Wikivoyage talk:Image policy

For archived talk page discussions see: Wikivoyage talk:Image policy/old-en archive Wikivoyage talk:Image policy/archive2007-2013 Wikivoyage talk:Image policy/archive 2014-2019

WebP

I've seen some WebP images uploaded to the Commons, so is there any discussion for this file format? --Great Brightstar (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

At the moment there appear to be very few WebP files on Commons (a search revealed a total of 2,500 files compared to 3 million .png files). Can you give an example of a WebP image on commons which you think would be useful here? AlasdairW (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Watermarks

I know that we don't allow images with watermarks to be used on this site. Wouldn't it be easiest if we stated that explicitly and clearly on this page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it that we don't allow them or that we don't use them? I though it was the latter. I have never seen anybody claim they are not allowed, but if I see one I try to find one without, if an image is needed, in the same way as when I see a blurry or otherwise bad image. –LPfi (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

A watermark can of course be seen as giving credit to the photographer (or an organisation) in a way not given to other photographers providing photos under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, both requiring equal credit. Seen that way we cannot use them without violating the licence. –LPfi (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's a distinction between not using them and not allowing the use of them. How about this language? Images with watermarks of any kind cannot be used on this site." Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

:-)

I don't know about "any kind". There might be times we want the watermark included – banknotes? "Images with watermarks cannot be used on this site, unless the watermark is an essential reason to choose that image"?

We could also have a remark on bylines: "We do not use bylines. Photographers are credited on the file description page, and giving some photographers more credit than others violates the CC BY-SA licence used for many images. The author can be mentioned in the caption of historic images, paintings and the like, when it is supposed to be of interest for the reader."

–LPfi (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Question

Wikivoyage:Image_policy#Attribution_and_watermarks includes the text "giving some photographers more credit than others violates the CC BY-SA licence used for many images." I'm not a lawyer & it has been some time since I read the license, but the statement looks false to me.

I want to delete it. What do others think? Pashley (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know whether that violates the license or not, but the point is that it's manifestly unfair and against site policy. Maybe that's enough to state? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I remembered a bit wrongly, the licence reads:

"The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors."

I had not noticed the "if a credit for all ...". I think the requirement of fairness is enough for requesting equal credit also absent such a list, but my interpretation (IANAL) is I have been wrong. –LPfi (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

People in photos

Swept in from the pub

Our upload form says "Avoid people in photos, unless you have their written permission". I do not know from where that comes. At least our image policy does not have any corresponding wording in People in photos. I suppose we don't want to have images that show deserted roads when visitors will see them crowded (and you wouldn't get the written permission of a crowd). Sometimes also having somebody look out over a landscape makes a better photo than the landscape alone. Commons' guideline Photographs of identifiable people is quite lenient.

Can we simply remove the wording from the upload form, should we have a link to the relevant section in our policy, and perhaps a link to the Commons guideline, or is there any reason we would want the present language to stay in some form?

–LPfi (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur. This policy has always struck me as unnecessary. Perhaps in the Wikitravel days, before we were affiliated with the WMF, it made sense because as a small independent wiki, we would have been less able to finance a legal defense in case someone sued (regardless if such a case had merit or not). But we're in a different situation now. First of all, in the vast majority of cases we're supposed to source our media from Commons, with local hosting remaining appropriate in only a narrow range of special cases which mostly exclude any context in which you'd see images of people. Secondly, LPfi correctly points out how much more lenient Commons' "photographs of identifiable people" policy is than ours; as a sister project whose entire purpose is to serve as a repository for copyleft-compatible media, they presumably know better than we do what passes legal muster and what doesn't, so it's perfectly sensible to follow their lead in determining where the boundary lies. Thirdly, in the infinitesimal chance that we do miscalculate and find ourselves in legal trouble for allegedly violating someone's privacy in a locally-hosted image, WMF Legal is a resource we now have at our disposal that we didn't before. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, we don't really want people uploading photos of themselves posing in front of the attraction. A crowd of people or a few incidental people in the background, but I don't think we want photos that feature identifiable individuals prominently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

True, but if we want written permissions, that is easier to get from your own company – the wording furthers exactly that kind of images. The wording in our image policy, on the other hand, discourages exactly such selfies. –LPfi (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Former policy ca April 2006 (text by Evan and WTjk44) In general, photos of people will be removed from Wikitravel. There are two reasons for this policy: A photo of the Taj Mahal is useful for travellers; a photo of your girlfriend in a funny hat standing in front of the Taj Mahal is not. In general, we don't really want pictures of travellers or other people in Wikitravel. Some exceptions might be for particular sports or activities or crowd scenes or illustrating some costume or uniform. In the United States and elsewhere human beings have privacy rights, that is, a right to control the use of their own image, even if they didn't create the image. Image creators need to get authorization from human subjects of photos to publish the images. See http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html for a description of why and when a model release is required. A general rule of thumb is that if an image contains a subject that is identifiable, a model release is needed.

"Avoid people in photos, unless you have their permission to publish their image" was present in the very first revision of the Upload page, written by Evan. At the time that was written, our image policy read as seen here. For convenience, I've put the text in an infobox. Powers ^(talk) 00:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

There are times where a person is convenient to give a sense of scale, or just to identify that rockclimbing, snowboarding or skiing etc actually take place there. I'm uncomfortable with doing so in ways that make those people identifiable. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sound files

Please see this edit for background. Apparently current policy explicitly allows sound files only in phrasebooks. Wikimedia Commons already has pronunciation clips for every municipality in Portugal. They're used in Wikipedia, and I believe that they would be very useful to our travellers, saving them the embarrassment of massacring the pronunciation of Portuguese place names. Beyond here, such pronunciation files will be helpful in other countries as well (including for many places in the Anglosphere that have counterintuitive pronunciations). Our made-up pseudo-pronunciations are inadequate, not as straightforward as we would like to think, and barely less complicated than IPA.

I, therefore, recommend that we expand our policy to allow sound files in destination articles for place name pronunciation in addition to the current allowance of using such files in phrasebooks. I do not wish to replace pseudo-pronunciation as our principle pronunciation help; I want to supplement it for the benefit of our travellers.

@Ikan Kekek

--Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd support this change, but let's see what countervailing points are brought up and give it 5-7 days or so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd support it. Dunno about rest of the world, but Australian names are hard to pronounce. (e.g. Tjuntjuntjura, Wooloomooloo, Balranald, Oodnadatta etc.) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Those Australian names aren't phonetic (choon-choon-choorah, woo-loo-moo-loo, bahl-rahn-ahld, etc.)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Some are, some aren't and have a completely different pronunciation. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I will support the proposal, but I'd first like to have a guideline on how they'd be used. "Place names" sounds like at least the place an article is about, and I suppose the pronunciation link should be close to the boldface place name with link to its official tourism web site. But what should the link look like? Should a pronunciation parameter also be added to the listing templates? Perhaps pronunciation links could be included inline elsewhere. I don't think we are ready to allow someone adding a link everywhere they deem it suitable. –LPfi (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  I believe that the top of the Understand section is the best place to put it. Please see this old page version for an example. I don't think we want to clutter up the lead with pronunciation info. We're not Wikipedia.

  By the way, policy was changed last year to place the official tourism site toward the end of Understand section rather than in the lead. Wikivoyage:External links#External link usage. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with putting it in Understand. I think adding (/ˈgɾɐ̃.du.ɫɐ/, GRUHN-doo-luh) to the lead paragraph is a bad idea as it makes Wikivoyage look encyclopedic and unappealing when only the first couple of lines show up in a search engine result. We should not, however, include them in Brazilian articles as no English-speaker is ever going to be able to pronounce Brazilian Portuguese anyway. (I'm joking, of course. Maybe it's just me.) Ground Zero (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: that's me as well. Especially with the r's. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of us have more difficulties than others. Regardless of how one's pronunciation ends up, it is nice (and often useful) to know the local pronunciation, or at least recognise it. Even for me in Sweden, some local pronunciations are surprising (cf the Anglosphere comment in the original post). –LPfi (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

tbh, I've never heard a tourist say an Australian indigenous name properly. Even I myself find pronunciations quite surprizing. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

"Regardless of how one's pronunciation ends up, it is nice (and often useful) to know the local pronunciation, or at least recognise it." I agree. I also agree on the guidelines proposed above: Put or link the audio file in "Understand" and restrict it to the name of the destination the article is about, not the umpteen "See" listings, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Ikan Kekek's description of the guidelines. Ground Zero (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It looks like consensus will be to allow place name pronunciation audio files. I propose we edit the end of the Wikivoyage:Image_policy#Other_media section as follows after we close this discussion.

