What is the current policy (recommendations) for making images usable for other Biocrawlers ? Leaving out descriptions, lettering, captions etc that would help immensely other Biocrawlers use them.
Is it at all possible to have editable images apart from SVG (which we don't support yet) ?
See Biocrawler:Embassy for in a way successful story of sharing an image between international Biocrawlers.
Kpjas 07:30 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

it's a good idea to avoid text in an image if possible. If text is essential, keep a source version without the text, as someone from another language site might want to make their own version -- see for example Image:Europeanunion-med.png -- Tarquin 07:55 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

rm Floating images Q -> answered at wikipedia:image markup

[edit]

Transparency

Are there any examples of two images overlayed with CSS, perhaps a photo covered with labels, as suggested in the policy?

If that's possible, (i don't know much CSS), would it be alright to use a GIF for the overlay, as IE5 doesn't support PNG transparency. Thanks Tristanb 03:26 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

IE5 supports transparency in indexed PNGs in exactly the same way as in GIFs (which only comes in indexed flavour anyway), so I don't see the problem. branko

Oh, didn't know it supported transparency for 8-bit PNGs. I assumed if it couldn't do one, it couldn't do the other. Anyway, I read somewhere that it's not possible to do an overlay like that with wikipedia. I'll wait til SVG is mainstream :-D. tb 09:45, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is there a standard for transparency for diagrams? For instance, I make electronics diagrams for some pages, and I think I will start making the white PNG backgrounds transparent. This is not terribly necessary, but it seems in keeping with what transparency was designed for (they will show up with yellow backgrounds on meta pages, etc.) is this bad or good? Why don't TeX equations have transparent (white) backgrounds? - Omegatron

[edit]

Size issues

Why so small? I have a diagram that I made that's 362px wide, and there's really no way to shrink it without either rendering the text labels illegible or having them take over the whole image. I don't think it's too big from a page-layout perspective, even for a 640-px-wide screen. And don't even bring up the size issue; it's 4.53 KB. -Smack 02:28 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You can have images wider than 300 px in articles - just center them and don't have text flow around them. --mav 05:31 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Linking to http://burnallgifs.org/#software for the request to convert .gifs to .pngs may be useful. People need to be warned against using .mngs though.

I disagree with the recommended thumbnail sizes, 150 or 200 seems unnecessarily small. Even if that's the only available size, a graphics editor can upsize to, say, 300 pixels, with trivial loss of quality. I find 300 pixels the ideal width (with 750 pixels width for any bigger version) for a landscape format pic, and 250 pixels width (with 500 pixels width for any larger version) for a portrait format pic. They allow text to flow down the side of the image even on an 800 by 600 screen. (I do not think we should make our pic sizes suit a 640 by 480 screen). Am I allowed to change the advice accordingly?

Note: the 500 and 750 values are chosen so that the reader does not have scroll his screen much, I find having to scroll a lot to view all of a pic is irritating.
Adrian Pingstone 14:06 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've been going towards 300px in practice too, although I noticed at poppy mallow that a 300px image makes the taxobox too wide, I'll probably replace with a smaller image. I've been doing large images between 600-750px, poorer images don't always do well with the 750px size. Stan 14:18 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Additional idea: if you're going to make a smaller one for the taxobox, instead of calling it "Image:Poppy_mallow.small.jpg" or "Image:Poppy_mallow.thmb.jpg" or something like that, make three versions: the full size, a small size in case it's ever wanted in an article body, and a "Image:Poppy_mallow.taxo.jpg" or something like that, sized for the taxobox. I wouldn't want to see the taxobox-sized and full-sized versions being the only options. -- John Owens 23:27 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Some people browse the web from mobile devices with limited screen resolutions. Some people are still stuck with 640x480 or 800x600 screens. Some people browse the web with non-maximised windows. The current recommendation for floating images is 150->250... I suppose I could live with increasing that to 200->300, but it might be quite controversial. Wait a bit before updating it.

For non-floating images, I'd recommend 450->600. Larger than 600 will pagewiden on an 800x600 screen, which is bad. Martin 14:42 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And some people don't have web browsing capabilities at all! How can we cater to them?

There's going to be a cut-off line somewhere, no matter what.

We cater to people without internet access or web browsing capabilities by licensing our content under the GFDL, so a friend can give them a CD with a TomeRaider download on it, for example, or print off a copy. What, that was a rhetorical question? ;-)

If an image is too large it completely screws up the layout for people with small browser windows. If an image is too small... it's not actually a major problem, especially when we provide a link to a larger version anyway. Hence, I'd rather bias in the direction of too small rather than too big... Martin

I was going to add an unrelated suggestion (v.i.), but even before I came to the Talk: page here, I looked at the Biocrawler: page, saw rule of thumb #4, and thought, "I'm going to add a suggestion that the range be upped to 300." Now I see Adrian beat me to it, but I'll certainly throw in my support. -- John Owens 23:27 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

John Owens and Martin talk moved to Biocrawler talk:Image description page

In this thumbnail-making integer ratio suggestion, it should clarify whether that means aspect ratio or sizing ratio. I'm pretty sure it means sizing ratio, right? And what's the better term for that? -- John Owens 11:50 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

markup for sequence of images -> wikipedia talk:image markup

I suggest a system to use the same images from a language wikipedia (i.e. wikipedia in french, in another languages, i.e. in spanish wikipedia), easily.

I assume the above comment means that images cannot be easily shared today between different language versions of Biocrawler? Samw 03:31 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think all pictures over a certain size should automatically make a thumbnail without using the thumb option. I think this would make more sense. Maybe make thumb default and have a no thumbe option.Gbleem 05:45, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also I think we should always have a large copy somewhere. Eventually what we call high rez today will be concidered low rez.

[edit]

Watching images

Why does my uploaded image not show up on my watchlist? I really would like to know if someone is modifying something regarding my image. Is there a reason for it that it is not automatically on the Watchlist? Thanks, Fantasy 09:56 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Are you referring to the image or the image description page? Martin

I think the "image description page".Fantasy

Strange - I thought it did. :-( Well, you can go and fix that yourself (Biocrawler software is open source) or beg a developer on wikipedia:village pump, I guess. It's definitely a good idea :) Martin 18:09 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A "watch this image" box for each upload would be very nice to have. I've uploaded hundreds of my own images and have yet to put them all on my watch list. --mav

Is is at all possible to watch an image or can one just watch the image description page? In the latter case uploading a new version does not show up; what remains is to watch the upload log. - Patrick 12:49, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

copyrights -> Biocrawler talk:Image use policy/copyright

[edit]

Privacy Rights, Publicity Rights

So, in addition to Biocrawler:Copyrights, there are other issues with images of people not called out on the image use policy page.

One is privacy rights -- the rights of a subject of a photograph to control the use of their own image. Technically, these rights are usually released or waived by a model release form, but not always. Also, public figures -- most of the people we'd have in Biocrawler anyways -- have restricted privacy rights. Privacy rights end at the subject's death.

