Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:53, 6 August 2008 (Archiving 2 thread(s) from Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Skeleton

This page is only for maintenance, showing the skeleton of this Graphic project.

=> Main Page

=> Coming soon. Place to ask maps creation or improvement => Sous-pages spécifiques aux demandes de travaux
=> Coming soon. Place to ask Images creation or improvement
=> Coming soon. Template to request improvement.
  • Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images à améliorer/Archives
  • etc.
 => Archives
  • Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Protocoles
  • Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Graphic Village
  • Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Softwares
 => Helps pages
=> This page
=> Place where all the graphist teams talk about graphism.
=> Template that adds image to Category:Images for cleanup => used templates
=> Template that adds image to Category:Images for redraw
=> To use on commons. Template stamping improved images
=> Template / User box for Wikigraphists :]
=> Basics helps
=>  Done /  Thanks

fr:Wikipedia:Atelier graphique/Arborescence

I named the workshop "Graphic Lab", but several other name could be better

Name :

  • French : Atelier Graphique

Proposed English names :

Please vote, and feel free to rename the 3 pages ( Main | Maps | Images ). Yug (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

World maps for the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab

Hello. At WP:WPTC we use some custom software to generate hurricane track maps that could be useful for you. The software used is Jdorje's track map generator, and uses Image:Whole world - land and oceans.jpg as the background. However, for world maps, you could also use any of the NASA Blue Marble maps, particularly the Blue Marble Next Generation backgrounds. I'm not really sure if that helps or not, but you may be interested in knowing... Titoxd(?!?) 05:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)



Fair Use images

What is the protocol for addressing fair use images (such as logos)? The image can't be used outside article namespace so posting the image here would violate WP:FUC. I have a university seal that I want the background removed so its on a transparent background.--NMajdan•talk 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We can clean up it, but it will stay on wiki-en. We are not allow to share it with others wikis. Yug (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I realize that, but logos are not permitted anywhere outside of the article. I'll just post a link to the file. Thanks.--NMajdan•talk 18:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Request form

Hello, I found something such this in wikipedia fr. I think that can be interesting to try this way. On the french Graphic lab, we tryed it but that wasn't conclusive. You may try something, but If that become confusing for new user, harder to understand and to use, then forget this way.



To submit an image:
Insert the image name/title in the box below (do not remove the text in the box, add to the end only) and click "Submit."
You will be taken to a page where you can fill out your request.

This will need huge wiki knowledge and tests. Yug (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What about using the new section creation with the template init such as what we have on :fr ? Dake 10:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Personnaly, I never find out how you did it on the french Lab. Yug (talk)] 00:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made one that works and placed it on the request page. Pages must be moved manually from Category:Image requests to be listed to the request page though. If it isn't working properly, please notify me. -YK Times 03:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

input box below:

To submit an image:
Insert the image name/title in the box below (do not remove the text in the box, add to the end only) and click "Submit."
You will be taken to a page where you can fill out your request.

To join

Hi, I'd like to help out with the Graphic Lab. Is there anything specific I should do to join? —Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, just put /Images to improve and maybe /Maps on your watchlist, and help out whenever you get the urge, that's it.
Since the Lab is having growing pains, when there's only one or two images left to work on, it may also be helpful to try to find one of the more encyclopedic/useful images from Category:Images for cleanup or commons:Category:Images for cleanup or Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Requested and orphan maps or elsewhere, and throw it up on the queue. --Interiot 05:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks =) —Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You can add your name in the list of graphist ( there : Wikipedia:Graphic Lab), that just a symbol of our involment :] Yug (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Need Graphic Expertise

I recently discovered this image Image:Smoked gruyere.gif which contains some vandalism of sorts. It is now listed at Images for Deletion. User:BigDT said they have seen this done before. Is there a way that an animated gif/image can be checked to see what the coding for it is? MY thought is that someone could download/save the image, load it into a program and see what the loops contain. Are GIFs the only file format that can do animation? Once it was determined the file wasn't an animated GIF, or the animation doesn't display anything bad, it could be tagged by the checker that it was animation free, or animation-safe. Someone could put a delay of like 30 seconds, or 60, or 300 and so most people may not see it, but it would showup in the article (if used) which would be bad. Any thoughts or ideas of how to check these files is appreciated. Thanks. --MECU≈talk 15:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just open the image in the GIMP, Photoshop or any other image editor; in most programs the animation frames will show up as layers. And yes, of the image formats allowed on Wikipedia, only GIF files can be animated like this. Ogg files can of course also contain animation, but they don't even pretend to be "just images". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Multilanguage version of the pictures

Whenever possible, it would be nice to make a language-neutral version of the diagrams. Using labels with numbers or letters, the pictures can be easily used on all Wiki. This informal guideline is more or less followed on the :fr version of the graphic lab (at least I try to encourage people to do so). For example :

Thanks for reading this, Dake 10:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Time to start archiving?

The page is getting exceedingly large (1.64 MB right now). We should start archiving some of the older, fulfilled requests. — Kieff 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I really like the fact that the page gives many examples of what the people involved have the skill and willingness to help out with. I think it helps invite people to use the Graphic Lab more. So if practical concerns are important, hopefully sections won't be archived too quickly, and hopefully the archive can be prominently linked to. --Interiot 18:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

STOP!

Your project is taking cruddy images [1] and making them not only worse [2] but totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. The 'improved' image is a factually inaccurate fabrication (it misrepresents the shape of the right side of the camera). The same 'Wikigraphist' has made many other unacceptable changes as a part of your project. Please stop. Such edits are a nuisance to check and clean up. --Gmaxwell 04:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletion for 'no image available' graphics

Hi there. WikiProject Albums has run across an excessive number of redundant placeholder 'no image available' graphics, and we have already started the deletion process for many of them. I'm personally dealing with the ones that are not relevant to the albums project — in fact, there are a great deal that run at cross-purposes — and I've decided to consult some people in order to decide which to delete and which to keep.

Graphic Dimensions Apparent purpose Notes (major problems in bold)
Image:No-image-available.jpg 315×475 Book covers, according to how uploader User:Tony Sandel uses it on his own userpage. Currently unused, and .jpg format. However, it looks better than the alternatives.
Image:NoBookCoverImage.jpg 250×350 Book covers. Already used in {{Book Series infobox}}, though apparently not currently showing in any articles. .jpg format. Dimensions are possibly better than the above, but doesn't look as good.
Image:NoImage.PNG 500×200 Apparently currency and ferry infoboxes; integrated into {{Infobox Coin}}, {{Infobox Note}}, {{Infobox coin2}}, and {{Infobox Banknote}}, though not integrated into {{WAFerry}}. Looks like it has a specific purpose, and serves it well.
Image:NoImageAvailable.jpg 100×100 Albums, in the one article it's used in. Actually, this is an example of what we're deleting already. Not useful.
Image:NoImageYetSquare.png 78×78 "A placeholder for a requested image". One of three images at Image:No image yet. Too small, maybe. Used moderately.
Image:NoImageYetRectFramed.png 108×80 Derived from the above, only framed and different dimensions? Used in one article, where it's scaled horribly.
Image:No image.gif 90×90 Generic. Only used in a few articles.
Image:NO IMAGE YET.png 173×21 "A placeholder for a requested image". One of three images at Image:No image yet. Currently unused.
Image:NO IMAGE YET square.png 77×78 "A placeholder for a requested image". One of three images at Image:No image yet. Too small, maybe. Used moderately.
Image:Noimage.jpg 200×200 For some reason, this is used in {{WP Australia}}, the talk page template for WikiProject Australia, when the "sports" flag is set to "yes". Also a few other random articles. .jpg format.
Image:Noimage.png, Image:No image.png, Image:No image tall.svg, Image:No image wide.svg 1×1, 1×1, 1×8, 8×1 The last three are copyright-ineligible Commons images, and the first is an en-wiki copy of the second. The first is an en-wiki copy of the second. Widely used except for No image tall, which is not used at en-wiki.
Image:Noimagechar.png 190×350 Not used, so don't know. Currently unused.
Image:Nopic.jpg 371×267 Obsolete, as it has been replaced by the below. Currently unused, .jpg format.
Image:Noimg.png 400×300 Despite being a .png replacement of the above, still unused. Currently unused.
Image:Noimage.gif 130×180 DVD covers. Used in two articles. There are three of these; we only need one.
Image:NoDVDcover.jpg 200×280 DVD covers. .jpg format. There are three of these; we only need one.
Image:NoDVDcover copy.png 174×195 DVD covers. There are three of these; we only need one. This is probably the best option.
Image:No Photo.jpg 276×287 Biographies. Currently unused. .jpg format. Poor quality.
Image:No Pic.JPG 263×229 Biographies? Currently unused. .jpg format. Poor quality.

Seems that there's a need to decide on a book cover placeholder, a DVD cover placeholder, and a generic placeholder with width=height. The ones that aren't deleted can get categorized properly at Category:Wikipedia image placeholders. –Unint 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Redraw template

I finished off the redraw template, {{Redraw}}. It is now available to use, and all images that it is placed on add the image to Category:Images for redraw. Any other requests/comments/questions can be redirected to my talk page. -YK Times 01:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Wikipedia:Requested pictures

Hi, I was wondering if you had seen Wikipedia:Requested pictures? Neither of you seem to mention the other, so perhaps it got missed. Both seem to cover the same ground, so I'd strongly suggest a merge. :) --Quiddity 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea there was such a project! While I don't think the projects should be merged, as one deals with acquiring images, while the other deals with improving + vectorizing them, I think it would be a great idea to include links across the two project. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! -YK Times 23:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. The only reason I know of it, is the mention 5 down at Wikipedia:Community Portal#Things to do. The only other mentions I can find of it are at Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial 3/4 way down, and at Wikipedia:Images 1/2 way down. I've now added both to Help:Contents/Images and media.
A merge of effort at least, to reduce any redundant information/instruction, and make everything as clear and simple as possible for the end-users. Some sort of relationship, something along the lines of a sister or child project, would be good. Whether in name or instruction-set or page-hierarchy or whatever! I'll mention this thread at their talk page. Good luck with it all :) --Quiddity 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the Graphic Lab have a more friendly looking : everybody can see just here what wikigraphists do. The graphic Lab is also a "graphic Forum", I think this is a more funny way. Obviously, I encourage collaboration between the both project, and merge the both may be a solution. --Yug (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Whatever we find as a solution, be it merging or closer collaboration, I'll be on board the whole way; I can modify some of the templates I have created for the Graphics Lab (see my "tools"). Actually, merging seems like the option that would benefit the Wikipedia community the most, so I propose that we start laying to groundwork for a merge. I noticed on the Wikipedia:Requested pictures page that there was also a category with overlapping requests, and a few other, separate groups; perhaps we could merge some of these projects together to create a wider-reaching project that could bring together some of the other Photo- or Graphics-related project out there. Just a suggestion. If you have any specific questions or anything else, you can also reach me at my talk page. -YK Times 21:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
If need, I also think merging the both will be the " the option that would benefit the Wikipedia community the most ". But, the Wikipedia:Requested pictures page seem more use to request "please may you take a photograph of [topic]". Take a picture is not the same that improve a picture, and we can "specialize" the Requested pictures page on photography, and the graphic lab on improving pics. Yug (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
After exploring this issue fairly deeply, I think the ideal solution would be to integrate (merge) a limited version of the Graphics Lab into Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration, perhaps as a child project. Here are my reasons:
  1. WikiProject Illustration is more mature. It already has plenty of talented workers (listed under "Participants"), and links to the project already appear across Wikipedia. It also has several child projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps that the Graphics Lab, if established separately, could disrupt.
  2. Wikipedia already has the necessary tools for image cleanup. As you have noticed, there is already a Wikipedia:Requested_pictures page to request new images. To request image cleanup, there are dozens of tags like {{{Cleanup-image}}}, {{{ShouldBeSVG}}}, etc. that automatically categorize the tagged images. Changing the system dramatically is likely to cause confusion among those who have used these tags for years.
  3. Ease of use. It is far simpler for a Wikipedian who finds an image needing cleanup to tag it with {{{ifc}}} or {{{imagewatermark}}} than it is to navigate to the Graphics Lab, write a cleanup proposal, and submit it. Furthermore, these tags make it easy for image improvers to do their jobs -- for example, I only need to navigate to Category:Images with watermarks to find several dozen images with the same problem to fix.
In summary, Wikipedia's image cleanup templates have already been established as the primary way of submitting images for cleanup. There is, however, a possible use for the Graphics Lab. Though it does not make sense to submit all images needing cleanup to the Graphics Lab, the Lab could instead be used as a "specialized image cleanup" group. Here, users could submit images with special cleanup needs (i.e. very complicated instructions) or for rapid cleanup. In this form, the Graphics Lab could become a child project (edit: or perhaps a task force) of Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration. Let me know what you think. MithrandirMage 00:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I mainly agree with this wish to merge, or affiliate the both project. But I keep some clear ideas :
  • make the merge will require : leadership, knowledge on the both project, and lot of wikiclic/time. Who
  • the strategy of an open Lab is more attractive for visitors and friendly for the wikigraphist. That's why, this way of work have to be keep.
  • the Graphic lab is for visitor too and so should be widely visible. Rename it into WP:Wikiproject illustration/Graphic Lab/image to improve means to kill the GLab. So I encourage to keep an own place, even if it become a Wikiproject illustration sub-project.
After what, I encourage to reinforce the link between the both project, and to make more advertisements about the Graphic Lab. The [WP:Wikiproject illustration page] being a semi-professional page, it need less advertisement. Moreover, the "Wikigraphist list" and your "Wikipedian who may help in graphism" have to be merge, keep them divide is a non-sense.
Most important, we need someone able to do that (see 1st point), and if this person doesn't like I wish, if no so bad. Just thank to him/her. ;] Yug (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC) <the 2 project have to be join >
This is going to take a lot of work; if we do end up going ahead with it (hopefully we do, because it makes sense), I can help out in whatever capacity you need me for. I agree that the two projects should be kept somewhat separate, like a task force, as each one has their own pros and cons. I still support doing a wider reaching merge, such as with the projects previously listed below by Yug. -YK Times 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Organizing merging / specialisation

