Commons talk:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Fractal enhancement?[edit]

I heard years ago that fractal technology can be used to add missing details, like they showed in the movie Blade Runner. Is it possible and is there any wiki or site about it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibility to remove watermarks without damaging image too much?[edit]

Hello, I was thinking of uploading this picture (in PD in US and Russia if I understand correctly) and as its watermark removed but I thought it would be better to ask first for educated opinions on whether that would be feasible at all (if not there is no real point in uploading it I think). Does anyone think the result would be good enough for use? As I am considering bringing in some more images from the same source, this is a generic question on this kind of watermarks as well, on whether they can be get rid of without loosing too much quality in the process. Thanks in advance.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The watermark can be removed easily enough... except for the woman's face. That might be tricky. But there are some talented graphists here that might work wonders with it. (In the future, just ask the question in the Graphics Lab as a request. It will get seen and replied to faster.) – JBarta (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the tip. As a matter of fact, the change was already done by one of the volunteers, the result is here. Thank you all the same!--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there an established protocol for rotating in/out page content?[edit]

Hi, I've noticed that many of the requests 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. 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) 13:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

sounds great !
I think the reason there is not much archiving is nobody knows where to put the finished stuff, so please be creative and use your imagination :D

Penyulap 13:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Having a look at the revision history reveals that the archiving was done manually. This is quite fiddly and I set up the auto-archive bot. Let's see if this works. --McZusatz (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! : } --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It's good to have a long delay before archiving, at least a month or so, occasionally a request is marked as resolved when it is not, and some helpers don't get it that it's the requester that has the only real say in something being good enough or not. As well as that, there are often a few people who want to give it a go and make different versions of an image and that often works well, because sometimes it's the second or third image that is the one the requester wants. So sometimes marking as resolved is not the same as everyone is finished with it. Penyulap 14:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Vaild concerns Penyulap. Perhaps the template has parameters to address a delay setting. I'll likely look into it after lunch, unless McZusatz, yourself, or someone else, beats me to it.
Personally, I'm inclined to default towards leaving the auto-archiving on for awhile regardless. The threads will be preserved in the archive and may be reinstated to the page as needed on a case by case basis. I think defaulting for turnover seems worth trying for awhile. Some of the current posts are pretty stale.
McZusatz to the rescue once again. He's ammended it to a 30 day buffer. Here's info about Template:Autoarchive resolved section incase anyone else is curious about the details of it. Thanks again McZusatz. : } --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Another possibility which comes to mind is that as long as the bot distinguishes between {{done}} and {{resolved}} we could have image editors use "done" and then let the OP choose when to mark "resolved" hence triggerring the bot. With a caveat that after 30 days (coupla' weeks? etc.) of idleness anyone would be encouraged to upgrade an entry marked "done" to "resolved". Wikipedia has a reminder template to place on an OP's talk page if one wishes to nudge them for a response. Similar could be applied here as well. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What do y'all think about also implementing...[edit]

What do y'all think about also implementing something similar to Wikipedia's Eight Requests template? Perhaps with an aim at reducing the backlog at the Category:Images for cleanup page. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding recent activity at the Wikipedia:Photography workshop[edit]

[As some protocol discussions which have been taking place at the Wikipedia:Photography workshop also encompass Commons files and guidelines I thought it might be good to post here as well.]

I'd like to invite the greater Graphics lab community to look in on the (en) Wikipedia Photography workshop for awhile. There's been a fair bit of contention/lively debate lately as to 'how' and 'whether' to follow guidelines when uploading edited image files to Commons. As well as other concerns which may benefit from the insights of Commons graphists.

Perusing/skimming the Photography workshop talk page and the requests section and it's recent archives should give one an idea of how things have been going. Or one could simply add the workshop page to one's 'watchlist' and keep an eye open for a bit. I feel that we may benefit from a larger pool of opinion at this point. Thanks for your time and consideration, --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm blocked there, as they haven't grown tired of looking damn stupid. In the meantime, whilst I can draw space stations, and two different artists have drawn the chinese space station, they figure there is no possible way anyone can draw W:OPSEK, so they claim (steal) the image under 'fair use' claiming it cannot be replaced with a free image. As they are a pack of self-defeating morons on that site, well, who can argue with them. If good editors don't leave by themselves, they get thrown overboard. whatever. Penyulap 11:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


Things seem to have 'come to a head'. Tensions are starting to ease and constructive dialog has begun.--Kevjonesin (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

These threads may have direct relevance to Commons[edit]

What/where procedures.

Some ideas at this point.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 16:00, 15 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)

Altough you guys probably already know how to work with SpBot since it was active for some time now in photography workshop, here's the announcement again: 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) 04:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The archive is not a workshop[edit]

03:47 . . (0)‎ . . ‎Jbarta (talk | contribs)‎ (Changed archive time for resolved items to 10 days... 30 is just a tad much for items that are already done. If editors really want to review weeks and months old resolved requests... they are in the archives.)

Jbarta your edit summary and change makes no sense. Archives are for looking at not editing. The sole result of your action is to prevent and discourage improvement of images on commons. The workshop is the place to do work. The archives are the place to put work which is finished, and to pre-empt the obvious comeback "oh but people can take stuff out of the archive if they want to work on it", well that is the point. It shouldn't be archived at this rate in the first place. Inviting people to clean up this mess is not as good as not making the mess in the first place. Penyulap 04:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"Prevent and discourage improvement of images on commons"? Oh stop. You're being overly dramatic. Archives are meant for placing finished business. If a request is resolved and finished, it can be archived in a timely fashion. Keeping things around for excessively long periods serves no practical purpose. – JBarta (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Haven't looked in on this page in awhile. I see Penyulap is still at it.
Sigh, <disheartened exhalation>, Sigh... File:Sad.gif
--Kevjonesin (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Penyulap has been on holiday since Aug 17th. I think he got tired of being misunderstood. – JBarta (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Right on. I ended up catching up on a bit of wiki history after posting the above and came across some ban/proposed_ban threads regarding Peny. It was mentioned that Peny's apparent response was to take a voluntary wikibreak/boycott. [Interesting Trivia:"boycott" word history]
Regardless, thanks for the info JBarta.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
what a load of crap. Proposed ban ? ha ! it's too many trolls putting too much bullshit out there that is the problem. Jbarta is closer to the truth, Kevjonesin is just making cowardly personal attacks as usual by suggesting there was some kind of ban discussion. The boycott is against any new artwork being uploaded and is in no small part related to the crap here at the GFX lab, of which you Kevjonesin play a large role. Penyulap 05:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)



I am closing all requests which are done or stalled for months. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)