![]() |
Template:Bad JPEG is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here. |
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 11 December 2005. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2007 July 4. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
There is a category that images tagged with this message are added to, Category:Images with inappropriate JPEG compression. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 16:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
There was a December 2005 vote for the deletion of this template on WP:TFD. The result was no deletion. The debate is archived here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/December 2005#Template:BadJPEG. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 16:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
BadJPEG is a great step in the right direction, but I think we need more tags to cover additional cases, such as:
This list partly inspired by the famous User:Bkell/List of images in the wrong format. I've been doing some work in the last category lately and found it really rewarding. Some possible template names:
What do you guys think? Deco 02:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
For everyone's info, I have added commons:Template:BadJPEG to serve the same purpose on Commons, with the language of the template suitably adjusted for their policies and templates. Deco 02:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Not that I need to right away, but if it was neccessary, can this template be added to non-JPEG images, if they have JPEG artifacts? I know there's nothing in the system to stop it, I'm just wondering does that fall into the category of uses for this template. - Рэд хот 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This template currently recommends that when people replace a JPEG with a non-JPEG, they list the JPEG for deletion. I'm not sure that's such a good idea. If the original JPEG was a fair-use image, then orphaning it will be cause enough for an {{ orfud}} tag anyway. If the original JPEG was not a fair-use image, though, its deletion will often be the destruction of important information about the history of the non-JPEG.
For example, suppose someone drew a diagram of something and uploaded it as a JPEG, releasing it under the GFDL. Maybe the JPEG underwent several revisions by various people. Then I came along and made an SVG version of the latest revision, uploaded that, and replaced all instances of the JPEG with my SVG. Now the JPEG is orphaned, but if it is deleted we lose all of the past revision history of the image (since the SVG is a derivative work of the latest JPEG, the history of the JPEG is also the history of the SVG). At best that's unfortunate, and at worst it's somehow a violation of the GFDL.
There really isn't any reason to delete orphaned, freely licensed JPEGs, so I propose we remove the suggestion that the JPEG be deleted and replace it with a suggestion to tag the JPEG with {{ redundant}} (or better, a tag like {{redundant}} that doesn't imply that the image should be deleted). — Bkell ( talk) 20:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Some programs like Photoshop are quite bad at saving PNGs. Since it's a lossless format, this doesn't result in loss of image quality, but can impact on the filesize (some program retain colour information for 100% transparent pixels, for instance). Luckily, there are several programs that can be used to limit the filesize. — 66.36.137.215 08:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be redundant with tags like {{ ShouldBePNG}} and {{ ShouldBeSVG}}. It seems that when possible, we should try to suggest constructive steps that editors can take rather than tag things as "bad". Do others agree? — brighterorange ( talk) 06:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add this, but I want to make sure it'd be appropriate: "For fair use images, {{ ShouldBePNG}} should be used in place of this template." My reasoning is that if someone creates an SVG of a fair use image, as this template suggests, it violates #3 of the fair use criteria since SVGs can be scaled continuously, unlike PNGs. ShadowHalo 10:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone please wikilink " Category:Images with inappropriate JPEG compression" on this page? Thanks, LOOKSQUARE ( 👤️· 🗨️) talk 20:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Template:Bad JPEG is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here. |
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 11 December 2005. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2007 July 4. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
There is a category that images tagged with this message are added to, Category:Images with inappropriate JPEG compression. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 16:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
There was a December 2005 vote for the deletion of this template on WP:TFD. The result was no deletion. The debate is archived here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/December 2005#Template:BadJPEG. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 16:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
BadJPEG is a great step in the right direction, but I think we need more tags to cover additional cases, such as:
This list partly inspired by the famous User:Bkell/List of images in the wrong format. I've been doing some work in the last category lately and found it really rewarding. Some possible template names:
What do you guys think? Deco 02:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
For everyone's info, I have added commons:Template:BadJPEG to serve the same purpose on Commons, with the language of the template suitably adjusted for their policies and templates. Deco 02:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Not that I need to right away, but if it was neccessary, can this template be added to non-JPEG images, if they have JPEG artifacts? I know there's nothing in the system to stop it, I'm just wondering does that fall into the category of uses for this template. - Рэд хот 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This template currently recommends that when people replace a JPEG with a non-JPEG, they list the JPEG for deletion. I'm not sure that's such a good idea. If the original JPEG was a fair-use image, then orphaning it will be cause enough for an {{ orfud}} tag anyway. If the original JPEG was not a fair-use image, though, its deletion will often be the destruction of important information about the history of the non-JPEG.
For example, suppose someone drew a diagram of something and uploaded it as a JPEG, releasing it under the GFDL. Maybe the JPEG underwent several revisions by various people. Then I came along and made an SVG version of the latest revision, uploaded that, and replaced all instances of the JPEG with my SVG. Now the JPEG is orphaned, but if it is deleted we lose all of the past revision history of the image (since the SVG is a derivative work of the latest JPEG, the history of the JPEG is also the history of the SVG). At best that's unfortunate, and at worst it's somehow a violation of the GFDL.
There really isn't any reason to delete orphaned, freely licensed JPEGs, so I propose we remove the suggestion that the JPEG be deleted and replace it with a suggestion to tag the JPEG with {{ redundant}} (or better, a tag like {{redundant}} that doesn't imply that the image should be deleted). — Bkell ( talk) 20:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Some programs like Photoshop are quite bad at saving PNGs. Since it's a lossless format, this doesn't result in loss of image quality, but can impact on the filesize (some program retain colour information for 100% transparent pixels, for instance). Luckily, there are several programs that can be used to limit the filesize. — 66.36.137.215 08:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be redundant with tags like {{ ShouldBePNG}} and {{ ShouldBeSVG}}. It seems that when possible, we should try to suggest constructive steps that editors can take rather than tag things as "bad". Do others agree? — brighterorange ( talk) 06:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add this, but I want to make sure it'd be appropriate: "For fair use images, {{ ShouldBePNG}} should be used in place of this template." My reasoning is that if someone creates an SVG of a fair use image, as this template suggests, it violates #3 of the fair use criteria since SVGs can be scaled continuously, unlike PNGs. ShadowHalo 10:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone please wikilink " Category:Images with inappropriate JPEG compression" on this page? Thanks, LOOKSQUARE ( 👤️· 🗨️) talk 20:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)