Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ImageResizeBot: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:47, 17 March 2008

Revision as of 19:50, 17 March 2008

Line 22:

**OK, thats reasonable, I would hope the admin would confirm with the furd, but I can see your point. If someone wants to make an alternate template, please do so, as I suck at templates. XD As far as the reduction goes, that image is clearly too large. We can easily reduce the image size to no effect at all on the article proper. Unless I'm missing something of course. :) ''Edit: I should be a little clearer, the program's reduction of the image size in this case will not affect the article at all, see [[Logarithm#See_also]], look to the right.'' —— '''[[user:Eagle 101|<font color="navy">Eagle</font><font color="red">101]]'''</font>^{[[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need help?]]} 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

***Ok, replying to self, I think I picked up why removing the original is bad. We lose the authorship history. A good way to prevent this would be to perhaps have the bot put those details in the description. Is this a possible answer to this concern? Sorry that it took me a second to realize what you were getting at ;). —— '''[[user:Eagle 101|<font color="navy">Eagle</font><font color="red">101]]'''</font>^{[[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need help?]]} 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

****That is indeed the thrust of my second reason, and that solution would satisfy the need to preserve authorship data. We still need a human to compare the two images prior to deletion; just to make sure the bot didn't change the image. Imagine a technical bug that processed a run one file off; so every small image got uploaded on the page for the prior/later image in the run. No article pages would have been updated - but all the images would be wrong. Or a perl bug that fed the wrong parameters to imagemagik and the images came out rotated, or ... Those are the class of bugs I'm still worried about having a human check for prior to deletion of the original. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 19:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

*I don't see any reason why we'd need a huge image, but I would suggest creating a template that you make known to existing users to include on an image page as part of the rationale of why they need an image that large for non-free works. (Technically, this would help us further machine-readible-ize our NFCs, by saying that any image over a certain number of pixels will have the potential to be reduced unless this template, which should include a more descriptive reason for the large size, is included). Then the bot should ignore such images, though I'd recommend that any image that is tagged as such should be looked at closely by an admin and evaluated if the rationale is sane. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

**Yes, that is a possibility. However I'm hoping to stick to images that are large enough that there really is no reason for a larger image. Remember fair use images only need to be good enough for the article, we don't have to have a higher resolution available. As far as I understand, its better that we don't. If you can elaborate, please do. I also welcome someone actually creating this template and linking that template :). —— '''[[user:Eagle 101|<font color="navy">Eagle</font><font color="red">101]]'''</font>^{[[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need help?]]} 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)