Template talk:Should be SVG

message: 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)
replies: text: Now fixed. El T 10:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This image should be CVG too 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Commons has . I'm not sure why the names of the templates are different. —Bkell (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons 

message: Why is :Image:Information_icon.svg changed to :Image:Gtk-dialog-info.svg? --80.63.213.182 18:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it back. I think the original one is much more professional and attactive. El T 04:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  from fair use logos. Stannered 00:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cease adding images? 

message: On Wikimedia Commons there is an analogous Template to this one, called . It has one important feature, however, that I think might be worth adding to our template on Wikipedia. That is, when someone places the  tag, they have the option of adding a parameter: for example, 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)
replies: text: I think it's an excellent idea. —Bkell (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Some are already tagged in the new format. Hopefully some nice person with a bot would change all instances of  to Chemical structure. Stannered 17:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Cool beans. I've edited  to refer to the new category and encourage users to use this template instead in future. Stannered 23:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed parameter 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  FU logos (again) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why SVG?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.    --Ludwigs2 21:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ha 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New category 

message: 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:Datei:In SVG konvertieren (Vektordaten vorhanden)). --Leyo 19:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  It seems this may have already been added but also placing them in  would be nice. --ben_b (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vector data 

message: It seems at one point that  may have existed as discussed at . It is the only subcategory under  that is not automatically added to using . I noticed some images in that category aren't even tagged with  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  which would add it to both  and . --ben_b (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Never saw this category before. Don't know why it has World in the title. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 08:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Scout Category/Parameter 

message: There are four images - :File:Coldplay speedofsound.png, :File:ColdplayTheHardestPart.jpg, :File:LetUsMoveOn.jpg, and :File:True (EP).jpg - that are labeled with both  and . 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)
thread_title:  Music/Logo category and album art; multiple parameters? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Commons template categories 

message: 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)
replies: text: Could you please comment on why you removed <noinclude> tags? --Leyo 08:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What about <includeonly>? --Leyo 11:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Changes regarding vector source (''"url"'' parameter) 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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  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 . 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 ." 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)
thread_title:  Removal of template on any fair use images 

message: Oddly, adding this template to a Commons image description also seems to have added Template:BadJPEG to the end of it. I'm not sure why; I can't see where that'd be coming from. Ideas?
AtomCrusher (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template also inserts BadJPEG? 

message: The  tag in the following source snippet (as highlighted) should be removed, as  already uses it and thus is redundant in the template:
: ...tag the old version with , and remove this tag.
 Ntx61 (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 22:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 9 September 2020 

message: Many (likely most) images that are tagged with this template are non-free logos. Please add the following notice to the template, markup included: 
Do not re-draw or auto-trace official logos, but instead, seek out vector versions from official sources.
Per WP:NFC, we are only allowed to upload SVG versions of non-free logos if they were released by the copyright holder. This needs be stated in this template, as many users just assume that we are requesting that someone just draw a new logo. – Pbrks (t • c) 17:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 15:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 2 February 2022 

message: Description of suggested change: We should clarify that no non-free images should be redrawn by users and not just limited to non-free logos. 
 – Pbrks (t • c) 23:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 17 September 2023