Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Images to improve/Archive/Feb 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • Original
    Original

Article(s):

Request:

If someone could either smooth out the objects/text in the logo or just create a replica it would look better. (could also remove the copyright issue, but I am unsure of how that would work.) SVera1NY 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

I'm fairly certain that this image will be fair use regardless of how it is made. To keep with WP:IUP#Fair use considerations and WP:IUP#Format it has to stay in PNG and it's probably too high resolution as well, The size/quality probably has to come down.≈Krasniyt/c 18:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of fair use SVG logos has been debated lately, and the consensus for now seems to be that they're acceptable, at least as long as they contain no more detail than can be seen when rasterized at a reasonable size. As many logos in fact don't contain that much fine detail in the first place, in many cases the "minimum amount of the logo needed for encyclopedic use" would in fact appear to be "all of it".
That said, I don't think this image is a very good candidate for SVG conversion, simply because the resolution is too low for accurate automatic conversion using any current tools I know of, and manual conversion doesn't seem worth the bother. Note that the image size listed on the image description page is misleading; someone has crudely scaled the PNG up by a factor of two from a low-resolution original. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Flight paths

Article(s): Jet stream and Great circle

Request: Awful quality, and image is currently listed for deletion due to unclear license. A new image with a better license would be appreciated. — Kieff 06:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

Perhaps this would be better expressed as a map based on the svg world, with the great circle and gulf stream routes overlayed in different colours? ChaosNil 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll take a stab at it since nobody else has taken it up. ChaosNil 02:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, uploaded. May not be accurate in a cartographic way, but certainly communicates what it is supposed to. ChaosNil 21:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneCaisson Schematic

  • Original JPG
    Original JPG
  • English SVG version
    English SVG version
  • Numbered version
    Numbered version

Article(s): Caisson (engineering)

Request: A request from Category:Images which should be in SVG format. I'm trying to find the best candidates and bringing them to your attention.↔NMajdan•talk•Editor Review 18:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: I'll try this one; it looks simple enough -YK Times 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Should I add anything (like a numbered version for commons, different colours, or finishing touches)? -YK Times 02:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think a numbered version would be great, the article exists on seven other language wikis. Also, I think the English one should be on Commons as well.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 22:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did a numbered version, and uploaded both to Commons. -YK Times 01:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great!↔NMajdan•talk 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneReflux

  • Original
    Original
  • SVG conversion
    SVG conversion
  • English labels
    English labels

Article(s): Reflux

Request: Another image from Category:Images which should be in SVG format.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

I'll do it!≈Krasniyt/c 18:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't started working on this, I finished a version before realizing you had called dibs. I won't post it if you already have put work into this conversion.-Andrew c 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're done, go ahead and post it.≈Krasniyt/c 02:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Here is my version. Feel free to tweak it. I think there are some stroke width issues.-Andrew c 03:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I tweaked the line width and made a version with English labels. I'm marking this done.-Andrew c 02:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


 Done Stirling Engine

  • Original
    Original
  • version by YK Times
    version by YK Times
  • half size version
    half size version

Article(s): Stirling Engine

Request: Sorry to pester, but animated gif issues... I am having great trouble getting the GIMP to give this gif a sensible pallet - leading to weird dithering in the grey areas. Double size transparent frames for this animation are available here:

Designed for 100ms frames; one frame per layer (not cumulative) due to the transparent background. Any help appreciated! :) - Zephyris Talk 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: I think I can try this one with Photoshop/Imageready, and see if I can get anything better. -YK Times 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I imported the frames and saved it out as a GIF. How is it for file size? Does it need anything else done to it? -YK Times 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
138ks not too bad. A half size version might be useful tho - animated gifs never resize well on wiki... - Zephyris Talk 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did a version that half the size in terms of dimensions; did you also want me to do one just in terms of file size? -YK Times 21:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!!! :) (I was referring to dimensions, i dont think file size at 85k is really an issue...) - Zephyris Talk 01:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Olmec figurine

Article(s):Olmec figurine and perhaps others if the image were better

Request: This image is washed out, with the background nearly the same color as the figurine, which seems a bit out of focus. Anything to make the image sharper with better color and color-contrast would be appreciated. Thanks, Madman 05:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

I've increased the contrast slightly, and sharpened it; there was also a fair amount of grain in the photo, so I've got rid of some of that, too. Hope that helps. Time3000 15:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does help! Thanks loads for improving Image:OlmecFigurine2.jpg. It's a definite improvement! Madman 15:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from french of a diagram

