95:
63:
1049:, and then change the language here and revert back the Stuart credit and all other credits of major artworks used as opening images. It's about time to fix the visual arts language onto this page, by getting this into a wider audience of editors if needed. Gilbert Stuart's work is as famous as any American artist, and his attribution on his work portraying the United States Founding Fathers and closely related topics should be honored and respected by Wikipedians. As for this discussion, I did not know about it and would have responded to a ping by Nikkimaria, who knew I was interested in the topic.
865:
photographer is independently notable, then a wikilink to the artist's biography may be appropriate. Image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable, since the infobox should contain only key facts of the article's subject, per MOS:INFOBOX. However, an artist credit + year may be appropriate when a picture long postdates the subject, or the accuracy of the image to the subject is otherwise dubious, to indicate when an image is more an artistic work rather than a historical one.
133:
74:
210:
32:
167:
81:
80:
73:
412:
applies generally to other countries as well). So keep in mind that 1/6 of your readership is not smart enough to be cannon fodder. So we need to be aware of this. So, I think that either no caption, or a caption describing the entity, is what we need in cases like this. I don't know as we need an actual rule for this tho.
788:(Sorry if this is addressed elsewhere) I sometimes look through only the photos without really reading the article. On my phone the caption often extends into an ellipsis (eg "Mary Queen of..."). I was wondering if there is a way to view the entire caption without scrolling through the entire article?
975:
The issue is that, aside from the time-gap case, your proposed change doesn't address the problem you're hoping to fix. The essence of the disclaimers in the Thassi and Bayes cases is the explicit statements that these are "imaginary"/"doubtful" - those seem quite reasonable in that respect, though I
944:
of the captions. Writing out the date the picture was created instead and its provenance is a way to communicate information more succinctly and relevantly - the reader can nod along and say "Huh, this is a 1500s depiction of a topic from antiquity" without it coming across as axe-grinding about The
939:
is valid when there's a separate article on that). It's still saying something indirectly about the subject: that they were interesting or important enough to be addressed by a big name. Two, on dubiousness - writing out "this image is imaginary and artistic" would be tendentious and repetitive for
897:
I do agree in egregious cases like the Bayes one I linked above, but I suspect that this might be tricky to enforce in general due to just how common it is. Elizabeth I's portraits were painted by people who really saw her, but art historians consistently think that the images of the older
Elizabeth
864:
Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or
Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page. If the artist or
811:
Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or
Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page. If the artist or
557:
I agree that "(2022)" is not good form. I worry that it is also unclear for visually impaired people who are using screen readers. I also agree with the point made by Masem that the date of the photo will not always be the date that matters in context and that flexibility should be given in order to
840:
has an author credit in the infobox, but as a very relevant warning that this time the gap between the person and the artist is 1700 years long and not even from the same region. (This comes up with a lot of figures from antiquity, really - we have depictions from cultures wildly separated in time
855:
be of him but almost certainly isn't, since the source is very sus (it didn't cite its own source for the image at all, and the author isn't particularly reliable, so the odds of him just picking a random image he thought looked right is very high. And 1700s fashion experts say it isn't likely he
335:
It's abundantly clear to anyone but an rank imbecile that "(2022)", for instance, on a photo of an 19th century church is the date of the photograph and not the date the church was built. We have no obligation to submit to the lowest possible level of intelligence in writing our encyclopedia, nor
411:
I'm not, technically, an imbecile (I am an idiot tho, or so I've been told), and I'll just point out that, in
America, the lowest IQ with which you can get in the army is 85 (they tried 80 a couple of times, but it it didn't work out), and 1/6 of Americans don't meet that standard (I believe this
816:
There's a case here that isn't covered. Specifically, this seems to be assuming that the main reason for crediting in the caption is to call-out the artist. However, there's another reason for crediting: as a subtle disclaimer about non-representative guesstimate images made centuries after an
829:
has a lead image from over 300 years later. (Of course it does, because it's not like the
Spanish government was going to let you celebrate rebels in the 1500s period when they were fresh in memory and eyewitnesses existed.) I think crediting the author prominently is good, especially since a
898:
were more flattering than reality, for example. But expressing that succinctly in a caption seems tricky to do, and might get repetitive to stick a disclaimer on basically all of the portraits that "By the way, artists who paint royalty unflatteringly don't get hired for future work."
