Template talk:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Top 4/Archive 1

Archive 1

Duplicate requests

Hello, I noticed a familiar picture in the Top 4, and soon discovered that a requested US Coast Guard emblem (File:AUX_W.png) already existed as SVG – the file could be found simply by chaning the prefix to svg: File:AUX_W.svg. And actually, pretty much anything that relates to US Coast Guard insignia can probably be requested from User:Eric.J.Hebert in vector form as well as PNG form, as he has the original sources available. I am not blaming anyone however because the PNG file was obviously missing the {{vva}} template. There would a good job for someone to make sure all USCG logos are VVA-linked, and maybe even ask Eric for the SVGs where missing. --hydrox (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

New template for Top 4 gallery

Hi, I have started a discussion on a new template for the Top 4 gallery at the Photography Workshop. Please go to Wikipedia_talk:Graphic_Lab#New_template_for_the_Top_4_galleries to discuss implementation. Thank you. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Too difficult?

Of late, many suggestions are, in my opinion, long and difficult requests. I thought the point of this system was to have easy, simple requests that could be done easily within the 24 hours set and encourage novices (as I was, and to some extent still am) to try to help. If so, perhaps we could reconsider the guidelines for new suggestions. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 14:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe File:CIExy1931 ProPhoto.png is suited to an SVG, where gradient colouring as complicated as that is difficult, even if technically feasible (it may not be), and where, furthermore, the actual colours are very important. Accordingly, whilst it may be suitable for a truly determined graphics person, it shouldn't be on this list. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The Haz _talk 05:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Top 4, May 2012 - Grashopper Anatomy

This illustration, currently at the top 4, appears to be made on the basis of original research, see: Talk:Grasshopper#Anatomy. What are the consequences of this? Martinor (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• 

Serval range map

Is there something wrong with File:New_Serval_range.svg, which is already shown as a vector substitute on the PNG image’s description page?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, as it seems there are no objections, I’m just going to boldly link it up to clear the board. If it turns out there’s a problem with the file I’ll try and fix it.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Besides it being a poor automated trace and using white for both political boundaries and water, and generally being far inferior, no. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that’s why I asked … Since the Top 4 board hasn’t been refreshed yet I’ll see if I can make a better one from a good vectot base-map.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Exemplary. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Broken link

The Edit link in the Top 4 header just shows a redirect instead of the usual page content, which seems to be lurking somewhere in a template I can’t find. Could whoever’s responsible for the renaming operation please fix it?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, found it—it’s a sub-page, not a template—and (I hope) fixed it.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

New Top 4 and Archival

I've noticed that lately there were several edits made after requests are complete, with new Top 4 substituted in. The modus operanti with Top 4s are that they're cycled in groups of 4: this helps with the archival task, and let the graphists get a sense of accomplishment as a "crop" of graphics are tackled (as opposed to being a Sisyphean task). I will thus revert non-archived isolated substitutions hereon. If you see benefits to substituting finished tasks out, please voice your opinion here. Jon C (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, can we please not have copyrighted (NFCC) material in the top 4? They are frequently contentious post-submission (deletion requests abound), are often logos that are difficult to vectorize (e.g., the current Mazda logo with ts complex gradients), and there are great deal of other images that are of greater impact. Jon C (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No suggestions

The top 4 is finished, but there are no remaining suggestions. Does anyone have any requests to put there? NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 13:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Montenegro CoA is done.

Hi, I see User:109.78.253.206 removed the completed filename from the Montenegro CoA request. It is now on Commons, so I think it can be listed as done, even though the en-wikipedia version is still there. This post is also in a sense a test of the new Notifications system: apparently now mentioning someone's name in a comment should trigger a notification. Let's see how that works out :-] --Slashme (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts

Firstly, it seems like the current batch of Top 4 requests is far too hard to be turned around in 48 hours. Coats of arms with no component parts available are really far beyond most editors here, so if something like that is going to be on the top 4, it needs to have almost all the components available and linked to. The technical diagram is too complex for somebody without a basic knowledge of engines to understand, and it would be completely wrong to vectorise it without someone with knowledge on the subject to have an input. The flag is the only doable one on there, but as it is, it's a very small image and very difficult to get the detail correct. Again, perhaps not the most appropriate for this template. Indeed, they've all been sitting there for well over a month apiece. I think we should just scrap the current set and start again with a new set of four. Unless anyone has any objections, I'll archive this set on Saturday and find some easier ones.

Secondly, it does seem like the lab is a lot quieter than it used to be, so is the 48 hour turnaround still viable? I suggest we change this to a week and then rotate completed requests every weekend. Waiting for all four to be completed was a sound policy when we had a lot of editors here, but I think we need to adapt to the situation. If the traffic builds up again, then we can move back to the old strategy.

On that front, the top 4 was, when I started editing here, full of nice, simple requests to allow me to learn about Inkscape and vector graphics in general. Without some easy starting points, potential new editors will just be put off and think that it's far too complicated. We need to start maintaining a list of files which are in common use, but are also simple and have 2 or 3 of the top 4 being really nice, basic stuff. The remaining ones can then be a little harder, but not overly technical or intricate diagrams or CoAs.

I'm interested to know what you all think about these points. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 14:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you NikNaks. The main problem is that most graphics added nowadays are too hard (like complex COAs). Therefore the 48h limit is impossible to achieve if somebody takes them at all. Such complex images just do not belong into the Top 4 and should be posted as normal GL request instead. I don't know who is adding them, but if you read this please pick them more carefully next time! Actually I had replacing the current ones on my own list, too, but didn't get to it yet (In fact picking good images isn't easy and takes some time! Please everybody who wants to add new ones be aware of that...)
Regarding the 48h time window and replacing all images in a batch I'd actually keep those rules. If the images added are simple enough we can actually make it within 48h. Even if it gets a week I'd say that's OK, but creating a little "pressure" by keeping it 48 hours should be advantageous here. The rule to replace them in a batch increases the incentive to actually resolve all requests – otherwise people just solve thos they like best, and the others sit around there for ages (which is actually counterproductive). What we could change to easily overcome this is setting a kind of "hard limit" (e.g. dropping unresolved requests after a period of time with no activity, e.g. 1 week. --Patrick87 (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with both of you. They are to complex (not only those four) and very often there is not enough information to be able to complete them, and there is no one to ask for more information. This is a problem elsewhere also, that we who work with graphics has to do a pretty big amount of research and that is not very effective.

I don't know how they are picked, if someone actually does this manually or it's some kind of script. Anyway, I think there would be more action about them if they all had a lower level of complexity and were less difficult. This is not the place for that kind of requests.

If that is achieved I think we can stick with the 48 hours and all four completed for now. It's better to put the effort to affect the way they are picked, that really has a potential to make a difference.

Regarding the activity I haven't been active here long enough to have experience on how it was "before". I can just look at my self and for the last month and probably for another month to come I have very little time to spend her. My long time aim is to work here on a continuous base but that is not possible all the time. So I think we just have to accept that the activity varies over time and adjust the "rules" and expectations as that varies, more flexibility. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been away for some time, but have tried in the last few days to clear some of the backlog on the main page. I do appreciate that people will come and go, but these should be simple enough for newbies to do. If you guys think the 48 hour thing is still workable, then we can leave it at that, but we need to compile a list of entries again.

I do like the idea of a "hard limit", and let's set it at a week, so we don't wait around too long to swap the entries over. If that doesn't seem to be working, we can have another think about it and maybe change it to two weeks, or come up with something else.

Goran, for future reference, the picking is entirely manual, and we change them ourselves, too. The section on this page called "Suggestions" on this page for a long time contained a list of images to use, but over time it seems like it got emptied and nobody put any new ones on there. I'll start adding some images to that now, I think, and perhaps we could go back to a system where we only use those listed in the top 4, and not random selections.

Also, if either of you know of anyone who edits the top 4 a lot, feel free to invite them here to discuss ideas. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 16:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that GL top 4 requests that are too complicated to be expected to be completed within the time limit should be archived and replaced, or maybe moved to the main WP:GL/I page, and not kept for months with hopes that someone will complete them someday (this pretty much entirely defeats the purpose of the Top 4). Archiving all four requests at a fixed time every week will certainly help. SiBr₄ (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually you touch upon an interesting question here: What should we do with unresolved requests? I see three options here:

1. Move them to Illustration workshop
2. Archive them to the Top 4 Archive
3. Just drop them (e.g. remove without archiving)

Personally I doubt 1) makes much sense (unless the image is really worth being worked on which can be decided on a case-to-case basis) since normally there is a reason it does not get worked on (e.g. uninteresting, disputable, etc.). 2) is the most easy option since archiving can always take place after the same scheme without having to "think" about it. But then again unresolved "Top 4" requests do not carry much information which is worth archiving, which might justify 3), that is just removing them.
What do you think? Maybe we can have a sort of quick vote here to decide future procedure? Just write which options would be fine for you! --Patrick87 (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

2 or 3 would be fine for me. --Patrick87 (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should continue to archive the whole set (2), and then leave the incomplete ones on the list on this page, potentially putting them back in the top 4 at a later date.

On that note, I've made a short list of some of the most used and simplest PNGs. There are many more gymnastics ones, but I think variety is also important, so I've left some out. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 17:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It certainly seems like reducing the simplicity has helped a lot, although it seems like people are still put off by diagram images. I'll probably be able to "finish off" the top four again this time, but I'll be doing exams very soon and won't be able to curate it quite so easily. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 16:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Current top 4

What just happened with the top 4? We agreed on the following points less than a week ago:

• Requests would be archived in sets of four
• If the requests aren't filled in the 48 hour target window, then the deadline becomes one week at which point they are archived regardless of whether they're completed
• New requests should be taken from the suggestions list

Why, then, did we let an IP user reset the template back to two requests we agreed were too difficult?

To be honest, I don't think we should let IP editors change the template at all. It should be a user who is at least comfortable enough with Wikipedia to have an account here, and ideally it should be a regular user of the page. I don't know how to go about this in a technical sense, but unless they are offering to complete a request, their edits should be reverted. It is not a template to be used by a requester trying to get their own images done faster.

Please, if we agree to rules, let's follow them? The deadline is now another five days for this set, so please leave it there unless the final request is done or the time runs out, whichever is sooner. If we want to have another discussion about it, by all means, but can we at least try and use the consensus we've achieved? NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 21:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Target time

Today, IP 109.76.78.134 replaced the four requests, one of which was not completed yet, two days after they were originally added, though they should have been replaced only after a week (if I understand the above discussion correctly, the goal is two days, but the limit is one week). Unrelatedly, two of the four new requests had already been in the Top 4 for over two months without being completed, so the STP coat of arms and the smokebox diagram are better replaced by two other requests. SiBr₄ (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems like I was still typing my message below as you posted. Don't be afraid to revert edits that look unconstructive, especially when we know for a fact that the requests are not going to get done! NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 21:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the edit is unconstructive, but the IP apparently didn't know about the new one-week rule yet (not entirely surprising as this limit wasn't mentioned anywhere on the template page until I added it). SiBr₄ (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Replacing images that are not on the list and are unsuitable is not constructive and we shouldn't let random users get away with that. :P NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 21:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we use the word "constructive" differently. The IP's edit is "constructive" as in "good-faith"/"not vandalism" ((s)he probably just really wants these two images to be vectorized), though it may not be "constructive" when the word is used to mean "helpful"/"improving WP". SiBr₄ (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we must do! It may have been good faith, but they didn't archive the old set, so clearly didn't read the instructions available and hence didn't take that much care with their edit. Despite that, I've updated the instructions with the new guidelines we came up with, so hopefully some new users might read those next time. I really don't think we should tolerate edits like that, especially when we are still in the process of trying to restart the system. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 22:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing I'm not sure about is the obligation to use images from the suggestions on this talk page. To me it sounds like any Top 4 requests have to be reviewed here before being allowed for the Top 4. It may help to prevent the Top 4 from including too complicated image requests, but I don't see any other reason to prohibit files that are not on the list yet. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I never saw your reply here. Yes, the too complex image thing is exactly why we should limit it to things from the talk page only. In fact, in an ideal world we'd be able to rank the requested images by difficulty and always have a couple of "easy" ones up there for novices and one or two more challenging but more useful ones.

Anyway, back to your original point. It's not just the complexity that's the issue. I think it's patent abuse of the system if a random user comes along and puts some images they want made in the top four for their article. We have no way of knowing if they're useful for more than one article, and should absolutely be put in a normal request. I've seen that happen before, too, and this rule avoids that. I just think it makes our lives easier and goes some way to making sure we don't end up with very difficult images that keep reappearing on the top four and never getting done. Again, I'm happy to continue the discussion if you have new ideas. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 20:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the Top 4 is to give several simple requests some more attention so they are completed more quickly than they would be if they were put in the main lab. IMO, having to place one's new request "in queue" on the talk page and having to wait one or more rounds for it to be posted defeats this. Though, on the other hand, the system will help all requests get a fair chance for posting since it won't be a contest of "who's the first to add their own requests" after a set is done. SiBr₄ (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why people couldn't post here a few days in advance and then edit the top 4 themselves if they needed the images done. I don't think that's too unreasonable a suggestion because, as you say, it stops it becoming some kind of race. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 22:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Current situation

So, the last set of four had two really very easy requests with linked SVGs that nobody did. Is that a sign that there really aren't enough editors to justify the 48 hour turnaround? Or were the requests harder than I thought? Or perhaps it was just a very busy week for everyone? I can't tell, but my presumption is that it's the first one.

Also, the IP editor (who I have to assume is the same one as before, given that the geolocator puts them in the same region of Ireland) still doesn't read the instructions, doesn't update the suggestions page, and on this occasion didn't even check whether the four they'd picked had even been completed. I don't have an issue with them pushing their images - they're all fairly simple revectorisations - but it's not a good use of our time to have to go and clean up their mistakes. Without a user account to fall back on, there's no way of contacting them to explain what they're doing wrong and it'll just carry on. I'm already irritated by it, and even went so far as to revert last time I saw it (although SiBr4 fixed it up this time). I'd like to make a case for this template to be editable only by registered users, but keep the suggestions page open. At least then if editors mess up or otherwise don't finish the admin work, we can get in touch with them and let them know what to do next time. Does this seem unreasonable to anyone? NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 16:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This time the IP did archive the old set but didn't update this talk page and increase the time goal. I'd think the uncompleted simple requests are due to the small number of takers these days (only three distinct users completed requests from the last five sets, compared to seven for the five sets before that) and the users who do see them not feeling like doing them. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the same thing the IP did twice before. The first time I fixed it up and left a note on the talk page, and the second I just reverted and again left a note on the (new) IP's talk. Potentially I was too fast for you to see it the first time! Anyhow, you didn't offer an opinion on whether IPs should be blocked for this reason. I completely understand that they are good faith edits, but we have no way of explaining to them how to fix it without a user account. Believe me, I've tried.

As for the main matter, do you think we should extend it to a week? I agree that interest ebbs and flows, but I've done a large chunk of the requests lately and can't keep that up forever. We sorely need new people visiting the lab. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 18:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think SiBr4 is on the right track: We have only few people working on the Top 4 and they either feel like working on the current Top 4 – or they don't. I'm afraid changing the time limit won't change a thing as long as we're not able to win more people for the completion of the Top 4. We can extend it to one week, but the net effect (archival after one week) would be the same. SO we don't really gain anything there... --Patrick87 (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

True, but then what is the point of the 48 hour target? It doesn't seem to add anything either any more. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 19:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It might add a little extra incentive in the (admittedly rare) cases where the current Top 4 are actually interesting enough to be worked on. But you're right, it doesn't gain us much. If everybody agrees we could simply change it to one week which will make the "rules" a little easier to understand. We would have only one (but ultimate) deadline then, which probably isn't a bad thing after all. --Patrick87 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please check the Top 4 haven't been done

These last few Top 4s that have gone up recently, two of the four had already been done (some by me actually, and last week there were others that had been posted that had already been done and had also been marked as done in the list above. It's disheartening to spend a while on an image only to find out that it has already been done. Let's face it, there's hardly a surfeit of us just hanging around to do these things so please don't waste the time of the few that are here. Thank you. --209.99.2.170 (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)