This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

See also commons:Commons:Map resources. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. No offense intended, but Karten beats the pants off either. Dhatfield ( talk) 03:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea since it is in German. But I will take your word on it. I only offered the Commons resource page as another gathering of map resource links. If some of the German stuff is translated please link to those translation pages from the Commons list of links. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get a translator. Dhatfield ( talk) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I just added a couple map how-to pages to the Graphic Lab resources page at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources. See:

Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/PDF conversion to SVG

Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/PDF conversion to SVG/Adobe Illustrator

I adapted them from

Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/PDF map conversion to SVG

Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/PDF map conversion to SVG/Adobe Illustrator -- Timeshifter ( talk) 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Put it out there and see what people think, that's what the requests page is for. Maybe you'll find someone looking for a challenge, or you might get advice that it's impossible, but at least you know. To answer your specific request, in my view it would be worth someone having a play with the image, I've seen plenty worse. Debate 木 10:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's absolutely no gray scale information in the dark areas so there's really nothing that can be done to increase the clarity here. Personally, I wouldn't mirror the image because then it's no longer his face regardless of what style guides and the like might prefer. This is, ultimately, an encyclopedia after all... Debate 木 13:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least the claptrap around him can possibly be cleaned up. I'm not sure I follow the second point. Whose face would it be? — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, it'd be the face of his evil counterpart from the mirror universe. :-) With the image quality so low, it's of course quite hard to tell, but in general human faces are not exactly symmetrical. So yes, mirroring a portrait could be seen as distortion, however minor the difference might be. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No more so than digitally manipulating the image, I would say... I'll defer to a guideline on this, of course, but the only advice I've seen is that it looks really weird to have the dark side of a high-contrast image facing the text. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict, snap> Faces are not perfectly symmetrical. While the image may still be recognizable when flipped, a mirror image is no longer the face that people would have seen when meeting him in person. You can get a sense of how much of a difference this makes by cutting the image in half, then mirroring the right side of the face onto the left side, or vice-versa - the result inevitably looks odd. As this is an encyclopedia accuracy should always trump aesthetic considerations. Obviously, however, in this case the image is of such poor quality that the point is largely academic. Nonetheless, I would strongly object if someone started up a project to flip all portraits that do not match facing guidelines in the WP:MOS. Debate 木 01:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... He's dead, so no one's going to meet him in person. It's routine in print to do this sort of flipping. Actors do not become unrecognizable in films when they are shown looking in the mirror. To William A. Spinks, if he were still alive, the flipped picture would more accurately reflect his appearance since he surely saw himself in the mirror more than in photos. The picture can't be split-mirrored to see how weird it looks, since half of it is black. Etc., etc. Just some counter-points. I actually tend to agree with you on a campaign to do lots of this flipping, but mostly on the grounds that it would be trivial busy-work, not that it's a falsification, since his face is/was as it is/was, and what side "belongs" where is 100% a matter of perception (his in his reflection, or others' in their perception). In this case, I agree it's academic, and I did try it the other, original, way and it really did look weird; bad enough I almost considered just not using the image at all, despite the need for one, or using an awkward ToC-to-the-left layout (ick!). <shrug> Oh well. If it's felt strongly that it shouldn't be horizontal-flipped, I won't put up a fight about it. I'm just not strongly convinced by the reasoning.

Another way of looking at it - if I were a notable article subject (living!) and took a photo of myself in the mirror, cropped it so it wasn't obvious it was a mirror shot, and gave this to a WP editor on request as a CC/GFDL pic, the editor uploaded it and knew it was a mirror shot and said so, and it was used in my article, would you still object? If not, what do you see as the difference, since the end result is the same (my face would be opposite how a stranger would see it)? If so, how could one argue for reversing it, since it is a legitimate mirror shot, and flipping it would in fact be a falsification of the original, an inversion of both the reality of the subject and the intent of the photo (unless I indicated that I only took the mirror shot because I didn't have a handy regular photo, and didn't care about the directionality; but maybe the mirroring was my own photo-authorial creative direct intent)? It's a bit of a conundrum, isn't it?

Has larger implications, too - one could create an line-drawing illustration of an article subject based on a photograph that was too poor for use in WP. The article at Rudolph Wanderone, Jr. has a painting of him on a magazine cover (as well as regular photos). [Whether that really is fair use is another matter entirely.] — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Fair enough. Just to be clear, I'm not one of those editors, as the article this image is for was written almost entirely by me. I'll think on this one more. Right now I'm not convinced of any harm in mirroring the image, but my mind changes on all sorts of things all the time. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I had not intended to suggest you were one of those editors... some of these issues have simply been percolating in my brain recently so this was a good opportunity to 'purge'. :) Debate 木 04:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Hi. I'm kinda n00b to this Graphist thang myself (but not WP), so I'll explain the process. Download image, fix, upload to overwrite existing using DerivativeFX on Wikimedia if you can, or overwrite on WP and hope Lokal_Profil fixes the mess you made of the licensing - or that's what I do :)

Why?

1. It seldom happens that two people work on the same image at the same time, but it occasionally happens. No biggie - then the originator gets to pick the better one. If you are concerned about this, leave a note under Graphists Opinion that you are "on it" - many people do it as a courtesy.
2. Every overwrite of an image leaves the original image intact as a possible revert (in case of vandalism or incompetence), or anyone can link to the original image if they prefer it. No data is actually overwritten - this also puzzled me, but there it is. However, on the assumption that your new version is better than the old one, the new one gets put on all of the pages that reference that file (at least on your next browser cache clear - Shift-F5 in Firefox). So people don't have to be informed that there is a new image if it's the same format, they just get it automagically. For a raster to vector conversion, the linking pages have to be changed, but the originator normally does that.

Other questions:

Download the image by clicking on it and then look for the 'full resolution' link at the bottom of the page. Right click, save, fix.

Stale means that it hasn't been done in a while and is normally a prompt for the originator to do something eg. provide better source or a .pdf version. Of course, it can apply to really tough jobs that nobody has the energy to tackle.

Only other advice I can give is: have fun, be polite and Don't Feed the Trolls. If you've got any other questions, ask away. Dhatfield ( talk) 16:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

fr:Wikipedia:Atelier graphique/FAQ_SVG

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

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

Displays just fine on my computer. Try to refresh and bypass your cashe.

Cheers mate!

Λuα ^{( Operibus anteire)} 07:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Works fine here, it should be vectorized if it's copyright is resolved OK. 68.39.174.238 ( talk) 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

SVG? I can do that, but it'll need some cleanup afterward. I also have noticed a bit of mistake here and there. Nothing serious, but I'll come back correct that when I do SVG. Did I get that right? Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Get what right? If you want to SVGify it yourself that's fine, and if the SVG replaces the current image (Which is usually the way it works), there's nothing wrong with making the correction at the same time. 68.39.174.238 ( talk) 19:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

One of us is surely is going too fast for the other. But, I guess I got it right anyways, like you probably meant the SVG format when you referred to vectorization (i have only a limited understanding of all the computer graphics stuff, so this makes me very happy). But, there's a slight problem. Every time I save a file in SVG format using Adobe Illustrator (that's what I can access) the image shows a blank. Each time some editor or other had to come forward and to something to the file to make it show (well, that's become a familiar procedure for me already anyways). Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 17:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Judging by [1], AI adds a bunch of crap at the head of the file and you have to manually strip it out with a text editor or else nothing else wants to read it. 68.39.174.238 ( talk) 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I agree. I changed the name of the page to "SVG resources" (see Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/SVG resources), and moved the SVG talk to its talk page. I moved the other talk here. I hope this is OK.-- Timeshifter ( talk) 10:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanx. I'm still interested if we'll get from the discussion above a list of pages that could be removed without loss. 68.39.174.238 ( talk) 16:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Which pages would you like to see deleted, and why? -- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically there appear to be alot of pages that are completely dead, and in some cases look like they were never used. In many cases these purport to be current information and are misleadingly out of date. If they can be made useful, OK, but if not they should be somehow marked as grossly out of date (EG. {{ archive}}) or just dropped. Personally I prefer the latter since even pages which are marked as dead or archived seem to attract people who try and use them, comment on their talk pages, etc. which noone ever sees. 68.39.174.238 ( talk) 19:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC) (PS. Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Wikigraphist abilities appears to be the prime offender)

