in most cases, but deleted as "spam" earlier this year, breaking that use link. Does Librivox count as "publication", since they don't seem to sell CDs, but merely provide the art for folks who want to burn their own? Sorry for not noticing this earlier. --Lexein (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• No, it's a Wikipedia mirror. (They've copied our text, and without attribution, I note. Unless "Godsend" is "Star Reborn." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The intro text does appear to be mirrored without attribution with minor editing by "Godsend", but the main purpose of the site isn't as a WP mirror. I'd say it doesn't count as a publication because it doesn't have a "legal personality." Also, the images on LibraVox all say "LibraVox" on them, where the images here do not. I suspect that the creation of the images here, and the use of them on LibraVox were all a plot. (Everything's a plot, ultimately.) --Lexein (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The image is also used as a cover by "books should be free" - audio books [16] (clearly similar to or associate with Libravox). Having said that open library has a better image here. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

Actually quite a few of these are at at Books Should Be Free. This appears to be a serious, perhaps amateur effort, and not on its face a hoax. Dankarl (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, not a hoax. In this case, do these count as "covers"? I think not: no physical manifestation, not a product, no "legal personality", no independent RS for verification, no version available on a non-WP website with specific copyright and license info. In the general case, for alleged media covers, what's the overall Commons and WP image inclusion criteria threshold? It would help to clarify this somewhere in WP:Images or elsewhere. --Lexein (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Since it looks like Commons is going to delete them all, I'm not sure that it really matters whether we'd accept them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but for the general case, then (see q above). --Lexein (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, "hoax" is not the best word, since "hoax" implies intent. I wasn't thinking of that connotation myself, and I shouldn't have used that particular word. I don't doubt that the contributor may have meant well and he may have even assumed it would be obvious that these were not real covers, but to me the first issue here is the impact: even if it was not so intended, we are handing misinformation to readers who look at these cobbled together covers and think they are from some reliably published edition. My first and primary concern is the dissemination of false information, which I think we must never do. (I might even consider it our Prime Directive. :)) But even if the images had been labeled on Wikipedia something like "We made these covers that you can use if you print out these poems", which would have eliminated my sense of urgency as it wouldn't risk people "learning" something false from us, it's still true that Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Quoting from the guideline to which I should have linked in the first place, Wikipedia "does not exist to promote new things".

As far as Commons, they have their own policies and the images are under discussion already for deletion as out of scope. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I had forgotten not for things made up one day. Thanks. These images fortunately listed their bona fides as based on Commons images. But what about the hypothetical case where these images show up, sourced from BooksShouldBeFree, or OpenLibrary, or on an increasing number of independent audiobook sites (with no reference to Commons)? We won't know if they are made up, or really from published works. --Lexein (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a disturbing thought. I don't really know much about BooksShouldBeFree or OpenLibrary. I guess my opinion would be that we shouldn't be uploading cover art without knowing that they have been used on published works and which edition. But I don't know that we need to cover it in the guideline unless it becomes a major trend. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question but I'm wondering what to do if:

Suppose I want to upload images to en-wiki but I do not want to upload them to Commons. In other words, these are images that I've created myself and I'm fine with them being used in a "PD-kind-of-way" on the en-Wikipedia, but I do not want them used on Commons on other projects. Is there a specific license that I should use? Is this possible or is it a all or nothing kind of thing? It seems like "free-use" would not apply in this case since the justification for that involves quite different things. Any help would be appreciated. Volunteer Marek  23:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never encountered someone putting his own images up as fair use, but I think that is the only way you can get them onto WP and be sure they are not ported to Commons. There are no WP-only licenses, it would be against policy.Dankarl (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I would think they are unlikely to be accepted unless they are photos of dead people (or destroyed things) of whom we have no free photo.

Indeed I don't see what's "kind of PD" if you don't want them used on other projects. Rich Farmbrough, 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

If we accept them as fair use, any other Wikipedia could use them as fair use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It might help if we knew what you were trying to achieve this way. For example, are you trying to keep people from downloading and reusing them on commercial websites? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed bring this into the MOS "stable" as part of reforms as to how images are covered. Please comment there. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the community's feeling towards images being made useful by the use of a caption? This question arises from the use of a picture of the Eurostar train in the lede of the article Metrication in the United Kingdom. The picture has the caption - "Two systems of measure exist side by side in the United Kingdom: Eurostar's design speed is cited both as "300 km/h"^[1] and as "186 mph".^[2]" Although the picture by itself has no relation to the article, the caption illustrates the text and in my view the picture plus caption together are appropriate for use in the lede.

Are there any comments?

Should WP:IMAGES be modified to mention the use of captions?

Martinvl (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There are concerns over the picture's relevance, and the caption as an example of OR (it has been tailored back from Martinvl's original wish to make a more specific unsupported statement about media use of metric and imperial units). Martinvl suggests that the picture and the caption together can express the issue of dual usage of metric and imperial - the expression of an intangible idea. Other editors don't see this as superior to a picture of something more tangible, such as goods labelled with both measurements. The relevance of how the media expresses train speeds has not been shown in any reliable secondary sourcing, nor has Eurostar in connection with metrication, whereas the metric or imperial labelling of goods in shops has attracted national media coverage over several years.

