Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/Jul 2016

Coat of arms of the Lithuanian parliament

 * Article(s):
 * Coat of arms of Lithuania


 * Request:
 * Can someone please vectorise the coat of arms of the Lithuanian parliament? You can use the other two files for reference. Thanks in advance. --109.79.184.59 (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Graphist opinion(s):
 * ✅ - FOX 52 (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - FOX 52 (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It's perfect except for one thing. The right side of the shield has a bend near the unicorn's hoof. Can you please fix that? --109.77.228.90 (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK shield dent is fixed FOX 52 (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Diagrams and graphs in the thorium article

 * Article(s):
 * Thorium (and a few others)


 * Request:
 * In preparation for FAC for the thorium article (hopefully in the near future), please vectorise all the diagrams and graphs in the article (listed above). Thanks in advance! -- Double sharp (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Also, vectorising File:Uranium reactions.png (analogous to the first one, but used for the uranium article) would be greatly appreciated too! Double sharp (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

✅ -- Offnfopt (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Graphist opinion(s):
 * Thank you so much! It is perfect except that the pentagonal rings in the diagram (Thorium half sandwich) ought to be regular pentagons (with the O's replacing one of the vertices each). Also, Wikipedia MOS seems to suggest Arial for chemical structural diagrams, so we should probably change that. Otherwise, it's perfect! Double sharp (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made the above changes. Offnfopt (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I should have made it clear that it's "Cl" (capital C, lowercase l), not C1. Otherwise, there are no more problems. Double sharp (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Offnfopt (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Double sharp (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Redraw heraldic tressure

 * Article(s):


 * Request: I am working on re-doing the Royal Standards of the United Kingdom, but I need some help. Can someone please re-draw the tressure from the Scottish Lion Rampant flag to fit the 1:2 ratio needed? I don't know how to draw the fleur-de-lys elements into the rectangles. The yellow background is 500px by 250px, with the tressure -10 of that in both height and length including the black stroke for a border, so it would be 490px by 240px. I am hoping to have the tressure completely re-drawn to fix some symmetry and positioning issues, and would be very, very thankful.  Fry1989 eh? 00:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Graphist opinion(s):
 * can you point to an SVG file containing a stand-alone fleur-de-lys with suitable detail? ‘Stealing’ a good example to incorporate into the tressure could save some time, in case a new redrawing doesn‘t turn out the way you expect. Proportions are easy to tweak if all the structure is there; the existing ones are pretty rudimentary. Or do you just need the present fleurs-de-lys repositioned along the rectangles, once the latter are resized?—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  01:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at it, revert if it doesn't suite your needs. Offnfopt (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for your efforts, but respectfully there are still some minor issues with symmetry. I did some searching this morning and I think I may have found what we need. File:Pieza - trechor doble floreado contrafloreado.svg has the fluer-de-lys separate instead of part of the border.  Fry1989  eh? 16:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, those are more detailed and will be quite easy to work with. Are you happy with the the thickness of the rectangles in the above, relative to the overall size?—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  16:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes the size and thickness of the rectangles is fine with me. It's really the fleur-de-lys that need fixing as well as any symmetry. Thank you so much.  Fry1989 eh? 18:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I‘ve uploaded a redrawn version. I made the black outlines thinner and ‘purified’ the colours a bit. The position of the ‘intermediate’ (inward-facing) lilies along the top and bottom edges is geometrically midway between the centre of the gap between the rectangles on the corresponding edge and the centre of the banner, but might not appear ‘perceptually’ centred; let me know if that—or anything else–needs tweaking. (The previous outer rectangle was actually a bit thicker than the inner for some reason, but I standardized them and the gap between them to 5 units each.)—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  22:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much. I do hate to be picky, but there are a few minor changes needed. The 3 petals of the lily should be joined, and the bottom part needs to be a little more bent outwards, as we can see from and . But it is up to you if you want to work on that or not. I think I may be able to do it myself now that the lilies are separate from the rectangles. Again I really am thankful.  Fry1989  eh? 23:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. It’s a little hard for me to tell from the photos: by “bent outwards” do you mean with wider arches between the petals, a little more like the previous version? Or are you referring to the ‘tied-up’ ends on the other side, flaring & curving the points more to each side? The fleurs-de-lys are actually joined-up behind the border, so that should just be a matter of shortening the gaps so the joined pieces show a bit on the inside or outside.—Odysseus 1 4 7 ' 9  23:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to ping; I‘m proceeding on the interpretation I didn’t just strike out, if that makes any sense.—Odysseus 1 4 7 ' 9  00:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you. Just joining the petals will be fine, and then I can do the rest and and the lion and complete my overhaul of the British royal standards :) Thank you so much.  Fry1989 eh? 01:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I’ve uploaded another version. Both ends of the fleurs-de-lys have been modified. Can you work with that?—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  02:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, thank you :) I can do the rest. This is wonderful.  Fry1989 eh? 15:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers retired number files