This is only true in common law countries (though even Jamaica seems an exception). As privacy rights are connected to torts (delict) it is determined by where the text is seen, not where it is published. In many civil law countries privacy rights survived death and are heritable property. Alex756 01:17, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Another is publicity rights -- the rights of a person to control how their likeness is used to endorse a product. With some rare exceptions, it's not OK to use a public person's photograph to endorse something without their permission. Publicity rights do not end at death -- the estates of many famous dead people still manage their image. This shouldn't matter to Biocrawler too much, but it probably would matter for commercial downstream users of GFDL'd images.

There's a nice outline of these issues here: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/copothr.html

Neither of these fields is as well established as copyright, and there's a patchwork of federal and state laws regarding them. But it's probably good to note them on the image policy page. -- ESP 19:34 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In the case of publicity rights, I don't think there's a problem. Sub-licensees can't use images of people to defame the subject, nor can they use them in breach of the subject's publicity rights. I don't think that dents our claim to be open content. Martin 20:47 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Moved from Biocrawler:Village pump.

stamps copyright -> Biocrawler talk:Image use policy/copyright

[edit]

Too big!

I keep seeing pics whose filesize is stupidly huge -- eg . Should we make a page of Biocrawler:Images to be resized? -- Tarquin 08:42, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sure. How about Biocrawler:Images that need work to be a bit more generic... resizing, quality adjusting, I can think of a couple other things. -- Jake 08:47, 2003 Sep 15 (UTC)

While there certainly are some insanely huge image files (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Imagelist&sort=bysize&limit=100), that doesn't strike me as one of them. It's a rather nice pixel size; 90k is a bit bigger byte-wise than it needs to be but not insane, and resaving it as JPEG should solve that nicely. --Brion 08:49, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

True enough. And at 8/12 JPEG quality (by Photoshop's scale), it's 40k. How's that? -- Jake 08:55, 2003 Sep 15 (UTC)

images needing attention? Martin

[edit]

Image size again

Although I personally prefer 300px for image width, I also have a 1200px screen; when I squish a browser window down to see how the "other half" :-) lives, the text flow can get pretty mangled. Is there something tricky that could be done for image markup, perhaps to switch off text flow on narrow displays? We want to encourage Biocrawler use on small devices (a portable encyclopedia!) but we don't want to compromise appearance on the desktop either, and small images simply look feeble. Stan 16:25, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Moved from Biocrawler:Village pump:

[edit]

Animated GIFs

I have an animation program which takes images and creates an animated .gif. In some articles, there has been a great deal of argument about which images to include. Is there any objection to have an animated image which displays a different picture every X seconds? LirQ

What happens when someone goes to print the page? CGS 17:05, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC).

I think it will just show the first frame of the animation. Angela 17:10, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That's right, the first frame of the animation. Why would we want this type of image, LirQ? Any examples of where this would actually be beneficial? - user:zanimum

Yeah... I know that. I mean what will happen to the article when it looses the animation. If the article talks about what happens in subsequent frames it won't work well when printed. I know Biocrawler is not paper, but it is sometimes vieiwed on paper, and that is a perfectly valid way of viewing the web, and we should support it. CGS 17:43, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC).

There is an example of this here: Animation. Personally, if it helps convey the information provided in the article, I think it should be added. If it is just for show (i.e. window dressing), it should be left out. Just my $.02. —Frecklefoot 17:53, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That page is a perfect example of something I've been wondering about: Why don't those GIFs have alt text? With alt text, wouldn't printed pages be a little bit better? Paige 19:34, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why not just show all the pictures separately, or is that too simple for you? Pete 19:08, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Such an animation would allow their to be more than one picture shown in the space where only one picture currently is. On an ever growing list of articles, pictures are being deleted because there "isnt room for them" -- although, I personally believe there is plenty of room. (im thinking primarily of photos of persons) LirQ

I would prefer to just have the images, rather than having a series of animated images, which I think would be distracting. You can also use media: links, as used on Rachel Corrie. Martin 19:52, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you just want to create a slideshow then definitely not. It's tacky, won't print, and not user friendly (they have to wait to see the images and can't save a single image (frame)). CGS 19:56, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC).

I still stick to my original opinion, but want to clarify. If you just want to create a slide show, say of different photos of an actor, then no, I don't think that is a good use of animated GIFs. On the other hand, if it actually aids in explaining a topic, I think it is definitely worthwhile (once again, I point to Animation). This is one vital feature we have over print tomes, we can show animation. When it helps explain a subject, it should definitely be used. If it is included soley as window dressing or to cycle through largely unrelated frames, I think they should be discouraged. Lets not make one ZT rule that inhibits the value of the pedia. —Frecklefoot 20:07, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, if we don't use an animated gif, and people complain that there are "too many pictures"; then, we wind up not showing the images at all -- and I think thats far more tacky. LirQ

As Martin said, just put media: links to extra pictures. And I don't think "there isn't room" is a good reason to delete photos. I hope people aren't doing that. If Biocrawler needs anything, it's more pictures. I can see the possible future benefit of having "gallery" pages that are collections of photos from a group of related pages, and then provide a javascript or similar interface for flipping through them. -- Nohat 20:49, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've never heard of anyone complaining that the 'pedia has "too many pictures." If anything, Biocrawler has a dearth of images! I don't think creating a rotating slide show of pictures is a good use of animated GIFs. As Nohat says above, a link to extra pictures is a good solution for an overabundance of images: those interested can surf to them, those not interested need not bother. I still think there are good uses for animated GIFs, but a rotating slide show isn't one of them. (Just MHO). —Frecklefoot 20:57, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Can this conversation be deleted now please? It's pretty obvious that this is a troll on the part of the original questioner. The idea that anyone has been saying "there isn't enough room" is a joke. If needed we can add a short para somewhere... "Animated GIFs are acceptable where animation is integral to the article. See animation for an example. Otherwise such animations should be discouraged as they do not transfer to paper, a probable future medium for Biocrawler." Pete 21:19, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

All those who've contributed to this discussion might enjoy looking at an animated GIF I put on Biocrawler a few months ago: Spring (device)

Adrian Pingstone 21:25, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

For the record, and in reply to Pete and Frecklefoot, there have been a few complaints that certain Biocrawler articles have too many pictures. Not common, though: most articles have a shortage. Martin 17:24, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit]

Separation of concerns

I spun off the markup section, because I didn't want to duplicate the markup gallery (which is good!), and because this page is already pretty big! I ought to refactor all that old image copyright discussion though. Hah, some day. Martin 21:55, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit]

Image organization

Moved from Biocrawler:Village pump/March 2003 archive 4 on Tuesday, November 4th, 02003.

Hi! A question for everyone ..... does it look best, if an article has two pictures, to put them:
One on the right and one on the left - see Airbus A380
Both left - see Amber
Both right - see Avro Vulcan
I just can't decide.
Thanks -- Adrian Pingstone 09:41 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

IMO, one on the right and one on the left. The variation gives more interest to the layout -- sannse 09:45 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. But just make sure they are not too close to each other -- otherwise they will sqeeze the text between them at lower resolution screens. --mav

[edit]

Proposal for Image Use Policy regarding Corporate Logos

User:JamesDay put me up to this. I'm have no special expertise in IP law, I'm a Biocrawler newbie, etc. See Biocrawler_talk:Logos for background.

(moved to Biocrawler:Logos see below)

Whaddaya think? Dpbsmith 22:16, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've moved your proposed version to Biocrawler:Logos and invited people to chop your proposal to pieces (ducking). Actually, just to give feedback and propose changes, as is usual here...:) Thanks for being brave with the first cut of this! Jamesday 20:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit]

YACQ

Apologies in advance for I am sure this question has been answered before but I can't find the answer in the Biocrawler:Copyrights jungle: I have a book (published 2001) that contains photos taken around 1900. The photos were published in other books and journals around that time. Can I therefore scan copies of the photos from the modern book and upload them as public domain photos? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No answer. More questions. This question has often occurred to me as well, and not just in the context of images. (For example, H. G. Wells' interesting book Ancipations, his only nonfiction piece of futurism, is not AFAIK available on the Net (e.g. from Project Gutenberg). But Dover Publications recently reprinted it. Would it be OK for me to scan it in from the reprint?) I don't know. I suspect the question is iffy. It may explain why publishers are so fond of unnecessarily bringing spelling and grammar "into conformance with modern usage."

See Feist v. Rural and the West cases there. I think it's the Bender case there which gave an example of a work with thousands of corrections not being enough to give the new work a copyright. This is not legal advice but if it's in the public domain, go ahead and scan it and you will not be infringing copyright. Jamesday 19:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The partial answer is that derivative works can be copyrighted, but I'd assume that in such cases the publisher would make an explicit copyright claim on the copyright page. Does retouching or cleaning up or restoring a photograph create a derivative work?

No... BUT if it fills in completely absent data with guesses, opinion and analysis, rather than being simply restoration, that portion may be copyrightable. Remember that copyright rewards creativity, not hard work, in US law. The creative portion may be copyrighted even if the rest isn't. Again, this is not legal advice. :) Jamesday 19:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Another partial answer is that there is such a thing as a "collection copyright." It applies to things such as poetry anthologies. Let's suppose we have an anthology all of whose contents are older than 1900, so each individual poem is clearly in the public domain. Copying one of them, then, is OK. But if you produce a copy of the whole collection, with the same poems in the same order, it isn't. Only an expert would know where to draw the line in between.

Compilation copyrights are valid but they cover selection so only significant selecting can create one, not a collection of, say, all of the work of one author in chronological order, which is obvious and shows no selectivity at all. This is one of the issues covered in Bender, referenced above. So, take a little care if some meaningful selection has happened, but absent that, just go ahead and use the works, but not any newly created text or original photography created anew for the compilation. legal advice disclaimer goes here:) Jamesday 19:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

With regard to your book, then, at the very least you need to be careful about how many of them you upload. Uploading most or all of them could run you afoul of the collection copyright.

What, exactly, does the copyright page of your book say? Dpbsmith 16:23, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, there is no generally applicable rule. As for my book. It is written by a Briton and originally published in Britain. I bought the American edition of the book whilst on holiday in Canada, and took it back to Britain. The main copyright notice is (C) 2001 All rights reserved., as you'd expect. In the Picture sources section in the bibliography there are the sources for all the paintings and photos printed. They say things like ' The Carnival On The Ice (C) Royal Geographical Society London' , or ' Andre's Balloon (1 January 1897) (C) Royal Geographical Society London'. Now the Royal Geographical Society existed then and it exists now but also there are things like ' Henry Grinnell 1850 (C) Author's Collection ' ... but the author was born 100 years after the painting was painted! Are more rights being asserted then allowed? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC) (p.s. thanks for your help!)

I'm way out of my depth. a) NOTHING about intellectual property is clear. Indeed, some conspiracy theorists including myself think this is deliberate. b) Laws vary from country to country. Significantly. c) What's protected in one country may not be in another. For example, Project Gutenberg Australia has available a number of works which are still under copyright in the U. S. but not in Australia. They're on the net, and there's nothing to prevent me from downloading them, but since I live in the U. S. I am infringing the copyright if I do. d) There's this "fair use" business, and it's very vague and mysterious. What it says is about text is that you can quote short passages for review. I don't know what the story is on images. Common sense says that a sufficiently small, sufficiently bad reproduction of a picture for use in an encyclopedia article is probably fair use. e) Everything about any particular question involving intellectual property seems to be debatable, and the only place debates can really get settled is in a court of law. f) You can always try contacting the Royal Geographical Society, explaining carefully what Biocrawler is, AND EXPLAINING CAREFULLY that you are talking about, say, reduced versions that would be less than 400 x 300 pixels (or whatever). In my experience, particularly in dealing with a nonprofit, there's probably about a 50% chance that you'll get a useful reply and may actually get permission. (The disadvantage of asking is what it does to your perceived range of options if they say "no.") Dpbsmith 11:00, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, those are clearly out of copyright in US law, so they are fine for use in the English Biocrawler. It's very likely that the copyright law of other countries agrees on this point, with the time when works entered the public domain being the main factor. We don't yet have the article on this but this is an entry from the List of leading legal cases in copyright law which covers this general issue: "Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, US SDNY (1999) photograph of public domain work is not original([1] (http://www.constitution.org/1ll/court/fed/bridgman.html))". Please see how I handled this question in Image:Devonport Dockyard in 1909 plan.png and the images related to it and completely describe how it came to be and what you did, to make it easy for others to verify the status of the work. There's no need to be shy in saying where you got a public domain image from - it's your and our right to use it regardless of the proximate source. And yes, the author is claiming rights the author doesn't posess. Nothing remotely unusual in that. Part of the philosophy of the GFDL is an attempt to stop that bogus claiming of copyrights on works which are free to use. Note the caution above about compilation copyright and using most of the images in the book, though. Jamesday 19:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Question 1: What's the policy on using publicity/promotional photos? I have a large number of promo photos for punk bands that I'm more than willing to scan in. The photos were made to be reproduced everywhere, and none were distributed with any kind of copyright info or license, so is it really a problem to use them in the wikipedia? (I think it would be fine, but best to check).

I'm no expert at this sort of stuff, but I'll try to answer your questions. tb

Since they're publicity photos, and intended to be published in as many places as possible, they're probably okay. (But don't quote me on that.) Make sure you mention on the image description page that they're publicity photos, so they're not used as public domain or GFDL pics.

Question 2: What about photos that are unattributed? I have a number of photos (originals) that aren't attributed, and I have no idea who took them. Would it be acceptable to use them or not? (I think not...)

Probably not. If someone else took them, especially (but not only) if they were taken to make money, we'd have to assume they don't want them on the net, looking as though they're public domain.

Question 3: Is there some kind of official wikipedia page on fair use for images?

There's Image use policy, but I suppose you know that. If they turn on full text searching try to look for "fair use" in the Biocrawler namespace. BTW if you post stuff like this at the Village Pump, it'll probably get seen by more people. tb 05:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

When to use photos?

