Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Images to improve/Archive/Feb 2008

< Wikipedia:Graphics Lab | Images to improve | Archive
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ipankonin (talk | contribs) at 00:41, 10 February 2008 (→James Clavell: Manually archiving resolved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Puerto Rican Independence Party

  Resolved
 – Chris (??? • ????) (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Puerto Rican Independence Party

Request: can this be made just a regular flag graphic? I am including the Flag of Sweden because the flag and the cross thickness seem to be the same proportions -- Chris (??? • ????) (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: This is fine? aliasd·U·T 01:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is beautiful, and fast! Thank you! Chris (??? • ????) (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Clavell

  Resolved
 – Chris (??? • ????) (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Gai-Jin (novel)

Request: lighten for detail and straighten -- Chris (??? • ????) (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:Increased brightness and contrast and rotated ever so slightly. Not sure if it matches the book in real-life... it still looks off-centre of course, but that would be a more involved fix and require more guesswork (assuming that it is even off-centre). ----Seans Potato Business 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a huge improvement, much brighter and better than the previous, please overwrite the original so it shows edit history, thank you so much! Chris (??? • ????) (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done & no problem :) ----Seans Potato Business 02:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screw thread profile

  Resolved
 – Markus Kuhn (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any SVG artists here with an interest in the basics of mechanical engineering? We have currently two images on 60° standard screw threads can could use some improvement:

Article(s):ISO metric screw thread

Request: Problems:

  • SVG file uses arrowheads, which look fine in Inkskape but which Wikipedia currently does not seem to render correctly.
  • diagram shows only the boundary line between an internal and an external thread, not the substance of the nut and bolt to which they belong (the diagram below does that better with shading).
  • unify with image below

Markus Kuhn (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to fix the arrowheads not rendering, all you need do is convert the arrow's stroke to a path (Object Menu/Stroke to Path). --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 18:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

OK, I completely redrew the drawing from scratch. In this version the following changes were made:
  • All lines aligned to the pixel grid (not millimetres, as Wikimedia does not render by the millimetre, leading to blurred lines at half and even at full resolution). In this version, H=320px (which divides by 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 16, 20, 32, 40, 64, 80, 160), and H is then 300 px. The angle is about 61 degress, not 60, however this allows alignment to the pixel grid.
  • The shading is put in to show where the metal is. It is D3D3D3 grey.
  • Fractions like 3/8H is changed to 3H/* to avoid people thinking it is 3/(8H). Unlikely I know, but what is obvious to one man is not necessarily to another.
  • All arrowheads are paths done by hand to avoid any problems.
  • The axis is extended right along the bottom.
What do you think? I'll do the one below now. Inductiveload (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Unified Thread Standard

Request: Problems:

  • GIF
  • writing H1 instead of ⅝H seems unnecessary
  • unify with image above

Both images are really meant to show (almost?) the same thing, and should be unified into a single common design. The only significant difference (if any) is that D and D1 are swapped between the two. ISO screw threads are named after the major (=outermost) diameter of the thread, which is called D. I don't know why the US screw thread diagrams labels the minor diameter with D, this might just be a mistake in the diagram. All other differences are just artists preference and there is no reason why these two images should look any different from each other. Markus Kuhn (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

I'll get these two. Inductiveload (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Yes, these two (ISO and Unified) are identical pictures. They use the same picture here, and when you look at the figures, its exactly the same dimensions. My new plan is to use the diagram I just made above for both, and supplement it with a diagram showing how the internal and external threads can be rounded out. I will change the D's to Dmaj, Dmin and Dp for major, minor and effective pitch diameters. This will make the image impervious to variations in numbering, and can be gradually incorporated into Wikipedia's as people edit the article as the text will have to be altered. I will also reupload it under "ISO and Unified Thread Dimensions.svg" to indicate its usefulness for both kinds of thread. Inductiveload (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Sorry changed my mind again. I've gone with the two-in-one image showing dimensions, and internal and external rounding. The rounding is less pronounced than the UTS .gif above, but I think it is about right to demonstrate the principle without needing its own dimensions. Inductiveload (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, huge improvement. Thanks! Markus Kuhn (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado College map

  Resolved
 – Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Colorado College

Request: Since we're doing the University of Oklahoma map above... the dimensions are at http://www.coloradocollege.edu/welcome/campus_map/ -- Chris (クリス) (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: Yes, we are doing U of OK, but we are not enthused. I don't mind the drawing, but labeling. . . CC doesn't look as bad for that. I did U of OK because I thought it looked bad for the lab to have things sit there for long. I should be getting my backlog of stuff cleared out. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 07:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC) COA of Nepal is moving along well. I'll start on this in a few days, unless someone else wants it. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to do this, maybe send it over to the Greenspun project? I hear they have quite the dilemma - lots of money to spend on images but nothing to draw. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 06:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was kind of hoping to hold out for Greenspun to keep raising the fee until it at least reaches minimum wage: ) Actually Greenspun is not for maps [1] If you want it take, if not, it's next on my list. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 00:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great start, (1) it is Uintah, however. :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ps and (2) Cache La Poudre :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You should expect me not to get Uintah
(2) Pardon my French!

But of course, the French being the most modest and self-deprecating of nations... That's why the kings are all named Louis, it's easy to spell... :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The boundaries were hard to determine, do they look Ok to you?
I have that feeling that I've missed something. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 02:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, perfect, thank you so much! Marking as done! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tooth of Time

  Resolved
 – Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Boy Scouts of America

Request: lighten for detail -- Chris (クリス) (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: Adjusting Brightness/contrast to see the mountain results in a washed out sky. Which can be fixed, although a close examination of the skyline might reveal some flaws. Most of which disappeared with downsampling (3000px to 1500). Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 21:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not getting any feedback from the Scouting project, kind of want to mark this stale. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK by me, from my perspective, it's done. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 02:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way (yes, you've already parted the Red Sea for me, maybe this time gargle peanut butter) that you could use the contrast of the middle image but put the original natural sky back in? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trying another route gives No. 4. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 15:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful! 4 it is! Please overwrite original, and many thanks! We can be done with this one! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Smith

  Resolved
 – Mangwanani (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Ian Smith

Request: Would it be possible to separate the image from the signature and then to create a SVG version of the signature as done with the Mugabe signature? Mangwanani (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: Do you know about copyright in signatures ? I was thinking about nominating the one for Mugabe for deletion, but decided against, as it seemed a bit unkind, just after someone had gone to the effort of vectorising it. I don't know about any special dispositions for copyright on signatures, I'm thinking they are probably copyrighted, but I might be mistaken, unless you know for sure, maybe a little research or a question at WP:COPYRIGHT would be in order, before putting effort into something which might be deleted. Also I see the image is fair-use so making a vector version would not be allowed. (can't make derivatives of copyrighted material) Jackaranga (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you know more about this let us know please, else we may have to look into it further. Jackaranga (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I hadn't thought of that. But the message I got across from Commons was that if you make something then the copyright is yours even if it is entirely an image created by someone else, eg. flags. So if someone created an SVG version of the signature they could claim copyright for it in the same way as flags surely? Thats my current view right or not. Mangwanani (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if that's your logic, you could take a photo copyrighted art (to which the producer of the art has copyright), vectorise it and then hold that the vectorised version is free from the original copyright, but that can't be the case. This is a case for the copyright reference desk. --Seans Potato Business 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sean is probably right for wikipedia, however on the commons I'm thinking it may be accepted as Image:Signature of Robert Mugabe.jpg seems not to be copyrighted, perhaps this one isn't either. Jackaranga (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that the uploader of the image was correct in stating that it is not copyrighted. Signature#Copyright says that it's not possible to copyright signatures in the US but I don't know about other countries. --Seans Potato Business 23:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good, that's exactly the kind of exception I thought might of existed, but I wasn't sure, so I'm guessing it's fine to extract that signature, vectorise it, and upload it as PD ineligible then. Jackaranga (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not sure. While a signature itself cannot be copyrighted, this particular signature forms part of a copyrighted poster and since you would be deriving your SVG from a copyrighted material, that might not be allowed. If the signature was available somewhere else, on its own, then that clearly would be okay, but it's unclear in this case. I suggest taking it to the copyright reference desk. --Seans Potato Business 00:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As signatures are not eligible for copyright, placing one in a poster does not give the publisher a copyright to the signature. It can be used. (Using the U. S. law) Signatures are put in the catagory of simple objects like circles or stars. I have in the past been involved in publishing postcards, and have seen product we order from one printing firm arrive with (c) printing company. Not (c) Sagredo. This was on postcards using photos I had personally taken. We sent them a fairly angry letter (and no more orders.) Copyright symbols can be put anywhere, they're not always valid.
The wiki rules about cropping from fair use images use this analogy. If a painting of roses is used in the article of the author as a example of the author's style, that's fair use. But we are not allowed to crop out a rose to illustrate the article on roses. Unless we come up with someone willing to research Zimbabwean copyright law, I would go by the U. S. law and assume that this signature is the equivalent of a circle or star. We can do with it as we want. If someone wants to claim it violates Zimbabwean law, let them bear the burden of proof, and they can go do the research. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 03:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Analogy. If a book contained a phrase from the U. S. Constitution, and the book was copyrighted, the owner of the copy would not suddenly have gained a copyright to that part of the constitution. Only the remaining part of the book would be covered by the copyright. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 03:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Zimbabwe doesn't really have any laws let alone copyright laws of a signature of a person that the current president would probably describe in a mega-negative way. I should know, I come from there and have met good old Uncle Bob himself. Mangwanani (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're done, at least with the image, the debate will probably never end. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 02:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Resolved

