Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Graphic design/Archive 1

Too narrow?
I'm not sure that a focus as narrow as graphic design will get as much attention as it needs without it being tied to a broader focus such as design, visual communications or media studies. Graphic design is only one interdependent discipline among many others in art and media development. Other disciplines include marketing communications, creative direction, art direction, copywriting, technical writing, instructional design, engineering, multimedia development, image development, and production. A broader focus would attract more cooperation from professionals on the cutting edge of graphic design working in advertising agencies and the film industry. Artsmartconsulting 19:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no reason we can't focus on all those things seperately while also addressing their interdependency. There's room for everyone. This particular project concerns graphic design and is centered on Wikipedia's graphic design page - which is sorely in need of improvement. But that hub is just part of the project; we'll also deal with articles linking to and from that page, specifically their relation to graphic design.


 * If you're saying graphic design shouldn't even be it's own project, and that it only exists as a subset of other things, then I think you're drastically underestimating the scope and complexity of design as a process, a form, and a career.Rasi2290


 * Graphic design should be it's own project. The page does need much improvement. I'm just guessing that there would be more professional participation on the graphic design page if the WikiProject had a broader focus. The people who know the most about graphic design, most-likely started their careers with graphic design and have since been promoted to positions of broader concerns, like advertising business management, creative direction, marketing communications, art direction, copywriting, project management, production management, ect. Those people may be willing to add professionalism to the graphic design page, but may not come across it unless it were tied to a WikiProject with a broader focus like marketing, visual communications or media studies. Artsmartconsulting 17:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it's necessary to have a wikiproject to fix just one article (Graphic design). Just work on the talk page there. If you're going to start a wikiproject, have it look at the whole graphic arts community: printing, design, computer graphics, etc. Sbwoodside 05:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Graphic design is a distinct discipline and profession, with a well-developed body of ideas, and a distinct history. Lump it in with areas like computer graphics and illustration, and you lose that essential connection to ideas behind graphic design. To understand its scope, look at the number of graphic design schools -- just in the US, the National Association of Schools of Design lists about 140 accredited undergraduate graphic design programs, and roughly two dozen graduate programs. There's material here for an entire project. It's not as if one page covers the breadth and depth of the subject. Chelt 15:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Graphic Design is definitely its own project and one that's had a dynamic history for more than 5,000 years. I believe that Graphic Design is more than a discipline or profession. Its theory, history, science, communication, debate, art, and nature all rolled in one. To begin this project we need to think about Graphic Design as more of an entity (whatever that means) than a specific job title or profession. One thing I find intriguing about the idea of going forward with a graphic design project is to see how this thing could blossom globally. Communication is a global concept thats an essential part of every society. As we move forward to a more globalized society it will be interesting to discuss and document the differences and similarities of our histories and concepts and to see where they lead us into the future. Sh0wnpc 14:50, 1 October 2006


 * Actually I'm for the broader view. Graphic design certainly one day needs to be its own project, but as long as we don't have a fluently working wikiproject for design in general and need more manpower I'd go for that one instead. Prove me wrong by showing that together we can get this project going without a parent ,) –Zinjixmaggir 06:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been 2 years. I've made some Bold strides. But I have yet to prove you wrong. And I'm getting tired of the resistance. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note-

I am a third year graphic design major at a small liberal arts college. As a student of this discipline, I must agree with user ShOwnpc on this article. Graphic design is an "entity," in and of itself; to "lump it in" with illustration, printing, etc., as some have suggested, is incorrect. Just as you would not call an interior designer a "painter," a "builder," an "art framer," a "sewer," or a "shopper," though his/her job may involve some or all of these, a graphic designer is not simply an "illustrator;" aspects of illustration, marketing, printing, etc. are parts of the graphic design process. This, anyway, is the way in which we study graphic design at my college and the way the subject is represented in our texts.

Also, Paul Rand is an extremely influential modern graphic designer who is not on your graphic designer list.

Thank you for your time. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.254.2 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Graphic design
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 20:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Paul Rand
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Paul Rand/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Being deleted: Template:WikiProject_Graphic_design_invite
has been requested for speedy deletion, I am not sure I understand why Ikip (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Invitation for the Typeface collaboration
- ☩  Damërung   ☩   .  -- 02:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Graphic design articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Graphic design articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at ~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man ) 05:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Graphic design at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014 For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

New face & help with articles & userbox/banner
Hey there fellow designers! I'm a Finnish industrial/graphic designer interested in taking Wikipedia further in this area. I just finished creating the pages Lo-Type and Louis Oppenheim. The latter's importance however was questioned right from the beginning so I was wondering if you could help me expand the articles or point me to more sources on the topic.