Page which have, in part, the same use :

Thank You

I like your pictures and i find your work very usefull. Thank You very much! Karmelatalk 10:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Convert to SVG category

I was wondering if any of the WikiGraphists on here monitored Category:Images which should be in SVG format. Seems there are quite a few images there that could be converted, moved to Commons, and deleted here. Just a suggestion.↔NMajdan•talk 18:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, there's a lot of images there. I will post a message at that Category linking to the Graphic Lab, as well as start bringing some of them into the request for improvement page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YK Times (talk • contribs) 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Barnstar discussion

Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals is considering a new Barnstar to be given to people who make great combined contributions to Wikipedia articles and the Commons free-use image collection. Please come by and state your views. Thanks, Johntex\talk 15:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, a request has been made for the image to be improved. Could someone here please take a look and see if you could produce a similar image that is higher in quality? Thanks very much. Johntex\talk 19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Made request; now what?

Hi, all. I just made a request, and I'm not sure if I'm supposed to do anything else. The request isn't appearing on the main page, for example. It's here: Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve/request/Image:Traditional doctor sign in Tatum.jpg. Sorry if I did something wrong. — Brian (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay Brian. You didn't do anything wrong, its just me; for requests submitted through the input box, they need to be manually moved to the main request page. You can keep checking there to see the progress on your image. Thanks for using the Graphic Lab, and sorry for the inconvenience. -YK Times 23:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem, thanks. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing an important step or something. Thanks again. — Brian (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I think the old and archaic system of Copy/Past the "Request form" is more : 1/ convenient ; 2/ easely understandable, that the current submition system. I think the test show its complexity, but not its efficiency or conveniency. I encourage go back to the old, archaic, but simple and efficient as well system (see here). Yug (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. There is a moderate backlog, stretching over several days. Why is a request queue necessary, instead of requesters simply putting their items onto the list a la featured content nominations?--ragesoss 20:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this was partially my idea, following up on this one. I think it can be filed under the category of "seemed like a good idea at the time". The backlog usually isn't too bad, but it does pile up some days, is a bit of a pain. I sort of modeled the system after another request system (from somewhere else in Wikipedia, I think it was for blocks or something), but you're right, it is very complex. If no one is against it, I think we should removed to submission form from the request page. -YK Times 17:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation from french of a diagram

I noticed that the request titled "Translation from french of a diagram" was archived by Werdnabot; before I archive this page to the correct month, I was wondering if it is a fulfilled request, or still in progress? If it is, I will move it back ASAP. Thx. -YK Times 01:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Urnaelettorale.svg

My request for this image has been done. You may delete the request. LittlePete 20:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Archive

I was just looking at this talk page, and realized that its getting a little cluttered; we already archive requests from the request page so that it doesn't get cluttered. I was thinking that maybe we could start archiving the talk page too? Just a suggestion. -YK Times 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I also encourage it. Some section may need to be keep here. Yug (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry images

For chemistry images, all requests should be forwarded to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request, where expert chemists will collaborate to make sure images are accurate and conform to WP:CHEM's style guidlines.

Ben 13:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Template

It might not be much use, but I have created a template to go on an Image Page, to say that it is or was processed by the Graphics Lab. it looks like this:


...and it can be implemented like this: {{User:DTR/Graphics Lab|how the image is being improved|improved image}}

For the moment it is in my User Space. The Template displays a preview of the 'new' image (see Image:HRWalkway-01.jpg for a demonstration) if the template is used in the Image Namespace. Is it useful (at all)? --Dave the Rave (DTR) 18:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: There is also a template to use with no new image preview (e.g. if an image is under fair use) : {{User:DTR/Graphics Lab No Preview|how the image is being improved|improved image}}

Barnstar

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
I, Valentinian, hereby award the Graphical Designer Barnstar to the contributors of Wikipedia:Graphic Lab for their tireless work in improving the quality of Wikipedia's images. Keep up the excellent work. Valentinian T / C 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Feel free to copy this barnstar to your user pages. Valentinian T / C 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Protocol

We don't seem to have a protocols in place for wikigraphists. Do we have a plan to put some in place?--Cronholm144 01:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any moves in that direction. The Graphics Lab is pretty informal and people just work on the things that interest them. While that isn't particularly reassuring to people looking for help, it probably helps keep the volunteers from burning out and leaving out of frustration. Mike Dillon 23:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Scouting barnstar

The Scouting Barnstar

-for superb and dedicated support in preserving and improving Scouting images.Rlevse 12:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
I, Valentinian, hereby award the Graphical Designer Barnstar to the contributors of Wikipedia:Graphic Lab for their tireless work in improving the quality of Wikipedia's images. Keep up the excellent work. Valentinian T / C 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Feel free to copy this barnstar to your user pages. Valentinian T / C 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Scouting barnstar

The Scouting Barnstar

-for superb and dedicated support in preserving and improving Scouting images.Rlevse 12:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Protocol

We don't seem to have a protocols in place for wikigraphists. Do we have a plan to put some in place?--Cronholm144 01:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any moves in that direction. The Graphics Lab is pretty informal and people just work on the things that interest them. While that isn't particularly reassuring to people looking for help, it probably helps keep the volunteers from burning out and leaving out of frustration. Mike Dillon 23:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... well, should we rid ourselves of that ugly redlink on the project page then?--Cronholm144 21:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. I doubt anyone will be creating a "Conseils" page any time soon either. To be honest, I've never really looked at any page except for "Images to improve". Mike Dillon 03:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, since we are the wikigraphists I think our project page should look good, right? :) I will add it to my to do.--Cronholm144 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello all!

Just found you folks here, and am looking to get going on some graphic design work. I downloaded the SVG program, looks pretty straight forward. I'm up for converting images, but I would also like to help improve this project. Any direction is appreciated, just let me know if there's anything I can do for you. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 15:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When you say 'The SVG program do you mean Inkscape? --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure do. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 01:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Type svg into commons and practice your skills there for now. We have completed almost all of the formal requests as of right now but watch it and pitch in as needed--Cronholm144 03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Re:Inkscape: Good. I personally think Inkscape is brilliant and better than other non-free Vector packages (whoops, that's not NPOV). If there aren't any requests on Images to Improve, you could nominate images to be improved or try out Inkscape by helping out at Category:Images that should be in SVG format. Just be careful of licensing as it is debatable as whether fair-use images should be in SVG format, and some of the images in that category are fair-use. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Dave. As of right now, I'm only converting images that are under the GNU, creative commons, or public domain. I will release the SVGs under the same license to avoid any conflict of licensing. When I get a bit of time, I think I'll start on that 3-point altimeter, since it's used in several articles. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Releasing under the same license is a very good idea (they could be argued as derivative works). --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Graphic Tool

Hi, I stumbled upon Category:Graphic Tool- is this used? And if so, can someone add a proper higher category to it as it's "unknown" at the moment. If it's not use - can it be deleted? Thanks! Deadstar 10:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

External link is [3] as it doesn't seem to link properly? Deadstar 10:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The category in question is on Commons, not the English Wikipedia. An easier way to link there is commons:Category:Graphic Tool. Just remember that Commons doesn't accept fair use images. Valentinian T / C 10:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Template to mark images in progress

I've noticed a few problems with images that are being worked on being deleted. I have created a template to possibly resolve this issue. {{glhangon}}

This image is being worked on by the Graphics Lab. It is requested that this image not be deleted or removed until work in the graphics lab has been completed. This image may be vital to the success of the graphics lab to make an image which conforms to wikipedia policy, so that this image may be deleted as is intended.

This template will be removed when lab work is done.

Hope it comes in useful. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 20:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing backgrounds on certain portraits

We have a lot of amateur photographs of article subjects taken under less-than-ideal circumstances, and with somewhat distracting backgrounds (that are not relevant to the topic). Would it be a good idea to just remove the distracting backgrounds from these portraits (i.e. blank them out)? Would this page be a good place to make requests for this?--Pharos 21:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but the place for requests is Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve. --81.104.127.170 10:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please also notice that the Graphic Labs encourage photographers to "Photograph your objects on monochromatic backgrounds". Yug 03:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The difficulty of such removal can also vary quite widely: the major problem is all that annoying hair people tend to have growing out of their heads. If the portrait happens to have a strongly colored background showing through part of the subject's hair, there may be no way to remove the background without either getting visible color fringing or giving the subject a new virtual haircut.
There are tricks that can sometimes help with that, and I've used them myself, but many of them tend to take quite a bit of technical skill, and even so aren't too reliable. One that does often work in difficult cases is to just blur the background instead of trying to remove it: that makes the background a bit less conspicuous, as if it were out of focus, while still keeping its color approximately the same. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Actual portraits of people are fairly scarce here. The main problem with this sort of thing is that subjects generally aren't shot specifically to be clipped out, so you have bits missing, shadows can be hard to carry through to a new b/g, transparent subjects, etc. I'd suggest a good protocol for difficult-to-remove b/gs is to mask them and change their gamma (lighten or darken or change opacity) so that the subject stands out more, isn't so distracted or simply becomes the subject as intended. Selective blurring is rarely any better than a completely removed b/g in terms of looking convincing or natural. I personally prefer "obviously-altered but effective" ways of accentuating a subject to unconvincing attempts at a new "reality" which always just looks like a deception is being perpetrated.
Is this clear as mud? mikaultalk 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Someone snagged a vector imaged out of a copyrighted PDF from a countries government and now it's all over the place. Could I still request someone to create a free SVG of said coat of arms so we don't have to run around with this annoying SVG that can't actually be used anywhere since it's an SVG? 68.39.174.238 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be specific. Which image are you talking about? Valentinian T / C 07:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I mean generally, could that be done without leading to accusations that one SVG was a derivative of the other? 68.39.174.238 21:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
If an image used on Wikipedia is in fact a copyvio but mistagged as a free image? By all means. Btw, you might wish to check my list of places where official heraldic images are in fact PD. There aren't many of these nations, but a number of nations actually have such laws. But if the image you're thinking about isn't on this list of positives, please bring the matter up here. Valentinian T / C 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
No it's not on there, it's the Maldives. Check the page Coat of arms of the Maldives — that image is an SVG, but it's copyrighted! End result: All the "Politics of the Maldives" templates use the flag of the country instead of the coat of arms, because the CoA is, infact, non-free. 68.39.174.238 16:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about creating photo not already on Wiki

Even though I am not a practitioner of the style, I have gone to great lengths to improve the Northern Praying Mantis (martial art) page. There was a request on the talk page asking for a picture of the unique "mantis hook" fist that the practitioners use in combat. I have merged two photos together, which shows a side-by-side comparison of an actual Mantis' hook and a person playing the mantis fist. The top photo is actually an altered version of Image:MantisLegGBMNH.jpg from wikicommons. The bottom one is copyrighted and the owner has not given me permission to use it yet. I wrote them a while ago and I don't think they will ever reply. Would it be possible/legal to create an svg outline of the bottom pic? The top photo doesn't need to be traced or altered at all. --Ghostexorcist 18:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd wait til you get another opinion here, but I'd say that constituted "derivative works" and might infringe the copyright. It depends on the license it has already, if any. mikaultalk 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
This is where I found the bottom pic. --Ghostexorcist 00:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, not helpful, there's no license there. I'm not sure it's such a big deal, to be honest, which is why I'd seek another opinion. Certainly look at m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia – you probably have a good fair use argument. mikaultalk 00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


In this case I don't think that an SVG would be as good the actual image itself, and I'd have to say that such an SVG would be a derivative work. However, I certainly think it would be brilliant having this sort of image in the article. I'd advise you to upload as fair use, as I also think there is a good fair use argument.
I checked with WP:FAIR, which says that "Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia [...including...] paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Furthermore, one of the Non-free content criteria is "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I think that both criteria apply here.
The only thing that might cause trouble is criterion 1 of WP:FAIR: "1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense." It could be argued that another free photo could be easily created. You might need to think of a counter-argument for this (perhaps that such a photo would require expert or specialist knowledge in its creation?).

