Commons:Graphics village pump/May 2011

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

Oval JPGs[edit]

Disregard this conversation. It was moved to the Graphics village pump main discussion page. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 01:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Should all oval JPGs, no matter how photographic the content may be, be converted to PNG once the opaque background is removed? Here is an example that I came across. I've found other JPGs that are oval in nature, both photographs and photographs-of-art (oval paintings, etc.) that have not been tagged {{opaque}}, but do have a background nevertheless. I wanted to know the standard procedure for these JPG images so I can move forward and convert them or to just make the backgrounds "white". – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 06:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I really do not consider images of this type to be any kind of priority for transparentization at all. There are plenty of non-photographic type images where making the background transparent would be much more immediately useful... AnonMoos (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, AnonMoos! Then let me tweak the question further: were I to upload images of oval paintings for my own article/list uses, would I go ahead and use PNG with a transparent layer? Finally, you mentioned "immediately useful"... would you have any photographic examples that could be placed at the photographic graphics lab? I'm not sure how well a non-photographic illustration would go over, over there. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

JPG question in the top secret May 2011 section[edit]

Disregard this notice. The discussion in question is directly below, on this page. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 01:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The instructions here aren't very clear. I added a discussion to the May 2011 section, and I thought the discussion would appear on this front page, just like all the April discussions have. Out of fear that my discussion won't even be noticed, I'm posting this notice right here. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 06:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoever originally set up this page presumably intended for the current month's sub-page to be transcluded, but I'm not sure that it's ever worked properly... AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oval JPGs[edit]

Moved from Commons:Graphics_village_pump/May_2011 —-– Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 01:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


Should all oval JPGs, no matter how photographic the content may be, be converted to PNG once the opaque background is removed? Here is an example that I came across. I've found other JPGs that are oval in nature, both photographs and photographs-of-art (oval paintings, etc.) that have not been tagged {{opaque}}, but do have a background nevertheless. I wanted to know the standard procedure for these JPG images so I can move forward and convert them or to just make the backgrounds "white". – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 06:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I really do not consider images of this type to be any kind of priority for transparentization at all. There are plenty of non-photographic type images where making the background transparent would be much more immediately useful... AnonMoos (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, AnonMoos! Then let me tweak the question further: were I to upload images of oval paintings for my own article/list uses, would I go ahead and use PNG with a transparent layer? Finally, you mentioned "immediately useful"... would you have any photographic examples that could be placed at the photographic graphics lab? I'm not sure how well a non-photographic illustration would go over, over there. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That hidden discussion page is simply not reliable in terms of eyeballs scanning the page, so I'm moving the discussion out here in the open. Any other ideas on my question, namely uploading a new image of an oval painting, and if it should be a PNG with a transparent layer or not? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 01:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're not going to make the background of an existing JPEG image transparent, then there's no reason to convert to PNG at all (non-"lossless" manipulation of JPEGs should always be avoided without some specific valid purpose. For new images, you can do whatever you want), but PNGs generally have a significantly larger filesize than equivalent JPEGs (both in their uploaded form, and as resized thumbnails). AnonMoos (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to know if there was some standard for it. I actually would want to upload an oval image with a transparent background... but I also wouldn't want the images to eventually be tagged "more appropriate as a JPG". I just feel like it's a quandary waiting to happen. A JPG with a white background will be tagged {{opaque}}, and a PNG with photographic quality imagery, even with a transparent background, could be tagged "make into JPG" (I don't know the name of that template). So I was hoping for a pre-consensus before working on any images of that type. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 05:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Just use the other_versions field to cross-link the files as "JPEG version (no transparency; smaller file size)" and "PNG version (with transparency; larger file size)", respectively. No need to make a big fuss about it, or to expect one, I think. LX (talk, contribs) 08:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there even is a "make into JPEG" template (though some people will tell you informally that PNGs with a photographic source are a little less practical for use in articles due to larger filesizes). Some people seem to apply the "opaque" and "no-border" templates rather indiscriminately, without much thought as to whether they're really practically useful for each individual particular image... AnonMoos (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Great, I appreciate all the input! It sounds like the best thing to do is to upload a PNG with transparency, upload a JPG version for use in articles, and then tag them {{PNG with JPEG version}} and {{JPEG version of PNG}}, respectively. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 20:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Image caption[edit]

I tried to remove the watermark from this image but it seems the caption does not update: it still shows the first version. I tried to purge the file and cancel the browser cache with no results. What can I do to solve it?--Carnby (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people are currently having this problem, it's just taking a long time to update. Gatoclass (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia does not appear to handle CSS classes correctly in SVG.[edit]

Three Squares Outline.svg

Consider the image. All squares should appear identical however the middle square is displayed incorrectly. As far as I can gather this occurs because the renderer does not "fall-back" to the styling directives for all rect elements when it is processing the CSS class. This is directly at odds with the behaviour of the SVG Check utility and with my local output from rsvg-view. The third square indicates that this problem does not occur for inline styles.

Uploaded an edited version based on Corel Draw SVG output which seems to fix the problem... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Bizarrely some thumbnails are now correct but in general the PNG renderings are still incorrect. The Corel Draw output has simply split the two class specific attributes into separate classes. This problem is annoying as it does not appear to be a librsvg bug which makes it difficult to test images out before uploading. For now it appears that this is another caveat to using SVG on Wikipedia which is currently undocumented. I came across it using some SVG files that are hand-written. Perhaps I should add some information about this to the Commons SVG page. Output of most graphics programs is unlikely to be affected as these tend to use an inline style directive to define every attribute every time an element is used. This, in part, is what causes some of these SVG files to be so large.BatesIsBack (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
All the thumbnails here are PNG renderings, and inconsistency is likely to be due to caching problems. In any case, most people here use automated SVG-generating programs, while a few make simple hand-generated or hand-tweaked SVGs, which is probably why the bug hasn't been known about before. You can look at Category:Manually coded SVG to sample the strategies actually used in hand-tweaked SVG files... AnonMoos (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

SVG conversion problem[edit]

The SVG to PNG converter is putting a big black rectangle in the place of one of the text boxes, and the same text box does not appear in the uploaded version of the SVG. Any idea what's going on, or how I can fix it?

Tsuru wiki

Any help would be appreciated. Origamidesigner (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious black rectangles are usually caused by the Inkscape "flowtext" nonsense, and can be diagnosed at Commons:SVG Check. -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)