OK. I am volunteering you to take on all these tasks. :) -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Subtle... Well, I'll do what I can without pagemoves or new pages (But see below). I may ProD some pages though. 68.39.174.238 ( talk) 23:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

1. First and foremost, it's grossly out of date. People who haven't done labwork (And some who have done no editing at all) in ages are still listed here with varying degrees of "active"-ness (Infact, there is only one "Inactive" listed). People who drift away or leave easily forget to update the page.

• • Maintenance by other people might be possible, but there are other reasons, EG. below.

1. Second, the purpose of this "table of ranks" is rather uncertain: When requesting assistance for an image (SVGification, cleanup, etc.), noone ever asks by name (EG. "I want Fvasc. to do this one..."). I'm also not certain what internal use it serves (Is it consulted by anyone?).
2. The design of the project doesn't really accommodate it as it's designed. Most traffic is (I'm pretty sure) to the main page, and then to the workshop page (Or just to the workshop page for regulars). Ancilliary pages like this a almost NEVER seen by visitors/requesters and rarely considered by graphists (The latter is a conjecture, but I'm guessing based on the very outdated state of it).
3. We've survived with it being in an almost uselessly out of date state for some time, which suggests that it wont be really missed.

• • If this isn't the case, it can be recreated in a newer, better manner.

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

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

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

I added a note to the page. I suggest keeping the page and removing the "how active" column. It can not be kept up to date accurately, I believe. I think the page is useful for finding people that one may have worked with before, or for followup questions concerning past images and derivatives. And much more. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't they be found by looking at the file history? Presumably they would either be the original uploader or an editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.174.238 ( talk) 19:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but that is not the only reason to keep the list. Others may have given advice but not edited the image. Plus one has to remember the image file location. Not everyone is good with bookmarks. I have lots of bookmarks, and still have trouble finding stuff. :) -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps#Subpages of WikiProject Maps
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Subpages

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

• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources

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

• Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources

Here are some resource-related subpages:

• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Maps
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Software
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/advice
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Project map
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Wikigraphist abilities
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Research and Development
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/News
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Related projects
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Optimizing relief
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/links
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/graphists

They could be moved to:

• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Maps
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Software
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Advice
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Project map
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Wikigraphist abilities
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Research and Development
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/News
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Related projects
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Optimizing relief
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Links
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Graphists

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

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/PDF map conversion to SVG
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/PDF map conversion to SVG/Adobe Illustrator

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

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

See also Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Project map; it's a bit redundant now and I think is'nt well known. -- Dave the Rave (DTR) talk 12:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I listed it in the above list. It is good as an overall project breakdown. But it is not really good as a focussed resource list for editors who want to jump in and start learning and helping in the Graphic Lab. It contains a lot of internal organization stuff like archives and templates. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a VERY good idea, far better than splitting things up here. If these get more people to come and stick around, things shouldn't go stale as much. I'll check the prefix list for other pages in a sec... 68.39.174.238 ( talk) 21:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Some right-side infoboxes on all the resource pages might tie things together and help people to stick around, go deeper, stay interested, network, and keep learning. For example: Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/languages. See also Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Related_projects. It would be nice if this list below was made into a right-side infobox too:

Related projects
WikiProject Maps WikiProject Photography WikiProject Illustration WikiProject Free images

Are there any more infoboxes that could be used on the resource pages? -- Timeshifter ( talk) 18:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I found some request archives in the request subdirectory. I don't think they should be moved to the resource subdirectory though. I found some requests in Category:Image requests to be listed/processed, and I also found requests with this search: Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve/request. Maybe there should be an overall page explaining the request archives. That overall page might be put in the resource directory. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean merging them into the monthly archives, possibly at the same time the archives are moved to the new page name (See Dycebot, above). 68.39.174.238 ( talk) 21:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am for letting others handle the archive moves since they have bots to help them. I can change the names of the dozen or so resource pages myself in a couple minutes. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resource list box
• {{Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resource list box}} - It produces:

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources
Advice Uploading standards Software Tutorials SVG Project map Related projects Wikigraphist abilities News Stale/Archival Research and Development

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

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

I did not create any of these pages. So any bloat that exists predates my involvement. Also, there are no more subpages than before I got involved. I only consolidated resource subpages to one subdirectory. At least now people can easily find them, and do whatever they want with them. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if inadvertantly gave the impression that you were somehow responsible. I very much appreciate your attempt to cataloge a lot of the existing material that clearly predates the both of us. :) Debate 木 07:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the "Howto" pages are useful. They should be mentioned somewhere and maybe they'll get "kept-up". Also, if people can use them to do really simple tasks, that'll save us some trouble. Having said that, alot of the pages ARE useless. "Graphist abilities" predates me and is horrendously out of date. Maybe you could come up with a list of pages that should be kept, and the rest MfD'd? Obviously:

• Main page
• IW
• IW archives
• This talk page

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

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

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

Not sure if it will help, complicate, or make no difference to, this - definitey required - reorganization, but I'm in the process of translating some of the French Graphic Lab tutorials (see this page), of which one is the Optimizing Relief article already done. Just to let you know that I will ultimately be adding more of this sort of content (and if there are any French language articles you particularly would like translated, let me know. Don't have to be cartographic-based, I know nothing about the subject! Although I do know more now...) JaneVannin ( talk) 19:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 00:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the project on meta wiki for original illustrations(Greenspun Illustration project) seems to be dead, why don't we have a separate workshop dedicated towards creating professional-like original illustrations here? Typically, users who tag articles with {{ reqdiagram}} and {{ reqchemstructure}} (to name a few) would make requests here (no photographs, only illustrations). Atleast, the backlog associated with those templates can be reduced(hopefully eliminated). Roshan220195 ( talk) 14:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally like the proposal, but I'm unsure if the new workshop would succeed as the current workshops do. It's always easier to make a request than it is to fulfill it, and this mismatch is larger for original illustrations. I've made a few detailed illustrations, and they are at least 5 hours of engaged work (taking into account both the time required to grok the material and prepare the illustrations) This is easily 10-fold the time required in comparison to a moderately difficult vectorization request.

As a downstream consequence of this mismatch (and the additional skills / interest required), there is a much smaller number of people willing and able to take the requests pro bono. I worry that requests doesn't get filled, attention goes elsewhere, and the project withers much as the Greenspan project did.

Drifting along in the line of thought, I would love to have a place where graphists who are working on more involved illustrations can show what they're working on, comment on one another's work (collegially), and build that graphist community. I think a certain social aspect would both help retention, as well as skill-building; in the Wikipedia universe, I think we illustration graphists are about as isolated as it gets :( Sadly, I don't see the talk page as suitable for that, and I have no idea what is a suitable medium. Jon C ( talk) 15:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Valid point Jon. Actually the purpose of this post was to get an idea of how many graphists would be willing for this kind of thing. This would tremendously improve clarity of articles. In my opinion, Category:Wikipedia requested images is the one of the most important category related to images and sadly, not much is being done about it. I am hoping to at least have a backlog elimination drive or something or something like that if not a workshop. Let's see how many graphists are interested. Roshan220195 ( talk) 16:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, last summer I've tried to put together a "Gooey Picture Drive", where over a 48 hour period, graphists tackle various biological illustrations while communicating over IRC. It was poorly organized (mea culpa), and totally unrealistic in that a 48 hours sprint works well for coding (in a familiar topic) but is an unsuitable tactic for doing artwork which one does not have a prior workflow / knowledge. Maybe some modified "theme" version might still work, with extended period of time, and perhaps making use of something like the Top 4 feature of the Illustration workshop? Jon C ( talk) 03:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

yeah maybe... Roshan220195 ( talk) 19:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a great idea and clearly there is a lack of diagrams in articles. However it is my concern that we wikigraphists do not have time to devote ourselves into making these diagrams. There is already a large amount of unfulfilled requests in the illustration workshop. -- Wylve ( talk) 19:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am big time in favor of more use of diagrams, charts, tables, etc. in articles. Often for technical topics having the visual will make something "click" for the reader who is more challenged. At other times, it's practically indispensible...like if intricate geometry is involved.

Personally, I find the existing request system works fine to get "from scratch" diagrams. Add onto that finding the superstars and just going direct. There really are only a few of them...but so far most article writers don't push for good illos. (I think they see illos as just eyecandy to embed in prose). I have sneakily tried fighting this...for instance by pushing innovative diagrams into Featured Pictures.

I also love Jon's idea of a way for you all to socialize and learn from each other. Maybe if this is the locus, you could make a salon or "teahouse" or the like (an attachment to the header?)

TCO ( talk) 16:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok guys, considering the fact that the graphic lab is understaffed, it may not be a good idea to have a seperate workshop since it would do nothing more than to add to the existing backlog. But how do you feel about having a header or something like the top4 in the illustration workshop? This will ensure that a flood of requests don't come our way and enable us to clear the backlog slowly yet steadily. Roshan ( talk) 07:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, your template {{ Graphics reply}} has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.160 ( talk) 12:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

refuses to take a caption in English (caption does not show up). Peter Horn User talk 15:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

shows the same problem. Peter Horn User talk 15:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Check the edit. -- 23230 ^talk 16:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A new map should be created for the article "Foreign relations of Nagorno Karabakh" since New South Wales recognise the Nagorno Karabakh as an independent country and it does not include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Findblogging ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

NSW did not recognize NK, and it is not a country anyway to recognize any other country. Grand master 19:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am told that the ostrich video here does not display properly, while it does for me. Any hints on how to find and fix the problem would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS ( talk) 09:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering,if I can add a new program or software to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Software ,if I can add it,please notice :),thanks Carliitaeliza TALK 12:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#NFCC exemptions - Category:Images that should have transparent backgrounds. -- Trevj ( talk) 12:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers everyone. I wanted to ask you if you make images from logos, so that a logo can be used for illustrating articles without infringing its copyright? I am interested in having the logo of the CNRM for illustrating Mexican Rally Championship's related articles within the es-wiki. I'll appreciate your answer and comments on this subject. Kind regards ~ Sol Jaguar | KKCO 15:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a userbox located at Template:Graphic Lab for anyone who's interested. Feel free to do with it whatever thou wishest. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁ _{gala xies} 11:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There's already a userbox in widespread use - {{ User Wikigraphist}} - and it's been called the Graphics Lab since 2008, not Graphic Lab. Regards, nagualdesign ( talk) 03:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Can someone make a "Wiki Angel Barnstar"? I'd really appreciate. Someone truly deserves one. PumpkinSky talk 23:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No takers huh? That's too bad. PumpkinSky talk 17:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am aware these aren't made on Wikipedia, but since Wikipedia users make them, could some link me or instruct me on how to make one with Photoshop? 121.220.222.63 ( talk) 14:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you would call these characters that produce this:🗽 (in Firefox anyway.) I just realized it only produces a little box in Explorer. Any fix?? Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Unicode Hex Character Codes. Find a bunch here. Only problem... many don't show up in browsers. Exactly which do/don't and why I'm not sure. With the one you display above, all I see in my Firefox is a little box with the code in it. (Explorer shows a little box with nothing in it.) It's suppposed to show the Statue of Liberty. Use them if you wish... just know that many(most?) folks won't see them. –  JBarta ( talk) 03:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh well. They can just wonder what's in those mysterious little empty boxes. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 04:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Emoji -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What fun. Thanks for link. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This image is shown in a shrunken form alongside the title of semi-protected pages (i.e. on Poland via {{ pp-vandalism}}). Perhaps it's my screen or my eyesight, but at first glance it looks like a 'battery half empty' (or full, depending on outlook) icon as displayed. The effect is less obvious on other, differently coloured versions of the same image. Is this something a graphics-wizard could improve upon ? - TB ( talk) 12:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46741 , http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum#Upload_gleicher_Name and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk#Can.27t_upload_an_SVG_version_of_a_PNG - when I try to upload a file which has the same name but a different extension as one that's already on commons, I can't: it wants a completely different name. Each time, I have to ask an admin to move the file after uploading. -- Slashme ( talk) 07:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: if you reply here, can you please put a note on my user talk, so that I notice? kthxbai -- Slashme ( talk) 07:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that once myself recently, but didn't really give it much thought at the time. Didn't used to be like that as far as I recall. Something must have changed. Also, instead of requesting that people notify you of a response, just put this page on your watchlist. Works like a charm... especially for lightly traversed pages such as this. –  JBarta ( talk) 14:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I often forget to check my watchlist for weeks at a time, and I didn't expect anyone to reply so quickly! As for "Something must have changed", indeed it has: it's a new "feature" that is too aggressive in identifying filename clashes. You can help fix this by voting for the bug. -- Slashme ( talk) 15:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I just ran into that myself. Was uploading a .png versions of .jpg files (I'd replaced opaque backgrounds of circular paintings with transparent ones). I'll take a look at the bug link. thxs. -- Kevjonesin ( talk) 22:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crown_princess_victoria_royal_trips.PNG

Åland shouldn't be yellow on this map 83.254.192.84 ( talk) 12:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely - Åland Islands are an autonomous region of Finland, not Sweden! -- Janke | Talk 13:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to invite the greater Graphics lab community to look in on the Photography workshop for awhile. There's been a fair bit of contention/lively debate lately and I fear that trust and rapport amongst editors is slipping and may come to affect our ability to well serve the community. Perusing/skimming the Photography workshop talk page and the requests section and it's recent archives should give one an idea of how things have been going. Or one could simply add the workshop page to one's 'watchlist' and keep an eye open for a bit. I feel that we may benefit from a larger pool of opinion at this point. Thanks for your time and consideration, -- Kevjonesin ( talk) 10:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure whether this is the right place to request something like this, and I wasn't really sure if it counted as "photography". It's a 2-D image of artwork for Tali'Zorah, a Mass Effect character; specifically, I want the background transparentised -- or, at least, to be no longer grey (I hear white's a lovely colour). I had a gander at doing it myself, but I accidentally ended up taking out half of her leg (and I think part of her head), which is probably detrimental to the general quality of the image.

If someone could point me in the direction of where to request it, or transparentise it themselves, I'd be much obliged. – Bellum ( talk) ( contribs) 19:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And so the background has been removed. Nevermind, then. – Bellum ( talk) ( contribs) 20:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

For future reference, you can make a request at any time by pressing this button:
Alternatively, you can visit the Photography Workshop, Illustration Workshop or Map Workshop and click on the 'New request' link at the top. nagualdesign ( talk) 22:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure I'll need a background removed again sure enough. :P – Bellum ( talk) ( contribs) 22:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You know... the "request button" is a neat idea. I think we should have one on the regular workshop pages for people to make requests instead of just a text link. –  JBarta ( talk) 08:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What he said. :  } (It is a fun idea. hmm, I might be able to insert a small version next to one of the text links at the Photo workshop. I've played around inside the relevant templates a bit before.) -- Kevjonesin ( talk) 15:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Some discussions have arisen surrounding such. Relevant links stem off of this thread. -- Kevjonesin ( talk) 15:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there a similar group on Wikipedia that helps out with video as opposed to images? — fourthords | =Λ= | 13:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I second this question, with regard animated visuals in general. Chrisrus ( talk) 04:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to use the information from http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi#top to create graphics like this:

,

.....which might not be notable, and combine them together so that you end up with a useful graphic like Scott Manley has created here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJsUDcSc6hE? Chrisrus ( talk) 04:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Physical" maps have recently appeared, showing terrain (hills, etc.), which is very good.

• How does one pick out a spot with a small dot, rather than a large sort-of-triangle-shape that obscures more of the map detail?

• How does one enlarge the physical map, and still show the red dot? A physical map shows rivers and terrain.

• How does one identify names of populated places and other features on the physical map show below?

• How does one show on the same page a physical (mountain range) map and the simpler settlement which doesn't show terrain.
  • infobox mountain range?
  • infobox settlement?

• ERROR MESSAGE 1 = "{{#coordinates:}}: cannot have more than one primary tag per page"
• ERROR MESSAGE 2 = "Invalid arguments have been passed to the {{#coordinates:}} function"
  • appears if you try to put a physical (mountain range) map and a settlement map together.

• How does one put more than one red dot on a single map, and if so, can it show the great circle distance between the points?

See Naigaya, Guinea map as an example.

Naigaya
Naigaya
Highest point
Elevation	300 m (980 ft)
Dimensions
Length	110 km (68 mi)
Geography
Country	Guinea
Region	Nzérékoré????
Range coordinates	09°57′00″N 12°17′00″W / 9.95000°N 12.28333°W / 9.95000; -12.28333

Tabletop ( talk) 04:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Map on left produced using Template:Location map Guinea
Jokulhlaup ( talk) 15:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello mates, I would like to add this image to an article but it seems like I have to upload it first to Wikipedia? So you can't just link the image's original URL??? *mystified facial expression

http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/092.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commissioner Gregor ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Image has already been uploaded to Commons and is available for use in articles. As far as your mystified facial expression, just think about that for a minute. If one could add images to Wikipedia articles by simply linking to images anywhere on the Internet... what could go wrong with that? –  JBarta ( talk) 02:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I just announced a grant request on the Map workshop talk page. Please take a look, and support us. We are competing with other great projects as well. Details and talks there : Wikimaps Atlas: generating thousands base maps. Yug (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• 
  locator_map: USA_location_map + focus and red on Hawaii (2009 guidelines)
• 
  location_map (2009 guidelines)
• 
  relief_location_map
• 
  _(orthographic_projection).svg
• 
  _location_map.svg (2009 guidelines)
• 
  _locator_map.svg : India_location_map + focus and red on Maharashtra (2009 scheme)
• 
  _relief_location_map

Hi members of Graphics Lab,
ShareMap is an online collaborative map creation tool we specially developped for wikipedians wishing to design elegant maps. We are currently applying for Wikimedia grant to continue project development. Details and talks there : ShareMap - Wikimedia grant - community feedback needed -- Jkan997 ( talk) 11:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

has been absurdly photoshopped. Suggest it be deleted or an unedited original found. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ( ^Ταλκ) 01:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Absurdly Photoshopped?! How so? Looks like a (relatively) normal photo to me. nagualdesign ( talk) 04:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded 4 images, 2 in png version because I wasn't able to properly crop the SVG ones, can anyone lend a hand, as the SVGs would be better to use (the pngs are low quality and larger in file-size).

• 
• 
• 
• 

CFCF ( talk) 12:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this request involves the lead image for Wells Cathedral. Please check it out, and advise whether another image could be better, and if not could the present image be improved? The present image is very old, and it looks a bit faded to me. Here's the original of the present lead image. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: I think we may be all set now. See File:Wells Cathedral 1890s colour balanced.jpg. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded some modern photos taken from the same angle, eg File:Wells Cathedral east end including chapter house 2.jpg, File:Wells Cathedral east end including chapter house 3.jpg and File:Wells Cathedral east end including chapter house 4.jpgin case they are useful.— Rod ^talk 12:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see these three graphs proposed at Talk:United States#Survey:

I would like to experiment with ways of combining them. What appropriate software for graphing produces the most legible results on wikimedia wikis? EllenCT ( talk) 01:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Answer: Wikipedia:How to create charts for Wikipedia articles has some ways, as do [2] and [3]. EllenCT ( talk) 10:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In case you didn't hear, on 14 December the China National Space Administration landed a probe on the Moon, along with a lunar rover. (See Chang'e 3 for details.) There's been a bit of a dearth of sources available, but now they're starting to release the images. If anyone has the time and the knowhow, any help with finding and uploading copyright free images like this and this would be greatly appreciated. Sorting them into categories will earn you a pat on the back. nagualdesign ( talk) 18:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

This makes for interesting reading. nagualdesign ( talk) 19:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to animate a map, like the one at European Union. However, our blank maps are .png, and even though they're just grey and white, when I convert to gif, they get splotchy, which means I can't fill. Is there an easier way to do this?

