Commons:Valued image candidates/Yalta Conference (Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin) (B&W).jpg

Yalta Conference (Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin) (B&W).jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	патриот8790Say whatever you want on 2012-06-02 05:24 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Group photographs at the Yalta Conference
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Comment In the scope must refer to the category not the article. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)  Oppose I have argued previously, and I continue to believe, that where we have a JPG and a TIFF of the same image, the TIFF should be preferred as the Valued Image because it is the preferred lossless format; it is our own (WMF) technical limitation that requires us to make use of the JPG on projects. File:Conference of the Big Three at Yalta makes final plans for the defeat of Germany. Here the "Big Three" sit on the... - NARA - 531340.tif should be the VI here. Also, the image is not geocoded. cmadler (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)  Comment I have long had the same idea, but this penalizes too slow machine and the mobile phones. For now only the JPG works well.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC) The logical continuation of what you say is that we should have an upper limit on the size of VIs? We regularly have VIs of 4 MB and more. File:Perugia Arco Etrusco.jpg, nominated for VI right before this one, is 4.1 MB; out of curiousity I timed how long it took to load the full resolution image on the slower of two connections I use for editing, and it was 86 seconds -- on a truly slow connection (e.g. dial-up or mobile) that would probably take several minutes. I think we should be choosing the most valuable image without regard for current technical limitations. All else being equal, higher resolution is better than lower resolution, and lossless is better than lossy. cmadler (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Yes I am tempted by your idea. But a picture like "Alouatta seniculus Global.jpg" weighs in Tiff 315M °. Nobody is going to have the patient open it. What is past is that the images I have been requested for external scientific publications, I have provided in PDF or TIFF. But the display format seems reasonable to JPG. In addition there are two formats TIFF: Mac and PC, it would not be simple. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC) If size is an issue sometimes, then size is an issue always. If this 7 MB TIFF is too large a file for VI, then your File:Alouatta seniculus Global.jpg, at 28 MB, is also too big. I argue that bigger (higher resolution) is better; the Mediawiki software easily offers us reduced-size image previews at a variety of resolutions (though not for TIFFs over 12.5 megapixels, which we designate with {{Archival version}} and upload a corresponding {{Compressed version}} -- but here also, the archival version should be the VI). Consider also that with the new chunked uploads feature, the maximum file size is raised from 100 MB to 500 MB. cmadler (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC) This is not what is recommended here Commons:File types --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)  Support I have the exact opposite opinion of Cmadler: the VI should be the JPEG version, not the TIFF version. IMO, VI means "the image most suitable to illustrate an article about the scope", and a JPEG version is always better than a TIFF for that. TIFF is most useful for improving and correcting high resolution images, but not for illustration of an article. Yann (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)  Comment No geocode, but it could be geocoded. I agree with Archaeodontosaurus and Yann; the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. The TIFF version should be linked from the JPEG file page. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Right. Fixed. Yann (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 1 oppose => promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)