Articel: As linked in the image above

Request: Trim the space around the logo (There's alot of transparent buffering). Also, this looks easy to SVG, but it's not a widely used logo, so I'm hesitant to request it; does anyone thing it would be useful to do so? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: It would be useful to know what font is used... Anyway, what do you think? --escondites 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original font looks exactly like Arial/Helvetica to me. Stannered (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it, but the difference in fonts is obvious: The original "S" is much more curved, and the color appears much blacker. Can you try and trace the letters? Thanx... 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why I don't do more image work on wikipedia. The SVG's that are acceptable here do not support font embedding, so the only solution is to trace outlines, which I'm pretty sure violates font copyright laws in the US (raster is ok, but vector outlines is not). The next thing that comes to mind is that isn't not a good idea to make an SVG out of a non-free image? Seems to go against WP:FUC #3(b).-Andrew c [talk] 04:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The U.S. Copyright Office holds that a bitmapped font is nothing more than a computerized representation of a typeface, and as such is not copyrightable." [2] The above typeface raster is not protected. Only the "font output program" is protected. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 07:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, oh, should you figure out that this is a logo or trademark, it's still free. [3] as nothing in it is copyrightable. [[4]]Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 08:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I last discussed this, but I believe we discovered that encoding the outlines of a font via SVG constitutes a "font output program" which is why there was a movement to make all new Category:Typeface samples png, and to convert the old (which was never completed). If you want, I can try to dig up the conversations which led me to this belief. I could be mistaken. And this issue may be different here because it is just 2 letters, not a whole alphabet.-Andrew c [talk] 15:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you could just output a PNG at stupidly high resolution and then auto-trace it (which will almost invariably produce identical or indistinguishable output from simply rendering the font). The difference with a "font output program" (font file?) is that it includes hinting information that you don't get in any raster/bitmapped version; this information is NOT translated into the SVG. Stannered (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once rasterized it is PD. Period. At any resolution. If a trace to an SVG results in a "font output program," that would be a new "font output program," very different from the original "font output program", and not a violation of the original programs copyright. Once things are PD, they don't go back to being eligible for copyright. "font output program" was the government's term, and I'm sure does refer to the font file. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YWCA

  Resolved
 – Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): YWCA

Request: clean up aging, brighten, perhaps graphically mask out the adhesive holder at the top, trim out, in short, do do that voodoo that you do so well (apologies to Cole Porter) -- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: Here's my humble attempt. --escondites 16:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is beautiful, thank you! May I ask a favor? Would you try one other version, with the full background, just not the white edge? It will show it as being a poster, then we can decide which image would be nicer for the article. Again thank you so much! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? --escondites 18:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cache has not yet purged for me, I will let you know soon. :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful, would you please overwrite the existing image to preserve the image history? Thank you! :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done! --escondites 17:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very blatant SVG

  Resolved

Articels: {{US-company-stub}}

Request: SVGify, using the two stated sources, and maybe remove the whitespace around the edges. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppinion: I've got a couple of ideas I'd like to try. 1 Reversing the icon right to left, so the smoke and flag both indicate the same wind direction. 2 raising up the smoke so it does not go in front of the flag. (Or will this mess up a whole set of icons?) Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 05:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone will complain, especially since it is more compact. If not, I'll let you know and/or try and argue the point with them. Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prosthaphaeretic slide rule

  Resolved
 – IPiAweKid (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
    illustration of prosthaphaeretic slide rule
  •  

Article(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosthaphaeresis

Request: I am no artist and this is my first attempt at a vector image. A more polished and perhaps more realistic replacement may be needed. To make it more realistic, I think the sliding attachment point for the second string (black oval) should instead be represented by a sliding attachment like the cursor on a traditional slide rule, and the bars should have a more detailed (and readable) set of scales. --IPiAweKid (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: Interesting concept. It is mathematically sound. It ought to have spirit level as it would be essential to keep the lower bar level. I suspect that such a device would never approach the 0.2% accuracy that was expected from the traditional slide rule. It of course, still lacks the trig, log, and exponential functions of the good ol' slipstick. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 06:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Very slick illustration. I agree with your assessment about the level. Right angle attachments instead of strings would be very inelegant by comparison. As for accuracy, Sher and Nataro in their paper seemed to be more interested in playing with an interesting invention that technology apparently had skipped over on the way to the logarithmic slide rule.

Seal of Mauretania

  Resolved

Article(s):Many. See image page.

Request:Vectorize. Please and thanks. -- escondites 17:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: Here's my effort at it. If you can find a bigger/better raster version I could add more detail to the tree and vegetation. Will this work? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It looks great! But I didn't find any larger version... Anyway this one is (from now on) the larger version :-) --escondites 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eskom

  Resolved
 – Mangwanani (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Eskom

Request: SVG logo. Thanks Mangwanani (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: EPS is available here. Stannered (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my attempt at it, however, it doesn't generate a thumbnail... wierd. --escondites 10:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saved it as "Plain SVG" in Inkscape, and that did the trick. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 11:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Resolved
 – Mangwanani (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Twin Rivers Primary School

Request: More SVGery. Thanks Mangwanani (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: I'll do this one. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 07:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a URL for the source of this image? I'm hesitant to upload a logo without a source. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 07:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, my school report. Mangwanani (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NC-17

  Resolved
 – 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Article(s): Motion Picture Association of America film rating system

Request: Can someone create an SVG version of this? Should take about 5 seconds for someone with the font ITC Stone Informal Bold. Thanks! -- Stannered (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion:

Awesome, thanks! :-) Stannered (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White House radio broadcast 1937

  Resolved
 – Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Walter W. Head

Request: brighten and contrast -- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: Ok, I did the best I could. I didn't lighten it too much, cause then all the artifacts and grainy details come out. I did try to make it look better, but a better source is definately needed. Btw, please check the copyright details on the pic, I'm not sure I put the right one in. XcepticZP (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, just right, thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emblem of the Arab League

  Resolved
 – --escondites 19:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s):Arab League

Request:Can this be vectorized, perhaps by modifying the slightly different version that can be obtained at the flag of the Arab League? TIA. -- escondites 18:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: Here it is. I also re-did the Arabic text on the flag and both images now have 22 links in the chain that symbolize the current 22 member states. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! But what about the red circle in the seal? --escondites 09:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't figure out what was supposed to be inside the small red oval at the bottom, and a web search shows a fair amount of variation in the elements used in the emblem and flag, so I decided to skip it. If you can show me what's supposed to be in there I'd be happy to add it. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, perhaps it's not necessary, as this page from the Arab league website doesn't show it, so I'll add this one to the article. Thanks again for the image :-) --escondites 19:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Rome

  Resolved
 – escondites 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articels: Rome, among others

Request: SVGification, please :-) --escondites 21:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 

Oppinion: I left a message on the author's talk page, because I don't think anything I could make would measure up. I've disassembled one of his images before. He's very talented. As an aside, it has the wrong copyright. He would be entitled to release this himself. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 05:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we use this? I know that a layer of the crown is pushed slightly to the left, and that one of the 'dots' in the crown is missing. - Some of the misterious errors between Inkscape and Wikipedia's rendering of SVGs..-       19:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks! --escondites 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the blur filter that does it; Wikimedia consistently misrenders blurred objects above and to the left of where they should appear, particularly in scaled-down images. Stannered (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Images_to_improve/Archive/Feb_2008&oldid=190286933"