Commons:Graphics village pump/June 2008

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

ogg video player errors?[edit]

I have uploaded some hires video to Commons, but they dont seem to work. I was thinking that a gift of hires would be good for the future but it seems to choke the player? Is there anyway to get the java player to resize the source like images are resized when the thumb tag is used? Anyway, maybe some of you can just check that it is choking on your ends too? (I've tried it with no luck on over 3 computers so far.) I am pretty sure the fault isn't with the files, it is the player I suppose. The videos (that don't have sound) in question:

Shoebill video
Flamingo video
Pygmy hippo video
Meerkat video

Feedback? Help? Thanks. Cheers, Nesnad 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've successfully tried playing them all, even simultaneously, with totem-plugin-viewer 2.22.1 using GStreamer 0.10.18 and with Kaffeine using libxine 1.1.11.1. This system is a 2.00GHz Intel Core 2 Duo laptop with Intel GM965/GL960 graphics and a 54 mbit wireless connection downstream from a 100 mbit FTTH connection, running Ubunty Hardy. LX (talk, contribs) 18:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Djvu files and galleries[edit]

How can I build up a gallery from individual pictures embedded into a djvu file? This is a plain thumb syntax (running):

[[Image:equitation_images.djvu|thumb|page=6]]

Equitation images.djvu

How can I visualize that image into the following gallery, containing a couple of djvu files thumbs?


I am afraid, the only thing I can suggest you is to try to fill a bug/request on bugzilla -- AnyFile (talk)

SVG and arrows[edit]

I've started to import SVG sketches (see fresnel equations) and found rendering problems with arrows ("end markers" in "stroke style"). See, for instance, image sketch-ET.svg: the reflected and transmitted beams, as well as the magnetic field, have "arrows" in Inkscape but they cannot be seen in the image file. Is it a known problem? How to work around it? Brachycerophilia 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Note : rendering in my navigator is fine, with arrows. Brachycerophilia 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the MediaWiki converter is evidently still unable to deal with markers. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Transition_to_SVG#Limitations for a bit more on this problem. Globbet 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the pointer. At least, there's an easy workaround. Brachycerophilia 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

May I alert your attention to this[edit]

Roche.svg

it rocks. ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I put it with its gif sister. -- carol (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please help with linking[edit]

I could put the link in the caption, but readers are easily confused and will probably be in the habit of clicking images.

I have created an SVG with links here and would like this to be presented if the reader clicks on the thumbnail.

Is this possible?

