Ard Wiki talk:Image use policy

Script error: No such module "Shortcut".

Proposal - allow only Commons images

I'd like to propose that Simple Wikipedia should dedicate itself to using only freely available images - those found on the Wikimedia Commons. I feel this is important because one of Simple's purposes is to provide text for easy translation. Because our articles are so strongly meant for easy re-use, we should provide relevant images that are also. I am confident that, now that the Commons has grown to 400,000 media files and is still growing, that all of our image needs can be met.

To accomplish this, the first step would be to request that the developers close off image uploading. I believe they can leave it open for admins, who may need to upload images for special purposes (like the site's logo). After that, we can begin reviewing each image currently in use, starting with those marked "fair use" or with no copyright tags. We'll also change the internal system messages, help pages, and image policy to reflect this change and make the new procedure easy for new users. -- Netoholic @ 07:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with this proposal is that there seem to be many images (on EN, at least) that should be on commons (they are GFDL or PD), but are not (yet). I think throwing out GFDL/CC/PD images just because they haven't been migrated to commons would be a 'cutting off our nose to spite our face' endevour. Freshstart 09:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Most of the images here were originally copied from en:. We can copy to Commons (giving credit to the en: contributors). Once it's on Commons, we can remove it from here. See Category:NowCommons. -- Netoholic @ 16:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds a big project, but I think it would pay off once it was sorted. Archer7 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Me too. So much easier to do it now, though, rather than later. -- Netoholic @ 19:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess the other issue is fair use and other pics that can't be put on commons. Now, I tend to believe Simple can serve its purpose without the 'pop culture'-related images, like movie posters, album covers, and poke-digi-anime-mon ones. But there are still things like seals and coats of arms of governmental entities that would be nice to have, but often aren't commons-compatible. Freshstart 07:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If we created an image request area, would that address it? That way, admins (or, if possible, other experienced editors) could retrieve and upload those exceptions. -- Netoholic @ 08:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, excellent job of creative thinking. Sounds like a good way to handle the exceptions. I mostly agree with the idea of trying to use free images even more exclusively than EN (I've only added links to pics/maps already on commons, rather than uploading anything here), so I'm really not trying to be a butt, just trying to think of any possible issues now, to try and help make sure we don't 'paint ourselves into a corner'. Freshstart 08:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No, really, it was a good point. I'd really like to see how creative we can get if we limit ourselves to free images. Where there is a true encyclopedic need for fair use images, having the source and rationale (use reason) is very important here, so that someone translating a page has everything they need to decide if they can use the image. -- Netoholic @ 08:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like to second this line of thinking. Using only images from commons is a noble idea, and furthers the re-usability of the articles. It is however not realistic. I would argue that images are more important on this wikipedia, where long unbroken lengths of text are daunting to the average reader, and pictures are more helpful in adding content than on the full english wikipedia. There are articles, and whole groups of articles where very few images can be found except fair use articles. The articles I have been working on for example - almost all images related to the Baha'i Faith are owned by the Baha'i World Center. They are available for free use anywhere, and extremely valuable to articles, but essentially unavailable on this wikipedia. I think a request area where rationales are required makes sense.RuhiWarrior 00:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is "upload file" still on the sidebar?

If uploading images on simple is banned, could it be easier if the devs could disable file uploading altogether from the server level? --LBMixPro<talk|to|me> 22:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mostly, so that it can be used to upload other kinds of media files (Spoken articles, etc.) and maybe user images (see below). -- Netoholic @ 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User images

And by user images, I mean images of/by users for their user page. There are several images (see Special:Newimages) already uploaded that I've not removed yet during the "purge" as a result of our image use policy. Should these and future images be allowed to remain? License-wise, we could make people move them to Commons, and that's what I think we should do, but is there any compelling reason to allow user images here? -- Netoholic @ 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So long as they are licensed PD or GDFL or a licence that is alike to either; and the image is not offensive, I see no reason why user images (and user images only) shouldn't be kept - so long as there aren't too many uploaded we could limit it to 1 or 2 to each user, just to be sure. Its not like the image will be used in other places, so forcing commons on people would be slightly pointless. Note this is just my personal opinion. - T. Moitie - Talk - Esperanza 23:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sound files/spoken articles