  • Original
    Original
  • English captions
    English captions
  • French captions
    French captions
  • Numeric captions
    Numeric captions

Request: Here is a diagram that could be translated into english. --Enr-v 15:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bombe atomique = nuclear weapon
  • Munition ou obus = Munition or shell
  • Uranium surenrichi à 95% = Highly enriched uranium (HEU)
  • Uranium appauvri = depleted uranium
  • Combustible MOX = MOX fuel
  • Plutonium = Plutonium
  • Déchets ultimes = nuclear waste
  • Uranium de retraitement = Reprocessed uranium
  • Séparation, retraitement = Nuclear reprocessing
  • Combustible non retraité = not reprocessed nuclear fuels
  • Combustible irradié = spent nuclear reactor fuels
  • Centrales nucléaires = Nuclear power station
  • Uranium enrichi à 3% = Low-enriched uranium (LEU)
  • Fabrication de combustible = uranium enrichment
  • Mines d'uranium = uranium mining

Graphist opinion:

I volunteer to create an SVG version of this diagram for more translatability. ChaosNil 21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it can help if you use this image : Image:SchémaDechetsNucleaires en.svg --Enr-v 22:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use numbers instead of name tags for the SVG then. That way everyone can use the same image, and the description would go with the picture whenever necessary. — Kieff | Talk 23:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, these aremy from-scratch renditions. ChaosNil 02:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
good work. but there is a mistake on the arrow that goes to Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU not HRU :-( because it should come from the "uranium enrichment" circle.--Enr-v 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I misinterpreted the original diagram. I'll fix it tonight. And the caption for HEU. ChaosNil 22:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm at it I'll do the diagrams from Nuclear fuel cycle ChaosNil 01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the diagrams on commons. ChaosNil 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that depleted is misspelled on the English one. And I'm confused as to 1. what the colors correspond to, and 2. what the dashed/solid lines correspond to. --Fastfission 04:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dang. Fixed spelling. As for the colours I presume they are vaguely how 'radioactive' or something. My rendition doesn't carry this out completely consistantly. If its important I can change that of course. I don't know what the broken lines mean. ChaosNil 04:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
broken lines mean "possible" : it is possible, but not obligat for industrials to enrich uranium 95%, whereas it is a prerequisite to produce depleted uranium with enriched uranium. it is also not obligate to reprocess used nuclear fuel.
remark : the french image was beautiful, and the new one is not very beautiful. it is a pitty to give a free licence to do such a work.--86.202.139.40 (Enr-v) 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of your post was fine, but the second part does not qualify as the world's most constructive remark. If you can draw something better, go ahead and do it. If you can't then don't post such comments. Valentinian T / C 22:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i mean that the original image look better than the new one : why not simply translate in english the original image? i think it would be less work for a better result. i can try to do it by myself but i'm not very experienced with photoshop. Thank you anyway for the work you've done.--Enr-v 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the newer diagram better myself. It's much more obvious as to where to start and is more clean and crisp. Also, you can't make .svg's in Photoshop as far as I know.≈Krasniyt/c 00:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
new or old diagramm : it's a matter of taste. as far as i'm concerned, i like better the older than the newer. you are right about photoshop, but i can't manage with Inkscape either.--Enr-v 11:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three Mile Island Schematic

  • Original
    Original
  • first version, no labels
    first version, no labels
  • version with labels, deriv of first version
    version with labels, deriv of first version

Article(s): Three Mile Island accident

Request: From Category:Images which should be in SVG format.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: Agreed this could use an SVG conversion (and also make one without English labels to upload to the commons for multilingual use). I'll work on this.-Andrew c 21:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I uploaded a version with no labels. However, it didn't show up in the thumbnail (you can download the file and it looks fine on its own). Any ideas what I did wrong? Does wikipedia not render gradients properly? I've had this happen before when I first tried to imbed fonts in an Illustrator SVG, but this image was done in Inkscape. Hmm... feel free to add labels and/or fix the thumbnail issue. I'll try and work on it more tomorrow.-Andrew c 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it out, forgot to delete the unused layers.-Andrew c 13:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've labeled the diagram, and substituted {{{vva}}} for {{{SVG}}}. Stannered 22:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DNA orbit animated small.gif

  • Original
    Original

Articles: Found in the DNA article.

