This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus. jSarek 02:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lately the wiki has, unfortunately, had a rather large influx of uploaded images of a subpar quality. Usually these are resubmissions of previously-posted images that feature as their distinguishing characteristic a marked increase in resolution, yet at the expense of a proportional decrease in overall quality. Symptoms of these up-sized images include excessive artifacts, pixelation, and fuzziness or lack of proper FSAA. As a solution, I would like to make the following proposal:

Image Quality Control ruleEdit

Rule: Consistent uploading, or re-uploading of images that violate the image policy shall be grounds for sanctions per the block length guidelines codified in the blocking policy. Judgment to be rendered by Administrator(s) on duty.

Amended per Imperialles.--Goodwood ^{(For the Rebellion!)} 20:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

VotingEdit

Support

1. The need for some sort of policy on this speaks for itself - some of these images are just baaaaaad.--Goodwood ^{(For the Rebellion!)} 04:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
2. The dots! Make the dots stop! -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 04:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Though we should probably note that some images, mainly if the author of an article getting it to FA, do get certain breaks since it's easier for both the uploader and the writer if the writer picks out the images and puts it in while the uploader simply uploads a better one sometime during it's FA/GA nominations. --Redemption^(Talk) 04:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Thefourdotelipsis 04:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
5. What KEJ said below. —Xwing328^(Talk) 15:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Repeated failure to comply with policy should be grounds for sanctions. --Imperialles 20:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
7. "But . . . it's bigger!" "Yes, but it's not better." Havac 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Indeed. tzzA 16:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I don't think uploading low quality pics per se should be punishable. There are some cases where the sources themselves, for whatever reason, make it impossible to capture crystal clear images - I don't think people should be punished for that. Constant replacing of previously uploaded high quality pics with low quality pics is a different animal though, so I guess I could support that part of the policy. KEJ 15:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Like KEJ, I think that sanctions should only apply to people uploading poor-quality images over top of good images. However, I think our existing policies on edit warring could just as easily be applied to that case. Besides, I am steadfastly against cannibalizing the Irish. —Silly Dan _(talk) 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
3. By and large, I don't care too much about this issue, but the idea of banning someone just because they don't happen to have HD DVDs and an overactive uploading finger seems a bit excessive. Now, as KEJ and SD have said, uploading crap over good images is an entirely different matter that I wouldn't mind placing restrictions on. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 17:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Mostly because I believe witch-hunts aren't the optimal way to deal with people who get on your nerves. If it's a case of uploading an inferior image over a superior one, then by all means yes, but otherwise, no. -- AdmirableAckbar ^[Talk] 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
5. I find this measure punitive and inappropriate. Particular users should be dealt with individually, on a more personal level, and at the enforcing admin's discretion. I will not deign to criticize the very wording of the proposal unless asked to, as I find the entire concept to be an affront.—Graestan ^{(This party's over)} 05:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
6. I've been thinking about this and I have to go with KEJ and Acky. Master Aban Fiolli ^{(Alpheridies University ComNet)} 22:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Per KEJ. Hobbes15^{(Tiger Headquarters)} 21:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose, Per Silly Dan, and my comment below. jSarek 04:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Punishing people for uploading low-res? C'mon. At least if you're going to do something about it, contact the uploader, ask them if they can get a better version and if they can't and you can't wait longer, find the source and upload it yourself. Oppose. (Now if they violate 3RR by constantly replacing a good image with a bad one, then action can be taken.) -- Riffsyphon1024 04:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Per KEJ. We might as well ban people for typos. Unit 8311 08:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Not sure why we need a policy that says "don't violate policy". Also per Graestan on the idea that cases where this is a problem that can't be handled by existing policies can be dealt with on an individual basis. - Lord Hydronium 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

Specific examples can be cited here. —Unsigned comment by Goodwood (talk • contribs).

• I'd like to propose a rewording of the proposed rule: "Consistent uploading, or re-uploading of images that break the image policy shall be grounds for sanctions per the block length guidelines codified in the blocking policy." --Imperialles 16:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Could it be possible to see a few specific examples before I vote? Thanks. Master Aban Fiolli ^{(Alpheridies University ComNet)} 20:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • First culprit... I can name a few more but those reversions have already been deleted so...--Redemption^(Talk) 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok. However, what about images that are not up-sized versions? Are we only referring to images that are uploaded to replace existing images? If not, what about the image in the infobox of Kyle Katarn? Would this qualify? Would the uploader of this image - the only one of this type we have - be subject to the punishment because of this contribution? Master Aban Fiolli ^{(Alpheridies University ComNet)} 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
      • As is stated in the rule, this will be largely a judgment call from the Admins on duty. That image is absolutely horrid, and has absolutely no place on the Internet - in fact, if I ever meet the person who uploaded it, I will smack them with a printed version of it until they stop uploading crappy images... ;-) Besides, it's pretty clear that there are dedicated folks out there who are eminently capable of spotting when a bad image has been uploaded to replace a decent one or uploaded period.--Goodwood ^{(For the Rebellion!)} 00:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I guess my question then would be, should the user be on the punishment-track because they uploaded this image? It is the only image we have like that. What about the images of the handmaidens such as Yané, Saché, or Ellé? I do not think you are going to get too much better quality considering they are not the main focus of any camera shots in Ep.-IV. (I'm sorry if explaining this is frustrating; I'm just trying to figure out to what and where the rule would apply or not apply.) Master Aban Fiolli ^{(Alpheridies University ComNet)} 05:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Isn't this proposal redundant? I should think that a consistent violation of an existing Wookieepedia policy already is grounds for sanctions per the blocking policy. jSarek 06:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)