Talk:GIMP

Under "Development" section article says: "GIMP itself is released as source code. After a source code release, installers and packages are made for different operating systems by parties who might not be in contact with the maintainers of GIMP."

This may suggest that there are NO official binary releases, however I can see they're hosting signed binaries at https://www.gimp.org/downloads/ and there is also an official flatpack package at https://flathub.org/apps/org.gimp.GIMP

I found this part a bit misleading. Maybe it's simply outdated. Can someone clarify? SleeptightAnsiC (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

This promotional material being added by two new accounts does not belong in the article. While GIMP may be important to the topic of this game, there are no third-party reliable sources presented here or at Draft:Lucas the Game that show that the game is important to the topic of GIMP or that inclusion here is in any way warranted (WP:DUE). The added content dedicates an entire paragraph in the Professional reviews section (when there is no professional review being added) that makes an unsubstantiated "first" claim and goes into entirely promotional detail about the game and its distribution. Adding "Courtney explains GIMP is a powerful tool, fully capable of large professional projects, such as video games" to the end of this promotional material does not warrant including it in a section dedicated to professional reviews, when that isn't a professional review. This material does not belong in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

This is filled with fallacy. To be clear, the developer published a game to online stores in 2015 where it was available for a price and then the game was part of a popular Groupees bundle where it additionally made money from game sales. That is literally by definition a professional game developer. The professional is quoted as saying in July 2015, which is archived by Web Archive so the timestamp is trustworthy, and at a time when there are no previous examples of this type of Gimp usage, that he had used Gimp for all the art in the published game released less than a week earlier, and in his professional opinion Gimp was capable of it and encouraged others to be aware of Gimp's capabilities:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150709102132/http://www.lucasthegame.com/lucas-the-game/gimp-glory-story-from-the-guy-who-made-a-video-game-with-gimp/

The game developer published this statement which was properly cited in this Wiki article for years, and there isn't a single statement from another game developer to the contrary prior to or after from 2015-2025. This fact is notable and historic for Gimp. It has been written about numerous times in many countries and not challenged once by another game developer, and was on this Wiki Gimp page for almost 10 years, until it was suddenly deleted inappropriately. You must research thoroughly and be knowledgeable on a subject rather than bluntly hacking at an article and recklessy deleting significant history for Gimp. That Gimp history has been inappropriately labeled as promotional, which is a slanderous excuse to exclude notable Gimp history. A new section on this Wiki page for notable 'Gimp history and milestones' should include this history in discussion along with other milestones and notable history for Gimp. Somebody created the section called professional reviews and moved that referenced quote mentioned by Aoidh from a different part of the page into that section professional reviews. Read the edit history. The professional reviews section possibly should have never been added, but it is indeed part of the page now. Regardless this notable Gimp history should remain on the page with or without the professional reviews section due to it being a notable Gimp milestone and historic for Gimp. The professional reviews section however should maybe be deleted because every sentence in there can be considered promotional under the standard which you have given, and if a real professional review that is historic in nature will not be allowed to exist there. Ironically, and this has already been pointed but was ignored and the focus was applied instead solely to the Gimp history regarding first published video game made with Gimp, but the information that cites Capterra in the professional reviews section as some sort of criticism that Gimp is not user friendly is inappropriate to be there as it is definitely not from any professional review. It is literally cited with a link to random user reviews on Capterra. According to you, that could be considered promotional for Capterra, and definitely is not historic like the first published video game, especially given it's misplacement as a professional review when those are Capterra user reviews only. That Capterra statement from unspecified user reviews which you have allowed to remain in the professional reviews section is the complete opposite of a professional review. There are professionals and then there are users. They are not the same thing. It's just wrong to erase Gimp history from this article about Gimp. Demetrisj (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

This response does not address the lack of third-party reliable sources, which is the substantive issue. If it's a notable Gimp milestone and historic for Gimp, who has noted it? - Aoidh (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I normally just read on Wikipedia but I saw what was going on here and it's clearly bias. Do you have a negative COI with the developer? It makes no sense to be unfair in dismissively saying the substantive issue is yada yada while ignoring the same exact issue on the very next line in the same section 'Professional Reviews'. You shouldn't pick on one and ignore the very next statement by Capterra which actually has multiple problems:

[1] It's purely promotional for Capterra.

[2] It's cited with a link to ambiguous Capterra User Reviews which do not support the statement.