Overall though, I think applying a fair-use argument would be the best option. I'd be interested in the thoughts of anyone else.--Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 21:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

HELP uploading SVG

I have a couple of images over on the Polyurethane page, both in .png format. I downloaded Inkscape and converted them to .svg format.

I tried to upload one here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Polyurethanepolymer.svg, but nothing shows up; although if I click on the image box, I can get the .svg image to show up!

What am I doing wrong, and how do I get the .svg into the Wikimedia Commons so I can use it in place of the .png?

Cheers,

P Cottontail 00:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Answered on talk page. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 08:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Template appropriation

Would it be appropriate to have Template:Cleanup-image explicitly reference this, or something similar? 68.39.174.238 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If by 'this' you mean the Graphics Lab, I think it would certainly be appropriate. There is precedent, to: CAT:SVG has a mention of the GL, as does the Template {{SVG}}. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 20:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Seemed quite logical, so I did it. vlad§inger tlk 01:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Zhou Tong image

I recently made some improvements to the face of Image:Zhou Tong GR.svg using inkscape, but the changes are not rendering at all. If you click on the picture, the changes appear. How do you fix this? I notice the very same thing happened the first time when the graphics lab took on the job of making a vector drawing of the original painting. --Ghostexorcist 22:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Answered on talk page. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 08:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

how do I convert PDF to SVG?

I originally created Image:IPA chart 2005.png in Word, converted to PDF, then converted to PNG. But I'd prefer SVG. I downloaded Inkscape (which BTW looks like a nice program), but it won't open PDF; Acrobat and Illustrator won't export to SVG. How do I get around this? (Please answer on my talk page.) Thanks, kwami 18:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A technical question re Inkscape

File:WSCLogo.jpg
old .jpg scan

[[:I created a copy of the World Series Cricket logo using Inkscape and uploaded as Image:wsc-logo.svg (right) (previously a very poor quality scan Image:WSCLogo.jpg - left).

The three words of text at the bottom is supposed to be justified to the left & right margins. In Inkscape it displays OK, and if I view the image on Wikipedia in full size its OK also, but as a thumbnail it always displays with left-justified text. What am I doing wrong?

I exported a png version of same Image:wsc-logo.png and that displays fine. deleted

Any help for a Inkscape newbie is appreciated. PS is this the right place to asks this type of question? —Moondyne 07:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably the best place would be the images to improve page, but i'll answer it here anyway. Because you saved the SVG with text in it, MediaWiki (the software Wikpedia runs on) displays it by redraw it as letters not as an 'image' (if you get what i mean, so it is redrawing the word 'cricket' not the shape of the word 'cricket'), if you click on the text in inkscape and press Ctrl+Shift+C, it will save it as a path (shape), you won't be able to edit the text as text anymore, but you will be preserving how it look when on Wikipedia. Hope that answers your question :-) > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 16:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the best thing to do for any text where the font style is important. You can see Image:Fonts.svg for a list of fonts supported by mediawiki. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 16:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, this is just a minor thing, but the stroke around the cricket ball is white, should it be like that or should it be transparent?
BTW I hope all of the NOEDITSECTION stuff is sorted now, Rugby.--Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 16:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks guys. I can't work out how to outline the red circle. —Moondyne 04:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Make a black larger circle and put it behind the red one. This circumvents a mediawiki bug involving circle borders in inkscape—Cronholm144 05:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC).
Thanks again. I'm starting to get the basics happening. —Moondyne 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Why convert the image in the first place? The original logo remains under copyright and the new file is a derived image and its copyright consequently belongs to the owners of the original logo. I've updated the file information page accordingly. Moondyne is the author of the file, but its content is the legal property of somebody else. Valentinian T / C 16:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Converted because the original scan was very low quality and I have been unable to find another one to download. I agree it is copyright, but believe it can be used under fair use provisions. —Moondyne 09:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[unident] If there is a problem with it being a fair use SVG, then All you need to do is rasterise it and use that instead. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 09:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Is there a problem with it being fair use SVG? —Moondyne 14:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, (and correct me if I'm wrong), one of the criteria for an image being used as fair-use is that it is a low resolution image. SVG, being a vector format, is infinitely scaleable, and thus is potentially of an infinitely high resolution. Some perceive this to be a breach of fair use criteria. As far as I know, there is no official policy on the matter.--Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 15:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I deliberately remained silent on that in my rationale - IMO low-res is desirable but not a hard and fast requirement. I suppose its up to someone to dispute it, but I do see there's a few other svg's in Category:Non-free Logos. For example Image:1995 World Championships in Athletics logo.svg. A high profile logo Image:007.svg exists which is in a good article. I'm sure I'd find heaps of reasonably high-res fair use jpg's if I looked also. —Moondyne 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, are you sure your rendition of the logo is correct? In particular, are the corners of the black bars really supposed to be rounded, or is that just a result of tracing a low-resolution raster image? I tried googling for a higher-resolution version of the logo, but the best I could find was this, which looks as if the corners should be sharp but is not really big enough to say for sure. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought they were rounded per Image:WSCLogo.jpg and Dennis Lillee's t-shirt, but now I'm not so sure. —Moondyne 17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Text to path

Hi all,

I recently brought a graph (Image:History_of_laser_intensity.svg) over here for advice on exact positioning of text for equations. Rugby471 fixed it very nicely by changing the text to paths, but hereby hangs a cautionary tale: The new file was 391 KB! Fortunately, he had also uploaded an intermediate version where he had just fixed the arrowheads (another problem that I had had).

I felt that the precision gained by the change was not really worth the increase in file size, so instead I broke up each equation into individual letters and sections of text. I also solved some of my original problems by using ² and ³ where necessary. Now the file is only 48 KB, and is more easily searchable.

I hope this tip can be of some use to somebody at some time. --Slashme 16:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There are some huge SVG files on the Wiki, e.g. Image:BlankMap-World6.svg is 1.56MB. Once MediaWiki rasterises the image, though, it's the filesize of the resulting PNG that counts. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's true in the short term, but in the longer term, browser support for svg is going to become widespread enough that it will be worthwhile to do content negotiation, and then Wikipedia will be serving more and more unrasterised svgs. --Slashme 05:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This new heading template...

...is awful. You click on the section edit link and get a MW error about trying to edit section 1! 68.39.174.238 15:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've dropped a message to Rugby's talk page. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 15:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried all possible angles, but it didn't work, we'll just have to go with the previous method. Oh and by the way User:68.39.174.238, it's not the nicest thing for someone to call something you spent a lot of time on and created to make that someone's life a bit easier awful. Saying things like that makes me think twice about experimenting in my own time like this. > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hold on there, I think I may have a solution. See User:DTR/Sandbox2 and User:DTR/Sandbox3. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm when I tried that, it didn't seem to work. You can go on and implement that. (I've had enough of templates for today) Remember you'll need to change Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve Template:Request_Title Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve/top. However i just tweaked the template in your sandbox to fit with the previous template. > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It all works now !! > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 18:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for changes

New Template and Archiving

User:Ilmari Karonen suggested that we should have the template incorporate more than just "done" or "not done". Working on this, I had a go at an edited template that has five outcomes. See User:DTR/Sandbox2 and User:DTR/Sandbox3.

Oh, and by the way, the current template didn't add <!-- werdnabot-archive -->, but it should be fixed now. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 19:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, but the template parameters (eg done, stop etc.) need to be slightly clearer > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, is the new template archiving properly? Maybe it would need to be subst: -ed. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we can safely say that archiving is not working. {{subst:-ing didn't work either. any thoughts? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTR (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea, but I need to confirm something first, how exactly did putting <!-- werdnabot-archive -->. Make it archive, i can't find anything on Werdnabot's page or Shadowbot for that matter. > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 17:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Shadowbot3 just checks for any pages that transclude {{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}}, and checks for <!-- werdnabot-archive --> in it, then archives those sections. It was in the werdnabot wiki, when that was working (I can't seem to access it today). BTW, I don't think that transcluding the tag from another page works - none of the sections on Images to Improve have been archived. I'll put a note on Shadow1's talk page asking about it. Time3000 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I think I'll start manually archiving some of the requests, since it's clearly not working. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 16:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just noticed lots of werdnabot-archives mid archiving - were they put in manually? --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Languages

To allow other language to set up a graphic lab quicker

Hello, I think it's need to keep in a clear place this link : Last fully programmed Graphic Lab page. This will enable foreigners to "copy/paste/translate" and to get a graphic lab. Please can you get a place to "keep/archive" this link, ok keep in mind that the Commons' Graphic Lab is still fully programmed. Yug 06:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter/Announcements

see User:DTR/Sandbox2 --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 19:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I changed the colours slightly and added an image > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 18:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cartography Lab proposal from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description
This would be a complement to the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve, specifically in the creation of maps for the undermapped articles, listed by the hundreds at Category:Wikipedia requested maps
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Chris 06:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Rock on! Thank you! Do I archive this discussion or just remove it? Chris 21:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd remove it, myself, as you indicate there already exists a project dealing with the subject area. John Carter 15:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And perhaps mention the other project in the Talk pages of each as a suggestion that they might be of interest to each other...or of interest to someone looking for the right project for a task. (SEWilco 15:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
Would Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Requested and orphan maps be the best link?--Pharos 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Error?

I have uploaded a file - Image:WikiBasics.svg - created by Illustrator 10.0 and saved as SVG (UTF-8). But, it's not showing up. I have used the web color palette of Illustrator. What is the problem? Can anyone help? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't use Illustrator, I use Inkscape. I have just opened it in Inkscape and saved it as an SVG and now it displays. However on my Ubuntu Linux system, it wouldn't display a thumbnail of it, and when I tried to open it with an image viewing program, it never loaded. How exactly did you save it ? > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 14:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Illustrator generates the SVG with embedded .ai (illustrator) code, and this causes problems. Inkscape cleans-up the code or something, I think, when it's re-saved. Also, I wouldn't worry too much about the pallette of colours. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 16:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, rugby471. I guess I'll need an Inkscape to work out this kind of problems. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've never had any problems with Illustrator. CS2 and CS3 both have excellent support for both versions of svg. Make sure you pick svg 1.1 when saving as svg. Don't go export or anything. ""Inkscape's implementation of SVG and CSS standards is incomplete; most notably, it does not support SVG filter effects..."". Proprietary software always beats the free stuff, hands down :p XcepticZP (talk • contribs) 14:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Careful, or there'll be a fight :P. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

VectorMagic

I've just seen Stanford's VectorMagic image tracing website [4], which provides tracing as an online service. It claims to produce higher-quality vector output from bitmaps than other algorithms, including well-known commercial graphics packages. Its demo images at [5] appear to have dramatically higher quality than the competition. Has anyone tried this service? -- The Anome 11:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I just had a go with an image I vectorized two weeks ago, here is the screenshot of what happened and as you can see, the results unfortunately are not as fantastic as they said they would be. Plus the resulting vector is not very efficient, as there are lots of little shapes, where one large one could be used. > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And we probably wouldn't be completely happy anyway unless we traced it ourselves :-) --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 20:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
However, according to a post on one of the RSS feeds i read, it seems to be working well on some types of images.

