Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes

Replacement of signature images with svg derivations

Hello all- I'm looking for input regarding a campaign by a new user to change the signatures of historical figures from images of the original signature to stylized, "cleaner" svg derivations. I find that an original image is preferable to an artificial derivation. In the interest of keeping the discussion in one place, here is a link to a post I made on the new user's talkpage: User_talk:Tveol1091#svg_signature_campaign. We could move the discussion here if people think that would be preferable. Thanks in advance for any input. Pinging here the user in question and another who has interacted re the campaign: Tveol1091, Turkiishh. Eric ^talk 15:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say that the replacement was entirely unjustified, for the same reason that replacing monochrome images with colorised ones is: the image no longer accurately reproduces the original. And since this isn't an infobox-specific question (such images may be used elsewhere), it probably needs discussion somewhere more likely to get broad community input: maybe WP:VPP? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

All right. I would refrain from using svg signature files if parchment signature files are being used. However, if transparent png files are being used, I think it is better to give priority to using svg files. Tveol1091 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have warned Tveol1091 at their talk (diff) that they must not make any further changes without a clear consensus. To spell that out, it does not matter whether something is transparent or bad or whatever. No more changes until others agree in advance. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

While I understand the point being made by Eric, I think (most of the time, as there might be exceptions) the vector/svg versions closely or exactly resemble the original signature. Also the svg versions allow editors and readers to appreciate the signature as they are better quality and most of the time make it so the signature is much easier to read. Kind regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 16:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Robertus,

I think your points about .svgs are good ones, and I agree that they are useful (see my reply to Eric below), but I think the issue being addressed here is more about the process of substituting signatures rather than svg.. I think many editors would accept .svg substitutions if they can be attributed and compared. Best... Wtfiv (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to mention that I’m speaking more about the svg signatures I personally create as I try to make sure the svg exactly or almost exactly resembles the original signature. I cannot speak for svg’s other (possibly less experienced) editors create as they might care less about being sure the svg matches the original signature as close as possible. Just wanted to clarify that. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 17:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Robert, I take your point in the case of Louis XI, and I appreciate your effort to produce good svg versions. Some of the ones used by Tveol1091 looked a little "shimmer-y" to me on my (reasonably good-quality, large LCD) monitor. As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm just partial to the more antique (organic? analog?) look of raster images when it's a signature from a historic document. I like that you can see the paper and parchment, flaws and all, in the signatures of Ludwig I and Hugues Capet, for example. Eric ^talk 19:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone planning changes to multiple pages must obtain prior consensus if challenged. It is very reasonable for Eric to question whether an image generated on a computer in 2024 is really the signature for someone who has been dead for over a hundred years. That needs to be decided by the community before continuing. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

By checking the image source you can easily confirm if the svg is the signature of whatever individual. You can also compare the original signature to the svg to make sure the svg is accurate to the original. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 03:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify my role. Making fait accompli changes to multiple article when challenged is disruptive. Anyone doing that will be blocked. There is no need to tell me how to check a signature—that's not my department. I haven't seen anyone object to the addition of a new signature in biographies of historical figures such as diff. However, we have seen objections to changing an authentic signature to something that an individual contributor believes is good. My role is to prevent disruption by blocking anyone who does that without first gaining a positive consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I was simply responded to your comment, “It is very reasonable for Eric to question whether an image generated on a computer in 2024 is really the signature for someone who has been dead for over a hundred years.” I thought this comment was odd as any editor can simply check the source and see further information about the signature. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 05:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m not questioning your role whatsoever, just responding to your comment. Regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 05:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Robert, experienced users here will of course know how to trace the origin of a derived signature. What I question is whether it is necessarily an improvement to replace historical signature images with vector derivations. My contention is that a reader of the Hugh Capet article, for example, is better served by an image of his actual signature on a document from the year 988 rather than a stylized glyph derived from it 1,400 years later. (Note that I had to link to an older version of Capet's article, as Tveol1091 has again changed it back to the svg, one of many such undiscussed changes he/she has made today). Eric ^talk 13:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The Tveol1091 is behaving similarly on the Frederick the Great page. The editor changed the image without discussion. It has been changed back with summary comments by two editors (myself and another watcher), we are now on the third revert. At present, I've invited to discuss on the talk page. But when I discovered that the issue is more pervasive, I thought I'd weigh in here.

