User talk:OsamaK/November 2008

Maps
Please check out: Image:GAFTA2map.GIF, Image:GAFTA map.GIF, and other maps by User:Arab League, as all his maps may be up for deletion, as Image:GAFTA3map.GIF, Image:AGADIR AGREEMENT2.gif, and Image:AGADIR AGREEMENT1.GIF were removed. Thnaks. Wiz9999 (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image size: what size is OK?
I'd be happy to reduce the size of some non-free logos I uploaded, but I can't find any guidelines on exactly what pixel dimensions to reduce them to in order to keep OKBot happy. What criteria is it using when adding Template:Non-free reduce? The template only says to upload a "suitably sized thumbnail", but what does that mean? —mjb (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:IsThisHeavenIowa.JPG
I removed the nonfree-reduce template of Image:IsThisHeavenIowa.JPG. As I said in the comments I added to the image, the size currently in use is needed in the context of Field of Dreams. In fact, a slightly-larger image with clearer fine-print would be even better. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image sizes
I would check this functionality of the bot - first I don't see it in approved tasks but that's only looking at the bot page so it would help to know what the task description was (I checked BAG but it's not listed there, presuming its an interwiki bot). That said, non-free reductions only start to be a concern when the image gets about 0.1 megapixels at least on en.wiki. However, that's not a hard-set number, and situations may require allowances above that. --M ASEM 14:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Size of non-fee images
This bot is not a sensible one. For starters there is no definition of what too big is? Image:Jellybabies.jpg is only 604 × 905 pixels and the company logo is only a portion of the image, this is small! Secondly the rationale for the image states that is low resolution in that the packaging is distorted.

I cannot see you can automate such a test. Traveler100 (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused about the guidelines the bot uses to tag images for reduction. For instance, Image:3-D Docking Mission.png, a 560x384 pixel screenshot from an Apple II game, was tagged for reduction, despite its dimensions being smaller than the image page thumbnail size.  The fair use definition of "low resolution" offers this as a guideline.  It might be more suitable for the bot to tag only those non-free images that exceed this guideline (and there are many); tagging also smaller ones seems unsuitable (particularly for a bot), since for those it's a much more subjective call.  Thanks Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  18:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hum, not really. This image is used as 252 pixel in its article, but the available size is the double; which is not "low resolution": I see no problem with it, I'd tag it, if my bot did'nt. anyway, what do you mean with "non-free images that exceed this guideline"?--OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To put it more clearly: the image in question can be displayed at full size on its image description page. This, in essentially these words, is one of the criteria used at Fair use/Definition of "low resolution" for determining if a non-free image is too large.  In this case, the image in question is comfortably below this threshold.
 * As for my suggestion that the bot should concentrate on "non-free images that exceed this guideline", that is basically the gist. I suggest that the bot should concentrate on non-free images that are so large that they cannot be displayed at full size on the image description page, because this is an objective measure that is in keeping with the WP guideline.  From the Defining "low resolution" section:
 * "In most cases anything which is not obviously too high of a resolution is probably fine. Another approach to the rule of thumb is that if Wikipedia's software is forced to use a thumbnail of the image on the image description page, it is almost certainly an image of too high a resolution."
 * On the other hand, I don't see anything in the definition that says that if "the available size is the double" (of the size it appears in an article, presumably), it's not low resolution. Is this a WP guideline?  Thanks  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  22:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Apple II image is a good example of where a little extra resolution is justifiable, because it significantly improves the understanding the reader gets -- in this case, they see pixelwise exactly how the game designers had to cope with the low colour depth and resolution of the platform, getting an exact impression of what the game actually looked like, rather than the blurred reduced-size version where this is not apparent.
 * I'm also concerned about the effect of reduction on some of the many banknote images you've tagged, where style and detail of fine hatching printing is an important part of the character of the note, and of interest, in addition to the overall gross features.
 * One can also envisage other cases where resolution may be appropriate to clearly see particular features - for example, perhaps to read the text in a movie poster.
 * I think the ultimate way forward, as somebody has suggested, may be a bot that auto-uploads a maximum 300x300 resized version; but with a message that anyone can revert to the larger version, which would for the time being still be stored on the system, provided that they also filled in a templated message that the bot would in future recognise, explaining why in that particular case additional resolution was required. Jheald (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mention below, the auto-upload resize-bot should only work on images that have already been tagged for several days, giving human editors a chance to respond.
 * There should also be a way to redirect the OKbot around images of higher resolution that have been approved to keep. --Knulclunk (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On your second point, that's why I suggest a template that people put a reason into as to why higher resolution is required, that the bot could detect.
 * For the first point, the most sure way to judge whether higher resolution is really needed or not is to actually look at low resolution and physically see whether it's good enough or not. That's why I suggest OKbot automatically downsize all images in appropriate categories, but without prejudice to users coming along, perhaps months later, and simply reverting the change, provided they add a template with an explanation. Jheald (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "a template that people put a reason into as to why higher resolution is required, that the bot could detect" is a fine idea, but it needs to be super-novice-easy. The Wikipedia process of doing things can be brutally user-hostile, particularly when it comes to templates.
 * If we do go with the auto-downsize bot, it should lead editors to the "size rationale" template with a very polite message of why an image is resized. Obviously we would need to notify the uploader as well as the article's talk page, similar to image deletion notification. I still don't see the harm in sending the resizing-bot later, after the tagging-bot. It just seems much classier.--Knulclunk (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Software screenshots
Attempting to resize many of our software screenshots to fit this completely arbitrary "500 pixel" guideline is going to make many of those images useless. Remember that these are almost always images with text or other user interface elements that, when sized smaller, are not going to be legible, or at the very least, will force users to struggle to understand what's going on.

I'd love to hear a sober rationale for this. I've been dealing with software screenshots on Wikipedia for three years now, and I've yet to hear a convincing argument for making screenshots that are smaller than their original resolution. If you struggle to find a good reason for this, then you should consider skipping images that are tagged as Non-free software screenshots, or at the very least, take the advice you've been offered by others and tag larger images with some kind of "manual check" template so that large screenshots can be reviewed to see if a smaller portion can be used.  Warren -talk- 22:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot task problem
At Bots/Requests for approval/OKBot_4 you requested and were approved for permission to bot-tag images "higher or wider than 500px". That means the minimum size limit of the largest side is 501px). I'm going to start reverting instances where you tagged images whose maximum dimensions are 500px, as that's a more convenient solution than trying to rescale and replace images unnecessarily. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Have you read WP:Assume good faith? Unlike WP:FU, that is a policy, and I'd appreciate it if you could follow it a little more closely.
 * For the record, my criticism of your actions have nothing to do with fair use, and everything to do with your slipshot programming. Your assertion on my talk page that "it was just a very minor mistake while explaining the bot task" is wrong; you explained it perfectly well; you simply executed the task wrongly by setting the bot to tag images at 500px instead of 501. People work in round, divisble-by-ten numbers, hence why standard thumbnail sizes on Wikipedia are 180, 200, 250, 300, etc. 500px-wide images scale will downscale easier than 499px-wide images.
 * As for the statement that "one pixel makes no different" [sic], clearly that is not the case. Hundreds of images are now tagged for deletion because they're at the limit, not above it. And as others below have asked, exactly where are you getting this 500px figure from? There is not one iota of information about maximum pixel sizes. Is there anywhere others can read these limits and discuss them, or has your bot just arbitrarily created it?
 * Now, I see you've reverted me on many of my edits. I also see that in a section below, it's been suggested that wherever you are reverted, you leave well alone. I hope the increasing numbers of dissenting voices on this talk page are finally alerting you to the possibility that you might not be absolutely right, and everyone else might not be absolutely wrong. The last thing WP needs is another Betacommand drama-bot. --DeLarge (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Complement.--OsamaK 02:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

