User:Penubag/graphics

Past requests in the /archives

Topic medallions

Note that the word "Award" will be added to the name in the award templates for these. So, for example, the Wikipedia World Developer medallion will be presented in the "Wikipedia World Developer Award" template.

Geography

"Wikipedia World Developer"

Culture

("Wikipedia Anthropologist")

("Wikipedia Cultural Analyst")

(not sure what to call this medal)

Art

"Wikipedia Art Connoisseur"

Health

I'll probably use this or a double helix as the image. What do you think?

"Wikipedia Health Nut"

History

"Wikipedia Historian"

Maybe a colonial artillery? -- penubag (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics

This one's ~~almost~~ done, just need the text to go with it.

"Wikipedia Mathematician"

Okay done! Do you notice that I used a different font? GreyKnight sent me the text for the World Developer one but I picked the closest match. How does it look? -- penubag (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. But what is it? :) The Transhumanist 22:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

About the font. The Wikipedia font is better, because then the word "WIKIPEDIA" matches Wikipedia's logo. Do you still have it? The Transhumanist 22:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No I don't have that font, which is why I had to pick a close match in order to edit it. The image is a Morin surface. I was originally going to use some nice polar graphs but none of them quite fit. Do you have any suggestions?-- penubag (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed something. Wikipedia's logo is in all caps. I can't believe I didn't catch this sooner. I'd like to see what the medal would look like with Wikipedia's logo "WIKIPEDIA" on there. (Just the name logo, not the puzzle globe logo). The Transhumanist 22:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. You'd like all caps on the medallion's "Wikipedia"? I don't have the exact font used for Wikipedia's but I could make it look similar. I'll come up with something and show you. -- penubag (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Check the Meta thinker medallion, I've used all caps. Do you like it? -- penubag (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The all caps looks closer to the logo, so lets go with that. The Transhumanist 22:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The numerals clutter it up. Please remove them. The Transhumanist 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that will be easy. I'll make the change once you obtain the font. -- penubag (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Natural science

I'm thinking maybe Saturn or a double helix.

"Wikipedia Naturalist"

People

Jesus? :) ... or a cromagnon ... or a transhumanist!

transhumanists look almost exactly like normal humans (they differ primarily in outlook, and hopefully are healthier looking. Other than that, they are the same as everybody else). Once they transform, they are no longer transhuman, but posthuman. And the first posthuman might be a cyborg, or a brain in a jar. So... no.

It was a joke ;) -- penubag (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

how about a group of people standing together in a crowd?

That might be good for Society -- penubag (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

("Wikipedia People Person")

(not sure what to call this medal)

Self

"Wikipedia Self-development Guru"

Philosophy

Maybe Socrates for thought or philosophy?

Not sure yet.

"Wikipedia Philosopher"

Thought

Newton's apple

How about this (just the statue, without the pedestal: 200px

The image is quite large, and so it should be pretty easy to extract the statue and maintain good resolution.

"Wikipedia Metathinker"

Okay I finished Meta thinker. How's the all caps text? I'm also done with the religions medallion, but I need the text. -- penubag (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Knowlege is power". I like it. Nice touch.

Meta is a prefix, as in metaphilosophy, metaphysics, and metadata. Metathinker is a person who thinks about thought. :) It's a single word.

The all caps looks closer to Wikipedia's logo. Though we should try to track down the font used on the logo itself. Unfortunately, Grey Knight hasn't logged on since July '08. :( You keep working on the medallions (they are shaping up nicely), and let me worry about the font. If the font turns up later, the current words can be easily replaced, right?

The Thinker looks like he's painted on there, rather than embossed. Can you fix that?

The Transhumanist 22:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I knew that about meta ;p ...

That's one thing about putting an image on the coin rather than a silhouette, I'm not exactly sure how to combat this but I'll figure something out. -- penubag (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Belief Systems

something like this [1]

I don't have .com access today. Will look at it soon though.

I found a proxy server to look at it through. They have a tool for just about everything, don't they? :) Damn, it really works. It even bypasses porn filters.

"Coexist?" The symbols are good, but the word doesn't fit our purposes.

How about a modification of this:

but remove the Cross pattée and the Ayyavazhi,

and add this:

and this:

and replace the Yin Yang with this version (rotated), and put it in the center (it means balance, after all):

and position all the other symbols around it, in a circular (rather than square) fashion.

and adjust the size of the symbols so they fit together better. Some seem a little larger than the rest.

I don't have a clue what to call this medal. I'll let it stew.

By the way, the descriptions of File:Religious symbols.svg is excellent, as it identifies each symbol and provides a wikipedia link for each one. Our image should do the same.

