My shot at the wording, anyway. I would take the first two sentences currently there and add them at the end.
2013-08-12 22425, 2013
LordSputnik
snartal: +1 anyway
2013-08-12 22450, 2013
LordSputnik
it justifies some of my previous no-votes that have been shouted down :P
2013-08-12 22422, 2013
reosarevok
What kind of no-votes?
2013-08-12 22431, 2013
snartal
And me being the curious type... why a current 300 dpi recommentation?
2013-08-12 22436, 2013
snartal
Seems low res.
2013-08-12 22449, 2013
reosarevok
We were supposed to have a 15 MB upper limit
2013-08-12 22404, 2013
reosarevok
Which I guess is still ok for 600 dpi, but
2013-08-12 22414, 2013
reosarevok
Anyway, we don't really have it, so unsure :)
2013-08-12 22417, 2013
kepstin-work
snartal: with current printing tech, the effective resolution of offset-printed images is generally below 300dpi
2013-08-12 22430, 2013
kepstin-work
(although it's higher for text-only stuff or line art)
2013-08-12 22406, 2013
kepstin-work
I normally scan at 600dpi, then apply filters and downscale to 300dpi before uploading
2013-08-12 22440, 2013
snartal
That makes sense from a printing perspective... Now, on a screen though, its different.
2013-08-12 22409, 2013
hawke_1
Yeah, screens are 120dpi generally :-p
2013-08-12 22424, 2013
kepstin-work
hmm? at 300dpi, a cd cover image is about 1400x1400 pixels
2013-08-12 22425, 2013
hawke_1
or 75dpi
2013-08-12 22433, 2013
kepstin-work
that seems like enough.
2013-08-12 22459, 2013
hawke_1
or 100 dpi, apparently.
2013-08-12 22414, 2013
kepstin-work
most desktop lcd monitors are 96dpi or lower
2013-08-12 22428, 2013
kepstin-work
recent laptops have started trending higher
2013-08-12 22436, 2013
hawke_1
my laptop is 96dpi.
2013-08-12 22453, 2013
hawke_1
Anyway, point being: less than 300dpi
2013-08-12 22434, 2013
snartal
Excellent point, kepstin-laptop, you just pointed out I was confusing dpi with pixel size.
2013-08-12 22434, 2013
snartal
So.. I say what I posted should say "300 dpi (approx 1400X1400 for a standard CD cover)" or something to that effect
2013-08-12 22457, 2013
snartal
Cause in my newbie, scatterbrain head, I was thinking 300X300 pixels
2013-08-12 22410, 2013
LordSputnik
reosarevok: oh, I voted no and provided a better image in the edit note, assuming the editor would be happy to edit themselves, but apparently I can't vote no unless I actually upload the image I linked myself
2013-08-12 22439, 2013
LordSputnik
snartal: I'd be happy with "preferably at least 500x500"
2013-08-12 22411, 2013
reosarevok
Well, that says "the intent is", not "if someone uploads a small cover vote no to it" :p
2013-08-12 22414, 2013
kepstin-work
500x500 seems to be the standard size for lowish-res images from stores.
2013-08-12 22419, 2013
reosarevok
heh, I wish
2013-08-12 22425, 2013
reosarevok
I've seen plenty of 250x250
2013-08-12 22438, 2013
nikki
at least 500x500 is basically preferred, but we don't have a minimum :P
2013-08-12 22458, 2013
LordSputnik
reosarevok: if it's 100x100 and there's a 1000x1000 on google images which I point to in my voting comment? :P
2013-08-12 22459, 2013
hawke_1
LordSputnik: Right, you shouldn’t downvote if the edit is improving the db.
2013-08-12 22415, 2013
reosarevok
LordSputnik: sure, but why wouldn't you just upload it?
2013-08-12 22420, 2013
reosarevok
(unless the CAA is down at the time)
2013-08-12 22430, 2013
LordSputnik
reosarevok: because it's not my edit, it seems like stealing :P
2013-08-12 22438, 2013
reosarevok
heh
2013-08-12 22446, 2013
nikki
LordSputnik: so abstain when pointing to it :P
2013-08-12 22456, 2013
reosarevok
If I had to wait for editors to fix their own classical adds, I'd go mad :)
2013-08-12 22458, 2013
LordSputnik
nikki: but then it might pass and get ignored :P
2013-08-12 22403, 2013
hawke_1
LordSputnik: so?
2013-08-12 22419, 2013
snartal
nikki: Well, according to the standard, the preference is 1400X1400, with no minimum.... which I do like, cause you are trying at least show you want high quality art.
2013-08-12 22420, 2013
LordSputnik
well it's not as good as it could be then :P
2013-08-12 22422, 2013
nikki
if it's correct, it's better than nothing. if you don't like such small images, fix it yourself :P
2013-08-12 22449, 2013
hawke_1
LordSputnik: then make it as good as it could be — don’t just post a link and hope someone else does
2013-08-12 22412, 2013
LordSputnik
it's not because I didn't want to, it's because I felt the original editor would want to for some reason :P
2013-08-12 22429, 2013
hawke_1
I would guess that some do and some don’t.
2013-08-12 22431, 2013
culinko
many original editors don't even respond to edit notes :/
hawke_1: they discuss the Lists of lists of lists of lists page in the talk page for Lists of lists of lists, it was basically created by people trolling the Lists of lists of lists discussion.
2013-08-12 22404, 2013
kepstin-work
The Lists of Lists of Lists page is actually better described as a List of "Lists of" lists page.
2013-08-12 22430, 2013
hawke_1
kepstin-work: I’m not surprised.
2013-08-12 22440, 2013
hawke_1
Wikipedia takes themselves too seriously though
2013-08-12 22406, 2013
hawke_1
Also, fuck the deletionists.
2013-08-12 22421, 2013
kepstin-work
amusingly, the consensus is that the Lists of Lists of Lists page does not contain itself, since that wouldn't be very useful.
2013-08-12 22414, 2013
reosarevok
usefulness before correctness?! It's good ocharles isn't a wikipedian! ;)
