Jump to content

Talk:GIMP

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeGIMP was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 13, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed

Out of date Professional Reviews

[edit]

I'd like to propose deleting the summary of obsolete review in ExtremeTech, October 2013, by David Cardinal. Many of the features he listed as missing were added in later versions. An eleven year old detailed review is no longer relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.3.216 (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

There is a fork of GIMP names Glimpse. The (disambiguation) page Glimpse links here, but there is no mention of that name. Okterakt (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the forks list Laura240406 (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General public reviews

[edit]

All there is is a Professional Reviews section. Please also add the views of the general public. Jidanni (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page Structure

[edit]

Given the length of the versioning section, I would posit that the flow of the article would be greatly improved if it were moved behind the Features section and to the end of the article. Possibly with the table itself being hidden by default as seen in the blender page. Does anyone have any reasons why this should/shouldn't be done. Ixgauth (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]