In any case, I don't see that this is a matter for changing policy, but of editorial consensus. (In general, captions should not be used as a means of introducing or implying new content that is not in the main text.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A discussion has arisen at

If a particular architectural style or feature is part of the story about the denomination or its beliefs or what have you, then a photo of a typical representative building of that style might be appropriate. Of course, that would

need support. But there is nothing to support the idea that the particular photo being discussed at Talk:Strict_Baptists#Photos at all represents a particular Strict Baptist architectural style or the like. Nor is there any reason to believe there is such a style (I strongly doubt there is). I suggest we keep the discussion at Talk:Strict_Baptists#Photos (and will paste a version of this comment there). Novaseminary (talk

) 01:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I think it would be helpful to discuss the general issue here. I added a reference to Free Church of Scotland (since 1900) saying that the denomination is known as "the church without the steeple" - but I think the pictures in that article were justified regardless. StAnselm (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Before you go inserting photos of church buildings everywhere, would you at least state what standard you think we should use to determine if a photo of a particular church belongs? I am not categorically opposed and tried to outline a standard above. But it seems you think any photo is ok. What do you propose? Novaseminary (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to "go inserting photos of church buildings everywhere" because most denominational articles seem to have them. That's an argument for keeping them, as well as a reason for having a centralised discussion. Some of those I added myself - e.g. this edit earlier this year and this edit 18 months ago. But of course many other such articles have pictures of churches, and have had so for much longer. So you are arguing against a long-standing Wikipedia precedent. StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure ”most” have them. Regardless, you still have not even suggested a standard. It might be appropriate on some denominations' articles, but not others (and some particular buildings might not be appropriate on an article about a denominatoon for which a different more representative photo might be appropriate). So, discuss... How do you think this policy should be applied? Novaseminary (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Novaseminary is correct that an explicit claim that this particular building is representative of typical buildings for its type, owner, etc., would require support. The

required level of support

, just to be clear, is merely that some reliable source, somewhere in the world, must have published that claim; no source need actually be named in the article. (The rule is that we require such claims to be "verifiable", not "already verified".)

On the other hand, merely identifying Building X as being associated with Organization X really requires no such source. If you are writing about (for example) Church X, you can put in an image of any Church X building that you want. In fact, you can put in an image that looks like any Church X building, even if the building isn't (or isn't any longer) actually associated with Church X (e.g., the same architectural plans were used repeatedly, so the town has several identical-looking buildings).

It is perfectly typical and acceptable for any article about an organization or type of organization to include images like this. Since we can't include an image of every single building associated with this church organization, we use basic editorial judgment to pick one or more. There is no requirement that you include images only of

WP:Use common sense here. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 20:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not suggesting that the image need not meet the pertinence reaquirement of this policy, are you? ”Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic”. This coupled with

WP:UNDUE's requirement to ”not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject” tells me any photo of a building should not be chosen for an article about an organization or group of people simply because the building is where one of thousands of affliated congregations meet or met. We wouldn't include a photo of any building in London in the London article simply because it is in London and for no other reason. Novaseminary (talk

) 14:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay in responding.

I'm telling you that any picture of any church building belonging to/being used by any branch of that denomination is unquestionably pertinent to the article about that denomination, and therefore fully meets the pertinence requirements of this guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Some denominations have thousands of churches. Some have hundreds that meet in schools or movie theaters. How do we choose among them? I agree that sometimes a photo pf a church is appropriate. But if any (and all) are always appropriate, how do we prevent articles from becoming gallaries of thousands of buildings? There is no way the only criteria for including a photo of a building on a article about a denomination is whether the church is a part of the denomination.Novaseminary (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously no-one is saying that you include pictures of all the churches of a particular denomination. It pertinent in the way that having pictures of butterflies is appropriate in an article about butterflies. Interestingly, Butterfly has about 20 images but no gallery. So we prevent article becoming galleries by being sensible. StAnselm (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That means it is case-by-case to be discussed at the relevant article's talk (if necessary). Novaseminary (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So what's your point, Novaseminary? What are you disagreeing with? StAnselm (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly: Any picture of any of the thousands of church buildings meets this guideline's standard for being pertinent. However, we do not include every single picture that exists merely because it is pertinent, exactly like

WP:Use common sense and your best editorial judgment to select which pictures to include. In this instance, that probably means picking one or two images of buildings. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 02:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer StAnselm's non-sequential comment above, my only disagreement was with the implication that a photo should automatically be included merely because it is of a church that is part of a denomination. But as WhatamIdoing noted, even if an image is pertinent, that doesn't necessarily mean we include it. We still use editorial judgment and common sense. Novaseminary (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• In my view, for church articles, as with all articles,
  Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), for example, could do with several more. -- 202.124.73.174 (talk
  ) 06:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

1. The community's concern about extraneous elements that might seem harassing: e.g., the images at
   reflectoporn
   , and that women pictured in anatomy articles should not normally be dressed for a porn shoot; and
2. If the article is about a general subject (e.g., Running), editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted.