The Transhumanist 19:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, bypassing porn filters are the most important. Alright, finished this one. Just need text. -- penubag (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What about ("Wikipedia Religion Sage")? -- penubag (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I proceeded with all caps Wikipedia and with "Religion sage" since I haven't heard a reply. I hope you like them. -- penubag (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice. We may need to tweak the various medallions once the whole set is roughed out (to make them match better, etc.) The Transhumanist 22:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

On a random note about proxies, if you type .6a.nl after the address domain (www.example.org.6a.nl/subpage), you should bypass the filter as well. I've found this to be quicker than going to a proxy site to enter in the URL. One thing about this is that it doesn't have a 100% success rate but always worth a try. -- penubag (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Spirituality

What about a person meditating ?-- penubag (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

But you can practice yoga without believing in the spiritual, right? The Transhumanist 21:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Then how about a galloping mustang and a soaring eagle, similar to those Native American arts? -- penubag (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Society

Social Science

"Wikipedia Social Scientist"

Technology

Maybe circuitry

Maybe this:

(a skyline, not necessarily that one)

or this:

Or all of 'em.

What about this one:

Let's keep looking. The Transhumanist 22:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Lightbulb? -- penubag (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Technology Buff"

WP:OOK page redesign

The page Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge is amateurish. It doesn't even look like an outline.

Let's redesign it, from scratch.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/OOK redesign

Somewhere along the way, we'll determine how to approach its installation (as a new page/system?, or replace the current page via proposal at WP:VPR?, or who knows what else?).

It's got to look professional (not cartoony), and be as easy to browse and use as we can make it. Other than that...

No assumptions. Nothing on the redesigned page has to be the same as the current version, and I'd prefer that everything be different, except of course that the outlines will be listed on there (that's the purpose of the page), and editable. How they are listed, categorized, ordered, arranged, etc. is completely up in the air. As is all other elements. We need new sections with new headings (or none at all), a new menu (or none at all), a new navbar (or none at all), new colors (or none), new section/branch names, etc. etc. etc. Even how it hooks into the encyclopedia, and how it relates to the other navigation systems, is subject to revision.

We may even decide that what we want isn't achievable with wiki-code, and seek out MediaWiki's software developers and/or script writers.

But before we start...

We need to take at least a month to look around and bounce ideas off each other...

For design concepts, the other language wikipedias are a good place to look (since their page code usually works here just fine), and the web in general. But the most interesting direction to look in my opinion is at outliners - they define the state-of-the-art in outline viewing and manipulation (editing outlines can be more like data-processing than word-processing).

I don't plan to publicize this during its early stages. We don't want to be hemmed in by convention while brainstorming.

So...

Are you up for this?

The Transhumanist 00:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like fun to me! I'm in. ..although I was in the middle of working on the contest page (which I hadn't planned on showing until it was more presentable) but I can see which is a priority.

So, we're going to aim for usability and professionality. I'll think of something over the next few days and tell you. I highly doubt that we'll see any help from the developers without strong consensus and the scripts readily available won't do what you have in mind (unless it's automated bots but that wouldn't be very practical). As I said earlier, I'd love to get links to outlines in article table of contents once we have plenty of outlines but I'm skeptical the developers would do even that.

I'll look around and think of ideas and jot them here when they come. -- penubag (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have time, continue work on the contest too. We need to wear more than one hat, including that of recruiter.

To get outliner-type viewing features, it might be possible by having someone write a new script (I think the author of WikEd would be capable of doing this), or find a programmer to create a Fire-fox add-on, or make a proposal at WP:VPR to get the attention of developers - or present a case to them directly, etc.

Programming isn't that difficult - it isn't any more technical than the graphics we've worked on. I'm looking into it.

The Transhumanist 20:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC

The OOK and its pages aren't in conventional outline format. And that's one of the sources of reader/editor confusion. We're calling them outlines because they include a hierarchical organization scheme, but conventionally, outlines are a type of tree structure. That is, "outline" is the name of a format, and we've been using the term very loosely. Columnization for instance, isn't a typical feature of outlines. Britannica also columnizes long branches, so we aren't out of order or anything, but Brit did it to save on paper. We don't have to worry about that problem.

So, you plan on having that page in OOK format. Okay.

I think having 2 columns are a great way to save space. Even though that's not our focus, there is a lot of other usability you gain from that. Which would you be comfortable looking at, a page that's about 10 pages long with a bunch of whitespace and margins, or a streamlined page that's only 5 pages long? This of course has to be done in a way so there's not too much clutter, like enough cell spacing. I don't have much time today so I'll get a mockup hopefully by the end of the week, if not, then monday. -- penubag (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you have in mind for the script, could you tell me? I'll have the page draft by the end of the week (today and tomorrow I don't have much time). Currently I'm thinking sections for each topic, like what we have now, but a lot more organized and professional looking. Topics that have a lot of material, like geography, will have vertical cells for each subtopic like continents. There will be nice cell-background images to help with visualization and so it looks nice/professional. I'll make it the best I believe it could be and you tell me what to change from there, or to start over (which is fine) I'll leave all lines open for ideas and stuff while developing and also, edit the page at will, at anytime so I can give you feedback as well. -- penubag (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:WikEd is a script. I was thinking about a script that was an outliner, which would parse and display Wikipedia outlines like outliners do, and also do so in edit mode while providing outline processing commands. Maybe call it WP:WikOutliner.

