Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Meaning of stale?

What does it mean when the bot tags your request "stale"? Does that mean it falls off the list? Should I just resubmit it? Or look somewhere else for help? Thanks. I'm new here. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The source file is really poor. There is not enough visual information to tell what all is going on in that image, so we cannot possibly make an accurate recreation of the image (not to mention that in most, if not all instances, non-free content should be sourced to official channels, not hand redrawn or traced by volunteers). More generally speaking, I believe the bot marks items that have not been discussed for 21 days as "stale" and then archives them 1 week after that. I don't know the protocol for relisting items. The bot archives old requests, instead of relisting them, so I assume relisting is discouraged (or else we'd program the bot to just do it). I'd say, for your request, try to track down a better quality image and use that. In fact, I'll do some searching myself to see what I can't come up with! -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I struck out finding official sources, too. But thanks for looking. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Query from Kkm010

• If a person willing to post a request to transform its logo to svg, how he/she would know that the pic is actually raster file.
• I know that U guys are somewhat frustrated about my too many requests. I'm sorry for that.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 18:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not the number of requests, speaking personally, but the sense of entitlement did rub me up the wrong way a bit. We're all volunteers, you know. :-) Lots of your requests are done, and some of them have been explained as not feasible. I wonder, can you explain why you are requesting so many seemingly diverse vector conversions? Knowing the reasons might help us to help you.  Begoon^talk 18:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If you read the proposed text above, it describes which formats are raster/vector. Image file formats may also be useful...  Begoon^talk 19:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The request for non-free logos is not frustrating but involves searching (sometimes a lot). That is why the draft was introduced. My perspective is that any requester should do his part and search for the vector source. This can save a lot of time at the lab. --JovianEye (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I read the article about raster file, thanks for this info. Now the reason I post too many request is that sometimes in PNG or JPG the original logo isn't put in the article, and you guys convert those into svg format from an original website. You guys are doing a superb job thanks a lots for accepting some of my requests. I can't find an svg format because i'm not an expert in this field i don't know how U guys do it Sorry.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 04:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mir diagram

Could I please ask, out of genuine interest, why no-one will touch my request to have the diagram of Mir vectorised? Its used on 40 pages in 30 languages, so having an SVG would be very useful for localisation and so forth. Colds7ream (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Its probably because the request is a complex one. It requires a great deal of effort and time. Additionally, the resolution of the image is bad to figure out the minute details. These could be the reasons. --JovianEye (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it help if I were to say that the Shuttle in the diagram should be removed? Colds7ream (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

These diagrams might be helpful too. —Quibik (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the main problem is the clarity of the image. The solar arrays look like a mess and the docking module is all jumbled, it's impossible to discern what's in there. Also lattice structure in some parts is not shown. Certainly not the finest work from NASA. Several NASA websites have the same diagrams as the above link, which are good and can be used for reference. After a thorough web search I also found some photos that can be used for reference, too. I also looked into the source of Mir illustrations on commons, and I found this PDF file. Which was old, unfortunately. With the little free time I have, all this searching took several days. It would've taken several more days to make the diagram, haven't I just found - to my sheer delight - this PDF file, which was the source of only a couple illustrations. This includes the diagram of the station without the shuttle, and I'll upload that immediately in several versions (text, no text, colored etc.). You'll have to wait a couple more days for the version with the shuttle, though, since it'll take some time to do it based on all the reference material.

As you can see, this was not a straightforward task. And I hope you understand why it takes longer than other simpler requests. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 18:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The shuttle-less version is absolutely brilliant - many thanks; I would like to say, though, that the time to process the image wasn't what I was commenting on, simply that so-one had taken the request; thanks so much for doing so. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Draft for Advice relating to Non-free Vector files

The following is a draft for advice on searching and dealing with non-free vector file like company logos and other items. I welcome any editor to modify, tweak or improve the draft before it can be placed at the top of the illustration workshop. --JovianEye (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The vector versions of non-free images like company logos and other items need careful handling. Graphists at the lab cannot always convert a raster file (JPEG, GIF or PNG) to SVG. A manual re-draw of the logo is likely to result in an inaccurate version of the logo and this may lead to copyright violation! Thus, searching for an official version of the vector image is very important. Often, the vector version of a company logo is posted on the company's website such as an SVG, AI, CDR or EPS file. In other instances, vector logos can be found embedded within PDF documents since PDFs support vector graphics. Using the advanced search option in Google, can help finding PDF documents (Use the "File type" and "Search within a site or domain" tools). To confirm the presence of a vector logo in a PDF file, zoom several times into the logo and check for the absence of pixels. Upon finding a PDF with vector logo, use a vector graphic editor such as Inkscape to extract the vector file from the PDF source. If you do not know how to do this using a vector graphic editor, make a request here at the lab and include the URL of the PDF source or other vector source. A graphist will assist you in the process.

I would rephrase it so the emphasis is on finding an already made AND official vector image in order to save time and prevent a bad vectorization here. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Good work! The instructions are nicely detailed. I'd just break it into two paragraphs for readability, maybe at "often" or "in other instances". I also suggest the title to be "Non-free logos" or "None-free symbols", what do you think? Finally, more emphasis as per the above comment won't hurt, just make sure it doesn't make it much longer, because if it's too long, requesters will just ignore it. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 15:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic job! This instruction would help Graphist as well as people who request for svg format. --Kkm010 | Talk with me 18:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Great copy! I've tried to edit a bit based on comments:

The vector versions of non-free images like company logos and other items need careful handling. Graphists at the lab cannot always convert a raster file (JPEG, GIF or PNG) to vector (SVG) because a manual re-draw of the logo is likely to result in an inaccurate version of the logo and this may lead to copyright violation! Thus, searching for an official version of the vector image is very important.
Often, the vector image already exists - so please always try these steps first: The vector version may be on the company's website as an SVG, AI, CDR or EPS file. It may be found embedded within PDF documents which support vectors. Using the advanced search option in Google can help finding PDFs (Use the "File type" and "Search within a site or domain" tools). To confirm the presence of a vector in a PDF, zoom several times into the logo and check for the absence of pixels. Upon finding a PDF with a vector, use a vector editor such as Inkscape to extract the vector file from the PDF. If you do not know how to do this, make a request here at the lab and include the URL of the PDF or other vector source. A graphist will assist you in the process.

 Begoon^talk 18:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your inputs! Ive edited Begoon's version above slightly and included plenty of wikilinks since I expect a lot user will be unaware of the terms included. I suggest this draft should remain on the talk page till probably 01:00 19 August 2010 (UTC) [Approx 3 more days]. If there are no more suggestions, we can add it to the main page. --JovianEye (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the draft so far! The only bit which stood out for me was "...is likely to result in an inaccurate version of the logo and this may lead to copyright violation". Does it really lead to a copyright violation, if the image is licensed under fair use? How about skipping that part as the inaccuracies by themselves should be a reason enough to not do manual traces. —Quibik (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Im not a legal expert, but I think the word may actually includes both scenarios (there can be a violation or not even a bit). --JovianEye (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think copyright violations come into play. The biggest concern is creating "cheap knock-off" logos. A comparison would be like saying the Nike slogan is "Jusst do things". It's close enough right? ...Wrong! Companies often pay thousands of dollars on branding, and its really easy to choose the wrong typeface, mess up the letter spacing, get the colors wrong, or just have a poorly (or even "close") hand trace of graphical elements. It's presenting the image of the company filtered through the hands of amateurs (well some of us are professionals, but there will always be mechanical artifacts introduced in a copy that aren't in the original). Not sure how to concisely phrase that to go in your summary above though ;) Just saying I'd be fine with removing any reference to copyright concerns, and focus on respecting the brand mixed with encyclopedic accuracy.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think JovianEye meant trademark violations, which is a real possibility. -- Orionist ★ talk 19:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So, if I changed copyright violation to Trademark Violation would that address the issue? --JovianEye (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It might not be a trademark either. How about just misrepresentation of the intended image ?  Begoon^talk 04:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, upon reading this text again I realized that maybe we shouldn't ask people to extract logos from files themselves, since if they know how to do it, they will. And it will take us a couple of minutes to do. Another thing is that EPS, Ai or CDR files should be converted to SVG, so they may need help with it at the Lab. So I edited the draft, also accommodating suggestions discussed above, to be as follows:

“ The vector versions of non-free images like company logos and other items need careful handling. Graphists at the lab cannot always convert a raster file (JPEG, GIF or PNG) to vector (SVG) because a manual re-draw of the logo is likely to result in an inaccurate version of the logo and may look like a cheap imitation! Thus, searching for an official version of the vector image is very important.
Often, the vector image already exists - so please always try these steps first: The vector version may be on the company's website as an SVG, AI, CDR or EPS file. It may be found embedded within PDF documents which support vectors. Using the advanced search option in Google can help finding PDFs (Use the "File type" and "Search within a site or domain" tools). To confirm the presence of a vector in a PDF, zoom several times into the logo and check for the absence of pixels. Upon finding any of the above, make a request here at the lab and include the URL (link) of the vector source, and graphists will be happy to help! ”

-- Orionist ★ talk 21:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, the latest draft reads well and I believe it addresses the issues raised in the discussion. We only need to decide when and where (I mean precise page position) for this notice. --JovianEye (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it reads well now, too. The natural place for it would seem to be in the Advice to requesters section, after the SVG requests paragraph. The bullet-point style in that section even suits our "2 paragraph" preference nicely. It could be titled: SVG conversions of company logos and other non-free images (or something shorter if anyone wants to condense it).  Begoon^talk 05:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Ive added it at the top of the project page under the SVG advice section. JovianEye (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Patterns realized with Inkscape that are not rendered in Wikipedia

Hello everybody ! This is a copy of a question I asked on the french GL, but we couldn't find a solution.

Here is my problem: I made a drawing with Inkscape for a demand of the workshop. The result is the file: File:Arnaud.ramey-graphic-lab-buffer3.svg.

But the content of the letters of the logo is, as you can see, empty. It has actually been made with the "Pattern Filling" option of Inkscape (in the Fill dialog = Shift + Ctrl + F, then the button with the small mosaic). The pattern in question is made of objects that are part of the SVG, but outside the border of the page (invisible in the rendering so). The pattern does not use any "blur" effect. It uses 2 direction gradients with shades of white, with opacity < 100%. The easiest way to understand is that you download and open the svg :).

When I open the svg directly with Firefox (file://.../ test.svg), no problem for displaying everything, ie as in Inkscape. But once the file is uploaded in Wiki, no patterns! More curious, if you go on the SVG page on Wiki, then click on the image to access directly the svg on Wiki, it works flawlessly again ? Does anyone see a solution? The patterns are being managed with Wikimedia?

Thank you! Arnaud Ramey (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you've already found the solution. The second upload works flawlessly. Apparently MediaWiki is unable to render embedded patterns. So it might be better to avoid them altogether, which solved your problem. In general, I'd advice strongly against using patterns, or any complicated effect actually, anywhere except on your original file. That'd also make it more compatible with other software: the first file you uploaded looked funny when I opened it in Illustrator, while the second version was much better, only the blurred areas became solid shapes, which can be fixed. So if you're uploading here, or even sending to your local printing press, it's better to keep it as simple as possible. I even expand strokes when possible (in logos for example, but not in diagrams) to avoid any potential issues. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 20:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I found a workaround, by adding a layer for the content of the letters and copy/pasting this content in each letter. But it represents more work and a bigger file... Anyway, it works ;) Well, I will know next time. Thanks for your tests !

Note : I also don't use the blur effect, as it does not work with MediaWiki (I am not even sure it is a SVG standard, might just be a Inkscape feature). It is simulated by doing some white 2-D gradients.Arnaud Ramey (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you use white-to-transparent gradients? If so that might explain why they didn't work in my CS3 copy of Illustrator, since transparency in gradients was not supported before CS4. Well, I'm getting CS5 in a couple of days, it should have no such issues. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 02:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The 2 colors composing the gradient are #ffffffc4 (half transparent white) and #ffffff00 (completely transparent white). Well, this is funny it is a "new" feature of Illustrator, I thought it was in the svg standards for ever. I will use it with parsimony so. Arnaud Ramey (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright discussion from Mitanni

