Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
A few words of appreciation
The long months (I could say a full year) working on Pedro I of Brazil finally paid off: it is now a Featured Article. It took me a great deal of effort researching and writing the article, but it would never look as good as it is now if it weren't for others. Astynax, my fellow colleague, made an extensive copyediting improving (a lot) the prose. Br'er Rabbit fixed a lot of things that made the article far better. However, the article wouldn't be as enjoyable as it is now if it weren't for the great pictures in it. I'd like to tell GianniG46, Pawe?MM, Jbarta, Fallschirmjäger and especially Centpacrr that I am really, really grateful for all your help in the many times I came here to ask you to improve pictures. I always say that Wikipedia is about teamwork, a bunch of people working together to allow millions of people to read for free great articles. The Graphic Lab is a fundamental piece in Wikipedia and that happened because of the great graphich editors we have here. Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Ultimate Photography Course Video
Apprenticeship request
I would like to learn the steps on how to improve image quality so I can contribute to the Graphics Lab. I look at Wikipedia:How to improve image quality and it reads like blah, blah, blah to me. Anyone here willing to take me on as an apprentice Graphics Lab member. I know very little about editing images and know very little about photography or image quality, so I would need to learn via baby steps. The main thing I have going for me is a desire to have improving images as a skill in my life. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
New request glitch
There was a minor error when I just used the New request function. The section title was lost to the aether and the new markup was inserted like this. Is it an issue with detecting the spacing around <!-- This area is for wikigraphists: ... perhaps? nagualdesign (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
"Done" Tags
The tag for "Done" is not a "posting", "comment", or "opinion", but simply a small bit of html code (or "device") that provides notice that a requested action has been addressed. Most other such tags on WP are not "signed" and thus this one does not require a formal "signature" to be included with it when added either. Anyone who really cares who placed a "Done" tag here can simply look at either the history of this page or at the image file's own hosting page where all the information can be found about what was "Done" and who did it in that page's own file history section. Not including a formal signature with a "Done" tag therefore does not in any way constitute a lack of collegiality, collaborative acumen, or being inconsiderate. Centpacrr (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- It seems reasonable --to me-- to use name & time stamp tagging on entries following the heading "Graphist opinion(s):" as other editors may well wish to clearly and immediately ascertain who communicated the information and when such occurred.
Do you know how to change a Photo
Hi do you know how to change a photo slightly because I would like this to have the circle around it on this And this and this please it is for Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox Paladox2014 (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there an established protocol for rotating in/out page content?
Hi, I've noticed that the "eight requests" section and most of the more detailed requests below have been addressed. So, I'm wondering how to (whether to) go about archiving the numerous threads which have been marked "done" for multiple days. Also, does the "eight requests" template refresh automatically from a list or category or does this need to be done manually? Any tips and guidelines regarding established/existing page maintenance practices would be appreciated. Otherwise, I'll just go ahead and "be bold" and 'wing it' (i.e. improvise). : } --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Anyone else run into this bug/feature?
See Graphics Lab talk page thread:
Is anyone else here irritated by the same filename restriction?
--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
...continued from "Collaborative remix"
I must confess to have raised my eyebrows and bit my tongue when I read Centpacrr's somewhat personal response placed brazenly in the file history comment section attached to the reversion. The story of a certain pot casting aspersions upon a certain kettle came to mind. Made of cast irony. It seems to be a quirk of the human condition that one's blind spot tends to line up with reflective surfaces. "Introspection is a rare bird and precious are it's feathers."
That said, I do think the image looks rather nice in the article and well complements the info graphic which precedes it. Sure it's more than the OP asked for and to strictly adhere to guidelines it would have to have been uploaded under a new filename and marked as derivative but personally, at present, I'm becoming inclined to put readership over rules and to accept pragmatism over persnickety process if no obvious harm is done -- (I'll confess this pains me at times. It's a work in process. >wink<).
