"Low resolution"

Does anyone else share User:Begoon's assertion that this image should have its quality reduced despite the organization providing it (publicly on the internet) expressly stating it should not be changed ("It is critical that this logo is never to be altered in any way.")?

I believe Begoon's assertion is that Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy 3.b. dictates that the SVG must be altered, despite that being against the organization's wishes.

My own reading of 3.b., particularly the part "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice.", suggests the policy dictates the SVG must not be altered (the exact opposite), or that different parts of 3.b. are hopelessly contradictory.

Absent an explicit third opinion on this matter I will when the page is again unprotected put in place the original quality version of the SVG in accordance with the owner's wishes and what seems to be a straightforward (though disputed by Begoon) reading of WP:NFCC 3.b..

I would also be interested in any other reasons for or against alteration of this media separate from Begoon's assertion.

Thanks for your time. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  • My opinion is that reduction of the image resolution pursuant to the NFCC does not constitute significant "alteration" of the seal as prohibited by the City. If it did any reduction or increase in size would be prohibited by the city, even for its own uses such as banners or any applications where the exact original size would be greatly inconvenient. I believe they mean that the alteration ban is on content, rather than resolution. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It's more than a bit disingenuous to imply that I haven't addressed this point with you when I wrote a long response to it on your talk page. Anyway, here again, I'll quote from what I said: "it occurred to me that there is something I should mention about the position you are taking. ... I can tell you the flaw in your argument. If altering the size of the logo is forbidden then that would mean that it had to be used at the same dimensions whether placed on a business card or an advertising hoarding - this is obviously nonsense. An SVG file, by its very nature is scalable without quality loss - It is merely lines of code describing how to draw the vectors which make up the image. When the nominal size is altered, nothing about the image is altered, neither its quality nor its intrinsic appearance, simply its size. ... This is not what the organisation means by "altering" the logo - and even if they were taking such a ludicrous position as to enforce uniform size everywhere the logo was used it would have no impact on our "fair use" of the image." and "Additionally, to address your point about the organisation "preferring" no loss in quality - first of all, it's an SVG file which scales without quality loss...", but I guess you were too busy "carefully reading" the rest of my replies to notice that. -- Begoon 00:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Resizing an image is not alteration, particularly when the image is an SVG. For WPs purposes, we are going to generate low resolution PNGs or equivalent for thumbnails, and those must meet NFC's size requirements. So uploading an excessively large base SVG image file is against NFC and can be a target for admin actions. (To add, WP:3RRNO allows for editors revert violations of NFC, which this clearly is. --Masem (t) 01:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I had not heard of such a thing, and had not considered it as the SVG is obviously still available here (though strangely altered), and therefore not actually unavailable to those who would desire it in vector form (in addition to already being available in vector form from the source). Do you know if this process explained on any Wikipedia: page? Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Guess not, oh well. Thanks for the reply. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia