Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Value of a color vs. black and white infobox portrait

I'm in the process of prepping a few hundred 1980s U.S. government photos for upload to Commons for use in biographies, mostly as infobox photos. While most of the photos are black and white, about 15% of the subjects have both a single color portrait and a set of black and white portraits to choose from. With a few exceptions, the subjects with a color portrait have a visibly higher-quality black and white alternative (file size doesn't necessarily mean much, but fwiw, the color portraits are mostly in the 25-40kb range, as opposed to 50-100kb for the black and white portraits). Is there some sort of guideline to follow on choosing one over the other, or is this simply a judgment call? Bios almost never need two portraits from the same portrait session, so is having a higher-quality image worth the cost of not having a color image of the individual on their page? Star Garnet (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Might be helpful to see examples, to get an idea of the relative image qualities.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A pretty representative example would be for Michael W. Grebe: color vs. b&w Star Garnet (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, since they're otherwise essentially identical, I would use the color one, but crop it a whole lot so it's just a bust image.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Assuming that all options are freely licensed I would look to which photo does the best job of putting the person in a respectable pose. Black and white portraits are often aimed for this capacity, but otherwise we don't place any extra value for color over b&w Masem (t) 19:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"horrifying"

A recent edit changed

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—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.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  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. 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?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  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). 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. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 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". —Kusma (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

References

RfC on removal of image collages from Year articles.

There is an ongoing RfC that may be of interest to editors here regarding the removal of image collages from individual year articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years § RfC: Removal of image collages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Photo of a tombstone

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Morristown, Tennessee#Photo of a tombstone, where there is a content dispute regarding a photo of a tombstone. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Updating permanent link

Requesting that the link to Special:PermanentLink/460749801 in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Images for the lead be changed to Special:PermanentLink/1192743397 (or any such recent version). The currently linked version has a redirect template redlink and what is now a navbox at the top of the article, making it less obvious which image is being referenced. hinnk (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:USERG portraits

I know I've seen discussions on the theme "No, we don't want your artistic vision in WP-biographies", but is there something written on that in a guideline somewhere? Should something be mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Making_images_yourself? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems more like a WP:IMAGEPOL (specifically WP:IUPC) question than a MOS:IMAGES one. The "Making images yourself" section here is basically a summary, with some style input, of the IUPC subsection "User-created images" (which we were not cross-referencing; I fixed that).

But yes, this should be addressed more clearly somewhere. What the policy ssys in short is that it's fine to add one's own charts and diagrams, including maps (and of course one's own photos are permissible). But it doesn't very directly address other user-generated graphics. All it says is "Additionally, user-made images may be wholly original. In such cases, the image should be primarily serving an educational purpose, and not as a means of self-promotion of the user's artistic skills. The subject to be illustrated should be clearly identifiable in context, and should not be overly stylized." The example provided is actually another diagram. It doesn't get at things like artistic portraits, still lifes, landscapes, animal depictions, and so on, but it probably should. There's a bit of a wrinkle when it comes to things that are not possible to photograph, such as interstellar phenomena or mythical creatures.

The overal question may have particular pertinence these days and into the future, since AI image generators can be used to cobble together "new" portraits based on pre-existing portrait data, and this would be WP:OR and then some, well beyond what WP:IUPC was intended to permit. Just yesterday (not on WP or on Commons) I saw a huge series of fanciful AI portraits of Mädchen Amick (zero of which would be appropriate here), and that was just one example in a long stream of such AI-enabled fan "art" I've run into on social media; the prevalance of it is increasing rapidly.

I think this question is worth raising, with regard to portraits, landscapes, and other non-diagrammatic art (human- or AI-generated), at WT:IMAGEPOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Drawing instead of photo in the image section

Would there be a problem if, out of lack of an available picture, but as in a photography of a person, to use a drawing of this person in the image section? Kayy kay (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kayy kay: See above. There have been similar questions in the past, and IIRC the answer was always "no thanks". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Could someone let me know whether it would be ok, if we are talking about a cyberoffensor, potentially dangerous, over 40 years old, free, who is not yet posted on Wikipedia? 188.146.110.234 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"Upright"?

