User talk:OsamaK/December 2008

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Image:Debbie_Jordan.jpg I created this image my self and released it into public domain there is no reason to delete the image

Porter wagoner 1999? I submitted no such image to wikipedia 70.73.59.208 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OOOOH, NOW I recognise it... I didn't submit it, though.... I simply commented on its unsuitability for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.59.208 (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Next step

Do you think it would be possible for you (or someone else) to create a bot that could upload resized versions of non-free images, it could require user input - for example a user on the bot's whitelist could add something like "{{Imagebot|300}}" to the image page and the bot could then upload a new version with the a longest dimension of 300pixels and add a {{non-free reduced}} tag. Admins would still have to review the images to delete the old version so the bot couldn't run amok unnoticed. Do you think something like this would be possible on a technical level and be within policy? Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's great idea, Nothing impossible. :) We've a 'higher' (I guess) level bot which coverts images to PNG. I'm not yet that professional programmer who can do these stuffs; However, Remember the dot may can help us.--O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 20:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Its a terrible idea. 300pixels is a guideline for some images, but many images can and should be larger. Take a photograph that includes a logo or a work of art for instance. The copyrighted material may be quite small and require a Non-free tag, but the surrounding environment may push the image past the pixel limit on the bot. It might work if the bot only resized images after they have been tagged for 7 days... that might not be to evil.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on this task now. OKBot 5 will upload resized versions of these images, That may takes while. However, The copyrighted material, which is 'quite small' should be cropped and used only, is there a problem?--O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 12:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem. Black Jack (gum), Cloud Gate, Damien Hirst are all examples of photographs that include copyrighted material. For the sculptures, the environment is critical for scale and location, the size is important to understand the work. For the gum, the logo is a small portion of the overall image, but the packages are used for recognition in relation to the black sticks of gum. The current scale for these is obviously fine, or least could be debated.

Others concerns include numerous examples of 2D-art and cover art where images 360px (or 500px for horizontal) are appropriate for critical use.

I am sympathetic with your desire. Most of OKbot's tags are obscure logos of unnecessarily high resolution and should be reduced. To completely bypass all other editors for what is a judgment call is not cool. The new resize-bot must be limited to images that have been tagged for resizing and not addressed for several days. --Knulclunk (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I understood your point. However, do you think that 800×530 pixel is acceptable for a fair use image: clearly it is not, especially when it became available at another website. The gum logo is a good point, which needs to be solved. what about adding the free license tags ({{self}}, {{GFDL}}, {{CC-BY-SA}},etc..) into 'skipwords' list of the bot? that would fix all false positives. I didn't find the photo you meant in Damien Hirst.--O sama K 09:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In my initial suggestion I meant 300pxs as an example, I'd imagined a situation where the larger dimension the bot resized to could be inputed by the user as something like "{{Imagebot|XXX}}" (Where XXX was the number of pixels for the larger dimension of the resized image). The bot would probably have to have a reasonable range limit (maybe something like between 150 and 550 pixels) which would include most images to be resized - outliers would still have to be done manually. I probably should have been clearer with the initial idea, 300 just seemed like a reasonable example. Again I don't know if this would be technically possible or if a different bot for different image sizes would be required. Still given the current size of the backlog anything to help would be useful. Guest9999 (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas. I'll look around to find out how to create such bot. Your suggestion would be very important while creating it. I'm just bit busy in other projects\bots at the moment.--O sama K 09:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image size specifications

Greetings, OsamaK. What size non-free images are being tagged by OKBot as being too large? Based on the discussions I'm seeing here, I'm guessing that the images are being tagged if either the height or width is 500 px or greater. Is that right? In a related question, have there been any recent changes to what the bot does? (If you reply here I will see what you say.) — Mudwater^(Talk) 14:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It will tag images that are higher or wider than 500 pixel, but it won't tag 500 pixel images. That is the only change.--O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 14:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. But, is there a specific guideline on Wikipedia that non free images should not exceed 500 px in either dimension? And if not, how did you decide to use that for a limit? — Mudwater^(Talk) 15:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest looking only for width of over 500px? right now, a lot of movie posters are tagged which shouldn't be tagged. (Generally, I'm against tagging, as 500 as arbitrairy, and the bot cannot judge wehter the actual size is appropriate.) — Edokter • Talk • 15:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some images that are relatively short and wide. It might be better not to tag those either. For example, an image that is 600 px wide and 200 px tall is still not that large overall. — Mudwater^(Talk) 15:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Or only tag when both width and height are >500. — Edokter • Talk • 22:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I do'nt think this is the best.--O sama K 09:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Auto-resize bot

The solution of having an auto-resize bot skip ({{self}}, {{GFDL}}, {{CC-BY-SA}},etc..) as 'skipwords' is a very good solution. I would include {{Non-free 3D art}} as well, as panorama rights are so sketchy. (How can images of a public sculpture be copyright? I mean, seriously?) The bulk of the bot's work is to catch oversize logos and scans. There is no reason the rest can't be argued on a case basis. I know that screenshots where another concern. I still think only targeting {{Non-free reduce}} that have been tagged for 5-days is more respectful to other editors. --Knulclunk (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well. It is not an automatic resize bot, it'll just add {{Non-free reduce}}. Anyways, although I disagree with screenshot issue, I'll add them to the skipwords list. Nice to hear from you.--O sama K 12:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Small PD

Thanks for the 'heads up' on the new run! I'll take a look later today. And, I'm just using AutoWiki Browser for my bot work, not Python. Skier Dude (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)