Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop/Eight Requests

Suggestions

 * Suggestions for files to be added to the display may be added below as comments listing the filename along with the suggested changes or may be added to the gallery below in the display's markup format so as to make for easier insertion later.

Timestamps
Here's a list of some files —currently in use— which need watermarks/timestamps removed:

✅ File:2002-2005 Saturn Vue.JPG

✅ File:'99-'01 BMW 3-Series Sedan.JPG

✅ File:'98 Chevy Tracker.jpg

✅ File:'95-'97 Suzuki Swift.JPG

✅ File:'94-'95 Acura Legend Sedan.JPG

✅ File:'92-'95 Geo Tracker Hardtop 2-Door.jpg

✅ File:'89-'90 Ford Bronco II.JPG

✅ File:'69 Chevrolet Yenko Chevelle (Auto classique).JPG

✅ File:'61 Alfa Romeo Giulietta Spider (Orange Julep).JPG

✅ File:'55 Ford Thunderbird (Byward Auto Classic).jpg

✅ File:'09 Pontiac G3 Wave Hatchback (Front).JPG

✅ File:'09 Mazda6.JPG

✅ File:'08 Saab 9-3 SportCombi.jpg

✅ File:'08 Ford E-450 (National Rent-A-Car).JPG

✅ File:2006-'07 Saturn Vue.JPG

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

✅ File:

--Kevjonesin (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-free frames
Here's a list of some files —currently in use— which need non-free frames removed:

✅File:Caxias museumunicipal4.jpg

✅File:Agnolo Bronzino - The Deposition of Christ - Google Art Project.jpg ✅File:Anonymous woman from Kochubey family by I. Makakov (1856, GRM) FRAME.jpg --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Filippino lippi, madonna col bambino e i santi g.battista, vittore, bernardo e zanobi (1485) uffizi.jpg
 * File:Colla-del-Amatrice-morte%26as.jpg
 * File:Angelico, madonna col bambino, pinacoteca sabauda.jpg
 * File:Andrea del Sarto - Assumption of the Virgin - WGA00400.jpg
 * File:Frans van Mieris d. Ä. 001.jpg

Under exposed
Here's a list of some files —currently in use— which need under exposure addressed:

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅



✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

✅

--Kevjonesin (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Requests Gallery
General Talk Page Comments (regarding the Anonymous/Eight Requests display)

Stale images
Who decides these, and why are the four images always the simplest most basic tasks out of those on here? Draw some attantion to items going stale instead of watermarks ad nauseum. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please find some harder tasks. I have many pictures bookmarked so from now on I'll be putting there the most difficult I come across, OK? Vearthy (talk) 23:27, 29 December 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 to discuss implementation. Thank you. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 22:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unused images
In today's Top 4 batch, three of the images aren't even being used in articles. Maybe some guidelines can be set up to avoid wasting graphists' time on images that have low (if any) priorities. Images in the Top 4 should be required to be used in at least one article. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 21:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the images should at least be those which are already visible to the public and thus higher priority. The difficulty of the task has no bearing whatsoever. This isn't exactly a contest to show off retouching skills.-- Obsidi ♠ nSoul  03:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, maybe there should be some guidelines for the difficulty of images posted in the Top 4 as well. In my brief experience, some images have a high priority but low difficulty, and I think these would be okay to post in the Top 4, rather than making separate requests on the workshop page for each one. Except for the last batch, I try to keep the Top 4 varied, so there will always be a variation in difficulty as well. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 09:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless it is already being done, I would highly recommend basing the Top 4 on the GLAMorous tool. Even though it's not perfect for prioritizing images (I would also take into account the articles' pageviews, maybe we should contact the author and request a tool which does that), it is still very helpful. —Quibik (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent suggestion, I wasn't aware of the tool. (I'm not sure I understand the "search depth" function.) Prioritizing the image results by page views would be helpful for those images that aren't used on 50+ pages, maybe. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 22:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Top 8?
A simple thought: how about changing the "Top 4" to "Top 8"? Unlike the Illustration workshop, the images here are complete fairly quickly. Adding more images would reduce idle time between updates and (I presume) would make maintaining the page a bit more easier and efficient. What do you think? —Quibik (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if you look at the 2011 archive, you'll see that the Top 4 will vary anywhere from being completed in one day, to taking almost three to four days to be completed. It may depend on the difficulty of the images posted, and it may depend on the availability of the editors. It just so happens that once in a while, an editor—like in your case—will clean out the entire Top 4 every so often.


 * I should add that I recently created the maintenance page (there's a link to it in the top right of the Top 4 page), and anyone is welcome to update the Top 4. Quibik, I included links using your suggested GLAMorous tool as well, which has been quite helpful! If someone is comfortable enough with the process, they can always update the Top 4 themselves, like after they complete the last image.


 * As for a Top 8, I'm not against the idea at all. I don't know the history of the Top 4 (though apparently this is new as of late 2009/early 2010), so I don't know why the Top 4 should be limited to only four. Perhaps there can be a Top 4 of "remove watermarks" and a second row of four images with other requests (or also watermarked images)? And after any Row of 4 is completed, someone can update it. It doesn't have to wait until all 8 images are completed to be updated. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 08:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's safe to say that the current batch is a good example of when images aren't completed quickly : ) I suppose if there is one drawback about having eight images, it would be the amount of space it takes up on the main Photography Workshop page, which people may not approve of (just guessing, I don't really know). Otherwise, combining this discussion with the discussion below, I did come up with a silly name for the project: The ER. ER would stand for "eight requests" and would also be a pun on "fixing" images. At any rate, both discussions seem to have petered out, so maybe nothing will change, though I am apt to agree that the words "today" and "top" could be removed from this project fairly harmlessly. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 14:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Top 4 requests?
Top 4 requests? Who is requesting them?

Top 4? Where is this alleged list?

Top 4 of the day? You mean yesterday's top 4 was different?

The "goal" is to clean up these four images in 48 hours? Geez... who thinks this crap up?

Why not simply be a little more straightforward and present a list of 4 (or more) images that need cleaning up with more to be found here. As they are cleaned up, new images can be swapped in. No non-existent "requests", no phony "top" lists and no made-up "goals". JBarta (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I did a little digging, and it looks like the Top 4 was invented by for "uncontroversial requests that should not require any discussion". It used to be a 24-hour thing (hence the "day") and was lengthened to 48 hours. There is no Top 4 "list" (I'm not sure where you got that from), anyone can request images by suggesting them in the talk page—and anyone can update the Top 4 completely by following the maintenance instructions—, and there's a goal simply because it gets the images done. I don't think anyone is really thinking, "Oh geeze, 48 hours has passed, we're all in for it now." I didn't dig any earlier, so why the Top 4 even exists, I don't know. The only list I'm aware of keeps track of the users and how many edits they've made. It isn't a contest; someone just started it, again why, I don't know. The Top 4 seems to be a variation of a "backlog drive", only barnstars aren't handed out at the end of each year (as far as I'm aware). – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 08:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a thought: the project doesn't have to be called Top 4. It could simply be called Four Requests (or, as suggested above, Eight Requests). The word "top" could be misleading, and "today" and "of the day" aren't correct either, so these could be removed. I don't really see anything wrong with the word "request", and I don't see it as being phony. The requests were made when the images were tagged in the first place. It's up to someone to dig through the categories or use the GLAMorous tool to find images for the project. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 08:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Top 4 "list" (I'm not sure where you got that from)" -- If there is a "Top 4 requests", that means there are likely more than 4 requests arranged in a list from "top" to "bottom". If there is a "top", then there must be a "bottom". Of course, if there are only 4 in the whole list on some particular day, then the "Bottom 4" is the same as the "Top 4". Either way, it's a list and that's where I get that from. (I know, I'm giving this entirely too much thought) JBarta (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, like I said, "Top" is misleading and doesn't have to be used. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 23:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Four Requests
Since there wasn't any major disagreement to the discussion(s) above, I've updated the page and header to make this more representative of a community project for anyone who is interested in helping alter images. Any sense of a contest and any potentially misleading language about how the four images are chosen have been removed, as have references to "day", "today", and timeframes. Previous discussions about the difficulty of each request has never reached a clear consensus; therefore, it seems there really isn't any requirement for an image to be difficult to be included on the project, and from looking through the archives, it doesn't seem like the 24-hour (old)/48-hour (recent) goals have really helped drive the project forward. This isn't a race, it's simply four images that need to be worked on.

Project page URLs have not been altered (page moves have not been made), so the phrase "Top 4" still remains for now. The change is simply a more visible "test", which may or may not result in further discussion. My changes are in the spirit of WP:BOLD and are not meant to offend anyone or to make the project seem less important than it was before. I believe the project as it stands still serves as a place for four images in need of work to be located in a highly visible area of the Photography Workshop without requiring the usual image-specific requests that anyone can otherwise make.

Anyone should be able to feel free to update the Four Requests as needed, and they can follow the instructions given on the maintenance page. By changing the name to "Four Requests", I hope that any interested graphists passing through will get the feeling that they are invited to help edit the images as needed, while the previous term "Top 4" may have been a little more exclusive and/or intimidating. This project is not unlike a backlog drive, in a sense, because every image tagged for alteration will need to be worked on at some point. Naturally, images chosen for Four Requests can be given priority based on importance and usage, and personal requests that require immediate attention should be made at the Photography Workshop.

I hope this comes as a welcome change, and I invite anyone to start a dialogue as to whether or not this is a good idea or if I should go jump in a lake and everything be returned back to normal :D Finally, the user log should still be updated, but I was thinking about how to make its purpose a little more functional, and to keep motivation up for contributors, without returning to that "contest" feel. Contributors to this project should all be awarded with a barnstar at the end of the year, whether they've helped with one image or a hundred. However—and this is not meant to re-start the contest-feeling of the project—the contributors with most edits (it can be decided how many: the top one, the top two, the top three, whatever) can be given a more special barnstar for their efforts. This award system would be in a similar vein to the backlog drives, and it would make a nice "thank you" for everyone's help. This can be discussed further as well.

What do people think? – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 20:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call, imo. I've always wondered what happens when 48 hours have elapsed and no one has taken any of them yet, heh. Everybody contributing here also have other interests/projects in Wikipedia so it might not always be possible to do them within the 'limit'. A more effective way to drive the project forward, imo, is to make it more visible to other editors with the necessary skills. People who might be interested in pitching in but don't know that this project even exists. I dunno how though. Maybe 'advertise' in the Wikipedian (userbox) categories for digital artists? I just found this page accidentally from your postings in the Help page.--  Obsidi ♠ nSoul  20:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, a Graphic Lab/Four Requests userbox is an awesome idea, it never occurred to me. Do you know if one exists yet? If not, we should design one! Otherwise, in regards to "visibility" and advertising, I think this project is pretty visible since it's right at the top of the Photography Workshop page, but I agree that it's a bit "esoteric"; already I didn't even know the Graphic Lab existed until the last year, and I avoided working on the Top 4 because I thought it was for super-graphists (which is why I'm a major advocate for this recent change, since it affects me as well). – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 21:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea, and I'm definitely not a regular in the graphic labs, heh, since I'm technically not a 2d artist nor a photographer. And yep, a few months ago I wouldn't even touch this for fear of 'barging in', I've gotten more used to being WP:BOLD though.--  Obsidi ♠ nSoul  21:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Changes look good. More straightforward, less cheesy. Might even increase it to six or eight images. JBarta (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of you guys. Time to get this project back on track! And, yeah, we've got to advertise it even more. --Sisyphos23 (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

After a watermark has been removed
I recently noticed one of the Graphic Lab editors, Quibik, using an interesting template on Commons images that had the watermark removed. The template is (see commons:Template:Attribution metadata from licensed image for documentation). In short, someone noticed that the language in the GFDL and CC-BY licenses required preservation of copyright notices, which may include watermarks. The discussions on this are rather interesting, and the template documentation has the links to the two original (now archived) discussions if anyone is interested in reading about it further. But in neither discussion was a consensus reached, nor were any legal matters resolved. So for now, it was suggested that editors continue to remove watermarks, but they should tag freely licensed images with (note that public domain images should be tagged with   instead).

Regarding the information "moved into the image description page", I asked about this at the Commons village pump and two editors suggested that the watermark information should be added as "readable by the human eye" text, meaning that leaving the original watermarked image in the history may not be good enough. In other words, if an editor removes "©2010 Foo Photography" from the image, the image description should already mention this attribution (date and name) and if it doesn't, then it should be added.

There are no rules or guidelines about this, but I definitely found it intriguing enough to mention it here. In all, it's most likely the editor's prerogative to add instead of removing  entirely. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 05:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Userbox
I noticed MissMJ had User Wikigraphist on her page, and I believe it was discussed above that there could be a way to inform more people of the Graphic Lab. I suppose this is as good an idea as any. If someone feels there should be a more specific one to the Photography workshop, then I'm sure one can be made, if one doesn't already exist (I haven't checked) : ) – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 06:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * How about the following?


 * It's still a mouthful though... and cheesy, LOL. Any suggestions on wording?--  Obsidi ♠ nSoul  06:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, the original says way too much and takes so long to read, you get bored 3/4 of the way through. It should say something more like, "This user is a Wikigraphist at the Graphic Lab". The userbox shouldn't be like a WikiProject drive, trying to pull people in, so the "You can help!" thing only sounds desperate, and I don't think we're at that stage yet. : ) Curiosity is what drives userboxes, I think. If someone thinks, "Huh, what's a Graphic Lab?" then they'll follow the link and decide then and there if they should pitch in or if they're wasting their precious Wikiminutes. The only cheesy thing about the userbox is the word "wikigraphist". So ... and I apologize if it's seemingly over-complex, but what if a similar userbox were made (as default), but a parameter could be used to change the work "wikigraphist" to something else, like "graphist" (lol) and a second parameter would allow you to say a specific workshop. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 07:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a test example at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Template:Graphic Lab, with the following examples changed by adding an m, p, or i in the first parameter:


 * I didn't make the Wikigraphist thing changeable because that links to a whole page of people. – Kerαu noςco pia <sup style="color:#A60000;">◁ gala xies 07:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yep. Sounds desperate. I like those three. --  Obsidi ♠ nSoul  08:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Those three userboxes look great. JBarta (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 is over!
Congratulations to all the contributors! This year the "Top 4 Requests" switched to the "Eight Requests" system, we had 25% more contributors (40 in total) compared to 2010, and we edited 22,5% more images (628 in total), contributing greatly to Wikipedia's rich image collection. Let's hope 2012 will be twice as good! Congrats again and have a happy, creative new year! --Sisyphos23 (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

section
Created a gallery for suggestions like the illustration workshop--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

16 images
Since these requests are being blown out at an impressive rate, I figured I'd bump it up to 16 images and see how it goes. I'm thinking there is no reason to change all the pages from "Eight Requests" to "Sixteen Requests" yet. Let's just let it roll for a while and we'll see how it works out. Just keep in mind.... quality before quantity. Or, in our case... quality AND quantity. – JBarta (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I have the feeling 16 images isn't well received. – JBarta (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Noting recent changes and future idea
I, fairly recently, extended the display to 12 entries and changed the displayed title to —the more flexible— "Anonymous requests". Also moved the maintenance directions notice into the displayed field to make it easy for others to find.

At the time I made the change, requests had been getting addressed quite quickly, but then stalled for a few days when the posted options had all been taken. I figure a few more entries means less frequent maintenance.

I'm considering making a page for folks to list specific suggested files to be considered for addition to the display so as to make it easier for whoever updates the display (i.e. save some searching) by having some pre-filtered/user_reviewed options. I figure it would be an easy place for folks to quickly note files they feel deserve some priority without interrupting their flow too much. Images found incidentally while browsing articles, categories, etc.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding rotating out "done" items individually and/or en masse.
"[Note: I'm making this entry in response to an unregistered user 109.77.61.152 who has made successive reversions recently. They are a new user editing a somewhat arcane page. (sock-puppet?)]"

