Talk:Wallpaper (computing)/Archive 1 - Awesome Wallpapers

Move

Who calls this "computer wallpaper"‽

Surely everybody says "desktop background" or "desktop wallpaper". I think I'll rename it. â€" Chameleon 19:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Erm, computer wallpaper makes perfect sense... I would hope desktop background or desktop wallpaper are redirects, however. UkPaolo 4 July 2005 11:56 (UTC)

I'm in agreeance with Chameleon, it should be "desktop wallpaper". Garydh 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, "desktop wallpaper" or "desktop background" both sound better. --Snarius 17:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm for 'desktop background'. It's sensible and self-explanatory. -- auk 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wallpaper?

I was wondering: is there any official Wikipedia wallpaper to be linked here? (It would be rather nice imho, something like spreadfirefox wallpapers.) â€"GozzoMan 13:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Changing Wallpaper

I noticed that there are instructions on how to change wallpaper for WinXP. Would it be too commercial-esque to mention the Wallpaper Changer Powertool? I can't find a link anymore... but I have the software. Maybe it could be mentioned under the Timed Wallpaper section. I have found the tool very handy since I have to use WinXP at work. --W0lfie 19:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

External Links (2)

Ok so i brefly read the first external links part of this page, and it was about taking it out. Now I say, lets put it in again, but lets maybe have a criterea that should be met before u can put it in. So if alot of ppl use one website, then u can't really consider it malware (i guess malware is a bad thing). Ive seen this on other pages, were we should make a list of site, and ppl should write a comment on each if they want it or not. I dunno if its good or not, but then I'd start it then:

• www.0waldo.com add me for CRIMINAL's sake!

• www.digitalblasphemy.com

• www.caedes.net

I'm stil opposed. I wouldn't revert it, but I'm opposed. digitalblasphemy is for profit, is it not? Their free wallpapers aren't so great, anyways. caedes looks nice, though. Do you suppose that could be worked into the article somehow, as an example of a community of desktop background creators? --Snargle 22:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well look, I put 0waldo.com because it's been there since 95 but I'm not supposed to put it down because I do all the artwork there, but there is no advertising and it's free, please go look and if you like it then add it ok? I won't get any money because it's free. 0waldo 22:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The point that I'm trying to make is that there are thousands of sites that offer backgrounds. Frankly, yours doesn't seem any different. Wikipedia isn't a plughouse, though. External links are fine if they provide some existing information or support that which is in the article. Don't take this personally, but your site, however, does neither. Actually, your "add me" message it's a good example of why not to have them. Imagine if home page tried to include every wikipedian's home page. Snargle 05:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright I understand what u mean. I know that digital blasphemy is very good if you are a member, but since 6 months, i was able to get over 70 different awesome wallpapers for free. For me, that is alot! they are a free site, but there is a visitor's section where you can download free wallpapers of high quality of work. Ceades is also a good site, since you can post your own artwork, and i think they get rated or commented on. Very fun. So maybe we can decide critereas that should be followed in order to be posted as an external link? I understand fully that they are thhousands of sites out there, but not posting the best; wouldn't that be shunning all of the pages? So i say lets draw up a list of critereas that should be met (maybe like 4 out of 5 (numbers differs) have to be met to be put on?) so that only the best sites be put on? This is what I think of:

1. Must have a certain ammount of free wallpapers to download (so the site can be free or a section for members, but there still must be enough free wallpapers (and not just preview) )
2. Must have different sizes for the wallpapers
3. Can't just be on one subject (nature, sports) - has a variete of different types of pictures

Ya so this is what I propose. So if u guys wanna add or remove from this list (or not), just copy and paste it back at the end, and add or just strike out wat you don't like. But don't just take out the line. So that if we think we should come back, it'll still be there. Hope this helps! Ill be checking back soon paat 18:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think allow five or so external links that have NO ADVERTISING and ARE 100% free. This would keep in line with no advertising policy it seems. Or, just have no links; if you consider that someone is looking up "computer wallpaper" then they are looking for links and/or an explanation. 0waldo 18:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, but have you ever tried to do a search for Desktop wallpapers in Google? I always get stuck with sites as freeze.com where u gotta give your name and your email to be able to get backgrounds. So wouldn't it be convinient for ppl to be able to learn about wallpapers, and then get sum nice site to start searching for what they like? I agree that it should be aroudn 5-6 links max. paat 19:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You've checked out these, right? I'd like for this article to remain encyclopedic, Here's what I propose:

1. External links a couple sites that effectively complement this article,providing information instead of just offering wallpapers to download. Most articles have these. Obviously, these sites would have to be non-malicious.
2. Link(internal) to all articles on wikipedia on wallpaper sites(Digital Blasphemy, DeviantArt]] the only ones I know about.)
3. External links to some sites on wallpapers that have a sizeable community with them(caedes and DeviantArt come to mind)

WP has like a hundred wallpaper-sized featured pictures, and the community sites provide hundreds of thousands of wallpapers. How many do you really need? This way, there's little room for confusion, I think. So how about it? --Snargle 04:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but can you sort the background in the Featured desktop backgrounds? I always like site where the site is categories through, military, etc. etc... If the featured backgrounds were able to have a menu for the different subjects, then I would really don't mind just linking it to that. But when I checked, theres just pictures - Good pictures though. But i estimate that you can prob get sum 100 free backgrounds from Digital Blasphemy, and sum thousands (there always 5 or 10 new uploads every day) from caedes. Maybe do a template (i think thats what its called) like they use for Coldplay (at the end of the page). Maybe have a template like that where there the desktop page, then theres the featured background, and then you can browse thru the pages in Wikipedia about the different sites. paat 13:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Digital Blasphemy + Caedes

I added Digital Blasphemy and Caedes to the See also list, since they are accually pages in wikipedia, so they can't really advertise malware. Maybe that should be the rule to have an external link to websites? It has to have a wikipedia page? paat 00:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

External links are good if (and only if, I'd say) they provide additional topical insights that the Wikipedia article doesn't. For example, some external material may go to depths an encyclopedia article wouldn't. Now, listing a bunch of websites providing wallpapers has nothing to do with additional topical insights, so those links shouldn't be there. And they aren't. :-) Haakon 00:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

lol ok. but the fact that the pages about wallpapers (such as DB and caedes) are added in the see also section - is that good? paat 01:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

added image back

I added notable image back. Why is this page doing free advertising for "Digital Blasphemy"?

Haakon: Please stop removing the image that has been there for many months; it is a good example of a wallpaper image; the wallpaper art has been featured in computer graphics world (december 2000 ) so you can't say that it is not notable. Also, it comes from 'waldo's wallpaper' site which has -0- advertising and is totally free. You are just deleting the image to tourment me and that is all. 0waldo 18:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your old argument that "it has been there for a long time, so it should stay there forever", hasn't held before and it doesn't hold now. Any image can serve as computer wallpaper, but that does not mean that we include any and all images in this article. Listing Digital Blasphemy in "See also" is not spam, because if the Digital Blasphemy article is spam, then it does not belong in Wikipedia. D.B. is one of the major wallpaper suppliers. If Waldo's wallpaper indeed is notable too, then that means readers of Computer wallpaper might have interest in reading that article too. So good luck with that. I wish no torment upon you at all, but Wikipedia should not be a place for you to showcase your works. Haakon 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "showcase my works" for Pete's sake: I'm contributing free information and artwork that other people may wish to partake in and enjoy. I personally feel the "Digital Blasphemy" inclusion is spam however, out of courtesy for them, I have never brought this up before. I have been chastized over and over again about "me", "my", and all kinds of reflective pronouns around here and for what good reason? I will give you the reason: To keep me from trying to contribute. Period. I added the "waldo's wallpaper" article and "see also" because if it's good for "Digital Blasphemy" then why is it not good for "waldo's wallpaper" ? Go and look at my artwork that 100% free and -0- percent advertising/links. Then go and look at you pet site "Digital Blasphemy" then please come back here and justify yourself deleting the picture that is "just an image" while leaving "Digital Blasphemy" "wallpaper". 0waldo 18:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally agree with Haakon about this. IMO, the Waldo's wallpaper article is a clear example of a vanity article. Digital blasphemy only has an article because it's a fairly well known site. The symmetrical tile thing makes a terrible background too (sorry, but I've tried it). --Snargle 21:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear concerned editors: I am really in the damaged editor/reader category or something! It is clearly, “editorially legal” for "Digital Blasphemy" to patently OWN this article via reference to its name and website domain throughout the entire article and yet, the one single stinking image with no reference to Waldo’s Wallpaper site or bla, bla, bla must be is surgically removed because Waldo is such a vain, cancerous blight on Wikipedia? I’m trying to be a good, nice, kind, courteous editor here but it is very difficult to deal with the hypocrisy that I am shovel-fed while being told about humble-pie all over my face! Again, I added the Wikipedia article, today, about Waldo’s Wallpaper to show how totally bogus this whole hypocritical charade is! Oh, I see, it’s WONDERFUL ALL OVER THE PLANET for "Digital Blasphemy" with it’s advertising, links, spam, bla, bla, bla and yet, “Waldo’s Wallpaper” is a horrid and despicable blight being cra mmed down the choking throats of all collateral Wikipedians as they gag on the 100% free, 100% no advertising, 100% no links and bla, bla, bla â€" OMG the horrible wallpaper? 0waldo 22:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

