I'm wanting to cite this image here, in a piece of work I'm doing. As I'm using biblatex what's the best method of citing it?

  • I would use the entry type online. Commented Mar 2, 2013 at 14:19
  • Who would be the author then? Wikimedia?
    – Ben
    Commented Mar 2, 2013 at 14:23
  • 1
    Based on this site en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia I say yes ;-) Commented Mar 2, 2013 at 14:25
  • In this case, the uploader did not provide any information on the source. You can try to use Google image search to search for copies. In this case, I tried, and I find a lot of copies, but it's not really clear which one is the original source.
    – Albert
    Commented May 22, 2023 at 16:14

2 Answers 2


I suggest the following entry:

 author  = "Wikimedia Commons",
 title   = "Plaques of Lambda Phages on E. coli XL1-Blue MRF",
 year    = "2007",
 urlseen = "03-02-13",
 url     = "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3aLambdaPlaques.jpg",
 note    = "File: \ttfamily{LambdaPlaques.jpg}",

My suggestion based on the described rules here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia#BibTeX_entry

  • 1
    What’s with the license? And the user "Madboy” is not needed to be mentioned?
    – Speravir
    Commented Mar 2, 2013 at 21:56
  • 1
    @Speravir: Is the user the author or only the uploader? I think this isn't clear and so I would use Wikimedia as author. Commented Mar 2, 2013 at 21:57
  • 4
    I don’t know, but I would add this name. The more important issue in my eyes is not naming one of the licenses, though.
    – Speravir
    Commented Mar 2, 2013 at 22:00
  • 2
    I've went with something similar to this, though shouldn't urlseen be urldate ?
    – Ben
    Commented Mar 2, 2013 at 23:02
  • 1
    I think the licence should be added within the citation in the text. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/… blogs.scientificamerican.com/compound-eye/…
    – G. Bay
    Commented Jun 28, 2016 at 13:05

Note that OP's photo is authorless, hence the previous answer is tailored only to this photo. The full notice read:

No machine-readable author provided. Madboy assumed (based on copyright claims).

(Madboy is the user uploads this photo.) In general there's no reason to put Wikimedia Common as the author of the photo.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .