Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Top 4/Archive 2

Hard to discuss

I like this idea, and I've already cleared one request that I had the expertise to do.

Often one needs to get more clarity on the request, for example, I'm not quite sure exactly what is required for the "resolution of singularities" request. In the normal GL/I we have a clear place to discuss, but not here. How should we handle this? --Slashme (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The top 4 are uncontroversial requests that should not require any discussion, and that graphists would have to do all on their own. If you find a request confusing, or you feel that discussion should take place, you may submit it on the regular requests page or ask for clarification here. When users request on the regular workshop, graphists are not expected to know every detail that requesters are want done, hence discussion. Since these are images from the image backlogs where they are randomly tagged by editors with straight forward templates, we know that all they are asking is for vectorization, remove background, etc. As for the third request, that SVG file was from a PDF file which had messy lines and text. We want a graphist to redraw it with fresh lines and text that aren't converted to path. ZooFari 21:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I fixed the third one. Is there a standard way to do exponents? I did it by hand in vim, doing things like <tspan x="279.435" y="-681.71735" id="tspan2550">x´ := u</tspan><tspan dy="-7" font-size="12px">2</tspan><tspan dy="7"> - v = 0</tspan></text> to get x´ := u^2 - v = 0 --Slashme (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

New section

Hi, how does this work? How is the top 4 selected? --Beao 00:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I created this just this morning. I see that you already took care of 2, which allowed me to correct any flaws. Basically 4 images from the image backlogs are chosen (ones that should be possible and won't go stale) and graphists try to fulfill those requests as soon as possible (for now the goal is 24 hours, but I think 48 would be better). Discussion shouldn't be necessary, as no one is requesting them, but they may end up as an additional section of the GL/IL if needed. The top 4 images should be special (e.g. last one in a backlog, image under deletion that can be improved through this process, etc.). This is still new, so feel free to make suggestions. ZooFari 01:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Maybe this page can be used for discussion on the current requests and what the next top 4 images should be. --Beao 02:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I went ahead and changed it to 48 hours. However, dealt requests may be swapped with new ones after the 24 hours, so we should pick two more. What do you think? ZooFari 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that way there is a bigger chance that graphists may find some of the four images interesting to work with. --Beao 06:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also thought, this would be a good benefit for the archived stale requests. We can have some of the doable ones on the top 4. 48 hours is just a goal, so it's okay if it's not done within the time. As soon as 48 hours hit, we will swap all requests, including stales, archive, and replace them with new ones (to be posted here). However, we can keep track of the stales and post them at a later time for graphists that didn't see them at the time. What do you think about this plan? ZooFari 22:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. --Beao 22:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the Top 4 and created an archive. --Beao 17:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the archive, but I think we should mark any that have been done in a later week as done throughout the archive, otherwise someone might start work on something by mistake. Maybe mark as done with a note saying when it was done? Or am I imagining problems that aren't likely to occur? --Slashme (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I just did the greyscale Fleur-de-lis and when I wanted to upload it, I found out that it had already been done! --Slashme (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is why people should remove the tags afterwards. Sorry about that. As for the archive, I was thinking about the same concern too. ZooFari 18:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolute linking in Top 4 too?

Maybe we should link to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop/Top 4/Pending and Done in the Top 4 too? It would make direct archiving and previewing possible. --Beao 11:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I made it that way so it would avoid confusion. I was thinking about making short templates in the template space—something like {{gl-PENDING}}/{{gl-DONE}}. That way, graphists can spot it faster and prevent confusion. It would also be accessible for the other workshops if we decide to implement them. If that's a bad idea, we could just leave it like that but have the archiver be responsible for replacing it with Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop/Top 4/Pending and /Done. What do you think? ZooFari 15:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use images

I would suggest that fair use images (such as the current leftmost one) aren't used in the top 4. It's better that only truly free images get given that amount of attention. /Lokal_Profil 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've changed that image for now but a policy on this would be nice. also feel free to change the image I changed to to something else =) /Lokal_Profil 01:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, didn't catch that earlier :/. Thanks for the bold change:-). You're right, they shouldn't be used. ZooFari 03:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for missing that again, I'm not careful enough... --Beao 00:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I've created a non-free image parameter since a majority of our images are fair use. See one of the examples for future reference. Cheers, --ZooFari 00:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to Commons

I completed a request, but I uploaded the final image to Commons, because the original had requested that I do so. The image is still listed in the top 4 as "taken" but not finished, because I don't know how to link to the final image on Commons. Could someone help? ([[1]]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threecheersfornick (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Type Bantry.svg in newfile=, then change gl-PENDING to gl-DONE. Hope that helps. --ZooFari 00:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I did it for you. --Beao 00:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Photography workshop top 4

Just FYI, there is now a Top 4 at the photo lab. --ZooFari 19:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons/English files

I apologise for the post - I'm quite new to this. I took one of the 4 above files, but inadvertantly uploaded it to en.wikipedia rather than Commons. The image I converted (SF_RI.gif) is in use on multiple language sites, so really does have to be on Commons. I have uploaded it to both, but the local link goes to the incorrect en.wikipedia file. Please could someone let me know how to correct this?

• My original upload: SpecialForces_Badge.svg
• The Commons file: [2]

Apologies, and thanks in advance! Serenthia (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I tagged the local file with the template: {{NowCommons}}. It will eventually get deleted from enwiki by an admin, under CSD F8. Once that happens, the local links will default to pointing at the Commons file. Thanks for your contributions, too!  Begoon&#149;talk 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, fantastic - thanks for clearing that up! Serenthia 11:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem updating old image page

I replaced the vector-image-needed template at File:TwoPhotonAmplitude.png with “vector version available|Two-photon Amplitude.svg” (in double braces), but the template is showing a not-found error. Yet the file must be there, because the New File link from my entry in the Top 4 box works. What did I do wrong? Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)