An OMG afterthought! So we keep the picture of the "car wallpaper" and replace it one of "snargle's desktop" and yet the hand painted symmetrical tile is hacked out like a tumor because of "vanity", take me out and drive over me with a 15 ton cat people! 0waldo 22:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for offending you dude, but I really have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing wrong with adding images that you took to illustrate an article. BTW. WP:VANITY usually means creating articles about oneself. I think Digital Blasphemy article was created by a number of different editors. --Snargle 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm offended? what makes you say that? I see you removed the nice hand painted symmetrical tile. I'll add it back tomorrow and remove yours and digital bashfeemer'z. I suppose I can use the same logic as you and Haakon? Don't like it, hey! just delete it... 0waldo 00:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Haakon: May I suggest that you stop making totally FALSE accusations about sockpuppetry; this is especially true when you and snargle are each other's puppet! 0waldo 01:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Attn Haakon: my name is Joan and I am walter's sister and I am allowed to edit just like anyone else. A sister is not a sockpuppet, she's a sister. Please get off of your destructive program against Walter. Thank You. Jmunchovie 03:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a lie. Jmunchovie only edits wikipedia when you(0waldo) needs support, and your edit summaries are similar.

So just back off. We're trying to trim the ugly parts of this aricle, while you're just trying to showcase your artwork. You've already broken the 3 revert rule, using sockpuppets, so if you keep pushing you'll be banned for the tenth time. --Snargle 03:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Snargle: FOR THE 10TH TIME? WHY? Think about it - people like you and Haakon GANG up on me, abuse me, hate me, tourment me, rip to shred all that I do here and you can't figure out WHY I get banned? Easy! It is so simple, you delete my image, then Hakkon, then you, then Hakkon, then you, but as for myself, I am alone (and my 'liar' sister; a sock puppet you call my sister), so, I revert and what happens? Duuuuuh? I get banned. Look, this is very simple here; you and Hakkon are ganging up on me! READ IT AGAIN! Look, this is very simple here; you and Hakkon are ganging up on me! READ IT AGAIN! Hakkon went on a rampage deleting all the work that I have done with my sister too and you people are rude and delete these things over and over. You are not being a GOOD editor doing this bad stuff to me! It's OK for D.B. to “showcase”, but not me? GET INTO THE WIKI PROGRAM and read the rules! 0waldo 03:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Hakkon is a troublemaker editor and you are his sidekick! Get polite!

