Talk:Inkscape
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please do not remove the link to Sodipodi comparison. That page has nothing un-nice about Sodipodi. If you feel otherwise, just edit it on Inkscape wiki. It is intended to be an objective comparison which is quite relevant for the Wikipedia article.
Incidentally, the Inkscape logo image is wrong. That's a proposed HIG-compliant application icon, not the raw logo.
Contents |
[edit] Clean up
Some parts of this article need to be cleaned-up / wikified to conform to better standards. In particular the long list of features reads like advertisement or at best product specification; it should be re-made into flowing text to be more in line with what is expected from an encyclopedia...
131.111.8.103 13:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see why lists are unacceptable in an encyclopedia. This list in particular does not attempt to list all features, but only the most important and notable ones, and does so in a pretty generalized way to help readers get a general notion of what the program is capable of and how it compares with others. Rewording the same in prose would simply make the same information less structured and harder to digest. Trapolator 19:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Adding Inkscape to this comparison matrix
Could someone help update the Comparison of raster to vector conversion software tables with Inkscape included please? --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 06:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I believe Inkscape uses potrace and/or AutoTrace to do it's raster to vector conversion, both of which are already in the comparison. Tnikkel 06:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. Could someone put a comment to this effect on the respective pages please? My point is to qualify Inkscape as a conversion tool as well (which indeed it is, as a package. Further, being a 2-valued images output tool, potrace recommends Inkscape (and sodipodi) for conversion and color editing. Ref:[1]). Let me know of any disagreements. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 07:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Compat
Threw something up to let people know that newer versions seem to no longer support win95,98,ME. Probably should go in other places as well. Wasted a nice chunk of my time, might as well try to save some other folks the bother.;)
[edit] SVG template and article at Red Hat Magazine
I believe the SVG templates at WorldLabel.com and the Inkscape article at Red Hat Magazine are relevant as far as external link is concerned. Elementary the article may be, but it discussed right on the topic. Zero0w 17:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I won't argue about the Red Hat Magazine article if several people consider it sufficiently relevant. I reremoved the WorldLabel which has random SVG documents that simply happen to have been done using Inkscape.--Chealer 19:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I double-checked the SVG samples at WorldLabel.com, I think you got a point. The SVG samples are not particularly impressive, nor worthy of mentioning. We already have a see also entry to Open Clip Art Library, and that will be sufficient to demonstrate what one can draw using Inkscape. --Zero0w 15:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Link to inscapeforums.com
I reverted the addition of a link to [2] by User:Corstar, which was added again by him, adding the comment in the page "please leave on wiki". I'm removing this link again, as the forum only contains 67 articles ATM. If anyone wants to add the link back, please justify why this link would be pertinent on Wikipedia but not on inkscape.org, rather than asking to keep something added without explanation (duh).--Chealer 02:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- After searching on the web, it looks like [3] (the spelling of your link is wrong, btw) is one of the few forums available for Inkscape discussion. As for why this is "on Wikipedia but not on inkscape.org", maybe you should check out many other software articles on Wikipedia and ask the same questions. I think it can be on both Inkscape.org and Wikipedia, as long as it is relevant and does not sidetrack from the topic.