Collapsed as no longer pertinent since source image deleted/request cancelled

Article(s): Mitanni : File:Armenian-Mitanni.jpg Request: the jpg may be a copyvio as a copy of someone's original sketch, however this is worth saving, I believe a png or svg of GraphicsLab creation would not then count as copyvio as self-drawn... Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s): I don't entirely follow you. If the sketch is copyright because it has original thought/design/content, although it is a sketch of an out of copyright illustration - then any copy of the sketch would surely be copyvio. To get a version without copyright problems, you'd need to start from the original book... I think... You couldn't even say you omitted the sketcher's original thought/design, because you don't know what that is without reference to the book, and then you don't need the sketch... I think  Begoontalk 12:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Two or three years ago, we had a problem with copyrighted images from (I think it was called) vector-images .com. Many coats-of-arms couldn't be used even if the format was changed. But once the GL artist redrew them, they were fine by GFDL. I will try and find an example.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC) I saw that, don't worry. I came across it looking at a COA for guy on the Russian Wiki. The argument ended up being that VI didn't have copyright in their interpretations, I think, because they often "borrowed" their images themselves. I think the key is access to the out of copyright original. I don't see how you can copy a copyrighted image, and in so doing remove the copyright - but IANAL...  Begoontalk 14:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC) The other thing, I think, was that they were dealing in the VI case with COAs which were often stipulated as not copyrightable by the government issuing them - so any VI copyright claim was invalid. Not really the same thing with an out of copyright sketch from a book - the book is out of copyright but there is no stipulation that the sketch artist can't generate a new copyrighted derivative, like there was for the COAs. Incidentally, I think we should be able to use it, in a sensible, ideal world, I'm just pointing out how I see it will be interpreted, given it is already under query.  Begoontalk 14:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC) - (We should probably move this to the talk page to stop cluttering up the page...)

Archives

I'm not sure who started the archives for this page, but the bot saves to a page 2, yet there is no page 1 so the archive box doesn't work. I'm not sure exactly how to fix the issue at the moment. Anyone care to take a look? Thanks, §hep^Talk 22:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the code in the archive template so it should archive to the right place, and moved Archive 2 to Archive 1. Still leaves an empty Archive 2, but I've put a header on that to direct people back to Archive 1. I could have edited the Archive box code to manually stop it listing Archive 2, but then someone would need to remember to undo that when Archive 2 starts being used, so I did it this way.  Begoon&#149;talk 23:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, §hep^Talk 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now I think about it, the easiest solution is to move the last archived item from A1 to A2, so that A2 has some content, and then set the bot to carry on in A2. It means Archive 1 will always be a bit "short", but I don't think that's important, and nobody has to remember to do anything manually, like removing headers etc. So I'll do that now.  Begoon&#149;talk 02:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

How to know if a svg version is better than a png ? How to do it in that case ?

Hello folks !

I've stumbled upon the ranking of the most used raster images that should be in svg. There is a copy on User:Arnaud.ramey/GlamFiltered. I've vectorized one of the top ones, File:Bola_de_volei_de_quadra.png to File:Bola_de_volei_de_quadra.svg.

Then, two questions, which basically come for every image of this ranking that will be vectorized :

1. How to know if my image is better and should be used instead of the png ? OK, I think it looks better, but is really subjective. Is the file size an argument ? (svg: 6 kB, png: 90 kB).
2. And if we suppose my svg should be used, how to do it ? It is used a few hundred times, and I think a bot should be employed...

Thanks for you help ! Arnaud Ramey (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing to consider - although it is used a few hundred times, you may well find that the majority of those uses are in one or two templates on each project, which are then transcluded onto the other pages, so it's quite possible that by altering 5-10 templates you will fix most of the occurrences.

When the svg is rendered, wikipedia sends a png to the browser anyway, I think, so file size isn't as cut and dried as that - but if it renders better at the size it is mostly used, then my feeling would be it should be altered. If it's mostly used at icon size, then that's how you should judge the comparison, and it looks like your image would do better than the png in the small template sizes, but that's just my opinion.  Begoon&#149;talk 10:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to say the icon rendering of my svg looks really exactly like the other one : distinguishing details at this res is tough ! So, basically, in that case and according to you advice, I should believe in my common sense and start replacing ? Arnaud Ramey (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you feel like you need some confirmation before you do it, why not post at one of the project pages that uses it, show them that you've improved their image, and ask them if they'd like you to replace it? Not that you need to - it's an image much better suited to vector than bitmap, and therefore an improvement - so nothing to stop you just being bold and going right ahead with it.  Begoon&#149;talk 14:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Licensing discussion on Company logos (moved from main page)