I personally selected and implemented the current list and also made the edits to the image which I rotated out. I did so to make room for another image file which I'd stumbled across while browsing. I'm not claiming wp:Ownership, but am pointing out that it might be worth giving consideration to the fact that I'm intimately familiar with how both the editor who made the current list and the one who edited the image which was rotated out —to the archive— feel about it. >wink<.

I find it unlikely that there's any harm in refreshing an entry singly and can think of a number of benefits. Chiefly I'm of the opinion that it may make maintenance easier if approached a bit at a time. Doing so avoids situations where the list 'stalls' for days on end while waiting for someone to take the time —make the effort— to refresh it en masse. Such a stall occurred recently, before I took the initiative to address the situation.

I also feel that it's a benefit to graphists to consistently have a range of options from which to choose according to their taste and abilities. Notice requests of varying difficulty and detail have been displayed.

Hmm, an article I came across yesterday is coming back to mind... oh yes, it was: bikeshed. Funny that one. --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The custom has been to replace the images en masse. However replacing them individually also has its advantages. The problem in the past has been that an editor (usually an IP address) will wander over and replace a random image or two without performing the other maintenance tasks of archiving the completed request(s) and updating the users log. Personally I've found it easier to simply revert these single half-done replacements and wait until all are done, then properly replace them with a new 8 (or 12). (At that time I would also customarily check all the completed requests individually as inexperienced or careless editors often omit   tags, etc.) All that said, it doesn't really matter if requests are replaced individually or en masse... as long as the full maintenance task is done. – JBarta (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, as to when to 'step up to the plate' (i.e. address file rotation) it's mostly a matter of how whoever is motivated at a given time prefers to go about it. However, I'd qualify that with not seeing any reason to overturn another's efforts (i.e. single/partial archived changes) just to enforce one's preference. In fact I'd strongly object to such as smelling of ownership.


 * Regarding "...full maintenance task...": I see value in archiving, but haven't bothered with the 'score' page as it appears to have been sparsely/sporadically used —of late— and doesn't seem to address 2013. Frankly, I think it's a nice idea if automated (worth asking for tech help perhaps) but just makes for another hoop to jump through (feature bloat) for whoever steps up to do maintenance. I figure the simpler the process the more likely folks are to step up to the plate. Unless some sort of obfuscated spaghetti code principal was at work to discourage others from getting involved in the first place. >wink<


 * I suspect the whole display/template/page could be largely automated by someone with scripting skillz. Unfortunately that's not me. But, while I don't know "how", I do have some idea as to what can be done with such. While far from being a guru or tech wizard, I do have a greater than average interest in —and knowledge of— digital computing and computers. I'm a bit of a Linux fanboy among other things.


 * My previous idea about having a 'staging' page for possible files to be added actually ties in with evolving towards greater automation. I was thinking on the matter while adding the last 'full round' of images and it occurred to me that the current maintenance work-flow would be hard to automate as it requires a fair bit of human judgment —at multiple points— to avoid nonsensical results.


 * I considered a function that would randomly pull from the Wikipedia and Commons categories containing images flagged as needing work, but as these often have outdated tags or are on files of low priority it seemed something involving more discretion would be needed. A crowd sourced pool of files people notice as needing help as they go about their way through the wikis seems to have potential. As long as it's implemented in a streamlined fashion which allows for non-tech-savvy users to easily enter data in a somewhat standardized fashion.


 * Drop down menus with common inputs combined with custom "Other:" type text boxes would likely be optimal. It's a format most are familiar with. Simpler to implement, however, might be just a set of labeled fields and some suggested entries in the instructions which may be copy/pasted. As long as there is something in place to filter/form the info into a standardized format that a bot can then pool and pull from. Automated archiving and stats would then become fairly straight forward to implement as well.


 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * p.s. — Ha! I just noticed #Suggestions up top for the first time. Hmm, it —the section— might benefit from something to distinguish it from the old comment threads which follow. A graphic, colored field, border, etc. And perhaps a shortcut link included in the display to help bring it to the attention of users. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and used notice and tweaked the existing text and fonts. Haven't placed direct links to section anywhere yet though. --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)