View source for Wiki143 talk:Manual of Style/Images

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(300d)
| archive             = Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 11
| maxarchivesize      = 850K
| archiveheader       = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 5
}}
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}
{{Wikipedia Help Project|class=NA||importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Images and Media}}
}}
{{Archives}}

== "horrifying" ==

A recent edit changed {{tqb|[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored|Wikipedia is not censored]]: its mission is to present information, including information which some may find offensive. However, a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers<ref group=nb name=typical />—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.}} to now read "vulgar, horrifying, or obscence". I'm skeptical that there is a consensus for this, primilarily because with the rise of "[[trigger warning]] culture", anything that might offend or shock anyone for any reason could be PoV-pushingly mischaracterized as "horrifying" and be subject to editwarring to remove it, even if it would not be of concern to most readers. Medical articles in particular are already subject to frequent attempts to censor images from them of injury types and disease results, and I can certainly see such a broad concept as "horrifying" also being abused to censor material on sexuality; religious ideas like depictions of Hell; historical material on wars and weapons, medieval torture, etc; blood sports; the entire subject area of the horror genre; among others. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 02:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC) 
:Hmm, I'm inclined to see how it plays out, registering that there is no established consensus for the change. I don't really edit this sort of stuff, but I think there is a case for boxes or whatever with a "show" button. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 02:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
::'a case for boxes or whatever with a "show" button' is something very few editors would support, so using that as a rationale for why to keep this change seems rather dubious. Is there something about it, on it's own merits, or is it just because it aligns with a "show box" scenario that isn't likely to ever happen? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 08:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I agree with the addition, but I think most of the potential objections to images you mention could already occur under the banners of vulgar and obscene (and as you note, attempts to censor images already occur). [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 02:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Horrifying by what criteria? Without some objective criteria it is just another excuse for virtue signaling time sink PoV pushing. &middot; &middot; &middot; [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 07:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) 
:On the Main Page we have seen removal of perfectly relevant and encyclopaedic images that were deemed offensive, usually of medical conditions or torture. I am worried that images of lynchings or victims of war crimes will be under threat. Even though they can trigger a strong emotional response, they are indispensable to make the point. I would support removing "horrifying". —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 08:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk|group=nb}}

== RFC: Which cover image should be used in the infobox of ''[[And Then There Were None]]''? ==
This issue is again up for discussion at [[Talk:And_Then_There_Were_None#Deciding_which_cover_should_be_displayed_in_the_infobox]]. Please visit and offer your opinion. External views would be most helpful in attempting to reach a consensus on this long-term contentious issue. [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 17:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
==Mountain face guidance for lead images ==
[[File:Tamanos_Mountain.jpg|thumb |north face from Sunrise ridge ]] [[File:Tamanos_Mountain_(14_October_2024).jpg|thumb|west face from banshee peak ]] 
The lead image guidelines generally recommend that higher quality images be used when available, but for the [[Tamanos_Mountain]] article, [[User:Ron_Clausen]] argues, {{tq|This article is my creation. The original photo is how 99 percent of people see this mountain}}. 99 percent is probably an exaggeration, and better quality images can be taken from Banshee as it is closer and higher, enabling the mountain to be displayed with less distance distortion and more context. I think that the second picture is better for a lead image. 
This is a little known mountain, not like the Matterhorn where one side is widely known.
([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 16:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

== "Seems important"? ==

{{u|Remsense}}, "seems important" is not much of a rationale. In what way exactly is the word "natural" important, and what is it adding to the reader's understanding? I would argue that it is so vague in the given context as to be virtually meaningless (and hence only confusing, as evidenced by the apparent need to add an explanatory footnote). The phrase "appropriate representations of the topic" seems more than sufficient to me. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 20:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

:I don't really follow your logic of "some editors may benefit from a sideline explaining the nuances of a word" being a problem best solved by "let's just delete the word entirely". I think "natural" is an important characterization of image choice, moreso than merely "appropriate". The reason is entirely in the lexical value of "natural" not contained by "appropriate"—I do not know how better to explain that. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 20:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Well, what does the explanatory note say? It says "For example, the natural choice for the lead image for an article about a person would be a drawing or photograph of that person, and the natural choice for the lead image for an article about an insect is a drawing or photograph of that insect." How is this not already covered by the phrase "lead images should be appropriate representations of the topic"? The "explanatory note" is just a redundant reiteration of that. It serves no purpose. In which case, its only function is to explain what "natural" does ''not'' mean - a problem better addressed by simply deleting the word. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 20:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Here's my attempt: ''natural'' has a broader, more explicitly cultural connotation. It makes it more clear that images should generally be in line with what our readership expects to see, serving to some degree to exclude images that individuals or niche groups may consider appropriate for a topic as the result of an acquired taste—an example that comes to mind is that we use ''[[The Blue Marble]]'' at the top of [[Earth]], not the photo appearing further down of the Earth taken from Mars that many may consider more appropriate—whether for good or purely personal reasons, our job isn't to astound. I hope that makes some sense. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 22:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

== Does a gallery of famous Mormons violate [[MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES]]? ==
See: [[Mormon missionary#Returned missionaries]]. [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive278#c-Sandstein-2016-02-16T08:18:00.000Z-S_Marshall-2016-02-16T01:51:00.000Z|Here is a quote]] from the closer of the RFC that established [[MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES]]: {{tqq|consensus was that this applied to other large groups or classifications of people (e.g., religions, genders) for the same reasons: selecting these people is often very contentious (such as when a famous person's ethnic origin is contested), there are no objective criteria or sources for the selection, and the selection may not be representative.}} Should the gallery be removed? [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 04:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:Accessibility nightmare for prose....sandwiches text because its over 220 pixels wide and has fixed width [[MOS:IMGSIZE]] <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 04:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Fixed. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:This does not violate NOETHNICGALLERIES because photographs match the names of individuals described as "prominent" in article prose, and they are indeed prominent individuals; while this criterion isn't fully objective, it has an objective component in at least 2 dimensions: all of the individuals are wiki-notable, and all are ''objectively in the prose''. When the image is about something covered in the prose, it obviously has at least some justification as an illustrative aid, and that is completely different from the total arbitrariness and lack of relevance of ethnic galleries. The individuals were selected to be listed in the prose also based on an objective criterion: It is verifiable that they were Mormon missionaries. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 14:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::I don't think those reasons are exceptions to NOETHNICGALLERIES. Why would it be an exception if the individuals are notable and/or also described in prose and/or stated by reliable sources to be Mormon missionaries? Comparison: imagine if [[Jews]] had a list of celebrity Jews, illustrated by a similar gallery. Clearly violates NOETHNICGALLERIES, even if the individuals are notable, described in prose, and we have [[WP:RS]] calling them Jews. The guideline simply says: {{tqq|Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members}} My reason in linking to the clarification was to point out that it applies to religions (not just ethnicities), and that the phrasing of that guideline as-written is consensus. [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 21:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Totally disagree, and I've stated the reasons already. Your celebrity Jews example is like [[List of German Americans]]. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Would the Jews example violate NOETHNICGALLERIES? [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 23:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::As long as there is a list with a relatively objective selection criterion (and not something only existing to excuse adding the images), images illustrating that list are valid illustration, just as with [[List of German Americans]]. About whether a list of celebrities should exist in the article about Jews, no. But that's not a NOETHNICGALLERIES problem. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 08:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::There's no need to "imagine" a list of famous Jewish people; [[List of Jewish Major League Baseball players#History of Jews in Major League Baseball|List of Jewish Major League Baseball players]] is a [[Wikipedia:Featured lists]] and contains a section called a [[List of Jewish Major League Baseball players#Gallery|Gallery]], which shows images of some of the people in the list.
:::I think it is important to take a narrow view of this rule.  The rule is '''not''' "if the subject involves ethnicity, then you can't add more than one photo".  If that were true, then [[List of film directors of the Dutch East Indies]] and [[List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients]] couldn't be illustrated.
:::I think the goal behind this rule is "Don't put a huge block of photos of random people in [[Dutch people]]". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm just having trouble understanding what characteristic is different between {{tqq|huge block of photos of random people in [[Dutch people]]}} (which we agree would violate the guideline) and what I'm pointing to, which is a huge block of 10 photos of random Mormons. Is it that the people are famous? I don't think that's it, just ctrl+f for "famous" in [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images/Archive_6|the RfC]], famous people also presented issues. Is it that it's in a gallery and not in the infobox? I don't think that's it either, since the guideline applies regardless. Is it that these specific Mormons went on mission, making it a less broad group than all Mormons? I don't think so because about half of Mormon guys do so which is still a lot. Is it because going on mission is more commonly mentioned in [[WP:RS]]? I don't think so because one's country of origin being the Netherlands is not meaningfully more "obscure" of a factoid. Is it because the guideline treats religion differently than ethnicity? I don't think so as I said above. Is it because the body text of the article lists some of those people? I don't think that changes anything about the gallery, I don't see any basis for "except for if the people are listed in the body of the article". I could be wrong of course, I just would like to know what people think makes the difference. Alalch suggested a few: the subjects are 1. wiki-notable 2. described in article prose 3. whether they belong in the category is sourced. But I could easily imagine a gallery that fulfills all of those, but obviously still violates NOETHNICGALLERIES. I guess here's another example: what if this same gallery were on [[Mormon]] (not [[Mormon missionary]]). Wouldn't that plainly violate NOETHNICGALLERIES? [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 00:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I realize I may coming across as [[WP:POINT]]y, so I want to clarify: I personally find NOETHNICGALLERIES to be frustrating and confusing. Normally I can grasp the letter and the spirit of most Wikipedia guidelines and confidently apply them to new situations. But for this one, I'm constantly surprised by its application. I'm genuinely asking for clarification in order to better understand the consensus, the tinge of annoyance in my tone is real but not intentional. (But of course [[WP:SATISFY|no one has to satisfy me]]). [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 04:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

== Rotating images ==

I've been thinking about the image at the top of [[Woman]] for a few years now and thinking how uncomfortable that could be.  Like:  Congratulations, you are ''the'' face of womanhood now, and the target of all the insults and harassment that result from that, including claims that she's a trans woman.  Congratulations indeed.

