Commons talk:Ownership of pages and files
Authors names in galleries
It says not to sign your name, but what about stating who the image is by? I've run across many galleries where editors put their name in the captions of images they created. I think something should be said about this practice. Rocket000 16:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose the question is, is the author of it relevant, does anyone care? Just like in the body of a wikipedia article. We don't define how galleries should look, or exactly what they contain. Assuming the gallery pages are for a general audience, what info do they want or need against each image? Some images perhaps don't need a caption at all (the page and gallery title may provide sufficient info). But there is a lot you could include in a caption - what, where, when, who, why,
wquality. But it is only a brief caption, so perhaps only the most relevant info to suit the subject. In most cases I can't see the relevance of the image creator to people browsing the page looking for an image (I am assuming this is the purpose of commons pages, this is after all just a file repository, categories and galleries are to make it easy to find a suitable image). Personally I wouldn't stress if someone wants to put their name under every image (let them have a little pride in their work, we don't give much else back to contributors :-), but they can't complain if someone else comes along and provides more useful captions - it's just like any other edits to galleries, different people will have different ideas of what is best, they need to co-operate. --Tony Wills 08:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
An example image. It is used for examples. -Rocket000 10:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
An example image by Rocket000.
Ok, so I never saw someone actually doing the first one, but I see the second one a lot. Rocket000 10:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)