Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: 1

Archives

1

Contents 1 News 2 Split up the graphics lab? 3 derivativeFX 4 Format Anomalies 5 Facelift 6 Fair use images (Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve) 7 Request for a montage 8 Facelift discussion 9 Fair use reduction? 10 Archive bot bugfix

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)

[edit] Split up the graphics lab?

I think it would be a good idea to split the graphics lab into two (or maybe more?) areas - one involving SVG creating/editing, and one for more general image work, e.g. Gimpwork, or format-related issues.

The reason is, the graphics lab page is getting very large, and there may be a lot of people who are interested in one area, but not the other. I don't think it makes much sense to overgeneralise here, considering the page size, and I think the amount of "uninteresting" content may be putting off some people, or frustrating them with the volume of items that need doing that they can't contribute to or don't care about.

So basically, I think this solution would benefit the graphics lab by reducing the page size, and making a logical split into different areas of interest, which will help both people looking for help and people wanting to provide help.

What do you think?

With best regards, CountingPine (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be proportionally offset by the amount of confusion and duplicate administration that would be engendered. EG. Someone requests an improvement to a file, and the universal consensus is that it should be remade as an SVG. Does the request get moved? If so, will everyone (Including the original requester!) "move" with it? This is what I worry about: A split that looks nice and convenient from a looking straight down administrative view, but that is confusing and chaotical to the people who have to worth with (around? against?) it (The graphers and requesters). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the requester would have to move, but I think everyone else would either already be participating in the other section or be uninterested in what subsequently happens to the request.
I'd say the real question is, are people happy with the status quo? If not, would splitting it up really be worse? Or, are there any better ideas?
WBR, CountingPine (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] derivativeFX

Just wanted to give you heads up on the new tool derivativeFX which should be usefull for the Graphics Lab. With derivativeFX you can add one or more original files and derivativeFX checks for license-compatibility and create a new descriptionpage. Because of JavaScript problems it doesn't work with Internet Explorer. /Lokal_Profil 20:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format Anomalies

Is it just me or is there more and more requests that just write whatever they want and not use the standard request format? We really don't have a set policy on it, perhaps we should have a vote or something. I reckon we warn them, give them a chance to fix it. If they don't, their request gets deleted and forgotten. What do you all think? XcepticZP (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Most people making first requests at the Graphic Lab (such as myself) are baffled by all the introductory text before the table of contents. So we oftentimes just click the "Skip to table of contents" link, and look at what others are doing. We soon see that people link to the image and the article and make a request. I think you ask way too much of people to dance through more hoops, formats, secret decoder rings, passwords, initiation ceremonies, etc.. I find that there are oftentimes a few people at various WikiProjects, notice boards, etc. that feel that they WP:OWN the project or notice board, and want others to do things the way they want them done. I am a member of many WikiProjects (please see my user page), and I have over 13,000 edits on Wikipedia, and over 4000 edits on the commons. I suggest you reread WP:BITE. I added the words "Article" and "Request" to my entry on the Graphic Lab page to make you happy. Frankly, I think it is a ridiculous format, and should be abandoned. Instead of an offputting required format, I suggest putting a polite notice at the top of the page reminding people to link to the article where the image resides or will reside. There is no need for the labels "Article" and "Request" and so on. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what a first time requester thinks on this matter. We have a system in place. It is not your place to decide whether or not it SUITS YOU. Second. How dare you delete MY post? It is the height of rudeness and arrogance. I will post my comments on requests if I feel like it. XcepticZP (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I had responded to you concerning all of this here, and I had implemented your request. So I removed your rude now-offtopic comment from Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve, since it was a duplication of this talk page, and I did not want to have to duplicate my reply there. So it was not a cover-up. Please WP:AGF. Also, please reread WP:CIVIL. Commments like "It is not your place..." are a sign of WP:OWN. You are not the boss. If you continue to be uncivil I will report you to WP:ANI.--Timeshifter (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol. You are kidding yourself if this has anything to do with WP:OWN or WP:ANI. You deleted my post. That is YOU protecting YOUR request, so you are the one with the "posession" issues. How can you be hypocritical like this: First you implement my suggestion on the article page then you "oppose" it in the talk page. Please refer to the talk page guidelines. "Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.". And yes, that rule does apply to the Request page. And you are way off if you think you can have any bearing on the admin decisions of the Graphic Lab as you are, after all, a newcomer by your own words. Everyone's vote counts, but that doesn't give you the authority to make decisions. XcepticZP (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the changing the format of your request.XcepticZP (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Here is your original (somewhat rude) comment on the Graphic Lab page:

Why are you incapable of using the set request format presented at the top of this page? The graphic lab is doing you a favor, so you should give us the courtesy and not mess up our system. This is happening way too often. These out of format requests need to be removed and not considered. XcepticZP (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the talk page. The Graphic Lab page is for graphics discussion. Please keep it that way. Being polite and implementing a request that I disagree with is not being hypocritical. And you are not an admin. And even admins do not WP:OWN wikipedia. As you say: "Everyone's vote counts, but that doesn't give you the authority to make decisions." --Timeshifter (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a discussion on your request and thus belonged where your request was. Since my time here at the GL, the request page has been considered like a talk page. A talk page for each request. I am not an admin, and I do not presume to own anything. I do, however, own the right to not have other people delete my talk page posts (regardless of reason). I do not have authority to make decisions at the GL, that is why at the top there you see I call for a vote and voice my opinion. We do not WP:OWN the GL, all we expected from you was courtesy and politeness towards the established way of doing things at the GL. XcepticZP (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want courtesy then please be courteous when you make a request. I believe I was courteous in all my requests and comments. It is common to remove offtopic comments. It is allowed too. See WP:TALK. Once I did your request there was no need for your comment on the Graphic Lab page, especially since it was duplicated on this talk page. But there is room for disagreement on that. Let us move on. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Sure, we are doing people a favour by doing the work. However, being unhelpful (for example by deleting requests) towards people who don't conform to the request format is not the kind of reaction that I would support. I would suggest fixing the request and putting a template on the user's talk page, something like the standard talk templates. Maybe grequest-format-1 could read "Thanks for submitting your request to the graphics lab. To help us to attend to your requests more efficiently, please use the following format for your requests in future [explain format]" and grequest-format-4 could read something like "Although we are gratified at the number of requests you are forwarding to the graphic lab, the fact that you do not present them properly is impeding our work, and we may decline to service any more of your requests that are not formatted properly." This way we can keep the discussion on these pages civil and educate our clients in a structured way. --Slashme (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am personally willing to modify requests where it is obvious what people intended (EG. They put the request under opinion, or some other easily discoverable mistake) and add a note to them on their talk page, or to the request. If it's totally impossible to figure it out (EG. "Please create an image, thanx"), then I would ask, but if it's just totally impossible to communicate (EG. It's not a language barrier, but a genuine impossibility to find a way of communicating) I don't mind just blanking that section. My only concern is if it gets to be the default action (EG. "You didn't copy the space after the last line" -> BLANK). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it not better to fix if possible, warn user about format if necessary and if fixing isn't possible and user doesn't clarify the issue then the discussion will naturally go stale and be archived. That way if a graphisist figures out what it means he can still fix it and there is never the risk of one graphisist not understanding and deleting the request as a result. Obviously vandalism etc. are exceptions.

In my view it's more important to make sure that the requesters stick around and tell us when they think an issue is resolved then that they use the exact format for requesting. /Lokal_Profil 17:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facelift

I think the Graphic Lab is overdue for a facelift. The white text on light blue background is a little gross and hard to read. I think a new layout and better colour scheme and organization would help out a lot. Agree? -- _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 03:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Where's the white text? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I believe you are referring to the light-blue subheading bars at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab and Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I never knew there was text in there. Anyway, I agree the main page is a little bizzare and could be changed (Some of the sections seem of questionable utility there), however I have changed the formatting a little and made the heading text black instead of white. This should make it accessible to all viewers untill a more through change of style is decided upon. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab/Facelift is where I propose we work on a new layout until we all agree on the new look. _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 18:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images (Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve)

Without getting into the issue of whether we may or may not fix fair use images I'd just like to draw everyones atention to the fact that fair use images regularly get removed from the page since this page is not in the article mainspace. Now we can either make a case for a Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions or we can link to the images (only the fair use ones) rather then displaying them in a gallery. Just wan't to know other peoples opinions on the matter. /Lokal_Profil 17:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

YES! I KNEW there had to be such a thing. I suggest we check it out at least and maybe marshal arguments. Certainly images aren't displayed here gratuitously, and the gallery system allows the image and the replacement/improvement to be directly compared. If the FU image is replaced by a free one it can be deleted (So we are helping in that respect), and I supposed if it is archived as completed or stale the image can be disabled (By the bot?) be adding the colon before the Image: part. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If this comes to fruition, it would be easy enough for me to add a function to the bot for changing fair use images to links for you.--Dycedarg ж 21:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Let the bot do it! I suggest doing that in all cases for fair-use images on talk pages. People do not always continue to watchlist the pages where they place fair-use images, and that just means others have to clean up after their mistakes. Others may not bother to put up a link instead. Then the discussion may not make sense to later readers. The bot can put a warning in the edit summary. This way people are warned, and the mistake is fixed, all at the same time. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so changing to links then as soon as someone spots them and putting a note about this somewhere on the page? /Lokal_Profil 16:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for a montage

Hi, is this where I come to make a request for a montage? If it is, would someone mind making a montage of these five pics; Image:HMS Antelope (F170).png, Image:Heading into Port Stanley.jpg Ya know so it looks like those cool ones on the WW1 & WW2 pages, cheers, muchly appreciated Ryan4314 (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to request it at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve. /Lokal_Profil 23:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like the last 2 are copyrighted. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

True. Well spotted. If there are two alternative images then a new montage could be done. /Lokal_Profil 16:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facelift discussion

I have proposed a new look for the Graphic Lab. Feel free to fix it up and make further improvements. Right now the entire code is in the same page, but I'm assuming once we get a concensus on the look, we will split all of the divs and styles up into subsections (the way it is now). Please put any questions or comments here (or start a new page for a detailed, archived conversation)... Cheers! -- _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 21:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at it, and the "news" section doesn't render properly for me. For the rest, I like it. --Slashme (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use reduction?

I know there's something here about not working on fairuse images, but if someone came to us and said "This is a fair use image, but it's too big/too detailed", can you downsample it to something less questionable, would that be fair (for us to do)? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not, though I also don't see much need for Graphic Lab assistance here. Just tag it with {{fair use reduce}} if you don't want to do it yourself. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware such a template existed and suspect others are as well. I just want to know if people here thought that was OK before someone dropped something like that on us (Because I'm pretty sure it will end up happening). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive bot bugfix

As some of you may have noticed (I know 68.39.174.238 did), in this edit my bot archived a section with subsections and ignored the subsections. I've adjusted the code so that subsections are counted as part of the section they are a subsection of, so that shouldn't happen again.--Dycedarg ж 23:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yayy... 68.39.174.238 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)