If possible, could you upload both. Its nice to have the original too, even if not used in articles, in case some later person has need for it.
> if the only option to view them in the commons is by download (ie they > aren't able to be scaled and downloaded at different res in the viewer) they > won't be much use to the greatest number of folks. We also would love for > them to populate articles if possible so I think JPG is the most practical > way to go for this batch. To be clear, this is incorrect. Fae was complaining that for tiff files, if you click, "view original image" (or the mislabeled equivalent "zoom" in the media viewer). You get the original full sized tiff. Which kind of sucks (For reference, the same thing happens with large jpegs). However, tiff files (of any size) can be scaled to jpg or png of reasonable size (We don't support scaling a 200 megapixel tiff -> 200 megapixel jpg. But we do support scaling of big tiffs to any sort of thumbnail size you'd find in an article). There is a bug with 16bit tiff files, but all other tiff files should render fine. Anyways, before making a decision, I recommend you judge for yourself. Here's what the tiff file you uploaded to beta would look like in an article: https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bawolff/example_tiff -- -bawolff On 10/29/15, McGregor, Nora <[email protected]> wrote: > Right-o. We've batch converted the images to JPG and are very happy with the > resulting quality so will likely post those instead of the TIFFs because we > want to make absolutely certain they work with the media player and can be > scaled and downloaded at different resolutions. In fact on reflection, the > TIFFs were so huge that we're not even sure they would be that usable for > the average person, they crash the simple image viewers on our own PC's, and > if the only option to view them in the commons is by download (ie they > aren't able to be scaled and downloaded at different res in the viewer) they > won't be much use to the greatest number of folks. We also would love for > them to populate articles if possible so I think JPG is the most practical > way to go for this batch. Though I certainly take Fae's point from last year > around not shying away from a challenge and opportunity to fix something, > I'm sure there will be more opportunities for that with future BL batches! > > Thanks everyone for the feedback/convo! > > Nora > British Library > @ndalyrose > > > _______________________________________________ Glamtools mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools
