Talk:GIMP
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GIMP article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | GIMP was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | The contents of the Wilber (mascot) page were merged into GIMP. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Etymology of GIMP
Does it have anything to do with Pulp Fiction? 216.249.143.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Almost certainly, Pulp Fiction predates GIMP. If you wanted to confirm for sure though you'd need to dig through the old mailing list archives for the project, or more likely try to contact the original developer from Berkeley (note: the mailing list began as gimp-list and split into gimp-user and gimp-developer around '96). The hard part of finding confirmation is avoiding all the later discussions about the name. I don't believe anyone seriously doubts the origin of the name, but at the same time there isn't proof enough to add it to the article. -- 109.77.221.201 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Found it, to my own surprise. Only because I thought enough to use Google Groups for the search. A message from 97 links to an interview on Zach's GIMP news website:
At the time, Pulp Fiction was the hot movie and a single word popped into my mind while we were tossing out name ideas. It only took a few more minutes to determine what the 'G' stood for.
-- 109.77.221.201 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
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? -- 109.77.221.201 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Pronunciation
shouldn't GIMP be pronounced /dʒɪmp/ because of /dʒɪnəɹəl/ /ɪmɪdʒ/ /mənɪpjuleɪʃʌn/ /pɹəʊɡɹæm/ (General image manipulation program)Zombiedude347 (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Merger proposal
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. 104.32.193.6 (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)
Features
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)
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class software articles
- Top-importance software articles
- B-Class software articles of Top-importance
- B-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles
- B-Class Graphic design articles
- Low-importance Graphic design articles
- B-Class Apple Inc. articles
- Low-importance Apple Inc. articles
- WikiProject Apple Inc. articles