Giant planes comparison

A while ago an png version of this file was nominated, but failed because there were too many objections to the filetype. Here is an svg version, improved significantly from its predecessor. Authored by Clem Tillier, and appears in Aircraft, Boeing 747, Airbus A380, Hughes H-4 Hercules, Antonov An-225, and List of large aircraft.

• Nominate and support. - - Jack (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I really liked the prior version (had seen it before it was nominated) but understood that png was less desirable than svg. However, now that it's svg, I say it's a wonderful diagram deserving of FP! InvictaHOG 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The text runs into itself on the length captions, and the first width caption. Also, the "m" is cut off on the height captions. --liquidGhoul 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Mediawiki thumbs look ok, but KSVG and Inkscape reveal the problems. Weird. --Dschwen 07:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any of the problems you mentioned. I'm using firefox under XP and in wiki software, none of these problems arise. Is there any way the problems you say exist can be fixed? - Jack (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I have spotted one further problem that does show up to me. Under the word "scale" the image states that 10px = 1m. Even a novice like myself knows that SVG images don't use pixels. This should be removed - Jack (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - some technical problems, as above, plus: In firefox/Mac, the full size doesn't get any text in the wing span! Also, there's a credit line in the right edge, not comme-il-faut for FPs... Fix the problems, and I'll support.--Janke | Talk 05:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative Oppose - for above technical reasons. I myself have never had much luck with fonts in SVG. Can an SVG expert address these problems at some point? I think it may help to embed the used fonts in the file. Debivort 18:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have fixed the scale, and removed license text from the image. Hopefully closer to comme-il-faut, but I have no idea how to fix the fonts. I created it in Inkscape on XP and it renders fine on Firefox/XP. I would appreciate any help from the SVG font gurus out there to make it work across all platforms and viewers. Thanks. --Ctillier 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A further thought: I could convert the fonts to path objects... kind of a crude solution, because it would prevent editing the text (such as for translations), but it would force the correct text rendering. The text is fairly minimalistic and translation needs would probably be limited to the word "scale" and perhaps some commas instead of periods in the numbers.... as in all things in life, it's a trade-off... all opinions welcome. --Ctillier 20:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think on a wiki, ease of editing the text should take priority. Redquark 16:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I've looked into the font problem, and it appears impossible at the moment to have SVGs where text is guaranteed to look exactly the same on all platforms, since SVG fonts are not yet supported by major SVG editors like Inkscape. So unless we resort to the ugly workaround of replacing text with paths or require all FPC nominators to have an array of different computers around to test on, the font problem seems insolvable. We can't start insisting that nominators use SVG and then shoot down the nom when they do because of technical problems associated with the format, so I think the only technical requirement should be that the SVG appears correctly when converted to PNG by Mediawiki. Redquark 17:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks great; if there are technical problems, just upload a PNG copy as an alternative. Fredrik Johansson 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a png version right here, didn't make the grade, though - Jack (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nice image. chowells 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite comprehensive; caption would need links to the articles on planes. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, less cluttered and improved colour over the last version.--Peta 05:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very encyclopedic. Pleasing to the eye. Professional-looking. Mikeo 16:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Why non-existing Boeing 747 Intercontinental listed here ? Was there any flight tests to measure it's actual size ? This seems to be violation of NPOV as it's very pro-American. If used non-existing why not 747-8 Freighter ? Use existing aircraft version and remove wildcard notes. --TAG 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's well-known what size the Intercontinental will be; Boeing has released full statistics on it, and prototypes have been built. There is no particular reason to exclude it from the image. (Also, the Frieghter and the Intercontinental are the same plane; the Intercontinetal will have a different interior as it is a passenger plane, but the exteriors will be identical.) —Cuiviénen 23:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is well-known, what is the reason for wildcard in image ? As well - if we are listing here future aircrafts - how long in future we can look ? BTW, One of original JPG/PNG images was for 747-400. --TAG 00:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The length of the 747-8 is not yet set in stone, and won't be until 2007. I drew the diagram with the same length as the 747-8F, relying on the latest industry news [1], which says the passenger model is all but certain to be the same length as the freight model. I find it amusing that this would pass as pro-American lack of NPOV, when leaving the 747-400 would have led to complaints that I was showing the smaller 747 (anti-American lack of NPOV). Bottom line: I drew this with the best and latest information I could find. --Ctillier 01:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • four largest aircraft ever built ? --TAG 09:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great pic, illustrates the subject very nicely. Tempshill 04:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Giant planes comparison - Updated.svg Raven4x4x 09:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]