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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 13, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

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.

Software: Computing B‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Graphic design B‑class Low‑importance

	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.Graphic designWikipedia:WikiProject Graphic designTemplate:WikiProject Graphic designGraphic design articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Apple Inc. B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, 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.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Open B‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Google

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No. --Michael Schumacher (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:ScotXW^t@lk 21:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]