Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ImageResizeBot: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Logos: done |
→Discussion: reply |
||
Line 42:
***(ec) Well seeing those, I'll probably increase the minimal size to 400,000 square pixels. Basically that puts a bit of leeyway, and gets rid of the problems you mention. Now, the idea from here would be to do the resizing of the obvious cases, get those down to at least thumbnail size. As far as the costs, this bot is actually operating from the wikimedia toolservers, so all the queries are direct database queries, as far as getting that list. The actual resize requires that the bot download the image (to memory, not to hard disk), change the size, and upload the new image size. This is all done inside of [[RAM]]. The point at this stage is really to get the obvious violators, not split hairs, I did not realize that the smaller ones would result in a 1 pixel change. —— '''[[user:Eagle 101|<font color="navy">Eagle</font><font color="red">101]]'''</font><sup>[[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need help?]]</sup> 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
**** Well, I fear that you might eliminate a lot of the issues, but you will still have borderline cases. For example, [[:Image:ChoosecologotypeTM.jpg]] will be resized to 410k (and [[:Image:ShereKhanJBSM.jpg]] will be resized minimally). This is all a factor of the size of the thumbnail being as large as possible to fit inside an 800x600 box (this is configurable in preferences, too, so there are multiple thumbnail sizes on the server, it would seem). I see two potential ways to handle this. One would be to only work with images above size X (eg 400k) but make sure to size them below size Y (eg 360k). The other would be to just define the size you are going to make them (i.e. define a maximum dimension). Am I missing the reason that you are tying the new size to the thumbnail? - [[User:AWeenieMan|AWeenieMan]] ([[User talk:AWeenieMan|talk]]) 23:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
*****Not a very large reason, no but it does give us a base line for what can reasonably be considered a thumbnail. I do understand there are going to be a few edge cases. Not everything will be able to be machine resized, that was and never will be the goal. However both images can use some resizing, especially the second one you mentioned. I'm starting to think a broad first pass on the larger cases will do us best. Perhaps we should start with images with areas larger then 500,000 pixels. At least get those down to an acceptable size, then work on a category by category bases getting things down to an acceptable size. All this will have to be debated as to what the max size is, and there will be exceptions to any rule we put up, these will have to checked by admins before they delete the old revision containing the larger image. Its really easy to undo a resize, I think non-admins can undo the bot as well. We just need to come up with a way that is acceptable to everyone as to how to mark things as an exception to the general rules. Using 500,000 as the minimum size, we still have 5,000+ images to resize. —— '''[[user:Eagle 101|<font color="navy">Eagle</font><font color="red">101]]'''</font><sup>[[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need help?]]</sup> 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
*From [[User:David Shankbone]], I understand that deleting the oversize version doesn't actually save any space on the servers, since the oversize version is still kept around (like a deleted article). If this theory is correct, has it been factored into the calculation of benefits? [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 23:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
**(ec x2)Correct, we know that, the point is to remove the high resolution version of the image. Using our non-free content policies means we use the smallest version we can use. —— '''[[user:Eagle 101|<font color="navy">Eagle</font><font color="red">101]]'''</font><sup>[[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need help?]]</sup> 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
| |||