“ ...with two exceptions:

• Audio files for pronunciation may be used in phrasebooks.
• Audio files for place name pronunciation may be used in destination articles in the Understand section. Such files should not be used alone, but as a supplement to pseudo-phoneticization (our preferred pronunciation help). Audio file usage is limited to the article's destination name itself. See Caldas da Rainha#Understand for an example of usage.

”

--Nelson Ricardo (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I support the addition of destination pronunciation, and the words above look good. It will be a welcome addition, and in many cases the files have already been recorded for WP. I would also suuport their use in the Talk section of articles (essentially mini-phrasebooks), but this can come later. AlasdairW (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

About a week has passed without opposition. I'll go ahead and add my edits to the policy. Thank you for your support. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Upright image sizes

I recall vividly that these are against Wikivoyage policy and that that led to long, acrimonious edit wars with Frank, but where is it actually stated that you are not allowed to use them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

No comments? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean portrait-oriented (taller than wide) pics vs. landscape-oriented (wider than tall) pics? I have no idea, but clarifying may jog other contributors' memories. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not about orientation. Have a look at this edit. Where it says "upright=" is the issue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is it an issue and what difference does it make to the image? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it may have been a policy, and was much discussed in Wikivoyage:User_ban_nominations/Archive#User:W._Frank, but I don't know where it is stated. It is notable that "upright=" isn't mentioned in Wikivoyage:How_to_add_an_image#Sizing. Using "upright=" does make it harder to have a set of images of the same width in the right column, which might be a reason for forbidding it.

I also note that it does allow editors to put large images on a page without it being visible in the source. If an edit changes [[File:picture|thumb|caption]] to [[File:picture|thumb|900px|caption]], I can immediately see the change in a diff, and would probably hit undo. However if the change is to [[File:picture|thumb|upright=2|caption]], I have to look at the page to see if the edit is ok. AlasdairW (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The claim was that since proportional sizes will look very different on different browsers, they can be user-unfriendly. I never had a personal beef with them, but since they were the occasion of years of knock-down, drag-out fights with W. Frank/Alice, yet I can't see where any policy about them is actually on a policy page, it would be good to make a decision about them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. "upright=2" is explicitly making the image double the normal size. Why would one have to look at the rendering to see that? And why is it harder to have a set of images of the same width when they are "upright=1.3" than when they are "320px"? The parameter is just for changing image sizes in relation to the user's default image size, instead of in relation to what the editor has on their screen. The difference between the two ways of changing image sizes concerns only those users who have chosen a default image size themselves – and specifying a bigger size in pixels, those users may actually get a smaller version of that image. With different browser window sizes you won't get the same layout anyway. –LPfi (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the argument was that we should use the default size almost all the time and that if we specify a different size, it's somehow more predictable to use numbers of pixels than proportions. If that's not true, it's not true. As I said, I don't care greatly, but I think we should resolve the issue. Maybe there are some longtimers who have a better memory than I of why this question was important. I do remember ultimately seeing their point, but for the longest time, I favored Frank's argument (though not his behavior in the face of a consensus against his point of view on that and other things). User:Pashley, User:Inas, User:Jpatokal, Powers, User:AndreCarrotflower, do you guys remember why Frank always lost the argument on proportional image sizes and it was considered important enough not to concede on? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If you say 320px, the image will predictably be shown at about 320px. It might, though, show smaller rather than larger than an image at default size, for users who have changed their default size. To have all images show at predictable sizes – in pixels – you have to override the user preferences for all images by providing px sizes. You still don't know how big they will be in inches. A user with extreme resolution will get relatively small images, as you override their large preferred size, as will a user who just prefers large images. If you don't use px sizes the user gets their preferred size (or WMF's default). With upright= you can still make some images larger, relative the user/WMF default. I was never involved in the Frank dispute, and I don't know those arguments. –LPfi (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Ikan, I avoided those arguments whenever possible. Powers ^(talk) 01:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

A very wise decision! Ikan Kekek (talk) and 01:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ikan, do you mean this discussion? I didn't participate in the original discussion, but the point about maps/graphics makes sense to me (it's toward end of the discussion). I make maps to a specific size usually to ensure readability, although it's probably not a problem if the map ends up bigger than intended. -Shaundd (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a relevant thread; thanks, Shaundd. I guess the question is, is it still enough of an issue that either (1) everyone has a different default width for thumbnails or (2) anyone is asking Wikimedia to change the default size of thumbnails and they might actually change that? Part of the problem is, if we do decide to uphold a ban on upright image sizes and note that on this page, it will be really annoying for User:Travelwriter1000, who's been really helpful in adding quality images and pagebanners and uses upright image sizes all the time. I'd be content to leave well enough alone, but considering how much trouble previous arguments over this policy caused, it seemed to warrant a discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

hard to see

takes up way too much space

I actually switched to the upright option because I thought I was supposed to avoid using the #px option 😅. Upright solves the problem of having a default width to all thumbnails, which is highly relevant for pictures like these of Qeshm Island and the Empire State Building. In other words, having all images display at the same width isn't actually a good thing.