Collapsing, since it's a big discussion and I think it's finished - please just revert this collapse if I'm premature

concerning: File:MTSIndia_Logo.svg, File:Uninor.svg, File:Bankofindia.svg, File:PowerGrid Corporation of India logo.svg Discussion one Please be very careful while licensing this (File:MTSIndia_Logo.svg) logo it should be like this. Make it exactly like that. Thank You--Kkm010 | Talk with me 09:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC) The infosys logo is pure text coupled with some mildly creative kerning, so {{PD-textlogo}} applies. Find someone else who says that the egg shape coupled with the red box background is a simple geometric shape, and I'll change the license to {{PD-textlogo}} and {{trademark}}. That change should satisfy the logo usage wolves. It definitely has at least trademark protection (and that Infosys logo probably should as well). gringer (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC) I think it is borderline, but I've seen more liberal uses of {{PD-textlogo}}, so I've changed it for you and moved it to Commons. Hopefully nobody will disagree and challenge it. In general, as gringer says below, if you somehow have the impression that using a vector instead of a bitmap changes the licensing status, then that's wrong. It doesn't.  Begoon•talk 03:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Hey guys please make sure that the logos are licensed in such a way that the svg format can be put in other Wikipedia languages apart from English. Since the current licensed of these logos doesn't allow us put in other languages which is a big problem.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 09:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Licensing isn't something that can be altered just because you don't like it. If the other projects allow the fair use of non free images, then you can upload them to the relevant projects under their rules. As gringer suggested, you can also seek the companies' permission to use their logos in the places you want to. If the licenses are altered to be incorrect just for your convenience, the change is likely to be contested, and the files may even get nominated for deletion. I'm afraid there is no way round this other than what has been said. It will, of course, require a bit of effort from you.  Begoon•talk 10:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Please give me suggestion of how to put those SVG logos in other languages. I'm not against the license the problem is i can't put those logos in other languages. Why does it happen i don't know. Please do something, i hope u understand my point of view.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 15:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC) My last reply, and gringer's reply below give you suggestions. Non free files can't be hosted at Commons - so you need to look at other options. This would generally be uploading the files to other projects, under their licensing terms (if they permit free files). If you want to do this with a lot of files then you will need to learn how. If there's something you don't understand about the suggestions, then please tell us what it is. If you try to follow the suggestions, but get stuck, then please tell us how far you got in your attempts, and I'm sure someone will help you through it. As I said above, there will be some effort involved on your part, but help is always available as you go through the process at the points where you get stuck. For instance, tell us what you've tried to do so far, and which parts of the suggestions have got you stuck. As far as "Please do something, i hope u understand my point of view." goes - yes, I do. Unfortunately that doesn't mean I can magically make everything you wish was the case come true. I'd certainly be happy to work with you and put as much effort as you are prepared or able to put into it, though, as you work through it, in order to help you.  Begoon•talk 16:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC) I understood what ur trying to say. I wont talk anything about the license, let these svg logos remain as it is. My question is whether the PowerGrid and other logos are actually taken from their original website or not. And check the PowerGrid logos license I think its original source is missing.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 09:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC) The source for the PowerGrid logo is on the image description page now. For other files, look at the description page, and if you can't find a link to the source, then first check if the source was linked on the workshop page - if it was you can copy and add it yourself - if it wasn't then you can ask the editor who created the file. You could do that on their own talk page if you like, to save clogging up these pages. Most of the sources seem to be to there, but a couple may be missing. I just updated the Uninor page.  Begoon•talk 09:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Discussion two concerning: File:Telenor Group.svg, File:Kaspersky Lab logo.svg, File:BankOfBarodaLogo.svg, File:IDBI Logo.svg Thanks a lot for SVG format but the license of these logos should be like this. Thank You--Kkm010 | Talk with me 09:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC) A couple of points: I don't believe that {{PD-textlogo}} which is used by your example really applies to these files - imo it would be stretching the limit. A case could possibly be made for the Kaspersky logo, but even in that case I believe it probably passes the threshold of originality to remove it far enough from being plain, typeface, text. In the other cases, the shapes are not what I would define as "simple, geometric", rather they are designed for the logo. In my opinion, the licensing of those files seems fine, and I see no point in altering it to {{PD-textlogo}}. There is nothing to prevent you from altering license tags yourself - but be sure you understand the licenses before you do.  Begoon•talk 10:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I know nothing about the license I can't do it myself, U guys have to do it. Same mistake they made in another section. I had also posted a massage their too since theses logos were done in svg, only the license needs to done properly.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 12:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Ok - then if you know nothing about the licenses, I guess you have some options - you can take the time to learn about it (which I strongly recommend considering the amount of images you like to deal with) - or you can accept that the editors here are usually pretty good at it, and leave it as it is, or ask a question about whether it should be altered. I think asking the questions would be good - that way you can learn at the same time. None of us knew how to do it when we started, either, or how to look for vectors on websites - and any one of us would, I'm sure, be happy to help with anything like that. StepShep already offered to help you above, for example. There's no need to just assume you can't do things - this place is full of people who will help you learn.  Begoon•talk 12:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I want to know is these logos are actually properly licensed because i can't put those in other languages like German apart in English. So kindly please licensed these logos in such a way that I can put it other languages of Wikipedia. Thank You--Kkm010 | Talk with me 17:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC) In general, if a PNG file is non-free, then a SVG file derived from the same thing is also non-free — you can't make something public domain just because you converted a raster graphic to a vector graphic. You'll need to go directly to the companies and ask for use outside of specific pages. Fair use justification is the only thing that makes sense for these, because they are reasonably complex images. gringer (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

DyceBot

I was wondering if anyone knew where we kept the settings for what time frame the bot uses when archiving stale and resolved sections. I'm curious what numbers are currently specified and when they were last modified. Is there a specific page or is it something that has to be changed with Dycedarg? I'm curious because Flag of All India Trinamool Congress has been marked resolved for 21 days and here the bot said it was archiving a resolved section, but didn't. It might just be me, but I'm of the opinion that after a section is marked as resolved it can be archived in 24 hours and doesn't need to sit around for days (as they currently do). Does anyone know if manual archiving would mess up the bot? §hep^Talk 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing, but I think you were possibly right with "something that has to be changed with Dycedarg" since it's a bot and the description page says "For this task, the bot will mark sections stale, and archive stale and resolved sections after certain periods of time as requested by the editors of whatever page its archiving." That leads me to guess we'd need to request the change. I could easily be wrong, but if I am, I have no idea where the settings are, or if we could alter them. Quite possibly it needs to be altered in the script. FWIW, I agree that resolved stuff does "hang around" a bit too long, and the archiving does sometimes seem a little erratic.  Begoon&#149;talk 21:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. :( I was hoping the bot was activated using a template, sort of like how we use User:MiszaBot/config to archive this page. Dycedarg hasn't been active for a while. I'll shoot a note off to BAG and see what they recommend. There might be a bot with an active owner that could take over the job. §hep^Talk 21:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I would do. If there are any settings we can configure ourselves, then I can't find them. If you need any help (or just an agreeing voice) then just drop me a note.  Begoon&#149;talk 22:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, the settings are on the server. They were set to specifications given to me by the maintainers of this page at the time the bot was requested. Specifically, resolved items were to be removed after three days. The reason for this was that the person who made the request is not necessarily the person marking the section resolved, and giving them a few days to notice that it was marked resolved allows them to see the result without having to hunt in the archives. If you are entirely certain that the other users of this page are OK with it, I'll change it to 24 hours. (Incidentally, I may not be active, but I do monitor my talkpage via RSS. If you wish to contact me in the future leaving me a note there is the way to do it.)--Dycedarg ж 02:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally requests aren't marked resolved until the submitter says they're happy or the new image is used in an article. Please do modify the archive time. Thanks for the info about your talk page as well, I'll be sure to remember that for the future. Shep^Talk 23:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. If you want any other changes done to the bot in the future please drop a note on my talk page, my checking of this page for related requests is likely to be as erratic as ever for the time being.--Dycedarg ж 06:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for new icon for deletion notices

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

Hi guys. I don't know if this is the place to put this, but maybe. Here's the deal: There are various templates that warn people that articles that they have created are up for deletion, either through AfD (Template:AfD-notice) or PROD (Template:Proposed deletion notify) or speedy deletion (various, such as Template:Nn-warn). These templates are automatically placed on user pages if you use deletion scripts (or are placed by hand).

After asking around a bit, I do some dissatisfaction with the graphics used in these templates. They are too scary. The graphic in question is File:Ambox warning pn.svg and its variations. Anybody here interested in using your mad skilz and designing (or finding) a better icon?

There seems to be general consensus that we want something to definitely get the user's attention, but we want to get across the idea "Hey, something that you maybe put a lot of work into might get deleted!" and not "You have done something wrong!" (They may have done something wrong, but that's a separate issue.)