Back in the day, we used to suggest rotating images in the lead, but it didn't happen much because of the hassle (you have to remember to switch it to the new image) and because we started using montages and galleries to show an assortment instead of singling out any individual (pre-NOETHNICGALLERIES days).  

We can rotate automatically between images now, so I'm thinking that would be better.  You'd still have just one image at the top at a time, so it wouldn't violate NOETHNICGALLERIES.  But it wouldn't be just one person.  (It could be set for random selection, or you could do something like January=picture 1, February=picture 2, etc.)  What do you think? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:I think that's a fine idea. I don't think it should be random moment to moment, i.e. not random per view(er?), that would be confusing. But rotating every few months would be great! I think [[Woman]], [[Man]], [[Human]] could be good places to do that. I think the only real downside is the obvious one: it might take up a lot of editor volunteer hours in litigating which picture(s) will be shown. Perhaps to address that there could be something like the last RFC for Woman, except, to "get it all done at once", we'd have a bunch of options and any image that gets at least X percent support goes in the rotation? [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 03:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::I've suggested in the past at [[Talk:Woman]] that future discussions should involve criteria (e.g., should we prefer an image of a woman who is young, middle-aged, or old?) instead of specific Options A, B, C.  But if it rotated (e.g., one a month) then we could have "one of each":  the current portrait of a middle-aged-ish Asian woman, followed by a young African woman, followed by an older Latina woman, etc.
::I think I could write the template code to change it once a month.  If we only came up with six options, then they could all go in the list twice. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|Like: Congratulations, you are ''the'' face of womanhood now, and the target of all the insults and harassment that result from that}}. Is this happening? The woman in the photo is in China or Malaysia and gave permission. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 00:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::The India article used to do this all over.... was not a fan... somedays good images somedays better images somedays fa images. Some days readers will get better illustrations than other days. Just led to constant attempts to change images because today's illustration was subpar compared to the last time they saw the article. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 02:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Moxy|Moxy]], I'd love to hear more about this experience.  Was there a wide variety in quality, or was this more personal biases (e.g., [[colorism]] is a problem in India, so someone might say that the image is "worse" because it shows a darker skinned person even if there is nothing wrong with the photo, or perhaps it shows someone from a different caste, or a picture of a rural woman when you want to promote wealthy businessman as the image of the country, etc.)
:::[[Wedding dress]] has a basically unsolvable problem with people adding "just one more" wedding dress (e.g., my friend's, my favorite style, my country's traditional dress, etc.), and the quality is sometimes very poor.  But despite this, we could easily pick a handful of high-quality photos.  Surely we could do the same for India. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::{{@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]]}}...Sorry just saw ping, 
::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India/Archive_18#A_Straw_Poll_for_Rotation_of_Images When it all started 2007/08]
::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India/Archive_36#Final_image_selection_for_Nayhaan_Rahmaan_%288_images%29 an example of the endless debates about what  images to choose for the rotation 2011]
::::*an rfc took place around 2 to 3 years ago resulting in there removal ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Talk%3AIndia%2F&search=Rfc&ns0=1 cant find it]) ...but article never got back its content editors because of the time sink.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 20:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Maybe the rotations were never restored after they were removed for the October 2, 2019 TFA? Discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India/Archive_49#c-Fowler&fowler-2020-08-31T18:49:00.000Z-Prolix-2020-08-31T18:23:00.000Z here]. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 00:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Coding example - section edit to see code!}}
<!---
{{#switch: {{#expr: {{CURRENTDAYOFYEAR}} mod 8}}
|0=[[File:Flickr - dalbera - Bimbavati Devi (Manipuri) (5).jpg|thumb|upright|left|India's [[Sangeet Natak Akademi|National Academy of Performing Arts]], has recognised eight dance styles as ''classical''.  One such is [[Manipuri dance|Manipuri]] shown here.  The others are: (a) [[Bharatanatyam]]; (b) [[Kathak]]; (c) [[Kathakali]]; (d) [[Odissi]]; (e) [[Kuchipudi]]; (f) [[Sattriya]]; and (g) [[Mohiniyattam]].]]
|1=[[File:Kathak Rounds (10)2.jpg|thumb|left|upright|The [[Sangeet Natak Akademi]], India's national academy of performance arts, has recognised eight Indian dance styles to be ''classical''.  One such is [[Kathak]] shown here.  The others are: (a) [[Bharatanatyam]]; (b) [[Kathakali]]; (c) [[Sattriya]]; (d) [[Manipuri dance|Manipuri]]; (e) [[Odissi]]; (f) [[Mohiniyattam]]; and (g) [[Kuchipudi]].]]
|2=[[File:Kathakali IMG 0289 by Joseph Lazercropped.jpg|thumb|left|upright|The [[Sangeet Natak Akademi]], India's national academy of performance arts, has recognised eight Indian dance styles to be ''classical''.  One such is [[Kathakali]] shown here.  The others are: (a) [[Bharatanatyam]]; (b) [[Kathak]]; (c) [[Sattriya]]; (d) [[Manipuri dance|Manipuri]]; (e) [[Odissi]]; (f) [[Mohiniyattam]]; and (g) [[Kuchipudi]].]]
|3=[[File:Sattriya Dancer Krishnakshi Kashyap2.jpg|thumb|left|upright|The [[Sangeet Natak Akademi]], India's national academy of performance arts, has recognised eight Indian dance styles to be ''classical''.  One such is [[Sattriya]] shown here.  The others are: (a) [[Bharatanatyam]]; (b) [[Kathak]]; (c) [[Kathakali]]; (d) [[Manipuri dance|Manipuri]]; (e) [[Odissi]]; (f) [[Mohiniyattam]]; and (g) [[Kuchipudi]].]]
|4=[[File:Rekha Raju DS 2.jpg|thumb|left|upright|The [[Sangeet Natak Akademi]], India's national academy of performance arts, has recognised eight Indian dance styles to be ''classical''.  One such is [[Mohiniyattam]] shown here.  The others are: (a) [[Bharatanatyam]]; (b) [[Kathak]]; (c) [[Kathakali]]; (d) [[Manipuri dance|Manipuri]]; (e) [[Odissi]]; (f) [[Sattriya]]; and (g) [[Kuchipudi]].]]
|5=[[File:Kuchipudi Performer DS.jpg|thumb|left|upright|The [[Sangeet Natak Akademi]], India's national academy of performance arts, has recognised eight Indian dance styles to be ''classical''.  One such is [[Kuchipudi]] shown here.  The others are: (a) [[Bharatanatyam]]; (b) [[Kathak]]; (c) [[Kathakali]]; (d) [[Manipuri dance|Manipuri]]; (e) [[Odissi]]; (f) [[Sattriya]]; and (g) [[Mohiniyattam]].]]
|6=[[File:Odissi Performance DS.jpg|thumb|upright|left|The [[Sangeet Natak Akademi]], India's national academy of performance arts, has recognised eight Indian dance styles to be ''classical''.  One such is [[Odissi]] shown here.  The others are: (a) [[Bharatanatyam]]; (b) [[Kathak]]; (c) [[Kathakali]]; (d) [[Manipuri dance|Manipuri]]; (e) [[Kuchipudi]]; (f) [[Sattriya]]; and (g) [[Mohiniyattam]].]]
|7=[[File:Bharata Natyam Performance DS.jpg|thumb|left|upright|The [[Sangeet Natak Akademi]], India's national academy of performance arts, has recognised eight Indian dance styles to be ''classical''.  One such is [[Bharatanatyam]] shown here.  The others are: (a) [[Kathak]]; (b) [[Kathakali]]; (c) [[Sattriya]]; (d) [[Manipuri dance|Manipuri]]; (e) [[Odissi]]; (f) [[Mohiniyattam]]; and (g) [[Kuchipudi]].]]
}}-->
{{collapse bottom}}

