This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ImageMagick article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Could there be a regrouping of supported file format since more focus seems to be put on this than the actual program. Would be nice to get into a more detailed section explaining what are the main features of this software, advantages vs. limitations w/o comparing with other softwares. Lincher 19:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Can we have some nifty imagemagick oneline scripts here too ?
I couldn't find it on the list on their website, so I got rid of it. I haven't checked to see if the list is synced otherwise though. -- Gnewf 22:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in love with replacing pages with giant copyright violation pages. How long has this page just been a large C? Mathiastck 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that the part about Wikipedia's use of ImageMagick is more of a self-reference than something that should be included in the article. Don't a lot of websites use ImageMagick. I know that Flickr used to. If it is a technology very commonly used by websites, then the special mention of Wikipedia/Mediawiki is unwarranted. Theshibboleth 08:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It says "An X Window GUI front end for ImageMagick exists, in addition to a command line version."... ok, what's their names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Towsonu2003 ( talk) on 01:53 GMT, 31 October 2006
and where did the article go? 194.186.150.249 13:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
how to use it from the commandline with example commands would be great here. Towsonu2003 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
ImageMagick is not licensed under the GPL. By looking at the license page, it appears to be a modified BSD license or something similar. Nonetheless, the license is compatible with the GNU GPL. If anyone has any preference for the wording, then go ahead. Otherwise, I'll be back later to work on it. -- Hamitr 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Currently the page lists APL 2.0 as the license for ImageMagick. This is not actually true, as ImageMagick is licensed under its own license as Hamitr correctly noted, but the license is identical to APL 2.0 (except very minor formatting changes and the addition of a copyright notice for "ImageMagick Studio LLC" that appears to claim copyright in the license - which seems absurd to me), to the point of copying the "how to apply this license to other software" section. I think it is best for the Wikipedia article to reflect this issue and not gloss over it - but I have no idea how I would go about formatting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guss77 ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was Xvid - the mpeg4 video library. -- Gronky 11:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason at all that perlmagick should be called out specially as a binding. Either all of the bindings needs to be listed, or a simple statement, such as "Binds to many common languages exist," should be there instead. 24.58.154.67 ( talk) 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is sorely missing a history of the program. When was it originally written, when did Christy get DuPont to relinquish its rights, and so on. 18.26.0.5 ( talk) 23:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Which library is more professional for processing images? If one of them is better than the other is there any one better than the one better among these ones? Better I mean more professional, let it be a little bit complex but much more powerful.
This article would be more useful if it included a simple list of file formats supported.- 96.233.19.238 ( talk) 17:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
identify -list format
(and it might be better/easier to just list that command in the article). --
Thorwald (
talk) 02:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
ImageMagick article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Could there be a regrouping of supported file format since more focus seems to be put on this than the actual program. Would be nice to get into a more detailed section explaining what are the main features of this software, advantages vs. limitations w/o comparing with other softwares. Lincher 19:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Can we have some nifty imagemagick oneline scripts here too ?
I couldn't find it on the list on their website, so I got rid of it. I haven't checked to see if the list is synced otherwise though. -- Gnewf 22:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in love with replacing pages with giant copyright violation pages. How long has this page just been a large C? Mathiastck 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that the part about Wikipedia's use of ImageMagick is more of a self-reference than something that should be included in the article. Don't a lot of websites use ImageMagick. I know that Flickr used to. If it is a technology very commonly used by websites, then the special mention of Wikipedia/Mediawiki is unwarranted. Theshibboleth 08:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It says "An X Window GUI front end for ImageMagick exists, in addition to a command line version."... ok, what's their names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Towsonu2003 ( talk) on 01:53 GMT, 31 October 2006
and where did the article go? 194.186.150.249 13:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
how to use it from the commandline with example commands would be great here. Towsonu2003 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
ImageMagick is not licensed under the GPL. By looking at the license page, it appears to be a modified BSD license or something similar. Nonetheless, the license is compatible with the GNU GPL. If anyone has any preference for the wording, then go ahead. Otherwise, I'll be back later to work on it. -- Hamitr 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Currently the page lists APL 2.0 as the license for ImageMagick. This is not actually true, as ImageMagick is licensed under its own license as Hamitr correctly noted, but the license is identical to APL 2.0 (except very minor formatting changes and the addition of a copyright notice for "ImageMagick Studio LLC" that appears to claim copyright in the license - which seems absurd to me), to the point of copying the "how to apply this license to other software" section. I think it is best for the Wikipedia article to reflect this issue and not gloss over it - but I have no idea how I would go about formatting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guss77 ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was Xvid - the mpeg4 video library. -- Gronky 11:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason at all that perlmagick should be called out specially as a binding. Either all of the bindings needs to be listed, or a simple statement, such as "Binds to many common languages exist," should be there instead. 24.58.154.67 ( talk) 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is sorely missing a history of the program. When was it originally written, when did Christy get DuPont to relinquish its rights, and so on. 18.26.0.5 ( talk) 23:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Which library is more professional for processing images? If one of them is better than the other is there any one better than the one better among these ones? Better I mean more professional, let it be a little bit complex but much more powerful.
This article would be more useful if it included a simple list of file formats supported.- 96.233.19.238 ( talk) 17:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
identify -list format
(and it might be better/easier to just list that command in the article). --
Thorwald (
talk) 02:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)