File talk:Ambox content.png

To SVG

{{sudo}} Please add {{toSVG}} (this is certainly simple enough to store it as an SVG). --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 02:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. I think? Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an SVG verison here: Image:Ambox content.svg. Can someone remove the {{toSVG}} and add {{Vector version available|Ambox content.svg}}? Thanks. --pbroks13^talk? 21:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind : )--pbroks13^talk? 00:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vector version available

{{editprotected}}

Can someone add {{vva|Ambox important.svg}} (fur real, dis time). Tanks, Stannered (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That isn't an accurate vector version of the icon; it looks significantly different. —David Levy 14:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A shade of orange differing by about 2% across about 3 pixels fails to meet my definition of "significantly". I don't think that "slightly" would be too mild a word. Stannered (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This icon is intended for use in one specific template and was created for the sole purpose of being a pixel-perfect match with another icon used in said template. The SVG version's shadow is barely noticeable at this size, and that's significant. —David Levy 19:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be relatively simple to create an SVG that pixel-perfectly matches the current SVG to replace that image (if that makes any sense). I wasn't aware that shadows always had to be glaringly obvious. Of course, I'm just annoyed because I wasted my time creating this SVG image because someone decided to stick a ShouldBeSVG on this image. Stannered (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't waste your time. The SVG is useful, but not as a replacement for the PNG. You might want to upload it under a different name. —David Levy 00:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not even close, but putting it as an "other version" may be useful. The description really needs to change on the other, though. Rocket000 (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some explanation for those of you who did not take part in the icon design discussions over at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes:

• If/when a matching SVG has been made then it should not be uploaded to Wikipedia, but instead to Wikimedia Commons. The reason the PNG is uploaded to Wikipedia is so we can protect (lock) it here, since it is high-use here, since it is used in {{ambox}}.
• For several technical reasons we prefer to use a PNG in the ambox. Among other things the SVGs get problems with their transparent background in older web browsers. This PNG has been hand modified to workaround that background problem, so it looks good in all browsers.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. SVGs are awesome but PNGs aren't evil. We do protect many images on Commons that are heavily used elsewhere (wikis seem to copy each other a lot with templates so they are usually in high use on more then one project), but local protection is better because it should be entirely up to the project if that image ever changes and not Commons admins. Rocket000 (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to the SVG version

This section was moved here from Image talk:Ambox notice.png, which now redirects here. --David Göthberg (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but it may be good to link the svg version in the edit summary to direct people who may want to use this image as an svg. You can do this easily by adding:

|other_versions= svg clone: [[:Image:Information icon4.svg]] see other versions located at svg's image summary

at the end of information template -- penubag  (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Link added. :-) —David Levy 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :-D -- penubag  (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Vector versions

This section was moved here from Image talk:Imbox content.png, which now redirects here. --David Göthberg (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there is a [similar image] here, shall we tag with {{Vector version available}}? --Numyht (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean these SVG images: Image:Emblem-important.svg , Image:Ambox important.svg and Image:Ambox important.svg . For comparison here is the PNG: Image:Imbox content.png . It seems Image:Ambox important.svg is the most similar of them, so yes, at least that one should be linked from the description.

But note, the message boxes should for technical reasons use the PNG. Since some older web browsers have problems with the transparent background that MediaWiki renders for the SVGs. The PNG has hand optimised background to fix it for the old browsers. (Such hand optimisation is only worth the trouble for widely used icons like this one.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response (In other words, I have read it) --Numyht (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

All SVG images on Wikipedia, are first converted to PNG by librsvg. I am unware of any transparentcy issues with the PNG images created by librsvg that would require hand optimization. I have created a comparison below that can be viewed in older browsers if you want to check for yourself.--Svgalbertian (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now been made aware that these PNG images have their default backgrounds set to #FBFBFB so that when Internet Explorer 6 or lower does not use transparency, the background colour matches the template. For PNG images made by librsvg, the default background is #FFFFFF. The difference between the two colours is so minor that it is doubtful most people would notice. I see no reason to continue to maintain this backwards compatibility, but at least I now understand what the issue is.--Svgalbertian (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comparison

Ambox content.png

Ambox important.svg

Error in the date

This section was moved here from Image talk:Imbox license.png, which now redirects here. --David Göthberg (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the year should be 2008 instead of 1008 so users (like me) won't be confused. Could someone please change this??? --frogger3140 (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Yeah, we haven't been working that long with the imboxes. :))

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about the typo.  :-) —David Levy 13:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Add ShouldBeSVG template please

This section was moved here from Image talk:Imbox style.png, which now redirects here. --David Göthberg (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please add a ShouldBeSVG template to the image page. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, this should not be an SVG. First of all it already is available as an SVG, as the image page says: "Derived from Image:Broom icon.svg". Secondly this version of the image was created specially for use in {{imbox}}. There are several reason we use PNGs in high-use templates like the {{imbox}} and {{ambox}}:

• Since this image is used in the high-use / high-risk template {{imbox}} we have to upload a local copy of the image to Wikipedia so we can protect it, instead of using the image from Commons. In this specific case that was not that necessary since this image is already protected on Commons. (It needs to be protected to prevent vandals from adding a rude image to LOTS of pages with a single edit.)
• MediaWiki SVG rescaling isn't as good as doing it in some graphics editing softwares. (Although lately the MediaWiki rescaling has been improved and now is almost as good.)
• MediaWiki uses a white background for the transparent part of the PNG images it renders from the SVGs. That means that in older browsers who do not understand transparent PNGs these images look bad when used in the imbox who has a slightly grey background. They become white boxes. Thus in these specially made PNGs we have a background with the same colour as the imbox background, making them look good in all browsers.

