Wikipedia talk:Graphics in two modes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{Move to Wikibooks}}

Leave this tag. It helps alert people who are willing to help with the move. (anon editor)

Who might they be? So far, the entire effect of this tag is to worry me that all my effort has been wasted. — Xiong熊talk* 13:33, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Sent to Wikibooks. TheProject 07:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 To do 2 Purpose 3 Scope 4 Project 4.1 Text 4.2 Graphics 4.2.1 Naming convention 4.2.1.1 Scheme 4.2.1.2 Examples 4.2.2 Upload format 4.2.3 Template 5 Project image gallery 5.1 Icon 5.2 Other 5.3 Shot (FreeHand) 5.4 Shot: (Photoshop) 5.5 Workflow: Tutorial Example 5.6 Workflow: The Laundry 6 Discussion 6.1 Less specifics, more generalilties? 6.2 More user's systems 6.3 Move to Wikibooks 6.4 Prince 6.5 Dead in the water

[edit] To do

To-do list for Wikipedia:Graphics in two modes:

edit · history · watch · refresh

entire project: Check for correct case per WP MOS (upcase 1st word only). Create section (and subsection?) icons. Talk page: Maintain project image gallery. Implementation: Add one or two other proven graphics editing systems, preferably one Windows and one Linux. Prerequisits: Wikify by adding links to more basic tutorials. Refreshers: Delete entire section? This is not kindergarten. Vector vs. Bitmap: Check/Polish. Is section complete? Hazards:Legal issues: Check for accuracy and NPOV. Add other examples of fair use. (Illustrations, not just more words) Hazards:Technical limitations: Add graphics: (to break up long boring text block) photo: guts of a computer system box screenshot: eight-hour progress bar Setup: Add text and graphics about why no Photoshop template. --done Check/Polish. Is section complete? Workflows: Add subsection: Tutorial Example--done Add Tutorial Example content--done Add workflow graphics--done Check/Polish/Link text to graphics--done Add The Laundry content Add Gadget Land content Add Franken Collage content Add Logo Master content

[edit] Purpose

This article is intended to show Wikipedians how to combine the powers of two different tools to make great, original illustrations easily.

There is an ongoing problem in WP with copyrights, permissions and so forth; it's always easier to rip a photo or diagram off a website than to make a new one. I hope to lower the bar here.

[edit] Scope

I feel I have to build the outline of the article first, then fill it in. If somebody wants to fix this up to conform to WP guidelines, be my guest. I have concrete ideas of what I plan to write under each section and subsection, but naturally "this is a collaborative effort".

This article will take a user with a basic grasp of graphic arts tools through the process of creating finished, professional illustrations using a number of "workflows": a little less rigid than step-by-step procedures, they still give a framework and direction to the development of a piece.

I have experience in both applications and have refined all these workflows over the years to the point where I am confident that any reasonably awake user can follow them with success.

[edit] Project

[edit] Text

It is assumed that the reader has some experience with his tools. This is not intended to be a user's manual. I plan to write tersely and cover as much ground I can in the limited amount of time I can devote to this project. Editors are encouraged to expand on the text and question me in case of fuzzy writing or opaque intent.

[edit] Graphics

A graphics tutorial will not be complete without many sample graphics. I plan to unearth projects of mine and reconstruct the steps by which I arrived at the final product. In many cases, I was careful to preserve intermediate steps.

Additionally, I think it appropriate to create section and subsection icons. I would love it if anyone cared to join in the fun.

[edit] Naming convention

Due to the large number of graphics produced solely for this article, it seems wise to establish a naming convention. There is NO way to easily rename images once uploaded, so anyone who wants to fuss with the convention really needs to do so earliest.

[edit] Scheme

1. All graphics are prefixed "CT-" (Complex...Tutorial).
2. Section and subsection icons are prefixed "ICN-".
3. Section and subsection icons are numbered with 3 digits. Since icons are largely for visual emphasis and may be repurposed, they should not be otherwise named.
4. FreeHand screenshots (not part of workflow) are prefixed "SFH-".
5. Photoshop screenshots (not part of workflow) are prefixed "SPH-".
6. Screenshots are numbered with 3 digits. Since shots may be used to demonstrate more than one point in the text, they should not be otherwise named.
7. A workflow example is prefixed according to the acronym of its workflow title:
   1. Tutorial Example: "WEX-"
   2. The Laundry: "WTL-"
   3. Gadget Land: "WGL-"
   4. Franken Collage: "WFC-"
   5. Logo Master: "WLM-"
8. Because workflow examples form an ordered set, I propose a rule from the Bad Old Days: number them with 4 digits by tens. This will allow the afterthought addition of intermediate examples.
9. Graphics that do not fall into any of the above categories are prefixed "AUX-". They may be named.

