Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stepshep (talk | contribs) at 23:27, 20 September 2008 (→‎The non-free bot (BJBot): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Note about Friendly IPs

An originality of the Graphic lab is that 2 friendly IP frequently contribute here :

  • 68.39.174.238, IP from Newjersey : don't want an account.
  • 220.135.4.212 (new appart): IP from Taiwan, old wikigraphist, use IP because currently in strike and wikibreak -___-. —Preceding comment was added at 14:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Help : I look for a good software...

[Note: This talk section was started elsewhere on a now-defunct page. I moved the talk here. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

We already made a page introducing most use sofwares, all free, on Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Software where links are display to download them.

fr:Wikipedia:Atelier graphique/FAQ_SVG

Or, if you are allergic to choices: GIMP and Inkscape. Viola! Dhatfield (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help : I don't understand the graphics workflow

[Note: This talk section was started elsewhere on a now-defunct page. I moved the talk here. I also left a note at User talk:Thepixelator. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]

I have been reading about your need for people who are able to process photos and diagrams and would like to offer my skills. I've looked at the 'images to improve' page and still can't see how the work-flow is supposed to work. There are instructions for people to request an image edit but I can't see how a prospective artist can 'sign up' for doing a specific job. If I just download and edit an image, then upload it to the commons, how does the system know about it? Surely you don't want people to overwrite files? is there a version control system to recover from someone corrupting a graphic? What is to stop multiple people working on the same image? or for that matter a whole series of people tweaking the same image - possibly making it worse? What exactly does 'Stale' mean - does it imply that a particular graphic artist is stumpped? if so, is that a green light for anybody else to have a go? Please can somebody direct me to a tutorial with step by step instructions on how to sign up for a job, the correct way to download the image and the mechanism for linking the edited file with the original article. I've looked in vain for any pages which explain this. I am keen to help but am frustrated by the user hostile interface! If such information exists, then perhaps it would be a good idea for a link to be provided on the 'images to improve' page. I was directed to the 'images to improve' page in the hope that I could begin work immediately but I'm afraid I've hit a brick wall. I wonder how many other graphics specialists have been turned away from helping for the want of a well written tutorial.Thepixelator (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm kinda n00b to this Graphist thang myself (but not WP), so I'll explain the process. Download image, fix, upload to overwrite existing using DerivativeFX on Wikimedia if you can, or overwrite on WP and hope Lokal_Profil fixes the mess you made of the licensing - or that's what I do :)
Why?
  1. It seldom happens that two people work on the same image at the same time, but it occasionally happens. No biggie - then the originator gets to pick the better one. If you are concerned about this, leave a note under Graphists Opinion that you are "on it" - many people do it as a courtesy.
  2. Every overwrite of an image leaves the original image intact as a possible revert (in case of vandalism or incompetence), or anyone can link to the original image if they prefer it. No data is actually overwritten - this also puzzled me, but there it is. However, on the assumption that your new version is better than the old one, the new one gets put on all of the pages that reference that file (at least on your next browser cache clear - Shift-F5 in Firefox). So people don't have to be informed that there is a new image if it's the same format, they just get it automagically. For a raster to vector conversion, the linking pages have to be changed, but the originator normally does that.
Other questions:
Download the image by clicking on it and then look for the 'full resolution' link at the bottom of the page. Right click, save, fix.
Stale means that it hasn't been done in a while and is normally a prompt for the originator to do something eg. provide better source or a .pdf version. Of course, it can apply to really tough jobs that nobody has the energy to tackle.
Only other advice I can give is: have fun, be polite and Don't Feed the Trolls. If you've got any other questions, ask away. Dhatfield (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages of Graphic Lab

Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Graphic Lab lists all the subpages of Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. I would like to put a list of some of the subpages on the main page: Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. We can then ask illustrators to start writing more subpages with short explanations of how they create or improve various images.