350:
Many of our readers are "rank imbeciles" then, and we should allow for them. A caption with just a date looks odd & puzzling, and should be avoided. Especially in brackets - what's that about? Captions should never be entirely bracketed. Even "In 2022" would be significantly better.
812:
photographer is independently notable, then a wikilink to the artist's biography may be appropriate, but image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable, since the infobox should contain only key facts of the article's subject, per MOS:INFOBOX.
441:
issue maybe?), a caption like "The lighthouse in 2022" is fine. I might push, gently, for a caption like "In 2022" for an article with a bunch of images of the same subject in various years, rather than repeat "X in 2018", "X in 2019", "X in 2020". No parentheses needed.
715:
such an aside. It is often a necessity to tell the reader which subject is the subject; it is content and not meta. Unlike the “are you in the right place?” and “would you like to read more?” asides, this one is aimed at conveying meaning to the reader about the content
474:
I can't think of a single reason why you'd want more than one or two images of the same thing in different years. Maybe if something significant about it changed through the years, but in that case use the caption to point out what changed.
436:
I don't think the guideline needs to change, but if you're looking for wider consensus to add clarification to captions, consider me on the pro-clarification side. Unless there's some particular need for extreme concision (trying to avoid a
532:
context matters. if I go to articles on works of art, the default is "Work name (year of completion)". this they may make articles on architects use one or the other as long as there is inter-article consistency. eg for
934:
What would be? I don't really follow what the issue is here. One, I agree with
Johnbod that crediting artists sufficiently famous to be bluelinks makes sense, even in an infobox caption (and certainly linking the
821:
represent the subject, but might just be a hypothesis, and might be flat misidentified. In these cases, I think an artist credit + year is helpful basically to clue the reader in "beware." A few examples:
336:
should we assume that our readers aren't intelligent enough to understand such information when presented to them. Perhaps the poster above would be happier editing Simple
English Knowledge (XXG).
308:. Sometimes these types of captions are shortened to something like "The church in 1963" or "The lighthouse in 1995" which I think is fine as the name is already stated at the top of the infobox.
626:
Is there need to italicise them at all? To answer your specific question, I agree, the parentheses should not be italicised, but that (for most readers) leaves a crunched up close parenthesis. So (
369:
reason for the brackets. It does squat. And no reason to leave out a preposition. Or a noun, for that matter. Remember, Knowledge (XXG) material is free to r reuse, and being stingy serves no one.
830:
reader clicking the link will find out
Gisbert was a liberal and that this was a heroic / romantic interpretation of the event in line with 19th century Spanish politics that would lead to the
383:
PS, BMK's response is beyond the pale (pardon the pun) of civility. Just because others give considerations to their edits you don't does not make them less intelligence. Cut that crap out.
1004:
I'd think that an improvement. I also think that where the artist is a really important one - Durer, Holbein, Titian etc, not merely notable, we absolutely should name and link the artist.
856:
picked correctly.). But the image is fairly known nowadays due to lack of anything better to use, but we might as well at least warn readers that the image probably isn't accurate.
186:
602:), but curious to hear others' views. I do feel that the MoS entry should say something about this, even if there's no set standard, as it seems to come up fairly often. Cheers,
397:
Well, as a fellow imbecile, I think that the image and caption in question (2022) would best be presented with no caption. It doesn't seem needed as a definer or a descriptor.
231:
226:
292:
I find this is nearly universally followed for people. In my experience, it is usually followed for other things as well. For example "Central
Christian Church in 2013" for
293:
976:
agree that we don't need an "art is not life" disclaimer in every case. As for the time-gap possibility, that is addressed elsewhere in the guideline. I've
690:) produces display problems which are either an accessibility issue for people with poor eyesight or require annoying template gimmicks as described above.