I'm not against adding .svg signatures to articles. I understand how this could be an improvement. But the .svg used is from a commercial fine art site without attribution, whereas the .png currently used comes from a reliable source that explains where the image came from and can be visually inspected. The two signatures have small, but notable differences (the reliably sourced one has more articulation; the unattributed one is more simplified, though they are also different in years.) I appreciate the discussion about the relative merits of .svg images. I've built .svg's for articles myself. Rather, the problem is the editor has not yet shown a willingness to achieve a consensus for such changes. Wtfiv (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

To illustrate the issue:

current signature from Gerhard Ritter

Tveol1091 version from commercial fine art website

Wtfiv (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that the png looks better then the svg the disruptive user uploaded. Perhaps I could convert the png to an svg. It would look exactly the same only it’d be clearer and better quality. Kind regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 19:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Robertus,

Please do convert the first to svg and then post it. That'd be great. But do you see the difference between our discussion and what we experienced? It wasn't about the svg, per se but how it was done.

For the Frederick signature, it may work out. You and I talked, we agreed and maybe something cool- Like the original being converted to svg- will happen. I'd be delighted! Wtfiv (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. I’ll do it in the next few days. King regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 05:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding Hugh Capet’s signature, the original looks best. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 20:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely partially blocked Tveol1091 (talk · contribs) to prevent further disruption and have reverted all their edits where they were the most recent contributor. That action followed clear warnings pointing out the obvious, namely that mass changing articles against objections from other editors is highly disruptive. Would anyone noticing further undiscussed changes of this kind please provide information here. Dispute resolution must be followed when disagreements occur. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Johnuniq, thank you for your help in this matter. Would you have access to a tool that can batch-undo a series of new, unexplained edits that revert many of yours on signature files? See Special:Contributions/Telephone_Directory. Eric ^talk 16:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq Just seconding Eric. This new account seems to want the same .svg signatures on multiple files that Tveol1091 wanted. I just reverted the one on Frederick the Great. I'm not sure the best way to proceed. I invited whoever wants to make the change to discuss, and it even looks like Robertus Pius is working on a svg that may solve address the concerns of all, but I don't want to be caught up in a what seems to be a global edit war that spans many pages. Can you offer any further help or advice? Wtfiv (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the recent edits by Telephone Directory (talk · contribs) and left a message at their talk to say consensus from a central discussion is needed before any further changes occur. Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Improving Infobox Fraternity

Working with WP:FRAT to improve the use of the Template:Infobox Fraternity. I've added a tracking category for if the "type" parameter exists, it must have a value (if not, it goes into a tracking category), but I've gotten some requests for more advanced including (generalized) put into a tracking category if the value for a specific field isn't of the form {{start date and age|1956|6|7}}, with year month and day (so no value and {{start date|1956|6}} also counts as problematic. Also, if the city and state fields have value, then zip needs to exists. Each of these would be separate tracking categories. Looking for help/examples/suggestions of videos to watch.Naraht (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Martin O'Donnell

Hello. There's a discussion regarding the infobox changes on the Martin O'Donnell article over at Talk:Martin O'Donnell#Infobox discussion that may be of interest to project members. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox broken for WHA amateur draft

The Template:Infobox ice hockey biography is suddenly showing redlinks for the year a player was chosen in the WHA amateur draft – if chosen in any of the 1973 through 1976 drafts. See Bob Neely (first overall 1973), Pat Price (ice hockey) (first overall 1974), Claude Larose (ice hockey, born 1955) (first overall 1975) and Blair Chapman (first overall 1976). The template is working for players drafted by the WHA in 1977, as seen at 1977 first overall pick Scott Campbell (ice hockey, born 1957). Jmg38 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Those years' WHA amateur draft articles have incorrect capitalization in their article names. Those should be located at e.g. 1973 WHA amateur draft instead of 1973 WHA Amateur Draft, and the template expects the correct capitalization. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 01:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist on changing the origin label to reduce ambiguity

I posted a proposal at Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist to address recurring confusion over the origin parameter of Template:Infobox_musical_artist. The label is currently Origin, which for individual artists incorrectly suggests to many readers and even some editors that the parameter value represents the birthplace of the artist. Dotyoyo (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)