Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

User page images

Is it acceptable to upload an image purely for use in one's own user page, perhaps even covered under copyright? At Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images it says, "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace; User pages are OK. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images." I'm not clear if that means such images are acceptable or not.

If they are acceptable might I recommend a slight rewording of that section; "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images. Using such images on user pages is okay."

nagualdesign 02:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You are free to include freely-licensed images on your userpage, including those of your friends and family. The restrict on images on user pages is that you are not allowed to use non-free images (those that do not have a free license). --MASEM (t) 02:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. Regards, nagualdesign 02:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:IMGSIZE

Does the WP:IMGSIZE guidance against px apply only to thumbnails, or to both thumb and non-thumb images? The software recognizes and respects the |upright= parameter without |thumb, although it appears you have to add |frameless as well. I can't think of a reason why non-thumb images should be exempt from the user pref for image size. But the doc at IMGSIZE seems to put almost everything into a |thumb context. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure it is only meant to caution using it on thumbs. Non-thumbs are used frequently in infoboxes (size set by infobox parameters), in imageframes or other gridded presentations, and the like. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my feeling is that the non-thumbs are more varied in their usage and that therefore it makes less sense to try to prescribe how to use them here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

We already say "Except with very good reason, do not use px...". Even if half of non-thumb cases have such a "very good reason", they would still be provided for. I'm here because my conversion of a non-thumb to use |upright= is disputed partly because it's a non-thumb, and there is not even an attempt at a "very good reason". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Re Masem's comments, "upright" scaling works fine in infoboxes, and the last paragraph of IMGSIZE mentions two different ways of doing it. (The latter method is semi-deprecated in that it adds the article to a tracking cat, but not all infobox templates support the newer method yet. That's a separate issue, the relevant point here is that infobox images are one example of non-thumbs that can make good use of scaling.) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I still read the IMGSIZE text as only to avoid the combination of "thumb" and "px", instead preferring to use "thumb" and "upright" if that is needed, as to respect the user's preferred thumb size. When the image used is not presented as a thumb, then there's no requirement to use or avoid "upright", and in fact, unless you include "frameless", "upright" has no effect, if I read the details and my sandbox tests are correct. "px" is perfectly fine to use on bare images as long as it is a "sane" value (eg still around 300-500px, but not 2000px). --MASEM (t) 00:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not asking what the guidance currently says; I'm questioning whether it serves the project to say it like that. I've yet to see an explanation of why px is perfectly fine for non-thumbs in general. For many of them, the reasons for scaling apply every bit as much as to thumbs; from a reader's perspective they are no different from thumbs. For the rest, we have the "very good reason" clause. As I said, I'm getting resistance partly because it's a non-thumb, and without any "very good reason" rationale; how does that benefit the project? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't use px sizes on thumbs because that would defeat the user's thumb size preference. For non-thumbs there is no user preference, so I don't think it makes sense to avoid using px sizes for non-thumbs. (We should also avoid px sizes because px is not a good unit for measuring image size, but that's a different issue.) Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: Self-quote: "The software recognizes and respects the |upright= parameter without |thumb, although it appears you have to add |frameless as well." This is an indisputable fact; try it yourself if you like. That being the case, what is meant by For non-thumbs there is no user preference? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. The only image size preferences I can find are "Image size limit" and "Thumbnail size". Which preference are you talking about? Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying the "Thumbnail size" preference (and any |upright= scaling) is applied to |frameless non-thumbs as well, when they omit px, as verified by experimentation, and the label there is simply incorrect. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand now, thanks. It looks like the software treats "frameless" and "thumb" the same as far as scaling. I would say that "px" should not be used on any image that is subject to the mis-named "thumbnail size" preference. So that would include thumbnails and frameless. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That's what I found on testing. However, if you include neither thumb or frameless, upright does nothing. And there are valid uses of images that do not use either thumb or frameless. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That's still not quite right, Kendall. Many non-thumbs that should be made scalable don't already have |frameless; you just have to add |frameless to make them scalable. My current example is here; see page history beginning yesterday. I think one well-worded sentence near the end of IMGSIZE could clarify that |upright= is not only for thumbs.
I now see that this is all supported in the references to |frameless at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax; it's just a matter of getting IMGSIZE into closer harmony with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no requirement that non-thumbs have to be scalable - as I said above, using things like image frames or trying to present gridded imgaes, px is far more appropriate to use than upright. Yes, when possible, they should be, but we have no requirement at all for this. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Jeebus H. Crispy, I have never suggested that there is or should be a "requirement that non-thumbs have to be scalable". I have said that IMGSIZE currently gives the false impression that |upright= is only for thumbs, resulting in resistance to the addition of scalability to non-thumbs where it is warranted and appropriate. Is this really that difficult to grasp? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. It is difficult to discover what's going on here, especially since some of our documentation seems to be wrong. You had the universe divided in to thumb and non-thumb images, and that's not accurate. You had to resort to experimentation and I think that's evidence that this is not an easy subject. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

In this day and age, we need to deprecate use of px units more strongly. Using them does not make sense in an era when one minute I'm using a vertical 5.3 inch, 800 × 1280 px mobile display and the next I'm using a 38 inch, 3840 × 1600 px ultra-wide destop monitor. I don't want to see Chicklet-sized images on my big monitor, nor have trivial images fill my entire mobile screen when I'm using the desktop version of the site (as is often necessary for editors rather than just-readers).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

100% agree. EEng 18:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to deprecate px more strongly than we already do at IMGSIZE. That is, short of identifying and enumerating all of the "very good reasons", which is almost never done in Wikipedia guidance. Otherwise, I share your general sentiment. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I have made this clarifying edit. This is fully supported by Wikipedia:Extended image syntax and, had I known what it said, I wouldn't have started this discussion. Sorry for wasting people's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It could bear further improvement, as much of it applies a thumbnail context to things that also apply to non-thumb cases. But that's a major re-write of the scale we had not too long ago, and that's more than I care to take on at the moment. This is a clear improvement, and that's good enough for me, for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We forgive you. We all make mistakes. EEng 18:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Policy/guideline on cheap filters

I couldn't find an "official" guideline on avoiding cheap filters.

Wikipedia:How to improve image quality mentions to "Make sure the colours look natural" but the page clearly mentions that is a "how-to guide" and not an official guideline. commons:Commons:Image guidelines also mentions natural colors but again it is just a guide on what constitutes a quality/featured picture at commons, not a guideline of what should be included in a Wikipedia article.

I'm talking about completely unnatural looking pictures such as commons:Special:ListFiles/Benjade, most of these pictures were posted to the relevant Wikipedia articles and I think these filtered images are of little encyclopedic value. I would like to mention to fr:User_talk:Benjade that real (not purposefully altered) colors are much more valuable, but I don't have a guideline to go by.

--Trougnouf (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Case sensitiveness regarding file names

This page says: "Note that names are case sensitive, 'Africa.PNG' is considered different from 'Africa.png'". Does that only apply to the file name extension or to the file name as well?

Thanks,

Jan Hoellwarth (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the same as for article titles. Every character after the first in the file name is case sensitive, regardless of whether it is in the first part or the extension. The first character is not case sensitive. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I will try to make the text clearer.

Jan Hoellwarth (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Special characters

I'm looking for thorough information on the topic "special characters" to link on this page, but I can't find a comprehensive list on Wikipedia. Does anybody know where to find it?

Thanks,

Jan Hoellwarth (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)