> Rugby471 talk ⚔ 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to Troll for Images

I've noticed that there isn't much activity with respect to requests. Instead of waiting for people to figure out that they can come here and figure out how to post a request and actually post it, why don't we go out and look for the images ourselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XcepticZP (talk • contribs) 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We need : 1/ better advertising 2/ better photographies on white background...

...and a better coordination between Photographers and Wikigraphists. It may be need to make adversing in this following way (to improve) :

We need good photographers
We need good photographers
 We lack of good photographies and photographers to illustrate the Wikipedia's articles. You can help us by uploading some free photographies, especialy anatomic macro images such display (right; left). We also have a Graphic Lab where graphists are volunteers to give the last clean up to Your images.
Kind of image that wikipedia need the most : anatomic macro images.
Kind of image that wikipedia need the most : anatomic macro images.

Yug - 12:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We do need to coax more quality stuff out of our Wikipedian photographers but I'm not sure appealing to them is the first step. That's not to say it's a bad idea, just that asking for pictures immediately begs the question, "of what?". Wikipedia:Requested pictures would be the place to point them, if it was full of requests. As someone pointed out above, it's an under-used service. I think there are already plenty of willing contributors & the thing to advertise is Requested Pictures, encouraging active editors to "order" original photographs as & when they see the need. Except I'm really not sure how to go about it without spamming the entire community.. --mikaultalk 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I've just realised where I am.. I guess this is probably the wrong discussion but isn't it time that the whole picture administration side of things was more organised, or centralised, or anything but the dysfunctional state it's currently in? The difference, from an editor's POV, is an always-there, smart, full service digital bureau and photo studio with in-house retouching and editing, or a virtual shoebox with several million unprocessed, poorly catalogued, placeholder snaps with takie-it-or-leave-it functionality.. thing is, I think Graphic Lab could provide that service if we set about it the right way. --mikaultalk 21:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Freehand or Corel

Hi all,

My university offers its crest as a freehand or corel file for those who want high quality. Which will be easier to convert to svg on linux? --Slashme 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If by Corel File, you mean WPG, then Corel file it is > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 17:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether they intend to give me a cdr or a wpg file. I've so far gotten a cc of an email saying "Sue, can you please take care of this". If I don't get a response, I might have to apply my 1337 tracing skillz (which in our case we have not got) to make myself an svg and a postscript file, which I will then of course share with the rest of the university LaTeX community. --Slashme 06:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Incarceration rates, totals, etc.

I would like some GIF image charts for use on articles such as Incarceration, etc.. I know people would use the GIF charts both on wikipedia and on websites outside wikipedia.

PNG images don't scale well on wikipedia or on other websites unless one wants to spend an inordinate amount of time tweaking every scaled PNG image. GIF images, on the other hand, scale well instantly with the simplest image editors. Such as IrfanView. See related discussion here.--Timeshifter 05:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the discussion, but I don't see what you mean when you say that pngs don't scale as well as gifs. SVG scales pretty nicely, though. --Slashme 16:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I can make some HTML charts about incarceration rates by using wikicode. See

I used http://www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/html2wiki-tables.php to convert HTML charts I found on the web. I further tweaked them.

I guess I could take screen shots of the sandbox pages, or from my offline HTML pages, and crop some gif images from them.

But is there a more direct route with freeware to create GIF charts without first having to create HTML charts with wikicode or a web page editor? Please see also:

There are related charts here:

Comment: Make svg charts, using gnuplot, inkscape or some such. They scale perfectly. GIF is a tool of santa. --Slashme 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point here and on the other talk page about using SVG and other intermediate formats as working tools to create highly customizable images. Which tools would you recommend for creating 2-dimensional graphs, bar charts, and tables? I can always convert the resulting SVG images, etc. into PNG or GIF images depending on my needs.
Which tools are best, and which are easiest to use? Which tools have the best balance between ease of use, and functionality, in the specific area I am interested in using them for? I am only interested in free software. --Timeshifter 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, just look at the example below:-
File:Papua New Guinea coa.gif GIF, okay so it is 11.49 KB compared to 95.42 KB of the SVG...
File:Papua New Guinea coa.svg But is it worth losing such quality? The reason they are such lower filesizes, is because the GIF scaled look horrible (no offence). > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 16:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


I would also disagree with the statement "PNG images don't scale well on Wikipedia", because A) I think that's rubbish, and B) because PNG scales MUCH better if there are transparent or semi-transparent parts of the image. (GIF transparency is 1-bit,PNG is 8-bit.). --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)The reason the above GIF image looks so bad is because it was scaled UP from a smaller image. The scaled GIF image farther down looks a lot better because it was scaled DOWN from a larger image.

PNG images are full-color images. GIF are only 8-bit color. So if the GIF image is less than 256 colors, then it scales down better on wikipedia. Because it ends up being a lot less kilobytes than the same scaled PNG image.

SVG images are not shown on wikipedia pages. They are converted to PNG images by the wiki software, and then shown on wikipedia pages. That is because some browsers can't view SVG images.

I saved the original 560-pixel-wide SVG image as a PNG and a GIF image, and then uploaded both to the commons. I put them both below scaled down to 300 pixels wide. I indicated the kilobytes of the scaled image. The images look the same at full size too. Click the images to see the full size.

File:Papua New Guinea coa2.gif GIF image. 22.63 KB.
File:Papua New Guinea coa2.png PNG image. 61.82 KB

GIF images are fine. The PNG image uses 1648 colors. The GIF image is using 248 colors. I used IrfanView to convert the PNG image to a GIF image. It automatically changed the PNG image to the 248-color palette. For most graphics additional colors beyond the maximum 256 colors allowed by the GIF format are not that important in how the image looks. If it is important, then use the PNG image format.

Transparency works in GIF images, too. I am not familiar with the intricacies though. Many graphics do not need transparency. Especially when used on wikipedia pages.

I noticed that GIF images using transparency have to be done correctly if the images are to be scaled. Otherwise one gets the jaggy, laddered edges. There are ways to make the transparency work correctly with GIF images according to this:

http://www.handson.nu/HTML/transparency.shtml --Timeshifter 19:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I discovered the following while searching for some easy graph creation tools:
Create A Graph. Free online graph creation tool at the website for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (located within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences). Bar charts, line charts, area charts, pie charts, and XY graphs. Choice of PDF, PNG, JPG, EMF, EPS, and SVG output. --Timeshifter 03:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I did one of the graphs. I will do two more images from the Incarceration page. But I will not do "USA._Prisoners_1995_to_2005.gif". XcepticZP 09:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. If you upload them to the commons, then other wikipedia sites worldwide will be able to use the images, too. --Timeshifter 16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Another way to do charts/graphs, use OpenOffice.org Draw, since 2.3, the whole graph program has gone through a revamp and they no longer look like something you could have spent 2 minutes on Paint doing :-). Just creat the chart and choose to export to SVG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugby471 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I will check it out. It is great to be getting all this advice, and all these tools. I found another online charting tool: BARCHART Tool. Free online bar chart generator. The tool is based on the free software JFreeChart. --Timeshifter 18:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Wikiproject for charts and graphs? Or are there subsections of Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration or Wikipedia:Graphic Lab that deal only with charts and graphs? I would like to compile a list of all these tools and methods, and to consolidate discussion threads in one place and archive. --Timeshifter 18:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I found another online charting and graphing tool. Zoho DB and Reports [6] is the name of the online database and reporting application in the Zoho Office Suite. It can also "create charts, pivots, summary and other wide-range of reports through powerful drag & drop interface". Here are some samples of reports, graphs, charts, and tables.--Timeshifter 18:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphic Lab's page : Clean up to continue

The page Wikipedia:Graphic Lab really need a clean up :

  • the link toward WP:GL/Images to improve is hide in a full text ;
  • the first area is not more need, or should be merge in the presentation.

If someone have the time to make a clean up, that will be really helpful. Yug 17:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I finally made a quick clean up myself in the top section and in the introduction. Some points are to notice
  1. my english in not perfect, I have probably write "strange" sentences, your corrections are welcome !
  2. I have delete about 5 links towards examples of creation, skitching, etc. Links are confusing the new visitors. If you want display a new example of what the graphist can do, please simply complete the gallery of example (currently 4 examples, in WP:GL)
  3. write in basic English, and the shortest/clearest possible. Each sentence for fun is not need. Each unclear sentence is to delete.
  4. this in a page to introduce the Graphic lab to visitors, the most important informations only are welcome.
  5. translate le fr:Wikipedia:Atelier graphique/Logiciels into Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Softs may really help newbies interesting to contribute ;]
I go back to my true life, bye and good luck to all the graphists here ^0^y Yug 05:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, find where it may b need to place this link : "GL/Softs" Yug 05:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I did the Software Page (Soft), and placed in link to it on the mian page in the advice part. How is it ? > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 13:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Great ! thanks for the new download links ;] Yug 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yug (talk • contribs)

Category:Images for cleanup

Someone above suggested looking for images needing cleanup rather than waiting for requests. There are about a hundred images already listed at Category:Images for cleanup. -- Beland (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Would this be welcome?

I've scanned in some HUGE prints of Hogarth engravings, but they're in two pieces each (The side was too massive even for a massive scanner. Could I request they be uploaded and combined? The copyrights are all PD-100/PD-art. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but you might get more attention by directing it the Image Improvement Page. > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 18:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to make sure before I did so. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Meta project

[7] Take a look everyone, money for what we do for free already. Cheers —Cronholm144 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, sorry Yug told me about it and I forgot to post it here :-) > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
...Or maybe you just wanted all of the money for yourself... ;)—Cronholm144 17:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha yeah probably... > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What happened to...

...the entry on the Hogarth scans? The 1st one got done, but that was only one of 6. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It got archived, it was marked as done. It is here now. > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 16:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

autoarchiving?

Isn't the page supposed to automatically archive checked images? Or must this be done manually? How often is it supposed to take place? Chris (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's been a long minute since this was archived. Again, is this something we're supposed to do, or...? Chris (クリス) (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind

Hello, can you keep in mind this page : fr:Wikipédia:Atelier graphique/English presentation of the Graphic Lab. This page will need both to be updated and expanded for the Wikimania 2008 in Alexandria, Egypt.

Please request to the Wikimania 2008 organisators to plan to print some posters about the Graphic Labs before or in April 2008. Anon 10:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What is an English discussion of an English project doing on a French WP page? --Seans Potato Business 03:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Graphics Lab was originally a French only Project. Thats why. > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 13:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:svg.svg

You people are the greatest thing ever. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Old unsatisfied requests should be archived

After 2 months, unsatisfied should be archived, if need in a /Archive/Unsatisfied request .

Other think : please don't create images for "Not picture available for this [boat/Speacies of Dog/etc.], if you can provide one, please clic on this image". The standard image "Not picture available, if you can provide one, please clic on this image" already do EXACTLY the same job. Moreover, the Graphic Lab cannot create one such image for each category of object, vehicules, animals, women/men, on wikipedia. Yug 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Help

Could someone please do some images. I have had an image on the page for 3 months (London Midand PDF) and it has yet to be done! Meanwhile, loads of others have been done. Dewarw (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You could also post them at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve Chris (クリス) (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You may have better success at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps, which is geared toward your type of request. Chris (クリス) (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So...

