Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Illustration workshop
New request
 Photography workshop
 Map workshop
Logo for Project:Graphics LabGraphics Lab/Illustration workshop

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.

Illustration workshop requests archives

Requests from recent years: 2006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018
This page is automatically archived by ClueBot III.

For graphists:
Page header:
Commons Illustration workshop SVG help board Image candidates:
Image requests by subject SVG help documentation Quality
SVG maintenance category Creating charts and graphs Valued
SVG conversion requests   Featured


Could someone talke a look at this image.

There are definitely mistakes.

Russia is colored green (which mean child pornography is legal!), which is inconsistent with the text. Some other countries are colored green, despite not being mentioned in the text - Tunisia, Nepal, probably others.

My hypothesis is that someone started by using green as a default, and changed some countries to reflect the text, but either didn't finish, or some text was updated without updating the image.

It is quite inappropriate to have a graphic suggesting that child pornography is legal in some countries if it is not.-- S Philbrick(Talk) 21:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Graphist opinion(s)

Image's request under progression Request taken by Houdinipeter (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC). I am changing Russia and the Philippines to orange. I am also changing Tunisia, Nepal, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Bhutan to gray. Looks like I have to update all of it.

 Houdinipeter (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Periodic table of natural and artificial elements[edit]

{{resolved|Double sharp (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)}}

Synthetic element
Please recolour Am (95), Cm (96), Bk (97), and Cf (98) from violet to pink (same pink as Pu, 94), as they do not occur naturally at all. Also, please remove row 8 with Uue (119) from the picture entirely, since it has not yet been synthesised. -- Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)
@Double sharp:  Done. TilmannR (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@TilmannR: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

First, your site has no special authority over Wikimedia Commons’ content and decisions by Wikipedia are not binding for Commons. Second, where is source of the statement that none of 95Am, 96Cm, 97Bk, 98Cf occur naturally in any quantity? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp and Incnis Mrsi: You wouldn't expect to find any measurable quantities of natural Am,Cm,Bk,Cf, because their half life is quite short relative to the age of the earth. On the other hand "The transuranic elements from americium to fermium occurred naturally in the natural nuclear fission reactor at Oklo, but no longer do so."(Americium#Occurrence) Therefore you could argue that the image should include not just Am,Cm,Bk,Cf, but also Es,Fm as naturally occurring elements. Ultimately, since the image is used in "Synthetic element", it should reflect the article's content. If that's unacceptable to the image's author, we can re-upload the modified version under a new name, replace the image in the article, and revert the original. TilmannR (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: As TilmannR correctly states, there is no natural source that could possibly produce these elements in any quantity today. The only source at all saying that these elements occur naturally are those who copied it from us when we got it from John Emsley's Nature's Building Blocks (2011), which cites no source for it (and this is by no means the only howler in that book). His proposed mechanism of multiple neutron capture by natural 238U is patently ridiculous: the abundance of 239Pu in nature is a paltry 10−11 that of 238U, and multiplying that by itself to account for all the neutron captures you need to reach 249Cf yields the conclusion that there should not even be one atom of it around in the whole Earth. Indeed, as I detailed at Talk:List of chemical elements#Abundances for the really rare elements, there should be no Bk and Cf left, and even for Am and Cm the expected abundances are so low that there is pretty much no hope of finding them experimentally. Not only that, but while here are many scholarly articles detailing the successful detection of natural Np and Pu, there are none at all detailing the successful detection of natural Am, Cm, Bk, and Cf. Wikipedia has no authority over Commons indeed, but even on Commons the original file would be out of project scope: it has no realistic educational use, because it's inaccurate according to the vast majority of up-to-date reliable sources that independently address the question of how many natural elements there are. Double sharp (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The assumption “any nuclide present on Earth naturally is primordial” is wrong. Note that none of the elements 84–89 and 91 have primordial isotopes, although all of them were discovered without any synthesis. Prepare to have your stuff about Am, Cm, Bk, and Cf reverted in any time I found anything about their natural production in academic publications. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Except that I never made that assumption: I mentioned natural 239Pu explicitly in my comment, and that nuclide has too short a half-life to be primordial. The difference between it and the longer-lived 247Cm, for instance, is that there is some common enough process that continually generates 239Pu from a primordial isotope (single neutron capture by 238U) in enough quantities that you always have an equilibrium amount of 239Pu around; there is no such one for 247Cm, as the multiple neutron captures needed to produce it on Earth are just too unlikely. Similarly, the abundances of Po through Ac and Pa – of which astatine, in particular, was discovered by synthesis (because the branches that lead to it in the Th and U decay chains are very rare) – are tied directly to those of their primordial parents Th and U. If you do find any academic publication detailing the discovery of live natural Am, Cm, Bk, or Cf in nature, please feel free to revert, citing the source. But I have significant doubts you will find any such publications that have actually been confirmed. People have been searching for at least the long-lived 247Cm for a while: see 10.1029/JZ069i008p01603 for a negative result from 1964 (contradicting an earlier positive one from different authors). Double sharp (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Flag of Rohan[edit]

Alright, could someone please create a detailed SVG image of the flag of the Kingdom of Rohan, a reconstruction of which can be seen here. Thanks. Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s)

Image's request under progression Request taken by Pbroks13 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC).

@Snow Lion Fenian: I've taken the liberty of adding more elements to the flag, to make it look more like the images found on google search. I can, of course, remove them if you'd like. Pbroks13 (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pbroks13: Brilliantly done, this is so much better than the other one. Thanks a lot for taking the time to do this. Though while we're here, is there any chance the other one could be uploaded as a separate file? Your version is definitely the superior one, but I don't think it would hurt to have both versions on Wikipedia, just in case. Thanks again for your hard work. Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Snow Lion Fenian: There you go! Pbroks13 (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pbroks13: Terrific work, couldn't have asked for it better. Thanks so much again for your hard work. Though before this request ends, I do have one more favour to ask regarding the heraldry of Rohan: Would you be willing to make some adjustments to the following File? I know you've already done a lot for me as it is, but I felt I should probably ask while we're still on the subject of it. I won't say what said adjustments are just yet, because I'd prefer not to be presumptuous. But don't worry, if you're not feeling up for it, I'll declare this request resolved anyway. Again, thanks. Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@Snow Lion Fenian: Of course I don’t mind. That’s why I’m on this page, after all! What did you have in mind? Pbroks13 (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pbroks13: Thanks once again. Well, if it's convenient, would it be possible for the prancing horse on the Arms of Rohan be replaced with the running horse from the Flags above, and for good measure the background colour of the Arms changed to match the shade of green from the Flag as well? After all, the symbol of Rohan is described as being, to use an exact quote, "white on green, a great horse running free" (not prancing as the Arms suggests). Hence modifying the Arms as such would make it a more accurate depiction of how it should be. And could the new horse be made as large as possible within the Arms as well, and the shape of the Arms retained the way it is in the process? I know this may seem like a rather tall order, but I would much appreciate it if it could be done. Again, thanks. Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Snow Lion Fenian: The great thing about vector graphics is that these kinds of requests are incredibly simply. SVGs are made to be simple to alter. Now, I altered the shape a little bit, since the width of the horse made the original arms look to tall. Let me know if you'd like any adjustments. Pbroks13 (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)