1075:. Addition of such credit is addressed by the overriding guideline for such captions. The caption credit to Gilbert Stuart should also be returned to the
498:
451:
686:
because the entire construction is such an aside. If the aside were removed, there would be nothing left there, not an empty "()". And doing it as (
1072:
68:
315:
which I think is just too cryptic and without precedence. After fixing several to align them with typical infobox captions, I was reverted by
1068:
180:
175:
1045:'s credit to the opening images at John Adams and was again quickly reverted. All interested parties should first read the discussion at
94:
62:
682:
template, etc., etc.). It's rare permissible use of "talking at" the reader, an implied form of WP self-reference. I would do it as
701:
522:
17:
860:
Does this seem a reasonable case? Would it be fair to perhaps mention this in MOS:CAPTIONS? I'd lightly suggest something like:
312:
157:
142:
43:
297:
883:
I would think if there is reason to believe the accuracy is dubious, it would be more helpful to just say that explicitly.
494:
447:
764:
Just to note that how to format such "stage directions" has been discussed many times and we never seem to get anywhere.
711:
I was unaware of such a convention, and that does make sense, but I don’t personally feel that the stage direction here
146:
107:
102:
831:
264:
537:
may show his works either way. however in such a case i think the first image caption should establish the style eg "
150:
480:
190:
of
Knowledge (XXG)'s policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
243:
490:
443:
841:
and place due to a lack of contemporary images. I just remember this one because another editor at one point
49:
826:
793:
598:
341:
698:
519:
417:
110:(MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.
1041:, this really should be clarified to add the Visual Arts caption information. An RfC? I had added back
789:
578:
I see above that there's no set standard for when to use italics for stage directions in captions like
1088:
1054:
985:
925:
888:
476:
402:
301:
145:
procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Knowledge (XXG)
247:
817:
event / life / etc. where the depiction is on romantic / political grounds, or dubious images that
720:
is what we’re talking about”). A stage direction (imo) is no more an aside than most captions are.
388:
374:
1092:
1058:
1031:
1013:
989:
954:
929:
907:
892:
877:
797:
777:
753:
734:
706:
669:
620:
567:
552:
527:
502:
484:
469:
455:
421:
406:
392:
378:
360:
345:
329:
1046:
1027:
950:
903:
873:
534:
337:
316:
249:
106:, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the
1064:
1009:
677:
465:
356:
674:
The italics are more consistent with how WP treats all "asides" to the reader (hatnotes, the
807:
Not a huge deal, but since I saw some articles on my watchlist getting edits citing this...
693:
655:
as (right) and—at least for this case—avoid the potential messiness of these italic issues.
582:. I was wondering, when I do decide to use them, should the parentheses be italicized, e.g.
563:
514:
413:
245:
209:
132:
1083:, where the Stuart name and link exists due to the discussion on the article's talk page).
1084:
1050:
981:
940:
many subjects, and true about essentially any depiction. This disclaimer would end up in
921:
884:
548:
398:
305:
187:
guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Knowledge (XXG) policies
1042:
772:
748:
729:
664:
384:
370:
1080:
1023:
946:
899:
869:
281:
1038:
1005:
848:
837:
634:
461:
438:
352:
320:
559:
166:
1076:
920:
Sure. But I don't agree that what you're proposing is an adequate substitute.
541:
287:
311:
I recently found some captions that were nothing but a year, e.g. (2022) for
767:
743:
724:
659:
608:
174:
For information on Knowledge (XXG)'s approach to the establishment of new
845:, although this was obviously removed later as laying it on too thick.)
324:
284:
advises denoting the date of an image concisely, and gives an example
1069:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures
739:
But yes, the italicise-all approach does make sense from that pov.
834:, and not something remotely meant to be historically accurate.
250:
203:
25:
165:
131:
1073:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Visual arts#Image captions
1019:
977:
842:
596:. I'd lean toward just the word (the recommendation of
321:User_talk:MB#Please_stop_changing_the_captions.
42:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
765:
323:), so opening this up for broader discussion.
300:, "Westfield Hurstville in November 2018" for
296:, "Dundee Methodist Church, October 2009" for
258:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
1063:I've added the Gilbert Stuart credit to the
294:Central Christian Church (Greenville, Texas)
160:carefully and exercise caution when editing.
116:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Manual of Style
57:
784:Mobile enlarged photo captions unreadable
100:This page falls within the scope of the
59:
589:
583:
579:
304:and "The Wellgate Centre in 2007" for
285:
268:when more than 4 sections are present.
540:Wright House (constructed in 1950)".
156:Contributors are urged to review the
7:
489:The usual case is with biographies.
153:. Both areas are subjects of debate.
119:Template:WikiProject Manual of Style
31:
29:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style
1079:opening image (joining the article
511:Support "X in 2022", not "(2022)".
48:It is of interest to the following
1022:. Feel free to adjust or revise.
980:- does that address your concern?
24:
262:may be automatically archived by
313:Huntington Street Baptist Church
208:
93:
79:
72:
61:
30:
103:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style
574:Italics for (left) and (right)
558:take account of that context.
298:Dundee United Methodist Church
1:
691:
512:
843:edited it to be even blunter
803:Clarification on MOS:CREDITS
832:Glorious Revolution (Spain)
798:21:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
778:15:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
553:12:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
528:06:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
503:14:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
1109:
1032:17:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
1014:02:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
990:00:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
955:16:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
930:17:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
908:17:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
893:02:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
878:02:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
754:19:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
735:19:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
707:07:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
670:21:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
621:17:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
568:18:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
485:22:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
470:15:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
456:15:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
141:This page falls under the
1093:00:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
1059:04:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
651:. Simpler to me would be
588:, or just the word, e.g.
422:02:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
407:02:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
393:23:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
379:23:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
361:22:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
346:09:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
330:02:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
286:e.g. "Cosby in 2010" for
173:
139:
88:
56:
122:Manual of Style articles
827:Revolt of the Comuneros
319:who strongly objected (
176:policies and guidelines
945:Treachery of Images.
265:Lowercase sigmabot III
170:
136:
169:
151:article titles policy
135:
302:Westfield Hurstville
640:template to render
491:Firefangledfeathers
460:All very sensible.
444:Firefangledfeathers
277:Infobox image dates
1047:talk:Abigail Adams
851:has an image that
535:Frank Lloyd Wright
171:
158:awareness criteria
143:contentious topics
137:
44:content assessment
1065:George Washington
1018:I added it here:
978:made that clearer
618:
606:
365:Agreed. There is
272:
271:
237:
236:
202:
201:
198:
197:
194:
193:
1100:
1067:first image per
752:
746:
733:
727:
705:
681:
668:
662:
654:
650:
643:
642:(''left''{{--)}}
639:
633:
619:
616:
615:
613:
604:
545:
526:
267:
251:
223:
222:
212:
204:
184:. Additionally,
124:
123:
120:
117:
114:
97:
90:
89:
84:
83:
82:
77:
76:
75:
65:
58:
35:
34:
33:
26:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1071:which links to
805:
786:
742:
740:
723:
721:
675:
658:
656:
652:
648:
641:
637:
631:
609:
607:
603:
576:
543:
477:Jochem van Hees
306:Wellgate Centre
279:
263:
252:
246:
217:
147:Manual of Style
121:
118:
115:
113:Manual of Style
112:
111:
108:Manual of Style
78:
71:
69:Manual of Style
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1106:
1104:
1096:
1095:
1061:
1043:Gilbert Stuart
1035:
1034:
1016:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
913:
912:
911:
910:
867:
866:
858:
857:
846:
835:
814:
813:
804:
801:
785:
782:
781:
780:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
737:
575:
572:
571:
570:
555:
538:
530:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
472:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
278:
275:
270:
269:
257:
254:
253:
248:
244:
242:
239:
238:
235:
234:
229:
219:
218:
213:
207:
200:
199:
196:
195:
192:
191:
172:
162:
161:
155:
138:
128:
127:
125:
98:
86:
85:
66:
54:
53:
47:
36:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1105:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1081:Abigail Adams
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1002:
991:
987:
983:
979:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
956:
952:
948:
943:
938:
933:
932:
931:
927:
923:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
909:
905:
901:
896:
895:
894:
890:
886:
882:
881:
880:
879:
875:
871:
863:
862:
861:
854:
850:
847:
844:
839:
836:
833:
828:
825:
824:
823:
820:
810:
809:
808:
802:
800:
799:
795:
791:
783:
779:
776:
775:
771:
770:
766:
763:
762:
755:
750:
745:
738:
736:
731:
726:
719:
714:
710:
709:
708:
703:
700:
697:
696:
689:
685:
679:
673:
672:
671:
666:
661:
647:
636:
629:
625:
624:
623:
622:
614:
612:
601:
600:
595:
593:
587:
586:
581:
573:
569:
565:
561:
556:
554:
550:
546:
539:
536:
531:
529:
524:
521:
518:
517:
510:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
487:
486:
482:
478:
473:
471:
467:
463:
459:
458:
457:
453:
449:
445:
440:
435:
423:
419:
415:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
349:
348:
347:
343:
339:
338:Beyond My Ken
334:
333:
332:
331:
328:
327:
322:
318:
317:Beyond My Ken
314:
309:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
289:
283:
282:MOS:CAPLENGTH
276:
274:
266:
261:
256:
255:
241:
240:
233:
230:
228:
225:
224:
221:
220:
216:
211:
206:
205:
189:
188:
183:
182:
177:
168:
164:
163:
159:
154:
152:
148:
144:
134:
130:
129:
126:
109:
105:
104:
99:
96:
92:
91:
87:
70:
67:
64:
60:
55:
51:
45:
41:
37:
28:
27:
19:
941:
937:image itself
936:
868:
859:
852:
849:Thomas Bayes
838:Simon Thassi
818:
815:
806:
790:.phoebewalsh
787:
773:
768:
717:
712:
694:
687:
683:
645:
630:) needs the
627:
610:
597:
591:
584:
577:
515:
439:MOS:SANDWICH
366:
325:
310:
280:
273:
259:
214:
185:
179:
140:
101:
50:WikiProjects
40:project page
39:
695:SMcCandlish
516:SMcCandlish
414:Herostratus
181:WP:PROPOSAL
178:, refer to
1085:Randy Kryn
1077:John Adams
1051:Randy Kryn
982:Nikkimaria
922:Nikkimaria
885:Nikkimaria
399:Randy Kryn
288:Bill Cosby
149:, and the
385:oknazevad
371:oknazevad
232:Archive 2
227:Archive 1
1024:SnowFire
947:SnowFire
900:SnowFire
870:SnowFire
678:crossref
499:contribs
452:contribs
215:Archives
1039:Johnbod
1006:Johnbod
653:(right)
599:Chicago
462:Johnbod
353:Johnbod
260:90 days
684:(left)
585:(left)
580:(left)
560:Furius
46:scale.
853:might
819:might
38:This
16:<
1089:talk
1055:talk
1028:talk
1020:diff
1010:talk
986:talk
951:talk
926:talk
904:talk
889:talk
874:talk
794:talk
749:talk
744:HTGS
730:talk
725:HTGS
718:this
688:left
665:talk
660:HTGS
646:left
644:as (
628:left
611:Sdkb
605:{{u|
592:left
564:talk
544:asem
495:talk
481:talk
466:talk
448:talk
418:talk
403:talk
389:talk
375:talk
367:zero
357:talk
342:talk
942:all
774:Eng
704:😼
635:--)
525:😼
1091:)
1057:)
1030:)
1012:)
988:)
953:)
928:)
906:)
891:)
876:)
796:)
741:—
722:—
716:(“
713:is
692:—
680:}}
676:{{
657:—
638:}}
632:{{
617:}}
566:)
551:)
513:—
501:)
497:/
483:)
468:)
454:)
450:/
420:)
405:)
391:)
377:)
359:)
344:)
326:MB
1087:(
1053:(
1026:(
1008:(
984:(
949:(
924:(
902:(
887:(
872:(
792:(
769:E
751:)
747:(
732:)
728:(
702:¢
699:☏
667:)
663:(
649:)
594:)
590:(
562:(
549:t
547:(
542:M
523:¢
520:☏
493:(
479:(
475:―
464:(
446:(
416:(
401:(
387:(
373:(
355:(
340:(
290:.
52::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
