Open main menu
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Thomas Linard!

-- 20:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see User talk:Thomas Linard/Archives.

Contents

"Created with Inkscape"Edit

I really don't know what algorithm you're using to detect this, but for the record, I never use Inkscape to make a new image from scratch, and I only very rarely use Inkscape to edit files (the "14:42, 6 April 2011" version of File:Pin-up blue.svg is the only one I can remember now). Instead, I occasionally use a (now very old and obsolete) version of Inkscape to test files, and to convert them to PostScript. So any SVG file whose first version was uploaded by me is extremely unlikely to have been created by Inkscape (unless it's a derivative of another file authored by somebody else, also uncommon for files uploaded by me). AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I use the script mentioned in Template:Image generation. I use it mainly for its quick validation of the SVG files, and not really to take advantage of the many possibilities offered by the template. I'll add the parameter O ({{Other tool}}) for your files (or P, {{Pstoedit}} ?). Thomas Linard (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The majority of the SVG images I create from scratch involve PostScript somewhere along the way, even if I don't explicitly include PostScript source, but I don't use Pstoedit (which is for getting things out of Postscript to edit them, while I often do my editing within PostScript or a PostScript-like format). The truth is that I don't really use standard tools, except for text editors, and also Fontforge for certain specialized curve-manipulation tasks (such as converting the Neo-Assyrian Cuneiform TTF font to cubic beziers last year)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you want I add |n=PostScript? It was the chosen solution by Sarang for your Venus-female-symbol-pseudo-3D-pink.svg. Thomas Linard (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It can be very difficult to estimate afterwards which tool the creator of a drawing might have used; only he knows always exactly, and later categorization might be wrong.
I think we have a consens to categorize SVG files by the tool, by the W3C-validity and by the topic (I added it to the mentioned file, now it is "|Other fields={{Igen|O|+|n=PostScript|s=y}}" and the category is Valid SVG created with Other tools:Symbols, with all three properties; PostScript is only displayed in the box: "This symbol was created with PostScript."). Seldom used tools don't have an own "Created with"-template, so I opened the "Other tools" category for them. If it is essential to show that more than one tool had been used for a file, this is also possible - users wished that expansion but I do not think that it is very helpful. -- sarang사랑 05:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't understand enough about the "Igen" template to care about the fine details -- just as long as you don't show me using a tool which I in fact didn't use... AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Computer n screen.svgEdit

File:Computer n screen.svg

You marked this file as a duplicate of File:Crystal128-computer.svg.

Computer n screen was uploaded in 2006 and linked on thousands upon thousands of Wikipedia pages. File:Crystal128-computer.svg was uploaded last week and used on 1 page on Commons. If you don't agree that it's File:Crystal128-computer.svg that should be marked as duplicate or have some amazing argument to convince me why File:Computer n screen.svg is the duplicate, I think this should be discussed at the VP before proceeding. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jazz,
OK, that's fine by me. However, Crystal128-computer.svg has optimized code (14 Kio vs. 34 Kio). What should I do? Upload Crystal128-computer.svg as a new version of Computer n screen.svg? Thomas Linard (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Optimized how? Scour? We don't care about a few kilobytes. When the image is used on a wiki it will be converted to PNG anyway. Optimizations often make it harder to create derivatives, so if anyone (or Wikimedia) prefers "optimized" versions they can run scour themselves.
Alternatively you might consider writing in the description of File:Crystal128-computer.svg that the file is optimized for small file size. It's not an exact duplicate of File:Computer n screen.svg, it only looks the same. I don't actually know what Commons policy is on that. I had a discussion about this before: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 67#Gnash (talk · contribs). Optimizing has very little advantage for Wikimedia or anyone else, may introduce errors and potentially complicates the creation of derivatives. And if I hadn't spotted your marking as duplicate, thousands of links on dozens of wikis would have had to be replaced. That's a lot more costly than a slightly larger SVG.
Needless to say, I'm not a huge fan. Also, with http compression (enabled by default) File:Computer n screen.svg is only 5.9 kilobyte. File:Crystal128-computer.svg with http compression is only 3.6 kilobyte. Percentually a big difference, but we are talking about 2.3 kilobyte over your wifi.
Other marked files I found:
I do want to thank you for work on the description pages, Igen work and so on. It's just that I think it's better practice to update existing file descriptions if the icon is already here and overwrite it if it's invalid, that way the file history is also maintained. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
By the way, if (part of) the goal was to harmonize file names, I would suggest mass renaming the existing files. But when some are used on thousands of wiki pages, that should be discussed separately as well. Even if only to make sure all are renamed correctly this time as it will result in updates to many wiki pages. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
One more note: you forgot to declare your doctype, w3c can't validate your files without that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, updating existing file descriptions is better practice. But in this case I finally found the entire "Crystal SVG" icon set in actual SVG format (longtime believed here as unavailable or nonexistent), I corrected the files (many of them were invalid and unable to display anything), and I uploaded the ~ 350 files. I tried to avoid duplicate, but before I started tidying up all the categories (my duplicate removal requests are part of that), it was such a mess!
File names are part of the concern, yes.
For the doctype, I assure you, the W3C validator validates SVG files without doctype.
I will follow your recommendations. Thank you! Thomas Linard (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
"For the doctype, I assure you, the W3C validator validates SVG files without doctype." no sorry it really doesn't. A few weeks back I think it did, but now it doesn't.
Something I just noticed: File:Tablet mouse.svg is categorized as Category:Valid SVG created with Adobe Illustrator:Crystal icons. Template issue I think?
"But in this case I finally found the entire "Crystal SVG" icon set in actual SVG format (longtime believed here as unavailable or nonexistent)". Could have probably found (most of) them in a distribution package? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
"A few weeks back I think it did, but now it doesn't." Oh yes, it's a new behavior. The SVG files without doctype aren't incorrect, though, but I'll retain the doctype now, for good validation purpose.
"Template issue I think" Well, sort of. I created the category.
"Could have probably found (most of) them in a distribution package?" Yes, it was as simple as that. But the version on the author site was PNG only, and no current packages in popular distributions have the icon set. So… almost simple. Thomas Linard (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Alexis Jazz:
I finally found this: "While a DTD is provided in this specification, the use of DTDs for validating XML documents is known to be problematic. In particular, DTDs do not handle namespaces gracefully. It is not recommended that a DOCTYPE declaration be included in SVG documents." https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/intro.html#NamespaceAndDTDIdentifiers
So, the official specifications don't recommend to include a DOCTYPE declaration, but the W3 validator, in its current version, requires it… Thomas Linard (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Include it imho, I've never seen the validator (or any browser) have a problem with it. I have seen svg files before that were considered "valid", but the validator only checked it as valid xml and didn't actually look at the svg content. And iirc the problem was a missing DTD there. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Thomas Linard, Alexis Jazz: You might consider annoying Admins on Commons:History_merging_and_splitting/Requests
W3C does not recommended DTD for SVG 1.1, and W3C deprecated DTD for SVG 1.2 (there is a difference between not recommend and deprecated).
File:Ways_of_St-2._James_in_Europe.svg is an example where you "need" the DTD to be rendered in browsers.
W3C tests against DTD, because W3C knows valid DTD-SVG-elements, the nu-Validator "only" tests if it is a valid XML. W3C used the nu-Validator, and claimed it as its own results , now it writes "External Checker not available" (I think nu changed something, therefor W3C can't use nu any more).
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 15:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Capitalis monumentalis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Autopatrol givenEdit

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 sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. jdx Re: 11:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Jdx! Thomas Linard (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open!Edit

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.

Dear Thomas Linard,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth 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 (2017) 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 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.

Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Human icons versionEdit

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Human-applications-development.svg&diff=340690004&oldid=340635305

Did you check for all icons you made this change to that they are in fact identical in 0.36? They were uploaded from a 0.23 version, both according to the upload date and Human icons. That's why I dug up the old 0.23 link. Those that are (nearly) identical could possibly be overwritten. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jazz,
Yes, I looked at all the emojis, I didn't see any difference with the latest version. In fact, the version 0.36 seems to have brought only new Emojis. Also, the license was changed from CC-BY-SA 2.5 to CC-BY-SA 3.0, and it seemed simpler to put everything to version 0.36. Thomas Linard (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Sometimes the icons/style change with a new version, in such a case the old version would need to be linked. If you checked them, it's fine. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Thomas Linard".