There are similar subpage lists on the main pages of some WikiProjects. See:

I don't want to list talk archives, requests, or most transclusion templates. I think we need a subpage subdirectory for resources such as tutorials, software, advice, project maps, free image sources, news, research, development, links, etc.. One possible subdirectory to create might be this one:

Then we could easily find all the most useful subpages with this search:

Here are some resource-related subpages:

They could be moved to:

I think these WikiProject Maps subpages linked below should be moved or copied to our resource subpages. They can then be rewritten and used as tutorials for conversion of all PDF images, not just maps. These pages were developed from discussions at the Graphics Lab image workshop.

Please reply with links to more resource-related subpages of Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. I looked at most of the relevant subpages of Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. I may have missed some resource-related subpages.

Category:Graphic Lab lists some of the relevant subpages too. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Project map; it's a bit redundant now and I think is'nt well known. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 12:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I listed it in the above list. It is good as an overall project breakdown. But it is not really good as a focussed resource list for editors who want to jump in and start learning and helping in the Graphic Lab. It contains a lot of internal organization stuff like archives and templates. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a VERY good idea, far better than splitting things up here. If these get more people to come and stick around, things shouldn't go stale as much. I'll check the prefix list for other pages in a sec... 68.39.174.238 (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. Some right-side infoboxes on all the resource pages might tie things together and help people to stick around, go deeper, stay interested, network, and keep learning. For example: Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/languages. See also Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Related_projects. It would be nice if this list below was made into a right-side infobox too:
Related projects
Are there any more infoboxes that could be used on the resource pages? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WikipediA has other projects to create and use well-planned images::

WikiProject Maps
WikiProject Photography
WikiProject Illustration

WikiProject Free images
Like that (Obviously, replace the replace the example images with similar iconic explanations as in the Language box)? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) If there is no objection I am going to move the list of resource pages to the new names in a few days. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea about cleaning up the prefixindex: Back when the lab started, requests had individual sub-pages. Should those archives be migrated to the current system? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found some request archives in the request subdirectory. I don't think they should be moved to the resource subdirectory though. I found some requests in Category:Image requests to be listed/processed, and I also found requests with this search: Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve/request. Maybe there should be an overall page explaining the request archives. That overall page might be put in the resource directory. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean merging them into the monthly archives, possibly at the same time the archives are moved to the new page name (See Dycebot, above). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am for letting others handle the archive moves since they have bots to help them. I can change the names of the dozen or so resource pages myself in a couple minutes. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I moved the pages that were previously discussed to the Resources directory. Please see Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources. Feel free to edit that page. See also:

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources

Stale/Archival

There is still more work to do. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coming in late here, but all of this feels like a huge amount of unnecessary project bloat. There aren't anywhere near enough submissions, or contributors, at present to justify multiple sub-pages. For what it's worth, in my view Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop should be the main and primary page, with any resource stuff linked off talk. Just thinking about trying to wade through all of the above pages makes my head spin. Debate 木 11:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create any of these pages. So any bloat that exists predates my involvement. Also, there are no more subpages than before I got involved. I only consolidated resource subpages to one subdirectory. At least now people can easily find them, and do whatever they want with them. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if inadvertantly gave the impression that you were somehow responsible. I very much appreciate your attempt to cataloge a lot of the existing material that clearly predates the both of us. :) Debate 木 07:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the "Howto" pages are useful. They should be mentioned somewhere and maybe they'll get "kept-up". Also, if people can use them to do really simple tasks, that'll save us some trouble. Having said that, alot of the pages ARE useless. "Graphist abilities" predates me and is horrendously out of date. Maybe you could come up with a list of pages that should be kept, and the rest MfD'd? Obviously:
  • Main page
  • IW
  • IW archives
  • This talk page

Beyond that, it's a gray area. I wouldn't mind purging the prefix index of some stuff. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the moment it seems that User:Tkgd2007 is running with a redesign, and I wouldn't want to duplicate work already done, however if that is now stale I'd willingly have a go at drafting a possible reorganisation based on WP:KISS. Debate 木 02:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should try, at least somewhat (If it's not too hard), so we can see possibly 2 different ideas for the project organization and pages. We may end up going with a combination of both... 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are they done or not?

