Talk:GIMP

Easy ways to help improve the GIMP article

• were you looking for something about GIMP and couldn't find it? Tell us and if it's appropriate we'll add it to the article!
• Do you find something in the article confusing? Tell us and we'll try and untangle it!
• Do you know more about GIMP than wikipedia does? Tell us when it's wrong, well fix it up!

Just telling us what confuses you, isn't clear, isn't good enough helps Make the GIMP article better and that contribution is really valuable. If your willing to edit and put in the effort required to improve the article I'm grateful as I've slowly been working at it on and off for a few years!

Color Depth

The GNU Image Manipulation Program does not support the color depth necessary to be of any use to the film industry. To say it is being used by the film industry is misleading, at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.79.94 (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? Does anybody else here have a reference for it being used by any particular film maker? --Nigelj (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it was intended to be a reference to apps based on The GIMP, ie CinePaint - see eg this 2004 article, linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/04/29/cinepaint.html or the most recent about page @ cinepaint.org/more/about.html. Pbhj (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You reference things that are true or have been stated, nobody creates an encyclopaedia with evidence to disprove every alternative crack-head theory Gnepets (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Lack of a saturation brush

The part that says GIMP lacks "non-destructive editing, tools such as a saturation brush" is not strictly true. A "non-destructive saturation brush" can be effectively implemented using layers and layer masks. The problem here is comparing GIMP to Photoshop. GIMP has different tools, and different ways of acheiving the same results - GIMP is NOT Photoshop --62.249.233.80 (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Different ways of achieving the same results does not mean better ways, nor does it mean comparisons are unworthy. That particular article was targeting GIMPs fitness for use in professional environments, the comparison was deserved. Gnepets (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

not strictly true how so Gnepets (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

GIMP is NOT Photoshop, section is called media attention and the only place in which references to photoshop is made. Do you have a solid reason as to why this should not be here? Gnepets (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Media Attention?

Is the purpose of the section to inform the public or advertise that bloggers and their sites that have written about the software? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.36.225.66 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• You've asked a leading question. In order to answer this I'd like you to state the question in form of "In order to improve this article/section, I believe" or "I beleive that <x> compromises the quality of the article for reason <y>. I suggest doing <z> in order to improve it". Gnepets (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge "GIMP release history"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was opposed to merge...

---

A software release log does not deserve a separate article, IMHO. I strongly suggest the GIMP release history article is merged into this article. It also does need to be so detailed - an external link to official release log on manufacturer's website should be enough. kashmiri (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's fine as a free-standing article and the level of detail is sufficient. I wish more product articles had that level of detail. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• For. As kashmiri mentioned, we should only need to link to the software's development or release log, as opposed to rewriting the whole thing on Wikipedia. Instead It might only be necessary to mention big releases that brought in monumental features or incorporated large changes. It shouldn't be necessary to maintain a separate page for it. --JayDez (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Firefox has its own History of Firefox where all the releases are documented. The same applies here. --Neo139 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

For I think it's a good thing for all the info on the GIMP to be in one place. I don't think the detail should be reduced though. --JamesNZ (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Is it all in one place: Wikipedia. By that extension, I trust you'll be going to argue that teh history of Firefox should be on the same page as the browser along with Firefox 3.6. Merge them all. And that every version of Windows and Mac OS page should be on one page as well. Some articles need to have children so that the parent articles can focus on the important issues and links to the tangential issues should be available. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I originally separated the pages and I feel it's important to understand why this was done. I am both the largest contributor to this article in number of changes (and I've had multiple accounts and ips as well), and increasing the quality, I know that doesn't make me special, however it does mean that I have very detailed knowledge about this situation.
  • As noted in Kashmiri's suggestion it is huge, and like he says it does not need to be as large, however it is as large as it is, it is accurate (enough) and as such it's very difficult for me to comprehend why removing it would be a good idea. As such I separated the articles.
  • There is no "manufacturers" website as GIMP is an opensource project, this in itself makes me ask "Why should we remove this, when it appears the requester does not understand the situation?". I'm not trying to say you don't, you may have a greater understanding than I do, however I feel that isn't being communicated to me.
  • The history has sources from all over the place, there is no single history.
  • The article is so large it takes away from the most important thing about GIMP: what is it now.
  • The history of something and what it is and represents today are very different things, wikipedia is the only encyclopedia I know that is capable of holding up-to-the minute accuracy.
  • The article GIMP is vastly superior quality to GIMP release history due to the concerted efforts of myself and small group of other people
  • The quality of GIMP release history is not terrible, it would just take a mammoth effort to bring it up to scratch.
  • I feel merging the articles compromises the content of both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnepets (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: if there are no significant arguments to counter the opposed arguments I will remove the the merge request after Friday the 3rd of February. Gnepets (I ceebs logging in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.172.193.182 (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll do no such thing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I don't understand your comment "you'll do no such thing" on the GIMP history merge request in regards to me removing the request. The arguments made do not make any sense to me as the disregard the process in which GIMP is made and the lack on a single place of history, the only salient argument I can see is the one towards it all being one thing and I don't feel that in and of itself is a water tight reason?