I just dug up the way to change the default thumbnail width of 220px (which is just way too small) at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, but probably only the most diehard users would ever find that. For what it's worth, I look at this site mostly for the pictures, since it's usually a little better at giving me an idea what a place looks like than Google or Wikipedia, so it's nice to have the images big(ger) and beautiful. The travel information isn't too relevant these days, since COVID has screwed up travel 🙄. Travelwriter1000 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. There's no question that some thumbnails shouldn't be presented in default size. It seems like no-one really cares greatly about upright image sizes anymore. Would anyone object to just leaving well enough alone, or should we state that it's OK, recommended or not recommended to use them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

[outdent] It is really a pity that WMF doesn't allow changing the default image size. I think that would solve most problems, and I think that is what eventually has to be done. One possibility would be to just ignore the possibility of choosing your own default size. If only "the most diehard users" do that, we might regard the layout for other users as more important. For those who haven't set it, default size and 220px are equivalent, as are "upright=1.2" and 264px. With upright= we can change relative sizes, which works well with portrait/landscape, and the lead image if we want it bigger, but we should not have a default of "default + 30%". The only way to cleanly get bigger images all over is by specifying sizes in pixels.

We could change the image policy to recommend 400px (or whatever) as default. If we do this, we should use a size from the list of possible preferences. For the servers it will not be worse than every article being read by one user with 400px as preference, with images at default size (the thumbnails would have to be generated for that user, and will then be cached). Still, this is voiding the WMF decision not to allow different defaults in server settings; I don't know how (or whether) they'd react.

–LPfi (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I kind of feel like we never really came to a full resolution on this question. What is our position on upright image sizes? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that we should recommend using pixel sizes either for all images in an article or only for those that are best (or adequately) viewed at a specific size, such as often maps and graphs. Using pixel sizes, we should probably have some site-wide recommendation on an editor default. If default/relative sizes are used, then you should use the upright parameter as appropriate, and there is no reason not to use it when it makes sense for the layout. The problems come when mixing the two. If we aren't going to recommend "default=default+30%", then relative sized images will default to the (small) WMF default. I think it'd be a pity to have to specify sizes in pixels, but if we want bigger images, it seems that's the way to go. –LPfi (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

So I think we have three choices:

# Use the default size, with upright as needed (and maps etc. possibly in px).

# Specify sizes in pixels, recommended some size as default.

# Use the default size with upright=1.3 (or whatever) as default.

One choice per article, and perhaps a site-wide recommendation.

–LPfi (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems that in the 2013 discussion 1.2×220px ≈ 270px was deemed a good default. Is our default thumbnail size still 220px? –LPfi (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thumbnails of 250px and 300 px are available as personal defaults, and thus would perhaps not increase the server load as much as 270/280px. Does somebody have current knowledge about server implications? –LPfi (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A change to a 300 px default was proposed back in 2014, but turned down, with this summary: "So for anyone visiting this ticket: 'Please show that you have the support of a substantial number of wikimedia communities and NO, for technical reasons, this is NOT a per project decision.'" The techs were worried that bigger sizes would be detrimental for some parts of the communities. Non-logged in users cannot change their default sizes, and some may pay per kB. The bug was reopened in 2020 as stalled, waiting for community input, which would require somebody to raise the issue across wikis. Sigh. I don't see any recent discussions on the cache issues that were holding the original requests back, referenced also in this bug discussion. –LPfi (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I would support establishing in policy that pixel sizes are to be used rather than upright. I don’t think we need to change existing upright formatted images but going forward having a policy or guideline for the more straightforward pixels seems like a good idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pixels are not at all straight forward. We'd either need to recommend certain sizes, and editors need to remember them, or then everybody is specifying their own sizes depending on what screen they happen to use. The "uprigh" option in its simplest form means not specifying the size at all, other than where necessary, and then using the upright, usually with a factor of 0.5, 0.7, 1.2, 1.5 or 2. If we choose a default separate from WMF default, those times 1.2 or whatever we choose. –LPfi (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on image distribution needed

It says in the image guide that images should be evenly distributed across chapters of an article.

