Commons talk:Image annotations

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Fairytale Trash Questionmark No.svg

This project page was nominated for deletion on 5 February 2014 but was kept.
The deletion debate is here. Please consider that decision before you re-nominate it.


العربية | বাংলা | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | +/−

Gnome-dialog-information.svg
ImageAnnotator's Documentation.
Gnome-help-faq.svg
ImageAnnotator's Frequently Asked Questions.
Gnome-system-run.svg
ImageAnnotator's technical Forum.
Gnome-system-help.svg
ImageAnnotator's non-technical Forum.
Gnome-emblem-default.svg
Image note guideline.

Guideline scope[edit]

As of now, the guideline is mostly about notes usage and content. A further aspect that perhaps should be covered by this guideline is the one about the usage of ImageAnnotator itself on other pages via {{subst:ImageWithNotes}}. For example, I recently used it in a deletion request discussion page to indicate a detail on the image itself (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:FSO Lanos plus.jpg). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, since local annotations are now clearly excluded from the scope of the guideline, I'm fine with it. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes about the whole image[edit]

In the section "Examples of inappropriate and not-informative notes", point #4 makes an example of "notes covering most of the image with text relevant to the whole image."

I've seen some cases of small annotations with text relevant to the whole image that should be really part of the description (as if the problem was the size of the annotation instead of its purpose). I believe that Lupo nailed down the concept in a simple and elegant way (see this change), and that should be included in the guideline as well, perhaps near its beginning (and there's no real need to reword point #4: it's just an example).

On a side note, for me the obvious thing to do in seeing such a note would be to incorporate it in the image description and then remove the annotation (if it does not contain any other info), citing the author of the note in the edit summary. Perhaps a suggestion in that sense could be included in the guideline as well, if there's consensus on this. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions and added some changes which hopefully address some of your points. --Jarekt (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm fine with your changes, and I believe that the guideline is now OK. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Notes used for attribution[edit]

Example taken from Special:Contributions/Czuarq.
Guadua dinastia del sol.jpg

Please see Help talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#Policy questions. Consensus among the four participants there was that notes should not be used in this way. With version 2 now being active and being able to display notes on image thumbnails (see at the right), I think we should now say something about this kind of use in this policy. Lupo 21:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to add a sample. -- User:Docu at 22:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
In the section above I suggested that notes like that should be merged into the image description on sight (only if they are related to the whole image). Perhaps they could be moved to the file's talk page instead when there are doubts on their autenticity. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Name of this guideline[edit]

Should this guideline be renamed to Commons:Using image notes? I don't think anyone cares that the script doing this is called ImageAnnotator... Lupo 21:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How about Commons:Annotating images ? Using notes could also be "re-using notes". -- User:Docu at 22:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather rename it Commons:Image annotations, the rationale of it being that other Commons guidelines have a noun (plus optional complements) as their subject (we have Commons:Categories, Commons:Galleries, Commons:Fan art, etc., not Commons:Using categories or Commons:Categorizing files). Personally, a verb in the page name suggests to me it's really an howto or some help instead of a guideline (but I'm not a native English speaker, so I could be wrong). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I would vote for Commons:Image annotations as well. --Jarekt (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
My two cents: Use Commons:Image annotations (most fitting name, short and simple and easily rememberable) as the main title and make redirects from alternatives. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Examples in the guideline[edit]