[edit] Examples

• CT-ICN-001.png -- a section icon
• CT-SFH-123.png -- a FreeHand screenshot
• CT-WFC-0030.png -- an example from the Franken Collage workflow
• CT-AUX-bitmap.png -- a simulation of a bitmap image

[edit] Upload format

PNG format will be used for all graphics associated with this article. This is a reasonable format for line art, solid color graphics, and photo-like illustrations. Graphics in other formats intended for this article should be converted to PNG before upload. It's hard enough inserting markup for dozens of images without having to worry about the dot.extension.

Very large files will have to go up in JPEG. Maybe that's just my mind, but I can't see uploading 5.5 Mb when 800 Kb will do. Besides, it takes 15 minutes for GKON to squash the PNG, while HVS ProJPEG is but a few seconds.

[edit] Template

The suggested template for CT tutorial images is:

{{GFDL-tutorialCT}}

This image was created for the tutorial Wikipedia:Graphics in two modes. It may be used for other purposes, if such can be found. Fair use is contended for any source material. Please see the naming convention for this set of example illustrations. I, the creator of this image, hereby grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers.

[edit] Project image gallery

Please gallery all uploaded images here. Before uploading another, check here for name conflict. It is not essential that icon and screenshot graphics be numbered consecutively, but workflow graphics should be numbered consecutively by tens.

[edit] Icon

[edit] Other

[edit] Shot (FreeHand)

[edit] Shot: (Photoshop)

[edit] Workflow: Tutorial Example

[edit] Workflow: The Laundry

[edit] Discussion

By all means, weigh in. We can do so much together that we cannot do alone. In particular, do not regard anything above this section as belonging to any author; edit it wisely, but freely. --Xiong 08:24, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

[edit] Less specifics, more generalilties?

Hi, I think this is nice, but I am confused. It seems to be centered on doing artistic / fancy with two specific programs. I would like to help, but I only use inkscape for making simple line drawings for wikipedia articles and eps figures in text I write in my field of study. The title of this article seems to be about doing complex things with two programs I don't have. I would like to know where I could help, but it isn't so clear from what I have read so far. --kris 18:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how much I can help, if I am supposed to somehow get these two expensive programs. Like I said, I am not really into complex artwork, just simple line drawings (diagrams). Is there a similar tutorial called using freely availalbe vector graphics editors to make simple diagrams for wikipeida articles? I think this is where I might fit in better. kris

As I wrote, there is plenty you can do without buying or stealing FreeHand and Photoshop. You don't even have to know much about graphics; I'd appreciate the viewpoint of an intelligent novice -- "stupid" questions are often the most important. Believe me, I can put you to work.

But if you're not comfortable with this project, you should find one you can get your teeth into. If you don't see what you want, by all means, start your own. If you need help with it, just say the word, and I'll drop by. — Xiong (talk) 03:00, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

[edit] More user's systems

I'd like to see a couple of other user's systems posted. Best would be a Windows system, perhaps with the latest versions of everything; and a Linux system, using the several open-source graphics editors included in most distros.

C'mon, folks, "this is a collaborative effort."

[edit] Move to Wikibooks

This tutorial is an obvious candidate for a move to Wikibooks, but before making the proposal, ask yourself: Am I willing to do the work?

Old discussion on this topic archived to: Wikipedia talk:How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop/move. — Xiong熊talk 06:22, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

I think all the Graphics tutorials should be moved there. I guess we have to move page history too though? I'm not sure how one does an interwiki move. - Omegatron 13:38, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've said it before; I'll say it again. Don't tag work to be done; just do it. — Xiong熊talk 03:42, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

"If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome."

There are bots carrying out the transwiki process (though at present they're mostly concentrating on moving things to Wiktionary). If you keep removing the {{Move to Wikibooks}} template from the page where it belongs, they'll never find this. —Korath (Talk) 10:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Now that's a fascinating comment of yours. Bots moving things about? And they are invoked merely by tagging given articles? They take a little while to get 'round to it, but then they just go right ahead?

In that case, the tag itself is downright misleading, if not outright evil. The bot might be a fine thing, if -- after discussion and consensus -- a tag were placed saying Please, O Bot, move this article now. But you suggest that once the tag is placed, it can come along at any time, like Black Peter, stuff the article in its sack, and whisk it away. Is that right?

Where is the documentation on this tag and this bot, please? And where the policy controlling their uses? And who the responsible operator of the bot?

