Template talk:Should be SVG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This image should be CVG too[edit]

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)

Commons[edit]

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)

New Image[edit]

information_icon
gtk-dialog-info

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)

Logos[edit]

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.↔NMajdantalkEditorReview 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)

Cease adding images?[edit]

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.↔NMajdantalk 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)

Proposed parameter[edit]

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)

Proposed value for parameter[edit]

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)

FU logos (again)[edit]

Given that we've lost consensus on the FU Logo/SVG "issue", should we add "|fairuse" as a parameter to split off all images which have the {{logo}} template or similar attached? I for one don't convert such images due to their questionable copyright status, and they're starting to form the majority of the clutter... Or am I being silly? Stannered 11:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

SVG Logos and Revert[edit]

Contrary to Interiot's good faith assertion that there is no basis in law or consensus that logos should not be uploaded in SVG format, there is ample evidence of both.

(self-pagerism from another conversation on this subject below)

WP:LOGO states:

This is because they are fair use images. To comply with fair use requirements, at least in the U.S., I can't speak to the laws elsewhere, the reproduction of the copyrighted work must be as minimal as possible to achieve the goals of the fair use. For example, if the fair use being cited for a logo is company identification, then the logo should be in the minimum resolution necessary for the company to be identifiable. Now we can argue over whether a particular logo needs be 300px or 250px to be identifiable -- although I have no intention of doing so. However, an SVG is effectively infinite resolution and is clearly larger than necessary to permit identification.

The idea in law that use must be minimal to be fair comes from the doctrines of nominative use. One party may use the trademark of another to refer to the trademarked product or company if:

  1. The product or service can not be readily identified without using the trademark (e.g. trademark is descriptive of a person, place, or product attribute)
  2. The user only uses so much of the mark as is necessary for the identification (e.g. the words but not the font or symbol)
  3. The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. This applies even if the nominative use is commercial, and the same test applies for metatags.

When reproducing a logo, it is necessary to comply with both trademark and copyright law.

--Selket Talk 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

See the reply at Wikipedia talk:Logos#SVG logos?. For raster images, the appropriate criteria is "high resolution", for vector images it's "too much detail". We should encourage appropriate use of both raster and vector images, but there's no consensus to disallow one or the other. --Interiot 19:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't seen the point in spending time converting raster to vector for logos though, if the intention is for them to display exactly the same. "More accurately" in the template would imply with all detail (which presumably has been removed by rasterisation), which we can't have. "More efficiently" is debatable. Stannered 19:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree that it's not useful to spend much time on non-free images, but that's far different from saying that vector logos aren't allowed. (Sometimes companies provide vector versions of logos in PDFs. And if someone has already gone to the effort of recreating a logo as SVG, we're not going to delete it) If need be, the wording on this template could be tweaked to make it clear it does't override the considerations of WP:FAIR. --Interiot 20:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
True; and if someone really WANTS to waste their time converting logos, I suppose I won't stop them (hence my suggestion above regarding a |fairuse param). If companies provide their logo as a vector file in their PDF documents, is a direct SVG of that fair game to be used directly under fair use, or should it be 'simplified' first? Stannered 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If a logo contains more detail than the minimum needed for our purposes (taking into account WP:LOGO's "accurate and has a high-quality appearance" requirement), then it's appropriate to remove the excessive detail. --Interiot 20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like we are all pretty close to agreement. I would just argue two more points.
  1. Logos should never be 'simplified' due to the "accurate and ... high quality appearance" requirement.
  2. SVGs always contain "more detail than the needed."
--Selket Talk 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Given that they are only going to be rendered at a specific resolution, you can remove any detail that doesn't affect the display at that level, although there's often not that much of that (unless you introduce random jaggies instead of having smooth curves to deliberately reduce the quality). Stannered 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't it just seem simpler to have a guideline against SVG logos? --Selket Talk 21:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
No, #2 is flatly wrong. "Contains detail that allows it to be displayed at a higher resolution" is different from "contains more detail than is needed to display at a low resolution". Again, you can take the Nike Swoosh, in either the vector or raster version, and resize it to 1600x1600 and it can still look good.... that doesn't mean that we haven't taken appropriate steps to limit the extent to which we help pirates or trademark infringers... that means it's an inherently simple design. --Interiot 00:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course the resized raster won't look as good as the resized vector. To avoid using the Nike logo I made my own. I rendered it at normal article resolution and, from the SVG high resolution. Now, compare that to a resized version of the small raster. The SVG is clearly superior when displayed at high resolution. --Selket Talk 01:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Now try it with a more advanced raster scaler. Or take three seconds to trace it in Inkscape and scale it then. Both of those methods work best when the starting image is inherently simple. Sure, not everyone has these tools readily available, but that's no consolation: under your conception, you've provided enough data to allow some pirates to break the law.
Both raster and vector are just attempts to represent images, neither is perfect, each has their upsides and downsides, and there's no reason to prohibit one or the other. --Interiot 07:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Another example: I take a fair-use photo (a really complex photograph with lots of detail, so the above comment doesn't apply), and scale it down to 300x300. I take that 300x300 version and scale it to 3000x3000, and then upload it to Wikipedia. Does it violate our fair-use requirements because it's too big? Of course not. Because it's not the resolution that matters, it's how much information (eg. detail) that's available in the image that really counts. If an image contains more detail than we need for our educational purposes, then it violates our goals/license/whatever. Same for SVG. --Interiot 07:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Another example: I take the 300x300 version of any fair-use raster image, use Inkscape's automated tracing to turn it into an .svg, and upload it... eg. no hand tweaks, it's basically the exact same data that was in the 300x300 version, converted to another form (just like converting .gif to .jpg). I upload that .svg. Is that .svg any less desirable than the original raster version? Did the automatic conversion to SVG somehow magically add something that made the image immoral? No. So what's the difference between a good .svg and a bad one? Too much detail. --Interiot 08:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(indent reduced)

I just wanted to point out that I'm having a similar discussion with rtc at my talk page. --Selket Talk 05:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC) On most non-trivial logos, even using Inkscape's (which is much better than anything else I've ever used) automated vectorise tool will not give output that is not 100% consistent with the raster version (even ignoring antialiasing and JPEG artifacts). Also, going back to the requirement for an "accurate and has a high-quality appearance" for a moment, with raster files this is obviously only required at the resolution that the file is at. But with SVG this becomes less clear - if you take an SVG that is designed not to render perfectly true to the original above X resolution, and zoom to 300 or 500% of that resolution, then you will not get a logo that is "accurate". Does that then fall foul of policy? Stannered 09:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about logos here, any fair-use image will do. Sure, it doesn't look exactly the same, but the question is simple: is that automatically converted SVG allowed on Wikipedia or not? Answering "no" is silly because any pirate can take one of our raster images and do the exact same operation (since the software is free). Answering "yes" proves my point -- that some SVGs are okay and others are not. --Interiot 00:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
First let me say that automatic conversion, which usually give poor results, is different from manual creating a copy of the image (read a derivative work). But that aside, if we can create a separate category for logos so that they don't clutter up the should-be-svg list per Stannard's suggestion, I won't remove any more tags. I would like to point out that even before this discussion there was a consensus in line with my arguments at WP:LOGO on this issue. I did not make the guideline up myself. To change the guideline, this argument really should be taken there. --Selket Talk 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a subcategory for fairuse images (or just logos I guess) is a great idea. The subcategory could also mention that it's perhaps not useful to spend much time on fair-use images, as long as the blurb doesn't imply that converting to SVG is prohibited. --Interiot 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hooray, consensus! *creates subcat* Stannered 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The addition is spoiling the layout of the table somewhat, and the description is rather cumbersome - anyone have any suggestions on improving it? Stannered 18:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yay, thanks. I'll definitely help sort them out. Regarding the description, I think it's better to include the longer blurb at Category:Fairuse images which should be in SVG format instead. --Interiot 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I thought of that later. When I went to the category, it was a redlink, but by the time I hit edit, you'd already added the cat template to it! :-) Stannered 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added an extra sentence suggesting moving to free content where possible. Stannered 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

One more question: "fairuse" overlaps with some of the other categories, especially "emblem". Possible courses of action:

  1. If an image is fair use, always use that tag instead of the other, since the fact that the image will remain non-free after conversion overrides most other considerations, or
  2. Add a second (and perhaps third, fourth) optional parameter to this template that allows an image to be put in multiple categories.

I personally think that #1 is sufficient. --Interiot 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I think #1, as otherwise people will see the images in other subcats and not see the health warning at the top of the FairUse page. However, I think there is an overlap between, for instance, graph and physical (for stupidly-complex scatter graphs with 10,000 elements), so an option for a second subcat might be a good idea. Stannered 20:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added a second optional parameter, in case others need that. I'll go ahead and move the fair-use images out of the emblem category though. --Interiot 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to jump into a discussion late (again). I added the quoted material regarding SVGs as a bold edit after investing some time into making SVGs of various crests for universities, and received some friction from others about fair use (I later rasterized the logos, and deleted the SVGs). I think it is appropriate to discourage creating SVGs of copyrighted material unless it specifically has some special license that allows this to be done, or if permission is granted from the copyright holder. SVG logos really are not necessary on wikipedia, since they are primarily used in articles about a company, institution, or product, thus it would appear on that article, with a maximum width of usually 250px. Thus, they really don't need to scale to large sizes, which means a 250px PNG will suffice. Furthermore, it is highly debatable how an SVG can be termed "low resolution" (e.g., simplifying features in Inkscape or Illustrator), and it is far simpler to keep this definition strictly in the terms of rasterized formats. I would much rather see a good quality screen-resolution PNG logo rather than a poorly implemented and simplified SVG logo, which could potentially look worse than the PNG at an equivalent size. Also, I would much rather have SVG enthusiasts invest their time creating non-copyright artwork, rather than re-creating copyrighted work (which may subsequently be lost). +mwtoews 18:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what we've tried to do by adding the fairuse subcat - go to Category:Fairuse images which should be in SVG format and read the description there and see what you think. There's no reason to outright ban SVG logos (for now at least), but conversion is in most cases a waste of time. Stannered 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should chime in: I am the source of the "friction" Mwtoews received :) . I'm finding it just a bit strange at the moment to come across fair use PNGs tagged with ShouldBeSVG. It seems obvious to me that vector traces of copyrighted logos shouldn't be rasterised at a resolution higher than the original bitmap (that's my opinion: both policy and the law simply require that reproduction should be no larger than necessary). PNG (contra JPEG) is a lossless format, so PNGs should suffer no artifacting. So all we're really doing in recommending vectorisation is making it easier for others to infringe on others' copyright.

The way I see it, we can't legally rasterise a traced vector (much) larger (in px) than the equivalent bitmap, so why bother making an SVG in those cases where the bitmap is a clear, clean copy? If we have low-res bitmap logos in articles, then a would-be copyright violator has to vectorise, reupload and rasterise an image at a large size in order to infringe copyright. If we start supplying copyrighted SVGs, the only thing stopping an editor from rasterising a logo at an illegal size is a small notice on a page nobody ever reads, reminding users not to render Fair Use images at high-resolutions.

I can see the sense in a notice at the top of Category:Fairuse images which should be in SVG format, reminding users that converting to SVG is a wasted effort, but we've still got {{ShouldBeSVG}} on every image page inviting users to do the conversion. What about {{ShouldntBeSVG}} for those images? I wouldn't prohibit converting PNGs to SVG, because it has no effect on fair use in itself; for the same reason I wouldn't oppose turning fair use JPEGs into SVG instead of PNG. But encouraging editors to perform a conversion which is at best pointless seems odd to me. — mholland (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just raised this issue on the Category:Fairuse images which should be in SVG format and then stumbled across this lengthy discussion. I've actually proposed deleting the category and detagging the articles. This is because it is implicitly against copyright law to upload a logo in a larger resolution than that at which it was provided. Secondly, any upload must be identical in all respects to the original else it becomes plaigerism not just simple copyright violation, this is almost impossible to achieve with automated SVG programs. To have a category therefore that is fairuse images which should be in the SVG format becomes a contradiction in itself, as no fairuse images are suitable for the SVG Format as to transfer them would breach copyright law. Next we must consider what is and isn't a logo, many symbols that are not what we would strictly think of as logos (e.g. screen icons, wi-fi access symbols, signage etc.) are infact copyrighted as logos. A logo is not just a commerical image used to brand or sell a company, they are far more complex legally than that. I just had to go through the main SVG tagged category and remove an amazing 33 out of 209 pictures because they are logos which would breach fair use copyright law if made larger or into SVG. Thats 15% of the entire category! We need to address this immiediately else we risk the foundation getting in serious trouble. I suggest it may even be nessessary to seek higher level clarification of the matter. As I have stated on the talk page for Category:Fairuse images which should be in SVG format, I will wait for consensus on the matter and if nessessary put the article forward for AfD and detag the current images, probably using WP:AWB which can do this in a matter of minutes. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 18:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Some other queries[edit]

1) Images containing the Wikipedia logo. There is no SVG version of the Wikipedia logo. I've been replacing such elements (which are normally for decorative purposes, so possibly violate Wikimedia Foundation's image use policy anyway) with a white (or gradiented white/grey) circle with a W in the middle in Hoefler Text. Is this necessarily the best course of action? Or should we just deny the SVG request and remove the tag?

2) All these damn U+xxxx.gif files. They take up almost an entire page. I asked at the Computing Reference Desk for someone to write a script that could generate them on the fly - didn't get a response. :-( I don't really want to spend an entire evening sat in front of Inkscape laboriously creating 200 SVG files - any advice?

Stannered 20:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

re #2: A script that just outputs a simple SVG with a given character wouldn't be hard (the .svg files would differ by like 4 bytes, it's just modifying a text file)... as long as the server has the necessary font. Though it might be a lot safer to just make sure they show up in the right font on a local computer and then do something equivalent to Inkscape's "Object to Path", and I'm not sure off the top of my head how to automate that. --Interiot 21:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't get my head around Inkscape scripting. Another issue is that each character seems to have the edge of the images flush with the edges of the character - that would require more scripting in Inkscape (Ctrl+A Ctrl+Shift+D Alt+F Alt+F4 is how I'd do it with a keyboard, but once again Inkscape scripting... Unless it could be done with sendkeys...). The way I thought of doing it was to batch create PostScript files containing just the characters on their own, set the bounding box to just touch the character edges, then use [www.pstoedit.net/pstoedit pstoedit] to first convert the text PS to curves PS, then the curves PS to SVG. Stannered 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
And a random question... if you use a non-free font, and do "Object to Path", does that make the resulting SVG non-free? --Interiot 21:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is no, but I can't find a citation for that. Stannered 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that this would make an IP lawyer nervous. Printed fonts are not copyrightable whereas vector fonts are (as software). As far as i know, the specific question you ask has been untested in the courts. --Selket Talk 07:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
However, you aren't redistributing the entire font, just a small subset. Embedding of fonts (for instance, in PDF files for online distribution) is common, and is essentially the same thing (except using more characters than one might use in an SVG diagram). Stannered 10:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: #1, hopefully at some point there will be an .svg version of the wikipedia logo... m:Logo says that EVERY other Wikimedia logo is available in SVG, Wikipedia's is the last holdout. Anyway, [1] has a Jimbo quote that says no derivative uses of the logos are allowed without Wikimedia Foundation permission, so raster derivatives probably aren't acceptable in the first place, so I'd probably just deny the request msyself. --Interiot 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

An SVG version would have to be rather different to the current logo, as the current logo is actually a rendering from a 3D model (this is discussed meta:Logo#Large_version_suitable_for_use_in_printed_publications here). I was thinking of images like Image:Perlwikipedia.png, where the value of the content isn't the Wikipedia logo - the image would be equally good without it. And replacing with an SVG that didn't use the Wikipedia logo would be a good thing, as it halts the unauthorised use in that image. (See Image:Cdalbumicon-alt.svg vs. Image:Image-Cdalbumicon.png for what I was talking about). Stannered 22:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking it might be able to be redone in SVG with some work. I guess the hard part would be matching the shadows in the cracks between the jigsaw pieces, but everything else would look fine in SVG (the shadow around the globe is otherwise uniform, the black fonts/shadow appear pure-black, etc.)?
Ahh, I see what you're doing with the "W". Yeah, that looks great. --Interiot 22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The gradient-shading on the sphere itself and the shadowing are the biggies, I think. The conclusion was that you could make a vector version that looked almost exactly like it, but due to the way it was made you couldn't make an exact vector version. Stannered 22:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Theres seems to be to be a simple answer to this. It would breach copyright law to make an SVG version of the wikipedia logo. If you look on the logo page you will see that it is not a fair use image and its copyright is held by the foundation. We would need to seek higher level authorisation to recreate the logo I believe. Say for example you work for walmart stacking shelves... it wouldn't authorise you to go and redesign the walmart logo would it. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of other fair use logos that people are either sourcing SVG versions of or recreating them in SVG format. Wasn't the Wikipedia logo designed by a Wikipedia user in the first place? AFAIK most Wikimedia logos were - which makes your analogy somewhat flawed. Stannered 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because other logos are being redrawn in SVG doesn't mean this should be. Thats a contentious matter being discussed above after all, we've already established that recreation of logos in a scalable format violates may violate our own copyright policy. The wikipedia logo was indeed designed by a wikipedian in the first place... that said don't you think the walmart logo was made by a walmart employee? Probably, or it would have been bought from an agency. Either way, it would be wrong of that employee to redesign it, recreate it or redistribute it without permission. I often work as a freelance graphic artist, when i give someone my work although I drew it, by buying it they own it. I'm not even permitted to keep copies of it on my computer without authorisation for example, I certainly can't redesign it and redistribute it. Such is the nature of copyright law. All that said I'm sure that no one in the foundation will mind but I think it probably needs to go higher to get authorisation to recreate this as a vector. Alternatively and probably better would be to redesign it as a true typeface which could if they are indeed willing for it to be recreated. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 20:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The vector version of the Wikinews logo seems to have now usurped the original PNG logo at Meta here. This SVG version was created without (AFAIK) any authorisation (and noted on the Meta page below the PNG version noting some problems), and was then tweaked and improved by users at the Graphic Lab. This seems to be a de facto recognition that users can edit and improve Copyright Wikimedia logos. Stannered 20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Grammar[edit]

The category names assigned by this template have a grammatical error in them. They should read "XXX images that should be in SVG." I am fixing it but it may take a while for the cache of all of those pages to update. --Selket Talk 18:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This should really be discussed at WP:CFD. The old category pages should be redirected or deleted or something. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
CfD instructions said change the template, then speedy the category once it has been empty for four days. --Selket Talk 00:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

{{SVG}} on images we didn't create[edit]

I've noticed {{SVG}} on some images which were imported from external sources, such as Image:Static line.jpg, Image:Blow2.jpg, and (most ridiculously) Image:JRE Signature.jpg. I happen to feel this is inappropriate - images whose value is significantly derived from their being original documents shouldn't be replaced with SVG recreations for aesthetic reasons. Replacing them with higher-resolution versions of the original document is appropriate, if such versions can be obtained, but replacing them with fundamentally different images isn't.

Furthermore, a number of such images which I'm seeing tagged with this template would be rather difficult to vectorize, such as a set of NASA diagrams of Apollo scientific packages, such as Image:Lunar Surface Gravimeter.gif. There are enough images in the vectorization backlog that it'd be not only useless but a waste of valuable time (which could be spent vectorizing images created locally) to vectorize stuff like this.

Any agreement here? Zetawoof(ζ) 13:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that requesting conversion of signatures to SVG is rather odd. Image:Static line.jpg is just an illustration; its value is that it's public-domain and illustrates the topic. I'd have no objections to an SVG of that. I agree with you on Image:Blow2.jpg. Whilst Image:Lunar Surface Gravimeter.gif would be hard to vectorise, in its current form it is not as useful as it could be, as it is hard to see the detail or read the text - it would be a LOT more valuable as a cleaned-up vector image. Whilst I agree that it shouldn't be given top priority, it's worth keeping it in the back of our collective mind for later. Obviously a higher-resolution raster version would also be a good start. Many images not created by us hae been rasterised from PDFs as screenshots, so vector versions are available from the original source and would obviously be preferable. {{svg}} doesn't always refer to a request to recreate. Stannered (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Where it's possible to get a vector original, I'd definitely agree that uploading that as a replacement would be a good thing overall. This isn't always possible, though. In the case of the lunar gravimeter, for example, the original was probably not created on a computer (as the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package was from the mid-1960s), so it's unlikely that any vector version exists.
What might be helpful would be to come up with some sort of categorical distinction between images which were created locally as bitmaps (and therefore can be recreated without loss) and images which were imported from other sources (and therefore shouldn't be redrawn). Categories like these become a lot more useful when they can be treated as a backlog of Things To Be Done, rather than just a listing of Things That Would Be Nice To Have. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for not converting the lunar gravimeter to SVG. It's public-domain, so we're allowed to do what we want with it, and a cleaned-up SVG version would be of much more benefit to the community than the current version. Certainly the current version should be kept at Commons as a representation of the original diagrams, but as an illustration of the topic (rather than of the history), a recreation based on it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Perhaps two categories for "Images we want to convert to SVG", a high-priority and a low-priority (for local and externally-sourced images respectively), and a category for "Images to source SVG versions of" (for externally-sourced images that should also have vector versions)? But then what of images like Image:Blue Line Map.png - local bitmap images where the uploader has already got an SVG version. Putting these in the "requested" category would confuse them with external images (and if the uploader didn't upload the SVG version, would mean that SVG versions wouldn't happen), but putting them in the "redraw" category would quickly create a duplication of effort. A fourth category? Some complex template-fu? Stannered (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to be reluctant to convert to SVG, with one exception. Images like Image:Blow2.jpg should not be vectorised because its value is that it's a faithful reproduction of the original book that demonstrated a particular sports move - it is more a photograph of a book than a diagram per se. In contrast, images like Image:Static line.jpg have value only for the purpose of conveying information, and would therefore be improved by vectorising. El T (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree on both of these cases. Stannered (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why SVG?[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that converting PNGs to SVGs is a waste of time. PNG works just fine for logos in my opinion. BanRay 21:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really an expert, but I think that the rational is that vector graphics scale better than png - that would make them more versatile wikipedia-wise... --Ludwigs2 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This template is not just for logos, it's for all images. PNG can be acceptable for logos, although SVG may add some flexibility; for most suitable images (particularly diagrams), SVG is a significant advantage. Stannered (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
In general, I consider redrawing diagrams as vector-SVG as a waste of time and resources at the expense of Wikipedia progress. The template explicitly asks people to recreate existing content instead of contributing new content. The recreated diagrams are usually without any real benefit for Wikipedia readers, and even worse, many works inspired by this template are of inferior content quality compared to their raster image parents. The content is the most important aspect for Wikipedia users, not the file format! I my humble opinion, this template should be deleted or at least be used much more selectively according to restrictive rules to be written. Cacycle (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion is based on the flawed assumption that the people who are good at creating vector graphics from raster graphics would be just as good at creating vector graphics as new illustrations or at creating articles (or whatever else). Obviously we don't want to slide backwards in terms of quality, but as a project that aims to be open, surely images that are easy to modify are an important element? And obviously as screens become larger and articles are reused in other media, it's important to have images at higher than web resolution? Image creators could create larger and larger bitmapped files, but then those become even harder to work with, and existing images would need recreation anyway. *stops rambling* Stannered (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly the problem: the template invites people to recreate content that they do not really understand and the result often speaks for itself. I have spent so much time just to tag and revert low-quality SVG recreations (mainly chemical diagrams). Cacycle (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
If someone is able and willing to convert a raster image to SVG that would benefit, then they should be allowed to do it. If the resulting image is of inferior quality, then the raster image should be used until a suitable vector version is created. Hopefully Wikipedia will be around for many years and the SVG format is a way to future proof diagrams, maps and logos.Dedwarmo (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha[edit]

The template's using a PNG. No, seriously, I love SVG more than most people but we really need to stop the whole "everything must be SVG all the time!" thing. We're giving people the wrong idea about what makes the format so great. If you're not going to be resizing, adapting, translating, modifying it in any way, or interacting with it, there's not really any benefit. Actually, PNGs are better for static content like template icons. Rocket000 (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

what are you suggesting? do you want to add some commentary that gives guidelines for when converting to SVG is useful? that would be a good idea, I think, but I can't say as I know what appropriate guidelines are. go ahead and edit the docs, or tell me what they should say and I'll edit them. Face-smile.svg --Ludwigs2 21:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an SVG version of File:Imbox style.png infact that file is actually a rasterization of File:Broom icon.svg. There is some talk about changing it at Template_talk:Imbox#Broom_image but there are some misconceptions about IE6 requiring PNG images. --Svgalbertian (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I know the Project should support as many people as possible (no matter if they are ignorant enough to use IE) but… do we really need to consider IE6?; should we care at all about browsers that don't conform to standards? If they don't, it's their loss; people should switch. No? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