[3] The Capterra statement is not notable and clearly pointing to user reviews, though claiming it to be from a professional review inappropriately in the section called Professional Reviews.

All the while, the statement which you targeted for deletion right next to Capterra's is in fact from a professional review. More importantly, it's a historic milestone for GIMP which is the subject of the article. It was on this GIMP page for atleast five years that I confirmed, and it was unchallenged before you singled it out for deletion. I easily found publications covering it repeatedly in several countries and languages unchallenged. Then the original source statement which is commonly how others first find out something happened from July 2015 stated that the published game which was featured in the Groupees Psychic Pixel Party Bundle was in fact made entirely using GIMP. The declaration by the artist serves as a timestamp and was archived by Web Archive, so the timestamp is considered trustworthy. With all of the publications, there are no legitimate objections or claims from another game developer to the contrary. The milestone of 'first published video game created using GIMP' is clearly a notable history for GIMP and well documented:

https://indiegamemagazine.com/articles/when-lucas-the-game-started-a-subculture.html Roberthallow (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

To answer your concerns, I have no association with the developer, positive or negative. Nor do I have any COI with GIMP, video games, or anything remotely related to this subject. I am not the editor who initially removed the content, nor am I the second one to do so. However, a block-evading spammer has been creating numerous accounts to promote this Lucas the Game to make it appear that there is organic support for their spam. When the article was semi-protected to prevent their disruption, they moved their efforts to this talk page. That is my concern. I do not know what Capterra is and at first glance I'd agree that it's probably not a good source. It looks like a WP:USERG content and the only RSN discussion that mentions it that I could find agrees with that. So I'd agree that this should probably be removed as well. As I mentioned previously, it's only a historic milestone for GIMP if reliable sources say so. No reliable sources have provided that state this. The indiegamemagazine.com site linked above is a brand new site that was registered on 22 September and has no indication that it is in any way a reliable source. - Aoidh (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

If you were unbias, you would not have defended Capterra wrongfully self promoting on the GIMP page, while dismissively saying that their self promotion was okay to stay by your words and actions, even after the hypocrisy was brought to your attention plainly. Then later after being pressed on Capterra's self promotion on the very next statement, you admitted it's inappropriate to be there, which is obvious without your admission, but then you still didn't delete it just the same as you stubbornly did the historic GIMP milestone. You care about one for negative personal reasons, and you don't care about the other even though it's obvious to everyone Capterra is self promotion and not even a professional review.

I found about ten more references for that historic GIMP milestone which is obviously true. Indie Game Magazine is an old magazine, which has been revamped several times, bought out, gone out of business, brought back. They are a popular reliable online magazine for the subject though they recently had a business issue. I easily found about it with a couple searches. You deleted history for the GIMP software because of some spam conspiracy you have, and it makes no sense. It's GIMP history, I don't know why you refuse to see that. One of the people blocked possibly did try to evade a (maybe unfair) block, but that's no excuse to say everyone's objections aren't valid. I looked at it and I think there were multiple people upset about the removal. I found many people all over talking about the historic GIMP milestone being discussed, in multiple countries and languages even. I found reliable software reviews, case studies, expert articles. Here are a few additional examples:

https://www.vectordesign.us/gimp-case-study/

https://techslott.com/gimp/

https://www.minitool.com/backup-tips/is-gimp-safe.html Roberthallow (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Saying [i]f you were unbias, you would not have defended Capterra wrongfully self promoting on the GIMP page in response to my doing precisely the opposite is not going to convince anyone that anything else you're saying is accurate, and those blogs are not reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

All of the comments above that were in response to my original post were made by sockpuppets. Given the ongoing disingenuous comments attempting to create an illusion of support for this content (WP:BADSOCK), further comments by socks may not receive a response and will likely be removed per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Examples of appropriately editing others' comments. If you wish to make the case for why this content should be included, make an unblock request on your original account and disclose any WP:COI with the content, rather than creating new accounts and making it seem like you just happened upon this discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

My Snap version of GIMP on Ubuntu is now 3.2.0 (and not designated an "RC" release candidate). But my web searches did not reveal any official notification. Maybe that may happen in a week or so? Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: That is the current version according to GIMP's announcement, and it looks like the infobox has been updated to reflect that via its Wikidata entry. - Aoidh (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aoidh: thanks, the version table in the article is now updated too. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Resolved