This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I see my recent reversion of the image has been reverted to an inferior version by someone who doesn't understand WP:BRD, or the edit summary suggesting we go to the talk page. Perhaps, P. S. Burton, you could explain why "better" is shorthand for "worse" in this case? If it just a poorly executed SVG, or are all SVGs more blurred? (and maybe you could also explain why common courtesy like using a talk page or adhering to BRD is beneath you?) - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
PS Burton says in his edit summary: "SVG is the preferred format for graphics, as it renders better than jpg-files." This is broadly what WP:USOP says, and may be true for most diagrams, though it is certainly not the case here. The wording is preferred format; there is nothing in WP:USOP to indicate that SVG is required when it worsens the image – that would be plain nonsense. I think there has been a little over-eagerness on the part of PS Burton to assert a general principle, whereas our objective must be to get the best version of a diagram into the article. With this latter principle in mind I am returning the image to the JPG version; if PSB or other editors wish to add comments, they should do so here - discussion by way of edit summaries does not work. Brianboulton (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the images, but maybe whoever produced the SVG simply imported the JPG rather than redoing it as an SVG? There's certainly no reason why an SVG should be less crisp than a JPG at any size, unless it has a JPG embedded within it. EricCorbett 01:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The SVG version that was loaded looks like this: File:Mitford-selective-tree.svg. If Eric is correct, perhaps the solution is to get a better SVG, but until that happens we should stay with the sharper image. Brianboulton (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know who did that graphic and I don't want to know, but it's not a real SVG. It's not possible to convert a JPG to an SVG, the whole thing has to be done again. EricCorbett 01:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Last I checked, didn't the software render SVG as a PNG, which the software is incapable of rendering properly at thumbnail size? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the floor plans in this article, both SVGs, you'll see that the thumbnails are just as crisp as the full-size graphic. EricCorbett 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, these technicalities are a bit beyond me. I had assumed that the chart had been redone as SVG, but if it's not a real SVG it has no place here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I still have the PowerPoint slide on which the chart was created, but I can't see that PowerPoint lets one save in SVG format. Tim riley (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You'd have to draw it as an SVG. So-called conversions simply embed the JPG within an SVG. EricCorbett 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I think there may be a way of converting direct from ppt through other software (although I'm not 100% sure of the process. Tim, can you email me the ppt and I'll see what I can do - I'll post on this page for comparison if I can get it to work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Sadly not... File:Mitford-selective-tree1.svg is the closest I could get, which is clearish, but gibberish. There is commercial; software available to do conversions, but it's $70 a shot. Maybe someone in the graphics lab can do something? - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to those who have made these efforts, but there is no requirement on us to take this further. The jpg image loaded by Tim is of good quality, and was obviously acceptable to the FAC reviewers. Let it stand; replacing it with an inferior version would be simple vandalism and I am sure no responsible editor would do that. Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I admire your optimism. EricCorbett 00:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
To see the difference just check 3000 px preview of both files below:
JPG file Mitford-selective-tree1.jpg at 3000 px
SVG file Mitford-selective-tree.svg at 3000 px
Also see the quality of print-outs of old JPG file and new SVG files here. (Click on the image to view original size.)
--Victor•talk 19:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
V4711, I'm sure there's an obvious answer to this for those how are technically minded, but how is it that the svg image that was in the article was of a poorer quality than the original jpeg? - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I saw, I just don't understand. Can you put in non-technical English why an inferior version is preferred? The pretty and over-sized images above are all well and good, but I'm not sure many of our readers will want to view at this magnification? at the normal view they appear on an average screen, the svg is worse than the jpeg, and that's not really something we should be aiming for. - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
For high quality printouts of article, for starters. --Victor•talk 20:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
So, in order for a high-quality print out, we have to have a sub-standard image on the screen - the main medium people will use when they read this? And I'm still pretty sure people will not be printing it out at 3000px either! Sorry if this seems somewhat laboured and dense, but I'm not technically minded and I'm trying to understand the logic here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no logic. It's quite simply impossible to convert a JPG file to an SVG. EricCorbett 21:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no possible case for including a blurred substandard SVG image simply because it might print out better. This article is now a featured article, supposedly an example of WP's best work. So it needs to have the best available version of the image, not one that has theoretical but apparently unrealisable qualities. If V4711 can produce an SVG version of appropriate size and sharpness, well and good, we will all be grateful. Until that is possible, the status quo must prevail. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
As an SVG, it's as sharp as you want it, especially compared to a JPG, but wiki isn't rendering it properly, as it's really not meant to be changed to PNG before being displayed. I suggest simply adding (via find/replace) style="shape-rendering:crispEdges" or style="shape-rendering:auto" to each path or shape in the SVG file that you want to be rendered sharply. This should fix the minor issue and make it much better looking than the JPG. The Haztalk 15:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)