- I do check out many other articles on Wikipedia and ask the same questions. If it can be both on Inkscape.org and Wikipedia, it should be added to Inkscape.org first. It *can* be on the article, but it's better to not have it unless it's also *sufficiently* relevant.--Chealer 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't follow why it should be added to Inkscape Wiki first, unless there is some other guideline at works. For what's worth, Wikipedia is the best source of information on OpenDocument around the web. And I don't see people raising the issue that the content or links to OpenDocument sites should be added to other sources first. --Zero0w 12:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK, if you believe that inkscape.org is missing the link and it's Wikipedia's role to backup for it, please ignore my first sentence, and only consider the second.--Chealer 07:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't checked inkscape.org, I merely raised the issue of why it has to be on inkscape first. As far as I can see, that forum is on topic and relevant. --Zero0w 07:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't *have* to be added on inkscape.org first, but as Wikipedia isn't the canonical source of information about inkscape, it *should* be added there if it's relevant. Again, "it's better to not have it unless it's also *sufficiently* relevant."--Chealer 20:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't checked inkscape.org, I merely raised the issue of why it has to be on inkscape first. As far as I can see, that forum is on topic and relevant. --Zero0w 07:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK, if you believe that inkscape.org is missing the link and it's Wikipedia's role to backup for it, please ignore my first sentence, and only consider the second.--Chealer 07:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't follow why it should be added to Inkscape Wiki first, unless there is some other guideline at works. For what's worth, Wikipedia is the best source of information on OpenDocument around the web. And I don't see people raising the issue that the content or links to OpenDocument sites should be added to other sources first. --Zero0w 12:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- I do check out many other articles on Wikipedia and ask the same questions. If it can be both on Inkscape.org and Wikipedia, it should be added to Inkscape.org first. It *can* be on the article, but it's better to not have it unless it's also *sufficiently* relevant.--Chealer 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Btw, your comment actually brings up a question: how many articles in a forum is enough to justify for adding a link on Wikipedia? Is there some kind of standard setting (other than relevancy) going on for filtering links? --Zero0w 14:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- No. I try judging relevance at my best. In this case 79 articles are not much IMO compared to the size of Inkscape.--Chealer 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- You haven't really answered the questions, I mean, fairly speaking, how many articles are enough to justify? How big is a forum / community to be considered relevant if the subject of the forum itself is already on topic and there's not many forum out there focused on the Inkscape at the moment? There must be some more objective reasoning or gauging, otherwise neither side is convincing at best. --Zero0w 12:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unless you're asking for a simple number, could you clarify the unit of the ratio you're asking for?--Chealer 07:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- A figure is one of the more objective measure, but not the only measure. Still I am sure there will be dispute if you can call something "sufficiently" relevant when there's really no criteria for such meaurement. I think I'll ask other Wikipedian to join us and look at the situation, as I take a literally different point of view from yours. I am sure more discussion from other experienced Wikipedians will help to clarify whether we can measure it so that people don't feel they are under restraint to post on Wikipedia if any rule(s) (besides WP:NPOV) is to be followed. --Zero0w 07:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hum, if I understand you well, you're dropping your request about the minimal relevance needed. Now, about the dispute, it can happen, but this isn't a problem. It takes energy to enforce Wikipedia standards, and I'm ready to argue, although it's always hard to argue about something as hard to evaluate as the relevance with non-subjective arguments. But as long as it's discussed in the Talk page as it should, there's not problem.--Chealer 20:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- A figure is one of the more objective measure, but not the only measure. Still I am sure there will be dispute if you can call something "sufficiently" relevant when there's really no criteria for such meaurement. I think I'll ask other Wikipedian to join us and look at the situation, as I take a literally different point of view from yours. I am sure more discussion from other experienced Wikipedians will help to clarify whether we can measure it so that people don't feel they are under restraint to post on Wikipedia if any rule(s) (besides WP:NPOV) is to be followed. --Zero0w 07:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unless you're asking for a simple number, could you clarify the unit of the ratio you're asking for?--Chealer 07:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- You haven't really answered the questions, I mean, fairly speaking, how many articles are enough to justify? How big is a forum / community to be considered relevant if the subject of the forum itself is already on topic and there's not many forum out there focused on the Inkscape at the moment? There must be some more objective reasoning or gauging, otherwise neither side is convincing at best. --Zero0w 12:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- No. I try judging relevance at my best. In this case 79 articles are not much IMO compared to the size of Inkscape.--Chealer 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the link removal. I do NOT think whether or not the forums are linked to from any inkscape page is relevant to whether it should be included (indeed, both cases to keep it or eliminate it can be made based on this). I do not think this forum has a "critical mass" (which directly relates to number of topics, posts, and users), nor that it particularly helpful to people who want to learn more about Inkscape (something which is much more important for WP and isn't related to any of those things). Also note that other pages have also recently been spammed with these tiny phpforums pages. --Karnesky 14:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