Mind you, as I've said, I'm not adverse to a proper interwiki move; you'll see so from my earliest comments on the subject. But also mind that after the only person to weigh in on the matter agreed with me to let the matter drop, it was That Certain Somebody Special who came along with this tag again -- I maintain, only to harass me. I will be boiled in oil before I am bullied by anyone. — Xiong熊talk 06:36, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

[edit] Prince

This tutorial's name is a millstone around its neck, a contender for longest-ever article name when you include the namespace. Let's talk about shorter names. — Xiong熊talk 06:09, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

---

I really don't know or care whether the tutorial moves. I think a far more serious problem is that I unthinkingly created it with an unbelievably cumbersome name. If you don't want to move the tutorial interwiki anymore, perhaps you can help me think of a better name for it. Thank you for being a civil person. — Xiong熊talk 04:28, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop becomes Wikipedia:FreeHand and Photoshop Tutorial. That's the easiest name I can come up with. As far as civility goes, I try as much as possible to be as civil as possible. Of course like everyone else I do have my buttons that can get pushed sometimes. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:51, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Old Netty is a highly skilled button-pusher, and when he can't push the button himself, he'll look for someone else to do it for him.

Your name is better, but still clumsy -- but I appreciate the effort. For one, I don't want to tie it to those two applications. It is a tutorial on the combined use of bitmap and vector graphics editors, showing the user how to switch back and forth between the two to obtain results. I just inserted a reference to the open-source Inkscape, and I want to do more like that.

I'd really like to get some more hands at the table, but I'm too busy these days cleaning up after You Know Who to go recruiting. — Xiong熊talk 05:10, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, it's not really a topic that I know much about so I'd be pretty useless to you, but here's some other name ideas for you:

Wikipedia:Using bitmap and vector graphic editors

Wikipedia:How to use bitmap and vector graphic editors

Wikipedia:Advanced image editing

Wikipedia:Advanced image editing tutorial

Wikipedia:How to do advanced image editing

Maybe those will help?? Kevin Rector (talk) 05:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

The perspective of a newcomer to graphics work is exactly what is needed. It's a tutorial; seasoned pros know all the tricks I plan to show new guys. Everything about it should make sense to somebody with some basic computer skills who has dabbled in these two areas.

I like Wikipedia:Advanced image editing, because it is the shortest. You just gloss over the specifics (in the title), and that's fine. It does not really point to the topic with the correct jargon, though. Perhaps Wikipedia:Advanced graphic design? Only thing about that is, I don't like to use the word "advanced" -- scares people off. Must think harder. — Xiong熊talk 05:28, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

ooh... Wikipedia:Digital image editing because it is an article about how to edit an image that is digital. Kevin Rector (talk) 05:31, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with the name. You don't want to make it too general, because then it will "collide" with the other Graphics tutorials that already exist. - Omegatron 13:40, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

The name is just too long. You are right, Ω; the name should not be more general than the topic. But every time I work on this tutorial, my skin crawls. I'm about ready to move it to Wikipedia:Prince (The Tutorial Formerly Known As). --(Xiong.)

Well, I'm done with the name thingy. Nobody has come up with anything as catchy as Singing in the Rain. So, it's going -- now -- to Wikipedia:Graphics in two modes. Short, sweet, and -- if not entirely transparent -- well, it's not a mainspace article anyway; anyone who comes here for honest purposes will follow a link from a category or help page. — Xiong熊talk 06:42, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

The move is done -- a simple move from one name to another, same wiki, same namespace. I see it has taken me about half an hour to fix and tidy links, move subpages, and generally make sure everything goes along with the ride. Thank all the gods I had the wit to develop a special template for the copyright notice on all the images created for the project; of course I had to fix that, too. Thank all the heavens my little buddy didn't manage to get that trashed in TfD.

Based on this experience, I am more wary than ever of an interwiki move. Even if my little buddy is given the task as penance, it will take me no little time to check the move and see nothing is broken. I don't say no; this tutorial is not mine to say no -- but I do wish that some of the folks who are so eager to throw it into the U-Haul would do more to make it their property first. As it is, I've half a mind to move it into userspace, or just VfD it myself. — Xiong熊talk 07:25, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

[edit] Dead in the water

First thing to do to get others to "make it their property" as well is to remove the first-person point of view and get rid of your own possessive attitude. Gene Nygaard 17:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, my friend, I've stayed away from this thing for nearly 3 months, and nobody's shown the least interest, or made the effort to transwiki it. As far as I can see, the entire motive behind tagging it for transwiki was to kill it.

I'm not sure exactly what you criticize with "possessive attitude". Maybe you just don't like it that I opposed folks who only wanted to trash it. I don't think I've beaten anybody up who tried to make substantive contributions here. I'm quite sure that at this point, I'd welcome almost any involvement, up to and including speedy.

Will you lend a hand? — Xiong熊talk* 07:56, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

Checking page history, I see a few minor edits have been made. At least that's some interest and I stand corrected. Maybe I'll just let it stew for a year and see what happens. — Xiong熊talk* 08:02, 2005 August 18 (UTC)