Commons talk:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop

Welcome to the Commons Illustration workshop talk-page. Please play nice. :  }

---

Why was redirect converted to this?

So as to give the Illustration workshop it's own place to carry on discussions specifically relevant to the workshop. And to better allow meta topics relating to all the workshops to be addressed on the main Graphic lab talk-page. As per the notice at the top of the main talk-page. --Kevjonesin (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic, the Illustration workshop now has it's own talkpage, that's great, hopefully this means there won't be any more of this:

Penyulap ☏ 20:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the off topic 'comment' in the preceding section

• To help those who may come by in the future I've copied threads relevant to Penyulap's 'comment' above —collapsed below:

relevant threads

[The following is from Commons_talk:Graphic_Lab#Archiving_requests] -- Archiving requests -- I've reverted an edit here because too many of those requests haven't been finalised according to the requesters. The requester themselves, not an artist, needs to express satisfaction with a request before it can be archived, unless there is a wide consensus AND a significant amount of time has passed. Penyulap ☏ 05:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC) I've reverted again, as I'm not cleaning up other people's messes. The archived sections don't show the requesters are happy in all cases, or an explanation of why the section is being archived. Just because one of the artists is apparently happy is meaningless. It needs to be the person who asked. Then after a long time, if there is no response and no art, mark it as stale. If it is in an article because the requester put it there, say so. If you've replaced the image yourself, you can't call it done. Penyulap ☏ 12:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC) (Edit conflict)The requests I archived were all marked as resolved. Where I marked them as resolved personally, I checked if everything was done satisfactory and (if the requester didn't respond in a long time) I checked if the images were incorporated into their respective articles (when they were not I did this myself to complete the request). The only purpose of the {{resolved}} template is to mark requests that are resolved satisfactory and can be archived. If some editors are using this template wrongly, please inform them. I'll undo your undo (actually I'm angry that I now even have to justify for simple tasks like archival). Please think about what {{resolved}} means and it should get clear those sections can be archived. If there really are requests that are not yet resolved satisfactory yet being marked as resolved (you only write this, I don't believe you though) feel free to restore only those sections and remove the template. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Coat of Arms of Riga doesn't show why it's been archived for example. Penyulap ☏ 12:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Everything is finished here. The request was stale for a long time. I did it by chance when searching our maintenance categories. What do you think is not shown clearly enough? --Patrick87 (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Your edit war and edit summary indicate you're unaware of the discussion. Hey, maybe you're new here ? Well, there is a template called STALE. that's what we use for stale requests, and leave them sitting around for a while before archiving them. This isn't McDonalds, and it's not en.wiki thank God. Take it easy, you don't need to get so excited that you go the 3RR like you just did, chill out. Penyulap ☏ 13:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks for this "friendly" contribution! I don't know how {{Stale}} matters regarding this discussion? Besides it is only used once in the Illustration Workshop (you might be confused with McDonalds, errh, en.wiki because the template is automatically applied there by a bot after a month or so?) I did never ever archive any request that had {{Stale}} or no status template applied to it at all. I only archived {{Resolved}} requests. All other requests sit around to infinity here (as long as nobody else archives them). --Patrick87 (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Looks to me like you didn't wait for a response from the requester, you seem to have made the assumption that your work was enough and closed the request yourself. Has the requester even been asked to comment ? I think you missed out on that one as well. Requests like that are left open for a while, in case someone else wants to make a contribution. Penyulap ☏ 14:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC) So it's all about this single request? Really? To answer your comment: Actually I waited for a response for over three weeks now (the request was resolved on 2013-05-31). So if anybody had any concerns that it wasn't resolved he could have removed the template by now, I think this was more than enough time. Since you might have noticed the request is 14 months old, so I could imagine the original requester even forgot about it. I could have left him a message on his talk page, yes, but I don't think anybody in graphics lab is obliged to do so. Especially since in this case the request was clearly resolved (funnily I have a head myself, so I don't always need the requesters acknowledgement to know when a request is done). --Patrick87 (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC) 1st off, archiving a request that's been up for 14 months seems reasonable to me. It wasn't deleted from the wiki, it was moved to an archive where editors who might decide to take interest can still find it if they wish. Perhaps if Penyulap has something to contribute to the file she could just go ahead and do so, or if concerned for the interest of the original poster, go ahead and contact that poster to see if they are actually concerned before reverting another editor's attempt to clean up the page. Something tangible instead of hypothetical. As to dealing with the issue in general, perhaps set up a bot as we've done at the Commons Photography lab. See talk page thread and related notices on the main Photo workshop page. User:McZusatz —who helped set it up— seems quite friendly and would likely be willing to help. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC) p.s.