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.
The Google logo (sources in article) was created by Sergey Brin using the GIMP,
"it wasn't the look that meant the most to him. He was pleased that he had been able to teach himself how to use GIMP, free software that was tricky to employ," writes David A. Vise in The Google Story.
Are there are other notable instances of the cultural impact of GIMP? It doesn't seem appropriate to add this one case alone to the article. Maybe a "see also" link? Maybe someone else can think of an appropriate way to mention it in the article? -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
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. 184.108.40.206 (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. -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Though I dislike article with sections "Features" almost as much as I despise articles that use the term "technology", it could be interesting to use the article Image editing to make this article better. User:ScotXWt@lk 21:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)