Template talk:Raster graphics editors
- Agreed it is very poorly maintained.
I added Twistedbrush to the template but somebody quickly deleted it. I wonder what criteria we should use to choose which programs to include.
If we look to the capabilities of the programs I am sure Twistedbrush is among the three most advanced paint programs, and it has been updated and improved approximately once a month for at least five years. During the same time Corel Painter has been updated 2-4 times. So if we go after how developed and capable a program is Twistedbrush should be among the first 3-4 in the group proprietary non-freeware.
But if we go after how well known and commercially successful a program is, than will Twistedbrush come lower in the list, because it is not as well known as several other paint programs. It is not backed by a big corporation which has a lot of capital to use for advertisement.
Some programs in the article Comparison of raster graphics editors are obsolete, have not been updated in many years or are obviously of very low quality compared to the best programs.
I wonder who are going to choose the programs (paint programs users who are given the task to test the best programs?) to include in this template and which criteria they should use. Or maybe look up the program names in google and include those with most hits, measuring how much advertising capital stands behind each program? Roger491127 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I checked up who deleted Twistedbrush, Mwtoews, and the reason, he wrote that he deleted red links, that is links which do not lead to existing articles. Okay, I'll wait until the article Twistedbrush has been firmly established and add it again.Roger491127 (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Roger491127, yes the only reason why I removed it (and another link) from the template is that there is no article for it (i.e., red link). You can, of course, create the article if it is notable, then re-add the link to this template. +mt 18:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is not normal to remove links because they are red links.
Categorizing open source items
I noticed an edit by ScotXW that categorized open source items. I must say I don't insist for a source if they can be plausibly and uncontroversially derived from the articles. But the categorization itself is at best misleading. GIMP and ImageMagick can certainly perform post-production tasks, Darktable, gThumb and digiKam are image organizers with pre-production functions and Panorama Tools is actually a production tool.
On the other hand, it strikes as very biased to categorize open source items only and ignore the rest.