(moved to its own section from section Notes used for attribution) -- IANEZZ  (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I just added a sample for this and some other issues, so just as we had good examples we had some bad ones to illustrate them as well. Docu just deleted all bad examples with rm (they might just be trying to figure out how it works; list them on talk if you want). I am sure most of those notes were not malicious but from people just trying to figure out how it works. To help with this process we created this guidelines and they would benefit from more examples of bad annotations. Docu, If you do not like some of my examples I would prefer if you replace those with your own examples instead of deleting them all, unless we decide here not to provide any bad examples. --Jarekt (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have a subpage of the guideline using local annotations with "good" and "bad" examples done on purpose. One could feel a little disheartened if an edit was permanently listed in a guideline as an example of a "bad" edit. PS: I have no time to do it right now, but I'm giving a try at creating such a page later in the day. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
If we add bad samples, I think they should be sample edits we made, rather than other users. BTW, by adding a sample, I had in mind adding a line to the section #Examples of inappropriate .. rather than adding a specific image. -- User:Docu at 12:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
By "done on purpose" I meant exactly that (sorry if I didn't express it clearly enough); i.e. I don't care if my username comes up in the history of a specific subpage making examples of inappropriate edits, so I'm willing to do it--without touching the file pages of course, but using local annotations). I'm not sure that reporting just textual examples would be as effective as using annotated images: I'd like to experiment on it a bit (I'd use images already used as samples in other guidelines and help files). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at User:Ianezz/Annotation examples (not complete, but I'm just trying to illustrate the idea). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
We could add a subpage to the Commons page with those examples. Might be interesting to use real examples for some of the bad examples. --Jarekt (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
A subpage is what I had in mind too, it's too long to be included in the main page of the guideline, even if appropriate and inappropriate examples were split on two pages. I tried using smaller thumbnails (200px or so), but IMHO that makes examples much harder to see.
I mostly agree also on using real examples (I did this for the good ones), and I'll have a look at the ones you posted. My concern is about the license of the notes (CC-3.0-BY-SA), which would require attribution, but that's exactly what we tried to avoid for bad examples. Perhaps that's just a point that can be handled in a pragmatic way (i.e. ignore it until someone complains). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Choice of languages : what about Mld ?[edit]

Instead of LangSwitch, what about using {{Multilingual description}}, such as in File:Berliner kongress.jpg ? (even if Mld sure still needs some work). Jean-Fred (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Help talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#Suggestions. Lupo 18:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Gone?[edit]

I think the image note function is broken. I don't see the link to add notes anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.70.8 (talk • contribs)

See Help_talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#IPs. -- User:Docu at 04:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines[edit]

Are annotations like in these examples ok?

The uploader annotates several images in this way. Though the guide allows "zoom into more detailed images or show another angle of view", I do not believe this is meant to spam a lot of different images of arbritary chosen objects. Both examples in the guide show valuable views, not a catalogue of random pictures. -- smial (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Ps.: The contributor seems to keep an eye to this page... --smial (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


In this sample (permanent link), only the annotation "pearly papules" seems to be in relation to the highlighted area. Some of the text might fit into the information template. -- User:Docu at 05:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
And what is to do now? Are annotations as in http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Eichel_des_Mannes.JPG&action=history ok for educational purposes? -- smial (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
From my POV the one I removed was not acceptable. That was that kind of nonsene porno spam those exibitionists at Flickr post all the time. --Martin H. (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I moved another one. -- User:Docu at 21:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The user and also a (possibly) socket puppet revert the changes. -- smial (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Preserving annotation when reuploading files to wikipedia?[edit]

As far as I see, Annotator is not in use on wikipedias. But then, some annotations are quite useful, and it's a shame to lose them all after the file is moved to wikipedia. So what will be the correct way to preserve annotations? Apart from technical matters, there's a license compliance issue (we know the uploader's license for the image, but annotations are objects of copyright/licensing too, right? So even If I parse ten "this is X" records into a bulleted list, I still have to credit sources, right?

Normally, inside wikipedia I would simply make a reference to "authors of such-and-such revision of article X" and mark article X accordingly ("preserve history somehow before deleting source article"), but it won't work in cross-wiki reuploads - ??

TIA, NVO (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the files being deleted here and reuploded at wikipedia? There were some discussions of using annotations at en Wikipedia, but I guess it did not happened. May be you would like to restart the discussions? --Jarekt (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

adding images[edit]

Hi, until some month ago it was possible to add images to the annotations by putting wiki text inside, e.g. as in File:Graz_Dominikanergasse_8_L1270774.jpg, but since some weeks entering a text like [[File:Graz Dominikanergasse 8a L1270773.jpg|thumb|200x200px]] to an annotation will always tranform on save to the image link [[:File:Graz Dominikanergasse 8a L1270773.jpg|thumb|200x200px]]. It is possible to change the included text later manually. Is there a reason why images on annotations are not wanted any more or is this unexpected behavior? cheers. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)