User talk:InfiniteNexus/Archive 30
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:InfiniteNexus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Your revisions 1259449895 and 1259450161
Can you please provide an explanation as to why you replaced A Minecraft Movie poster.png with its JPG version? I specifically decided not to perform the non-free reduction in the JPG format because of the inherent generational loss. The width of 220 pixels was intentional too, as thumbnails are displayed at that size by default, so there will be no additional scaling necessary; I am well aware that, by doing so, the size falls below the 0.1 megapixels convention, but there’s nothing inherenly bad about this — ultimately, according to the content guideline, images “should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger”, which I believe to be the case with the PNG version. —Rossel44 (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The JPG file already existed, so it should have been overwritten rather than replaced with a new file in order to retain the version history. The standard file format for film posters is JPG, and I don't think there's any noticeable difference in quality in terms of compression. Furthermore, 220 × 326 is too small; the largest possible size is 259 × 384. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- You’re claiming a size of 220 × 326 pixels to be “too small”, but, as I stated, that’s the size the image will be displayed at by default; even if a higher resolution version is uploaded, the image will be scaled down to this width at content delivery. Due to JPEG compression artifacts and the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, this will result in lower visual quality despite the higher initial resolution. Furthermore, we do not need to utilize the largest possible size, but rather one that is “as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale”, as per the guidelines for non-free content. I would have overwritten the existing file if the file formats were compatible; ultimately, however, the version history is of less importance than the content (in this case, the image) itself, else the template PNG version available and its note for non-free images would be superfluous. Lastly, regarding the file format, I’d like to cite from COM:FT: “(…), if the original file is in JPEG, it generally makes no sense to convert it to PNG: converting a lossy compression into a ‘lossless’ format doesn't buy you anything since the ‘loss’ already occurred in the original, and doing so will only increase the file size (any edits, however, should probably be saved as PNG as well as JPEG). An exception is high resolution JPEGs that have no visible compression artifacts. Conversion to PNG will avoid the thumbnails having additional compression artifacts.” That is the case here. —Rossel44 (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- That isn't the norm on most film articles, and there's probably a reason to it. As mentioned, given the small size of the image, there is practically no noticeable difference between the JPG and PNG, so it doesn't really matter. For what it's worth, when I zoom into the infobox thumbnail and compare the live article with this version, the JPG image looks sharper, especially with the text. Since the original file was in JPG format, and there are no noticeable "compression artifacts" or other difference in quality, I don't see a reason to go out of our way to replace the existing JPG file with a PNG. Re-reading the cited portion of COM:FT, it seems they are referring to high-resolution JPGs, whereas this is a low-resolution JPG that happened to have been resized from a high-resolution JPG. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- You’re claiming a size of 220 × 326 pixels to be “too small”, but, as I stated, that’s the size the image will be displayed at by default; even if a higher resolution version is uploaded, the image will be scaled down to this width at content delivery. Due to JPEG compression artifacts and the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, this will result in lower visual quality despite the higher initial resolution. Furthermore, we do not need to utilize the largest possible size, but rather one that is “as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale”, as per the guidelines for non-free content. I would have overwritten the existing file if the file formats were compatible; ultimately, however, the version history is of less importance than the content (in this case, the image) itself, else the template PNG version available and its note for non-free images would be superfluous. Lastly, regarding the file format, I’d like to cite from COM:FT: “(…), if the original file is in JPEG, it generally makes no sense to convert it to PNG: converting a lossy compression into a ‘lossless’ format doesn't buy you anything since the ‘loss’ already occurred in the original, and doing so will only increase the file size (any edits, however, should probably be saved as PNG as well as JPEG). An exception is high resolution JPEGs that have no visible compression artifacts. Conversion to PNG will avoid the thumbnails having additional compression artifacts.” That is the case here. —Rossel44 (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:MCU: The Reign of Marvel Studios
Hello, InfiniteNexus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "MCU: The Reign of Marvel Studios".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Your release guides
Greetings. Do you mind if I transclude your Marvel and DC release guides onto one of my subpages? Rockfang (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Go ahead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
CoStar Group subsidiaries
Hi InfiniteNexus, I've suggested further updates in an effort to keep the CoStar Group page relevant. As you have worked to improve the article, I'd appreciate you looking this over. Thank you very much for your time. Hbensur (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like this has been
Already done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
It has come to my attention based on discussion at Talk:Social_media_influencer#Article_name, that consensus was not properly formed for the page name. In order to follow procedure with a WP:RM, the page needs to sit at its original location prior to the conflict. Can you move the page back so that I can properly open a WP:RM.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: Thanks for the message; I've been away for a few days. I'll respond in detail over there, but if there is no opposition, then consensus is implied; I don't see any new opposition on the talk page, so I'm not sure why some are claiming consensus does not exist. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Generative AI editnotice for Talk:DeepSeek
Hey InfiniteNexus, could you add Template:Generative AI editnotice to Talk:DeepSeek? See this discussion with examples of confused IPs trying to use the chatbot by editing the talk page. Thanks! Jamedeus (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Nomination of Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. —Matthew / (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
"AI Overviews" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect AI Overviews has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 18 § AI Overviews until a consensus is reached. Justjourney (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Primary genre or consistency?
(diff) I usually agree with trying to keep the WP:FILMGENRE to the primary genre, but I'm not so sure that change is a good idea. You have made Bumblebee_(film) inconsistent with Transformers (film) and the other films in the series. (Also you left a Science fiction oddly capitalized mid sentence.) I would suggest reverting the change or attempting to make it consistent across the entire Transformers film series. -- 109.78.196.107 (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Fixed – Updated all seven films, plus Transformers One. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
User:Valddlac seems to think including secondary genres is preferable to sticking to the primary genre only. I have reverted the ones that I can, but there are two remaining you might want to revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transformers:_The_Last_Knight&diff=prev&oldid=1281145466 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transformers:_Age_of_Extinction&diff=prev&oldid=1281145393 -- 109.79.161.105 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- I understand trying to keep everything as simplified as possible, but I’m not seeing an issue with saying sci-fi action. Not only has it been the status quo for some time, but it’s arguably more accurate than saying just science fiction. That's not counting almost all of the reception tabs for these movies referring to it as an action film, or at the very least commenting on the franchise's many action setpieces. I am sorry for not looking into this before I made about this, but your first sentence regarding me sounds like I'm (for a lack of better word) primitive. From the past conversations I've had with you before, and how I've seen you interact with others before, you have a very condescending approach when it comes to handling users who don't see the same exact outlook as you. Valddlac (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Please both of you two read this before making any further decision regarding editing. Not only can I back myself up regarding genres, but this has been an issue that I've had with the latter user for some time and I would like for this to be addressed. Valddlac (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Valddlac: I have been away for a few weeks and will look into this now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- Please both of you two read this before making any further decision regarding editing. Not only can I back myself up regarding genres, but this has been an issue that I've had with the latter user for some time and I would like for this to be addressed. Valddlac (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)