Pages are parsed (the outliner reads the format and figures out where each node begins and ends), and then displayed in the outliner's format, which is usually a formal outline format, that is, an indented list using outline numbering (I.A.1.a.i...). Outline numbering is automatically applied, and is not included in the file itself.

Outline display in outliners is dynamic. That is, the user changes the display from moment to moment based on how he wants to look at the screen right now, which depends on what he's looking at. He may collapse and expand the tree structure, collapse and expand nodes (sometimes they are more than one line, like the lead paragraph - collapsing truncates the view of that to the first line), etc. An outline user (like me) alters the display often and naturally as an extension of the direction key set (ctrl-arrow keys, etc.). Some outliners allow you to do this from the mouse buttons.

The OOK page and outlines are displayed statically. Altering the current page layout is our immediate option, because a script or programming solution is more involved.

But you need to familiarize yourself with outliner jargon and approaches, because your description above isn't very outliney. :)

I'd like to integrate the "headings" into the tree structure of the outline. Outlines generally don't have headings. Well that's not exactly true. In an outline, each node is the de facto heading for all nodes below it in its branch.

Concerning the OOK page, the headings we've been using would be removed and inserted into the outline like this:

Heading
 item
 item
Heading
 item
  item
 item
  item
  item
  item
Heading
 item
 item
 etc.

Just nodes in the outline (which allows them to be linkified).

{{anchor}} could be used to support a table of contents at the top of the page (it acts like wiki headings).

The Transhumanist 19:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh, you're talking about that kind of script. Because you were talking about page layout, I thought you were talking about a page layout script (which would be a lot harder to make and get across). If you can get WikiEd quality for an outliner than that would be fantastic. I can experiment with making Wikimedia automatically insert predetermined text into the text field by clicking a link(s) that can be added into monobook. That would save you the step of subst the outline generator and the step of explaining to everyone how to subst. Though this would be limited to just that function, would you be interested in it until you get your hands on a proper scripter? If worst comes to worst I can create a little monobook gadget that would place links on your setup that would auto subst different outline generators (such as the county one) .-- penubag (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The solution I dream about is program-based (browser, browser add-on, integrated features of mediawiki, monobook script, etc. - any of those could accomplish it).

Until then, we're stuck with static page layout, which I see you've already started below. :)

The Transhumanist 02:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

concepts draft

I have a little bit on Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/OOK redesign, though no where near complete, The concepts here that I like are the background images and the 2 space-saving columns. I still have to think about outlines like geography that are bigger, but I'm currently thinking sub boxes. I know on words it sounds sloppy but I will try to do this in a way that isn't. -- penubag (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Good first try. Provides a starting point for feedback...

I like the 2-column idea. Prevents a lot of whitespace when using indented outline format.

On this particular terminal I'm on (using IE), the page goes off the right side of the screen.

"Culture" is listed twice.

In a pure outline (which we're trying to convert to here), there is no need for {{main}} notes. Those should be items in the hierarchical structure of the outline itself.

More to come...

The Transhumanist 02:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: I'm going to jump in there and see what I can do. :)

More thoughts...

Playing around with it helped me notice some more things.

I'm not sure we can make fixed boxes work. There's lots of empty space in the Health box, and History runs out and hides below its box bottom. Also, the outline is continually growing, so if we have fixed boxes, we'll be forever adjusting them. We may have to lose the horizontal borders that cut and restart the columns, and go with 2 full-length columns.

I just tried a horizontal line using four dashes, and that seems to work. We could place that between major branches (geog, hist, etc.). These lines won't line up between the columns, but the branches aren't the same length anyways.

The images. I like the inclusion of images. But maybe they should match better. That is, rather than mixing drawings and symbols and pictures, have them all the same type. I like the picture (is that Napoleon?) the best, so maybe we can go with all pictures?

Can you fade out the images so they have more transparency? To make the words easier to read.

I'm not sure what the policy on background images is. We'll have to look that up.

Well, that's all for now. (I've got an incoming message).

The Transhumanist 03:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts (pre-coffee, 'scuse my terseness). The width needs to be flexible; whilst small/old monitors are less prolific, tiny palmtops and netbooks are surging; always make designs that can be reduced in scale accessibly. 800x600 is still a good target.

