Category talk:PD-Gotfryd

Why host TIFs?

I see no reason to host the lossless files (around 90MB) when the JPGs are about 1MB at full resolution. The TIFs can be downloaded from the Library of Congress website. Commons isn't so much of a file repository as it is supplemental for hosting files used on Wikipedia. Also, it creates visual duplication when viewing categories. So, except for those potentially used in articles (if there even is a reason to), I think we should remove the TIFs. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Unendin: Do you care to comment on this? I think it's a hassle to have to update both JPG and TIF versions as you also recently had to, but my main concern is the cluttering up of the gallery view. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: I agree. As you say, the lossless version is a reliable click away, so there's no benefit to hosting it. The cost, however, is real, both for browsers and, in this case, editors. Very few of the Gotfryd pix have good metadata, so we can expect the summaries to change. And, correct me if I'm wrong, there's no way for the tif and jpg versions to share a summary. I just updated one of the tif summaries to use the more explicit Template:LargeTIFF. That clarifies the messaging but in no way syncs the metadata. Unendin (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Unendin: Thanks for replying so quickly. Just to clarify, have you noticed a meaningful difference in the metadata between the JPGs and TIFs? I wouldn't imagine there to be any. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: No. I'm not aware of any meaningful discrepancies yet. It's just that I had to make all my edits twice which is intrinsically error prone and relies on awareness of the versions. Linking the versions helps build awareness, but, still, divergence is possible. Right!? Unendin (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)