File talk:E E Speight.jpg

The change to lower resolution

In most cases I agree with changing the size of the image. The original document (noted as the source on the image description page) from which I scanned the image was of poor resolution. The scan of the document reduced the resolution still further. So was the further reduction in quality essential? It remains usable, but I can't really see the extra rationale used in the reduction. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Purpose of Use segment of this image's Non-free media use rationale says its Purely to illustrate the article on E E Speight. I think a low resolution image suffices this requirement. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You really didn't answer the question, though. It was already low. I created it as low. So why the further reduction? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A 774×1,116 image is not really a low resolution image. The image size need to be low as well. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea there were guidelines for size as well as resolution. This is a new one on me. Chapter and verse, please. I'm perfectly happy to re-upload a file to replace mine and yours that is the same resolution that I uploaded and the size that you can show me that is the regulation size. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Image size and resolution are interrelated and often directly proportional. See the article Image resolution. Also, please see the description of the Low resolution section in the template {{Non-free use rationale}}

I see the following text: "Is the material in a lower resolution that would be unlikely to impact the copyright owners ability to resell or otherwise profit from the work? For images, this would be strictly the resolution (in pixels) of the picture used; for audio, this would be the bit rate and sample resolution used. SVG images do not technically have a resolution, so may be described using "SVG will be rendered at low resolutions"." which makes no reference at all to file size, simply to resolution. Please help me some more here. Image size and image resolution are two different things. Rendering a low resolution image and forcing a smaller size can appear to enhance the resoltuion, but the overall resolution is unchanged. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A 774x1116 image will have more pixels in it than a 240 × 346 image. To illustrate the article on E E Speight, a 240 x 346 image is sufficient. The one thing to understand here is that Wikipedia is not a file sharing site. We can only upload images in its original resolution or a higher resolution than required if we own the copyright of the image. If its a non-free image, it has to be small and of the minimum file size and resolution. See the Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request for all the non-free images/files waiting to be resized to their minimum resolution. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, you are not answering the question. Of course a large file of low resolution has more pixels than a smaller file of the same resolution. But the number of pixels is not the same as the resolution. You've further sidestepped my question by showing me a category, a category which is interesting, but which doesn't answer the question. You've now added the concept of file sharing to the discussion, not something which never entered my head until you mentioned it. You say "If its a non-free image, it has to be small and of the minimum file size and resolution.", but you have not yet referred me to any definition. If I were not seeking this informtaion I would simply have reverted your edit. I am seeking enlightenment. Please enlighten me without deviating from the simple question about picture dimensions, size. Something is not a fact because you state it, nor because I state it. Where is the consensus you are using as your benchmark? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria - "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." This is generally interpreted to mean the image should be no larger that what is used on the article itself. The original upload was way too huge to be used in the article as-is. You yourself added the image to the article at a reduced size (diff). The idea is, any "fair use" is an acceptable violation of someone's copyright, but we can't legally claim fair use on content we aren't using. If we can only use a portion in the article, why keep the whole thing? Keeping hi-res copies of non-free content turns WP into Photobucket. I doubt anyone's going to sue over the image in question, but reduction of overly-large images is standard operating procedure. I'm sure if you wanted to you could argue this (maybe there's another policy that's more specific about size), but what is the point? Why should we have more of this non-free image than is being used? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

While I accept what you are saying there are two points where we differ.

1. My addition was not, specifically, of a limited size. I used the infobox template which does that automatically. I agree that the difference is subtle.
2. More technically, reduced size is not the same as a reduced portion. Thus, while I understand the intellectual argument you are presenting, I think you have stated it imprecisely.

It may seem that I am continuing to beat the same old drum, but I am truly interested in the actual answer, not what is custom and practice. Custom and practice is similar to, yet different from consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)