 * Article(s):
 * List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers


 * Request:
 * The retired number "92" image has a slightly different color green background than the other retired number images (see no. 66 for example of proper color). Could a graphist change the "92" background to the same color green as the "66" file? Also, could you create a file for number "5" (i.e. a white "5" with green background in the same font style as the other)? See the number "4" for an example of a single digit file. Thank you for any help you can provide!  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  23:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Graphist opinion(s):


 * ✅ - FOX 52 (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  22:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Tanganyika

 * Article(s):
 * Flag of Tanganyika Territory


 * Request:
 * Can a copy of the flag be made with it as a blue ensign and the white disk removed from behind the giraffe to create the Tanganyikan blue ensign similar to the one here please?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

✅ - Offnfopt (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Graphist opinion(s):

Access locks (potentially extremely high use image)

 * Article(s):
 * These will possibly be used in citations to indicate which source are free to read, and which aren't. An alternate design might be chosen, but this one currently seems to be gaining traction.


 * Request:
 * Because these icons will be small (around Lock-green.svg), we need to make sure these icons use the space as efficiently as possible. To do so, if someone could

that would go a long way to make these icons as reader friendly as possible. Thanks in advance. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC) ✅ Offnfopt (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Make sure no invisible borders are present (e.g. that if the image size is 640 x 1000, then the locks should be scaled up so that green coloured part spans 640 x 1000.)
 * 2) Make sure the shackles of each locks follow the same 'path', i.e. if you superimpose the locks, they should all overlap perfectly (minus the part of the shackle which isn't there) and that this path is centered on the body.
 * 3) Make sure the yellow shackle is symmetrical (that the dashes have left-right distribution symmetry)
 * Graphist opinion(s):


 * Absolutely wonderful! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice, if you zoom in a lot on the yellow, that the shackle has a tiny part of a dash showing sticking out of the body on the right. Might be easier to tweak if the dashes started on both sides of the body, rather than start with a gap. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I went off for lunch, came back, made another change before I saw your reply, see if the dash change suits you. Offnfopt (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks perfect by me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Clean up

 * Article(s):
 * columbia university


 * Request:
 * Please clean up the seal... new beginner here! You'll be able to tell what's wrong with it by looking at it! thanks, -- 🎓 Corkythe hornetfan  🎓 06:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Graphist opinion(s):

Interference theory

 * Article(s):
 * Decay theory


 * Request:
 * A class project created Decaycorrect.jpg and File:Interferencecorrect.jpg, but the latter was deleted because an acceptable copyright license wasn't declared. As an admin, I can see the deleted file; it's the same as Decaycorrect.jpg, but the title says "If Interference Theory is Correct" and the red line is different.  Instead of going from (0,100) to (12,80), it goes from (0,100) to (12,0), as the blue line does.  Both of these would probably be better off as an SVG, and if we're doing that, "Is" should be capitalized in the titles. Restoring this will make the article a lot more clear; thanks! -- Beland (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Graphist opinion(s):


 * Is this what you had in mind? Snubcube (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)