I think this is pretty much widely supported common sense, but should be presented as encouragement and education about how to evaluate an image's content, not as a prescriptive "do not ever use images that..." statement, because the fact is that we're limited in our options for some areas. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. --JN466 04:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added this under ==Choosing images==. Perhaps the next person will boldly improve it.

Speaking of other recent changes, Masem's addition on lead images was discussed at

WP:CONSENSUS say editors are not required to obtain before attempting good-faith improvements.) WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion at

Multiple free images to create a free montage to support a broad topic is just fine - its common on major city articles, and I've seen it used on articles on human racial distinctions too. 4 to 8 images seem to be the most common. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've stumbled upon a Pete Sampras article and there is a thing I've noticed. There are three pictures of him in the article, two of them are of newer date (taken in 2007 and 2008), when he had already finished his professional career, and there is one picture from 1992, when he was one of the best tennis players in the world. The infobox contains the picture from 2008. Yet, I think it would be more appropriate to put the picture from the days when he was a professional player, since that's why he has a Wikipedia article, after all. For example, there's an article on Venetia Burney, the girl who named Pluto. She gave it the name when she was 11 years old. She lived for over 90 years. The article contains only one picture - the one of her as a twelve years old girl. And I believe that, even if we had a picture of her in her older age, this one would have been more appropriate to be in the infobox. My point is - we should have a policy - if a person is best known for something they have done at a certain age, the picture in the lead should be the one taken at the closest period of time. For example, sportspersons should have their lead pictures from the time they were on their peak, but super-centenarians should be depicted after they've turned 110 years old. That makes most sense to me, I don't know if there is a policy on that, but I believe there should be one.--Vitriden (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think you're generally right, but since all of them show him on a tennis court (as opposed to, say, lounging in a hammock), it doesn't seem like any of them are really bad choices. Have you considered

WP:BOLDly improving the image choices in the article? You don't need a specific sentence in a guideline to give you permission to make improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 18:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't want to put emphasis on that one article, but on the policy itself. I think we should have a sentence in the guidelines that would help us determine which picture is the most appropriate for the lead when there are several available. And I think that should be the one to represent the person in question at the moment s/he was at his/her professional peak. That's all I am saying. Thanks for your respond, anyway, good luck...--Vitriden (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple considerations, such as image quality and composition. For a biography, a headshot is usually preferable in the lead. We might not have a headshot from the person's professional peak, so editors might choose one from a different point in time. There's also the question of how you decide what the professional peak is. An actor, for example, might object to anyone declaring that any previous year was his peak. While I think your idea is a good consideration, it's not really the kind of thing that is easily set down as something to always be done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have often felt the same way as Vitriden, but I feel that the remedy is simple editing work or decisions amongst the editors rather than trying to define the preferred result in a guideline. North8000 (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions, rather than deleting them—especially on pages which lack visuals."

The emphasis of "rather than deleting them" seems odd to me. This part seems to be written with an assumption that people are generally setting out with the intention of deleting images. Is there some missing "when images are of low quality" clause? But even so, the only way to improve the quality of an image is normally to delete it and replace it with something else. Usually images are not profitably editable. Finally, you can't delete images on "pages which lack visuals", so that part reads oddly too.

"Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil sculpture of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate."

For me this adds no value, and hardly even makes sense. 86.179.7.170 (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You have some valid point on the first part. I changed "lack" to "have few". I think it's obvious that images have to be replaced since Wikipedia doesn't allow in-place image editing, so there's no point in adding more verbiage there. I disagree with you on the last issue. For instance: a statue of a person is a useful substitute for an non-existing actual photograph of the person. On the other hand, we want recognizable pictures. So, in the strange case where you could choose only between a statue of Obama or a photograph of Obama with lots of clown make-up, which rendered him hardly recognizable, we'd prefer the statue. Perhaps the example in the guideline could use a more pedestrian notion than trompe-l'œil sculpture... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

We should probably talk about "removing" images rather that

WP:Deleting

them, and about "simply removing" them to clarify the difference between turning an article into an image-free page vs improving the article by replacing a poor image with a better one.

As for what we mean by a real cupcake decorated to look like something else, if you want to communicate the idea of "this is what a cupcake looks like", then cupcakes that look like sweet corn, hamburgers, sushi, mugs of hot chocolate, spaghetti and meatballs, popcorn, pie, and more sushi are just not very useful, even if they are common enough that we can easily find examples that are obviously and provably cupcakes in the technical sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You have my support but I won't be making anymore changes while the Muhammad arbitration is going on because one participant thinks it's not kosher for me to make them at this time. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The one with Mercedes and poverty seemed so far off NPOV (with respect to the company's image) that I really doubt it was ever part of the article. [17] I don't know about the one with the cat and aggression. Can someone clarify if the example was based on the article (at some point in time) or not? And in general, are we striving to give examples actually found in Wikipedia articles? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In general, we are striving to give examples that are fairly easy to understand, regardless of whether they have actually been used (or proposed) at any given point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