Hakkon Snargle: so you are calling my sister a liar? you pants are growing while your self control is shrinking. I suggest that you learn some manners. I have not broken the rules here, you have by being a puppet for "Digital Blasphemy" - both you and Haakon, it is SO clear what you are doing: destructive editing. 0waldo 03:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a "sock puppet" friend of walter's. I does not matter what you call me, what matters is that you down own this article: digital blasphemy does. James Allen. â€"Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.50.30 (talk • contribs)

As someone who has had no input to this article and replying to the RfC I don't really see the need for either this image or this one to be included in this article. The latter is currently being used on Digital_Blasphemy which I think is the more appropriate place for it. This article is not very lengthy and if 4 images are included, it begins (in my opinion) to clutter the article. I do feel that the links to the other articles in the See Also section should be kept. I would ask 0waldo to please understand that in no way have I contributed to this article, nor am I attempting to gang up on you or your work. WP:3RR has clearly been broken here and I suggest all contributers attempt to resolve this before further editing. --Scot^t 10:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Scot (and am also responding to the RfC). There's no need for the inclusion of either picture in such a short article. Trebor 01:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with Scott on this one; we shouldn't use either of the images he's linked. Other than the 'bliss' wallpaper (since it is so well known), we only really need to show one or two others. Wikipedia prefers GFDL/CC/public domain images, and both of those images have funny copyright tags - one of them copyrighted, the other a weird really long tag I don't understand. Given that there are many high-quality GFDL/CC/public domain backgrounds availiable, there's no reason to use the strangely licensed ones. If you have trouble finding such images, I'd look at Category:Featured desktop backgrounds. -- Mike1024 (t/c) 21:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

0Waldo's site should not be allowed due to Vanity rule, however digital blasphemy was not created by anyone here in wikipedia, they are at most just members of the community. FR34K 12:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

removal of Digital Blasphemy from see also section

I have removed "Digital Blasphemy" because I noticed that that article is up for deletion as well as "waldo's wallpaper" article. Please leave both of these links off until after the vote for deletion is completed. Thanks, Ellsworth Bunker.

That's no reason to remove it from the see also section. They're going to keep it, anyway. I know you nominated it, too. --Snargle 05:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

More screenshot variety (Mac and KDE)

We need some Mac and KDE screenshots -- preferably with default (on some distro) :). I haven't got a Mac, and I don't fancy installing KDE just to get a screenshot... anyone?

I also think the lake background screenshot should go; it's rather cluttered, has techy documents lying around, and is redundant with the other Ubuntu screenshot; the MS Windows with the composite space objects should go; we should keep to desktop environment defaults unless illustrating some other specific point (e.g. SVG scaling). -- auk 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

I've removed the external links section as it was simply a list of non-notable sites that have wallpaper, several of which were commercial. I've just added a link to dmoz where y'all can promote your sites; please only add links here which expand on the topic. Kuru ^talk 01:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

doesn't wikimedia

have media related to this article? how do you add that stuff here? â€"The preceding unsigned comment was added by Towsonu2003 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Is it worth seeing if we can find another popular wallpaper to put here and replace the rather television-like monitor image? Perhaps something without any OS-overtones, to balance the Windows XP wallpaper?

Ojw 22:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes it is worth seeing, although judging by the amount of time your comment has been here, perhaps no-ones interested in photographing their monitor... UkPaolo 4 July 2005 11:56 (UTC)

nuke the one with the TV monitor is totally out of place - very dated and boring, let's replace it with something better from somewhere.... 0waldo 16:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Take it out. Its an eye-soar. I'll see if I can take a photo of my computer, with a flat panel (17). If its not possible, I can always see my brother whos got a 21 flat pannel. Any ideas of a relevent picture to use? If not, I'll use one of Digital Blasphemy, or Ceades.; two sites i trust greatly with my wallpapers. paat 19:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

advertising policy

Wikipedia is not a link farm and it is not for free advertising.

waldo's wallpaper

I added in see also.

Background

I sometimes like to use images from Wikipedia as background on my desktop.

I find, however, that certain images with a checkerboard background on the Wikipedia site come up as being surrounded by a black background on my desktop.

Is there any way to change this so that the image on my desktop is not surrounded by the black background?

Thanks in advance.