Template talk:ShouldBeSVG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Call me crazy, but I think THIS image - the encircled "i" - should be SVG! It seems a bit odd that it's PNG. (Yes, I know the original is an icon provided as PNG. But an information symbol is a good target for conversion to SVG.) El T 11:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Now fixed. El T 10:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Commons 2 New Image 3 Logos 4 Cease adding images? 5 Proposed parameter 6 Proposed value for parameter

[edit] Commons

Is it appropriate to put this tag on (the en:Image page for) images which are fetched automatically from Commons? (I have in mind Image:Gosper_curve_3.png, for one.) —Blotwell 02:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this template be on Commons as well? I find it funny that it's only on English Wikipedia right now. --Geopgeop 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both sentiments, but haven't used Wikipedia Commons. If you have the know-how, please go for it El T 09:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Commons has {{convert to SVG}}. I'm not sure why the names of the templates are different. —Bkell (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Image

Why is Image:Information_icon.svg changed to Image:Gtk-dialog-info.svg? --80.63.213.182 18:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it back. I think the original one is much more professional and attactive. El T 04:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

There's been some discussion that SVG logos may be fair-use violations. While I don't agree with this (a 1kb SVG is no more "infinite resolution" than a 200x200 raster image that's blown up to 5000x5000... what matters is not the size you can blow an image up to, what matters is how much detail the image actually contains). Anyway, while I don't agree with this, it sounds like a number of people do, so it may be better to hold off on putting this tag on more logos. And if there's firm consensus that logos shouldn't be converted to SVG, the template should probably be removed from all logos. --Interiot 21:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded several SVG logos, I think their use is fine by fair use rules, and their use in wikipedia when they are already available makes sense. The low resolution thing is a wikipedia guideline only. However, I don't think this template should be used on raster logo images. The thing is that the results of converting commericial logos will still be subject to copyright or trademark issues and cannot be free content. Our time is better spent elsewhere, IMO. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Was there a decision on this? I'd like to remove logos from this category as it is very huge and, as you said, time would be better spent improving free images. I'm also going through and putting some of these images up at WP:GL to get them off of this list.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 15:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The template used on most logos here and WP:LOGO both say that vector versions aren't fair use. So creating a vector version would instantly result in the things being (probably speedily) deleted. Everyone commenting here seems to agree that fair use logos should disappear from here. Hence I'm going to go through and removing {{SVG}} from fair use logos. Stannered 00:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, I think. Probably missed a few, but taken a massive chunk out of the backlog. Stannered 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cease adding images?

Should we have users stop adding images to this category? There is such a huge backlog of images, including many that probably shouldn't be converted to SVG. We now have the Graphics Lab that handles these conversions so any requests should go there, not here.↔NMajdan•talk 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No. The position of the Graphics Lab within the Wikipedia is still being discussed. Let's keep on doing what we've been doing until the Lab's purpose is finalized and accepted. MithrandirMage 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed parameter

On Wikimedia Commons there is an analogous Template to this one, called {{{Template:Convert to SVG}}}. It has one important feature, however, that I think might be worth adding to our template on Wikipedia. That is, when someone places the {{{Convert to SVG}}} tag, they have the option of adding a parameter: for example, {{{Convert to SVG|flag}}}. Doing so will add the image to a sub-category of commons:Category:Images that should use vector graphics based on the parameter supplied (e.g. the tag chemical will place the image in commons:Category:Chemical images that should use vector graphics). Given the huge number of images we have tagged with this template, I believe think this functionality would be useful. In particular, I can see it having an effect similar to that of stub sorting -- it would make it easy for someone with specific expertise (for example, making SVG chemical diagrams) to find images to convert. What do you think? MithrandirMage 03:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent idea. —Bkell (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some are already tagged in the new format. Hopefully some nice person with a bot would change all instances of {{{Template:Chemical structure}}} to {{{Template:ShouldBeSVG|Chemical structure}}}. Stannered 17:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it doesn't affect any of the images already categorized, I've gone ahead and added the functionality. I've tested it successfully, but someone else might want to check my work just to make sure. Thanks! MithrandirMageT 23:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool beans. I've edited {{Chemical structure}} to refer to the new category and encourage users to use this template instead in future. Stannered 23:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed value for parameter

MithrandirMage, et al, do you think we should add an option "sexposition"? There are quite a few such images lying around the category, and they will require somewhat... unique SVG skills to convert! Or should we lump such images in with "anatomy"? Cheers, Stannered 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that those images belong in the "physical" category, which I envisioned for those line images that depict detailed scenes. MithrandirMageT 01:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I associated "physical" with "chemical", and assumed it was for Physicsy-type diagrams. Perhaps we should briefly explain the purpose of each subcat? Stannered 10:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The subcat explanations are a good idea, as long as we don't have too many pages with the lists of accepted parameters. I suggest listing the accepted parameters on this page and working in a link to this page on Category:Images which should be in SVG format, rather than listing them again, thus avoiding the possibility of two conflicting lists. As for the "physical" images, it does appear that on Commons, "physical" means "physics-related." Our "diagrams" subcat is broad enough to encompass those, and I don't see any reason there should be a specific "physics-diagrams" subcat. (Circuit and chemical diagrams, on the other hand, are more easily drawn with specialty software, so those subcats make sense.) So, if you agree with all that, we have two choices:

1. Use "physical" as per my earlier opinions (i.e. realistic images) of the subcat, minimizing confusion via explanations on this page.
2. Delete "physical" and create a new subcat for realistic images. "Sketches?" "Realism?" I'm not sure what we could use. MithrandirMageT 14:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree on all counts, and with #1 (simpler all round). Stannered 15:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)