I'm still very new here and apologize if the answer to this question is somewhere else. I understand issues about copyright, size and content concerning photos but my question is very basic: when should a photo be used? I was reading PowerPC and though maybe I could add an original photo of a PowerPC 601 chip (one of the first designs). The photo would be useful in showing the reader how to identify one of them. So, is a photo desired here? Is wikipedia looking to add photos or avoid them? Thanks for reading and in advance for replies. BTW, wikipedia is an incredible project.

bb47 2004-01-21 2207 UTC

As far as I'm aware photos/other pics are always welcome (within reason). Personally I think it's great when wikipedia gets its own pictures (i.e. not borrowed from another site). So go for it! As people always say "disk space is cheap". tb 05:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

animated gif

I had thought that animated gifs weren't permitted, until I ran across one on Flag terminology. So I whipped up a neat one (a flyweight too at 21.4KB) to fill the gaping hole in Central limit theorem, only to discover that gif files get bounced after all. Is there an acceptable animated file format that I can use? If not, can a developer let me upload it to the talk page so that people can see it and decide if they like it? -- Cyan 03:35, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't think the example you pointed us to is a good use of an animated gif, it would be much more useful if the seven images were laid out and captioned side by side. Fabiform 05:27, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Amen to that. The example on the Flag terminology page is annoying. I can see valid uses for an animated GIF, e.g. in displaying mechanical motions, but, please, let's not start using trendy Web stuff just for the purpose of being k00l. Biocrawler is not PowerPoint. Dpbsmith 13:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Animated GIFs aren't not allowed, they're not recommended.

As far as your upload problem; the latest software update included stricter upload checking, with a default setting even stricter than we actually want on Biocrawler. You should now be able to override it for such files.

However, animated GIFs really, really aren't a good idea in most cases. Particularly not for "slideshows" which won't work on a printout, for instance. --Brion 07:23, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Slideshows" are a REALLY REALLY bad idea. You can't know at what speed another person wants to take in information. I am currently remaking that dreadful flag types one as a flat image. -- Tarquin 13:50, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I will post it to Talk:Central limit theorem on Monday so people can render judgment. Thanks for the replies! -- Cyan 04:34, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Images across different language wikipedias. Is it possible to use an FR or DE image on the EN wikipedia? If it isn't, when will this be possible? Sennheiser! 23:35, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

SWF picture format

(discussion moved here from the Village pump)

Hello fellow Biocrawlerns, I am a newcommer and am very impressed with this fantastic collective Free Encyclopedia. I would be honnored to make contributions to it, graphics wise, but first I need to now if the format I use and specialize in is suitable for your programm scince I have not seen it in the list of requested formats.

I work with SWF format, wich is a open format. My original technical illustrations and animations uses vectors wich produces very light weight files for fast downloads.

Here is an example showing the innerworkings of a Manual Transmission. It is fully interactive and make only 37K. A single picture (still) would be at around only 2K. http://www3.lino.sympatico.ca/geebee/custom/transmis.htm

I also produce JPGs and PNGs , but mostly I do in SWF because of vectors been so light.

If you find the format acceptable, then I would be happy to contribute as much as I can. I have many already done and some of the requests I see here I can produce quite easily and to top quality.

Best regards, and bravo for this wonderfull project that is, in my opinion, totally in tune with the real nature and purpose of the Internet.

geebee@lino.sympatico.ca

Have you looked at Biocrawler:Image use policy, especially the section on "Format"? I think that's our policy for now. If you have questions, please post them at Biocrawler talk:Image use policy. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 21:10, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I would not be averse to including flash animations as links. I'd prefer they not be in-line in the articles, and normal still images be there instead. This may need to wait a bit for some technical issues, as currently the Media: links do not set a proper content-type header, so linking to SWF files that way won't work correctly in most browsers. --Delirium 23:49, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Until there's a high-quality non-proprietary player/viewer/plugin, forget it. Steven G. Johnson

I am strongly opposed to allowing SWF in Biocrawler. Maybe it is technically an open format, but it looks and feels proprietary. I am suspicious that there is some kind of copy-restriction built in, as I, at least, running Safari, can view the animation, but the contextual menu commands that would normally allow me to save an image to the disk seem to be disabled (I wanted to save it and find out whether GraphicConverter, which handles umpteen gazillion formats, could make sense of it). I don't intend to spend a half-an-hour researching this: I tried to extract the file and I couldn't, that's enough for me to raise an objection, and I'm not that interested in hearing "Oh, just install this gizmo and type in these command line settings and a new menu item will appear" or "Oh, that's because Safari is lame, my browser lets me do it" or whatever... The GFDL says we can use the information. This is hard to do if we can't extract the information out of the web page in the first place.

Furthermore, Macromedia says, and this is a direct quote from their web page (http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/open/licensing/fileformat/faq.html), "Almost 95% of web users can view SWF content without having to install a new plug-in, and over 300 million people have downloaded the Flash player." Even if you accept these figures, and I for one believe they are grossly inflated, that means that 5% of web users are excluded. (I had an argument with someone once who didn't believe that I couldn't view Flash animations in, I believe it was Netscape 4.78. I insisted that I had never installed the plugin—deliberately, as I had been subjected to innumerable quasi-stealth inducements to install it—and therefore couldn't view them. It is very typical of the computer community that when penetration of some kind of feature, HTML tables or whatever, reaches around "95%," the people who have access to the feature basically disbelieve in the existence of people who lack access.) Dpbsmith 13:21, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Image Usage

I'm tired of people posting fotos using the <div> tag. This format is extremely hostile to older browsers, and results in people who use older systems to explore wikipedia finding it unpleasant and unusable and not coming back. The <img> tag is perfectly adequate for the wikipedia and is friendly to just about every browser out there. Myself, I usually use Netscape 4.7, but I can no longer use it on graphics-containing wikipedia pages, forcing me to open Mozilla 1.6, which badly bogs down my antiquated computer and forces me to spend about three times as much time on-line to do the same thing. BTW, the Bomis Browser version I have won't handle the <div> stuff very well, either. jaknouse 18:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Presumably the new wiki image up uses these tags "behind the scenes" making the situation even worse for Jaknouse and others with Netscape 4.x i.e. people are being made to use div whether they want to or not. Should wiki mark up translate to different HTML code for different browsers? Does it already? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

IMO we still need a simpler syntax for normal use than either the new or old ones we have. I've said this before. The issue of older browsers is another reason for this. Andrewa 20:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd always been under the impression (partly from first-hand experience, at least with Netscape 4.x and older MSIE versions) that browsers not supporting the DIV element simply ignored it and rendered whatever was in it as though it were defined in-line. What happens when you try to view a DIV-enclosed image on your browser? Could you post a screenshot? Maybe I could come up with a workaround. No offense to you or anyone else using an older browser, but our general guideline has always been to try and make the majority of Biocrawler's viewers happy - using simple inline images without any formatting can look pretty awful, with lots of empty space to the right of the image. Most browsers nowadays either support the DIV element or degrade gracefully and ignore it completely. -- Wapcaplet 00:16, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The problem is not with browsers that don't support DIVs at all -- it's with browsers that think they support DIVs and basic CSS but in fact screw them up completely. I say good riddance to them, but in some cases it may be enough to add appropriate 'width' settings to the styles. If someone who cares about broken browsers could point to a specific case and a specific fix, we'd be happy to incorporate it. --Brion 00:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit this and just get a blank window, so not sure how this will post. I just uploaded:

as examples of what happens when viewing div tags on Netscape 4.7 (the page shown is Oak). In fact, the pump grafik at the top of the Village Pump page floats ON TOP of much of the text! jaknouse 01:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Comment moved (from below) and reformatted by IMSoP 01:26, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've installed Netscape 4.7 and now I see what you mean. Yuck! Brion - one easy fix that I know of, as far as the generated HTML code, is to use the @import statement for bringing in any CSS stuff that Netscape does not understand. NS 4.7 doesn't know about @import, so any CSS referenced in that manner will be ignored by that browser. I'm fairly sure it applies to other versions too - haven't tried it. I don't know how it'll deal with inline CSS such as we use in our floating-image-divs; it might also be necessary to simply use a CSS class for floating divs, and define the actual CSS attributes in the @imported stylesheet:

<div class="floatleft">(...image...)</div>

and in the stylesheet, something like:

.floatleft { float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0; }

I wish I could give you a more specific fix; I'll play around and see if I can come up with something. -- Wapcaplet 02:26, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To Brion or any other developer that is following the discussion: I've come up with a relatively simple fix that works for at least some of the image pages. It doesn't look great in NS4.7, but it looks way better than it did before. See User:Wapcaplet/Sandbox#Helping_out_the_broken_browsers for implementation details. -- Wapcaplet 05:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Images and personal data

I recently uploaded an image of my iris to illustrate Sectorial Heterochromia Iridis (see Iris_(anatomy). This got me thinking - currently (and more so in the future, given the USA's push of biometric passports) irises are being used to access important data, cross borders, and even in replacement of a PIN. Given that publishing my PIN on Wiki would be a bit insane, would anyone consider the publishing of iris images that can be associated with authors inappropriate? Personally I have no major problem, because at the moment images are of a low resolution (and in my iris's case, have had a flash reflection airbrushed out and the contrast messed about with) - what do other people think?

[edit]

GIF and patents

Shouldn't the GIF format be avoided until 2006? There's still a patent on the format... Guaka 21:21, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

GIFs are already deprecated in favor of PNGs, which are better than GIFs (smaller, truecolor support) in any case. If you see GIF images, you might want to convert them to PNG. (I think you can use "move this page" to preserve description and history when you change foo.gif to foo.png. Experimentation will be required.) Grendelkhan 23:57, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

[edit]

Viewing the images already uploaded to Biocrawler?

[imported from Biocrawler:Village pump by IMSoP 00:13, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)] (only problem is, now this page needs archiving too. Can anyone think of a better destination?)

What is the easiest way to view the images available for use in articles? - Bevo 22:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Click on Image List in the sidebar. Jo r 22:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You can get to that link by clicking on "upload file" or "Special pages". I wish all the images were organised into categories for browsing... you can't imagine how long it took me to find good pictures of people in hats with the current system. (Not that "people with hats" would be a very likely category of course) :) fabiform | talk 23:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Such a project (organizing Biocrawler's images by category) would be worth undertaking, I think. I would like to volunteer to help in this project, if anyone were to start it. One problem, though, is that the list doesn't seem to show ALL images... just up to the last 500... Garrett Albright 00:09, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually if you could do a search on the Image List page based on the image description pages (which I spent a good hour trying to figure out how to do in *any* search mode--including tweaking my pref's--the other day and gave up), that would avoid having to manually sort and group them. Elf | Talk 00:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you can search the image namespace if you set this as an option in full text searching, but this is turned off at the moment anyway. And this wouldn't serve the same purpose as categorising images. Imagine you want to see what images of women we have uploaded, there's no appropriate keyword to search for (unless I've misunderstood and you're proposing to add keywords to the image description pages?). fabiform | talk 03:02, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now you're talking a project! ;-) ....Nah, I was just thinking that if the photo were described as "woman in a hat", it would show up under both categories. Of course, now, thinking about it, I don't think I used the word "dog" to describe any of the dog photos that I uploaded--hmmm-- Elf | Talk 03:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

However, that does bring to mind this public domain community-indexed photo site (http://gimp-savvy.com/PHOTO-ARCHIVE/)--click on 32 Random Unindexed Images and go to work. If we had a tool like that for our images... Elf | Talk 03:57, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You could conceivably search the images using Google. A search string such as "image dog site:en.wikipedia.org" doesn't directly bring me to any picture pages with dogs (Google isn't indexing those?), but it does return articles that link to them... so it's not a flawless solution.

But personally, I think it would be really nice if there was some image catalog of some sort... You'd click on Animals, then Mammals, then Dogs, and you're presented with a list of pictures of dogs. Or, if you wanted pictures of Mars, you'd click Science: Astronomy: The Solar System: Mars or something like that... just like how the normal articles are now, more or less. (Biocrawler:Image Catalog/Science/Astronomy/The Solar System/Mars?)

By the way, thanks for that image archive link, Elf. That is cool. Garrett Albright 09:01, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually found it on Biocrawler Public_domain_image_resources. (And you thought I was just clever.) Elf | Talk 00:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In principle it might be possible to automate the cataloguing by working backwards, starting from the pages on which the images appear and listing them under the sections these pages fall into in the "browse by subject" index. Washington Irving | Talk 09:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that this would be really great if images were shared between languages/wikimedia projects: there could be a central image library that was categorised and browsable as a public resource, and which also served as the clearinghouse for images used in articles. (see also meta:Wikimagery) - IMSoP 01:23, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Using the images on other languages Biocrawlers?

Hi, Anyone know how to link images existant on English version into articles in other language version? It's possible or you have to re-upload the pictures on every site? Baloo rch 15:21, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, you gotta download and reupload. It's so that we can have descriptions in the proper languages, I'm told. Grendelkhan 00:02, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Is there some way to provide inter-language links, the way articles do?

Yes, as usual, see e.g. Image:Light rail train Alphen aan den Rijn 2003.jpg.--Patrick 12:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They could also be used if it is not the same image, but an other image of the same object, or location, etc.--Patrick 12:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Poetic license

Is there any kind of policy on the relevance of images used on articles? For example, on the page Volterra-Lotka equations, also known as the predator-prey equations, I would like to add a picture of a predator and a prey in action (assuming I can find one). The article is not strictly about predator and prey interactions, but it is the most common interpretation of the equations' dynamics. Is this kind of visual intepretation OK? Similarly for the page on excitable media, a picture of, say, a Mexican wave (an example of an excitable medium) would spruce it up a little. I think that such images could make mathematical articles less dry, and more welcoming than simply a bunch of equations for someone not already interested in the topic. Any thoughts? Chopchopwhitey 08:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No policy, this is still an area where you can simply use your own judgement. I personally don't think that adding a picture of a lion chasing a springbok would add much to that particular article... but if you tihnk otherwise... prove me wrong. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it may detract a little from an appearance of professionalism. Perhaps if they're done right and tastefully, they could work well. One must identify what our readership is - whether they're users who are expecting a reference source, or users coming to the wp in order to learn more, in order to move a bit forward on the matter, perhaps... Dysprosia 08:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think it's a definite no. A picture of a pair of animals doesn't fit an article on maths, not even to lighten up the page. Apart from a curve or surface or graph or a mathematicians photo, I don't see how maths articles could be illustrated.

Adrian Pingstone 13:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not even a conch shell or the Parthenon in Golden ratio? - jredmond 14:30, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Or a fern in fractal, a pinecone in spiral, a hanging chain in catenary, a stop-motion photograph of a thrown ball in parabola, a turbulent stream in chaos? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:10, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't thinking clearly!