Can I just add this to my userpage, or does some kind of hazing await me? ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to both. ;) Yes to the first part, no to the second. Chris (クリス) (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Consider yourself hazed. Now get to work!  ; )
And welcome to the nicest place in all Wikidom. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 07:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
One of these days when I've not got tons of work to do I'm gonna (actually do stuff here again and)make a list of quotes people have said about the graphic lab. I like the one above :) --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 16:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

Main page getting cluttered up

(moved from main page == Done World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts==)

Part of me says keep posting images to clean up, part of me says wait until old ones are archived, this page is filling up too much. Chris (クリス) (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you should put a bunch of them up. Perhaps the "timer" on the automatic archiver should be changed. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 17:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
done putting a bunch of them up, shall we mark done some of the neglected oldies? Chris (クリス) (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
A number of projects have stalled out. Some probably never were feasible, some may just be people taking a Wikibreak. It doesn't seem appropriate that they be marked as done. But perhaps, after some period of inactivity, they should be moved to an archive. If it's done by a bot, then a bot message to those who have signed somewhere in the section would be appropriate. Others have been on this page a lot longer than I have probably been dealing with this in the past and probably have some thoughts. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Both the Texan Navy and the Coastguard requests are done and can be filed. .by KG(D)B is already marked as done, the papal coat of arms one could probably be removed since someone seems to be saying that we already have a free-SVG of the image in question. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What about moving:
  1. 2 Placeholder Images
  • 2.1 Placeholder suggestion for CD
  • 2.2 Placeholder suggestion for Battleships
  1. 3 Map service icons
  2. 9 "Ref" button on edit toolbar

To a new page, something like [[Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/ Inhouse Images to improve. I'm sure someone will come up with a better name. It would take these slow moving projects from the top of the page, and keep the "retail store" tidy. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 19:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion needed from a graphic person

View the following please:

I'm currently in a small dispute over the preceding desaturated images (note, the original color image can be found at [8], but I cannot post it or even wikilink to it because it has been overwritten by the editor with whom I am in the dispute. but that's another story). I believe the Exhibit B has noticeable JPEG artifacts. It's like there is a halo of artifacts around the fetus. I also believe Exhibit B is way too contrasty. The user with whom I am in dispute thinks Exhibit A is too light, and less "sharp" than Exhibit B (please note that Exhibit A is darker than a raw, desaturated image of the original color image).

So there are two issues: 1) JPEG artifacts. Are they there and are they problematic? and 2) Contrast. How dark and contrasty should the image be? Hopefully it is not out of line to solicit the opinions of the graphics lab, and perhaps a 3rd image may need to be created to address both of our concerns (a darker, less artifacted image). I, however, am not requesting graphic work at this time, so that is why I have posted on the talk page. I figure that you folk know a thing or two about contrast and artifacts, and should have your monitors properly calibrated to identify those things. You may even want to open the original color image in photoshop/gimp and desaturate it yourself, playing around with various settings. Thanks for your time and your opinions.-Andrew c [talk] 04:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We're always glad when images come in. I'm not sure what the halo of squares is, but they could be erased in about two minutes. I put the original into Photoshop, used the autocontrast feature which looks much like Exhibit B. Saving the image as a jpeg, and reopening did not reproduce the halo. However, there is another problem besides the appearance of the image. Please reread the page with the image generator. [9] It plainly states that "You are allowed to resize the image, but you are not allowed to apply other changes to the image." Desaturation or contrast adjustment are clearly not allowed in using this image. If you able to reach a concensus on using the image in its original form, I would suggest enlarging it a bit at the bottom and adding the text link so that we conform to the terms of usage. After spending some time on some of the global warming pages, I know how frustrating edit wars can be. And I expect this article touches areas where emotions are far stronger. You are certainly welcome to post a request for a new image on the graphics lab page. I suggest post a message on the article's talk page that the image is a copyright vio, and marking the image as a copyright violation. You may also post this to the project page, where the activity is and ask for a second opinion. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 07:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The other user has been in contact with the company and they have approved of the black and white image. I guess we'd need an OTRS to verify that. So you don't think that the B image is too dark/contrasty? I could live with an image that was a bit darker than A, but B just seems over the top. Thanks for your response and imput!-Andrew c [talk] 12:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sagredo. The darker image shown above is one of a set of four images. See here. Would you please eliminate the halo of squares in each of the four images? If you will click on Exhibit B above, you will see that the creators of the image have given copyright approval. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. If you click on the link I just gave (i.e. here), it seems that this matter has been resolved. Also, please disregard the "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B" images above, which have been updated since they were originally shown here at this talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Joke

What I look like...

...and what I look for.

-___-"

But I think the first point may be expanded to all of us. -__- Yug 11:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use image warning for images that are going to be improved upon the graphic lab

Do you think we need to have a template that warns administrators that a fair use image is going to be worked on? Miranda 22:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

{{hangon}} or {{notorphan}} ? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Alternately you can see if this fools anyone for the requisite length of time. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Modification of fair-use images is generally not permitted. Jackaranga (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It happens often enough for overzealous copyright-bots to be problems. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess leave a big text note? I did this with my latest request. miranda 09:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

meta:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests

More requests are desired at meta:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests.

Please see the discussion here:

Could someone also please put a notice at the top of Wikipedia:Graphic Lab and Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve pointing out the meta:Philip Greenspun illustration project as another place to request diagrams, especially complex ones?

Please get the word out in other places, too.

We could use some banner and print ads for the project, too. See:

Graphists with time on their hands are always welcome here. English speaking graphists should be aware of this Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Research and Development, an effort to co-ordinate with the French and German wikis. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

HERE'S the trouble

According to User:Shadowbot3, the bot is currently "blocked for malfunctions"! This explains why we aren't getting any backups. Should we contract out to a new bot in the interim? The page looks like it's getting excessively long. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like User:MiszaBot II is the only running Wikipedia: namespace archiver bot. I suggest we use it in the interim untill our usuall archiverbot is running again. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Shadowbot3 hasn't had a contrib since the 13th. The page was growing large. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with how that archiver works. Does is not archive unless done=true in the template in the section header? So, rather than changing the bot, which I'll leave to others, I manually archived the completed requests. This should only be a temporary solution.↔NMajdan•talk 15:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that transcluding the <!--werdnabot-archive--> tag works, but don't quote me on that. But if Shadowbot3 isn't running it wouldn't work anyway. Time3000 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason it is not automatically archiving is becuase a while ago, we decided that because you cannot transclude <!--werdnabot-archive-->, we would have to sacrifice the auto-archiving for the new request template. It should have happened that when you set done=true, <!--werdnabot-archive--> will be transcluded, but unfortunately the archiving did not work. > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that Shadowbot3 has been turned off. So, should a manual archival strategy be implemented?↔NMajdan•talk 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest so, just to prevent trouble. Also, if the heading template is no longer needed, can we ditch it? It makes it impossible to use the TOC. Anyway, someone may wish to write up the standard of archiving (Page names, etc. It should be very short). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for manual archival

In light of the archival bots being down for some time now, we need to implement a manual archival strategy for GL. Any ideas are welcome. My recommendation is as follows:

  1. Drop the {{Request Title}} template from the section header to allow editors to use th TOC.
  2. When a request is completed, add {{Resolved}} directly beneath the section header, above the gallery. Either sign the template ({{resolved|1=~~~~}}) or leave a note saying it is completed.
  3. After 24 hours have passed since either the completion of the request or the last comment, archive it to the appropriate archive.

Thoughts?↔NMajdan•talk 14:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the person who asked the request (Or if they disappear, someone willing to take up the use of the new image) reply at the end saying that the request has been finished to their satisfaction and adds the resolved template with a timestamp and if noone adds anything within a day, archive it. This way if there's a really logical extention (EG. The SVG request on the Azrew CoA) someone can add it rather then having to start a new section all over again. However, that's a minor detail and the above design looks like it would work perfectly. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Need to Wait one week after the request is resolved. Why ? Because new users and graphists as well need to see what have been done here, what the level, etc. Archive too quickly will not help us to be understand. 210.203.61.15
For non-resolved, archive them after one month : keep too difficult requests is both useless and discouraging. (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
That might've worked back when we got a request every other day or so, but at the rate we're going now, a week would give you something even LONGER than my talk page. Maybe two days at the most. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
On the 5 last days we have about 2 requests/days. If you archive after 2 days, that means that the page will just have about 10 sections (4 satisfied but not yet archived, 4 unsatisfied, 2 new requests). Add 5 days will make add 10 sections. After what, it's a choice to make : do we think we need to display what we do ? or do we think that the more important is to work efficiently ? I gave my opinion, now, feel free to choice. 210.203.61.15 (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC) action is more efficient that endless talks.

Perhaps "Placeholder Images, Map Service Icons, and "ref button on edit toolbar" could be moved to a special page for images for the WP organization as opposed to images for individual editors. They take up a lot of room, and because they've taken so long, they tend to suggest that things take a long time to be done here. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 02:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that throwing things on a special page will make them take even LONGER to get done. Unfortunately some things tend to just stall. Like the Villahermosa coatofarms request I filed: It's sitting there about 7/8ths done. I suggest finalizing the standard for archiving obviously completed requests and then start work on the unsatisfied ones, since they (the finished ones) are the more urgent. In any case, I'm going to remove the instruction to use the template in the heading. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd been wondering about the Villahermosa coatofarms request. Is XcepticZP coming back, or should I give it a try when I get a chance? I have been making an effort to do some of the older stuff. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 04:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I wont complain. I think we should also have a standard, or just a mutual understanding, that if a person starts on a task and abandons it, anyone else can take it up, in order to prevent exactly that: A 1/2 finished request sitting there for MONTHS. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, the reference button: I'm not sure if there is anything we can do, unless someone gets a real brainstorm as to a better icon for it. It may just be that that is the best icon for it. Certainly none of the others look more intuitive then "<ref>". 68.39.174.238 (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the reference button. Mark it done. There's only so much one can do with 22 pixels. If someone gets an idea, it should be possible to re-start it. I'll get the Villahermosa coatofarms. Maybe placeholder images could be reduced to a summary here with a link to a work page. If it were up to me, I'd do a camera icon with a red circle and slash for everything. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is left to be done with the placeholder images? I think its possible the original requesters just forgot, as I did with my request for the "No battleship image". Maybe we should ask? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't followed them, as they were long sections when I first arrived. The first people to get a nudge should be the graphists, it's there responsibility to keep things moving. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of using the {{stale}} template. If nobody is watching this page for results, why should we care? I propose we make a system where after a week or so with no comments, we mark them stale, and after a few more days - make it the same amount of time as when they're resolved - they're archived. A week is plenty of time for somebody to check the page and leave comments/ask for attention. Anyway, it's not like we're deleting the request forever. We're preserving it forever in an archive. We need to keep the page clean.
Has anybody requested the bot task yet? -- I. Pankonin Review me! 09:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I just realized that a lot of requests might end up being ignored and then marked stale and archived, so I also propose we make a template similar to {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} (or use a generic one if it exists) that they can use to flag us down. This would help them realize that it's a normal part of life for some requests to be ignored and that they might need to be assertive to get what they want. Otherwise, there's a feeling of being screwed by the system, which, by the way, is kind of what's happening now when it just stays on the page forever. -- I. Pankonin Review me! 09:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
How do you request a bot task? By the look of it, that is the last thing that needs to be done and we can mark this resolved. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bot requests#Automatic archival for WP:GL/IMPROVE -- I. Pankonin Review me! 01:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about archiving stale requests: It might be useful to keep them here, to ensure that they either get worked on or are thrown out (If totally impossible or useless). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Leaving them on the page forever doesn't seem to be working. Maybe a time constraint will help move things along. -- I. Pankonin Review me! 04:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I am far from certain, but we will see as its too late now... 68.39.174.238 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing headers

I'm about to do a massive change to all the headers on the page and change to the new format with {{Resolved}}, and then I'm going to start marking some as {{stale}}. Suggest we archive them a few days after they're marked stale if nobody changes them. -- I. Pankonin Review me! 07:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. Looking at MiszaBot, it is apparently being rewritten to recognize the resolved template and archive those (see here). Now, we need it to also recognize the stale template.↔NMajdan•talk 17:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice idea for "Stale", only I would recommend that it be used to flag a section as needing extra attention, and it shouldn't be taken to mean "Everyone ignore this because it'll never go anywhere". 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That is my worry as well.↔NMajdan•talk 20:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Plea for advice on Ukrainian SSR graphic

Graphics lab editors, I'd like to humbly request your advice regarding the doability of my request to clean up the Ukrainian SSR map graphic. No one has commented so far, so I'm wondering: is it too difficult? Too time-consuming? Or is it just that no one is interested in working on it?