After seeing thousands of articles and editing hundreds of them I was pretty confident that relevant images go beneath the appropriate sub-header, unless there's a dire need to do otherwise. But apparently that's not apparent to everyone. I am surprised to find that as a problem here. Since the policies don't explicitly say so, it's entirely possible that this will continue and spill over across Wikipedia. Is it too much to ask that we make it an explicit standard, with provisions for exception, of course. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a policy, it's a guideline anyway. Editors are expected to exercise their good judgement, and I don't see how that's necessarily helped by detailing exactly how everything should be done. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I know. But, better judgement isn't something we all have. That's how Wikipedia has come to have so many guidelines. And, there are always people who understand only one direction - that of a direct explicit guideline. In this instance we had an angry Mastodon for apparently no reason at all. After spilling a bit over to more reverts across articles the situation has calmed down. But, the next person coming and wielding "it's not mandatory" as a weapon may not calm down so easily. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone figure out why the archives for this page are three red links? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The page was moved but the archives weren't. Its fixed now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added 90 day auto-archiving as well to this page and indexing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:James Stewart#Image overload on the amount of images used in the article and the purpose of images in articles. I am not one hundred percent sure this is the place to ask this, but this seems like as good a place as any. Am I incorrect in thinking the previous amount of images (29) was too much? I was also looking at Bette Davis and noticed that article currently has 22 images and many of them are as repetitive as the images that used to crowd James Stewart. Any input on this subject would be greatly appreciated and helpful, going forward.  Chickenmonkey  03:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

When talking free images, there's no maximum number of images, but we need to recognize that 1) WP is primary a text medium, and trying to illustrate every detail with images is just not effective, and 2) we allow links (at the bottom of articles) to Commons images to offload extra images with the ability to redirect the reader there. I think the version which I'm seeing with about 10 images is much more pleasing and easier to follow than with 29 images. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Your thoughts closely resemble mine.  Chickenmonkey  04:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There is discussion here, regarding the deletion of images from a list of people, that might interest readers of this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to raise this question, as it is more like a technical rendering issue. Or I don't know if this had been addressed before.

Newer top-end mobile devices have been introducing high-DPI displays, e.g. with a device pixel ratio = 2. Each

I see this is technically possible in Wikipedia for many thumbnail images, since many raster images have their original size more than quadruple of their thumbnail size, and many other images are simply vector. And it is left whether the rendering engine can determine the best image resolution, either by client side CSS or on server side.

I can think of some practical problems, though. Image download size and duration can get 4x and image cache size on server can get 5x. Any thought on this? – PeterCX&Talk 15:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 120#Images rendering for high-DPI / high device pixel ratio / "retina" display – PeterCX&Talk 04:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Should the guideline over sandwiching of text under Location, apply to other fixtures of articles such as quote boxes and audio files? It seems logical that it should, since the same problems apply, but it is not explicitly mentioned here, in what might be taken as an exclusive list. However, rather than state all the possible cases perhaps something like: "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and an infobox or similar" could be used.--SabreBD (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I will make this change soon if there are no objections.--SabreBD (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Timpani is a poor example for image placement (see Location section) for three reasons. The images do not always alternate left and right (though this is not a rule per se), there is sandwiching of text, image sizes are defined in some images (something that should be left to the user preferences to decide), and images are placed at the beginning of sections. There must be a more suitable example, one that actually follows the rules it is meant to portray. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the recent FAs would make a good example. We probably want a page that has a substantial number of images (and perhaps an infobox or two). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

SabreBD suggested the FA Bob Dylan above. That seems to have everything done correctly. What do you all think of that suggestion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that looks fine. Jack (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The image wont show up on my page for some reason Voggyer (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I recently checked the Internet map 1024.jpg image page and it turns out that every page that features the "Computer science" portal box is included in the "File Usage" list. I think it would be more accurate to immit such usages from that list and just mention that "This image is used as the emblem of the following portal: [Portal name]". Maybe this should be added to the "Wikipedia enhancements" todo list? :-) Nxavar (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you would exclude

WP:Transcluded

items generally, because it would be difficult to identify portal templates.

I believe that Bugzilla is the way to make such suggestions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info WhatamIdoing! There is an enhancement request relevant to this problem in Bugzilla. Maybe it will be fixed in the future. Nxavar (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In general I love the idea of respecting user preferences in sizing thumbnails. However, there are many examples where this produces a result so small as to be non-informative. Explicitly specifying a size, and completely ignoring user preferences, doesn't strike me as a terrific workaround. An option for "large thumbnail", displaying at 1½-2× preferred size, would be nice. If there is a better forum to discuss this (e.g. technical suggestions) let me know. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You can do this already, by specifying |thumb|upright=1.5| or |thumb|upright=2| --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks! ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Do not place images on the left at the start of any section or subsection. Images on the left must be placed somewhere after the first paragraph." Why is this? I believe it should be explained, or discussed, or both. I have placed many images on the left at the start of a section. Sincerely,

I don't know why, but I can say that the text seems to have been added during edit in October 2011 by User:WhatamIdoing, which suggests that there must be some good rationale. I cannot find a discussion of this point in the archive (which doesn't mean there isn't one). This guideline certainly does not seem to be honoured in Wikipedia and even the example of alternation we give at [18] includes an example of this. It certainly makes alternating of images very difficult on some articles. I will draw WhatamIdoing's attention to this thread.--SabreBD (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That was part of re-organizing some information between the main MOS page and this one. When I asked about the rationale (years ago), the story is that it's harder for the reader to find the first word in the section. Additionally, most such instances also fall afoul of the "don't sandwich text between images" rule.

The first-word problem can be eliminated by putting the image above the hed so the hed as well as the text justifies to the left, next to the image. Of course, I've had some other people say that "but if you do that, then a reader who wants to edit the image is confused when they click on the section edit link and it's not there". Can't we just put in a comment telling the reader who wants to edit the image that it's at the end of the previous section, then? Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't be done. It violates

WP:ACCESS#Images and causes problems for users who depend on screen readers. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 03:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps in the future, instead of being lazy and making sacrifices like this, we will enable MediaWiki to tell what kind of device is being used for the output and enable different versions of the article based on said device. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The

WP:ACCESS violations. We should probably find a better example. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 00:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree over the timpani article, which, incidentally, also has sandwiching of text. I guess that since we have a sandwiching guideline that it doesn't need this extra rule just for that, but if it really is hard to pick up the start of a paragraph then I can see why we would need this "rule". My main concern is that there are so many sections of one paragraph in Wikipedia articles that is may be impossible to alternate images and keep this guideline. If for no other reason alternation can be necessary in order to follow the eyes to text guideline. With potentially conflicting guidelines, it all gets very difficult to follow in practice.--SabreBD (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's why we tell editors not to get too hung up on exact rules. This guideline says at the top, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Just do your best, and then don't worry about it. If there's some "perfect" solution for the images in an article that will work for every combination of text size and screen width, then someone else will eventually find it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well put.--SabreBD (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If this guideline is to have "occasional exceptions", then I would propose that it should not use the word "must". Perhaps this instead: "In order to make text more readable, images should normally not be placed on the left at the start of a section or subsection. If an image is to be put on the left, try to place it somewhere after the first paragraph." To be honest with you, I'm not convinced I agree with this whole idea at all — but if we say "must", people will treat it as a hard-and-fast rule and will feel justified in edit-warring against anyone who insists on doing differently. ~~

Further to the discussion on the Timpani article. I notice that the currently Bob Dylan article uses left aligned images according to the guidelines. Is it a possible suggestion, or would something shorter be better?--SabreBD (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

May I add my own -1 on this one, too? I can understand why this rule might have seemed like a good idea to the average editor. But it's not. Anyone who's done any professional layout work knows you never say never on this one. Newspapers, magazines and other websites do this all the time.

How else are we supposed to properly illustrate an article with relevant free images if we have them, when we also have to deal with policy telling us to put the image as close as possible to the relevant text (especially in the case of fair-use images) and that we're not supposed to squeeze text between images, either? I suggest that at the very least the wording of the text there acknowledge those as exceptions. Further, I prefer to use alternating image placement as it's been proven to make the accompanying text more readable since it mirrors the back and forth motion of our eyes. In this scheme there's even less wiggle room to avoid such blinkered hard-and-fast rules, especially when confronted with a fellow editor who takes the MOS as nothing short of holy writ. I can understand why we would want to be careful not to let amateurs do this ... Lord knows I've seen enough articles with awkward, visually unappealing image layout that would never even get to film (so to speak) at a professionally-run publication. But that doesn't mean that we do so at the expense of a necessary aesthetic component to an article that can only enhance its readability. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree with GeorgeLouis, Sabre, and Daniel that this sentence added by a lone user without consensus is unworkable. There is not only 4:1 consensus here, but there is massive and overwhelming consensus in the greater community apparent from a quick review of

Featured Articles. Literally most of all Featured Articles have at least one image starting a section on the left. It looks great. I am deleting the sentence until a replacement can be agreed on. I would further recommend, after more discussion, that we consider giving up most all of the right-justify bias in this article. It just does not reflect the greater community's idea of what makes our best quality articles. --Tom Hulse (talk

) 00:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The syntax for including a file is the same regardless whether it's on local Wikipedia or from Commons. This can cause issues when there are files with same filename. Looks like local files have priority. Is there an override to this priority selection? Palosirkka (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't: what you need to do is have the local file moved to a new name; update the links to that from articles, etc.; and get the redirect deleted. This last operation will expose the Commons file. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. I tried to incorporate this to the article. Palosirkka (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can link the Commons file: commons:File:Example.png is not the same as File:Example.png. I don't know whether it's possible to have the linked file display automatically. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That works for linking to the file description page, but it doesn't work for pulling in the image itself. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. One of Wikipedia's delights is getting to learn something new every day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Image_categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 13:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there was once a guideline that said a photograph is a better choice than a painting when it comes to choosing the lead image. Is there still such a guideline? Surtsicna (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember any such rule. I think it might depend on the subject matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Egyptian art painting does show symmetry I added on this article and I like to keep it there, the center does show a good example of symmetry and I had alot of use to at least upload to the article near reflection symmetry, the only edit, thank you.--GoShow (...............) 13:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's already discussed somewhere in the "Manual of Style", but someone might want to discuss that large amounts of whitespace should be avoided!

The most obvious place I see it in articles....is when someone drops a photo near the top of the article along the right side...and the wiki layout engine pushes the text down to the bottom of the infobox so it can place the photo under it....thus leaving a very large amount of whitespace on the left side of the infobox.

In the past, I use to move photos around to fix the problem, but then I discovered the "Stack" template to fix the "infobox vs photo" layout problem.

Another place I see whitespace problems is when two photos are placed in nearby sections, which causes problems with the wiki layout engine.

I think the fixing of large amounts of whitespace should take more presidence than some of the other suggestions in this guideline.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not the wiki layout engine which pushes the text down to the bottom of the infobox - it's one of those annoying features of Internet Explorer. Where plain text occurs after certain box-type objects (including images and infoboxes), Internet Explorer doesn't let this text be displayed any higher than the upper edge of the last box which precedes that text. The problem is exacerbated when two or more of these box-type objects are placed in sequence.

If you view the page in another browser such as Firefox, Chrome, Safari or Opera, you'll notice an absence of the offending blank space. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

See Addison P. Jones and Stephen H. Wendover and help decide if this is a proper/inproper reading of the Manual of Style/Images policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for headers and/or subheaders to be pushed in due to left-aligned images? Sasata (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not best practice. There are at least three things that can be done to alleviate this: (i) move the image to the right-hand side; (ii) move the image upward in the section, but not above the first paragraph; (iii) put a {{

clearleft}} just above the displaced section heading. --Redrose64 (talk

) 18:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Would it be worthwhile to add this to

MOS:IMAGELOCATION? Sasata (talk

) 19:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Not best practice"? Says whom? You see this sort of thing all the time on professionally-done websites. I much prefer it to what we're currently forced to do due to the limitations of screen readers and MediaWiki. Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I really think the rule concerning text allegedly "sandwiched" between 2 images should be reviewed, and maybe eliminated altogether. My opinion on that, which I just posted elsewhere after an image I had posted facing a damn infobox was relocated:

"avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other"

One has to use common sense. Articles such as this one (Bishopric of Constance) often have an infobox that occupies more space lengthwise than the text of the article itself (not that easy to find enough stuff to write a 2000-word article on the Prince-Bishopric of Constance in English). Which means that to respect the "anti-sandwiching" rule, any maps or photographs either have to be incorporated to the Infobox (max. 1) or relegated at the bottom of the article, and out of view. Yet, in this kind of narrow-focused historical articles, maps and photographs are informative and valuable and usually more so than those (often misleading) dumb infoboxes.

What's more, the "Infobox former country" type of infobox such as the one in this article is quite narrow and the text certainly didn't look "sandwiched" before someone summarily relocated my images to the bottom of the article.

Since we are dealing with "sandwiching":

The major article "European Union" (which has a "this is good article" icon) starts (below the lead) with a whole paragraph "sandwiched" between a very wide Infobox and a picture. Nobody seems to be particularly offended.

The article "Los Angeles" has at least 3 instances of text sandwiched between 2 pictures. Doesn't look "sandwiched" to me!

Same with the Wikipedia articles on Milan, Montreal, Cairo, Belgrade, Mexican Revolution, Seven Years War, etc. etc. etc.

There are myriad Wiki articles with paragraphs fully or partially "sandwiched" between 2 photographs or an infobox and a photograph. And you know what? it doesn't look "sandwiched" and readers don't seem particularly offended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubiesque (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What we're really trying to avoid is this:

It looks silly and it's hard for the reader's eye to find the first word (compared to how quickly the reader finds the first word if it's in the expected place). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The above example is absurd. Zillions of articles have paragraphs entirely or partially "sandwiched" between two images or an image and an infobox and the result is visually satisfactory, even pleasing.

For example, look at articles of majors cities of the world such as Hamburg, Chicago, Saint Petersburg, etc. etc. -- those are usually carefully presented articles -- yet, you will find that the majority have one or several cases of images facing each others.

That rule is totally unjustified and, happily, not respected. --Lubiesque (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I just quickly checked 4 other cities -- Tokyo, New York City, Paris, Buenos Aires -- Only the Paris article doesn't have two images facing each others or an image facing an infobox or table.--Lubiesque (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So? I'll bet that if you look, you can find grammar errors in many articles, too, but we are not going to re-write the Manual of Style to say that grammar errors are common and therefore acceptable. Whenever you see a page that is not compliant with some aspect of the Manual of Style, you should feel free to fix it so that it does comply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

An editor requesting to remove foreign language images from

There is no rule against including images of non-English documents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this image is fine ... but it seemed so odd, and other aspects seemed so odd (its title and description and what is written on the image's page, and the fact that the purported owner is purportedly the person in the image), that I thought I would ask if an editor highly experienced with images might take a look. I just came across it due to its use in an article.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange, certainly, but it reads right. Other images confirm the subject as Tamás Erdélyi and it looks like a holiday snapshot - along with the filename which would fit. Overall although the description is meaningless in other respects I would accept it.

WP:MCQ is a more appropriate venue for similar queries. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs

) 22:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please review the new project proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Wikipedia editor business card project. The hope is that this project will help Wikipedians gain press credentials and make it easier to get higher quality image files for free use.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is the image gallery help file? It doesn't have to have a link from here? --RoRo (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean this? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a preferred or mandated image size and ratio for portraits in lists? For example the list of field marshals at Field marshal (United Kingdom) are all of differing ratios and some are whole body images while other are head and shoulders images and yet others are pretty much focused on the head. I would suggest that an image size and ratio (possibly the golden ratio?) be mandated while a head and shoulders portrait should be preferred. This would of course require portrait versions, cropped from available images, to be created but that would not be an insurmountable difficulty. Greenshed (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What images does Wikipedia prefer for musicians and sportmen who had their top days many years ago? A lot of articles got pictures in the infobox which were taken at some nostalgia-related event. Meanwhile, contemporary pictures of the time when the person gained notability are already present, but hidden somewhere in the article. See for example wrestler Tito Santana and tennis icon Boris Becker. If I see just that picture of mr. Santana I wonder what is notable of that old guy. I believe that is't right. But what is the official policy on that, if there is one??

My question is if this encyclopedia prefers as picture in the infobox:
(a) recent pictures of the given person,
(b) pictures of the time when this person became famous.
Best regards in advance,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The tendency is toward recent photos in the infobox, especially if they are free. This does not preclude "heyday" photos, if they are free, from appearing just below the infobox; I'd support that placement if a discussion came up at an article. When the person dies, then their published non-free (publicity) images become candidates for inclusion (of one of them), moreso than while they're alive, in my experience. My suggestion is to lobby the individual or their PR/photo people to publish&release a PR photo as CC-BY-SA, then everybody wins. But this may not be possible if they are actively selling signed copies of their photo. --Lexein (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a number of reservations about the use of complex infographics giving a large number of facts like

"It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side)."

This level of detail exists because of real problems, not because we felt like being verbose.

If we don't say that people should look towards the text, then they get randomly placed and we get long, soul-destroying discussions about how Wikipedia looks horribly unprofessional (eyes-towards-text is a standard among professionals). If we only say that looking towards the text is good, then we get people demanding that 100% of images conform to this rule and that any image not conforming must be flipped in an image editor to face the One True Direction™, even if the result is wrong.

Since we achieved this level of detail, I personally haven't seen any sustained disputes over this, so it seems to be working. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is very possibly the reason why this has survived:

• The MOS is so long that no-one bothers to read it.

I think I got this caveat down to one sentence: Lesion (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

At

In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image to justify on the left side of a page is done by...[etc]

Then a moment later we have the somewhat contradictory...

Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left.

Meanwhile, there's this provision

However, avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar. If multiple related images are being placed on the right, then the {{multiple image}} template may be useful.

I've always been unsure what this means, exactly. Does the forbidden "sandwiching" occur whenever text finds itself with both an image on its left and an image on its right? Or does "sandwiching" mean that same situation, with the additional provision that there's "too little" horizontal space for the text?

Whether (per "sandwiching") IMAGE - TEXT - IMAGE is either forbidden or to be treated with caution, the second sentence seems to imply that TEXT - IMAGE - IMAGE is just plain fine no matter what.

Would the following be acceptable?

If possible, avoid placing text horizontally between two images (or infoboxes, navigation templates, etc.). The {{multiple image}} template assists in placing multiple images at the left or right. In either case, ensure that the horizontal space available for text is not unattractively narrow.

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I generally just take it to mean that two images should not be placed on the same "line", but I find it useless to take into account that no text can be placed between two images at all. FunkMonk (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I agree. I'd like to change my proposal as follows:

• By default images appear on the right, but may be placed at left using |left:

• The {{multiple image}} template may assist in placing multiple images horizontally.
• In the unusual case of text appearing with images (or infoboxes, navigation templates, etc.) to both the left and right, take care that the text column is not too "squeezed".
• Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph.

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The current guidance on right justified placement should not be changed. The guidance is flexible and allows for alternating placement if the context allows. The "sandwiching issue" seems clear enough to me. It means "Do not place a left justified image opposite a right justified image." Regarding the guidance, "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left", this is also clear to me, but some editors feel compelled to force this arrangement, and that is what causes many layout issues with left justified images placed at the start of sections. The guidance states you can stagger images, not that you must stagger images. The most common problem I see related to images is that some articles simply have too many images in relation the text they are meant to illustrate. Using a gallery or the multiple images template can solve many of these problems. Bede735 (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Thanks. I was beginning to wonder whether we'd ever hear from anyone else. Let's start with what seems like an apparent conflict between two existing provisions:

most ... images should be right ... which is the default ... If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image to justify on the left side of a page is done by...[etc]

and

Multiple images ... can be staggered right-and-left.

The first quote implies that left-justification is an "exception" which should be "warranted", while the second implies that alternation is normal and common (which of course would mean that left-placement isn't unusual after all). My proposal removes the implication that left placement shouldn't be used without some strong reason. At the same time I completely removed the "alternating" suggestion, so let me restore that, but in a form which doesn't make it sound compulsory:

• By default images appear on the right, but may be placed at left using |left:

[[File:Example.png|thumb|left|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]

• Many articles stagger images left and right, but this is not a requirement.
• In the unusual case of text appearing with images (or infoboxes, navigation templates, etc.) to both the left and right, take care that the text column is not too "squeezed". Avoid sandwiching text between two images (or infoboxes, navboxes, etc).
• Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph.
• It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side).
• The {{multiple image}} template may assist in placing multiple images horizontally.

