Commons talk:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the Commons Illustration workshop talk-page. Please play nice. :  }

Why was redirect converted to this?[edit]

So as to give the Illustration workshop it's own place to carry on discussions specifically relevant to the workshop. And to better allow meta topics relating to all the workshops to be addressed on the main Graphic lab talk-page. As per the notice at the top of the main talk-page. --Kevjonesin (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic, the Illustration workshop now has it's own talkpage, that's great, hopefully this means there won't be any more of this:

Edit-borring.png Penyulap 20:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


Regarding the off topic 'comment' in the preceding section[edit]

  • To help those who may come by in the future I've copied threads relevant to Penyulap's 'comment' above —collapsed below:
Oh, really? This is getting ridiculous! Now you even invest time to create factually wrong diagrams that should illustrate I'm the bad boy who dared to do necessary maintenance tasks? Shame on me. Face-tongue.svg
I admit Kevjonesin got it a little wrong regarding the order of talk page messages (actually you posted to my talk page first – while reverting my edit; and you posted to this talk page first – while reverting my edit; every time not even considering to give me some time for an explanation). By contrast I asked you with every of my edit summaries and every comment to get this sorted out on the respective talk pages in a friendly manner instead of blatantly reverting my useful edit (which you failed).
Any way, it seems to me we reached an evil version of en:WP:Bikeshed. Do you still know what we are discussing here? This has nothing to do with the initial problem anymore. You're throwing in one accusation after the other escalating the issue more and more — but what for? What is the point of this pointless and hostile dispute?
If you have something useful to contribute then please do so. I'm open on any proposals on how to improve the currently manual archival system in the illustration workshop. I'm open to restore selected sections from the archive if there was additional need for discussion on any of them. Otherwise I'm regarding this discussion finished. I have better things to do than arguing with you who posted what five seconds earlyer on whose talk page before doing which revert. --Patrick87 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sad Peny, sad and misleading. It's "3RR" (Three Revert Rule) not "3RoCR" (Three Removal-of-Content-to-archive Rule). Once again, if you disagree with my interpretation of the guideline I suggest you consult an admin for their opinion on the matter.
I agree with Patrick's "bikeshed" observation. Concern for the original posters of the archived threads is not the impression I'm receiving from Penyulap at this point. Sigh... --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
It's occurred to me to qualify a bit. I do find it worth noting that Penyulap started off very polite on both this page and on Patrick87's talk page (see link at the top of this thread) and seemed quite considerate in tone and intent.
However, my own inclination towards archiving lays more closely in-line with Patricks87's. And I still feel the double en masse revert was a 'battle' move. Especially as Patrick87 had stated in his reply to Penyulap (on his talk page) that he wouldn't object to specific individual threads being reverted. A compromise that would have allowed for some of his efforts to be retained. As opposed to unilaterally discarding them. A meeting in the middle. Alas, such was not the route that was chosen. Perhaps in the future? --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

[The following is from User_talk:Patrick87#Manual_Archival_in_Graphics_Lab]

-- Manual Archival in Graphics Lab --

Hi Patrick, at the GFX lab, we have to wait until the requester expresses their satisfaction with the work before archiving the request, this has always been the way. Please don't re-archive requests where the requester hasn't had a chance to make their comment, there is no need for it, and it discourages them from commenting. Remember, it's not the artists place to argue or make the requesters feel uncomfortable, patience is important. Penyulap 05:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Penyulap, I don't think there is any policy like that. If I'm wrong please point me to the corresponding section. I archived the requests that were marked as "resolved". As we (at least I'm sticking to that useful rule) only mark requests as resolved if either the requester was satisfied or if the requester didn't respond in a long time (so it is probably he'll not respond anymore), there is nothing wrong with archiving those threads. Additionally I always check if the image has been placed into the intended article before marking as resolved, to prevent work is done in the GL that afterwards is never used because hte original requester lost interest in it.
So, feel free to restore requests that you think weren't resolved yet (then please remove the {{resolved}}, too). Otherwise there is no point in cluttering the Illustration Workshop with completed requests. Only as comparison: In the Englisch Graphics Lab requests get archived after ~30 days of inactivity (even if they are not resolved), so I don't think anybody can blame us for hastily archiving requests. Rgards, --Patrick87 (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Just in case you might not have noticed: The resolved requests are copied over to the Archives (currently Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/2013). They are not lost! --Patrick87 (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no policy that says you shouldn't replace every instance or the letter 'Z' on commons with the letter 'D'. I'll respond on the GFX lab talkpage, as should you. Penyulap 12:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes there is: it's called vandalism and is clearly deprecated b policy. But I don't think such nonsense examples will lead us anywhere here. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC) --Patrick87 (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Automatic archival of Graphic Lab requests[edit]

Dear Graphists,

resolved requests are slowly but steadily accumulating on our workshop pages, cluttering them needlessly and concealing requests that need our attention. Since manual archival is a tedious task it was often neglected in the past adding to the problem. I therefore propose we introduce a consistent and functional system for automatic archival of requests in all Graphic Lab workshops.

