File talk:Nuvola apps important.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This image shouldn't be deleted until the replacement SVG file at least resembles this image. At the moment, it's not even using the same colors. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Either keep this image or make the svg replacement look the same. I will not start using a picture that is more awful than the original one just because "the progressive file format". Thanks! --slady 21:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree with slady. -- Reo On 10:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't agree that 'it doesn't resemble the png' is a valid objection. If you don't like it, fix it.. thats the advantage of SVG. ... But since I believe in following my own instructions, I have fixed it. You won't see an update in the history of the SVG due to a bug, but the image has been updated. Please view my comparison of the png and the two SVG versions here. I believe the new SVG version is now close enough to quiet your concerns. If it is not, please provide me with clear and actionable feedback. Saying 'it's not the same' isn't good enough. --Gmaxwell 21:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've unpiped that link. Alphax (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, this is great! One big thank you! :-) --slady 08:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's much better than the old one, but one thing is bothering me: the png image has a bigger border and rounder corners, and I like it more. I'd have changed it if I could deal with svg better. (Gmaxwell, didn't you want to delete en:Image:Nuvola apps important square.svg? I dont like it) --MarianSigler {bla} 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For comparision: PNG: Nuvola apps important.png and SVG: Nuvola apps important.svg
The SVG is really ugly. Don't delete this one, it looks better, plus it is still used on projects and I doubt that anyone would want to replace hundreds of uses. Da Man2 18:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]