File talk:Information icon.svg

message: At the moment the drop shadow on the icon is done using an embedded image. Anyone who knows how might like to use SVG filters to build it directly into the file. El T 16:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This image is now being transcluded in MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext, do not unprotect it, or replace it without discussion, as always forking is fine. — xaosflux Talk 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The image is already on commons. You may add a  for information. --Nk 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was purposefully copied down here so that it could be protected, as en: is using it withing mediawiki pages. — xaosflux Talk 01:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interface use 

message: The former size of this image was about 50 by 50 pixels. It has mistakenly been set to 620 by 620. It makes no difference on pages where the image size has been explicitly set, but where it hasn't, it makes for some rather unfortunate effects (e.g., this old page). It also does not validate.
To edit it, please open the image in a text editor and find the following text at the very beginning:
 <?xml version="1.0" ?>
 <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
 	viewBox="0 0 62 62"
 	width="620" height="620"
 	version="1.0">
 	<defs>
Replace it with:
 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
 <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
 <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
        viewBox="0 0 62 62"
        width="62" height="62"
        version="1.1">
        <defs>
El T 09:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The old size was 62 by 62 pixels, so the enlargement is possibly a typo (and possibly enlargement for ease of editing when the image wasn't reduced again for some reason). By the way, why does your proposed edit request an increase in the version number? --ais523 08:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because I didn't pay enough attention! Thanks, ais523. El T 09:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone else will have to make this edit. I'm unfortunately stuck using a computer running Windows, and it has no editors that can correctly deal both with the line endings and with a copy/paste across from the example. (I'd much rather be using an OS that can deal with such things without problems!) --ais523 09:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've fixed it up further. I'm not sure what I'm getting wrong, but at least in version 1.1 it's validating. El T 10:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done and validates. CMummert · talk 23:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: El T: I set it to 620x620 deliberatly. It shouldn't matter what the intrinsic width and heights are but I was working on Padlock.svg at the time too and that was 51x512 without any problems.I think the pages that don't set the size should be fixed, rather than editing this file. What did you think of the rest of the changes, by the way? — Nicholas (reply) @ 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought the edits were great - the reduction in file size is impressive, and it was good to make the code "more pure", if I can put it in those terms. El T 15:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent, simple edit to this protected image, please 

message: Please add  to the image page.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Information_icon.svg — Jhn* 14:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hut 8.5 21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|ncd}} 

message: Please do the following edit:
- 
+ 
Thank you, multichill (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (X! · talk)  · @021  ·  23:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  date 

message: This file should be tagged as  as it is shadowing an identical-looking and fully upload- and move-protected Commons file.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 00:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  , while this is done, I'm not sure that is the best template - as it suggests that something needs to be done, when in this case enwiki clearly does not WANT to use a commons: copy.  Maybe a new parameter for that template like |keeplocal=yes ? — xaosflux Talk 00:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maaybe. One issue with all kinds of keeplocal is that sometimes the Commons image is improved and the local one is not. Several keeplocal images were deleted and/or are up for deletion in FFD because of that. Further, in this case the Commons file is already protected, so the case for keeplocal is not as strong as in several other files.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't buy that though - as commons doesn't require approval by any other project to unprotect/delete/etc. — xaosflux Talk 11:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, although their protection policy does note widespread use in other projects as a protection reason, and it's done frequently. The template has a keeplocal parameter, too. There was a discussion about "intentional" ShadowsCommons invocations but it didn't come to a conclusion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, well I keeplocal'ed this one - since we use it in the interface enwiki can't rely that commons wont screw something up. — xaosflux Talk 13:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 23 March 2016 

message: Please change  to  to avoid populating :Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  23:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: who asked to have this put on above. — xaosflux Talk 04:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, that category is a maintenance category for files that need to be moved. I looked at the page history and see that before Jo-Jo's edit request, there was no template at all, so  edit request was necessary to place some template. However,  is the template to be used when no action needs to be taken. I invite Jo-Jo to comment though.Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  04:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the reason why I am only tepid about this is that the Commons file is fully protected (move and upload, that is) and used in their own interface too. I don't think Commons admins are more likely to cause a mess than ours are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, we're not discussing whether to use the Commons version, just the specific keep local template. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  10:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please ping me if bringing this to FFD, I oppose using commons: images for the local interface. — xaosflux Talk 20:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood what was being proposed, but that's far too controversial for this edit request. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  21:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So  how about just making the keeplocal parameter for this () not categorize the template?  Optionally, if these should be separate shouldn't that parameter be deprecated? — xaosflux Talk 21:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. That parameter should be deprecated. The usage for  says:
 This template is inserted on a file description page when the following conditions all meet:
    There is a file with the same name on Wikimedia Commons
    The contents of the local file and the Commons file are different
    It is desirable to resolve this naming conflict (i.e. the conflict is not one of the deliberate exceptions)
Keep local is used for cases that don't meet the above requirements. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  21:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 10 December 2016 

message: Why were the old revisions of this file deleted? The reason given by  for the deletion was WP:CSD#G6, but it says nothing about deleting old revisions of files. In its current state, the file description page misleadingly informs that the file was uploaded by Coren in 2008. Upon checking the description at Commons I saw that in fact it had been originally uploaded by  on 24 June 2006. According to the CC License, aren't we required to keep the contributions history of files, too? —capmo (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the history - as this was multi-licensed to the public domain we don't have a copyright issue as attribution is not required for PD; however it doesn't hurt to have it here. — xaosflux Talk 22:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I wasn't aware of this difference between CC and PD, sorry. Thanks for restoring the file history. —capmo (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In general we do maintain attribution for everything, even if someone releases it under PD - just we are not obligated to as it is "free". — xaosflux Talk 00:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old revisions 

message: Add the  template. 41.254.65.39 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 18:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 26 July 2021