Talk:GIMP

About

 * Started: 23 October 2005
 * Size: 17 500 words (Apr 2009)
 * Templates: ,
 * Media: :, GIMP, Commons:Category:GIMP.
 * Templates: ,
 * Media: :, GIMP, Commons:Category:GIMP.

Suggestion
I suggest create a book about how to draw floor plans using the GIMP. --77.209.28.225 19:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The GIMP -> GIMP
Shouldn't the whole book be renamed to simply "GIMP"? At least that's the official name since something like 2.4, IIRC. --Rubik-wuerfel (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has "GIMP" while "The GIMP" is only a redirect.
 * Can we have a link to an announcement of the change of the official name? In any case, http://www.gimp.org/ now speaks of "GIMP" instead of "The GIMP".
 * Given the official name is now "GIMP", I am for moving the book to the new name. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got nothing against it, but it is quite a bit of work. There are over 50 pages (with few redirects though, but some are not listed) currently. So yes, I support this idea. Soeb talk&#124;contribs 13:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger
I have removed, as the book The GIMP -- Noob to Pro has nothing to offer to "The GIMP" book. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes
The recent edits have been quite bold. I've got nothing against them, except for that I prefered the older structure of Contents, that made it easier to manage. Due to this, could we please discuss possible changes? Soeb talk&#124;contribs 14:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So what exacly do you find better about the old structure of the contents? Like, do you prefer having external links on the contents page? Or do you prefer using headings in tables of contents? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I wrote, I was talking about the contents, so yes I'd prefer headings in there. It was (at least for me) much easier to manage the list. So even if only heading of every main sections are back, it would be much better IMHO. Soeb talk&#124;contribs 16:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer numbered list items to headings in ToC, and have performed a similar change in several other books in the past, so far without opposition. I do not see how headings make the management easier than list items in a nested list. Can you try to explain to me how headings make the management easier? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is easier IMHO, because it makes editing one section much easier. So in general, you can edit only some part you want to, and not look trough the whole list. When it comes to links under the headings, they should still be numbered, just the main 'chapters' made still editable. That's why I think management is easier then. Soeb talk&#124;contribs 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but that does not really have to do with management, only with the ease of editing. The nice standard appearance of a numbered list should take precedence over the ease of editing, IMHO. The ToC is not all that long that a single editing section of "Contents" should not suffice, IMHO anyway.
 * On a related note, I for one would remove all the boldface from the ToC, that boldface that you have added. Preferences differ, unforntunately. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I made it bold, to make 'titles' more easily distinguishable from the rest of contents. If you see that as a problem, then revert it. Soeb talk&#124;contribs 13:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I'll revert the boldface. I propose that instead of boldface, there can be chapters, containing an overview of the topic. Like, The GIMP/Filters can introduce what filters are. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I have noticed you have moved the old front page to The GIMP/Cover. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, is there anything wrong with that? Soeb talk&#124;contribs 16:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. That is why I said "Just for the record". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see that. Soeb talk&#124;contribs 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Navigation template
I'd like to use thoughout the book, instead of the book-specific. The proposed template is used in several books, including the featured Rhetoric and Composition. Is this okay with you? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume yes, but I think waiting at least a day or two, for opinions for anybody else would be good. Though the current template allows more flexibility, then (custom names of pages and so on). Soeb talk&#124;contribs 13:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can wait if you wish. Still, from looking at the recent history of "The GIMP", you are the only recent major contributor to the book, so I would be surprised if other people objected to a replacement of a non-standard template with a standard one, used in several featured books. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there is one more person (editing this book for some time now) that appears from time to time. So I guess waiting until tomorrow's noon won't be too bad. Soeb talk&#124;contribs 17:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello all

I would like to use this template in the Hebrew GIMP wikibook. As far as I understand, since this this template doesn't seem to exist yet in the Hebrew wiki, I will need to create this template page there, and fill it with the relevant markup, then adjust the directionality etc. Did I get it right? Anyway, at a quick glance I don't see where the markup lies, and would love to get a hint and save me some time searching. Or, of course, correcting my understanding of the process if I'm wrong.

Thanx

DingedBat (discuss • contribs) 05:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Tutorials "Glossy Effect" and "Retouch"
The tutorial stubs on glossy effect and retouch have been deleted by Mike.lifeguard, with the reason that they only contained nonsense: I will remove the redlinks to these two from the table of contents, and from the navigation templates. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=The_GIMP/Create_a_glossy_effect&action=edit&redlink=1
 * http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=The_GIMP/Retouch_a_scanned_image&action=edit&redlink=1

"Colour" --> "Color"
I propose to use the term "color" throughout the book instead of "colour". --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a problem, with whether using British or American English. I suggest some more discussion on this. Personally I prefer British English. Soeb talk&#124;contribs 16:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I thought this might be a problem. I for one am used to "color". Google has several times more "color" hits than "colour" hits, probably because there are more Americans around than Britons; see Google:color and Google:colour. Wikipedia has settled on Color and W:Category:Color. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * GIMP manual uses "color". A screenshot (Figure 10.2.) suggests the term "color" is used in the text of GIMP's user interface. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Only a small percentage of English Users use American English (this userbase is located somewhere in North America). --Stephen Griffiths (talk)

Switching from one correct spelling to another correct spelling is totally unnecessary and pointless; I would recommend finding something useful to do instead. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 21:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Any1 interested in scripting chapter?
Hi all,

I am writing a Script-Fu Chapter for GIMP at the Moment (unfortunatly only in German), if you understand the language, check it out, tell me your view.

Perhaps "Scripting" is a thing which is also interesting for Wikibooks/en...?

URL (GIMP/Wikibook/Script-Fu): http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/GIMP/_Band5/_Script-Fu

Many thx taking your time, Andreas_P

Hi Andreas I would love to see a scripting chapter! DingedBat (discuss • contribs) 06:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone around or can I begin to improve the book?
Hi there, I would be interested in updating the book for latest Gimp 2.10.18. Can I go ahead? any comments? Thanks karlhof26 ````