::@[[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]], when she "gave permission", what do you think that really meant?  "Yes, I give permission for you to put a portrait of me, photoshopped to show me wearing a blue-gray shirt instead of the red one I actually wore, in a way that will cause idiots to post public comments about how I must be an AMAB trans woman because I happen to have a somewhat square jaw instead of a fashionable European oval"?  Because that's what's actually happening, and the closest I've personally seen to actual permission is a sentence from the photographer that is so short and so vague that it might mean nothing more than explaining what the license says. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Because that's what's actually happening}}... Please provide citations. 
:::{{tq|the closest I've personally seen to actual permission}}... Please provide citation. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 03:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Um, @[[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]], if you haven't seen the photog's statement yourself, then what is the basis for [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#c-Kolya Butternut-20241112002900-WhatamIdoing-20241029225600|your assertion]] that {{xt|The woman in the photo...gave permission}}? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnragai/50273438846/ [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 05:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::An editor asked (after posting on wiki that they intended to do this):  "Is it ok if she is used to be the portrait for the article woman?"
::::::The photog replied:  "It's ok to use the photo with credit mentioned in the article."
::::::The words in this reply that indicate that the photog asked the woman, or is speaking on behalf of the woman, are:  None.  There is nothing in that sentence that goes beyond the designated license, which is CC-BY-2.0.  There are no words about personality rights. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Is it accurate to say that there is no policy violation but you are dissatisfied yet not asking the photographer for more information? I don't understand what's happening here. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I never said there was any policy violation.  It's possible that this (and all other photos of identifiable individuals) should be tagged with [[c:Template:Personality rights]], but not tagging it does not amount to a violation of any rule that I'm aware of.
::::::::If you look back at the top of this thread, I'm proposing that we find multiple equally good photographs, and rotate them slowly, instead of having one person's face be the sole and exclusive lead image.  AFAICT your objections are that you don't remember seeing the transphobic abuse directed at this woman, and you think that the photog's statement should be interpreted as a [[model release]] instead of as a re-statement of the license terms. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Is that a yes? [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 19:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The photog is no longer active on Flickr, so I don't think we can contact him.  More to the point, we need something from ''her'', not from him. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I trust that her husband told her about this image being used, but you can still contact him and her easily, you just haven't. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 06:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{tqq|target of all the insults and harassment that result from that, including claims that she's a trans woman}} Let me attempt to clarify - {{reply to|WhatamIdoing}}, were you referring to speculation about her being trans that occurred on Wikipedia talk pages, where we have no reason to believe she has ever looked? Or have there been insults and harassment communicated to this person in such a manner that we would reasonably expect she has actually received them? I ask because in the above conversation you two are talking past each other, I see an implication that the photographer giving permission is a license to put the image through a fairly controversial image selection process. In some sense this is true, but in another sense I am sympathetic to it being allegedly distressing to the subject - hence I want to clarify if this has actually happened or if we are just referring to nasty talk page messages. Also, for this specific concern of picking over and [[transvestigating]] images of real people, shouldn't we expect that to occur more, not less, if we have to agree on a larger gallery of images to rotate through? I reiterate my original response: {{tqq|the only real downside is the obvious one: it might take up a lot of editor volunteer hours in litigating which picture(s) will be shown}} but with this added weight of the trans angle. [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::I have seen some "transvestigations" on wiki ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woman&diff=prev&oldid=1163943386 mild example]).  I have been told that they appear in various off-wiki platforms as well, and I have seen a couple of comments from other editors indicating that the on-wiki effects cluster in ways that suggest off-wiki motivations – the sort of clusters involving new editors that would prompt a {{tl|Not a ballot}} message if it were AFD.
::I think that rotating might reduce this behavior, because no one would be "the" woman.  By the time the internet outrage machine got spun up, a different image might be showing.  It would at least reduce the amount of this harassment that is directed towards a single individual.
::That said, I think that [[Woman]] isn't the most important potential use.  Instead, I think that articles about ethnic groups would get more value out of it.  For example, [[Americans]] doesn't have a single photo of a person.  I think it would be easier to pick half a dozen than to pick only one. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I can appreciate the perspective that off-wiki coordination while selecting this image is plausible. Nevertheless, I now think {{tqq|the target of all the insults and harassment that result from that}} is a ''significant'' stretch. My perspective remains that I would be somewhere between "surprised" and "shocked" to hear that this woman has read or received even a single insult.
:::Overall I do still like your proposal to be clear, it's just that I could imagine it being a huge time sink. Perhaps a trial to see how well it goes to make such a selection? The fear is that it would essentially end up like [[MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES]], with endless debate on who gets included in the gallery versus rotation. [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 22:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I have the same fear. I feel that this would be a rotating gallery and thus should be banned by NOETHNICGALLERIES. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 00:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]], if you are assuming that the mild example I linked is the worst of it, then you are mistaken.  The talk page has some [[WP:RD2]] deletions, and other things have been reverted or hatted. 
::::I don't think that a single image would count as "a rotating gallery"; the point of a gallery is that you can see multiple images right now.  This would only show one image at a time (e.g., per month). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Also, I wouldn't be surprised if she occasionally looked in.  We used to have a nude photo at the top of [[Pregnancy]], and when we slogged through a series of RFCs to move it out of the lead, her husband (the photog) found a friend who edited Wikipedia and let us know that she was reading the discussions.  It would not surprise me if this woman did the same. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::The rationale of [[MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES]] I believe would end up applying here. According to the close: {{tq|selecting these people is often very contentious (such as when a famous person's ethnic origin is contested), there are no objective criteria or sources for the selection, and the selection may not be representative.}} [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 06:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::That suggests that NOETHNICGALLERIES would ban the use of any image at all, since selecting one image "is often very contentious", "there are no objective criteria or sources for the selection" of one image over all others, and "the selection <s>may not</s> <u>cannot</u> be representative" when only one image is selected. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 14:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe you haven't read the full close. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 18:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::As it happens, I've read several of them.  But the key sentence in the first one says:
::::::::"The main reasons given for this decision are that, lacking objective criteria, it is [[Wikipedia:OR|original research]] to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people."
::::::::and I'd say:
::::::::There are no objective criteria for picking just one; if it is original research for editors to determine which several images should be featured, then it is original research for editors to determine which one image should be featured; the selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict; and that if a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people, then one is even less adequate. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You have to read between the lines. The difference is that the objective of the galleries tends to be to create a "visual representation of a large group of people" rather than just a an image that represents an example. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm concerned that "read between the lines" often means something too close to "pretend it says something it doesn't, so I can claim the outcome I prefer".  That's a tendency I try to work against in myself.
::::::::::Besides, if it's "just an image that represents an example", then having a different example every now and again is perfectly valid. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::How do you interpret the guideline against galleries such that it does not apply to single lead images (which was the intention)? [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 19:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I interpret it as prohibiting [[photomontages]] and collections of images that use the [[Help:Gallery tag|Gallery tag]] or any formatting designed to replicate the gallery tag.
::::::::::::I do not interpret it as applying to any image that is not obviously presented in combination with other images, such that it does not apply to:
::::::::::::* any single lead image
::::::::::::* any image placed by itself in the article, no matter how many other images there are in the article.
::::::::::::For example, if we pretended that [[Wedding dress]] was an ethnic group, then it would prohibit [[Wedding dress#Gallery of wedding dresses]] but no other images in the article. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::No, I'm asking how you interpret the rationale for the ban. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 20:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I don't actually care about the alleged/stated rationales.  Most editors decided they did not choose to take this approach to images in certain articles.  
::::::::::::::In my experience, the reasons given did not always fully align with the individuals' practices (one does sometimes want to sound high-minded and principled in an RFC vote, and "it's impossible for a collection of images chosen by editors to be truly neutral and verifiable" sounds so much better than "personally, I just don't like having a lot of pictures in articles, and here's another opportunity for me to discourage excess use of images"), and some of the reasons were behavioral instead of content-focused, and therefore apply equally to single images.  But none of that actually matters:  This is the rule, and until it is changed, it should usually be complied with. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Ok, so then you can't really speak to why a rotation isn't a violation of the guideline if you are not interested in interpreting the guideline. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 20:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::A rotation is not a violation of the guideline, because the guideline does not either implicitly or explicitly address changing any single image to any other single image.
::::::::::::::::Whether a change of individual images happens spontaneously or with advanced planning, and whether it happens manually or through some automated system, is not within the scope of NOETHNICGALLERIES. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I believe that the rationale for banning galleries does implicitly ban rotating images, but you would have to address the rationale in order to argue against that. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 21:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Do you believe that the rationale for banning galleries implicitly bans changing a single image to a different single image? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Yes, because a gallery of two images is still a gallery. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 23:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::No, I don't mean a <nowiki><gallery> with two images.</nowiki>
::::::::::::::::::::I mean that the wikitext currently says <code><nowiki>[[File:Example.jpg|thumb|Someone]]</nowiki></code>, and you take that out, and you replace it with <code><nowiki>[[File:Different picture.jpg|thumb|Someone else]]</nowiki></code>. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::What are you getting at? [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 00:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::Intending to permanently replace a lead image with another image is ok, but an ongoing rotation is not, because that is like a gallery. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 00:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::I think that WhatamIdoing is clearly getting at questioning why replacing the image periodically is okay, but planning that out ahead of time (e.g. like DYK on the main page) is not. [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 07:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
[[Special:Diff/1254259710|This comment]]: {{tq|we could have "one of each": the current portrait of a middle-aged-ish Asian woman, followed by a young African woman, followed by an older Latina woman, etc.}} is precisely what NOETHNICGALLERIES is intended to stop, this attempt at representation. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 10:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

:Do you think that "Eh, I'm tired of a middle-aged Asian woman, so let's switch it to a young African woman" is okay?
:And if so, then why is it not okay to plan that out in advance? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
::No! [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 20:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Why is it not okay in principle to change the image from a middle-aged Asian woman to a young African woman? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
::::It's your turn to answer questions and provide rationale for your proposed change. You have to show why it would be an improvement to make a change. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 20:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't think I agree with that.  Editors shouldn't make an article "worse", but "improvement" isn't actually a requirement for an edit.  Some changes make the article "approximately the same" rather than "better", and such edits are not prohibited. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's your turn to answer questions and provide rationale for your proposed change. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 21:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Sure, here's my reason:  I want to have a different picture. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

== RfC on section for lead images of biographical articles ==

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 19:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1734289269}}
Should [[MOS:LEADIMAGE]] include a subsection for selecting lead images in biographical articles (if there is more than one image of the subject)? ―<span style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;">[[User:Howardcorn33|<b>Howard</b>]] • [[User talk:Howardcorn33|🌽<sup>33</sup>]]</span> 18:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:'''Yes''': Lead images for biographies have caused countless debates and discussions and RfCs about which image should be used to represent a person on their article. We need an official guide which can prevent these debates before they even begin. ―<span style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;">[[User:Howardcorn33|<b>Howard</b>]] • [[User talk:Howardcorn33|🌽<sup>33</sup>]]</span> 18:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*{{sbb}} Ok, but what will the guide entail? Has there been any discussion of this beforehand? Yes, it would be nice to have an objective Manual of Style that stops disputes from occuring in the first place, but that's never going to happen. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>[[User:CFA|<span style="background-color:#e0f7fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black"><span style=color:#00c>C</span> <span style=color:red>F</span> <span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span></span>]] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">[[User talk:CFA|💬]]</span></span> 19:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Well, it should adhere to some standards (which in my opinion) are broadly followed across biographies. Here are some points which I believe should serve as a guide to the correct option:
*:# For dead people, lead portraits should represent a person at the prime of their notability. For example, if a person was a president of a country, then the lead portrait should be an image of them while they were president.
*:# For living people, lead portraits should be the newest image we have of them in our time.
*:# Lead images of people should not be too tall or too wide, an aspect ratio of 3:4 is generally acceptable.
*:# Images of people should not be excessively manipulated to alter their physical appearance. It should be as true to reality as possible.
*:# Images should clearly show people's faces, and especially the eyes. Unless if they are famous for a mask or other headgear they wear (such as [[MF DOOM]].)
*:# Images should not feature multiple people if the article concerns a single person.
*:These are not a definitive set of points, and almost certainly need improving on, but I believe it proves that a set of guidelines is possible. ―<span style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;">[[User:Howardcorn33|<b>Howard</b>]] • [[User talk:Howardcorn33|🌽<sup>33</sup>]]</span> 20:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I think it's hard to answer the RfC as phrased, since I'm not going to support adding something unless I know what it is. I'd prefer to see an RfC for "should the following be added..." after the language has been workshopped.
*::The proposed guidance seems pretty good, though. I'd want a little more wiggle room — if we have a crappy photo of someone from three months ago and a professional photo from six months ago, we clearly should prefer the less-recent one. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF;text-decoration:inherit;font:1em Lucida Sans">Sdkb</span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 00:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*::{{tq|For living people, lead portraits should be the newest image we have of them in our time.}} Should they? [[User:Graham11|Graham]] ([[User talk:Graham11|talk]]) 02:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Perhaps soften some of the ''should''{{'s}} to something more like ''preferred''.  More often than not, the available images are limited e.g. the newest one might not be the best view of their face, the one with the best view of their face is dated, etc. —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 04:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::Saying which choices are "the most popular" is often a good way to avoid that problem.  You don't have to tell people that they must/should/prefer anything.  Just say that ____ is the most popular choice, and let people decide for themselves.  Under most circumstances, they'll follow the popular choice. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I don't at all see why "lead portraits should represent a person at the prime of their notability" should only apply to dead people. A one-hit-wonder from the 1960s should probably have a photo from then in the lead, & any recent one of the wrinkled current nonentity lower down.  Athletes etc likewise. This is generally how the press treat the dilemma. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 04:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::With US athletes, they're often still in the public view, so a recent image allows readers to be able to identify them now.  For NBA players, that's the WikiProject guidance at [[WP:NBAIMAGE]]. —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 04:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::No, they just aren't! Only a very, very small number of those who retired 30+ years ago & have done nothing notable since. And we have THOUSANDS of sports bios with no pics at all. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 04:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I'd treat it on a per-case basis.  The ones that are in broadcasting, go to signings or trade shows, have a social media channel, etc. or are otherwise still in the public view makes sense to have a current image, if available and suitable.  Otherwise, don't use a current but astonishing photo. —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 06:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::Wrt Johnbod's comment, I'm convinced that editors will frequently disagree over what "the" prime period of notability was. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::All the more reason to provide guidance, but the devil is in the details to agree on the general criteria.  Barring that, I'd suggest starting an essay with a convenient [[WP:SHORTCUT]] or two, and see if that gains traction. —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 07:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:Images showing the subject in a more recognizable context should be preferred. [[User:Senorangel|Senorangel]] ([[User talk:Senorangel|talk]]) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' we do not need more [[instruction creep]]. This recent RfC on the <span class="plainlinks">[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_20#RfC:_Infobox_image lead image for Elon Musk]</span> clearly demonstrates that, {{tq|lead portraits should be the newest image we have of them in our time}}, is not always the best practice, in fact, the oldest image was chosen for his infobox. And this pic of [[John Lennon]] doesn't "clearly show his eyes", nor does it show him at the "prime of his notability". We don't need this proposed sub-section added to MOS:LEADIMAGE.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 06:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I believe the RfC demonstrates the opposite.  We're reinventing the wheel too often, instead of capturing the best practices on image selection.  There is no one size fits all (e.g. alwasy use the most recent), but we can list some key preferences, and leave the rest to "common sense" and talk discussions, as needed. it seems editors forgot that age doesn't matter as much if the subject still looks more-or-less the same, and image "quality" can outweigh the image being "non-recent". —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 06:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

*::If there ''was'' a one-size-fits-all, or even a one-size-fits-most, that would be an easy support for an addition to the guideline. But since there's not, I'm not sure a "key preferences" list would be helpful, when different editors would assign different weight to different preferences, or where different preferences will work out differently based on the subject and available images. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 05:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::I agree with Nikkimaria.  The result of a list of "key preferences" will very often be two groups of editors insisting that their preferred image is actually required by MOS:IMAGES.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''No''', I don't think we need this, and I do think it amounts to [[WP:CREEP]].  Some of the suggested points above were given as rationales in some of the recent RFCs over lead images, and they were rejected by other editors.  We are always going to have to balance multiple qualities.  If editors decide that they'd rather have a color photo of an older man than a black-and-white one from "prime notability", then that's okay.  If they decide that a good oil painting is better than a [[Tintype]] from the late 19th century, then that's okay.  In fact, if I were going to write something, it would be in the negative:  "No, Wikipedia does not have a rule preferring photos over paintings.  No, Wikipedia does not have a rule preferring color pictures over black-and-white ones.  No, Wikipedia does not have a rule preferring images from the time of greatest notoriety over images from later in life."  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' I understand why this RFC came to be, but I'm not sure how it work in process. The community will just have to deal with these discussions as they come and discourage editors who raise a ton of them. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 19:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

== Clarification ==

Hi. Just a quick question, coming from [[Special:Diff/1258741176|this]]. In the size section's penultimate bullet point, it states "''But <code>upright</code> <u>alone</u>, with no {{nobr|1=<code>={{var|scaling factor}}</code>}} (e.g. {{nobr|<code><nowiki>[[File:Dog.jpg|thumb|upright|A big dog]]</nowiki></code>)}} is equivalent to <code>upright=0.75</code>; this usage is confusing and therefore deprecated''"; which usage is deprecated, the bare <code>upright</code> or the <code>upright=0.75</code>? [[User:Snowstormfigorion|Snowstormfigorion]] ([[User talk:Snowstormfigorion|talk]]) 11:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

:Why would {{para|upright|0.75}} be confusing? Meanwhile, a clear reason is given why merely {{code|{{!}}upright}} would be confusing—i.e. potential conflation in results with {{para|upright|1}}. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 11:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

== Interpretation of LEADIMAGE and SECTIONLOC ==

Recently, {{u|Iruka13}} edited [[Andrea Brenta]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Brenta&diff=prev&oldid=1259285848 diff]) to relocated the lead image to the section "Works", where there was already an image. Both images are of early printings of his writings. Brenta died in 1484. The article is 6,806 bytes long. In my opinion, the former layout of the article is superior and is not in violation of the MOS.

In my opinion an image of writing is a {{xt|natural and appropriate representations of the topic}} when the topic is a writer and no other option exists. We are talking about someone who died in 1484. [https://www.dizionariobiograficodeifriulani.it/giustinian-leonardo/ Here] is an example of a reference work using a manuscript to illustrate a biographical article.

{{xt|An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section}}. I don't see this language as requiring images only to be placed in the most relevant article section. There are other considerations, such as the available quality images and the article or section length.

At [[Talk:Petronilla of Aragon#Lead image]] you can see different interpretations of the guidelines put forward. Two users reject an image of a charter atop a biographical article, but they cannot agree on a relevant image of the person. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 21:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
: Actually, there is a consensus on the [[Talk:Petronilla of Aragon#Lead image|above discussion]]: in an article about a person, the image of that person should be placed at the very top, and not anything else. 
: It's quite logical when a person goes to the page of a non-super famous person who died in the 11th-15th century and doesn't see what he/she looked like. 
: {{tq|Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.}} ([[MOS:LEADIMAGE]]) — Ирука<sup>[[user:Iruka13|13]]</sup> 06:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

:: Except that there was no consensus over what an "image of that person" even was. I do not deny that it is logical when a person goes to the page of a non-super famous person who died in the 11th century s/he doesn't see what the person looked like. It is ''precisely'' for that reason that it is not at all confusing to see a pertinent image of something other than that person. I am not suggesting, e.g., that we decorate the pages of modern NFL athletes of whom we have no photographs with team logos. I am saying that there is in fact "easy representation of the topic" for historical biographies other than images of the person ''in at least some cases''. Not all, though. I just moved an image down at [[Clementia of Catanzaro]] because its relation to her is non-obvious and there was room to do so. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 01:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::: I guess I need to ping {{u|Beyond My Ken}} and {{u|Surtsicna}} (sorry for that). — Ирука<sup>[[user:Iruka13|13]]</sup> 11:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I am quite strongly opposed to lead images illustrating anything but the subject of the article. MOS explicitly says: "The natural choice for the lead image for an article about a person would be a drawing or photograph of that person." Obviously we do not have images of all notable people. We should not, in lieu of natural images, put images of houses, castles, coats of arms, maps, stones (which are the things I have seen in biography infoboxes). "Not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."
<br>I admit that I do not feel as strongly about this in cases when there is no infobox, though in the given example of [[Andrea Brenta]] I still would rather see images of prints in the section rather than the lead. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 18:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:I strongly disagree with that. Articles, including [[Andrea Brenta]], should have an image at the top, using the most appropriate available. For example, medieval saints and Renaissance painters often have no authentic likenesses available, only later made-up images, and it may be better to use something the person created instead. MOS by no means rules this out. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 04:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::"Articles... should have an image at the top" is unequivocally in contradiction with MOS's "Lead images are not required". [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 07:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, they should in the great majority of cases. I see from the above that you prefer equivocal contraditions of the MOS! [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Nobody is arguing that lead images are required. The question is whether images of other than the person are ''forbidden'' as lead images in biographical articles, as some editors clearly believe. In my opinion, it makes far more sense to put one of the two images at Brenta's article at the top then to shrink them both so they fit in the right section. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 02:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:Simple: The lede image should be a picture of the person. ---- [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 02:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::Agree last thing you want is for someone thinking it's the name of a book or something because of the lead image. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 02:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The logic of this opinion is that the article [[Philippe de Mazerolles]] must have no images until it is much longer. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 02:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

== Audio visual illustrative usages ==

Noting that there does not seem to separate guidance for Audio visual works, that are commonly used for illustrative purposes, but much of this guidance would / could apply, so perhaps better to clarify that these would be in scope. For example:
* Recordings of musical performances
* Videos of the external features of a building
* Video or audio readings of primary source documents, especially poetry or literary works
Similar principles such as relevance, quality, and requirements such as accessibility and good page design, might apply, but at present this is not clear.

