Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

Youtube

Are we really uploading screenshots from Youtube now? That almost feels like cheating. It was funner when we had to take the pictures ourselves or scour flickr for scraps. That was more like the wiki-way. Anyways, thoughts on this image? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What issue is there with the image? -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I was just reading this and wanted to confirm that the image was free to use. Looks like it is? Thanks for the quick reply. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9, it looks like it's licensed correctly. c:COM:VPCOPY is usually a more reliable place to ask about the copyright of images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Collages in infoboxes

I have observed a recent spate of editors adding collages to infoboxes for military conflict articles. These might consist of four, six and sometimes more images. In my view, these are too noisy. If they do not significantly increase the footprint of the infobox, they are too small to be viewable. Furthermore, detailed captions add to and bloat the infobox. Infobox size is a particular issue for mobile devices. It is my view that collages as a lead image are generally inappropriate and contrary to P&G on several points.

1. Per WP:COLLAGE, collages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. Such collages do not satisfy image use policy. The rationale for use appears to be largely decorative.
2. Per MOS:PERTINENCE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. This is consistent with WP:IMGCONTENT (policy): The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central [emphasis added].
3. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE would tell us (in essence) not to try to write the article in the infobox and that, [t]he less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose ... Collages would appear to be inconsistent with this.
4. Cognative theory and good presentation practice would tell us that too much visual information in one place is counterproductive (ie a sensory overload) and hence, my view that such images are too noisy.
5. Editors adding such collages would apply a justification of other stuff. However, this is only a reasonable justification if it represents best practice represented by our best quality articles. Very few (if any) of our best quality articles use collages for a lead image.

My reading of P&G and best practice is that the use of collages as lead images/in infoboxes generally and for military conflicts more specifically, should be exceptional.

Comments please. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

On one hand, I understand that you can't cover the breadth and scope of many wars with a single image, let alone massive conflicts like World War II. On the other, I agree that generally you see very little in most montages and that many don't feel effectively chosen for their significance versus the "niceness" of the image itself or the decoration they provide (to use the WWII example, the atomic bombing of Japan makes innate sense to me as a major element of the end of the war, or a shot of Stalingrad for its considered role as the "turning point" of the war. Images of tank or aircraft make some sense in terms of the mechanization of war but the choices seem overall random, and the entire collage doesn't do a great job illustrating the global nature of the conflict, its civilian toll, etc. Some of this feels like it wouldn't be as much of an issue if people didn't want an infobox over all else (I've got a collage image as the lead for Art Deco architecture of New York City to demonstrate the different styles the form took in the city across the boroughs it's prominent in, but it's allowed to be more than 30% larger by virtue of not being in an infobox.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

In most cases I've seen in these infobox collage discussions where the topic couldn't be covered with a single image, it couldn't really be covered by 3-6 images either. The exact same problem is faced. There are probably some topics out there which are very well summarised with 3-6 images, but perhaps by that very nature they don't lend themselves to extended disputes about image inclusions. CMD (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Cinderella157, it might be worth making this a broader proposal rather than specific to military conflicts. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. They are awful and should be banned. Otherwise the number of them will inexorably grow, as they are (like over-loaded infoboxes) another thing that editors who can't or won't add text love to do. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

There are good clean examples of info ox collages like in most city articles. But this is generally based on using images that have strong contrast and clear features like city skylines and key buildings or infrastructure, so that as a thumbnail it's still easy to read. Pictures from WWII aren't going to have the same contrast or clarity at small sizes so, a collage doesn't make sense here. Masem (t) 14:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Collages have long been controversial. There are some editors who wish that our policies and guidelines did more to restrict their use, but to say that the present language of PAG restricts them is a major stretch/overstatement. Please don't conflate an argument with what you'd like them to say with interpretation of what they presently say. Sdkb ^talk 14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

There's some policy based arguments to be made against certain collages, but I don't think current policy prohibits them. Certainly poor contrast collages and those that poorly illustrate the subject are bad, and probably a poor choice according to policy. Infoboxes are poor at handling complexity (this isn't just related to images), but that is because they are meant to show simplified information. Dispersing images through out article is a better way to illustrate the subject, but that doesn't mean all collages should go. It certainly seems as if some collages are being added because they are collages, and that doesn't look like careful consideration of the subject or the articles needs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Collages and galleries are an accessibility nightmare on many levels... Be it fragmented images, mini images or scrolling nightmare before reaching pros text (most readers only scroll a few times then go somewhere else)... should really only be used for comparisons in my view. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images Moxy🍁 02:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cinderella and infobox collages should be strongly discouraged, and certainly not expanded. One good image is better than 6 postage stamps; Actual Studies done by real UI / usability types show that users like Big Images. A collage can be acceptable (if not encouraged) for truly gigantic conflicts where only showing a single image might provoke a nationalist reaction (World War II the canonical example here), which is unfortunate because WW2 is probably the most viewed war article, but it should be the exception, not the rule. That being said, I think that the old hesitance regarding galleries in some policies was misplaced, so I'm fine with the laudable goal of moving more images into articles - just create a gallery section to throw them into, and since the current gallery defaults are still unfortunately postage-stamp size, throw in a custom widths & heights parameters so that they're legibile. Galleries also display nicely on the mobile app, which is how a lot of readers see Wikipedia. On mobile, they can easily be scrolled through, or scrolled past if a reader isn't interested, unlike an infobox collage. SnowFire (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The question is specifically about "military conflicts", and I think this (i.e., "only showing a single image might provoke a nationalist reaction") is the key difficulty: you can't put up an image from "one side" and claim that inherently biased choice will "illustrate [the] point in an encyclopedic way". Multiple images could, however, be an "important illustrative aid to understanding" – by illustrating that there isn't just one, single important thing to know here. It is perhaps a literal case of the medium is the message: Giving multiple images shows that there are multiple viewpoints.

That said, it's possible that these collages would be better placed outside of infoboxes, so that they can be larger. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

AI generated images

Does Wikipedia have any restrictions on images generated using AI, such as DALL-E? ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really, beyond the restrictions on all images. But see Commons:Commons:AI-generated media for some useful guidance. There are probably some circumstances in which AI-generated images are useful, but I think it would be a bad idea to try to use a photorealistic AI image without making clear its artificial nature, and my experience is that AI image generators can be ok for clip art like images but are bad at technical illustration. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:AICLEAN may also be of interest. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

How do I add a copyright tag?

It's for File:Pinxton Castle Lidar.png found at [1] where it says Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 which wasn't one of the choices given when I uploaded it but is one we can use. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Add {{OGL-3.0}} to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Use Template:OGL-3.0 and provide the attribuiton details in the template. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)