Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Italics for (left) and (right)

[edit]

I see above that there's no set standard for when to use italics for stage directions in captions like (left). I was wondering, when I do decide to use them, should the parentheses be italicized, e.g. (left), or just the word, e.g. (left). I'd lean toward just the word (the recommendation of Chicago), 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, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 (left) needs the {{--)}} template to render (''left''{{--)}} as (left). Simpler to me would be (right) as (right) and—at least for this case—avoid the potential messiness of these italic issues. — HTGS (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The italics are more consistent with how WP treats all "asides" to the reader (hatnotes, the {{crossref}} 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 (left) 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 (left) produces display problems which are either an accessibility issue for people with poor eyesight or require annoying template gimmicks as described above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of such a convention, and that does make sense, but I don’t personally feel that the stage direction here is 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 (“this is what we’re talking about”). A stage direction (imo) is no more an aside than most captions are. — HTGS (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But yes, the italicise-all approach does make sense from that pov. — HTGS (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile enlarged photo captions unreadable

[edit]

(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? .phoebewalsh (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on MOS:CREDITS

[edit]

Not a huge deal, but since I saw some articles on my watchlist getting edits citing this...

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 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.

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 event / life / etc. where the depiction is on romantic / political grounds, or dubious images that might 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:

  • Revolt of the Comuneros 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 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 Glorious Revolution (Spain), and not something remotely meant to be historically accurate.
  • Simon Thassi 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 and place due to a lack of contemporary images. I just remember this one because another editor at one point edited it to be even blunter, although this was obviously removed later as laying it on too thick.)
  • Thomas Bayes has an image that might 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 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.

Does this seem a reasonable case? Would it be fair to perhaps mention this in MOS:CAPTIONS? I'd lightly suggest something like:

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 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.

SnowFire (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think if there is reason to believe the accuracy is dubious, it would be more helpful to just say that explicitly. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 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." SnowFire (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But I don't agree that what you're proposing is an adequate substitute. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 image itself 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 many subjects, and true about essentially any depiction. This disclaimer would end up in all 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 Treachery of Images. SnowFire (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 made that clearer - does that address your concern? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added it here: diff. Feel free to adjust or revise. SnowFire (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod, this really should be clarified to add the Visual Arts caption information. An RfC? I had added back Gilbert Stuart's credit to the opening images at John Adams and was again quickly reverted. All interested parties should first read the discussion at talk:Abigail Adams, 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the Gilbert Stuart credit to the George Washington first image per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures which links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Image captions. 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 John Adams opening image (joining the article Abigail Adams, where the Stuart name and link exists due to the discussion on the article's talk page). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox caption of team sport athlete

[edit]

WP:CAPTION lists one of the criteria of a good caption as provides context for the picture. MOS:CAPLENGTH lists an example of "Publicity photo for Jailhouse Rock (1957)" for Elvis Presley, which gives relevant context for an actor beyond the standard "<surname> in <year>".

At Kobe Bryant, the infobox image shows him in a uniform with "Lakers". The caption has long read "Bryant with the Los Angeles Lakers in 2014". It was changed by Seasider53 to "Bryant in 2014" with the rationale "Rv, per policy previously linked to. Users wanting additional info can click on the image".[2]

Other team sport athlete bios with a caption bearing their pictured team include Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Rodri, Megan Rapinoe, Shohei Ohtani, Patrick Mahomes, LeBron James, and Caitlin Clark.

Should the infobox caption of a team sport athlete in a uniform include mention of the team? —Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as it adds additional info. Also, it will not always be obvious to users to click on the photo. Assadzadeh (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Users who click on the image are presented with: "Kobe Bryant playing for the Los Angeles Lakers during a game against the Washington Wizards on December 3, 2014."
If an image doesn't have this information in it, it wouldn't be available to be included in the caption, so I don't understand your statement. Seasider53 (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several criteria for a good caption. A good caption:
1. clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious;
2. is succinct
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. For cherry-picking balance, should I add a list of articles which adhere to said policy? Seasider53 (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
without detailing the obvious: Non-fans of a given sport would generally not be familiar with any displayed team name or location on a uniform. —Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the guideline example of Publicity photo for Jailhouse Rock (1957)? Change that to "Publicity photo for Jailhouse Rock ( Presley in 1957) as well, because "succint" and hey, just "click on the image"? —Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nailed it. Seasider53 (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: - also worth mentioning re: "Non-fans of a given sport would generally not be familiar with any displayed team name or location on a uniform" that only in North America is it the norm to have either the city name or nickname of the team in massive letters on the front. No such clues in, for example, Lionel Messi's infobox image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's still the reader curiosity of which team is the player pictured with. A general concept at MOS:LINK is:

Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links

Of course, the opponent, exact date, or photographer is trivial to most images, and those are generally not needed in a caption. —Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nowhere in the policy that says the default is "<Person name> in <Year>" so articles which don't use this formualtion can still adhere to the policy. Given Elvis is used as an example, it is clear that other descriptors are allowed, and the ideal caption can range from none at all to a regular full-sentence caption
I see no problem with mentioning the team name, though I wouldn't go as far as saying it should always be included. Spike 'em (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go as far as saying it should always be included: Yes, one might have a portrait with a generic or obscured uniform, like at George Sisler, that leads to an editorial decision that a team mention is not relevant. But that's on a per-case basis.—Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the information is not visible in the image but it is in the file info (as is the case with Sisler), why would you not include it in the caption? This is so backwards, it’s laughable. Seasider53 (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you were the one blindly stripping captions to plain "<surname> in <year>", telling us to "click on the image". But now you find it "laughable" for a caption to have less info than the file? —Bagumba (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LAKERS. Seasider53 (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which LAKERS? Is this a developmental team named the Lakers for a player making his way back from injury? Is this the Minneapolis Lakers? Why do you assume everything is inherently obvious to the point of being self-evident? The policy says the caption should give "relevant context". If the team for which a player is playing is not relevant context, I don't know what is. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The one listed in his infobox, right below the image. I didn't realise he only played for one team, which makes this whole thing even more wild. Seasider53 (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A weaselly explanation, considering you've removed them from players with multiple teams too, e.g Wayne Rooney.[3] WP:CAPTION anyways says (emphasis added):

Different people read articles in different ways. Some people start at the top and read each word until the end. Others read the first paragraph and scan through the article's body for other interesting information, looking especially at pictures and captions. Those readers, even if the information is adjacent in the text, will not find it unless it is in the caption.

—Bagumba (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is bizarrely assumptive, isn't it? I agree, as you stated elsewhere, that we should use caption wordings on a per-article basis. If we don't feel the extraneous information benefits the reader, the caption should state the bare minimum. If readers aren't able to deduce that the image of Bryant is from his days with the Lakers, we should hold their hand at said article. Seasider53 (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said... he could have been playing with a developmental league team on rehab from an injury. You can't know that from the image alone. Certainly non-basketball fans wouldn't know better. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the text in MOS:CAPTION which says In a biography article no caption is necessary for a portrait of the subject pictured alone, but one might be used to give the year, the subject's age, or other circumstances of the portrait along with the name of the subject. The team being represented in the photo would certainly count as "other circumstances" to me, as does the film in the Elvis example. Spike 'em (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see a good reason to be so strict about the caption. The longstanding caption at the Bryant article seemed reasonable to me. Seasider53's approach seems anti-reader, and certainly isn't required by any policy. Zagalejo (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need for a hard-and-fast rule. Regarding the Kobe caption, either alternative is acceptable, which means that it wasn't necessary to change the status quo. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Captions&oldid=1276981161"