To find a solution that fits our needs best your valued input is needed. Please join the discussion at Commons talk:Graphic Lab#Automatic archival of Graphic Lab requests. Take the chance and voice your opinion! --Patrick87 (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Splitting up the centralised talkpage worked well didn't it. Penyulap 23:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It does it's job, but in cases like this were all workshops are involved I'm a little unsure on how to reach as most graphists as possible. I'm afraid not everybody has the Commons talk:Graphic Lab on his watchlist were the discussion is going on, and a single notification like above possibly doesn't catch enough attention. --Patrick87 (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
That IS the job of a centralised talkpage. It was split up arbitrarily. The usual reason for such a move is to try to hide what you've been up to, like edit warring and so forth. Of course, I'd like to be corrected on that one, maybe the person who decided all by themselves to split up the pages can give us a reason why, because obviously it's not working at all. A fail. Now, it's causing useless busywork as you need to copy stuff from one page to another. Penyulap 10:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but did you just try to blame me for something I did not even do? The splitting was done by Kevjonesin and given the facts that were present when he did it (only the Commons:GL/I talk page redirecting to the Commons:GL talk page but none of the Commons:GL/P, Commons:GL/P, Commons:GL/VS talk pages) was probably the right decision.
If we really want a centralized discussion page the talk pages of all workshops would need to be redirected. But then again there is no place to talk about workshop specific issues. Also this does not solve the problem that the centralized discussion page has only few watchers, it will make it even harder to reach graphists, since one can't even post a short notice as I did above. --Patrick87 (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Why can't you post a short notice like you did above ? did it work ? I don't get it, it looks like it worked, I can read it. Penyulap 12:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I can (now that we don't redirect and have separate talk pages), but I wouldn't be able to do so if we redirected all workshop talk pages to the centralized talk page --Patrick87 (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
well is it working ? looks like there are less people watching this page than watching the main page. Penyulap 14:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I did not say it was working (actually I said "I'm afraid [the notification] possibly doesn't catch enough attention"). But it's at least better than nothing.
Your're wrong with your assumption that more people would watch the main page. Commons:GL is watched by only 67 people whereas Commons:GL/I is watched by 110 people. And you have to remember that this number even grows when you add the people watching the other workshops. --Patrick87 (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
well, I'm glad you're happy to chatter on with these dead accounts with a Ouija Board, but the thing is they don't count at all in gathering a consensus. For actual people, this page has less commenters than the more central discussion, so it's a fail. Well, not so much in the spirit world of course, it's awesome there, but in the real world it's a fail. Penyulap 15:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, its impossible for me to follow your reasoning. You're basically saying if we redirected all workshop talk pages to Commons talk:Graphic Lab we'd magically reach more people than we do now? That doesn't make any sense at all.
Anyway this discussion is unlikely to catch the attention of further graphist regarding the initial proposal, so its pointless anyway. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Following the discussion linked in my initial comment I set up automatic archiving by User:SpBot on all Graphics Lab workshops today. SpBot will automatically archive sections which are marked with {{section resolved}}. Therefore in future:

  • Please mark requests which are resolved satisfactory with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}}
    Remember to put your signature (~~~~) there, since it contains a timestamp (which is needed by the bot). The template we used so far ({{resolved}}) is not necessary anymore.
  • After the template is applied the bot will wait 30 days before archiving the section. This will allow other editors to review the changes and to reopen the request (by removing the template) in case of any problems that were not yet solved completely.

--Patrick87 (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

SVG guidelines[edit]

There is a discussion on SVG guidelines at Commons talk:SVG guidelines. JKadavoor Jee 17:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Period before auto-archiving[edit]

I completely understand the rationale as to why the length of time between marking resolved and archiving was set to be so long at the time as a compromise solution. However, looking at the request page at the moment, 13 of the 28 requests are marked resolved, and most of these are only now about to be archived after sitting there for weeks. As I see it, it just makes the page look cluttered and people with requests probably assume that many requests simply aren't being tackled, which is far from the case as we all know. I think the page would look healthier with these requests getting archived faster.

Also, feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but I haven't seen any request marked resolved in the past month that's needed to be marked unresolved or commented on, so there really doesn't seem to be any need to leave it so long. On enwiki, archiving usually occurred after a week (although the bot there seems to have shut down), and this system was perfectly adequate. There are so few cases that need reopening that I really think it's better for the page as a whole if we archived requests faster. Perhaps we could try 14 days and see how that goes before rushing into a week if it is still controversial. Of course if everyone else is happy with the current set up then we should keep it but I thought I should ask the question. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 22:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done User: Perhelion19:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

LibreGraphics meeting 2015[edit]

FYI http://libregraphicsmeeting.org/2015/program/##kelvin-ma-creating-textbook-grade-svg-illustrations-for-wikipedia --Nemo 12:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please edit this page's header[edit]

Article(s): Illustration Workshop

Request: Can someone more in tune with template markup please add:

{{notice|If you have completed work and not received a reply you may use the '''{{tl|GL Illustration reply}}''' template to inform the requester.}}

...to the page header so people know about the new template (blatantly copied from en!) for informing requesters that their request has been fulfilled --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)