However, when images belong to a specific See or Do, doesn't make it sense to put them there? This especially helps the mobile view of WV (here on the site and in OsmAnd), because every See or Do would start or end with the approriate image.

Of course the downsite would be thay if See and Do are too short in text, images would stack up too much.

Nevertheless, I would like to adjust the image guide accordingly that for cases of pictures with existing See and Do where pictures indeed end up next to their listing in the regular view, the images are placed above the according See or Do listing.

Opinions?

Cheers Ceever (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

There are different opinions on this. I always try to find a good context for any image and avoid using images that wouldn't match the surrounding text. I have heard others say that the important thing is to have nice images (throughout the article). The current wording is good to point to for editors who like to stack up the articles in the lead (with a wide screen that makes little difference to the layout).

The mobile view issue makes it clear that images should be placed in an appropriate section, preferably at least one image in each of the major ones if they are long enough (Stay safe and the like might not need images). It is quite common to put an image at the end the previous section, to have it start at the heading instead of below it, which apparently shouldn't be done. The main problem is that it usually is easy to find nice images for See, while it often is harder to find anything nice for the other sections.

We also avoid images of specific businesses, so having the image by a specific listing might not be what we want. The rafting image would get into Do, but not necessarily by Rafting Someriver Ltd, and the company name would be left out. If rafting is the thing at this destination, the image could be in Understand instead of Do.

–LPfi (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion was prompted by an edit of mine.

More about how the relevant consensus developed is at this long discussion.

I don't have statistics at hand, but I guess a good portion of our viewings should be coming from mobile devices. But nevertheless, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be considerate of how the pages of this website are viewed on desktop.

I agree with LPfi that the images are best used within the context they make most sense. However, the possibility of us forcing the readers view the image of a place minutes before and after they read the description about that place for aesthetical reasons isn't the end of the world.

And then there is a sort-of metaphorical way of placing the images; e.g. an image of an ancient sign supposedly showing the way to a brothel next to a "Sleep" header (when viewed on desktop) fits well with Wikivoyage:Tone I think. Vidimian (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

When the images are lined up with specific listings, to me it implies they are illustrations to that listing, which is quite confusing after the linked edit. With a maximized browser window (on my tabletop screen), the layout is more or less the same: there is little space between the images, just enough to cause the confusion. With my standard width, before the edit there was a screenful without images, which is a little more than ideal but no big deal (the five images more or less in a row is a bigger issue, but this isn't a star), while after the edit they are literally evenly spaced, which does not look nice. (I don't appreciate the "sleep" humour, but I wouldn't have noticed it without it being pointed out.)

Note the wordings in the guideline about groups of at most three images; grouping some images and having varying distance between groups or individual images give a much more lively layout. Evidently the guideline needs to be reworded to avoid the literal interpretation.

A note to everybody: when there is a blank line or a line with an image, between the bullets in a list, the list is broken up, which sounds terrible when the page is listened to. I usually do like this:

• {{listing| [...]}}<!--

-->[[File:whatever.jpg|thumb|whatever]]

• {{listing| [...]}}

Commenting out the line break avoids it breaking the list, while having it on a line of its own makes it easier to find when looking at the wikitext.

–LPfi (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I would probably redistribute the images, to avoid useless tiny gaps and instead have some bigger ones, ponder whether all images are essential, whether they could be smaller and whether one of them could be moved to (or exchanged for one that fits) Get in. If the images are not adjacent to the listings, it helps if the name in the listing is reflected in the caption (now we have Great Theatre and Grand Theatre, are those different?). –LPfi (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

As for the particular article on hand; I'll probably try my hand at rearranging images tomorrow (though without bringing all of them into a single section creating a wall of pictures), if anyone else doesn't beat me to it. Note that what I did was (mostly) reverting the order of images to an older version (that I took no part in initially creating) I found more in line with the image policy, and honestly more aesthetically pleasing. The "sleep humour" is just my interpretation — I don't really know if the original contributor had that idea in mind — and was offered as an example that each and every image doesn't have to perfectly align with the listing describing it. Out of the descriptions, I gather that the Great and Grand Theatres are the same place.

