The Graphics Lab is a project to improve the graphical content of the Wikimedia projects. Requests for image improvements can be added to the workshop pages: Illustrations, Photographs and Maps. For questions or suggestions one can use the talk pages: Talk:Graphics Lab, Talk:Illustrations, Talk:Photographs and Talk:Maps. This specific page is the requests page for the illustration workshop. Anyone can make a request for an illustration to be improved or created for a Wikipedia article. Clicking the "New Request" button will bring you to a standard template for submitting requests, as well as general advice that should be followed.
Hey, it is me again. I am still improving on the SVG and wanted to start with the moon. If you go to the "File history", you'll see that e.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/00/20170308141914%21Apollo_program.svg has a much more detailed moon surface. However, when I uploaded this, the PNG preview automatically rendered by the wikimedia software showed one of the craters very much different from the others. I tried to find the problem, but, as far as I can see, the SVG is valid. Can someone who knows a lot about SVG and the PNG preview renderer take a look and help me with this? Thank you all. -- Lommes (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Lommes:Hi I think the problem is that the moon craters in your SVG have a blur effect on their paths which don't appear until you zoom closer. For example if you zoom-in on your SVG version the blur effect on the craters render. If you remove the blur effect in your SVG then the PNG should render the detail correctly. Tsange ☯ Talk 15:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Lommes: I think I've found a fix. After playing around with the SVG's code I found that removing the transform matrix from the crater's paths (path8112-9-6 and path10771-5-6) the blur effect appears, not sure why this this though. Tsange ☯ Talk 14:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tsange:Thank you so very much for fixing this. I really appreciate it. Do you think this is a bug in the PNG renderer that should be reported?Lommes (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Lommes:I think this bug is known  however it says that it's resolve some maybe it needs to be reopened. Tsange ☯ Talk 19:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I see a land mass in the North between Canada and Russia. Which continent is this? SharkD Talk 19:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@SharkD: I think it's supposed to be part of Canada. It matches the badge produced by NASA  so it's probably just artistic license. Tsange (Talk) 22:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Comparison of an oblique (at left) and orthographic (at right) projection of a cube (colored blue). The projection plane is colored orange. The angle 63.43° is equal to , and the amount of foreshortening in this example is the inverse of , or . Thus, the amount of foreshortening in an oblique projection is inversely proportional to the tangent of the angle between the projection plane and the projection lines.
Oblique projection of a cube with foreshortening by half, seen from the side
I am requesting a critique. To me the image is maybe too abstract. It's meant to depict a 3D scene from two different angles, but the image does not really "feel" 3D. Is there a better way to depict this scene? SharkD Talk 19:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I already understand what the image is intended to convey, and after some effort, I was able to understand the image. But I still don't understand the caption, which implies that the amount of foreshortening in an orthogonal projection is 0.3171. Maproom (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The amount of foreshortening in an orthogonal projection is zero (or 100% depending on how you look at it). I don't understand where you got the number 0.3171. SharkD Talk 00:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I made an arithmetic error, that should be 0.352. The caption tells us that "the amount of foreshortening in an oblique projection is inversely proportional to the angle". In the oblique example, the amount of foreshortening is 1/2 and the angle is 63.43°. In an orthographic projection the angle is 90°. I therefore calculated 1/2 × 63.43/90, which is 0.352.
I think there are (at least) two problems with the caption. One is that "amount of foreshortening" is undefined. Another is that the maths is wrong, there's some trig function missing from the "proportional to" sentence. Maproom (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Foreshortening is also described here. If you can help summarizing this and creating a better definition, it would be great. SharkD Talk 08:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
atan ∞ = 90.00°
atan 8/1 = 82.87°
atan 4/1 = 75.96°
atan 2/1 = 63.43°
atan 1/1 = 45.00°
atan 1/2 = 26.57°
atan 1/4 = 14.04°
atan 1/8 = 7.13°
atan 0 = 0.00°
So where the caption says "the amount of foreshortening ... is inversely proportional to the angle", it means "the amount of foreshortening ... is inversely proportional to the tan of angle". Maproom (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Now that that is settled, does anyone have any tips on the image itself? SharkD Talk 08:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@SharkD: I'll give my two cents. Firstly, I'm not sure the chosen colours work the best. There isn't a lot of contrast, especially due to the transparencies. Why isn't everything opaque? On the accessibility side of things, there is almost zero contrast in grayscale (not ideal at all). I also think the line indicating the plane in the top view should be much thicker (to make the colour more obvious). I would also add more labels to the diagram (like 'cube', 'projection plane', etc.). Lastly, I think it should be clearer which diagrams are showing the same thing (but from a different angle). E.g. It isn't immediately obvious that the two right-hand-side diagrams are of the same thing. I would mitigate this by rotating the whole diagram 90°, and putting a horizontal line through the middle (this is not to mention the fact that the 'front view' label is currently floating in the middle of everything: it's very unclear what it's pointing to). Anyway, given that it's an SVG I'd be happy to work on it myself if that would help. —♫CheChe♫talk 10:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
CheChe Could you maybe redo the second image? I think it looks very crude, but may be closer to what you want. One change that needs to be made is to show the angle between the projection plane and the projection line instead of α. SharkD Talk 19:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@SharkD: Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I am still planning to get around to this. I'm still going to be busy for the next week or so, but after that I might have some time. All the best, ♫CheChe♫talk 11:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC).
Hello, need these pics (as svg) with black circuit shape, S/F-line symbol (with direction arrow) and transparent background. Please made all direction arrows counter-clockwise. Thx. -- Mark McWire (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I can do a few of these. Request taken by Sn1per (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC).
I would like a new image uploaded of an outline of a girl rather than a women. Most nicotine poisoning involve children under 5. For example, "In another case, a two year old girl had to be admitted to hospital after just licking an e-cigarette refill in Birmingham, UK ."QuackGuru (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)