Wikipedia talk:Graphics in two modes/move

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of old discussion on whether the tutorial formerly known as Prince should be moved to Wikibooks.

[edit] Move to Wikibooks?

I'm okay with a move to Wikibooks. I'm not quite sure what the difference is; I agree that it will be much more of a "how to" than a reference. I put it in this namespace because that's where similar links went. Doesn't matter to me, so long as links can point to it. Move away, O Wizard! At least we don't need to rent a U-haul. --Xiong 02:13, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is damned good so far. This type of howto is useful and is exactly the kind of thing we need around here. I agree with the link problem—I run into the same thing posting media at the Commons all the time—it's way easier to link within a Wiki than the cross them.
The confusion about the how-to's is normal, too. I ran into it a bunch of times when I first started, but I didn't ever assemble anything as good as this.
That being said, it looks like you've got the makings of a fantastic editor. Keep up the good work! --Milkmandan 04:23, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
P.S. I've got no idea how to actually move an article. I'll go figure that out. --Milkmandan 04:24, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

I felt better at first about the move than I do now. I've got some concerns:

  • Have you ever moved an article from one wiki to another? Check out the link from that template you put in: meta:Transwiki. It describes a horribly complex process after saying, "As there is currently no way of moving pages across wikis, the transfer must be done using cut and paste." The page must be moved, the talk page, all the images -- and all the links fixed, redirects scattered about, histories preserved, blah blah blah.
  • Just the other day I got spanked for doing a cut-and-paste move for a stupid stub that I myself wrote -- swapping the article with a redirect. Neither article nor redirect had any history to speak of and I carefully swapped article and talk, but I still got spanked. Admins are able to move pages within WP without using cut-and-paste, but I guess nobody can move pages across wikis. It seems to me that cut-and-paste move is a drastic step, not to be taken lightly or absent real need.
  • I'm no longer sure the move is appropriate, anyway. No, this is not an encyclopedia article; it is a tutorial for encyclopedia editors. As such, it is in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, not the main article namespace. That's where all the other tutorials are that are linked from Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials. Why doesn't this tutorial fit in?

How about we leave off the tag and see if anyone else objects? --Xiong 07:24, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

  1. Yeah, I was afraid of that. I figured it may boil down to A) a user doing a copy-and-paste, or B) an admin doing a copy-and-paste. Fixing links can presumably be scripted if you've got a regexp parser handy. Let me know if you want me to batch change everything—I can do all the links in about 30 seconds.
  2. Yep. The reason cut-and-paste isn't a popular thing to do is that there's a mechanism specifically before moving pages. If there was a day before moving pages (and I suspect there was, although I'm not certain), then cut-and-paste would have been the only measure. Similarly, cut-and-paste is the way to do things across Wikies because no better scheme exists.
  3. Very good point. I hadn't even noticed all of these before. I've seen a lot of move to Wikibooks thrown around, and I didn't even realize that we had how-tos that weren't being considered for moves. Actually, upon further inspection, these pages seem ripe to be moved over. There's really nothing that's really en.wiki specific, and a lot of this information would be really helpful in other languages. Additionally, the images would be more convenient at Wikibooks or at the commons.
I'm going to remove the move template in light of it fitting in over at the Graphics Tutorials page. If there is a discussion to be had about Wikibooking all of these tutorials, it should occur there. Moving everything seems to have a number of benefits. I just got done with a bunch of burearcratic nonsense and don't have any need to jump back into it immediately, so I'll probably wait a while to see what develops.
In any event, good luck with the page. The work so far has been very impressive!
--Milkmandan 18:16, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
Cool. I was worried. I see your point, but the older one gets, the more fearful of moving. My grandmother's folk maxim was "two moves, one fire" -- ironic since although we never moved off the farm, we had several fires. The point being that a move is almost half as bad as a fire for getting things lost and damaged.
I do see your point, but OTOH the longer I look at the setup, the more I question the wisdom of all the different, related wikis. Why not just have everything in one big wiki, but sorted into different namespaces? I hope it's not just a performance issue.
Now that that's settled for the moment, what do you want to contribute to this tutorial? Don't say "nothing", that's not an option. --Xiong 01:29, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

[edit] Outgrown Wikipedia

This page is already at the 30kb point, with a lot more coming, it seems. Unlike other pages at Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials (which are notably short and intentionally light on intense detail), this is become a "guide" and should be moved to Wikibooks so it can be split into chapters. -- Netoholic @ 17:15, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

