File talk:Ambox content.png

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the talk pages of the default images for {{ambox}}, {{tmbox}}, {{imbox}}, {{cmbox}} and {{ombox}} have been redirected here.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Vector version available

{{editprotected}}

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

I assume you mean these SVG images: Image:Emblem-important.svg

, Image:Ambox important.svg

and Image:Ambox Content.svg

. For comparison here is the PNG: Image:Imbox content.png

. It seems Image:Ambox Content.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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]