Can you explain yourself better?

Have I done something you find offensive?

How are you feeling about what was said?

Am I misunderstanding the process, is there a vote or something meant to happen?

Why is removing the merge request such a major thing, can't the process be reverted by a simple edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnepets (talk • contribs) 12:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, can anyone explain why this shouldn't be done? Is there a formal process I am missing? (I can see the way I said it lacked diplomacy, forgive me for being a little controlling / human) Gnepets (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

First, there is no clear consensus in the discussion.

Second, when you do so as an anonymous editor, it's pause for concern. Don't forget to sign-in when you edit, and don't forget to sign your comments when you comment.

Third, 25% of all of your edits on Wikipedia have been to this article. That suggests that you are too closely associated with the subject to be neutral. It might appear as bias. I didn't know your potential bias when you were an anon (not signed-in) but it's clear now.

While it's my opinion that the merge shouldn't go forward, it shouldn't be an anon or an editor who is closely associated with the subject that should remove the merge tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) January 30, 2012

I feel your position is clearly biased, you gave me an order of what to do on Wikipedia "You'll do no such thing"

In my mind you are to closely tied to the rules and regulations which are only guidelines to judge this decision, nor did you even take the time to explain why this is a bad decision.

Your arguments are judging me not my actions, weighted by statistics and ideals.

It's clear that I have bias, however I feel bias itself should not exclude me from decision making unless in and of itself it shows my decisions to be poor.

Clear concensus is required to make a decision, setting a time limit on the decision making process is not forcing the decision in itself, the timeframe can be extended.

"it shouldn't be an anon or an editor who is closely associated with the subject", why not? I can't imagine how either of those things are important if the decision is reasonable? I feel at the end of the day someone just has to do it and that is how things get done. Gnepets (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you were offended, but 1) you weren't signed in and the anon had no history in the discussion and 2) the discussion still hadn't ended. It was premature for either the anon or you, who in this instance happen to the same editor, to suggest that it was time to close discussion and move forward. My position is not biased. I would have made the same comment if Jimmy Wales himself suggested closing the discussion and moving forward. My arguments are simply judging the state of the debate: stale but no concluded. Clear consensus is not needed. A consensus is needed WP:CONSENSUS. As for why an editor close to the subject shouldn't make an argument to do something, I'll let you think that through but I'll point you to the concept of bias.

If you look carefully, I'm on the same side of the debate as you are, so if I had a bias it would be to close it too. I don't have a bias. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You know what they say about buts.... As for you I feel like your sentences are loaded and smug, you make the assumption that you are correct. You are also making a claim I find ridiculous "that you or any human can be unbiased". What I'm really trying to say is I'll let you have this one because I can't be bothered arguing, more to the point I just simply don't enjoy communicating with you. Gnepets (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I can't believe you've devolved this into a mild personal attack. In short, it is premature to close the debate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Having a separate article is perfectly appropriate under WP:SPINOUT. Re-merging would result in substantial information loss. Some of the support !votes above seem more appropriate for an AFD-type discussion than a structural one. TJRC (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.