This kind of optimisations are worth the effort for high-use templates like the {{imbox}}. This has been extensively discussed and agreed on over at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes .

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I am still somewhat confused as to why a PNG is preferable:

• Why does making the image an SVG affect its protected status / security?
• Image:Broom icon.svg looks fine to me, so where would the problem lie in using it for something like {{imbox}}?
• Why not just use an SVG which also uses a white background if transparency is not preferable?

It Is Me Here (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, we can protect an SVG too. But what I meant is that when we anyway need to have a local copy so we can protect it, then we can just as well take the chance to optimise it before we store it here.

Right, in this case MediaWiki scales Image:Broom icon.svg fine down to 40px without any visible errors. But until recently MediaWiki did not scale it as well, and it still does not scale some of the other imbox images well.

But you are misunderstanding the most important part: Transparency is preferable and the Image:Imbox style.png indeed is transparent. (As you can see from the chequered background the image has on the image page.) But "behind" the transparent parts of the image is a background colour that you don't see. When MediaWiki scales and renders SVG images it makes them into PNGs that are sent to the users web browsers. MediaWiki always sets the "invisible" background to white. Problem is that the imboxes are not white, they are light grey. And some older web browsers do not understand transparency and shows the "invisible" background in the PNGs that MediaWiki renders from the SVGs. Thus our imbox icons become white boxes if they are SVGs when seen in those older web browsers, and that looks bad. But in our hand optimised PNGs we have set the "invisible" background to the proper imbox light-grey background, so they look fine in the older browsers. The MediaWiki SVG->PNG "invisible" white backgrounds would of course be even worse in the {{tmbox}} which has brown background.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please correct author credit on this logo

This discussion is about the broom images:

Over at the page where this icon originates from, the original creator of it has expressed his unhappyness that 'Booyabazooka' is being incorrectly credited at the artist who created this icon. Please can an admin unlock this, correct the credit and then lock it again. The actual author has the user name 'gg3po' and according to his profie, his real name is 'Tony Tony'. You can find more details at the URL on the page for this article. 80.189.120.27 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Sorry that no one has taken care of this before. I checked and you are right, "gg3po (Tony Tony)" is the original author and the original version is the SVG he uploaded to kde-look.org back in October 2005. And I know how he feels, people have "stolen" images from me too.

For the record: Booyabazooka never claimed to be the author of that image, he just uploaded it to Commons and then someone else later changed the description so it looked like he was the author.

I have fixed the descriptions of the local versions here at the English Wikipedia: File:Ambox style.png and File:Imbox style.png. But since I'm not an admin at Commons I can't edit the versions there: commons:File:Broom icon.svg, commons:File:Ambox style.png and commons:File:Imbox style.png. I have asked the admins at Commons to fix it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem

Hi, I notice that the now deleted file File:Ambox style.png has rather a lot of links going to it, mainly from the template:Tone. This really ought to be sorted. Bob talk 13:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That was my fault. Sorry everyone! I tried to quickly delete it and redirect it to an exact duplicate. It seems I wasn't fast enough and the image was too heavily used for a smooth transition. I restored it so there shouldn't be anymore issues. Rocket000 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There were several mistakes done in a row here:

1: At 9 May 2009 Quadell deleted the original copy of File:Ambox style.png here at the English Wikipedia, since he thought it was not needed anymore, since there is a copy of the file under the same name at Wikimedia Commons. However this (and the other images that share this talk page) is a high-risk image used in the widely used {{ambox}} meta-template, in turn used by {{cleanup}} etc. Thus this image needs to be locally stored here so we at the English Wikipedia can control its protection, description and content.

2: When Quadell deleted the image its local protection as usual was auto-removed. And he missed to apply local protection to the empty image page. This could have left the local name open for vandals to upload a rude image in its place. Fortunately we have put these images on special "lockbox" pages that use cascading protection, to at least stop local copies from being uploaded by anyone. However, this does not protect the version over at Wikimedia Commons, since that version is handled by editors and admins over there. Fortunately, the version over at Wikimedia Commons also is protected, since we have requested it since these things happen all the time...

3: At 31 August 2009 Rocket000 as an admin over at Wikimedia Commons thought: "Hey, this seems to be a copy of File:Imbox style.png, so lets redirect it there." I don't know if such image redirects work (never tested that). But more importantly: File:Imbox style.png is not an exact duplicate of File:Ambox style.png. Right, the automatic duplicate detection in MediaWiki thinks they are duplicates, but they are not. They have different background colours, each matched with the background for {{ambox}} and {{imbox}} respectively. (In this case different shades of light grey.) As I have explained several times in earlier sections on this talk page: Right, these images have transparent background, but that really technically just is a mask put over the image. "Behind" that transparent masking there are also pixel colours. Older web browsers who don't understand transparent images instead show those pixels, which is very visible and fairly ugly. Thus we have hand optimised the backgrounds in these images to fix it for the old browsers. But such hand optimisation is only worth the trouble for widely used icons like this one. We haven't even bothered to fix a brown background for the images for the {{tmbox}}, since we hope most users now use more modern browsers. But images over at Wikimedia Commons sometimes are changed in much more drastic ways, since the editors over at Commons don't know our local needs.

That this image was changed at Wikimedia Commons to another image that doesn't fit our needs here at the English Wikipedia, and that the local image name was unprotected is exactly the reasons why we need to use locally uploaded and locally protected versions of our high-risk images. Also, we who administer high-risk images can not update the images and their descriptions over at Wikimedia Commons, since they are protected there, and we are not admins at Commons. But several of us are admins here at the English Wikipedia, thus we can handle the images here.

Also, even those of us who are not admins at least have an easier time to keep an eye on the images here, since any changes to them appear in our local watchlists.

So I have restored the local copy of File:Ambox style.png, reprotected it, and added two big message boxes on its description page stating that this image does belong here.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they were exact duplicates. This is not according to my eyes, but the MediaWiki software which compares hash sums. Most of the problems (if not all) with image redirects seem to be resolved now, that's why I thought this wouldn't cause a problem. Commons isn't really ideal for images used for administrative purposes (vs. content) for the reasons you mentioned. Protecting tons of images to suit the needs of all the other projects really works against the whole wiki thing for Commons (remember that protection protects the description page as well which is like the mainspace over there). Rocket000 (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Look under the heading "File links", you'll see they're listed as duplicates. Rocket000 (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The algorithm used to detect duplicate PNG files ignores the bKGD chunk (the information that determines the fallback background color in browsers lacking full transparency support). —David Levy 20:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, Rocket000 is right. David Levy and I are mixing up things, or rather we were unaware of some later developments. I checked by SHA1 hashing the whole image files. I checked the current files here at enwp, and also the copies I saved to my hard disk at 15 September 2008. My old copies are identical to the current copies, so the images have not been changed since then.

File:Ambox style.png and File:Imbox style.png are identical. While File:Cmbox style.png is different. And that is correct since {{ambox}} and {{imbox}} nowadays use the same background colours. Long ago they used to have slightly different background, and that's what David Levy and I are remembering. While {{cmbox}} uses an other background colour. I also checked in my old IE 5.5 that doesn't understand transparent png's, and all three images' tweaked background colours perfectly match the backgrounds of their respective boxes.

So all is well.

Secondly, MediaWiki used to say that File:Cmbox style.png was identical with the other two, which wasn't correct. Since as David Levy stated, MediaWiki used to only compare the visible part of the files. However, MediaWiki now correctly states that File:Cmbox style.png is different from the other two. So MediaWiki has been updated, which is good.

Rocket000: I agree that it often is a problem that the description pages of protected images automatically are protected at the same time. And that is a problem both at Commons and here at Wikipedia. Protected images usually lack the links to "other versions", lack categories, and have bad descriptions, since users can not edit them. I for instance can not correct the descriptions of images I myself created and uploaded, since they are protected at Commons and I am not an admin at Commons. Sure, I could ask an admin there to do it for me, but that is not worth the trouble. For high-risk images it would probably be nice if we could just semi-protect the image description page, but still fully protect the image itself. And I think we can achieve that: We can do just like we do with template documentation, we can put the description in a separate /doc subpage. The template /doc system was created for that very reason, to allow regular users to edit the documentation of protected high-risk templates. (As a side effect it ended up looking good and saving some server resources too.)

I made a /doc subpage as a test for File:Ambox style.png. It works fairly well, but the system needs some tweaking. But a much better solution would be if MediaWiki allowed us to set the protection separately for the image and the description page.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction! I wasn't aware of the MediaWiki update, and I didn't examine these particular images. —David Levy 01:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So..., in theory, Media:Imbox_notice.png and Media:Ambox_notice.png could be different and that is why they are separate entities? Schalice (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.87.4.98, 18 September 2010

{{edit protected}} Didn't Former Phillies ace Robert Person play for Licey in 94 or 95? Shouldn't he be on your list of famous or notable former players? If you have Andy Abad on your list then surely you can put Robert Person it!!!!Just a suggestion.

66.87.4.98 (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I'm afraid this is the wrong page for your request. Which article are you referring to? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why this image and not the SVG for templates?

Is there particular reason why this image is still being used in most maintenance templates instead of one of the SVG alternatives? I doubt that exact pixel-perfection should be an issue, but for seemingly all other important templates, an SVG version of an image is being used. Scan through them yourself: Wikipedia:Template messages. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 22:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 July 2021

Add the {{Keep local high-risk}} template. 41.254.65.193 (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 13:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)