Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:Apocheir

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Apocheir!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Convert to SVGEdit

Hello Apocheir, the convert to SVG template is not appropriate for 3D-models of chemical structures, please see the note at Category:Chemistry images that should use vector graphics. Regards --Nothingserious (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The image already had the SVG template before I edited it. I was diffusing the category, but not paying attention to whether the image should have the SVG template at all. I'll pay better attention to that now that you've drawn my attention to it. --Apocheir (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that you didn't set the original template after my message to you. It can be pretty confusing. Thanks for your reply. --Nothingserious (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Convert File:Aero_view_of_New_Brunswick,_New_Jersey,_1910_(cropped).png to SVGEdit

File:Aero_view_of_New_Brunswick,_New_Jersey,_1910_(cropped).png is not a photographic image. It is a hand-drawn illustration, thus it would be suitable for conversion to SVG. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It is true that it's a hand-drawn image, not a photograph. Without zooming in, it looks like an old photographic print. That's my mistake. I don't agree that this particular image is suitable for conversion to SVG, though, even if it is a hand-drawn illustration. Highly detailed drawn images like this would be mangled by SVG conversion. -Apocheir (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Gynephilia-androphilia-heterosexual-homosexual orientations diagram.pngEdit

I don't know how you can draw diagonal lines between table cells using wikitables (and math and music are irrelevant). AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


I'm not going to revert your edit, but I wonder about the ability of wikitext to produce that level of formatting consistently across browsers... AnonMoos (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


I added Category:Text images that should use vector graphics using HotCat for File:Visicalc.png&oldid=252646057&diff=254956339 and then you undid revision number by me because "convert to SVG makes no sense for screenshots". If you meant it does not make sense to you, read on and I will try to explain. If you meant it does not make sense for use in the encyclopedia or the sister projects, I respectfully disagree and would seek consensus one way or the other.

  1. Why not? It would be a simple conversion and would not degrade the image quality. In corner cases where it did the PNG could be used in place (the common template does say "where not inferior", which I believe would be most places).
  2. The usual benefits at COM:SVG would ensue, for example ease of revision.
  3. Just to demonstrate that "vector screenshot" is not a crazy idea emerging only from some lost recess of my brain, we already have a perfectly fine (albeit small) set at Category:SVG_screenshots.

Given the first half of my first point, it may be prudent for me to upload a Visicalc.svg and then use Template:vector version available on the PNG rather than reverting a reversion which I dislike doing even with the original reverter's consensus. VVA is not a (potentially contentious) call to action like Convert can be. Arlo James Barnes 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

  1. I am not sure what your intent is here. This is a PNG screenshot of the Apple II, which had an inherently pixellated display. It is already a very small file (3KB). If you're going to make an SVG approximation that smooths out the pixels, it's not an accurate representation of the program any more. If you're going to make an exact SVG representation of the PNG file, you are likely going to produce an SVG file that has a larger file size than the PNG.
  2. How much revision is going to be done to a screenshot of a program that hasn't had a new version since at least 1985?
  3. There are only 10 files in Category:SVG_screenshots, including the subcategory, of which five (the ones in the subcategory) make heavy use of embedded raster graphics, one isn't usable, three are just Inkscape demonstrations, and most have minimal if any use in projects. Compare this to the 4100+ files in Category:Screenshots, not even including its subcategories. There could be a use case for SVG screenshots, but it's very marginal, not at all the norm.
If you want to create an SVG version of this screenshot, that's up to you, but in my opinion that would be a waste of time, and your efforts could be better spent elsewhere on Commons. Category:Images_that_should_use_vector_graphics is already heavily overloaded, and nobody else is going to take up this effort. I'd recommend asking in Help talk:SVG if you're not convinced. -Apocheir (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikicharts and SVGEdit

One of the functions of Commons is to provide hosting for WMF projects but the other big one is to host files for persons outside of those projects to have access to these media. If we host SVGs, then that is useful for outsiders who are not using WMF projects and therefore cannot use wikicharts as a solution. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're concerned that your image will be deleted once a wikichart version is available, or deleted because it's not in use on a WMF project, you should say something on Category talk:Images which should use wikicharts, or maybe the village pump. As per COM:REDUNDANT, an image simply being superseded is not reason for deletion; there needs to be a superior image available. Note that the description on Category:Images which should use wikicharts says "might be nominated for deletion", not will. The policy doesn't say anything about a superior non-image representation being available, so maybe that point needs clarification. Wikicharts are explicitly preferred in many places, e.g. Category talk:Pie charts, but that's not policy.
My personal rational for moving them out of the SVG category and into the wikichart group category is that it's much more likely that they'll receive a wikichart conversion than an SVG conversion. Wikichart conversion is much easier, and the people who do SVG conversions tend to prioritize by usage in WMF projects (meaning images with 0 usage are probably never going to be converted). -Apocheir (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense but they aren't mutually exclusive. Of course, the solution here is a tool which can reliably and efficiently vectorize simple raster graphics. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Tagging as “erroneous”Edit

It’s not very helpful to tag something as “erroneous” without specifying what namely is wrong in the picture. Moreover, it’s you who also tagged the image as {{convert to SVG}}, and this is confusing even more. You can see which pictures resulted from vectorization of allegedly golden-angle pie and of the JPEG triangle, advertised as 30-60-90. Why do you prompt such mishaps to occur again? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added descriptions of what is wrong in the two images File:Negative Air Pressure.png and File:Positive Air Pressure.png. I don't see anything wrong in tagging these images with convert to SVG. They need correction, and they also would be better in SVG format; ideally both would be done at the same time. Realistically, these images only have one use each in a wikiproject and it's unlikely they're going to be converted to SVG any time soon, so there's little reason to get upset. -Apocheir (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Apocheir".