A short statement to that effect could be added, eg "Audio visual works that are used for illustration should also follow these guidelines. Such works would include …".

Is there a process for suggesting improvements / additions like this? [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 17:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:'''Concur''' to the need, expressed by you in your comment above {{ping|JimKillock}} [[User:AshLin|Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin)]] ([[User_talk:AshLin|talk]]) 06:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:AshLin|AshLin]] What is the process to make such a change? Is it to raise an RFC here at talk? [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 19:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:EEng|<bdi>EEng</bdi>]] @[[User:Beland|Beland]] I notice you have both recently made changes to the Images page, should I draft something here first? This is a bit opaque to me, ironically enough. [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 20:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I've posted in more detail at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Audio video guidance|MOS talk]] [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 20:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've added a sentence to explain that the advice generally applies to AV files. [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] [[User_talk:JimKillock|(talk)]] 21:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

== New section: Audio video content for illustration ==
Hi there, I am drafting this new section at [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Audio_video_guidance]]
: This work is being done by [[User:JimKillock|Jim Killock]] and the initial edits occured on 16 December 2024 (UTC)... (normally I would have used the unsigned template, but there is a series of over a dozen edits elaborating the proposed new section, which were removed to that new section. During these edits Jim deleted his own signature, leaving just the above sentence.) ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 16:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

== Legibility of thumbnails at default size ==
{{Moved discussion to|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Legibility of thumbnails at default size}}

== [[drink can|Soda can]] suggested as a familiar object reference in "Scale reference" section ==

In the [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Scale_references|Scale references]] section, one of the suggested references is "[[soda can]]".  I feel that this is not actually a good suggestion, for two reasons:  
# "soda can" is a redirect to the term "drink can". Not all geographies use the term "soda", many use "pop" instead when referring to non alcoholic carbonated beverages.
# Drink cans come in many different sizes. Although in the US, the 12 fluid ounce (355 ml) can is common, this size is not universal. Many other sizes are commercially available and in parts of Asia, the 250 ml can is much more prevalent. Even Wikipedia's own [[drink can]] article lists over a dozen different sizes, some with similar height/width proportions but different heights.  (see also this third party reference on can sizes: [https://metabrandcorp.com/beverage-can-sizes/ Meta Brand beverage can size selection guidance] )

I suggest we delete this suggested scale reference entirely. However, even if we keep the reference, it should be changed to "drink can", since "soda can" is a redirect to that term, which is more generic. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

:I don't mind removing the example of soda/drink cans. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*While we're on the subject, I've long wondered how appropriate the match-head photo is nowadays. Just as most of our readers have never seen a dial phone (or even a landline, come to think of it), I have a feeling an increasing number of readers have never seen a match. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 21:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Valid observation. Perhaps the whole set needs careful analysis? ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 15:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm not sure about this.  The WHO says that 22% of the world uses tobacco.  Probably all of them, and everyone they live with, have seen a match, even if it's just an occasional thing.  In developing countries (not to mention among past and present [[scouting]] members), I would expect matches to be universally familiar.  My thinking is that this might become true in another generation, but it's probably not true yet.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Smokers use lighters, at least in the US. Scouts rub two sticks together. Maybe  we should use cigarette lighters and sticks as size references. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Smokers usually use lighters, but not necessarily exclusively.  Scouts seem to use multiple methods.
*:::(I'm now curious how many kids have struck a match.  It requires the same fine motor skills as using a pencil, so it should be feasible for a five year old.  I can't find any sources, though.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Given the popularity of fancy candles, I'm now thinking that matches may be more common than I originally thought.  Statista says that was a US$11 billion market in 2022.  It's not evenly distributed (US first, China and Japan trailing, then everyone else), but it is sizeable.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::I removed [[soda can]] entirely, and I still think the other mentioned items merit contemplation, but that one did seem the least helpful. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 16:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#BLPs|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) §&nbsp;BLPs]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#BLPs|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) §&nbsp;BLPs]].  [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 00:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->

== Poor-quality image ==

There is a lively discussion at [[Talk:January 2025 Southern California wildfires#Poor-quality image]] regarding removal of a poor-quality image (just my opinion though).  Your input would be appreciated! --[[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 16:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

== Proposal to change the text of [[MOS:CALLIGRAPHY]] ==

[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a proposal to change the text of [[MOS:CALLIGRAPHY]] at:

[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Proposal: clarify "user-generated" in MOS:CALLIGRAPHY]]

Editors are kindly invited to participate in the discussion there. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;[[User:Apaugasma|<span style="color:#6a0dad">Apaugasma</span>]] ([[User talk:Apaugasma|<span style="color:#000">talk</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Apaugasma|☉]])</span> 20:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

== Fake rules ==

I've seen three personal preferences passed off as rules, usually in the context of a lead/infobox image:

* Photos are always best.
* Color images are always best.
* Images from the time period when the person was most notable are always best.

Especially for people who lived in the 19th century, we may have photos only from the end of the person's life.   The "pro-photos" crowd claims that a low-resolution black-and-white photo of a frail elderly man is the best way to represent a man once known for his vigorous activity, because it's a photo!  But the "pro-color" crowd rejects this, because an oil painting from his younger years is in color, and color is best!  And the "pro-timeliness" folks reject both of those, arguing for a sketch published in the newspaper on the day of a key event in his life, because the time period is the most important!

None of these are actual rules, but enthusiastic proponents sometimes stray into presenting them as such.  Is it time to explicitly reject all of these, and tell editors that they have to use their best judgment and common sense? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 07:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|Is it time to explicitly reject all of these, and tell editors that they have to use their best judgment and common sense?|q=yes}}: How you you propose editors be told?  It's a timeless problem of people passing off their personal preference as an actual rule. —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 10:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::I suggest adding a paragraph to this guideline.  Maybe something like this? 
::{{xt|There is no requirement to prefer photographs over paintings, color images over black-and-white images, or images from the peak of the person's notability over recent photos.  Editors should make decisions about which image to place in the lead, which to place elsewhere in the article, and which to exclude, based on their best judgment and common sense.}} [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:I agree none of these are or should be rules, although I think the last should be the norm, though I've rarely or never seen seen it suggested quite as starkly as in your example. In many cases they conflict - 19th-century people with oils portraits from their prime and wrinkly photos in old age, or 20th-century people with young b/w or old colour photos. My personal bug-bear is bushy Victorian beards - most later 19th-century French artists had these, and are nearly indistinguishable. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

== RfC on images containing Islamic honorifics or calligraphy ==

[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is now an RfC at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#RfC on images containing Islamic honorifics or calligraphy]], offering various proposals on the text of [[MOS:CALLIGRAPHY]]. Editors are kindly invited to comment there.
<span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;[[User:Apaugasma|<span style="color:#6a0dad">Apaugasma</span>]] ([[User talk:Apaugasma|<span style="color:#000">talk</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Apaugasma|☉]])</span> 11:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

== Portrait direction ==

I've read once that images of people in infoboxes should have the face look at the text (left) but I can't seem to find it anymore. Could anybody help direct me to it? ―<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">[[User:Panamitsu|Panamitsu]]</span> [[User_talk:Panamitsu|(talk)]] 01:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:We generally have this advice [[MOS:PORTRAIT]].... but I do remember we said something of this nature about the infobox.. if I'm not mistaken it was removed or moved because of odd conflicts like at [[Christopher Columbus]]. If I remember correctly it was determined that the most prominent/recognizable image should be used when possible regardless of which way it's facing. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 01:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

== Dispute over images in some name articles ==

Can some people please give their input at [[User talk:Bookworm857158367#Edit warring 2]] about whether the second image [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khaleesi_(given_name)&oldid=1278099284 here] and the image [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minou_(given_name)&oldid=1278124388 here] meet the requirements of this MOS and thus are better included or removed from those pages? Thank you! [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 17:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:The general guideline I have followed regarding inclusion of images in name articles is that they have something to do with either the meaning of the name or are mentioned in the article itself. If a source has mentioned that a particular person or character influenced usage of the name, it seems appropriate to include a picture or image of the individual. Otherwise, an image that relates to the meaning of the name seems appropriate, with a caption explaining how the image relates to the name. The particular disagreement in this instance is over the inclusion of a painting of a girl holding a kitten in the article Minou (given name). One of the meanings of the name is "cat." In the article [[Khaleesi (given name)]], Fram has disputed including a picture of a cat in Wikimedia Commons that was labeled "A cat named Khaleesi." The article also mentions that the name has been a popular one for pets, which the image illustrates. There are other articles that also include similar images -- Hazel (given name) has a painting of two girls picking hazel nuts, for instance. None of these images are purely decorative; all relate to the meaning or usage of the name. It should also be pointed out that people are more likely to read articles that have some sort of illustration. That's Communications 101 and it also applies to an online dictionary. [[User:Bookworm857158367|Bookworm857158367]] ([[User talk:Bookworm857158367|talk]]) 17:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

== Images in a "notable people" section ==

Should a photo in a "notable people" section be a casual photo, or a photo of the person "in costume"?  Your input at [[Talk:List of Virginia Commonwealth University alumni#Inclusion of poor-quality image]] would be appreciated. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 17:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

== Images of gods ==

I have an unusual dispute. It is not the first time someone adds images of gods or demons or spirits  by a modern nonnotable artist to wikipedia articles. Recent example is Slavic gods, such as [[Dazhbog]] which has an image "Dazhbog by Andrey Shishkin". Of course, if an article has an image of an ancient idol, then it is an illustration how our ancestors imagined this god. If it is a painting by a famous painter, it is also a valid illustration of a notabkle work of art. But I do not think that '''an unknown artist''' has a right to tell Wikipedia users how this god is supposed to look like.  Especially [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Andrey+Shishkin%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org in large quantities], which smells like an undue promotion a nonnotable guy via Wikipedia.

Here is my previous discussion with {{user|Wojsław Brożyna}} moved from user page:

YOu wrote: " Even if the painter is not recognisable enough to have his own biography on Wikipedia, his painting is still valuable" - In English Wikpedia we do not add information because it is "valuable": we add only information which is verifiable, i.e., coming from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. There is no evidence that the painter of unknown ethhographic/hiscotrical expertise draw the image of a pagan god the way as our ancestors imagined it.  --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 15:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
:Why did you assume that it even pretended to represent "the way as our ancestors imagined it"? Do you have confirmation of that for the other, recognisable artist? And how such an argument can be valid in case of fakelore, which wasn't imagined by our ancestors at all? This is not a proper argument against those works. --[[User:Wojsław Brożyna|Wojsław Brożyna]] ([[User talk:Wojsław Brożyna|talk]]) 18:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
::I do not have to have any confirmation because I do not add information. And in the case of fakelore it makes no sene to add any images a all, because how you draw image of something that did not really exist, nor imagined by our ancestors. Once again: per our wikipedia rules, all information must come from '''reliable sources'''. An unknown painter is not a reliable source.   --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 21:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Please voice your opinion.  --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 21:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:At first, you have misunderstood en.wiki encyclopedity with recognisability. This artist haven't meet the requirements to have his own biography on the en.wiki, but '''it doesn't mean that he is unknown'''. Second question is that no artist has a right to tell Wikipedia users how this god is supposed to look like - it is every time only an artist imagination. There were famous painters, whose works are used on Wikipedia articles, who have literally zero historical/mythological knowledge - a countless examples of great minds from the era of romanticism, who just unleashed their creativity and/or based on early works on ancient religions, that aren't treated as reliable anymore. Any artist expression of mythological motifs which is technically good (and works of Andrey Shishkin are like that) can serve as an illustration in encyclopedia, because it is supposed to tell Wikipedia users how those motifs '''are imagined in art''' - that's all. And especially in case where we haven't any other paints of a deity, erasing images of a painter just because he doesn't have a bio on en.wiki is not constructive. [[User:Wojsław Brożyna|Wojsław Brożyna]] ([[User talk:Wojsław Brożyna|talk]]) 18:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry, disagreed. In your words, I can draw some random picture and upload it as an image of an "imagined god" - which would be plain ridiculous. {{tq|it doesn't mean that he is unknown"}} I did write that artist is unknown, but later I clarified: {{tq|of unknown ethhographic/historical expertise}}. Therefore we cannot verify that this artist's drawing faithfully represent the description of the god in question.  --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 20:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
:::So how did you know the ethnographic/historical expertise of authors of images included in, for example, [[Radegast (god)]] article? Or in [[Leshy]]? Those are only examples related to the Slavic mythology; there are plenty of examples of images, that are not accurate from the current state of knowledge. So why we still keep them in the articles? [[User:Wojsław Brożyna|Wojsław Brożyna]] ([[User talk:Wojsław Brożyna|talk]]) 13:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
::::These are pictures made by famous people and have an independent historical value.  --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 16:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::So let's be consequent. Either the fame of person matters or their knowledge? Andrey Shishkin is known person. [[User:Wojsław Brożyna|Wojsław Brożyna]] ([[User talk:Wojsław Brożyna|talk]]) 18:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:[[File:Orisha Oxun.jpg|thumb]]
:'''Agreed 100% with Altenmann'''. For similar discussions with much more extreme examples see [[Talk:Oshun#Lead image]] and [[Special:PermanentLink/1160854150#Your "fashion editorial" and DeviantArt-style AI-generated images of African mythological beings]] (involves also the topic of AI-generated images too; see [[:c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MiddleOfAfrica]]) —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 17:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
::(The second discussion includes the following notable quotes: {{tqq|what about these fashion editorial depictions of African deities makes you feel as though they are not good illustrations?}} and {{tqq| What you did and are doing will be judged in the spirit world }})—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 17:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
*Agreed, and have removed of these specific ones (along with some often worse examples on the same articles). Have done the same with self-made art and AI art on articles about creatures of myth or cryptoids as well in the past. We wouldn't include one man's description of any of these without good sources or without any indication that their view was in some way influential, so why would we include someone's depiction, no matter how well executed? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 17:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
*:The uploader of these images is clearly not interested in getting consensus and prefers to edit war to include the images... [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devana&action=history], they are busy reinserting all her uploads [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 18:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
*::Are you serious? You have started edit war before we got any consensus here. Actually now I came here to ping you, suprisingly discovering that you have already been there, but you started do erasing those pictures before we agreed to any conclusion. [[User:Wojsław Brożyna|Wojsław Brożyna]] ([[User talk:Wojsław Brożyna|talk]]) 18:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::You have had warnings about this practice since 2018, you had here two other people already disagreeing with you, and at the link I gave, you had already reverted the removal of your uploads on 6 March and on 10 March, so it's hardly correct to claim that ''I'' started the edit war. We don't need ''your'' agreement. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 18:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
*::::About which practice? The problem of those images emerged in this year. Sorry but you are breaking the rules of discussion here. [[User:Wojsław Brożyna|Wojsław Brożyna]] ([[User talk:Wojsław Brożyna|talk]]) 11:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
*Why should we indulge one person's fantasy? What encyclopedic value is conveyed by how that one person imagines this? At least with older, published images, we reproduce images which have ''already'' been presented to a wide audience through some publication and indicate how publications imagined the entity. But we reproduce such published things, we aren't the place to start them. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 18:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
*:Most of those illustrations, if not all, were published before. Images of Marek Hapoń, whose work you also deleted from some articles, are even used on Polish governmental education platform ([https://zpe.gov.pl/a/przeczytaj/DWFo0xCBK]) or at the cover of book written by some scholar ([https://www.swiatksiazki.pl/magiczny-swiat-slowian-7325967-ksiazka.html]). Paintins by Andrey Shishkin were used too at book's covers ([https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/63130194-the-ancient-slavic-myth]). Works of Dusan Bozic were printed in branch journal about Slavic culture and mythology ([https://ksiegarnia.pwn.pl/Gniazdo.-Rodzima-wiara-i-kultura-nr-2-21-2020,857154630,p.html]). Those are not anonymous artists, but well known creators in their niche. Their works are valuable. [[User:Wojsław Brożyna|Wojsław Brożyna]] ([[User talk:Wojsław Brożyna|talk]]) 18:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
*::As I wrote, Wikipedia policies do not operate with the concept "valuable", because it is subjective. In the past we already had discussions on a similar subject: "important" vs. "notable".  --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 18:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::So aren't they notable if they are used in such cases? [[User:Wojsław Brożyna|Wojsław Brożyna]] ([[User talk:Wojsław Brożyna|talk]]) 11:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
*::P.S. As for [[Andrey Shishkin]], you should have known better: you did participate in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrey Shishkin]], do you?  --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 19:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::Known better what? [[User:Wojsław Brożyna|Wojsław Brożyna]] ([[User talk:Wojsław Brożyna|talk]]) 11:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
*::::that wikipedians do not recognize this person as notable. --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 15:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::::But this is not about wikipedians. There are criteria about notability ([[WP:N]]). I'm sure that most of wikipedians don't know most of the persons having biography on Wikipedia and it doesn't matter if they meet those criteria. Shishkin doesn't meet '''on English Wikipedia''' (but he still have bio's in another language's Wikis), but it doesn't mean that he is unknown in general. It's just niche. [[User:Wojsław Brożyna|Wojsław Brożyna]] ([[User talk:Wojsław Brożyna|talk]]) 16:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
*I want to pay special attention to the ''fakelore'' gods. If some mythological entity is not even atested, but it's probably or even firmly invented by some scholars, artists or so, then what is a point of erasing images "of unknown historical accuracy"? They are depicting issue that is openly not histically accurate at all. I mean eg. [[Chislobog]] and [[List of Slavic pseudo-deities]]. --[[User:Wojsław Brożyna|Wojsław Brożyna]] ([[User talk:Wojsław Brożyna|talk]]) 18:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
*:The point is that all information in wikipedia must be verifiable and relevant. A figurne of [[Chislobog]] by a forger is relevant, because it directly illusrtated article text. A painting by [[Rembrandt]] is relelevant because it shows how a notable person imagined something and we have a reason to believe that Rembrandt's vision influenced the vision of many people. A painting of a god by an anthropologist is relevant if it was pblished as part of trheir scientific work to illustrate how in their opinion the god was described.  A painting of a god by some [[Random Shiskind]] is [[WP:UNDUE]]:  we either do not trust his/her opinion or dont care about it, and  do not want Wikipedia to promote Shiskind's vision all over the world by the authority of Wikipedia.  --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 15:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
*::[[File:Slavic home altar with Veles.jpg|thumb]]
*::Paintings of "Random Shishkin" are well known and recognisable. This is why I even asked him to let his illustration be included on Wikimedia: because I meet his works many times earlier. I had even took a photo of someone's home altar with Shishkin's painting. [[User:Wojsław Brożyna|Wojsław Brożyna]] ([[User talk:Wojsław Brożyna|talk]]) 16:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
*:::Shishkin, born in 1960 in Moscow, is a Russian self-taught painter of quasi-academic realist kitsch. His works have not been a subject of serious art criticism. He creates colorful, romanticized, eye-candified, depictions of historic subjects, Slavic gods and mythological figures, that appeal to popular aesthetic taste, relying on online sales through a-shishkin.ru and on commissions for calendars, postcards, and Tarot cards, in addition to cover art and decorative illustrations for books and journals (including a [https://www.national-geographic.pl/magazyn/national-geographic-2023-national-geographic-11-23/ Polish edition of National Geographic]). 
[[File:1863 Alexandre Cabanel - The Birth of Venus.jpg|thumb|200px|Looks decorative to me... And thought--provoking :-) (You know which kind of thoughts)]]
::::His output is ''decorative by definition''. Therefore, use of his paintings as illustration of Wikipedia articles is adding ''purely decorative images''. While it's impossible to formulate a general distinction between decorative and educationally illustrative, images should not be purely decorative, and sometimes it is possible to make this determination when an image is ''inherently purely decorative''. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 17:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::And here we are entering the gray area of the usability of decorative images. And here comes in my another criterion: the meld of  [[WP:UNDUE]]/[[WP:TRIVIA]] criteria: is the painter (or a painting in question) of reasonable fame, so that his opinion about the appearance of a mythological being merits inclusion into wikipedia? My daughter can easily draw a Jesus Christ and I can upload it to Commons, no?  --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 19:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