Request: This animated gif is for a full (360 degree) orbit around a DNA molecule, however it repeatedly fails to load fully and only does a partial orbit. Is anyone able to optimize/fix it so it loads more reliably.

There are also two similar images, Image:A-DNA orbit animated small.gif and Image:Z-DNA orbit animated small.gif, which could use the same treatment. - Zephyris Talk 10:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

Running it through the gif optimizer in gimp makes it all of 15768 bytes smaller (original file size: 675158). Not a big improvement, so thats the extent of my skills in this area. :) Maybe somebody who knows more about gif animations can make it actually appreciably smaller. Reducing it to 64 colours makes it 480631 bytes, but I don't know if the loss of quality is wanted. ChaosNil 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any further loss of quality is undesireable - its hard to make the structure of DNA clearer with a lower colour depth. At least there's no error in the gif itself, it seems to be a plain file size issue. - Zephyris Talk 11:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worm anatomy

Article(s): Earthworm

Request: Conversion to SVG could make this into a highly effective, crisp diagram. Some help might be necessary from a knowledgeable Wikipedian (such as User:TheAlphaWolf, User:Quercusrobur and User:WormRunner) Circeus 18:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

This looks like a straight-forward but fun project. If nobody has started it by this weekend I'll probably take a stab at it. Are there colouration preferences for the various parts of the anatomy? ChaosNil 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh nevermind, maybe somebody else will do it. ChaosNil 18:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That one is for me. Give me some time. Two related images already exist btw... Lycaon 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oligochaeta anatomy
    Oligochaeta anatomy
  • Polychaeta anatomy
    Polychaeta anatomy

Chemical structures

for images, please see the sub-page

Article(s): Various

Request: Don't hate me. Above are many simple chemical structures that would be nice to have as an SVG. They are from Category:Images which should be in SVG format. There are more in that category and Category:Chemical structures. This is a start as there are many more where this came from and when these are done, I'll try to make another list.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 22:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: I'll start on some of these, but its a big job, so fell free to pitch in if you have the time. Maybe we should move these to a separate page, so it doesn't clog up the request page? -YK Times 03:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move them to a subpage; I'll feel less guilt about adding more. I've tried doing these myself as they are simple enough and I thought they'd be a good training tool. But I tried using Inkscape and got a weird result. I tried the first one above and it looked fine in Inkscape but when I upload it it looks like [1]. If you have any suggestions, please leave them on my talk page.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I moved them to a subpage, so that it clears up this request page a bit, and so that it doesn't take so long to load. -YK Times 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though we should create some sort of library of shapes so that we can keep these consistent. ChaosNil 05:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there are lots of svg's under commons:Category:Chemical compounds that you could start from. But it's probably easier to use a program that generates these. Eg. BKChem is a free one that exports svg. --Interiot 14:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that there are SMILES data (giving the structure of the molecule) in virtually every article. It should be possible to write a program to automatically extract the SMILES string and output an SVG... Does anyone know what WP policy is on bot-type programs that access pages but do not do any actual editing? It would probably be easier just to generate the SVGs locally and upload manually, I hope (and assuming it goes fairly slowly...). I'll start working on something of that sort, probably with MolConverter ([2]) to do the actual conversions. Time3000 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about policy, but a good analogy to look at is your browser: it accesses pages but does not do any actual editing. I imagine any tool would be fine, so long as the output has an acceptable format and license, without annoying stuff like "This page exported by an academic version of XXX", etc. —davidh.oz.au 04:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be best to coordinate with the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry (particularly Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing workgroup), Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology. There have been past discussions about .png vs .svg images for chemical structures, including discussions about which software produces the best results. I would recommend against any automated structure drawing based on SMILES data for anything but the most simple chemical compounds because there are many different ways to represent a single compound, with the best being a chemist's subjective preference. Also, there are literally thousands of chemical images in .png format, so it might be best to start with images on the most popular articles, rather than just the ones tagged for conversion to .svg so far.--Ed (Edgar181) 21:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a plan. Since there is a category for these structures, would anybody be opposed if I removed them all from the Move to Commons category and Convert to SVG category? They alone are creating a substantial backlog in both cats and removing all of them would help tremendously. I know that as these are converted to SVG they will be moved to the Commons so both issues will be resolved.↔NMajdan•talk 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Images_to_improve/Archive/Feb_2007&oldid=1144417158"