Help talk:Images

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

From main article[edit]

N.B. Uploading is now possible. You can stop complaining. :) -- Paul Rfc1394 16:20, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I am for having pictures in Wiktionary, so that wiktionary can be a picture dictionary too. What do others think? -fonzy

Yes, Wiktionary should have pictures. It would be nice if we could link images from Wikipedia:

w:image:flute.jpg

But this doesn't seem to work.

-- Merphant

flute.jpg does this work?

This would work if we had an image, "Flute.jpg" in the wiktionary namespace. My point was that since we already have a flute picture in the wikipedia namespace, it would be nice if we could link to that instead of wasting space by duplicating it here. -- Merphant

That is just a pointer to the image file. You need to put the image file in the Wiktionary page for it to display. If you find a page on Wikipedia with an image in it, have a look and you'll see how it's done. BTW, a terrific idea. Also we could have some sound files.... user:sjc

I don't really see the point of having graphics/sounds, as the whole point is to be a dictionary not an encyclopedia, we describe what words mean, as opposed to what they represent. --Imran 11:40 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

I am still for having them, i think picture dictionaries do help, as a definition might make a person think "i think i know what that is" then a picture may make them think "o thats what it is". - fonzy

Images can also mislead. --Imran 22:08 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

True, but even normal dictionaries have some images. We certainly don't need images for every entry, but for many nouns and adjectives images could help. Since Wiktionary is communally edited, misleading images can be quickly identified and replaced or removed. Also note that the image I linked to above is from Webster's 1913 dictionary. -- Merphant

Images can mislead, but so can words. Nobody's suggesting we leave them out, I hope! --Brion

I think, at least cross-section of mouth images are obligatory - to show how the tongue and other muscles are arranged when we pronounce some sounds. I can't imagine a good dictionary without it (that's why I rate most paper dictionaries as... hm... a bit corrupted, to get to know some sounds one should buy another book - a grammar in most cases). So sound clips would be of much importance as well! Like those found on IPA site. Youandme 04:58 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

I'd like to see pictures, on sentimental grounds alone.

The first dictionary I had access to was some ancient thing of my parents', in a crumbling, soft leather binding. Before I could read, I liked looking through it and seeing the engraved illustrations in the margins, and having them explained to me. Now this particular style of illustration (which as it happens shows up in the flute illustration above) says reference to me. Think 1911 Britannica. Think Diderot's Encyclopedie.

What I see now is that illustrations in dictionaries are at least a nice way to break up the page. Granted, a Wiktionary page is a different animal, but the effect is similar.

Note also the utility (and popularity) of pictorial dictionaries. What a great idea! And there are times when a picture cuts to the quick much faster than words can. (I'll omit the obvious cliche.)

I don't see why this perspective doesn't generalize to other media. I don't see why a future me wouldn't feel at least as much enthusiasm for multimedia presentation elements as I once did for those engravings.

And why constrain ourselves to so much less than the medium allows? It's easier for me to understand why Diderot would use engravings, and not a great many of them--and no photographs at all. Why should we? The more I think about it, the more I think the burden of proof belongs with those arguing against graphics and other media.

Jdickinson 11:31 December 21, 2014 (UTC)


Inclusion of pictures would be great, especially when other versions of wiktionary appear (Portuguese, Spanish, German etc), because it will be a lot easier to learn new words. It'll be just as if we were 5 years old kids looking up the big dictionaries and learning the words by remembering the pictures.

Webkid 20:18, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Uploading pictures is possible for many months already. I have uploaded a few pictures I took of animals. At least one is used at zebra. What is also very cool, is that one can also upload sound files. So Wiktionary can be truly multimedia. One can listen to words and phrases being spoken by native speakers. Of course the effort to put them on the server is a lot more involved than for typing text. It is also important that the content be free. So we have to shoot the pictures, draw the illustrations and record the sounds ourselves. I'm sure it will start to happen though. (I hope they have bought large disks for storage with the money they raised!) Polyglot 16:28, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I tried to upload an item here a short time ago and was told (by the system) that uploads were not available, or were disabled.

One reason for including sounds would be to put in pronunciations of words so people can hear the pronunciation as a native speaker (like me) would use it. Of course, there's always the possibility I may use the word wrong. (Does anyone remember how U.S. President Ford used to (in my opinion) mispronounce the word "judgment")? It used to irritate me terribly.

-- Paul Rfc1394 16:31, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)


You can check out a cool online Picture Dictionary at the following URL:

http://www.giantpicturedictionary.com

Simple:Basic English picture wordlist[edit]

I'd like to call people's attention to http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English_picture_wordlist This page on the simple English Wikipedia has 200 pictures of common English nouns. Most the pictures are in Wikicommons so thay should be easily included in the corresponding Wiktionary entry. For example: commons:Image:bottle.agr.jpg--ArnoldReinhold 04:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

make image uploads admin-approved?[edit]

I hate to suggest this, but due to the recent rash of "ass pus" vandalism, would it be a bad idea to make it so that uploaded images have to be approved by a sysop? I know that this might be a burden to legit users, but honestly, I don't really see a need for images (Wiktionary isn't an encyclopedia).

Just a thought. --Ixfd64 07:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I kinda miss the "ass pus" vandal's old style - they're much easier to revert.

  • In fact we could switch off image uploading entirely. There is another project - WikiCommons - for this purpose. We should migrate all our images and sound files over there. Referring to them is not harder than it is now. When a file is not found on a certain project it will be looked for on Commons. It makes a lot of sense to put all images, sound files, etc together in one place. It avoids a lot of duplication of effort and storage as they can be used and reused by all the projects.

    The next step could be to not allow images from external sites anymore. Of course, as we take measures to counter vandalism, some vandals may get more sophisticated. It can't be helped. Polyglot 08:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

    • As long as turning image uploading here off does not prevent us from referencing files on commons, I agree then that we should have the local-upload capability turned off. Commons is a more logical place to have lots more sets of eyes watching. For audio files, most of us have been using commons anyway. --Connel MacKenzie 08:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It won't. Wikinews was configured that way for a long while, until it sorted out a fair use policy and local uploads could be enabled. All images had to be from Commons. Whether that configuration makes sense for Wiktionary depends from whether Wiktionary would ever want anything other than public-domain or GFDL media. Wikipedia and Wikinews certainly do, since they make use of logos, publicity photographs, screenshots, and the like. Wiktionary might not.

        The proper place to discuss Wiktionary's image policy is the discussion page of Wiktionary's image policy, of course. Uncle G 17:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Given commons.wikimedia.org's recent propensity for deleting our front-page logos, I am not sure we are entrusting the right people to guard over our media files. Perhaps we should have our primary copy locally, and optionally a second copy loaded on commons for anyone else to use? I am no longer convinced that "the commons" is a safe respository for us. --Connel MacKenzie 15:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Could we have our logos locally, so we don't need to trust Commons for them and the rest of the images and sound files on Commons.
The REAL QUESTION is though, whether I can go and ask a developer to switch off uploading of images by non-sysops? Could we have a vote on that? Or at least a handful of people in support and not more than, say 2, against? It makes far more sense for most material to be on commons, where it can be shared between projects. It's time to end the cat and mouse game with our dearest persistent contributor of unsavory vandalism. Polyglot 12:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Supported. Having everything in one place (i.e. the Commons) makes sense to make. I hope they have, as has been said, more eyes to look out for vandalism. It's frustrating being alone trying to combat it. --Stranger 22:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely - what kind of images could we possibly ever need which are so hard to get by, that there cannot be any GFDL/PD versions? (and hence forbidden on commons) \Mike 16:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Don't know how I missed this earlier. --Connel MacKenzie 01:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Commons is the better place for images and the like. The images that have come through Wiktionary lately, whether intentional vandalism or not, have been copyvio or irrelevant to the project. --Dvortygirl 17:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Polyglot 20:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Whatever is decided, would you update Wiktionary:Pictures accordingly. It's rather a mess right now. Cheers, --Stranger 17:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Coverage[edit]

I think images are really one way that online dictionaries can excel. They're easy to add (since we have commons). Would anyone be interested in a project to get images on the common English entries? --Bequwτ 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A red apple [1]
I think that using images is an important thing for Wiktionary... but we should define the caption (inscription) of images for words with many meanings. In Russian Wiktionary we are using the following agreement: "The image caption contains a brackets [with number of meaning which is related to this image]. These square brackets are located after described word." (e.g. see picture with caption, where "apple [1]" is a reference to meaning 1 in the article apple).
Another step for widespread using of images in Wiktionary is creating of special template, where
  1. first parameter is the name of Image filename, e.g. Apple.jpg;
  2. second parameter is the Image title, e.g. A red apple [1].
This template could contain special categories, e.g. "Wiktionary articles with images" (see, e.g. list of entries in Russian Wiktionary with images: [1]), etc.
See this beautiful :) template in Russian Wiktionary: ru:Шаблон:илл.
Good luck. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky 16:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm all in favor of pictures, but can this template keep track of which definition is which? Clearly, it would be a help to keep track of "board" (lumber) as distinct from "board" (committee), but our numbering is dynamic. If somebody inserts a third definition "board" (food) between definitions one and two, one of our captions will be off. I suggest we caption photos not with numbers that might shift but with summaries of the definitions they match. --Dvortygirl 17:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Glosses match our policy for other elements. See Help:Glosses. --Bequwτ 18:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)