InfiniteNexus

Home

Talk

Contributions

Sandbox

Tips

Citations

Frameworks

Cases

Lists

Logs

XfDs

Scripts

XTools

Why is the Pixel a considered mid-range if the Pixel and Pixel Pro aren't?

They use the same processor, and 90/120 Hz is not a requirement. As an example, the iPhone 16 (non-Pro) has a 60 Hz display. VitAlv13 (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Because they are clearly marketed as such, and you can easily find various sources labeling it as such. The lower price point alone makes the A-series definitively "mid-range", which is the encyclopedic/formal term for "cheaper/more affordable/lite version" and the most common descriptor used to describe the A-series. The A-series is the mid-range counterpart of the Pixel and Pixel Pro, which are the flagship models. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And is the iPhone 16 (non-Pro) the mid-range version of the iPhone? And the iPhone even has a worse processor. (A18 VS A18 Pro) VitAlv13 (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No one calls it it a mid-range device. The iPhone equivalent to the Pixel A-series (e.g. Pixel 8a) is the iPhone SE. The base-model iPhone (e.g. iPhone 16) is equivalent to the base-model Pixel (e.g. Pixel 9); the pro-model iPhone (e.g. iPhone 16 Pro) is equivalent to the pro-model Pixel (e.g. Pixel 9 Pro). WP:GREATWRONGS; we simply document what sources use, and frankly, it would be ludicrous to try to prove that sources say otherwise. I'll also just say that specs alone are not the only determinant of "mid-range"; the vast price difference (well, it's shrunk in recent years, but there's still a difference, and they continue to market and launch the phones separately) is a pretty clear indicator. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

CoStar Group further suggestions

Hi InfiniteNexus, thank you for your help in restructuring the CoStar Group article. I appreciated your comment about the Criticisms section, and proposed a suggestion for how to merge the content into the article. If you have some time to look it over and update accordingly, I think it would further improve the article. Thank you! Hbensur (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done – I've cleaned up the entire article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Your revisions 1286349895 and 1286350161

Can you please provide an explanation as to why you replaced A Minecraft Movie poster.png with its JPG version? I specifically decided not to perform the non-free reduction in the JPG format because of the inherent generational loss. The width of 220 pixels was intentional too, as thumbnails are displayed at that size by default, so there will be no additional scaling necessary; I am well aware that, by doing so, the size falls below the 0.1 megapixels convention, but there’s nothing inherenly bad about this — ultimately, according to the content guideline, images “should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger”, which I believe to be the case with the PNG version. —Rossel44 (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The JPG file already existed, so it should have been overwritten rather than replaced with a new file in order to retain the version history. The standard file format for film posters is JPG, and I don't think there's any noticeable difference in quality in terms of compression. Furthermore, 220 × 326 is too small; the largest possible size is 259 × 384. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You’re claiming a size of 220 × 326 pixels to be “too small”, but, as I stated, that’s the size the image will be displayed at by default; even if a higher resolution version is uploaded, the image will be scaled down to this width at content delivery. Due to JPEG compression artifacts and the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, this will result in lower visual quality despite the higher initial resolution. Furthermore, we do not need to utilize the largest possible size, but rather one that is “as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale”, as per the guidelines for non-free content. I would have overwritten the existing file if the file formats were compatible; ultimately, however, the version history is of less importance than the content (in this case, the image) itself, else the template PNG version available and its note for non-free images would be superfluous. Lastly, regarding the file format, I’d like to cite from COM:FT: “(…), if the original file is in JPEG, it generally makes no sense to convert it to PNG: converting a lossy compression into a ‘lossless’ format doesn't buy you anything since the ‘loss’ already occurred in the original, and doing so will only increase the file size (any edits, however, should probably be saved as PNG as well as JPEG). An exception is high resolution JPEGs that have no visible compression artifacts. Conversion to PNG will avoid the thumbnails having additional compression artifacts.” That is the case here. —Rossel44 (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That isn't the norm on most film articles, and there's probably a reason to it. As mentioned, given the small size of the image, there is practically no noticeable difference between the JPG and PNG, so it doesn't really matter. For what it's worth, when I zoom into the infobox thumbnail and compare the live article with this version, the JPG image looks sharper, especially with the text. Since the original file was in JPG format, and there are no noticeable "compression artifacts" or other difference in quality, I don't see a reason to go out of our way to replace the existing JPG file with a PNG. Re-reading the cited portion of COM:FT, it seems they are referring to high-resolution JPGs, whereas this is a low-resolution JPG that happened to have been resized from a high-resolution JPG. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)