Talk:Rajasekharan Parameswaran
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Uncited claims repeatedly being added edit
Just a quick note to User:Rajasekharan Parameswaran, please stop adding uncited material without providing a source, particularly since this article is a WP:BLP. The burden of proof is on you. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Infobox image size edit
Hi, Jcc, I had set a custom |image_size parameter since default resolution of the image doesn't allow face of person to appear more clear. I however have no hard feeling for 300px, it could be anything that serves the purpose (it was one minor edit made in haste). We sometimes need to set custom image-size in infobox, and this is precisely why the parameter exists. I invite you to discuss the change and am hoping to reach an agreement. (Alternatively, we can crop the image to portrait size.) Thank you. Anup [Talk] 20:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Anupmehra: The simple solution is to crop the image. The image size parameter is used when the image may be hard to crop, but on this particular image, there should be absolutely no problem cropping it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, we can do that..but I don't think that would solve this thing. IMO, image-size parameter is more about visual identification of subject being discussed in article (cropping, resolution change are among other methods to achieve this purpose). I do not recall anything on image-cropping anywhere in our image use and/or mos policy. However, WP:IMAGESIZE says that lead image should not be more than 300px. I propose to adjust resolution to 270px. Anup [Talk] 20:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Anupmehra: There is no justification for putting it at 270px. The main reason that you want to increase the size is to make the subject clearer. The image at present has a large proportion of blank space. Cropping this blank space will be more useful than increasing it to the seemingly arbitrary size of 270px. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I do not disagree to cropping. Yes, readers should be able to identify the subject of article (that's why there's an image). I'm saying that even after cropping it is very unlikely that it'd solved and therefore proposing a value that is in compliance with our image-size policy. I'm totally flexible with proposed value, it can be lesser than 270px but definitely not what it's currently now. If you disagree and have a determined opinion for default value, we may need a third opinion here. Please do not ping me again n again. I'll know when you will post a reply here. Anup [Talk] 21:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Cropped image, it looks more weird now (face stretched). I'll probably revert myself. Anup [Talk] 21:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- The cropped image looks fine to me. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- uh okay. and image-size? also looks fine to you? Anup [Talk] 22:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Anup. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Cropped image, it looks more weird now (face stretched). I'll probably revert myself. Anup [Talk] 21:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I do not disagree to cropping. Yes, readers should be able to identify the subject of article (that's why there's an image). I'm saying that even after cropping it is very unlikely that it'd solved and therefore proposing a value that is in compliance with our image-size policy. I'm totally flexible with proposed value, it can be lesser than 270px but definitely not what it's currently now. If you disagree and have a determined opinion for default value, we may need a third opinion here. Please do not ping me again n again. I'll know when you will post a reply here. Anup [Talk] 21:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Anupmehra: There is no justification for putting it at 270px. The main reason that you want to increase the size is to make the subject clearer. The image at present has a large proportion of blank space. Cropping this blank space will be more useful than increasing it to the seemingly arbitrary size of 270px. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, we can do that..but I don't think that would solve this thing. IMO, image-size parameter is more about visual identification of subject being discussed in article (cropping, resolution change are among other methods to achieve this purpose). I do not recall anything on image-cropping anywhere in our image use and/or mos policy. However, WP:IMAGESIZE says that lead image should not be more than 300px. I propose to adjust resolution to 270px. Anup [Talk] 20:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion edit
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