Is it just me or... are lot of requests that appear to be done, and have no objections (or replies @ all) from their poster, are sitting around? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a chronic problem - the illustrators aren't the only ones who wander off after a while :) I think illustrators should have the freedom to mark requests as resolved - they'd be sure to hear about it from the requestor if they weren't. That's my feeling and I've done it a couple of times without problems. Dhatfield (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think, if the requester has clearly stated their satisfied (Replied with "Perfect" or "Done" or something, marked the original image superseded, etc.) and a request on their talk page doesn't get a response, they could be marked as done by the illustrator with a note (EG. "{{Resolved}}, assumed done by illustrator because [...]"). The only problem is with requests like the "Many flags" ones where we can't easily tell if they're all "done to satisfaction". 68.39.174.238 (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that so much of the onus for ensuring that things are done should be placed on the illustrator. They put in hours voluntarily making images, is it really necessary to make them place notes on others pages, follow up & jump through hoops? It is in the requesters interest that their image is done and good illustrators are not famous for being good administrators :) Dhatfield (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that hard to drop a comment on a talk page like "Could you look @ the your request on the graphics lab and comment if it's done?" something like dropping a note on the uploaders page before IfDing something — Nothing exhaustive or drawn out. Ideally, after the 1st time, the requester in question would know to not do that again. Truly persistent forgetters might be explicitly told that. Also, there's no requirement that it be the illustrator; I've dropped reminders a few time's and I've never drawn anything (obviously). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like you did for me, erm, I think. IP confusion :) Much appreciated. Dhatfield (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, whether something is marked done or not, and by who, is immaterial. It's simply a way for the project to easily identify open requests. If the work is obviously complete but the original requester hasn't responded simply mark the project done or stale as appropriate and if warranted update the relevant article/s with the new image/s yourself. Debate 木 11:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That fits with WP:Be bold to me. Dhatfield (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing that. I'm still not certain about the massive flag requests where 7 are done but one is outstanding. Is that done or stale? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the stale tag simply indicates that there remains work to be done, so it would be stale overall. In the long run we might want to encourage people to submit mass job-lots seperately, or perhaps under individual sub-headings, rather than en masse. This does illustrate a problem with the 'stale'/'done' system, which is obviously somewhat arbitrary, but I'm not sure it's important enough to dedicate much time to fixing it. Debate 木 02:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vectorization!

Image:GaogiersSegaProjectDesignPrototype.png please vectorize this image Gaogier How can I help? 15:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please post requests to Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop. Full instructions on how to do this can be found at the top of that page. Debate 木 10:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q. about specific crappy image