== zigzag image placements ==

I believe the zigzag (left and right) placement of images should be discouraged. This practice disrupts the layout and can negatively impact the reading experience.  [[User:Astropulse|Astropulse]] ([[User talk:Astropulse|talk]]) 15:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
:It used to be recommended (many years ago), but is now less common. I don't agree that it "disrupts the layout and can negatively impact the reading experience" - it is a typical layout used by professionals in contexts such as large-format magazines. Some images need to be placed on the left anyway. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 18:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
::[https://accessibility.huit.harvard.edu/design-readability Academic recommendations for accessibility and ease of reading].... That seen text sandwiching is much more of a concern for accessibility here. We'll never get all images on the right.... as many people will always put images of people looking  towards text.... as we recommend.... and simply looks better. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 19:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
:::https://accessibility.huit.harvard.edu/images-and-media they are not exploring image placements. there is much more to that just accessibility.  [[User:Astropulse|Astropulse]] ([[User talk:Astropulse|talk]]) 01:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
::Magazines use pictures to capture users’ attentions. A zigzag layout is good for that. Pictures are a big part of magazines; I personally just look at pictures and read a lot less in magazines.
::Wikipedia is a reading-focused site. Users often '''scan quickly''' for relevant info. A consistent image alignment (e.g., all images on the right or left) supports a '''linear reading flow''', making it easier for users to absorb content. [[User:Astropulse|Astropulse]] ([[User talk:Astropulse|talk]]) 01:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
:{{re|Astropulse}} You should close the thread, [[Talk:India#Current_image_placements]], you have recently opened where you have observed, "nothing wrong with placing all images to the right. current zigzag placement kind ([[sic]]) sucks. i prefer all images to right - except select ones."([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&diff=prev&oldid=1281541649 link to the edit])  [[WP:FORUMSHOP|Forumshopping]] is not a good idea. As for the reading experience, is this something rooted in the [[psychophysics]] of the [[human visual system]], a widely-agreed upon aesthetic, or your personal preference? [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 19:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry, disagreed  about closing/shopping. This is not forum shopping: this is placing discussion into the proper, because the raised issue is not for a single page [[India]].  --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 19:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Your defense of Astropulse here belongs only to the letter of the law, but not its spirit.  They  should have either closed that discussion and/or told other participants they are simultaneously pursuing the topic elsewhere in greater generality.  In my book what Astropulse did was less than ideally transparent. I’ve seen editors do this with sources.  When their discussion about the reliability of a source doesn’t proceed favorably on a page, they open a slightly more general discussion at RS/N. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 22:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
::::there is no bad faith here. that discussion is separate based on existing policies and guidelines. one editor has said i may have an argument and no one has seriously disagreed yet. 
::::I raised this at a broader venue because I felt the issue extended beyond a single article (like ''India'') and related more generally to layout practices across Wikipedia. I wasn’t trying to forum shop — I genuinely want to hear broader input and understand community consensus. 
::::The suggestion that I opened this discussion here simply because I didn’t get my way in another thread is incorrect. [[User:Astropulse|Astropulse]] ([[User talk:Astropulse|talk]]) 00:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::Opening another thread before you have come to a resolution in the current one, may or may not be bad faith, but not informing the other participants that you are, very much is. It is an egregious example of the genre. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 01:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
::No see this https://www.nngroup.com/articles/zigzag-page-layout/

:: 1) Decorative images used in an alternating list (zigzag) layout '''caused users to stumble when scanning the page''' in an eyetracking study. Users '''scanned efficiently''' on pages where text and imagery were '''vertically aligned'''.
:: 2) aligning similar items (like in the aligned layout) makes them '''easier to scan'''. 
:: 3) when images were more than just decoration, both layouts worked equally well
:: 4) '''The zigzag layout is less predictable''', making it difficult to scan around image obstacles.
:: 5) “'''Image placement causes residual fixations'''” means that even when an image isn’t important or helpful (like a decorative one), users’ eyes still tend to pause or briefly fixate on it — just because of where it’s placed.
:: 6) '''Zigzag layouts made it more difficult to ignore decorative imagery''' and caused users to stumble over these unhelpful images and immediately redirect their fixations. ( this may be true for less helpful images as well )

::there probably other research about this as well.  [[User:Astropulse|Astropulse]] ([[User talk:Astropulse|talk]]) 00:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] what do you think about this. its by [[Nielsen Norman Group]] [[User:Astropulse|Astropulse]] ([[User talk:Astropulse|talk]]) 00:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I like the word "discouraged", which is not the same as "forbidden". There are real problems with "[[sinistral]]" images: they screw up section headers and especially lists. Therefore at least an advise must be given to check the appearance of the layout and possibly recommend alternatives:
*Galleries (especially for uniform things, such as [[Venus (goddess)#Gallery|paintings of Venus]] by different artists)
*Smaller images
*Longer texts :-)
*Separators
Other ideas? --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 20:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:As Vector2022 imposes a standard width on pages, there isn't a need to be concerned about potential problems with sinistral images. If they do cause problems, obviously they should be removed, but this will be obvious and doesn't require a separate check. (Under the previous Vector2010 you are more likely to get problems, so even editors using that won't miss it.) [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

== Does [[MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES]] also exclude a single image used to represent broad groups of people? ==

Hello, I looked at the [[MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES]] redirect and the past RfCs/discussion and would like some clarification? While I understand that photomontages/galleries representing broad groupings of people have had an RfC/discussion against it, thus infoboxes for pages of ethnic groups do not include them, is this guideline against having a single image in an infobox to represent broad groupings of people?

Although I know that there are technically no set-in-stone rules in Wikipedia and users on talk page discussions may reach a consensus that makes an exception to these various guidelines, I see quite a few pages for ethnic groups that include a single image in the infobox without any talk page discussion, and such image maybe contentious (i.e: why choose a single image in the infobox representing one child of the ethnic group with no men, women, elderly people, etc in the picture).[[User:Clear Looking Glass|Clear Looking Glass]] ([[User talk:Clear Looking Glass|talk]]) 09:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
:NOETHNICGALLERIES was a  guideline to address the following situation. Obviously, a single image cannot represent an ethnic group in its diversity. Therefore people started creating collages from notable people of a particular ethnicity, which is clearly original research (why cherry-pick some?). Other than that, if there is no guideline about infobox for ethniocities ([[Template:Infobox ethnic group]]), ethnic images must be decided in a case-by case basis. For example, the top image for [[Kayan people (Myanmar)]] shows an extremely distinct feature, so it makes sense. On the other hand, the [[Khoisan]] image makes some sense for a European person, to show at least some ethnic distinctness, but some may object a cherry-pickd image: for a European all khoisan may look the same, but I am sure there is a wide diversity among them recognized by the natives, and the infobox with a map such as in [[Bantu peoples]] would make more sense.  --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 18:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

== Dispute over population data image ==

There is a content dispute regarding the relevance of an image at [[Talk:Durant, Iowa#Population plot]].  Your input is welcome. --[[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 18:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

== Lead image size ==

[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size]] says:

"As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed width than 250px (the initial base width), and if an exception to this general rule is warranted, the resulting image should usually be no more than 400px wide (300px for lead images) and 500px tall, for comfortable display on the smallest devices "in common use" (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays)."