— I would generally consider it best practice to post a note to the requester's talk page encouraging them to either mark the request as "resolved" or to provide further feedback as to how it may become so before flagging it "resolved" oneself. Especially if a request has been up for less than a month or so. At the Wikipedia Photography workshop we have a handy template for such. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC) I'd not vote against using a bot for archiving. However the throughput is quite low in Commons Illustration Workshop (compared to e.g. the one on English Wikipedia), so it's not totally necessary either. Fun fact: The same Penyulap who found the automatic archival suggestion to "sound great" in Photography Workshop (that is now archiving resolved request after 21 days) is now rebuking me for manually archiving a resolved request after 23 days. What did I do wrong compared to the bot? --Patrick87 (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC) I think Penyulap was hoping for 30 days —or more. 21 is a compromise. I suspect, given her druthers, that Penyulap would opt for one single long continuous request page without any archiving at all. For some reason offering an opportunity for other graphists to re-edit an old request which has already been addressed seems to take priority over making space to better view recent and ongoing ones. She's special. Personally, I'm willing to make some allowance for her predilection as long as it's done within reason. Given my druthers, I'd likely set it at 7 days. The default is 3. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC) p.p.s.— I just looked at the edit history in detail, as I see it Patrick87 made an edit (archiving stale & resolved requests threads) and then Penyulap reverted. Then Patrick87 reverted and provided a detailed edit summary with a sensible suggestion to isolate (be specific) which threads were found questionable for archiving instead of reverting en masse and invited further discussion on his talk page (should have been on the Illustration workshop's talk page but was a move in the right direction —i.e. away from debating via edit summary and reversion). Then Penyulap reverted again (2RR) without giving other editors a chance to weigh in on consensus. Patrick87 then reverts (2RR) along with another detailed edit summary asking to move to (here) the general Commons:Graphic Lab talk page. Where —ironically— Penyulap sees fit to make the comment... "Take it easy, you don't need to get so excited that you go the 3RR like you just did, chill out." ...when in actual fact —as is clear in history— Penyulap is the one a step ahead on the 3RR trail. Penyulap, if you disagree with this statement, please, feel free to consult an admin for their view on the topic. Or revert again and a consultation will be provided for you. Otherwise, perhaps some introspection may be in order? --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC) I support archiving, archiving is not the problem. I just want to be confident that the requesters are not being argued with and ignored. For sections where it is NOT clear that the requester is happy, then it should be marked with a reason when it is marked as resolved. You add it to the template where it says 1=. For many of those sections it is not clear why the request is considered resolved. All it seems to say is that Patrick87 considers his own ideas to be final. Lately he argues with requesters and artists alike, so that doesn't inspire any confidence in his abilities to understand what he is doing. The edit summary alone says he pays no attention. This discussion started by me immediately appears to have escaped his attention if the summaries he's leaving are any indication. I'm referring to this discussion in the history, and he appears completely oblivious until he's gone 3RR. For the Boron spectra request this month, someone made a simple request at the village pump, and I say sure, we can do that. Then Patrick is like "No we can't." and argue argue argue with everyone. Argues before it is done, while it IS being done, after it's done. it was a simple request that obviously 3 different people could do at least, because 3 people did. So if he is saying that this and that and the other thing can't be done and archiving it, obviously it needs to be checked by someone who IS reading (better than he reads the history page). We HAVE stale templates, that is what they are for. The resolved template has optional comments, that is what the comments are for. If it is not apparent that the REQUESTER has said it is done, then don't just bloody well say 'it's done' like you have a shred of credibility when you don't. And Don't argue with requesters. Customer is always right, requester is always right. This is not a drama board, and there is no blooming big rush like it's the end of the world tomorrow. (Edit conflict)x2 because you lot type too fast. Don't bother trying to pull that introspection crap on me, or suggest that it was someone else's idea to talk. BULLSHIT. B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T. This section's very first comment, and timestamp, was done by ME. anyone can see that, you just scroll up. Penyulap ☏ 19:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Penyulap, Sorry if I implied "that it was someone else's idea to talk". I was going off the history page edit summaries rather than the talk page timestamps. Regardless, Penyulap, it was clearly you who escalated to edit war level by double reverting within a short period of time. Not allowing for consensus to be reached on the very threads which you initiated. Hence, I suggest introspection. If this is all "BULLSHIT. B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T." I suggest you consider acting upon your convictions and making another revert. Or is there perhaps some reason you'd prefer not to do that? Like already knowing @#%$ well how an admin would respond to such. You're the one hanging on the edge of 3RR. It might be nice to own up to it. Technically some of the archived requests would likely have been more accurately tagged with {{Stale}} instead of {{Resolved}} before archiving. A hair-splitting distinction at this point (i.e. pettifog) as most had been around awhile regardless and were ripe to be archived. If you have specific threads which you feel should be re-posted for specific reasons please feel free to go ahead and make it known instead of reverting en masse and expecting others to play at guessing which ones you differed with and why. If you are truly concerned that the interests of some of the original posters may have been overlooked, please, by all means, invite them to join this conversation. Of course if they are actually still following the relevant threads they'll find out soon enough and have an opportunity to sort things out for themselves. I'm not proposing that Patrick87 couldn't have applied a bit more finesse. Used some "stale" tags and left a few talk page nudges, etc. Hopefully, he'll do so in the future. I just don't see any harm done in this case at this time as is. Double reverting en masse seems much clumsier than anything Patrick87 did, IMHO. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC) This will make it quite easy for people to make up their own mind about who's been doing the edit warring, you know, so they don't have to listen to hype and crap and so on, they can just see for themselves. Penyulap ☏ 16:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, really? This is getting ridiculous! Now you even invest time to create factually wrong diagrams that should illustrate I'm the bad boy who dared to do necessary maintenance tasks? Shame on me. I admit Kevjonesin got it a little wrong regarding the order of talk page messages (actually you posted to my talk page first – while reverting my edit; and you posted to this talk page first – while reverting my edit; every time not even considering to give me some time for an explanation). By contrast I asked you with every of my edit summaries and every comment to get this sorted out on the respective talk pages in a friendly manner instead of blatantly reverting my useful edit (which you failed). Any way, it seems to me we reached an evil version of en:WP:Bikeshed. Do you still know what we are discussing here? This has nothing to do with the initial problem anymore. You're throwing in one accusation after the other escalating the issue more and more — but what for? What is the point of this pointless and hostile dispute? If you have something useful to contribute then please do so. I'm open on any proposals on how to improve the currently manual archival system in the illustration workshop. I'm open to restore selected sections from the archive if there was additional need for discussion on any of them. Otherwise I'm regarding this discussion finished. I have better things to do than arguing with you who posted what five seconds earlyer on whose talk page before doing which revert. --Patrick87 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Sad Peny, sad and misleading. It's "3RR" (Three Revert Rule) not "3RoCR" (Three Removal-of-Content-to-archive Rule). Once again, if you disagree with my interpretation of the guideline I suggest you consult an admin for their opinion on the matter. I agree with Patrick's "bikeshed" observation. Concern for the original posters of the archived threads is not the impression I'm receiving from Penyulap at this point. Sigh... --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC) It's occurred to me to qualify a bit. I do find it worth noting that Penyulap started off very polite on both this page and on Patrick87's talk page (see link at the top of this thread) and seemed quite considerate in tone and intent. However, my own inclination towards archiving lays more closely in-line with Patricks87's. And I still feel the double en masse revert was a 'battle' move. Especially as Patrick87 had stated in his reply to Penyulap (on his talk page) that he wouldn't object to specific individual threads being reverted. A compromise that would have allowed for some of his efforts to be retained. As opposed to unilaterally discarding them. A meeting in the middle. Alas, such was not the route that was chosen. Perhaps in the future? --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC) [The following is from User_talk:Patrick87#Manual_Archival_in_Graphics_Lab] -- Manual Archival in Graphics Lab -- Hi Patrick, at the GFX lab, we have to wait until the requester expresses their satisfaction with the work before archiving the request, this has always been the way. Please don't re-archive requests where the requester hasn't had a chance to make their comment, there is no need for it, and it discourages them from commenting. Remember, it's not the artists place to argue or make the requesters feel uncomfortable, patience is important. Penyulap ☏ 05:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Penyulap, I don't think there is any policy like that. If I'm wrong please point me to the corresponding section. I archived the requests that were marked as "resolved". As we (at least I'm sticking to that useful rule) only mark requests as resolved if either the requester was satisfied or if the requester didn't respond in a long time (so it is probably he'll not respond anymore), there is nothing wrong with archiving those threads. Additionally I always check if the image has been placed into the intended article before marking as resolved, to prevent work is done in the GL that afterwards is never used because hte original requester lost interest in it. So, feel free to restore requests that you think weren't resolved yet (then please remove the {{resolved}}, too). Otherwise there is no point in cluttering the Illustration Workshop with completed requests. Only as comparison: In the Englisch Graphics Lab requests get archived after ~30 days of inactivity (even if they are not resolved), so I don't think anybody can blame us for hastily archiving requests. Rgards, --Patrick87 (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Just in case you might not have noticed: The resolved requests are copied over to the Archives (currently Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/2013). They are not lost! --Patrick87 (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC) There is no policy that says you shouldn't replace every instance or the letter 'Z' on commons with the letter 'D'. I'll respond on the GFX lab talkpage, as should you. Penyulap ☏ 12:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Yes there is: it's called vandalism and is clearly deprecated b policy. But I don't think such nonsense examples will lead us anywhere here. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC) --Patrick87 (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Automatic archival of Graphic Lab requests

Dear Graphists,

resolved requests are slowly but steadily accumulating on our workshop pages, cluttering them needlessly and concealing requests that need our attention. Since manual archival is a tedious task it was often neglected in the past adding to the problem. I therefore propose we introduce a consistent and functional system for automatic archival of requests in all Graphic Lab workshops.

To find a solution that fits our needs best your valued input is needed. Please join the discussion at Commons talk:Graphic Lab#Automatic archival of Graphic Lab requests. Take the chance and voice your opinion! --Patrick87 (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Splitting up the centralised talkpage worked well didn't it. Penyulap ☏ 23:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It does it's job, but in cases like this were all workshops are involved I'm a little unsure on how to reach as most graphists as possible. I'm afraid not everybody has the Commons talk:Graphic Lab on his watchlist were the discussion is going on, and a single notification like above possibly doesn't catch enough attention. --Patrick87 (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That IS the job of a centralised talkpage. It was split up arbitrarily. The usual reason for such a move is to try to hide what you've been up to, like edit warring and so forth. Of course, I'd like to be corrected on that one, maybe the person who decided all by themselves to split up the pages can give us a reason why, because obviously it's not working at all. A fail. Now, it's causing useless busywork as you need to copy stuff from one page to another. Penyulap ☏ 10:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but did you just try to blame me for something I did not even do? The splitting was done by Kevjonesin and given the facts that were present when he did it (only the Commons:GL/I talk page redirecting to the Commons:GL talk page but none of the Commons:GL/P, Commons:GL/P, Commons:GL/VS talk pages) was probably the right decision.

If we really want a centralized discussion page the talk pages of all workshops would need to be redirected. But then again there is no place to talk about workshop specific issues. Also this does not solve the problem that the centralized discussion page has only few watchers, it will make it even harder to reach graphists, since one can't even post a short notice as I did above. --Patrick87 (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Why can't you post a short notice like you did above ? did it work ? I don't get it, it looks like it worked, I can read it. Penyulap ☏ 12:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I can (now that we don't redirect and have separate talk pages), but I wouldn't be able to do so if we redirected all workshop talk pages to the centralized talk page --Patrick87 (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

well is it working ? looks like there are less people watching this page than watching the main page. Penyulap ☏ 14:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not say it was working (actually I said "I'm afraid [the notification] possibly doesn't catch enough attention"). But it's at least better than nothing.

Your're wrong with your assumption that more people would watch the main page. Commons:GL is watched by only 67 people whereas Commons:GL/I is watched by 110 people. And you have to remember that this number even grows when you add the people watching the other workshops. --Patrick87 (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

well, I'm glad you're happy to chatter on with these dead accounts with a Ouija Board, but the thing is they don't count at all in gathering a consensus. For actual people, this page has less commenters than the more central discussion, so it's a fail. Well, not so much in the spirit world of course, it's awesome there, but in the real world it's a fail. Penyulap ☏ 15:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, its impossible for me to follow your reasoning. You're basically saying if we redirected all workshop talk pages to Commons talk:Graphic Lab we'd magically reach more people than we do now? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Anyway this discussion is unlikely to catch the attention of further graphist regarding the initial proposal, so its pointless anyway. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Following the discussion linked in my initial comment I set up automatic archiving by User:SpBot on all Graphics Lab workshops today. SpBot will automatically archive sections which are marked with {{Section resolved}}. Therefore in future:

• Please mark requests which are resolved satisfactory with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}}
  Remember to put your signature (~~~~) there, since it contains a timestamp (which is needed by the bot). The template we used so far ({{resolved}}) is not necessary anymore.
• After the template is applied the bot will wait 30 days before archiving the section. This will allow other editors to review the changes and to reopen the request (by removing the template) in case of any problems that were not yet solved completely.

--Patrick87 (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

SVG guidelines

There is a discussion on SVG guidelines at Commons talk:SVG guidelines. JKadavoor Jee 17:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Period before auto-archiving

I completely understand the rationale as to why the length of time between marking resolved and archiving was set to be so long at the time as a compromise solution. However, looking at the request page at the moment, 13 of the 28 requests are marked resolved, and most of these are only now about to be archived after sitting there for weeks. As I see it, it just makes the page look cluttered and people with requests probably assume that many requests simply aren't being tackled, which is far from the case as we all know. I think the page would look healthier with these requests getting archived faster.

Also, feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but I haven't seen any request marked resolved in the past month that's needed to be marked unresolved or commented on, so there really doesn't seem to be any need to leave it so long. On enwiki, archiving usually occurred after a week (although the bot there seems to have shut down), and this system was perfectly adequate. There are so few cases that need reopening that I really think it's better for the page as a whole if we archived requests faster. Perhaps we could try 14 days and see how that goes before rushing into a week if it is still controversial. Of course if everyone else is happy with the current set up then we should keep it but I thought I should ask the question. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 22:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done → User: Perhelion 19:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

LibreGraphics meeting 2015

FYI http://libregraphicsmeeting.org/2015/program/##kelvin-ma-creating-textbook-grade-svg-illustrations-for-wikipedia --Nemo 12:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please edit this page's header

Article(s): Illustration Workshop

Request: Can someone more in tune with template markup please add:

{{notice|If you have completed work and not received a reply you may use the '''{{tl|GL Illustration reply}}''' template to inform the requester.}}

...to the page header so people know about the new template (blatantly copied from en!) for informing requesters that their request has been fulfilled --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Logo for Guianan Wikipedia

Hi, someone could help me and/or create the Guianan Wikipedia logo, because I don't really know what to do ?! LeGuyanaisPure (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the skills to help you with the logo. But to help other contributors, am I right to assume you're referring to this Wikipedia in the incubator? Where would the logo appear? Rupert Clayton (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit a word !

