Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Inkscape 0.48.2 SVG screenshots

Inkscape 0.48.2 SVG screenshots[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 11:13:33 (UTC)

Reason: Most screenshots used in Wikipedia articles, even those of freely-licensed software, are in a raster graphics format such as JPEG or PNG, which easily lose quality when zoomed in, and their low resolutions do not meet FP standards, but these screenshots are in the SVG format, and even with a resolution of 3784 * 2424, they can actually be scaled indefinitely without loss of quality (albeit not in articles, where they are converted to PNGs. Scalable versions of the images can be viewed in an SVG-compatible browser, by clicking on the image on the description page). There are two images here, you can support any one of them, or even both. If you have a vector graphics editor such as Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator and you can improve this image, please do so. jfd34 (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in which this image appears: Inkscape
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other
Creator: jfd34 (talk · contribs · count · logs)

Support as nominator --jfd34 (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would prefer a free software environment, e.g. Linux. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think clarification is needed here. The role of the image is either

a) to demonstrate the concept of an SVG. In this case, the subject of the picture - Inkscape - is largely irrelevant. To that extent, the images aren't used to demonstrate SVGs in general.
b) to demonstrate Inkscape as a program. This is clearly the sense they are used in in the article. However, in this context the fact they're SVGs is largely irrelevant. That's not to say I'm against SVGs in general – I'm certainly not, I have a couple of promoted FP SVGs, and from the look of it this has taken hours of work. But in so far as this image describes Inkscape, a raster version would work just as well. The fact it scales makes little difference to its usefulness, in this context.

I just don't understand why the Inkscape interface has been painstakingly recreated in SVG format, except for a love of irony. However, it is the image in front of me and it does provide a good example of the Inkscape format. So I'm leaning towards supporting. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many Inkscape screenshots available on Commons here. Most of them are either JPEGs or PNGs (there are a few SVGs, but their data is mostly embedded PNGs, unlike this one). When they are opened in an image viewing program and zoomed in, jagged edges are noticeable particularly on the toolbars. Tracing them into SVGs eliminate all these problems which otherwise cause an image to fail the FP criteria. jfd34 (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Inkscape is a program that runs on a computer with a raster display. Therefore, the only correct screenshot is a raster one showing the pixels of the software. This is just a very well executed drawing that looks a lot like Inkscape. I think the real reason we don't have FP screenshots isn't because they are too small, but because there no still in making a screen capture. There's clearly skill on display here, but I think your efforts were misspent. Colin°^Talk 20:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I completely disagree with Colin. I think he is not so technical informed (so I mean false criticism). That would be apply generally to all SVG? I like this very. So why is quality here misspent? --Perhelion (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because the artist wasted a great deal of time creating this svg artwork when, really, a png screenshot of Inkscape would be sufficient in being an encyclopedic illustration of the software. He clearly has svg skills, and there are plenty of images on Wikipedia that should be in svg format but aren't if he wants to contribute those skills to Wikipedia; but this isn't a time when it's necessary. It isn't being used to illustrate was .svg is, what it can do, what (when used correctly) its advantages are over png or jpeg. There is no need to illustrate Inkscape in an .svg image just because it can output in that format. And there are also situations when artistic renditions and drawings are suitable (maps and concept vehicles to name two), and when they aren't (like when pressing PRT-SCR will work). Like Colin said, despite how excellently drawn it is (and I do think it is), it just looks a lot like Inkscape, but it isn't Inkscape. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 04:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the output of a clever program that can produce vector screenshots? That would be interesting. Or has someone manually redrawn the screenshot? That would be impressive work and patience for sure, but I don't completely see the point of doing it... 86.128.4.241 (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have manually redrawn it. jfd34 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The image is used in the article as examples of the program in use, not as an example of a vectorized version of a raster image (whether or not that was done manually or not does not matter). I argue that this is a misrepresentation of the concept being illustrated due to the fact that there may be some discrepancies from the source and this version (as there was a conversion done, and yes I understand photos are manipulated frequently, but you can argue that photographing an object requires interpretation of light, etc. where a screenshot has a fixed representation outside of resolution and other settings). I also believe that the format of this image reduces the compatibility with many older browsers unnecessarily while adding no additional EV. --Chrismiceli (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 16:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]