Oh and is there a banner or a userbox a project participant could add to their user page? –Zinjixmaggir 07:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I added a userbox for this wikiproject and put it on the page – feel free to use it =) –Zinjixmaggir 06:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
 * User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
 * User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiGFX
there is a Wiki dedicated totally to graphics at http://www.wikigfx.com that needs help if you want to add some in-depth articles about GFX stuff there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harrisale (talk • contribs) 04:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Categorization of typefaces
I have proposed that Category:Programming typefaces be deleted, because the usage of a typeface such as in programming environments is not a notable feature and is not listed in any type classification that I have ever come across. Here are some of my thoughts/proposals. I'd like to remove the Category:Typefaces from most of the typeface articles, because it is a parent cat and redundant with various other subcats. We should use List of typefaces as the place to group all of the typefaces together in one bunch, and allow the categorization system to group them by various characteristics. I think that all typeface articles should have at least one style category, then if possible, a foundry category, and a date category. I also think we should group all of the style subcats in their own parent cat called Category:Typefaces by style. I'm not sure if we have enough typefaces to fill each subcat, but I would like to see a style categorization tree similar to the following: Category:Typefaces by style
 * Category:Serif typefaces
 * Category:Old style typefaces
 * Category:Transitional typefaces
 * Category:Modern typefaces
 * Category:Slab-serif typefaces
 * Category:Sans-serif typefaces
 * Category:Grotesque typefaces
 * Category:Geometric typefaces
 * Category:Humanist typefaces
 * Category:Script typefaces
 * Category:Blackletter typefaces
 * Category:Symbol typefaces

I'm not sure how we should break up the scripts (formal? semi-formal? casual? calligraphic? handwriting? brush?), and I do not believe we have enough blackletter to worry about textura vs. fraktur vs. rotunda vs. schwabacher. Not sure where we'd place uncial.

We then could have further optional stylistic categories that don't fit into the above tree:


 * Category:Non-latin typefaces (Cyrilic, Japanese, Arabic, etc. they could be serif or sans)
 * Category:Display typefaces
 * Category:Incised typefaces (such as the serif Trajan and Copperplate and the san-serif Lithos)
 * Category:Monospace typefaces

Anyway, what do others think of filling out the classification like this? Good idea or bad? Anything you would change to make things better?-Andrew c 17:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is—as I understand it—the most often used categorization and appropriate. Lets do it! --Parhamr 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Let me note that I used a number of sources to come up with the tree, namely Type Classification, Typographic Design: Form and Communication by Rob Carter, Ben Day, and Philip B. Meggs, and The Thames and Hudson Manual of Typography by Ruari McLean. -Andrew c 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Aviary (application suite)
I've created Aviary (application suite), mainly because it wasn't there. I have absolutely no knowledge of the subject, but I had been seeing it around the internet, so there you go. It is currently a bit crap. I would very much like it if people who are actually good at doing things would fix it up a bit. Thanks. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  06:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Black rectangles in SVG images
Why do these black boxes appear: Image:Hmac.svg? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  14:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

to anyone with an interest in how the practice of photo editing is portrayed
There is a small group of article manipulators who seem to think that photo manipulation better describes photo editing than image editing. I don't have to tell you the negative implications that are associated with the word manipulation. By directing the term "photo editing" to that article, it implies that every form of photo editing is a form of manipulation. So if you don't want to feel guilty for using photoshop, I encourage you to join the debate. Oicumayberight 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Photo editing does not redirect anywhere, it actually points to a disambig page for Image editing and Photo manipulation – two very different articles. Someone way back decided, without any consensus at all, to re-name the latter Photo editing which has now finally been reverted. As the disambig page clearly points out Photo manipulation is (and has always been) about the ethics of photo editing, including political uses, through to the cultural impact that the proliferation of image editing software has had, concerned with historical statements of fact. It's clearly NOT concerned with POV judgments of a profession, as you imply. Far from involving a "small group of manipulators", the discussion about it was months and hundreds of posts long, involved several RfCs and many different editors. If you missed getting involved then, by all means, bring up the subject again, but I would advise you to read the original debate before jumping to absurd and unfounded conclusions. --mikaultalk 09:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess my response here is a year late to this person who responded almost a month late. I did read the history and was involved when I made request for others on this project to get involved. It was me who removed the redirect and made it a disambiguation page. I was also involved in the discussion and editing of that page. I would advise you to check the page history and signatures of users involved before you assume that I'm assuming. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-graphic design on wikipedia?
Has anyone besides me noticed any subtle anti-graphic design and anti-graphic designer editing on wikipedia? Oicumayberight (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My comment here wasn't just about this latest episode I've had on wikipedia. However, I'm inviting anyone from this project who wants to join in on discussing what may effect the future of wikipedia editing policy. I started the discussion on this style guide essay. When I didn't get any response in professional visual art or graphic design terms, I requested participation from experts here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts. An RFC was also started with discussion on the actual page in question Talk:Multimedia, which was addressed to science, mathematics or technology, anything but art. It would be nice to get some professional graphic designers other than myself in on the discussion. It's not just about the article in question, but about how graphics might be used every where on the wikipedia. I know wikipedia is not a forum for sharpening ones graphic design skills, but that doesn't mean graphic shouldn't be used. And if graphic should be used, there is no reason why those with less interest in graphic design should have the only say on when and how graphics are used on the wikipedia. I'd like to at least walk away from this discussion knowing that professional graphic designers opinions other then my own were represented in the discussion no matter what those opinions are in favor of.


 * There are some other conflicts that I may bring up here later if they keep resurfacing. But for now this one demands most of my attention, especially as I have yet to hear from anyone from either the graphic design or visual arts projects. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Input request on typographic topic
There is a discussion going on at Template talk:Typography terms, and was wondering if anyone watching this page would like to offer their opinions there. The topic is related to type classifications, and specifically Gaelic script. If you could take the time to review the discussion and add your thoughts, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!-Andrew c [talk] 22:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there no active members of this project?-Andrew c [talk] 02:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was wondering the same thing last week when I got no help on the icon issues from either this project or the visual arts project. I'm a little burned out now. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Typeface article
I've been reading wikipedia for a few years, but only recently decided to start putting in my two cents on articles (mostly in discussing potential issues/ suggesting solutions on the talk pages so far). However I was curious if anyone in the graphic design project thought that typeface should fall within the scope of this project? seems to me an integral piece of graphic design. Crocadillion 12:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * After helping out with the newly created Template:Typography terms and getting on a Typeface article categorization kick, it dawned on my that there was no central place to discuss matters of typography on wikipedia. My first thought was to create WikiProject Typography, but I wanted to check out the existing wikiprojects (and here I am). This WikiProject doesn't seem that active, so perhaps, instead of adding a new wikiproject just to tackle typography, we could expand this wikiproject to include typography? What do people think?-Andrew c 23:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe, instead of hijacking a wikiproject, we could just use either Talk:Typeface or Talk:Typography as a location for centralized discussion and ask users who want to be involved to add that article to their watch list (that is basically the technique used with illuminated manuscript related articles).-Andrew c 23:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don’t know if it would be hijacking, I mean typography is a part of graphic design. I say we include the discussions in this WikiProject. Max Naylor 16:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This maybe a year and a half too late. I agree that typefaces are within the scope of graphic design. I see this WikiProject as a dispatch for graphic design related articles that need help. So I agree with part of what everyone has stated. Solicit help here on graphic design related articles, and then graphic designers should help with the specific problems on the talk pages of those articles. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll second you, Oicumayberight. Fonts and typography are one of the hotpoints of disucussion among graphic designers I know. Since we actually have a professional field for graphic design, I think that it's reasonable to use those things that are germane to their profession as a good rule of thumb for what should be handled by this working group. This mostly means their tools, techniques, and technologies, and we can expand the list from there. Robert Rapplean (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Type designers
I have just listed Category:Type designers for deletion, with a view either to merging its contents into Category:Typographers or to sorting the members of Category:Typographers into Category:Type designers. Please take a look at the discussion and provide any opinions you may have. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I know type design falls under the category of typography, but isn't it specialized enough to warrant it's own subcategory? Oicumayberight (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:12, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)


