This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Graphic design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of graphic design-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
GIMP is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
I propose to merge the GIMPshop article with the GIMP article. GIMPshop is long dead, and seems to be a scam now (see this for example). Also the fork itself doesn't seem to be notable on its own. --Narayan (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I am strongly against merging GIMPshop (or any other fork) into this article. If a fork is not notable enough to have its own article, that is the subject of another discussion and should be held on the fork's talk page. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - This is a bad idea/precedent to set. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and that cuts BOTH ways: If you do this for one fork, then each time a new fork of GIMP rises to prominence it will become proposed to add that fork to the GIMP article. If you merge GIMPshop now, then why not merge GIMPhoto too while your at it? This is like suggesting merging OpenOffice with LibreOffice & NeoOffice & ApacheOO & Go-OO & StarOffice. Additionally, what do you do if encyclopedic sources for one of the forks actually exceeds the parent (As StarOffice did for a while)? Do you rename the whole article under the new best fork's name? Remember that StarOffice is now obsolete so the article would have had to be renamed again. No, merging software fork articles is a bad idea. Dodi 8238 has it right, either a fork is worthy of its own article, or else it gets listed as a brief mention in the subsection on known variants/forks. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not talking about merging every fork, but I'm proposing to make the GIMPshop article (reasons stated above) a redirect to the GIMP article and to add some information to the current summary about Gimpshop at the Forks and derivatives section, maybe an activity time indicator. --Narayan (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Naryan, I am agreed GIMPshop is dead and and the website appears to be a scam I'm agreed. What do you consider an important reason to merge a page?
You've said that it is not noteworthy (and I'm agreed), however you'll need to provide reason as to why it's not noteworthy. I would argue GIMPshop was a set of patches and not a fork as it did not continue on beyond providing a single set of patches that adjusted the layout of the application. As such while I recognise it had the potential to be noteworthy, it's creators never continued it long enough. I think it's worthy of mention on GIMPs page as it did have a lot of attention, yet attention and noteworthiness need to be distinguished in this case. Do you agree with my reasoning? Gnepets (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, let me agree with your comments about GIMPshop being a short lived fork relying on a set of patches. Short lived, as the fork development abruptly stopped after being hijacked by someone who created a website to get some advertising income. I also don't think there are a lot of external sources to give proof of its relevance. Maybe we should reword the part about GIMPshop in this article as follows:
GimPhoto (2007 - , active) and GIMPshop (2006, inactive): Derivatives that aim to replicate the Adobe Photoshop in some form. --Narayan (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Merging with GimPhoto makes more sense to me, it is the spiritual successor to GimpShop. -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The article variously states that the GIMP project is conducted under some other banner, either GNOME or GNU. This is going to be confusing to the reader. A clearer statement should be attempted of what the relationships of these projects are. Samsara 11:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that GTK+ is also in the list of GNU software and hosted on git.gnome.org, and is rather a significant part of the GNOME project, being the GUI toolkit used by GNOME.
So I'm not sure what the heck the correct answer is.
According to the GNU Software Evaluation page on the GNU project's Web site, a free-software project can be offered to GNU as a "GNU project", and they decide whether to include it or not. "What it means for a program to be a GNU package" has a bunch of criteria. Some key ones are:
Making a program GNU software means that its developers and the GNU project agree that “This program is part of the GNU project, released under the aegis of GNU”—and say so in the program.
This means that you normally put the program releases on ftp.gnu.org.
This means that the official web site for the program should be on www.gnu.org, specifically in /software/PROGRAMNAME. Whenever you give out the URL for the package home page, you would give this address. It is ok to use another site for secondary topics, such as pages meant for people helping develop the package, and for running data bases. (We can make an exception and put the web pages somewhere else if there is a really pressing reason.)
So, for the GIMP and the GNU Project:
ftp.gnu.org has only a gimp.README file that says "Gimp is an image manipulation program, available from ftp.gimp.org in the /pub/gimp/stable/ directory. The Gimp web site is http://www.gimp.org."; I guess "normally" in "you normally put the program releases on ftp.gnu.org" allows a project not to have ftp.gnu.org be the download site, as long as you at least leave a breadcrumb there to lead people to its true home.
As for the other criteria, they do, at least, say "GNU/Linux" on the features page for the GIMP, and it probably follows the GNU command-line argument standards; whether they use GUILE as an extension language is another matter.
So I guess it could be considered to be a GNU program; I don't know whether anything more than that would be required to be "developed under the GNU banner".
As for GNOME, well, the GNOME Applications page speaks of "Hundreds of applications" that "are available for GNOME", and says that "Here are just some of the great applications that you can use on GNOME", introducing a list that includes the GIMP, but that's not as strong as "applications that are part of GNOME" or "...that are components of GNOME", so they're not as explicitly saying "it's GNOME software" as the GNU folks are saying "it's GNU software".
So, I'd say the case is better for GNU than GNOME, although I doubt GIMP is mentioned in either the GNU project or the GNOME project's weekly staff meetings. :-) Guy Harris (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The change from "Mac OS X" to "OS X" happened with Mountain Lion, so the risk with using "OS X" is that semi-knowledgeable readers may infer based on official naming that only versions from Mountain Lion (10.8) onwards are supported if it's stated that support is for "OS X". As I mentioned in the edit summary, binary versions as far back as Tiger (10.4) are available, and compiling on older systems can probably be made to work (so in the absence of conclusive reliable sources, we shouldn't state that it can't, and in general it would be odd for FOSS to not offer some kind of workaround involving successive compiling of various legacy/non-legacy versions of various dependencies... not to mention legacy versions of Gimp are still Gimp... I digress). I won't revert the change, but if there's consensus that it's potentially confusing in the way I think it is, all the other relevant changes made by the same user need to be investigated as well - in some cases, if support is only from Mountain Lion onwards or later, the change may be sound; in others, it will be misleading. Samsara 14:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't address the problem. Yes, the two product lines are continuous with each other, and therefore having one article covering both is unproblematic; however, each product name also only applies to some of the releases - Mac OS X from 10.0 to 10.7, OS X from 10.8 to current. Therefore mentioning only OS X could be interpreted as referring only to releases 10.8 onwards. Samsara 15:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
It does address the problem. They're the same product as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I have and run both. Their branding does not affect nomenclature or use in practice. Therefore listing both separately and pointing to the same article is misleading, breaks WP:REPEATLINK, WP:LINKCLARITY and logic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Nobody said they have to both be wikilinked, or separately wikilinked. I think the distinction should be made in text, and I think I've given some very good reasoning why. Samsara 15:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)