If images are used, they need to be clickable so that the license info can be accessed; they also need to not be behind any text (readability/accessibility issues). Personally, I'm not a fan of images that aren't directly relevant (eg what does this tiny house icon have do with the social sciences?!). We can't risk confusing people ({{globalize}} etc) or alienating people by using a divisive aesthetic.

Ow. Coffee, flail towards.... -- Quiddity (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll be much more selective on the images this time. -- penubag (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your replies, it brings into scope a lot of things...

Sorry I have to say this but @#$%^&* Internet Explorer!! It can't render damn! It looks like I'm going to have to ditch a lot of neat things like background images, which might be a good thing like Quiddity says. I was trying to get the cells to auto size but that's no longer a problem since I can't use background images. I'll have another draft soon. -- penubag (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I solved the opacity problem for Internet Explorer. Browsershots can't seem to load the page and I've only tested it in IE7. Can you verify that the images are transparent in IE6 or lower? -- penubag (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the code for the redesign page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/OOK redesign/sandboxing. It is now possible to have the boxes fit the text and the boxes automatically resize the width to accommodate for small monitors. The images are transparent in all browsers (including IE) and can be moved around within their box without the need of resizing the content box or having a fixed size since that is done automatically now (much better). If you have access to Internet Explorer 6 or lower can you verify this? -- penubag (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

update: Rolled out many updates (self-sizing boxes for both height and width, fully operational opacity in Internet Explorer, compatible in small monitors, code clean up, better anchors and TOC) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/OOK redesign. Opinions? -- penubag (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the boxes, when clicking on the TOC links. eg, if I click "food and drink", then the "Culture" header and subheader both get moved up and out of visibility. In firefox. (can take screenshot, if you can't replicate)

(I only have firefox and opera installed in linux).

And just to grumble again, I'm never going to be a supporter of images. Eg. A ballet dancer is only related to one of those links, the pair of dice is unrelated to many fields of mathematics, and Napoleon is just a fruit bat. Plus, I like Wikipedia's age-old aesthetic of simplistic minimalism. KISS, and such.

I can semi-understand why TT thinks a redesign might be helpful, but I think patterning it after a more traditional outline, such as the propaedia itself, or List of academic disciplines, would make more sense. And at this point, it's the state of the actual outlines themselves that need the most work, not this index (which isn't really "broken", so doesn't require fixing).

Anyway, I'll try to keep out of it from here-on (and might unwatchlist) so that you can both brainstorm in peace. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't notice that problem before. (grumble...) It seems to be a problem with the {{anchor}} template since I just tried inserting a section header and there wasn't any problem. I don't have a clue how to fix this but I'll try playing with it more.

I agree that the images are not good for representing the entire subject but better as quick guides as to what is being looked at. This is helpful because it could be difficult figuring out and visualizing what is being looked at. For example, when I get around to getting the humongous countries section on the page, it will be a hard finding what is being looked at. For each country section, if a little image of a map with the country is highlighted (like the US) it will be a lot easier visualizing all the individual territories/states of the country. The opacity will be low enough so if they are a bother, they can be ignored. So yes, Napoleon may be a fruit bat, but it helps in the overall feeling of what that section is about. -- penubag (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Quiddity, no need to unwatchlist. Your input is valuable feedback.

Penubag, you need to become familiar with outliners - the type of program designed for viewing and editing outlines. Only then will you truly understand the full potential of outlines and why we need to look into software/programming solutions.

The Transhumanist 02:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OOK barnstars

Sorry these aren't very good, I just didn't have any ideas:

idea

One possibility is staring us right in the face, in the edit window: each line of bulleted outlines in the edit window start with a star (asterisk).

So in the image (see below), use barnstars instead of asterisks. Make them big enough so we can work with them - we can always shrink the whole image down when we use it.

*__________
  *_________
      *________
      *________
*__________
  *_________

And use ghost print instead of the lines if you can.

The Transhumanist 20:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I originally had an outline overlayed on the white one above but it looked wiered. But maybe this will be better. BTW, what's ghost print? -- penubag (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum, but faded a bit (to make it harder to read). The Transhumanist 20:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could whip out great art like you. Here's some feedback for you. I was visualizing...

One line of text for each star
The text being transparent (faded), rather than faded out (how about both? Try a little more transparency)
The stars a just a little bigger than the text (a couple font sizes bigger)

Sorry for the ambiguity in my initial description. The Transhumanist 22:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. More ideas, what about blurring the text instead? What do you mean by "just a little bigger"? Should I make the stars just a little bigger, or make them smaller so they are just a little bigger than the text? -- penubag (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

more

Oh well, I've got to go. Here's what I've got so far:

and just for kicks, since I thought it was kind of plain:

whatever :) -- penubag (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

More, still...

Can't say much; it's already fantastic, but the background colour for the whole...box(?) doesn't suit the medal-look-alike barnstar. I'll see what colours match it, if I have the time, and post it here. Zacharycrimsonwolf 07:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)