New category[edit]

I believe there should be a new category for military images that should be in SVG format. It will help clear out from the "other" category. mechamind90 17:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree something needs to be done to clean out the other category. I almost think two parameters are needed where one specifies the image type (logo, chemical, map, flag, etc.) and another categories it (military, scouting, etc.). --ben_b (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Vector data[edit]

I propose adding a new parameter Vector data. This would enable linking an EPS, CDR, AI or PDF file containing the image in a vector format that can be converted into a SVG file. Especially in case of logos such a parameter has turned out to be useful in de.wikipedia (Kategorie:In SVG konvertieren, Vektordaten vorhanden). --Leyo 19:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree this change should be made as well as a number of changes from Commons:Template:Convert to SVG. --ben_b (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems this may have already been added but also placing them in Category:Images that should use vector graphics (non-SVG vector data available) would be nice. --ben_b (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

World Scout Category/Parameter[edit]

It seems at one point that {{Should be SVG|world scout}} may have existed as discussed at Category:World Scout images that should be in SVG format. It is the only subcategory under Category:Images that should be in SVG format that is not automatically added to using {{Should be SVG}}. I noticed some images in that category aren't even tagged with {{Should be SVG}} and have just manually been added to the category. Should it be added back as a valid parameter? What should be done with the category? I imagine that category was created by the WikiProject Scouting. My thoughts are that the category shouldn't be deleted and that rather the images should also be placed the appropriate existing parameter. For example my thoughts on how to properly use it for a scouting logo would be {{Should be SVG|world scout,logo}} which would add it to both Category:World Scout images that should be in SVG format and Category:Logo images that should be in SVG format. --ben_b (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Never saw this category before. Don't know why it has World in the title. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 08:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


Why encourage or require conversion to .svg?[edit]

I've read the reasons why svg is better than .gif, .jpg, or .png, but it all seems similar to a fight between PCs and Macs. The overwhelming majority of visitors to Wikipedia just want to see the image and don't care about the incredibly minute details.

However, some people don't have the ability to fully utilize .svg files. At work on my work computer, I often use Wikipedia for information, but I can't view the large version of .svg images. I would bet that millions of people also use it at work and also have a similar problem. What good is a file if you can't even see the full version of it?

I can't install anything on my computer; also, why should someone have to mess with computer settings at all just to simply use Wikipedia to its full potential? Not everyone is using the latest version a web browser or other program, nor should we expect them to.

Some Wikipedians upload images as .svg the first time, and that is enough of a problem. Why do we need to make Wikipedia even less usable by asking that all images be made .svg? This is not only unnecessary, but it is also counterproductive.


tl;dr Can we stop putting this template on all images? Or even delete this template and the related ones (e.g. "Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons")? Ufwuct (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That's why:
Vector graphics Raster graphics
Vector graphics Raster graphics
Vector graphics Raster graphics
Vector graphics Raster graphics
Vector graphics may be scaled indefinitely without any quality impairment.
--Leyo 21:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Also worth noting the Wikimedia software renders all SVG images into PNG images so users without SVG readers can see them. See "This image rendered as PNG in other sizes:" of an SVG image on wikipedia. --ben_b (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Music/Logo category and album art; multiple parameters?[edit]

There are four images - File:Coldplay speedofsound.png, File:ColdplayTheHardestPart.jpg, File:LetUsMoveOn.jpg, and File:True (EP).jpg - that are labeled with both {{svg|logo}} and {{svg|music}}. As far as I can tell, the music category is for musical notes, scores, etc. and not for all music-related images, so I'll be removing the music category tags from those images for the time being.

