My shot at the wording, anyway. I would take the first two sentences currently there and add them at the end.
LordSputnik
snartal: +1 anyway
it justifies some of my previous no-votes that have been shouted down :P
reosarevok
What kind of no-votes?
snartal
And me being the curious type... why a current 300 dpi recommentation?
Seems low res.
reosarevok
We were supposed to have a 15 MB upper limit
Which I guess is still ok for 600 dpi, but
Anyway, we don't really have it, so unsure :)
kepstin-work
snartal: with current printing tech, the effective resolution of offset-printed images is generally below 300dpi
(although it's higher for text-only stuff or line art)
I normally scan at 600dpi, then apply filters and downscale to 300dpi before uploading
snartal
That makes sense from a printing perspective... Now, on a screen though, its different.
hawke_1
Yeah, screens are 120dpi generally :-p
kepstin-work
hmm? at 300dpi, a cd cover image is about 1400x1400 pixels
hawke_1
or 75dpi
kepstin-work
that seems like enough.
hawke_1
or 100 dpi, apparently.
kepstin-work
most desktop lcd monitors are 96dpi or lower
recent laptops have started trending higher
hawke_1
my laptop is 96dpi.
Anyway, point being: less than 300dpi
snartal
Excellent point, kepstin-laptop, you just pointed out I was confusing dpi with pixel size.
So.. I say what I posted should say "300 dpi (approx 1400X1400 for a standard CD cover)" or something to that effect
Cause in my newbie, scatterbrain head, I was thinking 300X300 pixels
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
snartal: I'd be happy with "preferably at least 500x500"
reosarevok
Well, that says "the intent is", not "if someone uploads a small cover vote no to it" :p
kepstin-work
500x500 seems to be the standard size for lowish-res images from stores.
reosarevok
heh, I wish
I've seen plenty of 250x250
nikki
at least 500x500 is basically preferred, but we don't have a minimum :P
LordSputnik
reosarevok: if it's 100x100 and there's a 1000x1000 on google images which I point to in my voting comment? :P
hawke_1
LordSputnik: Right, you shouldn’t downvote if the edit is improving the db.
reosarevok
LordSputnik: sure, but why wouldn't you just upload it?
(unless the CAA is down at the time)
LordSputnik
reosarevok: because it's not my edit, it seems like stealing :P
reosarevok
heh
nikki
LordSputnik: so abstain when pointing to it :P
reosarevok
If I had to wait for editors to fix their own classical adds, I'd go mad :)
LordSputnik
nikki: but then it might pass and get ignored :P
hawke_1
LordSputnik: so?
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.
LordSputnik
well it's not as good as it could be then :P
nikki
if it's correct, it's better than nothing. if you don't like such small images, fix it yourself :P
hawke_1
LordSputnik: then make it as good as it could be — don’t just post a link and hope someone else does
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
hawke_1
I would guess that some do and some don’t.
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.
The Lists of Lists of Lists page is actually better described as a List of "Lists of" lists page.
hawke_1
kepstin-work: I’m not surprised.
Wikipedia takes themselves too seriously though
Also, fuck the deletionists.
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.
reosarevok
usefulness before correctness?! It's good ocharles isn't a wikipedian! ;)