Scallop is the only article linked to the current filename and the original image is clearly retained in the file history and may be recovered if someone desires it. It's just so much simpler to 'click' "Upload a new version of this file" than it is to make a new file page (especially if one likes to be thorough about updating "other versions" and article links and such). Perhaps if derivative file page creation was more automated the incentive gap would shrink. In the mean time, I strongly endorse taking a moment to add the Commons {{Retouched}} tag after doing any noticeable alterations. --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't know, but I do wish the graphists here would stop bickering in front of the 'customers'. I used to contribute a bit here, but there's no way I'd consider returning with the current atmosphere. At one point, I did move a conversation which seemed inappropriate: [1], but that's just one of many. This picking at each other has gone on far too long, in my opinion, which everyone is, of course, free to ignore. Begoon talk 07:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Please don't bicker in front of the customers. :-( This really is one of the sweetest parts of the Wiki. There is so, so much of this website that has endless edit warring and re-re-rebutting. I know there are these little differences, but I really love the image peeps as something nicer than the typical on Wiki and talk you all up like crazy. This, the help desk, reference swap, maybe Gadget for templates...are really some of the most supportive people to article writers. (If you want worse, try the MOS. ;-)). Go images, go design, go supporting our readers with clean layouts! Peace, ma bruddahs.TCO (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing TCO. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Template:GL Photography reply now has a /doc page
{{Photography reply}} now has documentation explaining the parameters (options) and such. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Found a nice promotional template
{{GL workshop}}
Example:
- The rest y'all perhaps are already familiar, but was new to me. Esprit de corps! 20px --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Icon Ideas
Regarding overwriting vs. new filename
Please, can we we make an effort in the future to more closely comply with guidelines regarding when to overwrite or not? I'm not asking for anal-retentive orthodoxy, but please, please, please, let's start uploading versions which significantly* depart from the original in appearance and/or source under their own filename.
It's more considerate of the original uploader's efforts and less likely to initiate edit battles.
By the way, I'm not claiming any any past holier-than-thou status. I've taken the easy route and overwritten at times I likely shouldn't have as well. I'm asking that those of us who enjoy contributing image edits make an effort to be more considerate of the guidelines --and our fellow editors-- regarding overwriting in the future.
* "significantly"
"Aye, there's the rub."
-- William Shakespeare via Hamlet
I guess the hypothetical reasonable person would be a good place to start. Sesame Street's "One of these things is not like the others?" also comes to mind.
Some instances where I'd suggest uploading under a new filename:
- Heavy cropping (e.g.more than trimming off some border text)
- digitally constructed backgrounds which no longer contain any of the original file data
- digital restoration/reconstruction of original artwork that goes beyond fixing a few JPEG artifacts and/or specks of dust and dirt
- Differently sourced images. Images of the same subject but built from files sourced from a different website, photographer, etc. I run into this quite a bit with image files of original paintings. I'm not completely opposed to this in some cases if one makes the effort to accurately update the file page information so that it documents the change.
I guess I'd 'cut some slack' to most any of these in certain specific instances. For instance, if the original unloader has requested the change and there are no intermediary edits by other editors. But please, please, please, clearly note the changes. Preferably, in the main space of the file page, not just the upload summary. Please, take a moment to add templates like {{retouched}} when appropriate.
Thanks in advance for y'all's, time, attention, and consideration,
--Kevjonesin (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Lobatus gigas, the queen conch
Following is a thread copied and continued from the main Photo workshop page:
Lobatus gigas, the queen conch
Article(s): Lobatus gigas
Request:
Graphist opinion(s): Done Centpacrr (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Nagualdesign's gray version
Please note that the OP (Invertzoo) indicated satisfaction -I'd say endorsement- of the original overall composition with the exception of requested changes (e.g. "otherwise beautiful"). I'm inclined to agree. The bright pale blue is instrumental in making the orange tones of the shell pop. Centpacrr's version is sexy and satisfied the request. And the OP had already marked as "resolved". Of course one is welcome to upload the gray version under a new filename and cross link via "other versions" to provide options for future editors.
Graphists: Please see talk page for further comments.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+Hmm, it does kinda' look more like a classic illustration plate and less like a photo at this point. I'll consider tossing up a toned down (i.e. closer to source levels) version and forking my most recent one to a fresh "digital retouch" filename (tomorrow). That would give one latitude to play with some FX and go full on faux illustration. Of course Nagualdesign, if you get inspired in the mean time feel free to tone mine down or replace it with another true to source version.
Also Nagualdesign, thanks for pointing out the heavy bleaching of the tip on a previous version. I'd missed that.
As the option exists to freely upload alternate versions under other filenames (e.g. ) it seems to me there's generally not much sense in making a stand when objections about divergence from source have been raised. And of course it's worth considering that the relevant guidelines are strongly weighted towards uploading under new names. I'm not even sure if the earlier resolution upgrade would hold up under some interpretations actually.
Of course, as it's a wiki, if we continue to discuss, in detail, we may eventually reach some sort of consensus about adapting the guidelines themselves to better facilitate practical workflow. Or to make complying with the present guidelines more automated and/or streamlined. Simplify uploading new filenames and the accompanying file changes if such replaces previous versions on the wikis, for example. Basically, it seems to me that a gap has developed between de jure and de facto and that this gap contributes to contentious situations arising. Narrowing this gap seems likely to decrease bickering after edits by increasing shared understanding before them. Even if it's just an 'understanding' at the local (Photography workshop) level.