HI, would there be someone who could replace the word "Ansiklopedi" by "Lansiklopedi" on these two images, please ? Thank you in advance ! LeGuyanaisPure (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

please see: Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 22:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 22:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19 Graphics

Hi all! We have been translating and setting up a graphics production line of the COVID-19 graphics at Meta:WikiProject_COVID-19_Graphics. The initial graphics have been The Spinoff animated gifs and another set which we have to withdraw. We currently have translations of these in nearly 50 languages, there are editable Photoshop files for each one them, shared online folders etc. Please join, and let's sync with what you do here! –Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Animated gif tuts

Do we have any? (For things like this) It would be nice to get involved, but difficult to do without a jumpstart  :) hope everyone's well! Serial Number 54129 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Guidelines for requesting transparent backgrounds

After dealing with a particular logo recently, I have been unable to find a guideline to determine when an image should be listed in Images that should have transparent backgrounds and displayed with a transparent background or an opaque background (normally white). There seems to be a default mindset that all logos and illustrations (particularly SVGs) should have transparent backgrounds, regardless of:

• the impact of the change itself
• the visibility of the image when placed on a non-white background
• the construction of the image with regards to its creator's assumption of its usage

On the web, with the rise of "dark mode" and other accessibility tools, the flexibility of an image to be seen clearly in multiple contexts (backgrounds) is a worthy goal. Images like en:File:American_Osteopathic_Association_(logo).jpg assume placement on a light background. In order to be displayed on a dark background a light-colored holding shape must be used. I'd like to place some guidelines around this. My suggestion is:

1. If an illustration has a clear and obvious border, the transparency should be up to the edge of the border. This applies to rectangles, circles, shields and other non-rectangular shapes.
2. If an illustration has an evident framing shape that fully surrounds the image, then the transparency should be up to the edge of the assumed shape, and all additional background should be in white.
3. If an illustration has no evident framing shape, then a simple rectangle of white should be put in place. The edges of the background will be equal to the furthest image element in the cardinal directions, plus an additional margin of 2% to 5%. When a rectangular background is in place, no additional transparency is required.
4. If a different approach is warranted to maintain the design integrity or visual accessibility, it may be used.

Following these guidelines should provide Wikipedia with images that are usable in most contexts. --RossO (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Translation

Is the Illustration workshop the right place to get a drawing translated to English? The text in the image is in German I believe. Jay (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Vote for better SVG-Rendering

1. meta:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Multimedia_and_Commons/Improve_SVG_rendering till February,11th
2. w:de:Wikipedia:Umfragen/Technische_Wünsche_2022_Themenschwerpunkte, till February, 6th (German)

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 17:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Illustrations from scanned books

File:Xilografia_canto_4.png

Hi there, I'm trying to understand what's the current best practice for converting illustrations from scanned books for Wikisource. I'm able to convert them myself (e.g. File:Xilografia_canto_4.png from nap:s:Paggena:Viaggio_di_Parnaso_1666.djvu/40 but I'm not sure:

• If I should use png or svg for illustrations who can be represented in svg
• Which templates to use to indicate that's it's a derived illustration
• Which categories to use.