Thank you all in advance for your assistance. Bry9000 (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this in. I suspect that at least one or two others have tried and also felt as I do that we don't really have an answer for this problem. Please the next time you find an image you feel should be improved. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Some images, unfortunately, just cannot be easily worked with. I learned that the hard way when I requested some images be combined, but neglected to scan an overlap. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Mass VI push

Trouble on Commons: The long simmering disputation over how legitimate the "Vector-images" are is apparently coming to a head: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template talk:Vector-Images.com (Yes that looks erroneous: It's actually the most current (Ongoing) debate on it) shows that it's possible they're being deleted. Since this will probably create a massive disruption on, to say the least, "Politics of" templates, I wanted to ask, could we hold, or organize, a massive "Vectorization party" (Come up with your own name for it) to create our own (Legitimate and free) vector versions of these coats and allow us to minimize the disruption if they are deleted, lessen the seriousness of this dispute (IE. Instead of it being "deleting 1000s of massively used images", it could be "some relatively minor images" (EG. Town or county coats, rather then national and territorial ones)), and reduce the ambiguity of massive numbers of images (From "They might be free" to "We know they're free, we made them ourselves")? Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think planning a phase out is a good idea, if for no other reason than the low resolution of the preview gifs. But we should do at our convenience; I bet VI.com does not hold valid copyrights or licenses on more that a small percentage of these. Have they ever requested that any be taken down? (I suspect not, as they would know where they stand.) At a minimum we should try to co-ordinate with the other labs so there is no duplication of effort in replacing these. Which are to be replaced first. And while we're at get standards set, such as document size, line thickness, use of particular colors on the British Commonwealth, etc. So we don't have hundreds of variations in style. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Turns out that alot of the VI-images are just tagged as "supersededSVG" but not deleted. I've proposed migrating and deleting for all of the VI-rasters that have free SVGs available. That'll reduce the apparently overwhelming # of images to start with. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

SVG help

Moved to Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#SVG_help. --Slashme (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with info box

I am trying to create an info box for the article Kali (demon) and for some reason the info box formula is stretching out the pic (see here). The pic is not nearly that size. How can I fix this? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad infobox design. I added an image size parameter.↔NMajdan•talk 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Marking requests as stale

It is a necessary thing to do, and surely the most thankless job here. So we do owe thanks to I. Pankonin for getting it done. But for graphics lab newbies, it probably should include a apology, a thank-you for bringing the image in, along with some possible reasons. why it didn't get done. The reason generally boils down to how much improvement vs time involved kind of thing. We should write a nice generic thing to make the job easier. This really isn't a criticism, I Pankonin, had I been stuck with the chore, with so many to do, this being the first done manually, I would have done it similarly. I am particularly pleased to see someone take steps toward getting the very stale projects removed from the top of the page. They're bad advertising.

Related question, should there be a greeting, a "we're looking at it" put on every request as they come in. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the stale ones are probably complete. Some are waiting for requester feedback. There needs to be some way for the graphists to close these requests for archiving, and marking them complete seems dishonest to me. It seems like that should be up to the requester. -- I. Pankonin Review me! 09:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Agreed. Graphist should leave a message on the talk page of the requestor. If no response, after some period it gets marked done. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 19:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, if somebody replies to a request that's marked stale, they should remove the template. -- I. Pankonin Review me! 09:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)AgreedSagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 19:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a local version of {{Stale}} that links to a subpage explaining what it means, how it happens, and what they can do? That or a default collapsed box that could be expanded to say the same thing. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)AgreedSagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 19:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't suggest a template "we're on it", if a person is working on it, don't they usually say "I'm taking this/working on this... will have an image in a few [minutes/hours/days]"? That should be enough, both to mark it as being taken up and to prevent duplicate work. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree, it's essentially a welcome bot. -- I. Pankonin Review me! 04:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you do archive a stale request and there is a solution but the requester never "signed off", check the article to see if the newly created image should be used and make your own judgment call.↔NMajdan•talk 18:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've found in some cases, the original requester just forgot about the request. Usually asking them on their talk page to look at the final result will get a favorable response ("Yes, that's perfect!", or similar) and we can archive it as done. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, next time I do a manual archival, I'll be archiving all the stale requests that have been marked for 2+ weeks. I'll probably do this as early as tomorrow or maybe sometime next week unless somebody beats me to it.↔NMajdan•talk 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you archive the stale ones to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve/Archive instead of the month pages? That way people can more easily find the stale ones and see if they could be worked on. EG. the Icelandic keyboard one. The really hopeless ones (Ref button?) maybe should just be dropped. (IMAO) 68.39.174.238 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that depends. What is everyone's opinion on archiving stale requests to a separate archive? I did think of this also, but I figured that I didn't want to start this exemption if a bot would not be able to continue it. So, either, we get a bot that can archive requests tagged with stale to a different archive, we have the future bot not archive stale requests and we do it manually, or we just archive all requests to the same place. Thoughts?↔NMajdan•talk 22:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest having the bot archive the completed ones to a date-archive, and manually archiving stale ones when someone is certain that it's stale (EG. Requester is completely unresponsive, request is impossible, or impossible without more information, etc.). On a side note, see the new section at the bottom. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio trolls Ignoramuses

I've started a page here with some simple referenced information about copyrights and trademarks. Please feel free to use its imformation in the battle against copyvio trolls. And please add to it, but keep it brief easy to use, and referenced, so it will be effective. It is not meant to be a talk (dicussion) page. Dicussion can go here. It is meant to be a place where one can grab a quick, referenced fact to shove in the face of a troll educate the ignorant. Perhaps it should be moved to one of the graphics lab pages. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 08:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect (hope?) many of these "trolls" may be well intentioned, so I would be careful how forcefully it gets "shoved" at anyone. I do like the idea of having a page we can refer to to ensure we're on safe ground (I say this, despite not being a graphics dude ;) ). Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, your right about AGF. I wrote I wrote that late at night while being frustrated by the latest stupid question about a PD object. There tends to be a policy of "when in doubt mark it for deletion," which is totally wrong when the doubt is caused by the deletionist's ignorance.
So everyone is free to work on that page. We need to get it all referenced as much as we can educate the ignorant. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 18:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Specific instructions for resolving requests?

I notice that alot of requests seem to "time out" (In the sense of pings, not kindergardeners) and go "Stale" because the original requesters don't know about the new {{resolved}} templates, or in some cases don't come back and check on their requests. Does anyone else think this is the case, and/or how it could be remedied? The earlier suggestion of a "welcome bot" was essentially rejected, and I'm not sure about having people cut and paste a standardized block of text for each request either. Could we do something like P:CE has for adding new news stories? That would require us to change from our current "+" tab though. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been marking requests as resolved when it was obvious that the requester was satisfied. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 03:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy Backlog!

Anybody noticed the long line of requests that haven't been touched yet? -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 12:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Because everyone's making different versions of the Indonesian CoA? Anyway, some of them are just impossible (The Oklahoman quarter comes to mind), and people may all be busy on a Tuesday (I will be in about ½ an hour). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen the lab page this full :D Anywho, I'm back from long holiday, so I'll be another helping hand! XcepticZP (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I knocked off 3 or so. I'll see what else I can do.-Andrew c [talk] 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, so that's what happened. I hope you don't mind someone else finished the flag of Villahermosa/Tabasco. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ImageBlacklogBot

What do people think about this? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Is that an existing bot? If so, I couldn't find it.↔NMajdan•talk 14:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Err, I meant Backlog. Anyway, it's the one that goes around and replaces all the images with an SVG that says "This is copyrighted!". 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for archival of stale requests

I am personally against creating a separate archive location for stale requests. I think having multiple archives could become confusing. So, here is my suggestion. This is all based on the possible future implementation of a bot that recognizes the {{resolved}} template but can be done manually in the meantime. I think for the monthly archive pages that we currently have, we can simply implement a level 1 heading (= Stale =) for stales requests and resolved requests. It is my assumption that the bot will add newly archived requests to the bottom so the stale section would be at the top. I think we would need the bot to ignore stale requests and human editors should address those on a case-by-case basis. Thankfully, stale requests are not common so it shouldn't take much work to watch over these manually (we've been doing well archiving the whole thing ourselves so I think we can handle it). Again, this should be simple enough for us to begin immediately and then implement when a new bot goes online. Thoughts?

Another question, how do we currently date our archivals? Say, a request is made in January and either resolved or marked stale in February. Should this be in the Jan or Feb archive? Or if its created in Jan, marked stale in Feb and finally archived in Mar, which archive should it go in?↔NMajdan•talk 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the idea, so long as the bot is implemented correctly. As to the last one, that's why I gave up manual archiving, the date-system was either nonexistent or too confusing to figure out. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of date page

Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Wikigraphist abilities is notoriously out of date: Some of the best current users aren't even listed here and a flood of the people who are listed I've never or rarely seen around here. Is the page even used at all? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Marking requests stale

I have made a request to have a bot that can mark requests as stale. You can see my requests here.↔NMajdan•talk 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

animated gif

Does anyone know how to slow down or speed up an animated gif? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to pay more attention to copyright on this page !

If an image has a fair-use template on it, if it says something like This is a XXXXXXXXXXX, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark, then it goes against policy, and law, to either modify it in any way, or make any derivative works from it. For example a fair-use .png images can not be converted to .svg.
If a user licenses a file as GFDL or Creative Commons and you want to reuse parts of his work, you must give attribution to the original user, and use the same license both GFDL and CC require that you redistribute any full or partial copies under the same license as the original. GFDL is not the same as Public Domain, if you use part of a GFDL image to create a second image, this second image can't be PD-Self.
Images found on internet with no copyright information, are copyrighted by their owner, and can not be used on wikipedia, unless either: you prove the image is released under a free license, or they are licensed as fair-use.
Finally you are not allowed to use fair-use images outside of the article namespace, the graphics lab is in the project (Wikipedia:) namespace, so you are not allowed to post any non-free images on it directly, you must instead simply use a link. This can be achieved by adding a semi-colon after the first pair of square brackets. Jackaranga (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab/Research and Development

What happened to..

The book placeholder?

Amazing recent activity !

Has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab/Research and Development

Some standards of our own

Has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab/Research and Development

Other solution : Website making SVG pie charts !

Has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab/Research and Development

Martin Amis

Hi everyone: Could someone help me with an accurate crop of a photograph? I added a portrait of Martin Amis to the Martin Amis article, but it has a lot of extra stuff around his head. Nice stuff but it takes away the focus on his facial features. Could someone help me in any way?-Dwindle dwindle (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You should add your image to the main page (WP:GL/IMPROVE) so people will see it and can see if it can be improved as you suggest. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added the photograph to said list.-Dwindle dwindle (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this just me?

It seems like we're in the second generation of users and editors here, with almost NO overlap from the first. I'm suspecting this because of things like this (Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Project map) which I've never seen or seen referenced, and the fact that there exists a template (mentioned there), {{glhangon}}, which exists to prevent image deletions of fair use images while being linked only from here (Something that was discussed earlier)!

If this is the case, I suggest we check out our unknown inheritance, see if it's usefull for us, keep what is and trim the rest. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of us have been around since the beginning. I thought this was a great idea when it was created. Granted, my activity level comes and goes. I'll definitely take a look through that cat to see if there is anything useful.↔NMajdan•talk 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, talking about "old surpises", I added explanaition on Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Maps. Note that I don't encourage creation of a sub-Lab/Maps if the current graphic Lab is not over booked. In fact, in our current case, it seems that a [Graphic_Lab/Logo_&_COAT] would be more welcome that a Map Lab. Yug 07:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware you were here previously. Obviously, I don't intent to short anyone who has been here for that long; my point was solely about the large amount of stuff that's categorized as being ours but is never used. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
No, no I didn't take it as being shorted. I agree with your point.↔NMajdan•talk 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Have We Gone Too Far?

Everything seems to have solidified lately. Have we flooded the place with too many requests? Or too hard ones? Or...?