Whatever the original reasons there were for the image width parameter to be called "upright", it's a poor name for that feature (either nonsensical or counterintuitive) and likely yet another small issue in WP:RETENTION, WP:NEWBIES &c. —  AjaxSmack  15:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The original reason seems to be that it was intended for 'upright', i.e. portrait-oriented, images to reduce the size when the user's default width was used. But I agree that it's a poor name now; "scale" might be better. (Note that "upright" is used elsewhere, e.g. |image_upright= in taxoboxes.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The |upright=n feature isn't like a template parameter where we would discuss and then just amend the template code. It's part of the MediaWiki software, and hence is not just outside the scope of this page, it's also not something that English Wikipedia can decide without involving all the other wikis that use MediaWiki (more than a thousand different websites). You need to file s change request at phab:, but be warned, they may throw it out as being years too late. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

​What about an alias, then? —  AjaxSmack  22:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

We can't, the image format is part of the MediaWiki software so the change would have to be made there. Masem (t) 03:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the list of unacceptable image uses

The following is copied from my inquiry at WT:NFC/Archive 74:

I'd like to propose a new addition to WP:NFC#UUI: "An album/single cover art to illustrate an album/song, if the label on a physically-released disc is ineligible for copyright." This is because I have noticed over the past few years that single cover art in the infoboxes for many song articles is being replaced with a copyright-ineligible label. Examples include "Incense and Peppermints", "Lean on Me" and "There's a Place." JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about other markets, but at one time in the UK it was rare for a single to have its own particular sleeve (whether picture and text or text-only); until the 1970s most singles were sold in a paper (not card) sleeve having a circular hole for the label to be seen through - the sleeve itself was either plain white, or a generic design of the record company - Decca's orange-and-white sleeves are an example. The Beatles released 22 singles between 1962 and 1970 - of these, 16 came in a generic Parlophone sleeve, five in a generic Apple sleeve (black with green lettering), and only one ("Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever") had its own dedicated picture sleeve. Indeed, in the early 1980s many singles were sold in two forms in parallel: plain sleeve or picture sleeve, the latter having a higher price and often a limited print run (early copies of "Golden Brown" had gold lettering, later copies had white lettering). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Count me opposed to throwing out a picture sleeve with artwork or photographs in favor of a simple textual record label. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#1: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

I believe that simple textual record labels could be used for the same encyclopedic purpose as the main use of official picture sleeves (identification in infoboxes without critical commentary). If an article were to include critical commentary on a single cover itself (and not the song), that would be a different case. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Not this again...: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 25#20th-century vinyl singles (sleeves vs labels) Tkbrett (✉) 16:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Mezzelune

Hi. I don't know where to place the "Mezzelune with seafood and pesto" image; according to the Manual of Style's rules, which is the most suitable place? JacktheBrown (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on use of palaeoart

FAC discussion which could be relevant to editors here[1], and perhaps the MOS for images should have a note on how to deal with palaeoart once consensus emerges. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Images in navboxes

Would anyone like to comment about the appropriateness of images in navboxes at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Images in navboxes (again)? --woodensuperman 07:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Reword

The MOS:SANDWICH bit could be slightly reworded I think. Propose deleting "that face each other" from How­ever, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er. "Face each other" doesn't make sense in this context I think; both images are facing the reader. Still not in love with this new wording, so open to suggestions. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Already done – was replaced by "images horizontally opposite each other", which looks fine to me. Tollens (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup looks good to me too! 104.232.119.107 (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Paintings by nonnotable artists to illustrate mythology and folklore

(moved out of my talk page for broader participation)

