User talk:Tga.D

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Tga.D!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsuited vectorize-diagram template for NREL Efficiency Chart

Hi Tga.D, you reverted my removal of the svg-vectorize diagram template, despite not being sure whether this was correct. Is there anything I can do to convince you that vectorizing the chart is not a good idea (to say the least) besides the fact, that this file is being updated almost on a monthly basis? Please let me know - Rfassbind (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your message here. While I'm not going to passionately advocate for vectorization of the chart, I think that it is something that is much, much better suited for a vector image. For one, it would allow for arbitrary scaling of any prtion of the chart. While it is a very high resolution image, being able to scale, say, one small portion of the graph to a large screen is definitely something I can imagine people finding useful. Secondly, 2.38 MB for filesize isn't entirely unreasonable, but is unneccarily large for the data being conveyed (basic symbols, lines, and text). Particularly in places with limited resources, every little bit shed in size helps page load times and browser performance. Finally, having text labels in the SVG allows for indexing and searching, so that if someone was searching for one of the terms in use in the chart (e.g. a Google search for "multijunction cells"), it would find it. As to the rapid changes to the image, they wouldn't be hard to deal with if the vector image was generted from formatted data using something like gnuplot. Maybe we could contact the lab and ask them if they're willing to provide the raw data they are using, or even if they are willing to provide SVG versions of the image for us (the fact it's updated so frequently while preserving the layout of everything tells me they're probably using a tool that can already do that). Again, I'm not going to fight tooth-and-nail to keep the template, but I see no reason it should be removed, even if it is only kept as a long-term goal. --Tga.D (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Glad you asked why the chart shouldn't be vectorized;)

1. the chart changes at least 10 times a year - more than your current edit count
2. there is no need to modify the chart - when a new version is released, it replaces the previous one.
3. vectorization of the original file is something many people don't know how to do
4. it is important that the chart is up to date. The format is completely secondary. Vectorization will only lead to an outdated chart. Editors on wikipedia article will then opt for an updated version of the original file and drop the SVG version from the article.
5. you're making things more complicated for everbody else, producing results no one can/will use.

Hope to hear from you soon. -- Rfassbind (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your points, to be frank, don't convince me. Again, it doesn't really matter how frequently the chart changes; Gnuplot can generate a plot like this in the matter of seconds if provided the data (I'm also not sure how my edit count matters, nor how you counted me having less than 10 edits since I'm counting more than that on the commons alone). In general your arguments don't really show how having an SVG version would detract from the quality of the image. If you don't think it's worth the effort to make one, then don't, but the tag isn't hurting anything. --Tga.D (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Null.svg

File:Null.svg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: CSD F7 (file is empty, corrupt, or in a disallowed format) If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

TilmannR (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)