Template talk:Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons
See also[edit]
- {{To SVG & Commons}}
Since I consider the two tasks quite independent, I prefer to subst that template, which would include two templates for each of the tasks.--Imz 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Shouldn't all {{ShouldBeSVG}} apart from {{ShouldBeSVG|fairuse}} ultimately end up on Commons? Having a separate category like this divides effort (e.g. there are chemical images in this cat as well as in Category:Chemical images that should be in SVG format. Stannered (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This template should not be used[edit]
Instead use {{Convert to SVG}} and {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}
This way the images can be moved to the Commons, and Wikipedias in other languages can use or adapt the images while waiting for them to be converted to SVG. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- What makes you think that Commons is happy to get our “crap”? ;-) --Leyo 16:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is not crap. Your remark is crap, though. Typical elitist SVG bullshit. Let me explain the ignorance of your comment. People create many wonderful charts and graphs in various formats. They may not have the skill to create an SVG chart. But they are still used all over Wikipedia in many languages. Once uploaded to the Commons people worldwide can further improve the charts and graphs. They can't do that if they don't see them. The charts and graphs can be used for models for other charts and graphs. In many languages. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, haven't you remarked the smiley? Secondly, I was not thinking of complex charts and graphs in high quality and PNG format, but rather of simple, low resolution drawings in JPG or GIF format. A typical example for the latter are structural formulae of simple chemical substances, which can be drawn in high quality in one minute. --Leyo 19:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- A smiley does not necessarily make a disparaging remark more easily digestible. :)
- I have categorized many charts and graphs. A GIF chart can easily be better than a PNG chart. Charts and graphs do not usually need more than the 256 colors or shades of gray that a GIF provides. Illustrations and other graphics might need PNG or JPG due to the larger number of colors. JPGs are fine as long as they don't show artifacts. JPGs scale better on Wikipedia pages than PNGs do. The only time PNGs are really necessary is for printing. Wikimedia Commons would have to add many servers if all images had to be uploaded in large-size PNG print formats and resolutions.
- High resolution is usually not necessary on Wikipedia pages. The main thing is that the text has to be legible at the size the chart or graph is shown on the Wikipedia page. Charts and graphs uploaded to the Commons get used on Wikipedias of many languages.
- We can't let perfection get in the way of usefulness. SVG images are sometimes better, of course, but someone has to create and upload the image. We can not afford to wait around for that to happen. Many SVG images look bad. Just because an image is SVG does not mean it is any good for a Wikipedia page. The image still needs to convey its content well. I think many of the best SVG images have been modeled on GIF, JPG, and PNG images found on the Commons. "Other versions." --Timeshifter (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- “JPGs scale better on Wikipedia pages than PNGs do.” I disagree: Downscaled JPG graphs will show compression artifacts in most cases, even though the file at full resolution does not. --Leyo 21:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree about the artifacts. Most JPG charts, graphs, illustrations, photos, etc. do not show artifacts when scaled down by the MediaWiki software as long as they did not have artifacts to begin with. PNGs use more kilobytes many times when they are scaled down, especially for charts and graphs, which are oftentimes scaled down to a medium size for use on Wikipedia pages. Scaling PNGs down to thumbnail size by the MediaWiki software is less problematic concerning the number of kilobytes.
- Most charts and graphs seem to be less sharp when scaled, whether PNG, JPG, or GIF. I don't consider this to be an "artifact" though. SVGs are better of course concerning sharpness of text, at all sizes. I encourage SVG too, for this reason, when they are available. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please provide some examples for your second statement. My comments are obviously not applicable for photographic images. --Leyo 06:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Which statement specifically? --Timeshifter (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please provide some examples for your second statement. My comments are obviously not applicable for photographic images. --Leyo 06:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- “JPGs scale better on Wikipedia pages than PNGs do.” I disagree: Downscaled JPG graphs will show compression artifacts in most cases, even though the file at full resolution does not. --Leyo 21:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, haven't you remarked the smiley? Secondly, I was not thinking of complex charts and graphs in high quality and PNG format, but rather of simple, low resolution drawings in JPG or GIF format. A typical example for the latter are structural formulae of simple chemical substances, which can be drawn in high quality in one minute. --Leyo 19:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is not crap. Your remark is crap, though. Typical elitist SVG bullshit. Let me explain the ignorance of your comment. People create many wonderful charts and graphs in various formats. They may not have the skill to create an SVG chart. But they are still used all over Wikipedia in many languages. Once uploaded to the Commons people worldwide can further improve the charts and graphs. They can't do that if they don't see them. The charts and graphs can be used for models for other charts and graphs. In many languages. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
quite a long one[edit]
this template is quite long to type. i propose a redirect-{{SVG & ctc}}Gauravjuvekar (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)