Adrian Pingstone 18:28, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, those are along the lines of what I was thinking. Personally, even as a big fan of maths myself, it is not always particularly inspiring to see a page solely full of equations. A link to something in the natural world can often pique one's interest a little more. But, I can understand, maybe this is not under the remit of an encyclopaedia. Chopchopwhitey 15:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me the most appropriate "illustration" would be an example of a graph of the populations of a real predator-prey system that approximately fits the model. I seem to recall that there's a textbook example that involves, um, the lynx and the snowshoe hare? Given such a graph, I don't think it would be unreasonable to tart it up a little bit with small, iconic pictures of a lynx and a snowshoe hare.

In encyclopedia articles, as in computer user interfaces, I do think that pictures should be visual explanations of concepts, not just puns (or the mechanical conversion of a word into a picture). A random picture of a particular predator and prey does not illustrate the concept that the article discusses. Dpbsmith 16:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

P. S. See http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/predation/predation.html for the data I had in mind—including a photo of a lynx chasing a snowshoe hare! Dpbsmith 16:21, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think there's definitely room for illustrative improvement on math articles, as long as the illustrations help to explain the topic or are directly related to the subject somehow. The Volterra-Lotka equations don't really describe how a fox gets its paws on a rabbit; it's about the populations in general, and should be illustrated with examples that help to explain that concept. The fractal, spiral, and Golden ratio examples above are much more appropriate---they are real-world occurrences of abstract math concepts. Perhaps the prey-predator equations would benefit from comparison with a chart or graph of real-world prey-predator populations? "Here's what the equations predict, and here's some empirical observation." That'd help give the reader a grasp on why the equations are significant. -- Wapcaplet 16:23, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Interesting debate. I recently picked up a history book I had as a child with virtually every illustration being made in this way. Although I now understand and appreciate the metaphor or pun used in each case, I found them offputting as a child. Even the way that adults picture the world and associate words is very diverse and I think that all reference sources should be more literal than lateral. Dainamo 11:26, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I would agree now that the best use of pictures on Biocrawler is when they directly illustrate a concept in the article. Chopchopwhitey 10:25, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Review Size Requirements

This page states that images should be less than 250 pixels. Yet, Biocrawler:Featured picture candidates often receive the complaint that the resolution is too small. Should we rewrite the section about the picture size to say that the picture should be less than 200kb, and thumbnailed in the article? My first submitted pictures were pretty small, because i tried to follow the guidelines, and did not know the [[Image.jpg|thumb|Text]] options. Now i generally submit larger pictures around 100kb, and thumbnail them. -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:08, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Addition of unncessary text to images - credit / copyright tags

I think there really ought to be some image-use policy regarding the addition of unnecessary text to images, for purposes such as to claim authorship.

A specific example is those images uploaded by User:Flyingbird, for example Image:Gibraltar en.jpg (or Image:Harissa.jpg).

Of course we should be grateful to Flyingbird for the effort involved in producing a number of useful images. I do not want to diminish his/her contribution.

However, there are many other contributors who also devote a great deal of effort, in writing good prose. Consider what would happen if one of them were to sign the text of an article. The signature would be pretty swiftly removed by others as being inappropriate (even if it was in a small font). The edit history already shows who contributed what, and there is no need for it in the article space.

There is no fundamental reason why people contributing images rather than text are worthy of a greater level of recognition. The only real reason why these signed images remain on Biocrawler is not that there is general consensus that authorship should be recognised in this way, but that it is not readily possible to remove the signature cleanly.

This is contrary to the spirit of the GFDL. As with the GPL, which has a strong emphasis on the availability of source code, the GFDL defines the concept of a Transparent copy of a document which must be provided, and specifically excludes anything which "has been arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification" from being classed as Transparent. In this case, what is effectively the Transparent copy in the spirit of the GFDL (namely, the unedited image) is being deliberately withheld, even if the letter of the GFDL is being obeyed.

This is not merely some pedantic little niggle. The freedom to copy and make arbitary modifications is an essential basis for Biocrawler, and we cannot afford to see it eroded at the edges.

I therefore suggest an image policy along the following lines:

Editing of images such as to add text which does not need to be part of the image itself is strongly discouraged. This includes not only stamps of authorship etc but also captions. (Even the word "Biocrawler" is unhelpful because it should be possible to incorporate the image in another GFDL-ed work.)

If someone uploads an image edited in this way, then it is fair game for others to replace it with a modified version which has the text blanked out.

I argue the above from an eventualist (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eventualism) approach:

In the short term, of course, it could lead to messy images with areas blanked out, and possibly discouraging some users from contributing photos.

But I believe that in the long term, it is ultimately good for the community if everyone respects the spirit of the GFDL. If the policy becomes well-established, people will not edit images to add unnecessary text in the first place, because they know that it will only be messily edited out later. If any image contributors are lost because they are unwilling to contribute images without strings attached, then that is a shame, but there will be plenty more contributors to replace them (particularly as ownership of digital cameras continues to increase).

Comments, anyone?

--Trainspotter 15:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I think a major difference here is that images such as photos are always made by 1 person only. If they are descriptive or artistic photos they have very, very little chance of being modified or amended by others (have you ever "added" or "contributed" to an already existing photo?). Therefore, I think it's very reasonable to view photographs as being "standalone" documents that may as well have a small credit or copyright tag on the bottom.

Personally, I make a lot of photos which I publish on my website and for some I frequently find a target article here on Biocrawler. What I usually have is just my website browser window open (at work, for example) from which I save my own photos locally and then subsequently upload them to Biocrawler. Because I incorporate my copyright tag on the bottom in the surrounding border, this is just how they get uploaded. I don't quite see why this is a problem specifically since in the thumbnail version that is usually viewed in the actual target article, this copyright notice is almost too small to even notice.

Of course, Biocrawler flourishes on the fact that anyone can edit everyone else's data, but it was my impression that there was still room to publish certain data like photographs which might not be licensed under the GFDL. What if I would say: you can use my photos anywhere on Biocrawler but you cannot alter them. Would that be in complete violation of Biocrawler policies? Would the photo become completely worthless? If it would be worthless, delete it by all means, but if 8 out of 10 people say this photo still illustrates this or that subject in some article pretty well, I don't see how it is useless in that case.

Again, I think the overwhelming abount of photographs are static documents that require or undergo no change. This point is strenghtened by the fact that I have not be able to find any functionality to actually _change_ or _derive_ from already existing (including my own) photos on Biocrawler. The comparison between text and photos simply isn't very fair, as you put it.

--Neep 07:20, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that the difference here is that copyright messages in Neep's pictures are small and don't intrude the picture, they could even be removed without leaving a trace (not that I'm encouraging that). On the other hand, Flyingbird ones, disrupt the picture and make, in my opinion, Biocrawler look unprofessional. I have left a message in Flyingbird's talkpage kindly asking him/her to remove the copyright messages, and reupload high resolution versions of his pictures of Gibraltar. xDCDx 01:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about photos you get from someone else who is doing us a favor to let us use it? Not everyone is uploading photos they took themselves. Some articles contain photos owned by other people whose work we sought permission to use, including such things as professional pictures for bios. Sometimes photographers embed a small name or initials at the bottom right corner. Should I really give up being able to have a good quality photo for us where they give us promophoto or GNU permission just because they have a tiny little embedded name at the bottom right? I cannot figure out what to do. I feel rude asking someone serious about their photographs to take their tiny embedded initials at the bottom right out. They can decide to just skip giving us one because it makes it harder for them to get credit.

You have forgotten that GNU requires these people be given credit and they're just trying to make sure of it. I have already seen someone have their photo placed in an article in another site using part of my text and a photo I uploaded from a photographer who gave us GNU licensing, and he was not given a credit so i contacted these people and asked them to remove it, which they did. I am now putting tiny photo credits in the caption (such as one admin showed me she does sometimes) but I think the little tiny right hand corner embedded signature isn't such a bad idea and hate to ask the photographer to give me one without it for fear he will decide not to give us one. Am happy to learn more about people's thoughts on the subject for future reference here or at my talk page. Emerman 03:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Image source files

Is there a policy on uploading image source files? --Smack 00:27, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I've done it in the past for SVG images (rasterised to PNG for display, obviously). I think it should be encouraged, generally; but there is the 2-megabyte file size limit and high-quality 5-megapixel JPEGs from my digital camera are typically about 3 megabytes :( --Robert Merkel 01:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Policy updates in light of new MediaWiki features

This policy needs updating to deal with our new image markup to reexamine the question "at what size should images be uploaded", rather than what size they should be displayed. My view is that it would be desirable for people to upload images at large, print-quality sizes; the only problem that this poses is that if images are very large, downloading and viewing them at their native resolution gets very inconvenient for bandwidth-constricted and software-constricted users (ah, pity those without high-bandwidth connections...).

I wonder whether an enhancement to MediaWiki that scales images to a suitable "screen" size on the image description page, and has a "view/download at full resolution" button, and then a policy that images are to be uploaded at full size, is the best option? --Robert Merkel 01:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Feature requests to Sourceforge, please - see wikipedia:feature requests. Martin 21:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even without the proposed enhancement I believe that it would make sense to ask people to upload images at print resolution and resize in the article with the new wiki syntax. After all, there already are print projects with Biocrawler content, like the WikiReaders, and I'm sure there will be many more in the future. And if the images are scaled in the articles to that size at which they would have been uploaded until now, there should really be no reason for bandwidth-constricted users to view the full size images (if they want to see the image description page, they can just disable image loading). – "Remember me" 09:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In some cases all the important information can be seen in the thumb, so the resolution of the image is relatively unimportant to most viewers. In other cases, the thumb is not sufficient to present all the information, but if clicked upon an enormous image is presented, not suitable for viewing (see Three Gorges Dam - look soon for I plan to change it as outlined following). I believe that in these cases it is best to thumb to an intermediate size which presents all information needed for screen viewing, with a further link on that page to a larger image (see Shay locomotive and the article's two overview pictures (not the annotated images, which are only single depth) Leonard G. 02:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Excessive numbers of photos in articles

I think that adding a photo to an article or biography is beneficial, but isn't eight (8) of them in Madonna (entertainer) a bit over the top? Jill

Longer articles can support more images. In the Madonna article, the images are numerous but widely spaced. I don't see an aesthetic problem with it. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you want to see the counterexample - Tiger Temple has "only" six photos, but needs much more text to make the article look less crowded. andy 20:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On pages where we are blessed with too many pictures, the excess pictures should be put on the talk page in a queue until the text is expanded to allow for them all. Someone pioneered this neat idea at one the Bryce Canyon pages. Pcb21| Pete 22:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have implemented this for Tiger Temple. I would like to add it as a policy. Does anyone have any comments or objections before I do so? — Chameleon My page/My talk 12:13, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Nude Pictures

Is there a policy? I think as long as they are not porn pictures we should be able to post them

It has pretty much been decided that clinical-esque photos (such as those on penis and clitoris) are just at the edge of what is acceptable. →Raul654 03:15, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Eh? Decided where? Don't remember that at all. I don't think we have really visited the question at all. I think that the question would merely be of showing that there is a reasonable rationale for the image, and that it is suitable for the subject of the article. For example images of porn have been posted in articles, but mostly only from "classical" era or previous. This question has yet to be seriously tested. -- Cimon

I think each picture would have to be discussed on its own merits, probably on the talk page of the article the image is added to. What are you proposing? Everybody will have their own boundaries of taste. For example, I'd readily accept a black and white nude photograph taken by a respected photographer if it was indicative of his work and we had permission to use it. However, I don't see that a picture of full, penetrative, amateur sex is going to add much to pornography. --bodnotbod 15:25, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

We allow people to link all sort of pov links both pro and con to certain people and topics why can we not allow people to post extral links to nude pix?

We do accept images of people without clothes -- Penny Rimbaud hasn't offended anyone for months. --Zigger 14:35, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)

I would say that Penny Rimbaud is an example of appropriate use. From what I can tell, that photo is actually not unrepresentative of who he is and what he's about.

In contrast, I refer you to the history of Reese Witherspoon, where there are over a dozen attempts by (I believe) one user to link a nude screen cap of Reese in the one movie I know of where she actually did nudity. There are also over a dozen reverts by 7 or 8 different users. Did she do a nude scene? Yes. Is the image representative of her work? No.

The poster's rationale was "The human body is beautiful" as far as I can tell. (Now his rationale is probably "let's see how many times I can post this and annoy people" but that's a different question.) He's not contending that it's representative of her work or personality, just that it's a cute picture.

Would you argue that this is an acceptable place to put a nude photo? - Kenwarren 20:48, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

yes i think any picture of a nude person is acceptable place on wikipedia look at some of the articles we already have why not allow nude pix. How do we know it a he? I think it is representative of her personality I am sure Reese is probably naked everyday like most people are naked everyday.

I would say that including a link to that photo isn't really right, as it's nowhere near representative of her work. That said, images of a porn starlet should probably be hidden behind links, but available, as reflective of her work. Also, unlike Bodnotbod, I think pornography would be more NPOV with a better external links section and perhaps a few examples--again, hidden behind links. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just don't see what the big deal of including nude pictures along as the person knew they were being taken of them and they are not pornographic. It doese not have to be the main picture or the only pix but really it is only the human body people also why do people automatically associate porn pictures with nudity?

Many people would be suprised and even offended to see nudity in articles unrelated to nudity. Why offend them just because we don't think it's a big deal? It's part of the Neutral Point of View -- we present the facts relating to an issue in a neutral way, without trying to win people over to any opinions we hold ourselves. It would be kind of like putting pictures of bacon in articles about Israel; to me, "it's just bacon", but to many people interested in Israel it would seem like an insult. It wouldn't add anything to the article and is likely to make people question the neutrality of the 'pedia. Lunkwill 18:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is a good point about the bacon but So why do we allow links to pages that are "anti that person" that might offended a reader as well

I'm not proposing this is the right approach, but if the article is about bacon a picture of bacon is appropriate, so surely if an article were on a specific subject relating to porn then a picture of the subject could be portrayed, provided of copurse it were not illegal. There seems some logic in this and to suggest otherwise would surely be POV? In fact I cannot think of a reason that is not POV in some way. In interests of decency we may not wish to porray it in a similar fashion that a picture of "vomit" under an article of the same name name (I have not checked) but even this is POV. Hence, for better or worse, Biocrawler cannot ever be 100% NPOV in its approach. Just an intersting, if not useful, point :) Dainamo 22:46, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with this. In fact, since the image is marginally relevant in that case, I've left the link our anonymous editor added to the Twilight article. - Kenwarren 14:03, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Should we ban JPEG images?