Would it perhaps be a good idea to start a subpage for general meta-discussion about the workshop and images and graphic editing in general rather than just focusing on specific 'issues' in isolation as they arise?
--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Toned down as per Nagual's observations. "Give a man a hammer and every problem starts to look like a nail." A clincher was that it looked sorta' garish next to on the Conch page. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
So, back to discussing the gray version..
I've uploaded 1 more 'neutral' version for consideration. The masking is much better than my previous effort, and the background is only partially desaturated. Consider the image in context in the article. There's a reason that we don't see many images with highly saturated backgrounds on Wikipedia, and that's because they don't play well with other images. Colourful?neutral. nagualdesign (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
-
"One more edit for consideration. (Please see discussion before reverting.]]"
-- Nagualdesign's upload summary
Invertzoo's opinion: About the Queen Conch image
G'day Invertzoo,
There was recently some confusion amongst editors at the Photography workshop surrounding a previous edit request that you made. Mostly regarding wiki procedural issues, but it also included some differences of opinion over how to interpret your original request. It's occurred to me that we may have been a bit silly in not having asked you to 'please clarify' as you likely know what you meant better than we do. So --in the spirit of 'better-late-than-never-- when you requested:
"Please take out the reflection and the brown background markings on the lower left corner of this otherwise beautiful image."
...in regards to this (unedited) version of "File:Sea shell (Trinidad & Tobago 2009).jpg", did you intend "the reflection" to refer to the light source reflections on the shell itself (i.e. 'highlights' on the shell) or just to refer to the reflections on the background surface below the shell?
Also, how do you feel and what are your thoughts about the current (edited) version of the image?
Thanks for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk)
p.s. -- I also left a link to a stylized version on the Conch talk page. --16:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The above is copied from User_talk:Invertzoo#About the Queen Conch image.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
JBarta raises another procedural concern
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+It ocurred to me while responding to Nagual (further up #So back to...) that another thing to consider is that a good part of 'request section' discussions (particularly when it involves multiple versions under one filename) might actually be better suited to the file's talk page so that future editors from outside of the local workshop have some idea of what's been going on (and why) regarding the file history. Especially as upload summaries connected to such often devolve into comments directed at and/or referring to users and threads here on the English Wikipedia's Photo workshop. This seems to disregard the interests of other wikis which link content from Commons.
A Commons file's talk page is likely to be archived less often (if ever) so the info would remain at hand for others in the future. Perhaps leaving a link in the 'request section' and forking the thread to the files talk page if a discussion appears to be growing relevant to a wider audience or simply copy/paste relevant bits as they arise or after the fact. Have more of the discussions about Commons files on Commons. Food for thought.
Yet another thought about what/where procedures.
Seems to me that a number of our discussions in the 'request section' of late have strayed heavily into debating what's appropriate for the article rather than an image. Of course context has relevance but it's a two way street so if setting starts to become a deciding factor affecting choice of versions perhaps it would be considerate to add a note and cross link to the relevant article's talk page or simply fork the relevant part of the discussion there. I'm also thinking that, in general, we may benefit from having a larger pool of opinion for awhile. --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Easing tension
I think some of the issues of contention in our Workshop are systemic. How practice and practicality are currently laid out having a tendency to lead to push/pull contention. I encourage folks to give this some thought, as Nagual has also suggested, and start making some individual notes to outline best practices. Then we can bring those together to compare and discuss. Being careful not to invest so much ego into one's individual notes that it becomes difficult to consider others when the time to compare arises. hmm, an experiment might be to each start editing our own outline in a personal sandbox but leave a link on the Workshop talk page so others can drop in to compare. With a gentleman's agreement to withhold commenting about them directly until mutually agreed to do so. I'd also recommend taking our time with it. Something to work on over a coupla' weeks instead of a coupla' days. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
err, setting aside my own suggestion: Some of my ideas at this point...
--(soory, I realized that I'd been using somewhat vague terms and decided an example of what I meant by "systemic" was likely worthwhile)
Social primates
It seems to me that much/most conflict arises around direct requests from individual editors.
I think there's some basic human buttons getting pushed in this context. In addition to structural issues mentioned above. Classic 'need-to-please' urges coming forward. Quite frankly, I think all of us (myself certainly included + Nagualdesign, JBara, Centpacrr) have shown a tendency at times to act like unruly children clamoring for attention when presented with direct (named) requests. When the requestor is --ostensibly-- female, additional human (male) dynamics may be kicking in as well.
It seems to lead to an exaggerated sense of urgency and importance. And a rapid chaotic cycling of images displayed in main space. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Recent Anonymous/Eight_requests display deletions
A recent drive-by-deletion struck me as silly, ill-considered, and rather rude so I went to the offending editor's talk page and shared some of my opinions.
It's led to a coupla' threads which seem to deserve being linked here as they involve Photo workshop procedures.
#Regarding_your_recent_deletions_at_the_Photography_workshop...
#Please_add_the_Graphics_labs_to...
--Kevjonesin (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Commons Global Usage Badges tool: a handy gadget
JBarta and I were discussing this recently. Seems others may find it useful as well.
- Gadget-GlobalUsageUI
The Commons Global Usage Badges tool can be quite handy. Makes it a breeze finding files to prioritize for editing and review by adding a small red square beside gallery thumbnails which displays the number of articles linked to the file.
Enable it in Commons via: Preferences>Gadgets>Interface: Files and categories>Global Usage Badges.
Initially, when first viewing gallery pages (such as maintenance categories) one will see a "?" mark displayed beside all thumbs. Once one 'clicks' one of these "?" marked red buttons the gadget will be activated within the current gallery and will scan all entries. At which point the "?" marks disappear and a number (1+) in a red square will be shown beside only those files which are actually currently in use (0 = 'blank'). Scrolling over the numbered red squares then brings up a list of linked pages .
Happy editing y'all! : } --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I changed the displayed name of the "Eight requests" page to "Tagged requests" in response to a bit of confusion.
This has inspired me to look into adding a 'red button' for the "New request" link(s) at the top of the page as well.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I added the button. Any opinions? --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
not archived anymore?
Are these not being archived anymore?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Policy regarding colourisation of images
I've stated two, separate discussions about our policy regarding the colourisation of images:
- Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Colourisation of images (about when such images may or may not be used, and how and when the fact that a colourised image is shown must be declared)
- Commons:Village pump#Colourising and replacing images (about overwriting b&w originals vs. starting a new file)
Please make your views known. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
(UTC)
Potential new graphics volunteer questions
I have some computer graphics and photo editing training from college but had a life threatening disabling illness and need some pointers and practice. I have older, but full versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, and Aftereffects. I have been looking and searching for only 3 days and have seen a great deal of overwhelming but disorganized info....or at least this dyslexic person hasn't been able to find this info, so I apologize if this info is covered elsewhere.
Do you have any kind of introduction page specific to potential graphics volunteers?
Is there a master style sheet I could refer to, not info on the templates, posted somewhere?
Is there a graphics spec sheet or is it scattered among all the posts?
What techniques are you using to remove watermarks? (Never ever though of doing this so not sure where to begin and I have never edited or posted at Wikipedia so not sure where to look/search format.)
I was looking at the pictures needing watermarks needing removal, and I was wondering what do you do when there are other problems or it isn't a watermark but a bad copy or a copy/scan error? Do you just try to fix it anyway or try to request a better image, etc...
Is this where I should be asking these questions, or is there some where else I should be looking?
Ambre P (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
"Do you have any kind of introduction page specific to potential graphics volunteers?
Is there a master style sheet I could refer to, not info on the templates, posted somewhere?
Is there a graphics spec sheet or is it scattered among all the posts?"
RSS feed
Nice addition folks. 'Kudos' to whoever came up with it [RSS feed] and implemented it. The page layout and notation looks nice overall as well actually. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Group of Seven members not correctly listed?
Just a quick inquiry about the photograph depicting the Group of Seven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Seven_%28artists%29#/media/File:Group-of-seven-artists.jpg
I'm thinking the first two people in the photo are actually A.Y.Jackson and then, Frederick Varley not the way the caption reads; the rest of the people represented are right. This photo has probably been wrong for some time. Anyway I know this is splitting hairs, but they are rather famous after all. Cheers. 64.56.236.33 (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Dave Hlavacek64.56.236.33 (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer conflict
I really think we need to all agree on a set of guidelines when multiple volunteers work on the same request. Virtually all the headbutting and arguing I've seen here arises from that issue. I don't want to drone on about how we're all here to help, but we all have egos and opinions, so let me cut to the chase. Can we all agree to operate using the following rules?
- Always put up an {{I take}} tag when you start, and understand that if you don't, someone else is likely to overwrite your work. We're all here because we want to work on these images.
- Always offer suggestions before taking it upon yourself to 'fix' someone else's work. Give the original volunteer the chance to fix it. Everybody here has made some good images and some bad images. Also, everyone here has made some good 'corrections' and some bad ones. This includes me, I know, but it includes you, too. This could cut out a lot of the arguing.
- Don't take it personal! We're all trying to improve the images submitted here. Remember that the other guy is trying to help, not trying to blast your work.
I know this hasn't been a big problem, but it could be. I'd rather we all agree to follow these rules now, so we can avoid a big fight later. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon