A Closer Look On Syria talk:Community portal

Extracting frames from YouTube videos
I suppose you all know how to download videos from YouTube. Extracting individual frames may be more difficult. I use the ffmpeg program and command. It is important to specify the -sameq option to get the highest quality output. (Example command)

-- Petri Krohn 12:15, 20 September 2012 (EST)
 * ffmpeg -i Allahu\ Akbar.mp4 -r 30 -sameq Alep-street-bodies-%4d.jpg


 * To be honest, I don't do that. I just take screen grabs usually, and not even raw ones. I hope that works; I'm already hundreds of images into that technique. And as for downloading ... that has been a problem at times. I give props to the site IX converter, but most other conversion sites have been shut down, don't do Youtube videos, or are limited to audio only. It seems saving videos is frowned onAnd some videos even IX isn't allowed to convert (the host forbids it, conversion stops). There are programs, none it seems that are likely to work on my system. And casual converters will want a site anyway, if possible. So, Petri ... suppose I wasn't sure. What do you suggest to me or to others? (no rush) --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Arabic names needed!
Please provide all names also in Arabic, when ever you see them. We cannot access Arabic sources if we do not know how to search for them. -- Petri Krohn 08:15, 7 October 2012 (EST)
 * Good point, and I've been trying to do just that. Maybe not 100% though. I hardly ever am. I'll aim for it though. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Graphic Imagery
We're in large part a visual-evidence based site, and that evidence sometime includes images of things many would rather not see. I don't blame them, but I've been bad about drawing the line in the past. For a starter, here is my list of things to watch out for. The more of these things are seen in combination, the more likely it is to be inappropriate for publishing here. And calculate on the side of restraint and taste - that's a lot of factors. Anyone who finds that a severe limitation, let me know and I might finally create an off-site solution for hosting original images of value we can provide optional links to here. Otherwise, I've just been describing the horrible stuff, which still makes the content unpalatable to most but hey, that's the evidence. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

1 dead people

2 large amounts of blood

3 gross/deforming injuries

4 rotting flesh

3 naked private parts (usually not an issue after Youtube)

5 dead children

6 extreme morbid suffering by those still alive


 * Well, I think the most important question is "is it of value". Does the image add anything to the description. I think this is rarely the case in articles which have the headline "x massacre". It's kind of obvious that unpleasant imagery will be involved. And it's always linked, so people who want to dig deeper and check the research will have no problems finding it. While people who just want an overview will not be confronted with too gory stuff which can also be interpreted as appeal to emotion. In principle, I think we're kind of an adult site anyway and don't have to worry about specific "red lines" - if showing it is valuable. --CE (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)