User talk:Melian/Archive 1

Established a category you might like

Category:Knots in art and decoration

Your SVG "conversions"

One of your SVG "conversions", Image:Cross-Fourchee-Heraldry.svg manages to transform a 4,332 byte PNG file (generated by means of a 747 byte PostScript file) into a 201,717 byte SVG file, which actually contains NO VECTOR DATA (as far as I can ascertain), but instead merely includes an EXTREMELY inefficient embedding of the original raster PNG file!!

I have an efficient and compact 1.1k SVG version of this (and also SVG versions of most of the heraldic cross images, as well as some others), which I'll be happy to upload whenever they finally get around to fixing Bug 4388, as discussed on User talk:EugeneZelenko#SVG requests. But meanwhile, you should please slow down on the SVG "conversions" until you're fully aware of what you're doing... AnonMoos 00:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Further on SVG bloat

Image:Lindisfarne StJohn Knot2 3.svg is a great graphic, but I just now uploaded an SVG file which was 86% smaller than your original upload, and still contains exactly the same vector data... AnonMoos 04:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply

It's OK, no real harm is done, but I don't think the "Please use the SVG version of this graphic whenever possible" templates are justified at this time... AnonMoos 13:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. SVG files are actually text files, so you can open them in a plain-text editor, and check if what the generating program is doing is actually what you want it to be doing... AnonMoos

P.P.S. Were you directly converting the PostScript vector source (as found on the image description pages) to SVG, or were you "tracing" the raster image? I assumed you were using the latter method (due to the embedded PNG of the Cross Fourchy PNG found, and the fact that there was an SVG version of the Cross Bottony image, which doesn't include a PostScript version on its image description page). A raster conversion is guaranteed to be less accurate than a pure PostScript vector -> SVG vector conversion. AnonMoos 13:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My Cross-Fourchee-Heraldry.svg

<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/DTD/svg10.dtd">
<svg width="100%" viewBox="0 0 580 580">
<title>Heraldic Cross Fourchee (Fourchy, Fourche)</title>
<g transform="scale(0.1,0.1)" fill="rgb(0,0,0)" stroke="none">
<path d="M1300,3200
C1197.39,3200,1097.26,3231.57,1013.21,3290.42
L521.72,3634.57L292.29,3306.91L873.416,2900
L292.29,2493.09L521.72,2165.43L1013.21,2509.58
C1097.26,2568.43,1197.39,2600,1300,2600
L2600,2600L2600,1300
C2600,1197.39,2568.43,1097.26,2509.58,1013.21
L2165.43,521.72L2493.09,292.29L2900,873.416
L3306.91,292.29L3634.57,521.72L3290.42,1013.21
C3231.57,1097.26,3200,1197.39,3200,1300
L3200,2600L4500,2600
C4602.61,2600,4702.74,2568.43,4786.79,2509.58
L5278.28,2165.43L5507.71,2493.09L4926.58,2900
L5507.71,3306.91L5278.28,3634.57L4786.79,3290.42
C4702.74,3231.57,4602.61,3200,4500,3200
L3200,3200L3200,4500
C3200,4602.61,3231.57,4702.74,3290.42,4786.79
L3634.57,5278.28L3306.91,5507.71L2900,4926.58
L2493.09,5507.71L2165.43,5278.28L2509.58,4786.79
C2568.43,4702.74,2600,4602.61,2600,4500
L2600,3200Z"/>
</g>
</svg>

MokaCoffeePot svg conversion

Hi Melian,

I noticed you made a SVG conversion of Image:MokaCoffeePot.jpg. While I sort of understand the purpose of this, the .svg version looks really jagged to my eye. Is it just my monitor's resolution (1280x1024)? If not, I don't really see the point of replacing it with a lower-quality version, especially when no one's going to be scaling it up within an article. Let me know what you think, Asbostos (not signed in) 12:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Copyleft_symbol.svg

Image deletion warning

Image:Copyleft_symbol.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Lcarsdata 18:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)