User talk:Fredddie/Archive 2010

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please do not overwrite files

Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−


Nuvola apps important yellow.svg I noticed that you uploaded a file using the name File:SD_48.svg. A file by this name already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its original version. If the file you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name. Thank you!

For more information, see Commons:Avoid overwriting images with new uploads.

-- User:Docu at 10:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please upload your series of images for Category:South Dakota State Highway Shields under different names rather than overwriting other users contributions. -- User:Docu at 10:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I dispute the need to revert the graphics. The newer versions were created using the official specifications, and the previous versions weren't accurate. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
(below: moved from user talk Docu)
Thanks for your concern regarding File:SD 48.svg. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with your rationale for reverting and I have reverted back to the version I uploaded yesterday and I will not upload the rest to a new name. As a member of the WikiProject U.S. Roads shields task force on enwp, we strive to make images of highway signs as close to the official specifications as possible. That being said, the files for South Dakota were deemed to be inaccurate and were all recreated according to the specs.
I have started a discussion at WT:USRD/S to see if there is project consensus to keep the new shields or to revert. Please join in the discussion. Thanks. --Fredddie 22:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
(above: moved from user talk Docu)
Unless you plan to upload your version at en_wiki, please hold this discussion onsite. This way all users of Commons may participate.
If I was convinced that there was a technical improvement over the initial version, I wouldn't have bothered, but I think the proportions of your shields are incorrect.
Please note that you may be blocked for overwriting other users contributions. -- User:Docu at 05:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
There are technical improvments. In order:
  1. As in real life situations, the ratio between digit size vs. overall sign size is important. The size of the digits on the newer versions are larger in proportion to the old signs. In fact, when these signs are typically rendered on any of the Wikipedia projects, they are rendered at 20px of height, making the larger sizes that much more legible. In real life, most Interstate shields are now produced without a state's name above the digits to maximize digit size. Ditto for US Highway signs and their text. The new versions are created using the proportions given in the SDDOT specs, not the distorted examples used to illustrate the specs.
    1. According to the specs, the size of the text is ½ that of the height of the shield. In real life, the shields are generally 24 inches high, and the text 12 inches. On the older version, the shields were 385px squares, so at 50%, the text should be 193px; however the text was 144px, which equates to 9 inches on a 24-inch square. Clearly incorrect according to the specifications.
    2. The next problem was the size of the numbers relative to the size of the state shape. Using the old version, correctly-sized numbers were larger than the white South Dakota shape.
    3. The green space to the left of the SD shape was my next concern. That measurement, C, is 2¼ inches on the square shield. At 750x600px, that distance is 56px. I reasoned that the measurement was taken just at the NW corner of the SD shape, and not down the entire side of the shape (since the SW corner is further west than the NW corner). This produced a state shape that was consistent with photographs and was large enough to handle the size of the numbers. --Fredddie 06:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  2. The shade of green is correct. The w:Manual of Urban Traffic Control Devices, which is freely available online, specifies the Pantone colors to be used for the various shades of green. That's the correct green used in signs in the US. The old ones used the wrong shade, attempting to approximate the shade the SDDOT specs used in their specifications, not the actual shade that the Federal Highway Administration defines as "reflectorized green" in the MUTCD.
  3. In overwriting the previous versions, the corrected, pattern accurate version has been "shipped" to the various articles using these graphics in their places. To simply upload them all under a new name would not have done such a thing. Were there an actual design change, like that in South Carolina then the situation would be different. For SC, there are the graphics in the naming scheme that matches File:SC-462.svg and the one that matches File:South Carolina 462.svg. The former, SC-362.svg, is a previously used marker design. The latter, South Carolina 462.svg, is the currently used design. The older series of signs was retained for historical purposes. In the South Dakota situation though, the old marker images created were just inaccurate compared to the specifications. Our editors' graphic skills and knowledge have advanced in the last 3.5 years. We don't need approximations of the real thing created for display. Now we can create direct copies of the real thing off the specifications.
That is why the new versions, as overwritten, should remain in place. Further reversions should not be made. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You are free to use whatever version you want at Wikipedia, but you should prevent other projects from choosing themselves. You can list the other version for deletion if you think they are problematic. -- User:Docu at 06:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel the need to retain inaccurate, albeit graphical, information. I thought the goal of the various Wikimedia projects was the dissemination of accurate and verifiable knowledge in all its forms. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you should try to appreciate more the time and work Master son put into this.
BTW I did verify the ratio between B and H before posting here. -- User:Docu at 06:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I do appreciate the work he's done, but while working on creating some missing marker designs, Fredddie stumbled on to the fact that the font size did not match the specifications. Maybe SDDOT updated the specs since 2006, but the fact remains, the type size to overall size ratio was wrong. That's been adjusted. The shade of green used was wrong, that's been adjusted to match MUTCD specs. I know Master_son in real life, and I appreciate the work, but if the images can be improved, and their accuracy corrected, that should be a permissible goal of the project. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

<reset indent> I don't see a problem with them being updated - but it seems that there are Wikimedia Commons policies that prevent that. Point me in that direction and we can discuss that - Docu, Let him change them otherwise. He's right - they were updated in the standards and should match here. master sonT - C 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Either the specs did change or I misread them, but it seems that Freddies version is closer to what is visible on several photographs. Thus I withdraw my initial objection unless Master son prefers to keep his versions too. -- User:Docu at 16:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Georgia SR Shields

Before you freak out about overwriting the images, I started a discussion about uploading new versions of these images. As you can see there was no consensus against doing so. I am being bold and uploading new versions, giving credit to User:Pedriana for the old versions. --Fredddie 14:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:US 25A.svg

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 16:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)