User talk:A3nm

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Just to let you know I reverted a couple additions of {{ConvertToSVG|map}} - eg on File:Highland UK relief location map.jpg. There's a few reasons, basically because its better to point mapmakers elsewhere, to other maps that can much more easily be converted.

The main reason is its not possible to create a completely SVG relief map, as the relief shading has to be done in a raster layer. Creating SVG layers for the background colour is possible, but very time consuming and involves converting raster to vector in any case. The only true vector information would be the coast/lake/border overlays, and the inset.

What is problematic with those files is the use of jpg, as there's noticeable jpg artifacts in the insets. With hindsight I should have used png, but the reason for jpg in the first place was to keep the filesize manageable. As a png the Highland map would be well over 5MB. As an SVG, with seperate layers for the contours, it either would be huge (maybe 50MB?) or have a lot of its detail thrown out. And it still would have that raster layer for the shading.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't paid attention to the relief shading, you were certainly right about reverting. I'll keep this in mind, thanks for educating me. :) --A3 nm (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks!

Hello - you tagged that file today to be converted to SVG. May I ask you what the reason for this request is and whether you have asked the original uploader for vector data already, as it looks like this PNG is the conversion of a SVG-image. --Maxxl² - talk 13:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just thought that coat of arms should be SVG. I haven't asked the original uploader already. I agree that the filename hints that this is probably a conversion from a SVG original, but I couldn't find the SVG. I asked the original uploader: User_talk:Roede#Vector_version_of_File:Erik_av_Pommern_2000px.png. --A3 nm (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: don't expect to see a better quality in any of the various wiki resolution as every SVG is rendered prior to its display here. Every COA-image you see is a PNG rendered from a SVG. Only if you double click the SVG image, you see a full-page SVG without rendering. Having said this I would rather recommend to withdraw the tag as an improvement can't be expected. -- Maxxl² - talk 14:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. It is not surprising that Mediawiki renders the SVG to PNG when displaying pages, but the point of having the SVG hosted on Commons is that it makes it much easier to edit the picture, or create a new picture derived from it. Say I want to avoid stretching the lions at the top left, or I realize that their tongue should be black, or that I want to reuse the crown for another coat of arms. The current PNG version makes it very hard to do those tasks, whereas the SVG version makes them easy. --A3 nm (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a need to edit elements? Which element is to be be redesigned? Could you please give some sources where the variation needed can be observed? -- Maxxl² - talk 17:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of coat of arms images on commons are in SVG for editability and reusability. See Commons:Media_for_cleanup#PNG_or_JPEG_images_that_should_be_SVG for a list of advantages of the SVG format over PNG. So I stand by my claim that this image would be better as SVG than as PNG. --A3 nm (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. See my answer to you on my talk page today. I would greatly appreciate your help in converting my PNG file to SVG.Roede (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roede: - Identifying the main charges only of this image it is obvious that present Category:Coat of arms elements are used.

It seems to be a copyright violation in every single case. Where did you get the SVG elements from? -- Maxxl² - talk 09:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear A3nm,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour,

chemical is for chemical structures, chemistry for everything else. Despite the category is full with files wrongly there, please don't introduce new errors.

Cheers, --Tostman (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tostman, thanks for pointing this out! I fixed this error, and I'll try to remember to categorize files like you said. Thanks again! --A3nm (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the box in Category:Chemical images that should use vector graphics. --Leyo 10:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Leyo for pointing this out! I'm not completely confident I understand what a "quality" PNG image of a structural formula is, though -- certainly, in terms of structural formulae, all molecules should be representable as SVG and should be properly rasterized by MediaWiki, no? Best, --A3nm (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than enough JPEG, GIF or low quality PNG structural formulae to convert to SVG. --Leyo 11:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also think, that PNG is sufficient. The structure was just a random example.--Tostman (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]