As for the general guideline; I would support clarifying it further by adding something in line with your suggestions (varying distance between groups or individual images, and varying sizes for a livelier layout). Commenting out the line break should probably also be added to the policy (and perhaps to WV:Accessibility) for accessibility issues. Vidimian (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Varying sizes are a difficult art, and I wouldn't want to recommend it in the guideline. Here smaller images would help with the problem with a wall of images (as there would be more space between them). I think varying distances is something that should preferably be recommended between the lines, I think i might be able to come up with some wording, but not tonight. –LPfi (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Just a reminder, I never read a book where pictures belonging to a certain topic turn up arbitrarily throughout the book.

Furthermore, that conceived "wall of pictures" is only visible in that specific and rather less used view. It is not an issue in the mobile view, where it actually aligns nice with the listings. I have seen articles that are much worse with barely any text in the listings, where I would be totally on your side and prevent such stacking of pictures. But this is not the case here, where we have sufficient text so that pictures are aligned properly with their information. However, I would rather skip the specific listing images in exchange for images that belong elsewhere instead of distributing images without meaning throughout the article.

@LPfi: I like the idea with commenting out the line breaks or just putting the picture at the end of the listing, that definitely helps. Unfortunately, there is just too many rules and style guides around on WV that it is almost impossible to keep track of them all. I don't know how such accessibility feature can be applied consquently and consistently on WV, where many new editors do no have an idea of these. Especially when it say, "be bold in editing pages" ... that doesn't fit together with the reality here.

Last but not least, we also have to acknowledge that the only sections where generally pictures really make sense are the Understand, See and Do (and maybe Buy) sections. People looking into the Get in/around, Eat, Sleep, Cope, Stay safe and Go next sections are looking for hard facts not sugarcoated and fancy looking magazine text.

I think the latter is also an important point here. Do we want to win beauty contests with the articles or do we want to provide the travellers with the most efficient way to obtain useful information. I believe the latter is the case. However, I think the style guide is often written with such widely differing goals, which is why we end up in such discussions here.

@Vidimian: For the specific article I would suggest to just reduce the amount of pictures under See and have one or two (more) relevant pictures beyond See or in Understand.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I use this site mostly on my laptop, not on my cellphone, but that said, there are definitely appropriate photos for other sections. "Get in" could have a photo of a railway station or airport, but it could also have a photo of a view of a city or something else that appeals to you such that you would want to get into that place. "Get around" could again have a photo of some form of transportation, or of a landmark. "Eat" could have a photo of a famous restaurant or a local dish. Etc., etc. But it's a problem when mobile and computer views are incompatible, and I don't know what the solution is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama under US regulations

English Wikipedia has the following template (Template:FoP-USonly) which allows global images of architecture under a US interpretation of freedom of panorama (images which would not otherwise be allowed on Wikimedia Commons). I was wondering if there was support for creating a template like that for English Wikivoyage as it is hosted in the United States. I understand that such images can be uploaded currently as fair use, but there are restrictions on fair use images which would not be present with this proposal. I'm interested to hear what people think. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

There may be problems with our international editor base (only a minority is based in USA, I think). Fair use isn't handled the same over jurisdictions, but it may give more protection than the US FoP clause (and people might know their own equivalent). The US FoP is probably irrelevant for a non-US editor, whose country is known (such that litigation is reasonably easy). What about me as an EU citizen if I work with French no-FoP images? Having articles about France that people in France cannot touch seems awkward. –LPfi (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You're saying it's awkward for French users not to be able to sell images or use them in commercials when they are used here with a warning not to use them for commercial purposes? I don't understand why you think that's a problem. French FoP allows non-commercial use of images by individuals. See here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you are frustrated by the copyleft ideology, but that is not what I am talking about. I say that if we use a photo of French architecture that is not allowed by fair use, then a Frenchman may not be allowed to touch that photo in the Wikivoyage context. As it is most likely used in articles about France, that's awkward. As EU citizen, I might be in the same situation as the Frenchman. I don't know the legal consequences, but I am afraid that my moving around images in an article about France may result in my getting sued. I would also be forbidden from printing the guide to give it to a colleague (although that would hardly be a legal risk). If so, I should check the file description page for every image I am going to do anything about (other than removing it), and every article I am going to share. –LPfi (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What special building are you thinking of? From the link I posted above: "On 7 October 2016, the French parliament approved a law recognizing a limited version of the freedom of panorama that authorizes the reproduction by individuals (not organizations) of buildings and sculptures permanently located in public space, but only for non-commercial utilizations." Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)