Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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 {{Inuse}} 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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}}	This 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Create, improve images

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

• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Create, improve images?

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)

Facelift comments

Leave all of your comments here! _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 22:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I rather like this logo that some of the templates (the image page boilerplate text, the userbox) use. Maybe it could be incorporated and adopted as a general symbol for the GL. Oh, and along that line, a template coder needs to write an English version of the French GL template on the aforementioned image link. vlad§inger ^tlk 03:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but I can't stand that image. Also, I have to ask if we need a logo in the first place. I think a redesigned page/page system will be far better and the logo can be easily incorporated later (Possibly when someone comes up with a really killer-app idea for a logo?). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this really copyrightable?

Image:German cigarette production.jpeg is the perfect case for SVGification... but it's supposedly copyrighted (IE. It comes from a copyrighted source). Personally, my thought is that the data should be available that generated that data, and that the graph is insufficiently original to merit a copyright... but what do other people think? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)`

Given this, it seems like type and basic shapes are not copyrightable. On top of that, we don't have to copy the design to create a unique graph with the same information. As long as we credit the source for the information, I don't see how creating a SVG graph with this data would be any different from some of the graphs found at an article like Oil reserves. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Any other comment(er)s? If not, I'm going to request this be SVGified. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that exact scan might be copyrightable (doubtful) but the data can be used freely to create a graph of your own under fair use... so, plotting the data points in SVG is perfectly fine as long as you provide the source for the data. gren グレン 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Help need : translate French topographic tutorials into English

Hello graphists ! A good news today : French topographic map tutorials will [if we are lucky] soon be available in English language !
You have a pretty good French ? are a wikigraphist ? You know such wikipedian ?, If that's the case, then you need to know that User:JaneVannin is starting the translation of the French topographic tutorial, themselves wrote by Sting, the best French cartographer. See her user page, and talk to her if you want to contribute.

• 
  First, Sting was alone to do this... (march 2007)
• 
  First Sémhur map (april 2007)
• 
  then, Sting wrote down his tutorials. Following them, Séhmur create this in dec. 2007).

PS: Sting's maps are REALLY great, tutorials are good, and there are now about 3 to 5 French wikigraphists who learnt and made such maps. Translate Sting's tutorial will help the English graphists to learn these tips. Please help to find skilled FR=>EN translators ! Yug (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculuous...

Given the current amount of requests, does anyone think that the resolved ones should be archived quicker to shorten the page and emphasize the unfinished and unfilled ones? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a trouble. An other solution is to divide the Image Workshop into several specialised page : Images / Maps (maps taking far more time). This will allow the set up of specialised cartographers, making maps, innovating, and sharing their ideas on a single forum were their maps will be visible, for several weeks. By the number of request, the English lab is currently the most active, more than FR and more than DE ! But you do every and so many tasks on the same page, you archive them so fast, that it is impossible to your graphists to slowly talk together about a maps, about innovations, about expansion of maps conventions, naming conventions, tips, etc. The labs should also widely be use as graphic forum allowing cross teaching/learning. This aspect is far lower on your lab than on other labs (FR - DE).

You make quatity, but it is really time for you to set up sub-labs and sub teams, specialised tutorials, to make more cross teaching/learning and hight-quality illustrations. Yug (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't work the way other languages do because we aren't them. We have far fewer regulars here, so we can't say "You 3 map-makers go here..." since we don't have three (Or even 1) person who'se here and always doing maps. We appear to have an incredibly high turnover rate (People who were here a month or 2 ago are now (mostly) long gone. If we had sub pages, it would be even HARDER to get people to do work here since they would have to wade through a directory structure. We can't have "cross teaching" if there's only one person in the classroom. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC) (PS. This is also why the standards page failed: There were really only 2 or 3 people on it, of which 1 left and the other 2 stopped visiting a dead page)

How Germans and Frenchs do ? They made a sub-lab for maps, really slow when starting (that was about 3-5 maps a month !) but that create a list of request, and the create slowly a list of map-makers, which then shared their tips and we have now a full team of map makers, working together, with an good level, an close conventions. I encourage this, according to what I seen on the 4 last years.