What sort of things can be done to resolve this ambiguity between categories when two or more might be appropriate? Two should-be-svg boxes is messy and redundant. I'm thinking that there are two possibilities here: narrow category descriptions to the point where ambiguity is no longer an issue, or modify the template to allow for multiple category parameters, such as {{svg|cat1=...|cat2=...|etc.. Just thought I'd share my opinion, sorry if this has been discussed before. Fuebar (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons template categories[edit]

The Commons' equivalent template has matured faster than this one, and has more categories that perhaps might be used here as well. Particularly military ensignia, music -> musical notation, icon, deprecation of emblem, and math. Fuebar (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It probably is worth adapting features/categories from Commons — were it is helpful! For example I have no idea how the very specific musical notation was better than just music (just keep it simple). A category math probably isn't necessary since most images that would fall into this category could/should be moved to Commons anyway. It is important not to use too many categories (Commons is already crowded and therefore confusing. They even have category physical that even the documentation isn't sure of!). Otherwise you'll get the opposite effect to what you probably want to achieve: Images just thrown into others category, images categorized wrongly or even overlapping categories. -- Patrick87 (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Changes regarding vector source ("url" parameter)[edit]

I did a few cosmetics on how the URL given by the "url" parameter is shown in the template box to improve it's visibility (and therefore the chance an image with vector source available will be vectorized). The difference can be seen in testcases.

Furthermore I changed the template to add images with vector source ("url" parameter specified) to Category:Images that should be in SVG format (vector data available) which I'll design to be an additional subcategory of Category:Images that should be in SVG format as soon as the changes are applied. This will allow to quickly find all images for which vector data is already available and hopefully motivate some people to do the vectorization.

The changed code can be found in Template:Should be SVG/sandbox&oldid=551705434 -- Patrick87 (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please comment on why you removed <noinclude> tags? --Leyo 08:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, that was unintentional. I used the sandbox -> duplicate link below the template documentation and this seems to have stripped out the <noinclude> part. I added it back in Template:Should be SVG/sandbox&oldid=551767764. I still left out the <onlyinclude> tags at the top pf the template (these were lost, too) since it seems they're unnecessary (there's a namespace switch afterwards so the content will never ever appear on the template page itself anyway). -- Patrick87 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the update. Could you add the new features to the documentation as well? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, I'll create the new category, adapt the documentation to the changes and adjust all project pages were appropriate this evening. -- Patrick87 (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
What about <includeonly>? --Leyo 11:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not necessary, because nothing will show up in the template namespace for that switch statement, only in the file and category namespaces. If someone adds behaviour for the template namespace to the template in the future, then the includeonly tags would need to be reinserted, but that doesn't seem so likely. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of template on any fair use images[edit]

Per my reasoning at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Non-free_images_and_SVG (and at least partially per the 7-year-old discussion above), it seems very likely to me that no fair use images should be tagged with {{Should be SVG}}, and yet there's an entire category devoted to this. It seems like there's general agreement that per WP:IMAGERES, SVG versions of fair use images are not going to meet fair use rationale anyway, so it seems to me that the "fair use" category (and to a lesser extent the "logo" category) are sending a mixed message here. I propose that for now the "Should be SVG" tag be removed from all fair use images, and the fair use category retired. Depending on whether wording is added to WP:NFCC and/or WP:LOGO about vector versions of fair use images, that should be reflected in the template documentation here. Any disagreement? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 21:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually many of the images in Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format are text logos that are likely to be under the threshold of originality and could therefore even be hosted on Commons with the appropriate license/trademark templates applied. I'd therefore strongly advise against removing {{Should be SVG}} from any of those images in any (half-)automated process.
If you have some images in mind that clearly reach the threshold of originality and/or feel like digging through all of the ~2000 images to find them, you surely can remove the template. Anyway I'd say the template doesn't really do any harm, so there's not really a point in removing the template systematically. However one could mention in the template documentation that there is not much sense in spending too much time in creating clearly unfree images as SVG and therefore discourage using it in those cases. --Patrick87 (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I would say that if it is true (and it likely is) that vector versions of almost any image would not pass a fair use rationale because of the minimum use problem, then it likely does do harm to have 2000 images tagged as needing to be converted to an invalid format. If you think some of them may be below the threshold of originality that they can be ported to commons, maybe we should change the template so that {{Should be SVG|fair use}} displays a transitional message like, "If this is a text-only logo and may meet the appropriate qualifications for inclusion in the Commons, please replace this template with {{text-only-logo-template}}. Otherwise, if this is a logo posted under a fair use rationale, remove this template. If this is posted under a free license, replace it with {{Should be SVG|the-appropriate-category}}." Something like that. Then when the category is eventually empty or down to a manageable level, we can deprecate the category entirely. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)