Background: following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrey Shishkin I removed a large number of his paintings that illustrated Slavic mythology and folklore per WP:UNDUE: I found no evidence that Andrey Shishkin is a recognized as a person who is faithfully representing the views of ancient Slavs or at the very least of Slavic neopagans, and therefore his paintings, especially in the infoboxes, may create a skewed view on Slavic mythology. User:Sławobóg contests my edits. - Altenmann >talk 16:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Since when do we need "authority" for pictures? It's literally vandalism. Sławobóg (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Sławobóg: We need authority to any content in Wikipedia. You cannot illustrate encyclopedic articles with paintings for which we cannot ensure authenticity. The article about the artist was deleted from wikipedia meaning the visions of this person are not notable and are of undue weight in wikipedia .BTW please learn what the word "vandalism" means in enwiki: WP:VANDAL and dont misuse the term. - Altenmann >talk 20:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  What does "authenticity" mean here? Why does it matter if author has article on WP or not? None of the painters are scholars/scientists on the topic, why not remove picture from Thor for example? His paintings look good, they usually fit scholar or popular interpretation of deity and if not, image is placed somewhere at the bottom. You are removing it without any discussion so I can call it vandalism. Sławobóg (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Sławobóg: Once again, DONT use the word 'vandalism' until you read and understand our policy WP:VANDAL. "Authenticity": sorry: I probably used a wrong word. I meant correspondence with the commonly accepted interpretations. In addition, illustrations by famous painters are OK because they have historical value by themselves. Paintings of this guy dont have historical value and there is no attested agreement that they properly represent some common views on the subject. Therefore his massive presense in wikipedia is in fact pushing his individual artictic view into brains of readers without justification acceptable in wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 20:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I meant correspondence with the commonly accepted interpretations - please explain how his paintings of Svarog, Perun, Veles or Zorya (and all others you removed) are different from commonly accepted interpretations or historical sources. Sławobóg (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Sławobóg: Sorry, you have in vice versa: it is the person who adds information into wikipedia must prove its validity. - Altenmann >talk 22:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  You removed content that was there for years, you should explain yourself, not me. But fine: Svarog is blacksmith - he's portrayed as god with hammer and fire. Perun is god of thunder and war - he's portrayed as god in armor. Veles is god of underworld, associated with cattle - he's portrayed as god with animals, pretty generic. Zorya is goddes/personification/being releted with dawn - she's portrayed as generic goddess with warm colors. Khors is often interpreted as god of sun - he's portrayed with sun behind his back. Dazhbog is also interpreted as god of sun - he's portrayed as god in the grain and the sun. And so on. Literally nothing here is constroversial. You either removed these pictures before even looking at them or because you don't know about Slavic mythology. Other users also didn't have any problem with that. @Alcaios can you help? Nonsense in Slavic topics is happening again. Sławobóg (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  "For years" is not an argument. It seems you fail to understand my principal argument: this artist is a nobody, as demonstrated by the wikipedia community during the AfD, and your opinion about his paintings is irrelevant. - Altenmann >talk 16:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  So you wanted "correspondence with the commonly accepted interpretations", I gave it, and you change argument. And now you just made up rule about not using "nobody's" art. Nice job, but Wikipedia is full of pictures made by "nobodies". A person never had to have an article on WP in order for Wikipedians to be able to use their art for article decoration. Sławobóg (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  And those images should be purged. Artistic interpretations of article subjects should be either notable themselves (or, at least, be well known), or by notable artists. Random fancy by random persons, unrecognized by reliable sources for their value in the context of the subject, has no place in articles. EEng 18:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I did not change the argument. the "correspondence" which was given by you is a non-argument: in wikipedia, wikipedian's opinions are irrelevant: they must come from reliable sources. WP:RS is the most fundamental wikipedia policy and I am thhoroughly surprized you fail to recognize it. - Altenmann >talk 20:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  So you did not even check any of the articles you removed pictures from. Sławobóg (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, half of them are on my watchlist and I am periodically cleaning/updating them. But this is not the point. Please understand that continued