Can anyone help me? --Cryptex (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

PS: I've just found [[Template::Extracted from]], looking forward to reading more tips. --Cryptex (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Uploading scanned images as PNG is completely reasonable. SVG files may contain PNG images, so any bitmap file may be an SVG file, but that practice is discouraged by many people. Glrx (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I meant converting some simple stamp-like illustrations from scanned bitmap to vector format. I can do that but I'm not sure whether I should. Cryptex (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cryptex: My view (not a standard practice) depends on the ultimate purpose. If the intent is to show designs from 1666, then I'd use a PNG bitmap. The bitmap could show the historical character of design such as printing defects and the age of the paper. If the intent is to use designs in new works, then an SVG could be better. The Xilografia canto 4 image has 9 repetitions of one shape (or 18 of a smaller shape), and SVG can handle that very effectively. However, just running a bitmap to vector converter on the image will not capture those repetitions, and vector applications often use straight lines where curves are more appropriate. It takes a lot of work to do a good vectorization, and it would be sad if the work is done but the vectorization is not used. For me, I would weight the effort against potential uses. Glrx (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

How to create Multilingual SVG

Hi all, I've seen some SVGs that allows to choose the language (see here an example), but it's not clear to me how to create them. Is there any guide or tutorial? thanks! Sette-quattro (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sette-quattro:

Multilingual files have several issues. A serious issue is whether a graphics editor can be used on the file after its conversion to multilingual. Inkscape can edit the file (but it can still wreck some translations), but editors such as Adobe Inkscape or CorelDraw may not be able to edit the files. If the file will need graphics editing, then it may not be a good idea to make it multilingual.

The simplest approach creates an ordinary SVG that uses SVG text elements. Do not convert the text to curves. Then use the Commons:SVG Translate tool to add additional translations. The result will mostly work, but SVG Translate does not set up language defaulting correctly.

A more complicated approach is to make the SVG file with a text editor.

For more information, see Commons:Translation possible/Learn more.

Glrx (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Glrx thank you! So would you recommend to use it or is better at the moment to upload multiple SVGs, one per language? I'm wondering which would be the best practice Sette-quattro (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sette-quattro:

On Commons, I prefer multilingual files. It is easy for unskilled editors to add translations. Also, graphics updates are immediately available to all language versions. If there are separate files for each language, the graphics updates are usually applied to just one file; the other versions are not updated. A good example is File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. It started out as a monolingual English file that forked several language versions. The English version was updated frequently, and the translated versions were not updated. Then the original monolingual SVG was turned into a multilingual file. Many users contributed translations, and now the file includes 13 languages. The graphics are also being updated as the conflict progresses. That works because the translations are being added with SVG Translate, and the graphics are updated with Inkscape. (There are occasional problems that are fixed with a text editor.)

Multilingual files, especially on Commons, do have significant issues, so sometimes separate SVG files are more convenient. The Commons rasterizer does not distinguish Chinese or Serbian script options. Timelines in LTR Western European languages are naturally left-to-right, but RTL Arabic and Hebrew want right-to-left timelines. A Latin language can rotate text 90°, but Chinese wants that text written top to bottom. Getting a multilingual file to work with many languages can be difficult. Also, a multilingual file can bloat; imagine the Ukrainian map's 600 place names translated into 50 languages.

I wish Commons used the better method of using a skeleton graphics file that can have the translations merged into it. That would allow any graphics editor (not just Inkscape) to update the skeleton file without inadvertently deleting the translations.

Glrx (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Glrx thank you for the detailed answer! due to my background I started contributing to commons mainly on maps and visualizations. I'm really interested in the systematisation of the SVGs usage on Commons, so if there is any way I can contribute to please let me know! Sette-quattro (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI: It may help to see the following example of how multilingual files can be accomplished with minimal code:

<switch>
  <text systemLanguage="ar">�����</text>
  <text systemLanguage="de,nl">Hallo!</text>
  <text systemLanguage="en">Hello!</text>
  <text systemLanguage="en-au">G'day!</text>
  <text systemLanguage="en-gb">Wotcha!</text>
  <text systemLanguage="en-us">Howdy!</text>
  <text systemLanguage="es">Hola!</text>
  <text systemLanguage="fr">Bonjour !</text>
  <text systemLanguage="ja">こんにちは</text>
  <text systemLanguage="ldn">Wil sha!</text>
  <text systemLanguage="ru">Привет!</text>
</switch>

—RCraig09 (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)