File talk:Morire di classe.jpeg
non-free reduce
edit
User:Ronhjones recently added the "non-free reduce" template to this. Though I'm sure this was done with the best of intentions, I commented out the template a few minutes ago.
Yes, the jpeg is larger than as it is currently displayed within the article that uses it. If this entails that it's too large, then it's too large. However, I don't believe that this is the sole criterion that Wikipedia uses.
As you view the image within the article (as currently presented), you can see that there's text on the right hand side. With patience and good eyesight, you can read much, though not all, of the top half. You can't read the lower half. Since the design of the book is commented on (see Morire di classe#Book design), the reader could reasonably wonder what the text is. Is it perhaps signed advertising blurb by a friend of one of the authors? We have differing abilities to read; but for me, the current size of the file is just sufficient to read the text and thereby to infer that it's a quotation from the book about the dehumanizing effect of the institutions that are the subject of the work. (And the text is short enough not to be problematic in itself.)
Compare the image at the top of the article Go 2, and File:XTC Go 2.jpg. Though the text is impossible to read in the former, it is just readable in the latter.
Neither File:Morire di classe.jpeg nor File:XTC Go 2.jpg is large enough for use in, say, an online auction. I don't see commercial potential in either. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Hoary: If you believe that the size needs to be "as is" in order for the text to be read - then maybe add that to the FUR? The guideline size (WP:Image resolution) is suitable for about 99% of fair-use images (it would be 364x274 if applied here), but it does allow larger when there is a declared reason - images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. I'll tag both image for no reduction (I haven't got down to the size of the second one yet - that's about a week away - but I can't see that reducing to 316x316 without the text corrupting). Ronhjones (Talk) 00:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