Help? This is the coolest thing ever, I (personally) don't want to see the place shrivel up and die...

Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It would look a lot less intimidating if we have a bot doing the archiving on a semi-daily basis. Right now, human editors have to archive and that gets done maybe once a week. There doesn't appear to be too many more unresolved requests than usual. Of course, those CoA's are skewing it a bit. We should limit each contributor to two active requests at a time.↔NMajdan•talk 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about a hard limit though. Thus far that's been the first major flood I've seen, so maybe we can deal with it just be telling the requester that "That's too many @ once for us to do" ? Anyway, I'll stop adding new requests untill it's a little less stuffed. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I made a quick overview, I think we need to give an hand to archive satisfied sections (if you read this lines, please contribute by archiving 2 satisfied sections...).
After what, I think we have work to do, but we can manage it on the week. 210.203.61.15 (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
All resolved and stale requests have been archived. I went through and added the stale tag to more requests as well.↔NMajdan•talk 17:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be working. The page is definitely over flowing. It would be much easier if we split the request up into different pages. XcepticZP (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you referring to? What doesn't seem to be working. I performed a manual archival. And what do you mean split the requests into different pages? We don't need to make this page more difficult.↔NMajdan•talk 20:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be worried about novices needed to figure out how to post requests and all that, fine. In that case a long protracted project, like the map one at the beginning or the route picture generator I requested can be moved to some sort of page dedicated to such protracted requests? I mean we should do every little thing to keep this page to some decent size. My connection isn't the best, but it is far better than dial up. And it takes mine 4mins to load all the images. Think about the dial up users too, lest they be totally discouraged to post requests and follow up on them. Sorry if this comment seems rude, it's not meant to be :) XcepticZP (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I just worry that moving any requests to another page will cause them to be overlooked. I wish there was a way to only load the text of a page. This Thursday marks the second week since I tagged several requests as stale. So I will move those to the stale archive for March at the time.↔NMajdan•talk 13:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I still think it would be for the good of the GL project to limit the number of active requests a user can have. Surely an editor would have no issues only making 2 or 3 requests at a time. There are a lot more people making requests than fulfilling them.↔NMajdan•talk 15:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I would definitely support something to prevent "Request dumping"; I just don't want templates on the order of DMV notices/vandalism warnings: "You have submitted requests such that there are more than your allowed total maximum active at any one time; your latest has been delisted. If you continue this in spite of warnings you will be banned and/or reported for vandalism". A bit lurid and obviously overdone I know, but the less bureaucracy here I think the better, since we seem to survive pretty well without it. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I finally got a reply to my request for an archival bot for the main request page. Hopefully, the bot owner will cook us up something nice. View/comment on the request here.↔NMajdan•talk 20:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Automated archival and marking of stale requests on WP:GL/IMPROVE

As per this bot request I have set up automated archiving and marking of stale requests. Requests will be marked stale after 14 days, and archived 7 days after that. Resolved requests will be archived after 3 days; the original request was for after 2 days but it says on the header at the top of the page 3 to 4 days so I went with that. If you want any of this changed I can do so rather easily; I'll be monitoring this page for the next few days. After that put a note on my talk page. A few notes: The bot will archive once a day in the middle of the night. The bot archives stale sections based upon the most recent time stamp, not the date the stale tag was placed there. Thus if someone puts a stale tag on a section without adding a time stamp the section will be archived the next time it runs, so don't do that. Lastly, the bot will never edit or archive the last section on the page due to a shortcoming of my regex that I don't feel like fixing right now. The page seems busy enough that the last section will never need to be marked stale or archived anyway, but just so you know. I just ran the bot and it seems to be functioning as expected, if any errors arise please notify me at once.--Dycedarg ж 06:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, it's good this is done after being talked about for ages. Also, who'se "middle of this night" is this (IE. What timezone)? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
CST. At the moment, I have it set to run at about 08:10 UTC. It's running after the bot finishes with a different task, so the exact time will vary.--Dycedarg ж 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, can your bot have a more simple signature. This signature will be permanently seen about 10 times on the page, a simple signature such as "Dycebot (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)" would be great. 220.135.4.212 (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I defancified the bot's signature. On another note, I didn't put any automated archival notice on the page, because I didn't know whether or not you all wanted one or where you would want it if you did. So taking care of that is up to you.--Dycedarg ж 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a lil confused. What if we want the bot to remove a stale tag? Do we simply add a comment in the request? Or do we have to do something more elaborate? XcepticZP (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we just remove the "stale" notice ourselves. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct. If you start up work on a stale request, just remove the stale tag and the bot will treat the section as if it never had one. Everything it does is based upon the most recent time stamp and the presence of a resolved or stale tag; getting it to remove stale tags when a new comment is added would be annoyingly difficult.--Dycedarg ж 16:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply :) And thanks for doing us an archive bot, from all of us here! XcepticZP (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You are quite welcome.--Dycedarg ж 23:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stale

Why have the majority of the articles been labelled stale? There's a lot on for the people with the know how - can't do it all at once... Mangwanani (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but alot of people are daunted by alot of hard requests made within a few minutes of each other. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
True, true by all accounts. I just don't see why they have to be labelled stale so soon... Mangwanani (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we may have flooded the place out: Everyone's discouraged because it looks like there's no end to the requests. The fact that a few invalid ones are still here (EG. the Kosovan "icones" one) doesn't help. Also, are there any ones besides coats and flags you can do? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been waiting at least 10 days to mark a request as stale (some were pushing 3+ weeks before I added a stale tag). If there has been no further activity in 14 days, I archive. That is at least 24 days of no activity. At what point should an inactive request me marked stale/archived? I'm open for suggestions. There hasn't been a lot of feedback on this so I've been bold. It is definitely not set in stone. We have been pushing 70 requests on the main page and that is too much. I've suggesting limiting the number of active requests a single editor can have at one time to two or three but got no response. I don't really ever do anything with the images, so my contribution has been attempting to keep this thing somewhat organized. All you have to do to remove the stale tag is remove it yourself or if I see a stale request has had recent activity, I'll remove it myself. Its not a permanent tag. Honestly, those should be the ones that the WikiGraphists focus on. That is what the tag is meant for, to bring attention to it.↔NMajdan•talk 19:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, in which case I shall too be bold and make a proposal (which after brief research I think is worth making). If we have clear guidelines and say that if after 14 days there has been no response to an image it be marked as stale. After a further five days of being marked stale the image be archived. How does that sound? Mangwanani (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
So you're proposal is actually more strict than mine. I'm fine waiting 14 days to mark stale but I would like to extend the deadline for archiving to an even 7 days. Of course, this is a manual process (my bot request was never implemented or even commented on) so this is a minimum time frame. Its possibly that a request may go 21 days without being marked stale, but I still say that archival has to wait until seven days after being marked stale, not 21 days after the request was made.↔NMajdan•talk 19:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I mean that was just a sort of rough guide to begin with but I definately think that we need to implement some sort of guides to stop the page getting clogged (yes I put hands up to that but I think that it helps to see what can be done and what is too difficult at this point in time). So should we go for something like this? Anyone else have views on the matter? Mangwanani (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
How about we add another tag. "Work in progress"-type thing. With a field saying which graphist took up the request. So we assume good faith that, when they take up the request, they will take it upon themselves to get it done. Perhaps keep the strict deadline like Mangwanani suggested, but extend the amount of time before it becomes stale and finally before it gets archived for the ones that have been taken up by a specific graphist. So only the ones with no particular graphist working on them to have a strict deadline. This does seem natural because everyone will only take up the ones they reasonably intend on finishing. XcepticZP (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I like that. So to clarify, something like the
Resolved
but saying work in progress. While the work in progress tag is absent the image has 14 days before it is marked stale and another 7 before it is archived. If a work in progress tag has been used but no "progress" seems to have been made within 14 days of the work in progress tag being added I propose a query tag which would "query" the validity of the work in progress tag. How does that sound so far? Mangwanani (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the "in progress" tag is a good idea, it would help to know who is working on what to avoid duplication too as well as keeping track of stale requests. The {{Inprogress}} and {{Accepted}} don't fit the purpose here, so I made this to match the accepted/stale tags. It can be transferred to a GL subpage or main template-space if you want to use it. — ₪₪ ch1902 ₪₪ 15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I like that. I think that it must be made cumpulsory to sign the tag so if after a while no feedback has been given we can wake the user up and say what's the deal with this, you said you were working on it. Are you? (That kind of thing...) 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this aswell (duh, it was my idea! :) ). It should be implemented soon. Ch1902's tag for this is quite acceptable for the task. Also, refining my earlier idea: If someone HAS accepted to do a request, perhaps we should actually lower the time before the request is marked stale. So a week for it to be marked stale, at which point we contact the graphist. If another week passes with not progress, then it is archived. Hows that? Or perhaps the tag removed after a week of being stale, and therefore would be open for another graphist to accept the request. XcepticZP (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This is all well and good, but let me say this as the person who has been actively maintaining the archival of this page for the past couple of months, this cannot be too complicated. Sounds like we're starting to get into too many rules about which requests have to wait so long before marking stale, who/when adds the in-progress tag, and how long after marking stale before archival. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong. Also, we want to keep it simple so when a bot does come along that can handle the resolved template, it will not be hard to implement. Maybe somebody can outline the archival guidelines that we are leaning towards.↔NMajdan•talk 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

While this sounds good, I do like the current "multiple-users" system where many different people will try at a request and (usually) work something out per what the requester wants. I don't want the new tag to, in effect, territorialize the board (Granted, I'm a requester, not an actual grapher, so it might look different from there). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In the end, this project is for the requestor so your viewpoint is vital. And I agree with you as well. I think seeing an "in progress" tag would discourage other graphists from contributing to that specific request.↔NMajdan•talk 01:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the template {Stale|} is really unclear and discouraging, as if the request was refused (nobody what to make it).
The French graphist just use two small templates : 1/ {I take|~~~~}" ({je prends|MyPseudo}) 2/ {done} =  Done ({fait}), this one is put in the <galery> in comment of images improves or created.
I strongly support a change about this (the "Stale" is really discouraging-confusing), your English being better than mine, when you will have decide, show clearly the new Good Will templates to use on Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve/top so every bondy will quickly know. 220.135.4.212 (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Need more graphists, Need split, and Need maintenance

Hello, It is need to say it again : we need more graphists ! Every help is welcome ! Current volunteers are overbooked and need help. Please help to spread the message everywhere on wikipedia.

Split the graphic Lab ?

Afterwhat we should seriously think about split the Graphic Lab since it seems really over booked. In our current case, it seems that a [Graphic_Lab/Logos_&_COAT] would be really welcome to received this king of SVG request.

Need maintenance

[[:The Automated archival by dyceBot which was put in force some days before is a great help to move completed request, or long time not satisfied requests to archives.

But we need more human-made marking of stale/resolved requests, or checking. By example, the current Norwich_City_FC request was marked {{Stale|1=~~~~}} by Dycebot, while it seems actually {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} 2 weeks ago.

This mistake is the produce of the current lack of humans involvement on page (lack of graphist, lack of helpers) compare to the huge amount of requests : graphists and helpers forgive to announce when a request is resolved.

Conclusion

You think split is a good idea : say it. b/ We need more contributors here O.o ! the page is suddenly too successful ! 220.135.4.212 (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm highly suspicious of splitting this, since it will entail splitting all the administration required from one page into 2. Finally, graphists aren't the ones who are supposed to mark things as completed: That's usually the job of the requester when their request has been satisfied. As to turning up new graphics creators/editors, maybe we should look here. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been out of town for a week so I wasn't able to help maintain the page. I'm really glad to see the archival bot finally started. I am against a split for the same reason as above.↔NMajdan•talk 19:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, noticed. If we have enough contributors : yes, we may still keep one global page for some more months. ;) 220.135.4.212 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Have We Gone Too Far? (2) -> We need help !

Everything seems to have solidified lately. Have we flooded the place with too many requests? Or too hard ones? Or...?

Help? This is the coolest thing ever, I (personally) don't want to see the place shrivel up and die...

Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I changed my opinion : yes, we are overbooked and we need help.
Please, one native english speaker may him go to write (draft) :
"Need/Call for graphists and good will assistance ! The Graphic lab is a so big success now that we have tofficulties to make maintenance and to satisfy the hight number of requests. Please,
  • if you know Gimp or Inkscape, or
  • if you are interesting to pratice graphism (bitmap and AVG) , or
  • if you can help us to maintain (validated the satisfied entries ; archive the 3 days old satisfied entries) ;
Then join us ! We need your help. The wikigraphists, The Graphic lab.
My text is just a 1 min drafts, feel free to make a better text, and then to post it on all Villages pumps he can found. 220.135.4.212 (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


useful ?

Hi, if you need some graphics improved I can make some improvements, like maybe removing the unwanted coins from a few the pictures listed here using Gimp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_with_coins_to_indicate_scale Would that be helpful ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcg (talk • contribs) 01:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Coins should be replaced by a true scale, such (km/miles). I found nothing for cm/inch or mm/? sizes : it may be need to make it. 220.135.4.212 (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So to fix these images requires getting the exact measurement of each coin used, making adjustments for the perspective of the photo to get the relative size of the coin in the photo, using that measurement to scale the svg scale graphic appropriately, removing the coin, adding the scale to the photo, uploading & integrating the new pic to wikipedia. Is that an accurate summary of the cleanup request for these images? Making the scale graphic accurate would be very difficult I think. Anonymous.

Yes. I collected some US coins, I have Euro coins, and I will buy a Macro camera this week. I will provide an image soon. 220.135.4.212 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See your point but thinking that after all of the work involved as outlined above the scale graphic may well not be accurate enough to warrant the effort involved. Maybe the task is more simple than appears so could you provide a link to some examples of svg scales being added to pictures on wikipedia as a reference to show how this has been done successfully before ? Mrcg (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

{{NoCoins}} has an example linked in it as well as sizes. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

picture???

hi, i was recomended here by another user. 

RE: maps.blog.com.mk/ EXTREME bottom of the page.

at the extreme bottom there is an ethnic map of southeastern europe. I was wondering if it was copyright to get the picture on wikipedia? but it is a bit blurry and the scale is hard to read

would it be possible for someone at the graphics lab to 'fix' up the map and then post it into the free domain in wikipedia commons??? please get back to me P m kocovski (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's from post-1992 it is probably copyrighted, but to know for sure, we'd have to find out who published the map (It looks like it was scanned in from a bopk). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It says that it was published by 'the institute for central european studies, budapest'. how would i be able to find if it is available for use on wikipedia or not? thank you P m kocovski (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It would have to be available without a copyright, or with a license that we (WMF) will accept: Certain Creative Commons' license, or the GNU GFDL, for instance. If it is copyrighted, then it's very unlikely that it could be uploaded on Wikipedia. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor archive bot change

As I've seen {{done}} used from time to time in place of {{resolved}}, and they basically mean the same thing, I've put code in for the bot to treat them the same. I think {{resolved}} is more accurate, but I don't it's worth the time to go through and change the templates every time someone uses the wrong one.--Dycedarg ж 08:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice... 68.39.174.238 (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

svg

I'd like to convert Image:IPA chart 2005.png to svg. Theoretically, I can generate a pdf and convert it to svg in Illustrator. However, the file size jumps from 160kB to almost 4MB, not all code ranges are supported, and italic text is not supported. (Illustrator claims the italic fonts are unavailable, and substitutes generic fonts or boxes.) Is there a better way to do this, or do we just stick to png for vector graphics? kwami (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. freesvg.texterity.com was not able to convert it either. kwami (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it set in Gentium? If so, I could just reproduce it in Inkscape. The file size will be huge, though, because all text will have to be converted to outlines (which also renders it virtually uneditable), unless one of these fonts is used (they're the only ones MediaWiki can render as text). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Scratch that—it is Gentium. Due to the likely massive file size, I'm not sure SVG would be an improvement :( Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
DejaVu Serif has a lot of the Phonetic and Phonetic Extension unicode characters you will need and is a supported renderer font, so you should be able to keep text as text if you use that. Just use something like Character Map or copy/paste straight from the IPA article to Inkscape :) — ₪₪ ch1902 ₪₪ 23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

editing picture

hi, i was just wondering if anyone could help me with making a version of Image:BlankMap-World.png which would be appropriate to a wikipedia page? i needed some help with colouring the various countries. P m kocovski (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you use the SVG version, you could probably do it with a text editor. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok what do u mean 'text editor' lyk microsoft word or is there another program?P m kocovski (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of notepad. Anyway, if you download Image:BlankMap-World6.svg and open it in notepad, you should see it as a text file. Each country's entry is identified by their ccTLD codes (us = United States, ar = Argentina, th = Thailand, etc, etc.). If you compare that to, say, Image:First second third worlds map.svg you can see how to add or remove colors from countries. Also, there are instructions in the 1st part of the files. The colors are in HTML color (8 hex numbers) format. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Get more graphist

{{User:UBX/GIMP}}
GIMPThis user contributes using GIMP.

 I putted a message there : on the Gimp box.
feel free to improve the message. So about 300 user pages now display this « We need you! » linking to the Graphic lab. I hope that will work. 220.135.4.212 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It may be even more welcome to do the same on each template of Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe Photoshop, which would display this « We need you! » on (one or 2) thousand(s) user pages. I don't dare do it, since I'm an IP. Help welcome ! 220.135.4.212 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
{{User:UBX/User gimp|n|no}}
g-nThis Wikipedian is a (skill level) GIMP user. (we need you!)
Need to create a page Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/We need You !, requesting more graphists, explaning that we are too successful that it's difficult to satisfy all requests, and explain the possibilities of development (write down tutorials ; teach each other ; make 3 sub-labs : Photo improvement / graphism creation / map lab .). 220.135.4.212 (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you not go creating "sub labs" when noone else seems to support the idea. It's likely to cause endless trouble. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC) PS. However, I would see about announcing somewhere; I don't know what the usual places on eN are anymore (If I ever did).
I know that nobody currently support the idea, but I also know that sub lab (when they will be need) are a good way to put together some few users, interested into a special topic (i.e. maps), who will together improve their skills and share tips. I say it again : it's not welcome now, but you are growing fast ! (very FAST !) so my POV is that this will soon be need. Afterwhat you are the english graphists, so you decide, and you can write the /We need You ! page as you want. 220.135.4.212 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I had someone post on the WP:CP an invitation for new graphic editors. We'll see... That and maybe when everyone's done with their Finals! 68.39.174.238 (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tips on converting to svg

Hi all,

Freestyle-69 asked about converting png to svg, so I started a howto at User:Slashme/To SVG If this seems useful, please move it to a sensible place in this project space, and please add your own comments. --Slashme (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that, YOU'RE back! 68.39.174.238 (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, somewhat. I guess I should take down my wikibreak notices. I've finished my M.Sc. so I will have more time for WP from now on. I have also now paid my $36 to freeshell, so as soon as they upgrade my membership I will be able to host my script again and make some more progress on the parliament diagrams. --Slashme (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Woot woot (distillation)! 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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; File:Marines surrender at Government House.jpg File:Argetina's 1982 ruling Junta.jpg File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg 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)

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)

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)

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)

Implement and see if anyone complains? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Wondering

Just wondering if there is a special area where other users can request an image or animation to be created... Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 15:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you can just request it. Most of the requests are image modifications, but I've seen images created for valid requests. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, its me who wants to create the images, so was wondering if I could be of some help. :)
I think (Category:Wikipedia_requested_diagram_images) might be useful. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 14:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It worths both ways. If someone requests an animated image, you could reply. Having said that, animations are one of the least requested image types. I do recall there was a request earlier dealing with an animation of the distribution of the US population over time (Twinkle twinkle little states) that was somewhat disputed. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :)! Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 10:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve. People also ask for images to be created. From that page: "We also create new drawings, diagrams and maps when requests are made to do so." --Timeshifter (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposition for common map conventions announcement

Hello.
I'm from the French-speaking Graphic lab and we had a discussion there about the creation of a colorimetric convention for geopolitical and topographic maps for a common use in the Wikimedia project.
Now we make this proposition on Commons talk:Project Mapmaking Wiki Standards.
I invite all Wiki map makers here to take a look at that page and participate so we can harmonize the aspect of our maps, have common conventions and ease their creation.
Note also that I initiated on the same page a discussion about the choice for a recommended projection to be used for world maps.
Thanks for your participation. Sting-fr (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Most maps here are ad-hoc (That come to mind), and many are "applied maps", EG. the capital punishment one that's only incidentally a map. Still, a good idea and I appreciate someone attempting to at least make a start. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Computer generated imagery

...exists. Please help to improve this Portal - the scope is anything that is generated on computer without a sensor. The Topics section is the only part at first draft. If you can help with anything - collecting images for the "More pictures" gallery, good articles, heck, even the intro needs a rewrite or three, please tuck in. See you there. Dhatfield (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Help please with bot deleting fair use logo from the graphics lab

A bot keeps deleting a logo (a fair use image) and it seems it's doing it because these images are not to be used outside of mainpage space. The image fixes I need seem pretty basic, isn't there some workaround solution for this issue? The image is the logo on Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Banjeboi 22:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also it would be nice to be notified of these deletions rather than wondering why something is just being deleted. Banjeboi 22:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has been had before and Fair use images are not allowed outside the article name space and there wasn't enough support to make the graphics lab an exception. The current process of just linking to the image seems to work quite well. I'm sorry my edit comment didn't explain all the reasons behind it. /Lokal_Profil 23:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Lol. I should have known the mob had its say on this. Thank you for dealing with this anyway. It may make sense to improve, ironically, to better reflect that I didn't do anything wrong per se and that the link would be used in place of the image itself. Banjeboi 23:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The image is used by the bot wherever it encounters the image. In most places a link isn't suitable but for us it is. Might be worth checking if the bots can deal wit this page differently by replacing
Image:Fair_Use_Image.ext --> Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|[[:Image:Fair_Use_Image.ext]]
instead of
Image:Fair_Use_Image.ext --> Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
Which is basically what I've been doing manually. /Lokal_Profil 23:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Something didn't work quite right with the Havana coat request, it replaced the image with the NFIR image, but then put a link to NFIR in the caption, instead of a link to the image. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Where was this request? Can't find it on Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve. /Lokal_Profil 16:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The one requesting vectors of the Havana civic flag and coat. I've fixed it now, but if you look @ my immediately previous edit to this, you'll see it. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Main page

I've made some cuts to the main intro page of the Lab, pending a further decision on how to redesign it. I hope the removals make it easier for people who run across it to understand and get to the submission page with their images :). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Create, improve images

Can we change Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve to

See the previous discussion higher up titled #Wondering?

I have often thought this was confusing people. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding a comma is probably a bad idea. Maybe "Workshop" or something else that is simple and conveys the idea of "work-done-on-THIS-page" or "Submissions" or "Requests" to be more user-centric? Probably a good idea though, the name is a direct translation from the French lab, which this on originated from. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I like your "workshop" idea. How about Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop? That is clearer than the current name, and there is no comma. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It sounds OK, but check the links to the current page name, etc. and update them to the new name when done with the move. Redirects sometimes seem to cache old versions of pages. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Support the move! Would make it clearer. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 11:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: When I launch the idea to create and english graphic lab, 3 people supported the name Wikipedia:Graphic Workshop, 2 supported the name Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. I finaly create the page under the name Graphic « Lab » -not a perfect translation- because I wanted to support the idea of a funny place for tests and creations (more display in "Lab"), like Google have a Google lab.
BUT, this issue stay open, you have now a good team of graphist, if the name of "Lab" is not good, you are free to change it. Yug 17:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Both is even better!: Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop --Timeshifter (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest against renaming the base page, since that would invalidate our shortcut links (WP:GL, etc). TS seems to have a good idea in his name. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I encourage to rename first, and to see reactions after. You seems all favor the name "Image Workshop" over "Image to Improve". So, what do we wait ? Lets go ! Yug 09:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed the name to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop since there seems to be no disagreement. I also updated the shortcut links from Wikipedia:GL/IMPROVE and WP:GL/IMPROVE. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Help need: "Tutorial:Cartography.svg" need review and copyedit

Talks move to the request page: WP:GL/IMPROVE. Yug 10:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Graphics_Lab/Archive_1&oldid=230147952"