File talk:Nancy Storace Portrait By Pietro Bettelini.jpg

Overwrite

The version(s) starting on 11 March 2013 by User:Adam Cuerden should not have been used to overwrite the original from 27 February 2008. I suggest to revert this page to that version and upload the restored version under a new filename. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep a *very small* version. If people want the file teeny-tiny, they can use a thumbnail. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Aren't images in Wikipedia article always used as thumbnails?

Those who placed that version on Wikipedia pages between February 2008 and March 2013 expected a cropped image with very little framing; now they get something rather different. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's hardly such a major change to justify keeping a tiny, low-quality thumbnail not taken from the full size original. If people want a cropped version, it's trivial to make it, but a crop should not be at the main image name. A crop damages encyclopedic value by its very nature. It also makes it far harder to reuse an image, as it can no longer have the original paper cropped off to fit the size of the page being used for printing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• You may think it's not a major change, and that the new image is an improvement. I agree, but you have to concede that other people may think differently; we don't make these judgements for them – not by overwriting a file which was in use for more than five years.
• "If people want a cropped version..." – they did; if they had wanted an uncropped version, they could have downloaded http://edocs.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/volltexte/2003/7912312/original/Bild.jpg or something similar.
• There is no such thing as an official "main image name".
• AFAIK, Commons is not concerend with encyclopedic value; "freely licensed" and "of educational value" are its only criteria.
• I don't understand the point about being "harder to reuse an image"; if proper practice had been followed there would now be a choice. In fact, the situation has worsened for reusers by changing the image behind their back, as it were.

The reason for me raising this matter here is not a personal dislike of the new image – quite the opposite – but is based on COM:OVERWRITE. Following the priniples of that guideline, I still think the new image ought to be uploaded again under a new filename and this page be reverted to its original content. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, had I kept the file as it was, I'd have changed every usage anyway. I'm sorry, but the thing's a low-quality tiny version. I see no reason to maintain it at all.

However, I've added a cropped version, reviewed all usage, and switched to the crop for anything at about 100 px wide or below. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)