This is another extension of Netoholic's vendetta against me (Xiong). He is already in arbitration for several kinds of disruptive behavior. Frankly, I don't care if this moves; my only objection to the last, withdrawn RfM was on technical grounds. Perhaps it should move. As it is, Netoholic's disruptive and vindictive actions have consumed all my available Wikitime (and more), effectively stopping me from working on this project -- which was his goal in the first place. By all means, humor him, dance to his tune. — XiongImage:Xiong2char.pngtalk 23:19, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to ask: Who is going to do the work involved in a move? That's the tutoral itself, this Talk, and all associated images -- and don't forget to fix all the links on both pages, all links pointing in, the gallery, and the naming convention. — XiongImage:Xiong2char.pngtalk 23:26, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
A user -- other than myself and my ever-stalking adversary -- removed the {{move to wikibooks}} tag. Since my adversary is enjoined by ArbCom from reverting Wikipediaspace pages, he convinced another user to put the tag back for him.
I really could care less if the tutorial moves or not -- I'd do it myself if I thought I wouldn't have the same little dog tagging along, chewing at my ankles. But as I mentioned above, there is a lot of work involved in such a move, and I have better things to do. My adversary has had much to say about me in other places, and much to say about himself, but has not seen fit to reply to my above comment. He will not do the work; he is only here to stir up trouble. I assert that the nomination is in bad faith, and is only designed to stall any further work on the tutorial itself.
Please do not bother to nominate this tutorial for a move to Wikibooks. If you think the move is wise, simply do it. Otherwise, do not become yet another of this troublesome user's cat's paws. — Xiong熊talk 02:44, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

In re: Wikipedia:How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop -- by all the gods, I have got to figure out a better name for this -- I see you have restored the "move to Wikibooks" template.

Note that I did not remove the tag, and am not particularly hostile to the move. I'm only concerned that it is a large and complex project and may very well be difficult to move intact. I started it in Wikipedia space because I saw other graphics tutorials here; and I started it before I became the target of Netoholic's single-minded, stalking attacks.

If you are, in some way, Netoholic's teammate, then I salute you, Sir. If you believe you are acting in truly impartial fashion, then I ask you to shoulder the burden of the move to Wikibooks. It's technically quite involved. If neither, then I suggest you have been made into Netoholic's cat's paw. His nomination for movement has effectively stopped me from contributing to the tutorial.

Thank you. — Xiong熊talk 02:32, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

I am by no means Netaholic's partner. I don't really even know him. I just saw that your deal is definitely a tutorial and my understanding is that tutuorials go in Wikibooks. I'll help you move it. Kevin Rector (talk) 03:56, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hey there, I just now saw that your tutorial is in the Wikipedia namespace and not the article namespace. So as far as I'm concerned, you can leave it right where it is. Sorry if I've been any bother to you at all. By the way, I've read some of your comments on various pages and I really enjoy your sense of humor. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

That's the way I saw it, too, when I first created the page. I saw other tutorials in Wikipediaspace and I figured that was where this belonged. Since then, you're the 3rd person to tag the tutorial for a move -- see the tutorial's Talk page for discussions.

Thank you for being a civil person. — Xiong熊talk 04:28, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

[edit] Move, move, move

I've abandoned this tutorial. I believe that any effort I put into it will be wasted, because it will be destroyed during an interwiki move. I may be wrong -- but I note that nobody proposing the move has dared to carry it out. It's not a simple as pushing a button.

So far, my abandonment has been the chief result of all this talk about interwiki move. Somebody deserves a real pat on the back.

My position is unchanged: This was meant to be a short introduction to a complex topic; obviously it has grown much larger than should be contained in any one page within Wikipedia, and certainly should be far larger still. I do wish that this resource was prominently available to editors, especially those who think the best way to get graphics into the Corpus is to steal them outright.

I have no experience at all with interwiki move. I went exactly so far as to move this page, within the same namespace and project, to a new name -- and found myself spending hours stitching it back together. Anybody who does the interwiki move properly, and gets all its associated stuff over in one piece, will get a barnstar from me. Who knows, I might even be impelled to resume work on it.

— Xiong熊talk* 17:26, 2005 September 7 (UTC)