On 20/02/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/19/07, Brianna Laugher
Here are some main ones I know of:
* Art. IMO no art "near-duplicates" should be deleted unless they are
TRUE duplicates (eg by hash). Colour differences are too subjective to
rule which one is the most accurate, so best idea is to keep them all
and let local projects decide which to use.
I don't think we should make it a policy to always keep extra images,
we should do so only when there is an honest and reasonable
disagreement over which image is better. Many times there is no
disagreement, and we shouldn't keep around many useless near
duplicates just because.
So, for example, if a version is unused on other projects there should
be no problem.
Well in those cases we can virtually do what we like, because no one
will notice. ;)
However I suspect we still have quite an army of hardworking "SVG
gnomes" who spend some time re-linking PNGs as SVGs. Then, when an
admin comes to *look* at the image, it appears that is not used
(virtually, was never used). I don't know what to do about these
* Small size
PNGs used as icons - may be hand-optimised for rendering
in IE, which SVGs will still suffer from (as they thumbnail to PNG but
without special treatment).
If the small PNG is not index colors then it hasn't been hacked to
work around IE's bugs. Like above we shouldn't keep an image unless it
is actually serving a purpose. Working around IE bugs is a purpose,
but only if they are actually being used for that.
I'm almost tempted to say that IE bug workarounds should be removed
from commons. Perhaps some projects would choose not to work around IE
bugs, and yet we are shoving these workaround images on them?
How is us having images, which any project can choose to use or not,
"shoving" images on anyone? This is a somewhat odd assertion.
Anyway I don't know much about this, I just know it's a reason some
people have. And I personally don't want to push deletion of
non-copyvios when it's going to cause friction between Commons and