ad hominem attacks do not help you to win the argument, just vice versa. If you think I missed something related to Andrey Shishkin, please be specific. - Altenmann >talk 23:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Theres no ad hominem, you are just switching arguments and contradict yourself. You asked me to explain that these paintings are "correspondence with the commonly accepted interpretations". I did. Then you said "hes nobody so idk". Then you say it's just my opinion, even tho articles already have scholarship sources that say just that, atleast articles created by me. This is why I think you don't know what are you doing. Pictures are corresponding with scholarship, and anyone can read article to check that. Simply saying "no" doesn't change that. Sławobóg (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Pictures are corresponding with scholarship, and anyone can read article to check that -- this is called "original research", inadmissible in wikipedia. Pictures are supposed to illustrate article content, and to ensure that we need reliable sources, not just Wikipedian's eyeballs. - Altenmann >talk 15:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  I already said that the content is in the articles. At this point I think you are actively not understanding what I'm saying. Sławobóg (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I understand what you are saying. And you fail to accept two basic things (1) Wikipedia is not a valid reference to anything, hence the content of a wikipedia article cannot confirm the validity of an image and (2) informative images are to support article text, not vice versa. - Altenmann >talk 17:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  (1) What you wrote basically contradicts the second point. Additionaly Wikipedia says: Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic, so you should excatly specify why each painting should not be used. This is what happens pretty often I believe: someone notes that map or picture of plant is wrong, they start discussion explaining why it's wrong (that usually include giving reliable sources for the statement), then picture is modified or removed/replaced. You did nothing like that because (2) this picture is not informative, it is, like a lot pictures in deities articles, decorative, WP states: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. We cannot have any "informative" images here, because there are no clear ancient descriptions of appearance for most (Slavic) deities. The paintings are pretty significant, relevant in the topic's content, and WP doesn't state that decorative pictures can't be used (having too much might be distracting). Additionaly, all the paintings, besides these actually made in ancient Rome/Greece etc., are artistic visions, noone pushes any views with them. That happens pretty rarely, for example Shishkin painting of Semargl might be misleading, that's why I didn't put it the infobox. The paintings are pretty generic, artistic, and it's obvious for all editors and readers. (3) So TLDR: there is no "notable artists" rule, paintings are relevant to the topic's context, articles' topic allows artistic visions unless misleading, you can't prove they are not authentic (but if so, look point 1), paintings look good and respectful, they make Slavic articles look consistent, and we don't have any better images for Slavic mythology. Additionally (4) you yourself broke this rule: When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. (note again: none of these paitings are even close to being poor or inappropriate ones). If you don't want his paintings (or any others) on ru.wikit, don't use them, but don't push ru.wiki agenda here. Breaking that rule allows me reverting all your removals, which will happen later. Sławobóg (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the background of this particular case, but in general: whether someone is notable is a different thing from whether their interpretations are reliable/authoritative/authentic/whatever. Notability is a red herring wrt whether these are appropriate representations of these topics. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is hair-splitting; I assumed that if someone's interpretations are reliable/authoritative/authentic/whatever, then this person is most likely notable, i.e., has reasonable coverage in WP:RS. After all, how do we know that their interpretations are reliable/whatever? But even we assume this difference is important, I am ready to recognize a theoretically weaker criterion: the person must be recognized as having reliable/../whatever interpretations to be trusted for wikipedia purposes. And surprize! yet again we need reliable sources to say that, not some J. Random Wikipedian. - Altenmann >talk 05:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the relevant thing is whether there exists some pictorial tradition that the painting is part of. If for example Svarog has never been illustrated before Andrey Shishkin made his painting, then such a novel illustration does seem a bit dubious (how did the artist come up with the picture of the god, is it just some fantasy genre painting?), and not very relevant for the encyclopedia. Also, the best way to illustrate the lack of pictorial tradition might be to not include any direct depictions the god. But I don't know if this is truly the case with Slavic mythology. At least many of those articles are lacking good images. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:PORTRAIT