Those who want to ban MP3 sound (Biocrawler talk:Sound) from wikipedia might be interested in the Forgent patent affecting JPEG images which is in today's news. [2] (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,53981,00.html) So far Sony has signed a license and an unnamed other company has paid US$15 million for one. After moving to ban the world's music format, should the world's photo format should be next? Japan and the US are the major countries which allow these patents. Should we instead refuse to deliver MP3 and JPEG content to viewers in Japan, to pressure users there to get their laws changed? That's the approach copyleft takes: make a large set of resources available, but only let you use them if you agree to the terms, so applying pressure to change your license. Jamesday 01:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I doubt the volume of users in Japan is enough to result in a law change. I would also hold off until a case goes to court and we have a finding - there is a lot of discussion about whether their patent can be enforced. --inks 02:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Japanese use is pretty high. US use is even higher (the US is the other country with software patents). However, I don't think we should ban any world standard format until there's a nearly universally used replacement. Jamesday 19:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The MP3 format is different, there is no JPEG alternative that i am aware of, this roally suchs though and i hope for a free image formats soon. -- var Arnfjr Bjarmason (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:%c6var_Arnfj%f6r%f0_Bjarmason&action=edit&section=new) 03:35, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Yes, the case is different. However, PNGs can be used for the same content as JPEGs, and are lossless. It's just a pity they result in larger file sizes. — Chameleon My page/My talk 03:57, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PNG's are not comparable, they're a lossless compression format. -- var Arnfjr Bjarmason (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:%c6var_Arnfj%f6r%f0_Bjarmason&action=edit&section=new) 04:56, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

PNGs are a replacement for GIFs, as they are truecolour and lossless. There is no widespread alternative for JPEG. Anrion 08:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is it about PNGs (or any other image file type, for that matter?) that makes them not an alternative for JPEGs? Lucky Wizard 02:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm putting it in very crude terms but JPEGs are based on "lossy" algorithms whose main intent are to represent the gradual shifts in color of a photo-realistic image. We don't care about the exact color of a specific pixel, we care that the whole photo be represent relatively correctly in a compressed manner. PNGs and GIFs on the other hand are exact -- each pixel must have a definite unalterable value. The bottom line in this is that PNGs and GIFs are efficient in representing images with a relatively small number of colors and definite borders between the colors. JPGs are efficient in representing photos with thousands and millions of gradual-shifting colors, but "flat" areas turn out crappy. Aris Katsaris 19:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

umm, this was not today's news - the article is from July 19, 2002. and if you read it up to the end you'll notice that the patent in question expires in 2006. regards, High on a tree 01:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Forgent has a legal leg to stand on; I don't think their claims to the JPEG patent would hold up in a serious court case. Forgent is just a case of slime abusing the legal system. Samboy 01:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do think that a fully open-source alternative to JPEGs should be found however. JPEGs are old, and their compression could be improved on. PNGs are not supposed to be replacements for JPEGs, but they can replace them for certain images. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 20:06, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Is this photo fair use or public domain?

Hi, I'm want to use ofthis picture (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?cdn:3:./temp/~ammem_3kw8::@@@mdb=manz,eaa,aap,aaeo,rbaapcbib,aasm,ftvbib,aaodyssey,hh,gottscho,mharendt,bbpix,bbcards,spaldingbib,magbell,berl,lbcoll,rbpebib,calbkbib,tccc,lhbcbbib,cdn,cic,cwband,cwnyhs,gmd,mreynoldsbib,mtaft,cwar,cola,consrvbib,bdsbib,coolbib,coplandbib,curt,dag,musdibib,fsaall,mfd,papr,aep,fine,fmuever,dcm,cmns,flwpabib,afcreed,cowellbib,toddbib,lomaxbib,ngp,afcwwgbib,haybib,raelbib,hurston,gottlieb,mtj,alad,wpa,mal,scsm,mcc,mymhiwebib,mmorse,aipn,ncpm,ncpsbib,afcwip,fawbib,omhbib,pan,afcpearl,vv,wpapos,psbib,pin,presp,lhbprbib,qlt,ncr,relpet,mussm,dukesm,afcesnbib,mesnbib,llstbib,denn,amss,uncall,fpnas,svybib,runyon,wtc,lhbtnbib,detr,hlaw,lhbumbib,upboverbib,varstg,horyd,mgw,hawp,nawbib,suffrg,awh,awhbib,nfor,sgp,wright) on Elmer Flick's page. My question is whether it is public domain or fair use. I think it is public domain because it was created/published in 1903, but on the 'Rights and Reproductions' page, it says its fair use. It seems like the 'Rights and Reproductions' page is just a general page they use for all images from the Chicago Historical Society. Are there any exceptions to the rule of things being published before 1923 are in the public domain? What are your opinions? Thanks for your help. Mattingly23 14:28, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that 1903 means little. The image was not put on the Web in 1903, so you're looking at a copy which someone made with a scanner or camera. (Whomever made the copy) owns the copyright (on that image) which happens to be (a copy of the old photo). (several phrases identified in preceding sentence to avoid pronoun trouble) We can't see the image because you provided a temporary link to loc.gov which no longer works. From your phrasing I imply that the (copy of the old photo) was probably created by the Chicago Historical Society. But asking them to use that loc.gov image might not work, as the Library of Congress might have their own copyright on the file that you're looking at -- or someone who adjusted colors and cropped it might have the copyright. Such complications is why the LOC.gov pages often tell you to contact their staff in order to deal with copyright questions. If you own and are holding the original 1903 image then the situation is much simpler, and this is the situation which is answered by most explanations about copyright and dates. (SEWilco 04:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC))
- Here is the link to the copyright info about the pics I posted: [3] (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/bbhtml/bbres.html). It seems like they say there probably aren't any restrictions, but they don't want to guarantee it. - Mattingly23 17:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

policy on image text wrt pointers to email addresses?

What's the policy on images like Image:GlockenspielSousaphone.jpg where the photographer has provided a sample of a photo for use in the Biocrawler, and also provides the email address where other photos potentially can be acquired by private arrangements with the photographer? Isn't this a form of an advertisement?

Hmm, interesting question. Since the "ad" is on the image page itself, I'd say "No." But it is a form of advertising when/if the user clicks through to the full-size image. Looking at the text on the image page, it looks rather benign and harmless. I'd say it's fine, but I don't know if we want to encourage professional photographers to license us photos just to get more business. Actually, I guess it might be a Good Thing. This 'pedia desperately lacks good illustrations. Anyone else?

Also, next time sign your post. Do this with 3 or 4 tildes ~~~ or ~~~~. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:15, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Hey, free images, right? As long as it's GFDL, this is no worse than by-attribution licences, of which we use plenty. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:27, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

[edit]

The Thumbnailing craze

To me, the 300 pixel size was a good idea for photos that seems to have gone by the board. It is an ideal size to add visual impact to an article, without overwhelming browsers or slow connections.

The glory of Biocrawler, I thought, was that, as a non