So far, so good? EEng (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandwiching and other discussion

See Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Images/Archive 4#Location for an example of what we don't want. The problem can be alleviated if the two images are not placed at exactly the same height (i.e., one at the top of the section and one after the first paragraph. The problem with "unattractively narrow" is that there are easily a hundred different combinations of screen size, font size, and default image size that should be considered relatively common.

As for whether images "should" be left-aligned, it depends a lot on the ratio of images to text. If you have six screenfuls of text and three images, then you should (almost always) right-align all of them. If you have two screenfuls of text and six images, then you need to stagger, or even use a gallery. Rather than saying "Many articles stagger left and right" (since most articles don't do this), I'd say something like, "Many image-heavy articles stagger left and right". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 4

I'm glad we're getting some real participation here. I've added "image-heavy" as suggested:

• By default images appear on the right, but may be placed at left using |left:

[[File:Example.png|thumb|left|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]

• Many image-heavy articles stagger images left and right, but this is not a requirement.
• Avoid sandwiching text between two images (or infoboxes, navboxes, etc).In the unusual case of text appearing with images (or infoboxes, navigation templates, etc.) to both the left and right, take care that the text column is not too "squeezed".
• Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph.
• It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side).
• The {{multiple image}} template may assist in placing multiple images horizontally.

Ignoring "not too squeezed" for now, are we OK so far? EEng (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 4a

Your first bullet still misses the general principle of maintaining the left margin, and implies that right placement is merely a technical default. As WhatamIdoing notes, if you have one image, it belongs on the right. I suggest modifying the text:

• In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement.
• If an article has sufficient text to support multiple images, you can stagger images right and left. To force an image to justify on the left side of a page, place a parameter in the image coding in the form:

  [[File:Example.png|thumb|left|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]]

• When staggering images right and left, avoid sandwiching text between two images (or infoboxes, navboxes, etc).
• Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph.
• It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side).
• The {{multiple image}} template may assist in placing multiple images horizontally. Bede735 (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Upright for sum-of-image-widths

Now we're cookin' with gas. But to be honest (and I hope no one will feel misled) my real concern is the sandwiching issue -- but I felt it was a good idea to clean up and better organize all the related text first.

As asked in my OP

Does the forbidden "sandwiching" occur (A) whenever text finds itself with both an image on its left and an image on its right? Or does "sandwiching" mean (B) that same situation, with the additional provision that there's "too little" horizontal space for the text?

Clearly at least some in his discussion choose (A), implying a compete ban on that situation. I believe that's too restrictive, and the (B) is what we want. I understand the concern re...

The problem with "unattractively narrow" is that there are easily a hundred different combinations of screen size, font size, and default image size that should be considered relatively common.

But there are ways to set up leftimg-text-rightimg layout that makes those uncertainties no more uncertain than they are anyway. Please bear with me while I explain.

A sadly underappreciated feature of image syntax is upright (WP:Extended_image_syntax#Size) -- review if you need to, but let me emphasize that it does not "override" the user's img size preference the way xxpx does -- it adjusts img size relative to that preference. If the user has set his img size preference to his "right size" for a "typical" kind of image then there situations where we as editors want to insert an image which we, quite reasonably, believe should be 1.5X as wide as the user's "normal" (because it has a lot of detail), or 0.6X (because it's simple and would look silly any larger).

Right now WP:Manual_of_Style/Images#Size recommends that a single image not exceed upright=1.8. Whatever width that leaves over for text is what it is, subject to all the imponderables about zoom and text size and window size mentioned by Whatamidoing.

Now if, instead, we have two images, left and right, with respective uprights = .9 and .7, then the width left for text is more than would be available with a single img at 1.8.

So why not say:

In the unusual case where a block of text has an image both to its left and to its right, then upright should be used on each image, with the sum of the uprights being <= 1.8.

Muddled, but you get the idea. Note I added "the unusual case" so people wouldn't do this too casually. Also, even if 1.8 is the right max for a single image, we might for aesthetic reasons want to put a tighter limit on the sum of two uprights e.g. 1.6.

So...? EEng (talk)

How does that work?

You mentioned upright (WP:Extended_image_syntax#Size) but I think you're referring to upright=Factor?:

Adjust a thumbnail's size to Factor times the default thumbnail size, rounding the result to the nearest multiple of 10. For instance, "upright=1.5" makes the image larger, which is useful for maps or schematics that need to be larger to be readable.

And yes, I did have to review it, cause I didn't have a notion what you were talking about! ;-)

Unfortunately, I don't understand how you can arrive at the appropriate upper limit "on the sum of two uprights e.g. 1.6." Please excuse my denseness; I'm only a mathematician! ;-) But how does a limit like 1.8 (single image) or 1.6 (two images) guarantee that most (or indeed any) of the stipulated hundreds of different screen sizes and formats will show the text and images laid out as you hope for? Is the 1.8 merely a rule of thumb derived from extensive and collective editor experience? Or perhaps only a guesstimate that ought to work most times? I remain confused ...

BTW, your last edit was undated, since unsigned. yoyo (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)