 * This is great. I'm signing us up. If anyone hates it, lets talk. UnkleFester (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages
I have submitted this project to. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Graphic design to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Graphic design/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting that the article graphic design is only ranked 6th under it's own project. It's almost 1/3rd the popularity of advertising. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Template broken
The project template needs some attention: Several parameters (e.g.,  ) are ignored.--Oneiros (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated the template as per your suggestions. UnkleFester (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  00:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Visual design?" Gimmie a break.
I can't believe the ignorance that lead to this article. I'm going to redirect this article to graphic design in a week. I'm leaving it open for a bit to see if anyone wants to comment on its talk page. Sheesh! Oicumayberight (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

On second look, there's no point in waiting a week. I see that it was once redirected to graphic design already. There seems to be only one an anonymous user‎ who reverted the redirect with some bogus claims. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Now another anonymous user wants to edit war. The bogus claim is that graphic design is a term that applies exclusively to print. The article is referencing a book which I'm positive says nothing of the sort. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say Visual Design is part of Communication Design, or at least so similar that the terms apply to pretty much the same thing. So I don't really see why it should need a seperate part in the general article. Typehigh (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't need a separate part. This appears to be some sort of lobbying for a better buzzword than "graphic design" without the balls to discuss it on this project page. They keep removing the link to the graphic design page from the article from anonymous IPs with no explanations. I've reverted it several times. I would delete the whole subsection myself, but I don't want to get in an edit war. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the saved book template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Graphic design articles should have covers.

If you need help with the saved book template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Books, and WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. Earwig Bot ( owner •  talk ) 22:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

New Design portal
Hi guys! The Design portal has just opened for business and we would appreciate your collaboration on it. Please have someone from the GD team talk to me. Thanks in advance! Note: Rationale for having a portal about Design (at large): -- AlainR345  Techno-Wiki-Geek  03:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There once was a sketch for an Industrial Design portal: over a 3-year period, it was not brought up to speed;
 * On the other hand, there is a fully-operational Visual arts portal: but it does not cater especially (if at all) to the Design topic;
 * There is no Graphic design portal (although there is a Typography portal);
 * There is no Interior design portal (although there is an Architecture portal);
 * There are thousands of Wikipedia articles related to the topic of Design;
 * The conclusion of all of these facts is that having a separate Design portal is needed.
 * The Design portal should stick mostly to: Industrial design (531 articles + about 1000), Graphic design (181 articles + about 1000) and Interior design (about 932 articles) because...
 * Fashion design is already covered by the Fashion portal;
 * Automotive design is already covered by the Automobile portal;
 * Aeronautics is already covered by the Aviation portal;
 * Bicycle design is already covered by the Cycling portal;
 * Motorcycle design is already covered by the Motorcycle racing portal;
 * Naval architecture is already covered by the Ships portal;
 * Traditional decorative arts are already covered by the Visual arts portal;
 * Game design is already covered by the Video games portal;
 * Software design is already covered by the IT portal;
 * Urban/Environmental design is already covered by the Architecture portal;
 * Electronic design is already covered by the Electronics portal;
 * Costume/Scenic design is already covered by the Film portal.


 * Well Unkle, I'm glad you're glad about the Design portal suggestions for improvement, but what I met by ' start! ' was: ' OK, Graphic Design WikiProject people, if you agree with this, why don't you get on with it... '. Thanks for finding somebody in the GD community, this thing won't improve by magic! -- AlainR345  Techno-Wiki-Geek  19:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understood, and I admire and applaud your enthusiasm. Just haven't had the free time to get to it yet. UnkleFester (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again Unkle and the rest of the GD community, I see you began incorporating more Graphic designers in the Design portal and that's... GREAT! I think your influence on the portal would be 'accelerated' even more if a GD WP member could also improve the graphics box in one shot. Then, one action we now do here at ID WP is to put this line in all ID articles:
 * ==See also==
 * I guess traffic will be boosted if you do the same over time with GD articles. Keep up the good work, -- AlainR345  Techno-Wiki-Geek  19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (Note: on a different unrelated subject I gather you asked for WolterBot; don't count on it anytime soon: I think the operator is dead; I started a discussion about this here.)
 * (Note: on a different unrelated subject I gather you asked for WolterBot; don't count on it anytime soon: I think the operator is dead; I started a discussion about this here.)