OKBot
Why have you so quickly removed a number of peoples' objections about this bot has done? They complaints are also not in you achieve pages. You are hiding the fact from the people who have just started complaining that others have also objected the the cavalier manner of what this bot has done. Checking the size of an image and then marking it as invalid is ridicules. Firstly you are not checking how many of those pixels are actual defining the logo in question or what quality is it reproduced in. It is also ignoring the justification text that people have input on the image pages. Traveler100 (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any comment, note me if I did by mistake. Any helpful comment is welcomed here. Anyway, I see some nonsense restrictions :), "checking how many of those pixels are actual defining the logo": other items\white spaces in the photo should be cut out of it, if the logo is not the goal of the photo, then it can be -in some cases- not copyrighted (example). Please keep the dissuasion within the logic, do not assume so far so rare cases.--OsamaK 19:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not rare cases. The problem is other overenthusiastic people mark images that contain a logo somewhere in the photograph for quick deletion if not marked as copyright image. Therefor people have marked images that put them under this bots radar. Other examples of this situation are discussion by others on this page. I agree checking to see how may pixel the actual logo takes up on the page is "nonsense"; that is why I stand by the statement that the validation you are trying to do is nonsense to attempt to do automatically. Do this task yes, but manually viewing all the images. People have invested years in adding images to articles, please do not discourage them.

Traveler100 (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

501px
Is there any basis for your 500px cutoff? Yes, the bot is approved, but as far as I can tell there is no community basis for the decision that >500px constitutes too high a resolution. It seems to me that you plucked that number out of the air.

In my opinion, whether or not something is "high resolution" depends very strongly on the context, and no single Wikipedian has the right to pick a number and then use a bot to impose that number on the rest of us.

Hesperian 22:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not OsamaK, but I would like to offer a suggestion:
 * There is a spectrum: Anything wider than a typical computer screen is probably way too big, anything smaller than the typical size used in infoboxes is almost always okay, with a grey area in between.  A better approach might be a semi-automated bot that:
 * For very large images, say, over 1000 pixels wide or tall, automatically uploaded a smaller image, say, 500 pixels, but left the big one available for a week, and posted a notice to a highly-trafficked page and to the talk pages of affected articles.
 * For medium-sized images, say, 500-1000 pixels wide or tall, flag them for a human-assisted go/no-go check, with images that were deemed oversized shrunk as above. It would be up to the human to check the image's use in each article it was used in to see what the appropriate minimum size should be, in case 500 is too small.
 * If nobody reverted the change after a week, the old, large version would be deleted.
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to do that, on about fifty images, but OsamaK has reverted me. I'm not convinced this is a particularly fair way of doing things, since it's very difficult for a user to revert so many incorrect taggings when up against the speed of a bot. I'm going to go back through them again, but it's a fairly gargantuan task and I think would be much better approached by having Osama himself (or his bot) rollback the incorrect taggings per my comments above. --DeLarge (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will.--OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 13:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅.--OsamaK 19:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:CaNTM2 jay.jpg
Could you resize the Image:CaNTM2 jay.jpg picture. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.120.229 (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅--OsamaK 19:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Reduced image size
Hi,

your bot stated the following image was too large and may be in copyright violation, i have now reduced the size - do you think this is acceptable or needs further reducing?

Image:AtlanticGoodwood Battle plan.jpg

Cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice. Thank you for doing that. I guess the photo is still much larger than needed. It is used as 300px, but the file size is 852px. It would be good if you upload a 300-350px version. However, please note that 'fair use' maps is an unacceptable use at all per Wikipedia policies, as long as it is replaceable.--OsamaK 19:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Battle of Bramall Lane 20020316.jpg
How about giving me a clue as to what size to reduce the image to? It isn't a high resolution image anyway. --Jameboy (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, its dimensions are larger than needed, which results in bad quality large photo.--OsamaK 11:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)