Thanks, — kwami ( talk) 00:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

So you'd like an animated gif made, like this one? If you can point me to 'our blank maps' or supply a few more details I might be able to help you. nagualdesign ( talk) 19:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henri_Estienne_the_Elder.jpg the picture shows Henri's son Robert Estienne (Latin: Robertus Stephanus), not Henri Estienne. 75.36.162.19 ( talk) 22:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)John Holland www.BibleKJV.com

We have a paid wiki-design contract position with the Wikimedia Foundation: We need your help making it easier for Wikimedians to participate in the movement and with each other!

• Travel and Participation Support Grants is looking for someone to help design and build a new portal on meta-wiki to make this grants program easier to navigate and more fun to use. You'd be working with me, to make something suitable for this program that fits with other grants pages on meta-wiki. We’d prefer someone with wiki and template knowledge (this would outweigh other experience). Please see the job description for details, pass it along to anyone you know, and feel free to ask me or Siko if you have any questions. We look forward to speaking with you!

(We’re posting around the community because we’d love to hire a Wikipedian and thought some people here might be interested - if you apply, please include some info about your Wikimedia experience!)

heather walls ( talk) 23:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello all, I co-designed a Wikimedia outreach project to get a group of Indian kids to learn computer graphic while creating a real Wikipedia picture dictionary for basic English which they could be proud of ! The whole team will be under the management of a professional graphic designer lady who previously worked at Yahoo Inc India. The IEG proposal is detailed there on meta. We are competing with other great projects as well. Also, please take a look, your supportive vote will help ! (check and vote here). Yug ( talk) 18:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

These look beautiful, but what does "CAD Mouse" mean? Is that an Indian local saying? I just call it a Mouse. CAD Mouse doesn't redirect to Mouse (computing). 0x0077BE [ ^talk/ _contrib] 20:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'am French, I was thinking this is an English term. Must ask to SoujanyaaB on meta. Yug (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I know that CAD is a real term, and I know that several companies manufacture customized mouses for CAD draftsmen. However, the most well-known of those look like this, and more modern versions look more like this. It just seems like a language/cultural thing to me.

Yug, just so you know: The images I linked are to specialized versions, and won't be very recognizable to the average person. I wouldn't recommend using them for a project like this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Is LibreOffice a practical svg editor? When I try to edit a WP map, I either get a blurred image, like a tiny png file, or a solid black shape with no internal detail. I've used Inkskape in the past, but it seems that causes problems when other people try editing the img. — kwami ( talk) 19:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Image workshops looks like there no requests, suggest something like ({{PAGESIZE:Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop}} bytes) until the WMF gives us a function for counting sections. — Dispenser 02:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There are too many locations on Wikipedia to check for different graphic work.

A example of this:

• Wikipedia:SVG Help Board
• Commons:Graphics village pump
• Wikipedia:Graphics Lab (Here)
• Commons:Graphic Lab

There may be more, but those are the ones I know of. A image request could be posted in any of those locations. A lot of it is redundant and seems like I'm having to check too many places for the same type of requests. Is there anything we can do about this? Can we merge these so there is only one location to check? Offnfopt ( talk) 07:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Where do I make a request for graphics? RO ^(talk) 17:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Look at the links at the top of Wikipedia:Graphics Lab:

• Illustration workshop
• Photography workshop
• Map workshop

Depends on which type of request you have, each page has a "New request" link. Offnfopt ^(talk) 19:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi lab! Sorry, my english is quite bad :) There is a mistake on the file, "scromboid mackerel" has to be modified in "scombroid mackerel". Thank you.-- Etrusko25 ( talk) 18:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I posed a question here today that someone might want to tackle. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)