Template talk:Non-free reduce

message: What's the definition of "low resolution"? We're still working out guidelines on that! Please see the draft at Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution" and leave your comments on the talk page. --Fastfission 19:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of low resolution

message: People are interpreting "smaller" too literally, and it needs to be clarified to something more like "This fair use media file should be replaced with a smaller or less detailed version".  Resolution is a convenient approximation for the amount of detail available in a photo, but it leads people to the incorrect conclusion that non-raster images may be unacceptable, or more bizarrely, that scaling a 100x100 image to 1000x1000 (without doing anything that would add extra detail) might make it unacceptable under our fair-use criteria.  --Interiot 08:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Smaller" 

message: Is there a template for increasing the resolution of such an image? — Omegatron 07:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposite 

message: Once a reduced version of this file has been uploaded, please replace this template with . 
I'm not seeing the reason behind having to do this. What's wrong with just replacing the image with a lower-res alternative and removing the tag? - Dudesleeper /  Talk 01:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to remove the old revisions too, since they're technically orphaned fair use images (which are not allowed). ViperSnake151  Talk   21:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing the tag 

message: The fair use criteria for Wikipedia have in the past typically said "low" or "web" resolution. Why is this template insisting people reduce it to a "thumbnail"?
Such thumbnail images are often useless. The point of a thumbnail is so you can still view a larger version. I will correct this if no one objects.
In fact, it's worth noting that Wikipedia:Non-free_content has no blanket rule on resolution at all. The criteria are simply:
"Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement)."
"A commercial photograph reproduced in high enough resolution to potentially undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work."
I.e., images should not be reduced so small as to be unviewable - they can and should still be large enough to fit the purpose; and the consideration should be based on whether the image will undermine the copyright holder's rights. Mdwh (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of where this template should be used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FirstClass1.jpg - several megapixels in size, and larger than most monitors can display. But I've seen this template being used on numerous images that are already low web resolution (e.g., ~VGA), way smaller than a typical full screen monitor size of even say a netbook; and the result is they get reduced to an unviewable thumbnail. Mdwh (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Thumbnail"? 

message: I suggest this template mention that DASHBot will automatically reduce the image. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 10:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: The non-free content criteria specifies that "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement)." In the case of free license photos of 3D artworks, it is impossible for the photo to act as a replacement for the original, no matter how high the resolution of the image is. By definition, a photograph of a 3D work can only represent a portion of it. Thus reducing the resolution of the image has no effect on its ability to be used for copyright infringement. Take this photograph, for example. The copyrighted work is a massive installation artwork. The photograph is a 2D representation of a small piece of the artwork. Is it really necessary for us to down-sample this photo to 300px to meet fair use requirements? Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Photos of copyrighted 3D works of are are non-free images (even if the photographer applies a free license to their photograph).  They should be reduced to a size to understand the general shape and structure of the art, but we cannot duplicate the art at high resolution.  --MASEM (t) 05:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ...as long as that's understood that it's not the size of the image file as a whole that matters, but rather the size within that file of the depiction of the copyrighted art.  I've seen senseless file size reductions where the majority of the file was sky and grass, while the portion of the image that was the art was well within 300px.  postdlf (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely true. Some human judgement should be used if this is the case.  --MASEM (t) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this template be applied to free license photos of 3D artworks? 

message: Photo :File:TNAF PMAY Remixes.jpg has not yet been reduced.  Can someone please work on this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:TNAF PMAY Remixes.jpg 

message: As there is a drive to tag images greater than 0.1MP for reduction by semi-automated means, tagging an image with  prevents the image from being re-tagged again (though it should also be clear than the larger resolution may be questioned later). 
I would suggest we add language to this to tell users that if they feel the reduction is inappropriate, to replace the template with  so that they can avoid having their image re-tagged. This should be an instruction in the box.
I was going to be bold and add this, but I realized this also handles other media types, specific AV files, and I'm not sure if we accept AV files at any time that excess the size guidance (30 sec or <10% of length, whichever is smallest for audio, for example). So this  would not apply across all media types. So adding it is not straight forward, and because of that, I feel a quick check for consensus to add would be best. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding instructions to retag "Non-free no reduce" if the reduction is in quesiton 

message: Is there an equivalent to this template (or an equivalent procedure to follow) for images in Commons. For instance, apart from being improperly licensed, this image is far too high-res to be left as-is. However, because it's on Commons, I'm not sure how to proceed. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: oops... never mind... no fair use content is allowed on Commons. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  is there an equivalent template or procedure for Commons? 

message: The template currently reads "Where an automatic reductions does not occur..." but 'reductions' should be singular. It should be changed to "Where an automatic reduction does not occur..." or "If an automatic reduction does not occur..." Zupotachyon (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Elli (talk | contribs) 06:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit 

message: Change
|.png|.jpg|jpeg=[[Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests|{{PAGENAME}}]]
to
|.png|.jpg|jpeg|.gif|webp|tiff|.tif=[[Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests|{{PAGENAME}}]]
per User talk:DatGuy/Archives/2021/May#File reducing WebP files.  fyi — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: DatGuy just thanked me for this request. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  , and thank you very much! Curious as to why some extensions have the dot and some don't? as in ".jpg" but only "jpeg" (not .jpeg)? Is the dot needed or not? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , thank you! The template checks the last 4 characters of the pagename:  On this page, that produces "". Actually extracting the extension is possible with a regular expression but would complicate the code without any real advantage. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. Thank you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Non-free audio samples must comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples which says the sample must not be larger than 30 seconds or 10% of the original, whichever is shorter. A lot of samples have been uploaded in violation of this guideline—they are too long. I would like to tag these problematic files for reduction in length but the relevant text in this template does not discuss length, it only mentions bit rate. It says:
Can we change the text to the following? Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio files that are too lengthy – edit request 

message: Per WP:IMAGERES, some non-free images may be kept at their uploaded resolution. Can you please add this line in a new paragraph below 
Alternatively you may replace this template with  if there is a valid reason. You must explain in the non-free use rationale why an image of this size is non-infringing. Schierbecker (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is sufficiently rare that it doesn't deserve being advertised here IMO - probably most people who think they have a valid reason don't. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Pppery, rare? I count 910 transclusions, which is a lot given that the template was only created in 2017 and isn't advertised hardly anywhere. A common use for this would be a screenshot of a website landing page that only has a few small copyrightable elements. Schierbecker (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  910 transclusions out of hundreds of thousands of non-free files is rare. And all of those hundreds of thousands of files have been reduced. Furthermore, it's better to force those people to read the guidance at WP:IMAGERES, which already links to the template, than to make the uncommon case even easier and thereby more prone to misuse. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 31 May 2023