In most cases I agree with changing the size of the image. The original document (noted as the source on the image description page) from which I scanned the image was of poor resolution. The scan of the document reduced the resolution still further. So was the further reduction in quality essential? It remains usable, but I can't really see the extra rationale used in the reduction. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 07:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, you are not answering the question. Of course a large file of low resolution has more pixels than a smaller file of the same resolution. But the number of pixels is not the same as the resolution. You've further sidestepped my question by showing me a category, a category which is interesting, but which doesn't answer the question. You've now added the concept of file sharing to the discussion, not something which never entered my head until you mentioned it. You say "If its a non-free image, it has to be small and of the minimum file size and resolution.", but you have not yet referred me to any definition. If I were not seeking this informtaion I would simply have reverted your edit. I am seeking enlightenment. Please enlighten me without deviating from the simple question about picture dimensions, size. Something is not a fact because you state it, nor because I state it. Where is the consensus you are using as your benchmark? Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
In most cases I agree with changing the size of the image. The original document (noted as the source on the image description page) from which I scanned the image was of poor resolution. The scan of the document reduced the resolution still further. So was the further reduction in quality essential? It remains usable, but I can't really see the extra rationale used in the reduction. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 07:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, you are not answering the question. Of course a large file of low resolution has more pixels than a smaller file of the same resolution. But the number of pixels is not the same as the resolution. You've further sidestepped my question by showing me a category, a category which is interesting, but which doesn't answer the question. You've now added the concept of file sharing to the discussion, not something which never entered my head until you mentioned it. You say "If its a non-free image, it has to be small and of the minimum file size and resolution.", but you have not yet referred me to any definition. If I were not seeking this informtaion I would simply have reverted your edit. I am seeking enlightenment. Please enlighten me without deviating from the simple question about picture dimensions, size. Something is not a fact because you state it, nor because I state it. Where is the consensus you are using as your benchmark? Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)