Should these be uploaded to Commons as well? Or can they remain uploaded on Simple? Maxim(talk) (contributions) 01:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Since they are for local use, they should stay here imo. Majorly (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why that's not reflected in the policy page? --wL <talk · hope> 15:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


This removes stuff like pictures related to classic video games and company logos (including TV stations). Commons says that anything that has been copyrighted in the last forty years or more should not even be represented. That restricts articles to things that have not been sold by and large. I would like to suggest that anything that is more than a copyrighted picture be possible to provide a picture of. I have missed the boat on this rapidly growing wiki procedure. Many words are copyrighted but are decripions of other things. Coke (a sort of coal), Visa (passport aproval), and many simple images such as the AVG logo. ~ R.T.G 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Never worry. Another few decades and theyll be all non copyrights. ~ R.T.G 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


I already knew it was banned but why? Why is uploading on Simple English Wikipedia banned? Claimgoal 03:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

First, read the first post on this page. You will find out why it is banned. Second, it is banned because we thought that it would be better if only Commons images can be used on this Wikipedia so that we know exactly what kind of license it uses and so that we can be sure that it conforms with all of the WMF's copyright policies. Hope this helps, Razorflame 13:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


The Manual Of Style:Captions link under See Also refers to a section of the manual of style (Captions) that does not exist. It should likely be removed as it appears that captions are covered under the Images portion, which is linked in See Also already. (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of explicit images?

Does the English Wikipedia policy "Wikipedia is not censored" apply in Simple Wikipedia? I note that the policy "Wikipedia:How to write Simple English articles" states that "Other readers [of Simple English Wikipedia] may be young (they may be children)". If that is the case, should explicit images (such as the one at "Erection") be avoided? I don't have a problem with such images personally, but wonder if there is a usage policy on this. I've been updating the articles "Ejaculation" and "Sex organ" and have generally tried to avoid such images in case they're regarded as inappropriate. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk–</span> 23:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a big long discussion here about it at one point, but there isn't much consensus it seems. I'm moving this over to Simple Talk in order to get a better response. Microchip 17:12, Friday, June 20 2008 Utc
Left Arrow The comments that were in this section have been moved to a different place at [[Wikipedia:Simple Talk|Wikipedia:Simple Talk]]. Left Arrow

Why is there no images allowed directly on the Simple English Wikipedia

The English Wikipedia allows images under fair use, why is the Simple English Wikipedia different. As I can see, it should be allowed here too. Stuff like screenshots etc. are under fair use and can't be uploaded into commons. Techman224 (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the free encyclopedia. Screenshots are not free. Therefore, we don't allow non-free images. Majorly talk 15:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
It still doesn't make much sense... Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but it still allows stuff under fair use. things like movie posters should be able to be used here. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 22:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Why does a page about a movie need to have the movie's poster? What paper encyclopedia has movie posters? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting commons-only policy

I say we should re-visit the Commons-only policy. This policy was made in 2006, by three users and it may not be consensus now. The simple English Wikipedia should be easy for people who don't speak English well to understand. Pictures help this, and the more choices we have for pictures, the better it will be for the encyclopedia.

I think we are working to educate people, and if an image would be fair-use on the Simple English Wikipedia, it will be fair use for other educational purposes. The text we use will always be completely free, and the most important thing for Simple English Wikipedia should be to make good articles. Our articles should be easier to use than the English Wikipedia, and not letting ourself use fair-use images makes this harder. --Quintucket (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I Agree with this We Could Create More Pages And be A more Complete Educational Resource if we allow fair use images . --Rancalred (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion about this a couple weeks ago. It was shot down. Fair use images actually will make this wiki less simple and cause too much trouble for a wiki this small. -DJSasso (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, however there should be rules for uploading and the use of the pictures per laws. We should have uploading images as a privilege, similar to "rollback", "patrolled", "adminship", etc. We wouldn't want IPs and new editors to upload pictures without even reading the rules and guidelines, believing that its the same as enWP. We should also nominate someone who will review all uploaded images to make sure they meet the criteria. This way a backlog and concerns over the number of fair use wouldn't happen. I can't think of anything else for now, but these are the main ones we should consider when and if the proposal is accepted by the community. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Note I also suggest that you use a sandbox and create the rules and guidelines for uploading images, the use of them, rationals, etc. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We Cant do that because of the way the software is written but we could add upload to importer rights and nominate some importer's to be reviewers --Rancalred (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)