User talk:SiriusB

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

Could you please, please provide a version of the image that fits in an 800x600 screen? It would be much easier to view than the current behemoth, which does not fit on mf 1600x1200 screen. 04:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was absent and busy the last couple of weeks, so I regognized your request just now. Could you please specify, which image do you mean? There are a number of images I have uploaded, most of them diagrams, but also a photograph of the Sun. Isn't it possible just to downscale the image locally (if the Wikimedia software doesn't downscale it automatically)? AFAIK it is recommended to upload large image versions rather then small ones since it is easy to reduce large images but impossible to increase the resolution of small ones.--SiriusB 19:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mushroomcloud Size.png[edit]

Hi, do you mind if I re-upload that image without the legend on the image and place it in the image description? (and the articles it is used in of course) That way it can be used in various languages. - Dammit (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this will be ok. However, I would suggest to ensure that the legend will also be available from the description page. If you want to replace the image by a modified one, you might add these information to the description page (or I might do it myself). Another way would be to replace "cloud height" and "radius" by the symbols h and r as they are already used in the y label. Then there will be no danger of mixing-up both curves.
BTW what tools would you recommend for editing an existing PNG (also for converting a PNG into an SVG; I haven't yet found a sufficient way to create SVGs that are displayed correctly with all popular browsers).--SiriusB (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I've done the replacing and edits, do let me know if this is not what you meant. For editing existing PNGs I prefer Paint Shop Pro, but GIMP is a really good freeware tool to do it. But it really depends a lot on personal preference and what you want to do exactly, sometimes mspaint will even do. SVGs are a bit more complicated. I generally use Inkscape, but converting PNG to SVG is complicated for all tools. Inkscape has a nice trace bitmap feature, but it does not work flawlessly. For correct display in all browsers/renderers you need to choose Pure SVG though, instead of the default Inkscape SVG. I hope this helps.- Dammit (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It's almost what I meant. I thought that just replacing the (language-dependent) words "cloud height" and "cloud radius" by h and r (which are language-independent since they are mere symbols) in the picture, like this, so that the picture is still self-explanatory concerning the labels. I.e., if someone downloads it without the description page it is sill clear which curve belongs to which symbol. Only the meaning of the symbols would require the caption or the description page. Or is it generally in accordance with the Commons policy to separate a legend completely from the image (making the image useless without its description page)?
Ad SVG: Gnuplot is in principle capable of SVGs, but, however, the output isn't displayed correctly with most (or all) browsers. I hope that future versions of Gnuplot will be capable of fully compatible SVGs. This would make creating SVG graphs very easy. But recently, one of the programmers of Gnuplot said in the Usenet that the problem is that there is hardly any good SVG viewer today. Therefore I cannot really understand the current SVG hype in Wikimedia/pedia. Before the usage of SVGs can be fully recommended one has to make sure that it is displayed correctly with most standard browsers, at least Firefox and Opera. The problem of limited resolution of the pixeled PNGs is, in my opionion, a minor problem if the graphs are constructed from formulas and if these formulas are given on the description page.--SiriusB (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I'll add r and h back in. I don't know of any Commons policy regarding legends in or out of the picture, I just didn't think it would be useful to have seperate pictures for every language, and using an English version on other languages didn't seem ideal either. - Dammit (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.--SiriusB (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, SiriusB!
Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:


2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)