Side note: Yes, I know it has an embedded image. No, I am not planning to convert the 3D render to pure SVG because if the image should be edited, the editor should re-render the source, not hack the SVG. One day WM will have a 3D rendering engine. Pity I can't upload the POV, the author is happy to put it in the public domain. Oh well, one day. Dhatfield (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This image raises a question for me. While the Graphics village pump might not be the best place to discuss it, I feel it should at least be noted here. Dhatfield's image above is a derivative work of Edboas's image(s) which were both published under the CC-BY-SA licence (the images are also tagged with a GFDL licence, but that licence does not apply to images, only text portions of the licensed work). Accordingly, in addition to attributing, which Dhatfield did very well, he should have published his image under a compatible licence (SA, share alike, according to Creative Commons this means identical licence). So currently this image is not correctly licensed (note, I'm not calling for deletion or anything of the sort). This is not the first image with this error I've noticed nor I expect will it be the last. Still I think we should all be aware of licence conditions when we publish images here, even more so when we create derivative works. The longer this practice remains in use the bigger the problem becomes as derivative works of derivative works will be created, once the chain of correct licences is broken any future derivative work is technically a copyright violation even if the author of that file was unaware of the original licence.
Dhatfield, plese don't take this as a personal attack or anything of the sort. It was just your posting this image here that decided me to voice my worry aloud rather than just contact you individually. Note, I can't help with the technical question.--Caranorn (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Not offense taken. I'm very grateful that you gave me this practical, easy to understand information. I'll air a concern of my own further down. I use DerivativeFX for all derivative uploads, primarily because I want to be copyright compliant, without being too involved in the technicalities. Without it and Lokal_Profil I probably wouldn't be here, having given up long ago. Could you please contact Luxo to fix the existence of an inappropriate option in the drop-down list because I could not explain the problem adequately and others like me are sure to make the same mistake. <rant> When I want to become clued up on copyright, I cannot find information regarding (a) the real world implications of selecting a given license when I upload own work, (b) which licenses apply to what (as per GFDL not applying to images) or (c) when one has free choice (own work) and when not (derivatives, with the exception of PD sources?). My entire knowledge base derives from being corrected - effective, but not fun. It is all very well to suggest that everyone should have a basic understanding of copyright gleaned from arcane scrolls, but I hope you realise that this contributes significantly to the learning curve and barrier to entry for new contributors. The range of copyright options should ramp up from simple to advanced as the user becomes more aware and informed. To require a newbie like me to pick from 10, 15? choices on their first upload effort is tough. Since this is apparently designed to be unnecessarily tough it generates a hostile environment and in that environment the hostile people thrive. Are those the only desirable newcomers? Currently when I select a license for my own work I just pick at random, although Jimbo seems to think that PD is not the way of the future, but how should I know? I cannot find, simple, easy to read information on the real world impact of selecting a given license. I was stung by a bug in DerivativeFX which threatened to delete my derivative work and the source (without further notice, any option to appeal or a defined date/time) on the grounds of an incomplete license when there was actually no copyright problem at all, so I'm hypersensitive. Please take with a liberal pinch of salt, but it remains a concern of mine that we are discouraging new blood. It concerns me more that this may be by design - you know, what with the Supreme Overlord UberCabal and all. </rant> Dhatfield (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that Image Map is the only way to go with making images linked. That is how I did it with mine. The wikisoftware is a little picky about image size -- the svg needs to be the same size as the image mapped thumb. -- carol (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Carol, can you link me to an Image Map? I can't find any in your gallery and Commons creates quite a lot of hits for those two words :) Thanks Dhatfield (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Category:Afrotropic is one that I made. Image_talk:Afrotropic-Ecozone-Biocountries-IM.svg shows the wikified image map and also an image map that should work with regular html. The documentation is at mediawiki: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ImageMap and I used GIMP which comes with a plug-in to get the coordinates for the map. -- carol (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Carol, that is exactly what I need, but can you clarify: do I need to install it, or will the extension work in Commons? Dhatfield (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It is just html -- so, the extension does not need to be installed (it already is) but the wikified coordinates and links need to be there. I am sorry that the documentation at mediawiki is a little vague about that and the first time I made an image map, I was crossing my fingers that it was installed. Perhaps the information is there about the extension for people who have wiki software installed on their own computers (and their own web server to display it), but for here and English wikipedia, at least, the extension has been installed already and seems to work fine. -- carol (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia logos with text in SVG[edit]

In Category:Wikipedia logos and Category:Wikipedia logos (big) I can find the puzzle globe in SVG, but how can I find the text underneath (Wikipedia, die freie Enzyklopädie; Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; Wikipedia, den fria encyklopedin) in scalable graphics? This would be so nice to have for making brochures, posters, etc. Somebody has produced all these small PNG logotypes that are used on each website, but who does this and how is it done? Can the same people save a scalable vector graphics version? If there are font copyright problems, can we use some second best font instead? --LA2 (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Until now the only information about the logo text I was able to find is at m:Talk:Wikipedia in other languages/Archive_2#How_were_the_logos_done . The font that is stated to be used (Hoefler Text, for latin alphabet) is not inside the list of the present supported fonts in SVG ( m:SVG fonts ), So it would rather difficult to upload an usable SVG file with this font. And I do not know too if this font is available in a scalable format or just in bitmap format. The only way I can see for the moment is to take the raster image, crop the logo and try to transform it to svg using one of the tools included in some programs. However you need to check if this is compatible with the license (I have never understood how licenses apply to fonts) and in any case you will not obtain a truly rescalable result of the original image, but just a rescalable image of the approximation the conversion program has made. -- AnyFile (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

File types allowed on Commons[edit]

Where can I find the current rationale for which filetypes are accepted on Commons and why for exampel open office documents are not allowed when .pdf-files are accepted? MiCkE 13:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:File_types. File formats which are strongly associated with one fixed visual form are actually preferred over formats which contain abstract data which could be visually rendered in many different ways... AnonMoos (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! MiCkE 11:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)