User Page My Home Talk My Edits DYKs Awards

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have undid your revision of removing the official logo image from ICC Champions Trophy 2025 page which you described saying "(please don't add fake logos)". I would like you to first verify your knowledge if this is fake or genuine logo or not. Please don't edit such things without any proper information. The source of the logo has been clearly provided in the details section of the file:champions-trophy-2025-logo.svg, Source website:ICC Champions Trophy, 2025. Wi5hakeki (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I made a mistake there. Thanks for pointing it out. I should have check the link. cheers! Chanaka L (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Reviewer's NPP Barnstar Award
		This award is given in recognition to Chanakal for conducting 135 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to know why you described the photos that I included in my edit to be "low quality"? Thank you 121.200.6.193 (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image you added is 1,440 × 1,080 pixels, the image you replaced is 4,032 × 3,024 pixels. The latter is taken in daytime with a wider angle, while yours is darker because it is a nighttime image and a close up shot. Besides it is harder delineate different buildings in that light. Chanaka L (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying but I'm sorry, I don't think that's a valid reason. That's an opinion. The second image I added is used on other pages. So I still don't understand the issue. 121.200.6.193 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is based on facts, am afraid. 4,032 × 3,024 is the higher resolution, it is a fact, not an opinion. The existing image is used in other articles as well. If you disagree start a discussion on talk page, and gain WP:CONSENSUS for your cause. Chanaka L (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean higher resolution images supersede all lower resolution images? I'm asking because the images I used are used on other Wikipedia pages without any issue. 121.200.6.193 (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY the best quality image should be used. In Colombo's case, I believe the existing image is the better quality image. Chanaka L (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to open a discussion at the talk page to get more opinions on what images should be used? 121.200.6.193 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. I will share my argument in the discussion. Chanaka L (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better to go to dispute resolution and get mediators involved? I don't think anybody is looking at the talk page of Colombo. It hasn't been used since 2023 and it's 2025. Considering the dispute is between us and we're both arguing based on personal views maybe we can go dispute resolution. Thoughts? 121.200.6.193 (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am not sure about that as content disputes supposed resolved through discussion between opposing editors. I wouldn't think mediating editors supposed pass a judgement on content. Chanaka L (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but we both disagree with the use of the images so maybe we should go to dispute resolution. Your belief is that the current images used are of "better quality" while I say the other ones are better based on the fact that they are used on other Wikipedia pages without any issue. So I think it's safe to say we are currently in a dispute. 121.200.6.193 (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two things.

1. I honestly don't think WP:DRN help in this instance. For example it states, Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with editing behaviour of either of us as this discussion has followed the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle thus far.

2. I believe the image you prefer "used on other Wikipedia pages" is extremely weak argument. As already I told the current image also used in the other pages as well. Beside even if the image is used in other pages is not a good enough reason it to be used in Colombo article. The best image should be used per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. Chanaka L (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understand but we both disagree so we're going to have to solve this issue. Is there a way to get another editor involved to act as a mediator? 121.200.6.193 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the link you gave me in regards to image quality but I don't understand how the images I used are bad. If they are used on other Wikipedia pages why is it a problem for it to be used on this page? You say it's "extremely weak" but I'm sorry I don't understand how that can be the case when its use is not disputed on other pages. 121.200.6.193 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized you added two images. I was objecting the top image (the night time image). My bad. Restored the bottom image with your caption. Chanaka L (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, thanks for doing that. The first image however is used on other Wikipedia pages too. 121.200.6.193 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid, That's the image I am objecting. I still believe it is not the best quality image for the top spot of the infobox. Chanaka L (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]