Note that if you come up with something, I can't guarantee that it'll be actually adopted, so keep that in mind before putting a lot of work into it. The centralized discussion over whether to actually adopt these new icons (if any are forthcoming) will be at Template talk:AfD-notice#CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg). Hopefully some useful ideas will be found there. Thank you for your consideration, Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

SvgGradientSimplify.py

In the process of fixing File:2010 Lisbon summit.svg I stumbled upon an issue that can be equally blamed on Adobe Illustrator and MediaWiki SVG rendering: with certain kinds of linear gradient definitions, the MediaWiki fails to render these gradients. The problem is caused by Illustrator's weird way of defining gradient vectors: they are set to a ridiculously small size and then scaled up using a gradientTransform. Anyway, as this is not the first time this issue has appeared for me, I wrote a script that gets rid of the gradientTransforms by applying them and then updating the vector coordinates with the new numbers. As this might come in handy for anyone else dealing with SVGs (removing the transforms is a good idea even if no direct issues are being caused), I made the script available at User:Quibik/SvgGradientSimplify.py. —Quibik (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Chemistry animations

Hi, We are working on creating animations of chemistry mechanisms in my courses. I posted an animated GIF on this page. I was recommended to you by another editor, and I found the nice GIMP programs that you use. another editor also recommended that i use .ogg as oppose to animated GIFs. what are you recommendations? If you think that .ogg are preferred, do you have any resources on how to do this with GIMP? Thank you. MichChemGSI (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I need a document translated into Scribus

Hi there, I need to get File:DYK Tutorial.pdf, which was created in PowerPoint using minimal graphic design skills, into the Scribus format. Basically, this document will be used as a template for future "Wikipedia Tutorials" for the US Public Policy Initiative, which is working with numerous college classes to include Wikipedia in their curriculum, so the students need quick, easy-to-read, and easy-on-the-eyes tutorial documents to help them out in their early days. So if this could be made in Scribus, that would be great. Also, use your design judgment to make the document better if you'd like. I'll also need a 2nd page template (i.e., the pdf I linked before is only a one-page document; for multipage documents, I'll need a template page for those other pages, too). You've got a good amount of graphic freedom here, I'm just giving you a starting point. The ultimate goal is to have a recognizalbe format so that when a student sees one of these documents, they know it's from the same source as the rest of the documents we're handing out to them. If nobody here is familiar with Scribus, if you could point me where else I should try, that would be great. Thanks! upstateNYer (Ambassador) 01:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this into a main Illustration Workshop request. Jon C (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Non derivative vector replacement

I have been looking at a bitmap image that is apparently freely licensed, but I suspect that it is just a derivative version of an illustration elsewhere. It is a diagram of a fairly simple physics event. It should really be a vector diagram anyway, so I am wondering whether I can describe what needs to be illustrated and have someone draw up a vector version - so that there is no suggestion that the result is a derivative image. Or is that going to unnecessary lengths? Is it ok to just point you to the original, and use your artistic skills to illustrate the same concept while avoiding any potential copyright-derivative issues? --Tony Wills (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this can be a request on the graphics lab main page. Posting the link as one of the source images would be helpful. ATM it's a little vague to tell from the description what the licensing ought to be. Jon C (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Images on Commons

Many contributors at the Graphic Lab might not be aware of the Quality images project at Wikimedia Commons. Please nominate your images after reading the rules. Commons:Quality images/Subject/Non photographic media contains a small number of files. Thanks! Jovian Eye _talk 16:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the criteria for vector and illustrative art like this? The guidelines seem to be exclusively about photgraphy. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 17:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, most of the criteria apply for photographs. No clear criteria applies for vector graphics or PNG. The file should be created by a Wikimedia Commons user. If you feel that your illustration is of good quality (please use your intuition) then nominate it. Looking at the Non-photographic media section should give you a fair idea of what kind of files might be accepted. --Jovian Eye _talk 18:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also Commons:Valued images for those images or illustrations that are the best in illustrating their subject or category. -- Orionist ★ talk 23:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A little while ago I sent off to VI/QI with illustrations that I gave some tender loving care on. Most folks there are photographers and they have a hard time judging the merits of illustrations, so they tend to just sit around unlooked at. Jon C (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you the community over there consists of mostly photographers. So I would like to encourage graphists to join the community by nominating their own images and evaluating images by other graphists! Jovian Eye _talk 19:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And then - if you see something (or made something) that's extraordinarily good, you may want to nominate it for Featured Pictures. Jon C (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added the links to the VIC/QIC/FP pages on the main page for easy access, as well as tools and so on. Jon C (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)