PS: en.wikipedia have both more need of maps and more cartographers than -fr or -de. Yug (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm dubious about the likely results of arbitrarily splitting up GL/IMPROVE. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the "splitting up" debate, the reason why this page is getting so large is because DyceBot (the bot that adds tags and archives this page) has not been archiving the page ever since the page move. I've contacted its creator, and there's been no response in over three days. Any other bot that you think could do this? --pbroks13^talk? 08:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask on WP:BOTREQ? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the map lab issue, there is a Wikiproject dealing with (an dedicated more thoroughly to) map creation somewhere IIRC. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had a ridiculously busy summer and I had not been following activity on this page. And it's been a while since I checked my messages. It's fixed. In the future, it would be a good idea to let me know when you change the page name a little more promptly; I should be checking my messages more often barring any more trips. Again, my apologies for the interruption. (On a side note, the old archives should be moved. They're supposed to be a subpage of the page they're archives for. The archive the bot just made is a subpage of the new page; the link to it from the archive central page will need to be fixed.)--Dycedarg ж 12:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Claude La Badarian map

Hi: I would like to know how I should go about pursuing help on a map showing the travels of Claude La Badarian? It was previously worked on by User:MissMJ and I thought she did a good job. She doesn't seem to be around anymore. It still needs to be finished, such as adding routes: my own ideas for how to go about this are noted on the project page. Should I maybe de-list it and then re-list with a more concise explanation of the problem/work needed? Also, what exactly is SVG? Does it lend itself to collaboration? Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

SVG is just a XML language that describes the image by mathematical areas of color and text. Download it and force it to open in notepad and you'll see. If it goes stale, I would try looking @ it and then maybe relist it a little later (with an improved description of what still needs to be done, if possible). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Organization and Prioritization

I’ve only been visiting this page for a few weeks, but I think poor organization is really limiting its potential. There are so many gaping holes in Wikipedia’s graphics (physics, anatomy, maps, mechanical devices, ….) and there are lots of talented illustrators, but it doesn’t seem like we are doing a good job of pairing them up. Too much effort is wasted on images that are of trivial importance.

So is there any way we can better organize the requests on this page? Surely this is an issue that’s affected other wikiprojects.

I don’t think the solution is to subdivide into smaller subpages, one of the strengths of the current system is that you can always find something interesting to work on. Instead we should continue listing all the requests on one page, but somehow highlight the high priority requests so that they can gather momentum.

I think User:Dhatfield was on the right track with some of his proposals a few weeks ago on String theory, Casimir effect, and Schrodinger’s cat. I’d like to see us do something like this where the group focuses on a specific topic for a month or two and scour all the related articles. These requests would need to be grouped together so they don’t disappear into the queue, but there shouldn’t be a separate page because the topic would change too often.

Could something like this be done? Emok (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, I don't know that there is "a group": The people working here seem to be very fluid; that is, some people come, do alot, and then retire, and sometimes show up again months later. I think it would be hard to synchronize that way. Also, the intent of the page was that anyone could submit any image with a request. I think that that needs to be preserved in any change; if people think we're slighting requests to do other, self-determined work, we're sunk. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My initial thought when reading this was WP:SPOT (it gets several editors to focus on improving one article, and seems to be moderately successful despite its low profile). Something like this, for images rather than text, could be very successful if (IF) it became high profile enough. There are a lot of articles out there that could benefit from illustrations (SVGs or whatever). Off the top of my head, here are a few: Haber process, Trousers (the main image is currently "Germanic trousers of the 4th century found in the Thorsberg moor, Germany"), Floppy disk.

One of the main problems is that this is not really within the remit of the image workshop: it takes a lot more than an hour to create a good svg diagram. Most people don't have the time to do one diagram, so it needs to be a collaborative effort. I'm not sure that the fact that there isn't really a main group of contributors is a problem: if there were enough people who occasionally looked at the page, made a bit of an improvement to a diagram, and never looked at the page again, there would be enough overall improvment to make a big difference.

I agree with 68 that "if people think we're slighting requests to do other, self-determined work, we're sunk", but that needn't happen. If we simply shift the focus from improving specific, fairly low-profile images to improving a whole higher-profile article, suggested by someone who has probably done some previous editing on that article, we could make a lot more difference to WP with not much more effort.

Anyway, that's just my first thoughts on reading this. Feel free to disagree : ). Time3000 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that we could do something like that without much additional process: One of us sees an articel in need of a better image (Or an image, period), comes up with a good idea of how to improve the image (Or what the new image should be), comes here with it and posts it. That's how Shroedinger's Cat and Mercury arc valve were improved. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The WP:SPOT page is very close to what I had in mind. I think something like this would be a good complement to the current system. Emok (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, as a tryal, someone could propose an articel that could take some better image(s), and post it and see what happens. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the normal proposal system works (the nomadic nature of contributors is just a reality - I started a new job recently), but there isn't much of a focus on the value of people finding images for us to work on. I went on a conscious blitz to find interesting stuff to request using StumbleUpon. It's an effective way to find pages that are interesting. There is a drive on Meta that is having the same problem - it's hard work to find pages that would benefit where the image to be generated can be clearly expressed without violation of copyright (eg. a link to another online image). I put together Portal:Computer_graphics (still needs a lot of work) and User:Dhatfield/Illustrators (many still to be added) with a view to creating a forum for creating and showcasing challenging images (vector illustrations, 3D graphics, pixel art), but as I say, life has interefered for the moment. Dhatfield (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Vectorization!

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

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

Are they done or not?

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

This is a chronic problem - the illustrators aren't the only ones who wander off after a while :) I think illustrators should have the freedom to mark requests as resolved - they'd be sure to hear about it from the requestor if they weren't. That's my feeling and I've done it a couple of times without problems. Dhatfield (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, if the requester has clearly stated their satisfied (Replied with "Perfect" or "Done" or something, marked the original image superseded, etc.) and a request on their talk page doesn't get a response, they could be marked as done by the illustrator with a note (EG. "{{Resolved}}, assumed done by illustrator because [...]"). The only problem is with requests like the "Many flags" ones where we can't easily tell if they're all "done to satisfaction". 68.39.174.238 (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that so much of the onus for ensuring that things are done should be placed on the illustrator. They put in hours voluntarily making images, is it really necessary to make them place notes on others pages, follow up & jump through hoops? It is in the requesters interest that their image is done and good illustrators are not famous for being good administrators :) Dhatfield (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that hard to drop a comment on a talk page like "Could you look @ the your request on the graphics lab and comment if it's done?" something like dropping a note on the uploaders page before IfDing something — Nothing exhaustive or drawn out. Ideally, after the 1st time, the requester in question would know to not do that again. Truly persistent forgetters might be explicitly told that. Also, there's no requirement that it be the illustrator; I've dropped reminders a few time's and I've never drawn anything (obviously). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Like you did for me, erm, I think. IP confusion :) Much appreciated. Dhatfield (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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

That fits with WP:Be bold to me. Dhatfield (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing that. I'm still not certain about the massive flag requests where 7 are done but one is outstanding. Is that done or stale? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view the stale tag simply indicates that there remains work to be done, so it would be stale overall. In the long run we might want to encourage people to submit mass job-lots seperately, or perhaps under individual sub-headings, rather than en masse. This does illustrate a problem with the 'stale'/'done' system, which is obviously somewhat arbitrary, but I'm not sure it's important enough to dedicate much time to fixing it. Debate 木 02:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)