These could be tagged GD WP, don't you think so? Talk:Erkki_Ruuhinen, Talk:Sujata_Keshavan. Bye now, -- AlainR345  Techno-Wiki-Geek  23:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Visual Communication
Is it right to say that Pranav Mistry is today's biggest contributer to the field of visual communication? I am very familiar with his work on SixthSense but it seems a little out of context here.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by James hogan70 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of graphic designers - should they be tagged Category:Graphic design or have a sub-category
I was just tagging a few biographies of Graphic Designers Category:Graphic design when I realized this will probably  make the category very difficult to view later, so I'll revert. Shouldn't there be a sub category for graphic designers, I find many biographies that could go in that category, and may also help other graphic design interested editors find biographies that could use a little editing help. SirShill (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Interactive tutorial help
I'm working on a project for an interactive tutorial for new editors and we're trying to mock-up the first units/levels (http://enwp.org/User:Ocaasi/The_Wikipedia_Game). I need a few good images of the Wikipedia interface, and some dialogue boxes and basic interface shots for the alpha version which will be done in Adobe Flash. Does anyone have basic photoshop skills and a few hours? Any help would be much appreciated. User:Ocaasic 00:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Natural mapping
I've moved Natural mapping to Natural mapping (interface design) and changed Natural mapping to a disambiguation page. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Online Ambassadors interested in design and digital media
Hi folks. I'm not sure if anyone keeps up with this page any more, but the Wikipedia Ambassador Program is working with a class for the upcoming term on the history of design and digital media, and we're looking for some experienced Wikipedians with an interest in the subject area to support the class as Online Ambassadors. If you're interested, please let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I just wanted to second Sage's request. I am teaching a course on the history of design and digital media this semester, and I am looking for folks active in the Graphic Design wikiproject to help shepherd students and do GA reviews. If there is anyone who is active in this WikiProject, please let me know. Theredproject (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lack of response by members, and general lack of discussion here, makes me tag this as semi-active. If there is still no discussion here in few months, I'd suggest tagging this project as fully inactive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When graphic designers grow up, they become simply "designers." This may explain the lack of participation. See the first post of the page.Oicumayberight (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

potential article_will_burtin_com232
I would like to add more to this article because I found to many article about him online and in books. I would add: --Kpervaiz (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)komal--Kpervaiz (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Picture of him
 * Early life
 * career
 * His contribution
 * His achievements
 * Pictures of his work
 * More references

Boxout, Floating Box, Sidebar
I notified the WikiProject Typography of problems with Sidebar (publishing), Boxout and Floating block. But I think those articles could be of interest to this WikiProject as well. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography for the discussion. Recdep (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Graphic design articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedbird up for deletion
The Speedbird, created for Imperial Airways, later BOAC and British Airways, was one of the iconic designs of the 1930s. The article is now up for deletion. Please visit Articles for deletion/Speedbird and say what you think. If you can improve the article too, that would be great. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

For those with some knowledge of phylogenetics, and clade presentations
Could you have a look at this effort, here, to use clade diagrams to summarize pharma business acquisitions. My take at present is that the images created are devoid of standard quantitative meaning that cladograms offer—nothing in this novel application is captured by vertical and horizontal line lengths, as far as I can tell—and so they are a misapplication of this maths/graphic presentation method.

Moreover, I argue that they are misleading (presenting a time axis, but not making spacing of events proportionate to the historical time differences), much harder to maintain (consider adding entries to a std Table versus this graphic), more likely to diminish article quality (in their ambiguity of content, again, over a std Table with clear headings), and therefore practically amenable to decay as a result. I would add to this, in this esteemed graphic design context, that this would make those who trained many of us, and purists in methodology and meaning (and Edward Tufte more generally), turn in their graves/beds. After having a look at the User page and at a couple of pages linked on that sandbox page, leave your opinion here, regarding the overall effort? Thanks for your opinion.

Please, also—re-post in places where the concern is for the stability of information entered into WP? I do not know where best to post it, with regard to the "harder to maintain" aspects of my argument. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the inappropriate posting above. I have opened a discussion in the appropriate forum, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies, for anyone who is interested Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog moved the question to a new forum, the one where it is least likely to be viewed with rigour/relevant experience, see last comment and link. I reply there. I stand by the fact that a Tufte- or related type of knowledge base is an appropriate venue to call for experts, and so that it was appropriate to call out to you you at this location, to ask your input. All coming from this area, I would appreciate if you state for the record your experiential bases in quantitative graphic representation, or other areas, germane to the question, for sake of transparency, please. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk: Non-free content
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk: Non-free content. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  10:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)