This is the best quality copy of a particular image that is available. It is from a microfilm photo, with too much contrast, that was scanned in at 4-bit color depth, so it does have greyscales. Mucking about with it in GraphicConverter, this is the best I've been able to do with it (including mirroring horizontally so that lit side of face is toward text, as seen at William A. Spinks). Is it plausible to improve this image further, or is this a lost cause and not worth adding a request for? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put it out there and see what people think, that's what the requests page is for. Maybe you'll find someone looking for a challenge, or you might get advice that it's impossible, but at least you know. To answer your specific request, in my view it would be worth someone having a play with the image, I've seen plenty worse. Debate 木 10:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there's absolutely no gray scale information in the dark areas so there's really nothing that can be done to increase the clarity here. Personally, I wouldn't mirror the image because then it's no longer his face regardless of what style guides and the like might prefer. This is, ultimately, an encyclopedia after all... Debate 木 13:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least the claptrap around him can possibly be cleaned up. I'm not sure I follow the second point. Whose face would it be? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, it'd be the face of his evil counterpart from the mirror universe. :-) With the image quality so low, it's of course quite hard to tell, but in general human faces are not exactly symmetrical. So yes, mirroring a portrait could be seen as distortion, however minor the difference might be. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No more so than digitally manipulating the image, I would say... I'll defer to a guideline on this, of course, but the only advice I've seen is that it looks really weird to have the dark side of a high-contrast image facing the text. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict, snap> Faces are not perfectly symmetrical. While the image may still be recognizable when flipped, a mirror image is no longer the face that people would have seen when meeting him in person. You can get a sense of how much of a difference this makes by cutting the image in half, then mirroring the right side of the face onto the left side, or vice-versa - the result inevitably looks odd. As this is an encyclopedia accuracy should always trump aesthetic considerations. Obviously, however, in this case the image is of such poor quality that the point is largely academic. Nonetheless, I would strongly object if someone started up a project to flip all portraits that do not match facing guidelines in the WP:MOS. Debate 木 01:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well... He's dead, so no one's going to meet him in person. It's routine in print to do this sort of flipping. Actors do not become unrecognizable in films when they are shown looking in the mirror. To William A. Spinks, if he were still alive, the flipped picture would more accurately reflect his appearance since he surely saw himself in the mirror more than in photos. The picture can't be split-mirrored to see how weird it looks, since half of it is black. Etc., etc. Just some counter-points. I actually tend to agree with you on a campaign to do lots of this flipping, but mostly on the grounds that it would be trivial busy-work, not that it's a falsification, since his face is/was as it is/was, and what side "belongs" where is 100% a matter of perception (his in his reflection, or others' in their perception). In this case, I agree it's academic, and I did try it the other, original, way and it really did look weird; bad enough I almost considered just not using the image at all, despite the need for one, or using an awkward ToC-to-the-left layout (ick!). <shrug> Oh well. If it's felt strongly that it shouldn't be horizontal-flipped, I won't put up a fight about it. I'm just not strongly convinced by the reasoning.
Another way of looking at it - if I were a notable article subject (living!) and took a photo of myself in the mirror, cropped it so it wasn't obvious it was a mirror shot, and gave this to a WP editor on request as a CC/GFDL pic, the editor uploaded it and knew it was a mirror shot and said so, and it was used in my article, would you still object? If not, what do you see as the difference, since the end result is the same (my face would be opposite how a stranger would see it)? If so, how could one argue for reversing it, since it is a legitimate mirror shot, and flipping it would in fact be a falsification of the original, an inversion of both the reality of the subject and the intent of the photo (unless I indicated that I only took the mirror shot because I didn't have a handy regular photo, and didn't care about the directionality; but maybe the mirroring was my own photo-authorial creative direct intent)? It's a bit of a conundrum, isn't it?
Has larger implications, too - one could create an line-drawing illustration of an article subject based on a photograph that was too poor for use in WP. The article at Rudolph Wanderone, Jr. has a painting of him on a magazine cover (as well as regular photos). [Whether that really is fair use is another matter entirely.] — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> For what it's worth, we do need to be careful how we work on images here. Talking in general terms and not about this specific discussion, there's clearly a difference between removing artifacts, improving contrast, cropping, stitching and vectorizing images and making more dramatic changes that might ultimately create something that is, at best, misleading. I've noted several recent examples of editors requesting work on images for articles that they clearly know little about themselves. Uninformed requests accepted by an uninformed graphists are recipes for trouble in my opinion. Thankfully most graphists have been sensible enough to let most borderline requests go stale, although I'll admit to having skirted close to the line myself on at least a couple of occasions. Debate 木 00:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just to be clear, I'm not one of those editors, as the article this image is for was written almost entirely by me. I'll think on this one more. Right now I'm not convinced of any harm in mirroring the image, but my mind changes on all sorts of things all the time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I had not intended to suggest you were one of those editors... some of these issues have simply been percolating in my brain recently so this was a good opportunity to 'purge'. :) Debate 木 04:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map resources

German Wikipedia Maps is far better than English Wikipedia Maps. Can we address this with a translator / map expert? Dhatfield (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also commons:Commons:Map resources. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. No offense intended, but Karten beats the pants off either. Dhatfield (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea since it is in German. But I will take your word on it. I only offered the Commons resource page as another gathering of map resource links. If some of the German stuff is translated please link to those translation pages from the Commons list of links. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can get a translator. Dhatfield (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a couple map how-to pages to the Graphic Lab resources page at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources. See:
Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/PDF conversion to SVG
Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/PDF conversion to SVG/Adobe Illustrator
I adapted them from
Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/PDF map conversion to SVG
Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/PDF map conversion to SVG/Adobe Illustrator --Timeshifter (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/FAQ must be suppressed

It's confusing, as can be seen: Someone asked a question there, and it took a month for someone to find it and answer it! They may never come back again. The logical (And currently used) place for questions is here on the main talk page (To which, IMAO, all(?) subpages' talk pages ought to redirect to), this subpage is just asking for confusion. If we DO find ourselves answering the same questions over and over again, we can easily recreate the page and link to it from the top of this page.

Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I changed the name of the page to "SVG resources" (see Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/SVG resources), and moved the SVG talk to its talk page. I moved the other talk here. I hope this is OK.--Timeshifter (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx. I'm still interested if we'll get from the discussion above a list of pages that could be removed without loss. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which pages would you like to see deleted, and why? --Timeshifter (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically there appear to be alot of pages that are completely dead, and in some cases look like they were never used. In many cases these purport to be current information and are misleadingly out of date. If they can be made useful, OK, but if not they should be somehow marked as grossly out of date (EG. {{archive}}) or just dropped. Personally I prefer the latter since even pages which are marked as dead or archived seem to attract people who try and use them, comment on their talk pages, etc. which noone ever sees. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC) (PS. Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Wikigraphist abilities appears to be the prime offender)[reply]
OK. I am volunteering you to take on all these tasks. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subtle... Well, I'll do what I can without pagemoves or new pages (But see below). I may ProD some pages though. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong here? Help, please.

I have uploaded a new version of Image:BangEduSys.png, but it's not showing? Can someone help? Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Displays just fine on my computer. Try to refresh and bypass your cashe.
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 07:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works fine here, it should be vectorized if it's copyright is resolved OK. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SVG? I can do that, but it'll need some cleanup afterward. I also have noticed a bit of mistake here and there. Nothing serious, but I'll come back correct that when I do SVG. Did I get that right? Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get what right? If you want to SVGify it yourself that's fine, and if the SVG replaces the current image (Which is usually the way it works), there's nothing wrong with making the correction at the same time. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of us is surely is going too fast for the other. But, I guess I got it right anyways, like you probably meant the SVG format when you referred to vectorization (i have only a limited understanding of all the computer graphics stuff, so this makes me very happy). But, there's a slight problem. Every time I save a file in SVG format using Adobe Illustrator (that's what I can access) the image shows a blank. Each time some editor or other had to come forward and to something to the file to make it show (well, that's become a familiar procedure for me already anyways). Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by [1], AI adds a bunch of crap at the head of the file and you have to manually strip it out with a text editor or else nothing else wants to read it. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new header idea.

On all of the pages and subpages of this project, there's Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/header floating up there, but to me it appears as though it's most appropriate only for the main pages. I suggest this for the rest of the subpages:

Notice: The Graphics Lab is always in need of a helping hand; All are welcome to try their hand at the requests!

Graphics Lab

This (sub)page is part of Graphics Lab, a project to improve the graphical content of the Wikimedia projects. More information about the lab can be found on it's main page and requests page. To ask questions or make a suggestions, see the main talk page. To request an image improvement, use the requests page.

Also, if this is made into a sub-page like header that can be transcluded, it could be possible to add a parameter so the purpose of the page can be specified: {{subheader|[...]}} would add a final sentence to the section describing the specific page. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I suggest you be bold and go for it! --Timeshifter (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you create the subpage for me? I'll do the rest... Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subpages are created by going to the page that you want to be the main page for the subpage. I suggest Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. It looks like most header templates are using it as the main page. On that main page click any edit button. Then type in
[[/NAME OF SUBPAGE]]
The key part is the forward slash. Click the preview button. A red link will show up. Click the red link and then enter some info on that page to start it. Save the page. Viola! You have a subpage. Use its name with curly brackets to put the header wherever you want. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great if it wasn't "Unauthorized". 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why you don't want a user name? Nowadays it is completely anonymous. One picks a name and a password, and that is it. No other info is required. You can sign in and out at anytime. Even if you decide to leave an email address you can choose whether it is public or not. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Vectorization request

Hello, I can't find anyone more qualified. I have a personal request, can you vectorize this barcode? http://kirbywarp.googlepages.com/Barcode16.jpg Contact me at kirbywarp[spam, remove this box]@gmail.com 

    ~     WaddleDee (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What does it represent? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for deleting Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Wikigraphist abilities

Since this is a "big" page here (IE. Not just some minor reference page), I wanted to post my rationale for wanting to delete this here:

  1. First and foremost, it's grossly out of date. People who haven't done labwork (And some who have done no editing at all) in ages are still listed here with varying degrees of "active"-ness (Infact, there is only one "Inactive" listed). People who drift away or leave easily forget to update the page.
    • Maintenance by other people might be possible, but there are other reasons, EG. below.
  1. Second, the purpose of this "table of ranks" is rather uncertain: When requesting assistance for an image (SVGification, cleanup, etc.), noone ever asks by name (EG. "I want Fvasc. to do this one..."). I'm also not certain what internal use it serves (Is it consulted by anyone?).
  2. The design of the project doesn't really accommodate it as it's designed. Most traffic is (I'm pretty sure) to the main page, and then to the workshop page (Or just to the workshop page for regulars). Ancilliary pages like this a almost NEVER seen by visitors/requesters and rarely considered by graphists (The latter is a conjecture, but I'm guessing based on the very outdated state of it).
  3. We've survived with it being in an almost uselessly out of date state for some time, which suggests that it wont be really missed.
    • If this isn't the case, it can be recreated in a newer, better manner.

Note, the question "Is it consulted by anyone?" is meant to be serious: Does anyone here use it for any purpose?

Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. My main point in posting this here was to see if other people agree, or if there are uses of it in. If so, I want to be able to reconfigure it to be more useful, rather than ProD it and be reverted, etc. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note to the page. I suggest keeping the page and removing the "how active" column. It can not be kept up to date accurately, I believe. I think the page is useful for finding people that one may have worked with before, or for followup questions concerning past images and derivatives. And much more. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't they be found by looking at the file history? Presumably they would either be the original uploader or an editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but that is not the only reason to keep the list. Others may have given advice but not edited the image. Plus one has to remember the image file location. Not everyone is good with bookmarks. I have lots of bookmarks, and still have trouble finding stuff. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rearraingement

I've moved what was in Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Advice to the roll call page, since it seemed more appropriate there. I've repurposed the page to be advice for users and think it would be appropriate in the workshop page, with other additions. Any suggestions for that? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free bot (BJBot)

I've read through the archives and didn't come up with a definitive answer. Has anyone asked the bot operator to replace the image with a link instead of a copyright notice? I don't do a lot of work as I'm limited over here, but I'd like to atleat know what the image in question is when I pop by. I'm tempted to wonder if a {{bots}} would work..heh Thoughts? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Graphics_Lab&oldid=239884932"