Does anyone know how old this advice is? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:I feel it's potentially sound, right? Not sure we want to give users a much wider thumb gamut to fuss with, but maybe? I do think it should be "normalized" or expressly allowed that lead images can be frameless or wide too, like I fashioned a bit ago at [[Köppen climate classification]]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 19:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::The default image width is supposed to be changed to 250px [[Real soon now|soon]], so that probably shouldn't be the largest ordinary option.
::The lead image is usually supposed to be larger than the default, as well as the largest image in the article (except for panoramas or similar special circumstances).  This usually means 300px or 400px for a landscape image and default width for a portrait (because we'd normally scale a portrait image down).
::The image at [[Landscape painting]] is (on my screen, with 100%/default zoom, etc.) about 400px wide, and that seems reasonable to me.  [[Landscape photography]], on the other hand, uses default image sizes, and it feels much too small, especially for the lead image.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::Köppen climate classification looks quite broken for me. With the image appeating under the TOC, which is itself squashed to oneside. The advice at [[MOS:SECTIONLOC]] is not to put images at the end of sections like that. That's a separate issue to image sizes though.<br />I don't see a reason why lead images should be smaller than other images, unless they are in an infobox (as that will add its own width to the width of the image). But I don't think images should be larger than 400px, as that tends to end up with squashed text. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks very much, I use Vector 2022 so I had no idea. Do you have any idea of how such images could be well-presented while not limited to a thumbnail? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Why did you (or someone else?) choose {{tl|TOC right}} originally?   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't think it was me, but if it was I couldn't tell you. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::So maybe start by removing that.  And then think about what having a {{tl|clear}} template above the TOC might do. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

== Sandwiching and Vector 2022 ==

Given that sandwiching is much less common in the now default [[WP:Vector 2022]] (which the vast majority of readers will use) than in previous versions due to its different layout, does this mean that we only need to prevent sandwiching in the standard settings of Vector 2022, rather than trying to prevent sandwiching in every previously standard Wikipedia skin/layout? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:Do you have any examples of articles were sandwiching appears different between skins? -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::For example [[Theropoda#Biology]]. In legacy Vector 2010 there's obvious sandwiching, but in Vector 2022 standard settings there is no sandwiching (though switching to small text, or more noticeably to wide margins will cause sandwiching). [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 21:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::That's odd, I use 2010 and see no sandwiching on that article. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Whether or not there is sandwiching is heavily dependent on external factors like monitor aspect ratio. This is what makes "sandwhiching" such a difficult issue, as it largely on the users end. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think you can only do so much. The most important part is not having images directly opposite one another, after that try to minimise image overlap but know it won't be possible in ever case. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think that we should only care about the default view for desktop readers:  100% zoom, default skin, not using Vector 2022's wide width mode.  And I think we should only care about it a little bit, because every screen/font/zoom/etc. combination is going to produce a different result.
:Because of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theropoda&diff=prev&oldid=1287852843 your edit] to [[Theropoda]], I see no sandwiching in that section in Vector 2022.  Before your edit, I saw sandwiching in Vector 2022 (affecting about 13 lines of text) and in Vector 2010 (affecting about 2.5 lines of text). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::I mean, ''[[Tyrannosaurus]]'' is another example where there is very litte sandwiching on Vector 2022 and a lot on legacy Vector 2011, and I haven't edited that at all recently. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Simplest way to avoid sandwiching is to follow the first sentence at [[MOS:IMAGELOC]]. The vast majority of our readers (64.9% in January 2025) use the [https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Minerva_Neue mobile skin]..... thus this should be the main layout concern for accessibility for our readers. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 23:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Have you ever read Wikipedia on a phone, which is what the vast majority of Minerva Neue readers are using? If you did, you would know that sandwiching basically doesn't exist, because the images are always displayed centrally between paragraphs, which works quite well. Sandwiching is primary an issue on desktop and perhaps tablets, but as far as I can tell there is little modern data (post 2011, anyway) of how many people regularly read Wikipedia on tablets, but I'd have to venture it's quite a bit less than mobile. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 00:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::Fallow [[MOS:IMAGELOC]] and secondly apart from the first recommendation, be more concerned about mobile view layout. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 00:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::I think reducing it to desktop readers using 2022 is a bit reductive. It doesn't cover the majority of readers and only opens the quest of what window size on desktop? If the answer to that is full screen the percentage of readers using that is going to be quite small. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
:::As I have said above, sandwiching doesn't effect mobile phone readers, though it probably does affect tablets, which I would guess are a smaller fraction than both desktop and mobile, though I have no hard data for that hunch, other than a very outdated survey from 2011 [https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Readership_Survey_2011/Results] [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 00:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::::[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1a-UBqsYtJl6gpauJyanx0nyxuPqRvhzJRN817XpkuS8/htmlview# our latest stats] <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 00:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::::I didn't comment on mobile phone usage, was this reply meant to be to me? -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 14:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Thinking of CMD's points below maybe the section should make clear that editors should be targeting how the page is displayed in VECTOR2022 but without the other overly specific details. The main issue that SANDWICH should try to counter is when images are directly opposite each other (as in the example). Beyond that the latest skin is the most important, but the further you specify the less important it is.<br />Hopefully the WMF will at some point design a mobile view that doesn't look twenty years out of date, but I think it's a smaller concern at the moment as the mobile view displays images differently. But still I would hesitate to put into MOS that mobile view issues, if they do happen, can be ignored. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:Since en.wiki was moved to VECTOR2022 (and even Commons is now on Vector2022, so it has become a consistent standard) I have considered sandwiching considerations to apply only to VECTOR2022 (even though I mostly still use VECTOR2010). Further, as Moxy notes above, our recommendation is no longer to alternate images, but to place most on the right, meaning sandwiching occurs even less than just with the 2022 switch. The more consistent width also affects other MOS items, such as considerations of paragraph length, how much can fit on a screen, and similar, all of which should be mostly concerned with 2022 than any other skins. (And with mobile, although in many cases that's a different discussion.) [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

== what does the policy have to say on video screenshots? ==

I feel that even when a screen dump of a paused video isn't so blurry it falls foul of MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, it still feels like a slippery slope.

Should we include screenshots in what we consider "pictures"?

Please note I am not talking about, say, a logo, or television title. That's effectively a still picture repeated in many frames. 

I'm talking moving images, like illustrating an article about an actor with a video screen grab from, say, Youtube. We can clearly see the actor's likeness, but the picture is still relatively shitty. (Again, please assume the still isn't pure garbage, because then we could simply apply IMAGEQUALITY. And for the sake of argument, there are no issues with fair use, licensing or other things)

I feel it would be best to simply consider moving video as a substandard source of what we consider "images". Video is one thing, images are another thing, and video isn't just a collection of images.

I'm not asking for an overall ban. I'm thinking editors should be expected to find images elsewhere, and only as a last resort, and with local consensus, screenshotting video to obtain images. And if you can provide a regular image, you shouldn't need to justify switching out a screen grab. The mere fact you are improving Wikipedia by making it less reliant on screenshots is enough.

In other words, screenshots might be tolerable, but never desirable. And if an article is illustrated by a screen grab, we should never consider that article properly illustrated. The hunt for a proper image should go on. Screenshots are "temporary images": they're better than (can be better than) nothing at all, but should be replaced wherever possible. 

Currently, our policy doesn't even mention screenshots here. I think it should. [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 18:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think you could apply IMAGEQUALITY to already accomplish what you're proposing: if a better image is available, that other image should be preferred. It doesn't matter ''why'' it's better, technically. And similarly, if the only image available is of very poor quality for whatever reason, finding a better one is to be encouraged. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 20:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
:: What I'm aiming at is to buck the thrust where good-faith editors see articles with no pictures, find a video, take a screenshot and then go "nice, now the article is illustrated, job complete".
:: I would like us to consider screenshots a stopgap measure at best. I'm not saying we should prohibit them (that is screenshots posing as actual pictures), I'm saying we should be clear they're a second tier solution that should never be considered a permanent fix. 
:: At the very least, shouldn't our policy discuss or at least mention the category of images that are harvested from video, i.e. screengrabs? Currently there is absolutely nothing that makes a good-faith editor hesitate to populate BIO articles with still taken from video. I think there should be. Something feels cheap and off when we present frames from moving pictures as still pictures. [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 09:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:Keeping in mind NFC and living person's, there may be cases that using a screenshot from a video where the person was most famous for may make sense, and there are otherwise no free ages. We have a free image of [[Ed Sullivan]], for example, but if we lacked any such images and there were no high quality non free images, the use of a shot of him hosting his show would absolutely be reasonable. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 22:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
:: As I said, I am not advocating for a ban on video still images. I can definitely see a corner case where a screengrab is the only solution, and that the need to have any picture at all trumps our desire to not flood Wikipedia with lousy video grabs. So in that sense, I think your argument is reasonable. But I want to discuss the possibility of you still being vague enough for someone to interpret it as you discussing the general case, not just exceptional cases, Masem: 
:: Therefore: let us have our policy be clear; videos should not be a standard go-to source for pictures of people. Using them should, in my opinion, always require active consensus. Compare to how PRODs are added. If anyone removes them for any reason, there needs to be a discussion to develop consensus. The onus is on the person wanting the inclusion. In that case, whether to delete or keep an article (a deletion discussion), in this case whether to add or not add a screengrab as a picture. If an editor years later wants to find out how consensus for adding a shitty screen grab developed, there is something in Talk archives. There's not just the edit that added it followed by... no reaction.
:: And maybe I don't need to say this but just to be clear, I'm not gunning for any higher standard of active consensus than usual: if I start a talk discussion arguing for the inclusion of a screengrab and I get no replies, then that [[WP:SILENCE|counts as consensus]] just fine. At least I have clearly flagged a screen grab was added. The distinction is instead that just passive consensus is not enough: just adding a screen grab as if it was any old picture, and expecting dissenting editors to make the effort to start the discussion. Let's not make objecting to screen grabs the unreasonable position. Let's make adding screen grabs the exception.
:: As I see it, this cannot be read from the policy as it stands today. That is, I'm arguing our policy needs an edit. [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 11:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll give it a few days and if there's still no objections I'll come up with a tweak to the policy so video stills are at least mentioned. [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 22:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)