File talk:Lion waiting in Namibia.jpg

Concerning the reversions done by 217.237.151.227, really- it is standard practice on commons to place specific caption information about an image first (including translations), then general information, and lastly the licensing information. If your concern is that the photographer's name or Flicker as a source figure more prominently, then there is a problem there. As succinctly and very well stated on Commons:Manipulating meta data:

"We don't tag our Wikipedia articles with our names in a prominent way inside the article text in order to step behind the work and let it speak for itself, the same applies to the images (stepping behind own work and thus reducing personal vanity is crucial for neutrality). "

Just keeping the caption at the top pushes the name of the photographer offscreen, as translations into the 20 major languages are made available. But note there is a link to the author's work in the caption, so everyone has an opportunity to find out more if they are interested in that.

Concerning the general information eg- vernacular names of Lion and multilingual background text from wiki article topic sentences: If this text got pasted into the article the placement issue would be the same. It makes commons more welcoming to non english speakers to see descriptive information available at the top of the page. This is especially helpful for images where the identity of the subject is unclear- such as the name of the persons or objects in the photo. Really- I don't think many people care that the image came from Flicker or really have a burning curiousity about who took the picture. Some folks who want to use the image publically will, and the information is there, just where you would find it in any professional publication- in the backmatter.

If you are the photographer, I mean no offence. This photograph is great and I salute you for making it freely available to the world. It is really a very strong composition.-Mak 19:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)