Template talk:Bad JPEG

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".

Corresponding category

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)[reply]

Deletion vote

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)[reply]

Need more image repair tags

BadJPEG is a great step in the right direction, but I think we need more tags to cover additional cases, such as:

PNGs or GIFs that should be JPEGs (to reduce filesize for images where JPEG is suitable)
PNGs or GIFs that were converted straight from JPEGs (these are particularly bad, as they're as ugly as JPEGs and tend to be larger too)
PNGs or GIFs that should be SVGs (to make them easier for future contributors to edit, to enhance the ability to scale, and to display at high quality at large sizes; most suitable for images that are easy to achieve with vector graphics)

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:

{{ConvertToJPEG}}, {{ShouldBeJPEG}}
{{HasJPEGArtifacts}}, {{ConvertedFromJPEG}}, {{NeedsArtifactRepair}}
{{ConvertToSVG}}, {{ShouldBeSVG}}, {{ConvertToVectorGraphics}}

What do you guys think? Deco 02:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a PNG or GIF should be a JPEG, which is quite rare, it's usually a really easy, straightforward conversion, so I'm not sure it warrants a tag. The primary reason I have a section like that on my list is because I'm lazy sometimes; it's more of a to-do list for myself. For PNGs or GIFs that were converted straight from JPEGs, I would probably recommend {{cleanup-image}}. Would there be an advantage to identifying images that have JPEG artifacts from other images that need cleanup? I like the last one (PNGs or GIFs that should be SVGs), although I think it would be easy to overapply that tag, since it could conceivably apply to a whole lot of PNGs (maps, flags, and charts especially, but also maybe logos and drawings and other things PNGs are commonly used for).

The other day I was thinking about how the image use policy on file formats is violated all the time—by images in GIF format. In several places on Wikipedia it says clearly that non-animated GIFs should not be uploaded. I wondered to myself whether a {{ConvertToPNG}} tag or something would be warranted—and then I thought about how many tens of thousands of GIFs are on Wikipedia. —Bkell 19:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Converting all non-animated GIFs to PNGs is good idea, I didn't think of that one. I've created and started apply a {{ConvertToSVG}} tag on Commons (see also Commons:Category:Images that should use vector graphics). There were dozens of images already tagged with {{ifc}} for the reason that they should be converted to SVG, as there are some SVG enthusiasts over there, and I think this sort of tag helped with organization. How helpful it would be here I'm not sure. See Commons:Images for cleanup for some of the tags I created/updated - some of these might be useful here too. Deco 21:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Commons

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)[reply]

Non-JPEG

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)[reply]

I'm not sure. On Commons I tag these differently, but this template is pretty much all we have here. You might consider using it but first generalizing the text a bit. Deco 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid confusion I'd suggest making a seperate {{artifacts}} template. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I come across JPEG artifacts in a non-JPEG image, I just tag it with {{cleanup-image}}, but perhaps a more specialized tag would be nice to have. —Bkell (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. -^Рэд _хот 13:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well I've made {{artifacts}} now. It really had to be made I think, so I just went ahead and did it. - ^Рэд _хот 16:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I started tagging some images with this. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion recommendation

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)[reply]

Also, sometimes the conversion to SVG is not done properly, so keeping the JPG will allow other people to do a better job later. WP 23:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the recommendation so that it suggests the {{obsolete}} tag. —Bkell (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PNG Compression

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)[reply]

Redundant with ShouldBe___ tags?

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)[reply]

Reading {{ShouldBePNG}}, it was made for a different purpose, just changing the file format. It says:

"This template should not be used for [...] images for which only a JPEG source is available; recompressing with PNG will not remove artifacts and will produce larger files"

While badJPEG says:

"If possible, please upload a PNG or SVG version of this image, derived from a non-JPEG source so that it doesn't contain any compression artifacts (or with existing artifacts removed)."

badJPEG specifies that there is a problem. There are several ways to fix the problem, and we leave that up to individuals who know the source material. Specifying that only a PNG or a SVG is an appropriate replacement is too limiting IMO. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

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)[reply]

There are plenty of fair use SVGs out there. Criteria #3 obviously doesn't apply since SVGs don't have a resolution. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a concept of "resolution" that is appropriate to SVGs, but it's not measured in pixels. For example, I could create an extremely detailed SVG of some copyrighted thing, with tens of thousands of Bezier curves and whatnot, and that would be of higher "resolution" than a rough approximation using many fewer SVG objects. —Bkell (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, resolution refers to size, not quality. Fair use of SVG's resolution means that it can only be used in articles at a low resolution (and this is better than PNG because SVG is sharper). Althepal 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

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)[reply]

Where do you want it to be added? Or did you want it to be in the documentation? SWinxy (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. Added a link to the category in the template's text. It's already included in the documentation. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]