With this change to an infobox image, editor's rational is MOS:PORTRAIT, my query (since its not stated in the guideline) does this guideline include infoboxes? My assumption, is no. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why not. The old image was rather better per se, the new one facing the page. The guideline is fairly mildly worded, so the old one can certainly be defended. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding squishing key images in the lead?

Many articles have a key visualization that is rightfully included as part the lead. However, I think per-polity data visualized via a color-coded political map of the world should almost never be thumbnailed, since details cannot be made out without expanding or squishing everything. A bit ago I tweaked the lead of Köppen climate classification, and ended up just giving the map its own fullwidth frame at the end of the lede. I think this is a pretty good solution, but does anyone else see a problem with it? Remsense 诉 19:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking toward the text - discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"Looking towards the text"

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"Looking towards the text" concerning the preference for portraits to be placed looking toward the text, currently in WP:MOS at MOS:IM and here in MOS:IMAGES at MOS:PORTRAIT. NebY (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

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. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Mountain face guidance for lead images

north face from Sunrise ridge

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, 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. (t · c) buidhe 16:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SANDWICH picture

The current example under MOS:SANDWICH has an image depicting a lady with a bare breast. Although the images used for demonstration are less important than their arrangement on the page, using an image of a bare breast isn't inherently necessary to explain the guideline. While Wikipedia is not censored, certain images, especially those depicting nudity, may be off-putting to some editors, including new contributors or those with cultural, religious, or personal sensitivities to such content, potentially deterring them. With a different picture, the guideline could remain accessible to a wider audience without alienating potential editors. Thoughts? 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: the guideline discussion was initiated as a Request for Comment; however, the proposer has removed the template (at the exact time of this note) after some feedback. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• It's fine. I hate how dismissive that sounds, but there's not much else to say: "some editors may find issue" essentially launders the operative point that you find issue: if so, this amounts to a you problem, to be blunt. "Wikipedia is not censored, but"—is often a "but nothing". It's not censored. There is no reason to make this an issue, as the imagery is perfectly representative and fit for purpose. Such representation in line with the body of sources is essentially the standard you agree to stomach in order to get along as an editor. It's disproportionately affective, but the unavoidable truth is that is the pact we all agree to, because it's the only one we can anchor to a reference outside ourselves, so that we aren't tasked with deciding what content is acceptably explicit or implicit ourselves. Remsense ‥ 论 21:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Do we really need a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC for this? Why not simply discuss in the normal way? Where is the indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been exhausted?
  The image concerned was added over eight years ago, I don't think that anybody has objected until now. People looking at the image will fall into three groups: (i) those who find it indecent (and why might that be? it's a perfectly normal part of the body); (ii) those who get their jollies from looking at artistic drawings line engravings of the female form; (iii) those who don't care. I'm in group (iii), in case you wondered, although for me the image does have technical interest in being an example of how line engraving shows light and dark, rather than fine detail. If you want to see the image approximately as it was originally published, view the unscaled original and zoom it until it measures 17.4 x 31.4 cm. The bare breast concerned will then be about 1.5 cm diameter, enough to show the engraving. On my monitor I get Moiré effects on the right arm. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC) amended Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• I agree with Redrose64's take on it, but for fun, I'll add another potential group (iv) NatGeo TV. Atsme 💬 📧 00:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  NatGeo TV? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 02:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Peter, yes to NatGeo TV relative to their filming topless tribal peoples around the world, such as the small islands in Micronesia, countries in Africa, South America, etc. Women in Europe sunbathe topless not unlike some of the Dutch & Germans on Bonaire and so on. It's not shameful or obscene everywhere; rather, it's quite natural. Men go topless all the time. From my perspective, to consider it shameful or obscene stirs visions of radical Islam and burkas. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 14:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, Natgeo shows how things actually are quite well. Agree with you on all points. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Meh. This is Wikipedia, get used to it. I consider this a gratuitous waste of editor time in an attempt to bowdlerize and oppose purely for that reason. Aint broken => don't fix. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  PS: Current images illustrate the point adequately. If there is a proposal for a pair of images which illustrate the point better, bring them on. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Why is this an RFC? Yovt didn't try to change the image and get reverted, and Yovt didn't previously attempt to discuss this issue.
  As for the issue of the suitability of the picture, as Peter Southwood put it, meh. I don't see it as a big deal. It is nicely bookmatched with the other image, and similar in style too. Does anyone want to propose a similarly matched reclining image without the partial nudity, or a new pair of images? Meters (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Two bare breasts. Also, if we too abandon Ariadne while she sleeps, we're no better than the ungrateful Theseus who, lest we forget, went on to kill his father on the very same voyage. NebY (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yup, two it is. I didn't notice at first. Meters (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"Seems important"?

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. 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. Remsense ‥ 论 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. 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. Remsense ‥ 论 22:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Does a gallery of famous Mormons violate MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES?

See: Mormon missionary#Returned missionaries. Here is a quote from the closer of the RFC that established MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES: 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? 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 Moxy🍁 04:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. —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. —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: 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. 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. —Alalch E. 21:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Would the Jews example violate NOETHNICGALLERIES? 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. —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 is a Wikipedia:Featured lists and contains a section called a 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". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm just having trouble understanding what characteristic is different between 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 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? Leijurv (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I realize I may coming across as WP:POINTy, 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 no one has to satisfy me). 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? 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? 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC on section for lead images of biographical articles

Should MOS:LEADIMAGE include a subsection for selecting lead images in biographical articles (if there is more than one image of the subject)? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 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. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) 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. C F A 💬 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:

  1. 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.
  2. For living people, lead portraits should be the newest image we have of them in our time.
  3. Lead images of people should not be too tall or too wide, an aspect ratio of 3:4 is generally acceptable.
  4. Images of people should not be excessively manipulated to alter their physical appearance. It should be as true to reality as possible.
  5. 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.)
  6. 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. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)