Talk:Graphics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Technology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Well I saw today that this was #5 in the "Most Wanted Stubs" category so I thought I'd check it out and see what I could do. When I started it was just a single-line definition. I added a small amount of more info and did some wikification. Then I tried to find some suitable images for examples of graphics. I'm sure there are better ones out there than the ones I've chosen and also a better way to display them. But at least this is a start.

In addition, I have yet to add an image for "map" and "line art." The definition of line art, as I understand it, is "any picture that uses only black and white with no shades of grey." Another good definition I found here is "Line art consists of non-shaded or non-screened black and white images. Line art cannot be continuous tone imagery such as photographs or pencil sketches. Some examples of line art are type matter, solid black and white logos, icons or pen-and-ink drawings." Soooo maybe someone else could help out and provide those images and add more information to this article :) I'll try to do some more but any help would be appreciated! --Nahallac Silverwinds June 28, 2005 21:06 (UTC)

WikiGFX[edit]

there is a Wiki dedicated totally to graphics at http://www.wikigfx.com that needs help if you want to add some in-depth articles about GFX stuff there.

Article Progression[edit]

I think we need some information on the history of graphics. For example, what are the earliest known graphics? Cave paintings? Something else? And then perhaps a timeline of the development of graphics with mentions of some of the more notable persons and/or culture's etc who were/are responsible for the development of graphics. Each "type" of graphic also(proably) deserves its own section. Please add your thoughts and suggestions!

As I find websites with pertinent information, I'm going to link them here for reference.

Links[edit]

History - General

Graphic Design

Computer Graphics

Photography

Drawing (and Paintings etc.)

  • Water Color - Dürer trained first in Nuremberg as a goldsmith and then as a painter. From 1489-94, he travelled in Europe. His trip to Italy in 1494-95 produced a series of watercolour landscapes; four of which are in the show. They are the earliest known group of watercolour landscapes drawn from nature to have survived in the history of western art.*
  • Persian Art - The earliest known distinctive style of Persian painting dates back to the Seljuk period, which is often referred to as the "Baghdad School". Early painting was mainly used to decorate manuscripts and versions of the Holy Koran, though some 13th century pottery found near Tehran indicates an early, unique Persian style of art. During the Mongol period, paintings were used to decorate all sorts of books.

Line Art

Graphs

Diagram

Symbols

Geometric Design

Maps

Other


--Naha|(talk) 18:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Wow those are great resources, I tried finding stuff like that and couldn't. Now that we have most of the information we need we can start writing the history section. Wackymacs 06:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Graphic[edit]

It looks like Graphics and Graphic either need to be merged or one of them needs to be a disambig page or redirect or something :) Thoughts? --Naha|(talk) 12:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

The present graphic page doesn't add anything, really, and it certainly isn't a disambiguation page, as it states. But the question is if it really is something different, and as far as I know it isn't, so I suggest a redirect. I've posted this suggestion there too. DirkvdM 08:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! --Naha|(talk) 13:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The Root page concept[edit]

This looks like a candidate for the concept I have introduced and used on other pages. Labelling it as a Root page at the top and linking other article back avoids duplication of effort and makes sense of the hierarchy. -Lindosland 16:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

All that I can[edit]

Well, I am adding some introduction and some pictures. It can be useful as a short introduction.Merishi 10:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Etching landscape.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Etching landscape.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Graphs section[edit]

Hi there, the "main article" for the "graphs" section seems to point back to this article through a disambig. Can someone fix please? Thanks 58.88.53.246 (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.25.147 (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

i thin is anything visually displayed on a computer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.176.130 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Illiterate[edit]

This whole paragraph is seriously ungrammatical. Could someone please fix it? I would if I was an expert on the subject, but I'm not. "Same way something which is created in digital word is seen on a digital screen, this screen also has x and y axis. So the output on any digital device is termed as graphics. In other words an image that is generated by a computer called graphics. The pictorial representation and manipulation of data, as used in computer-aided design and manufacture, in typesetting and the graphic arts, and in educational and recreational programs."

Graphic=Disgusting[edit]

Graphic can also mean disgusting, where is the disambiguation page for that? Pubserv (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiPedia is not a dictionary. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Recommend To Add[edit]

ZoltanWiki (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to recommend the following edit. I can make the edit if you agree:

In Computer Graphics section:

Just as much as computers became more powerful, handheld devices, tablets became powerful enough to display and play video or animation and, furthermore, it allowed multi-touch interaction, while still holding it in hands, reading it on the go. The use of such hardware and computer animation mixed with graphics novel or comic books creation and distribution allowed the use moving camera views, zooming in still image or video clip, turntables with acting key characters, 3D clothing and hair simulation, visual effects, such as impact, smoke, fire, particle, fluid, fracture, soft and rigid body dynamic simulations. The book was authored by Zoltan Barati and published by Digitone Pictures.


Notes to editors:

I had lengthy discussion with an editor whether my recommended addition is within the guidelines and as a result I opened up this talked page discussion as I believe it is within the guideline:

- The edit is informative.

- Since the surrounding paragraphs contains example of author, publisher or book title as an example, I would think it would be fair and informative to include these in my additions as well.

- The example book Immortals and Indigenous is published and distributed through Apple iTunes, a reliable third party. (I am not an Apple employee, and I am not getting paid for making the edit.)

- According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, ... audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources.

- Listing the released book Immortals and Indigenous as an example, not only match the surrounding style, it serves as evidence of distributed material and helps understanding the edit through an example.

- Since there is a free preview sample version of the book, the financial advancement could be minimal or none. Because of the free sample preview, the edit does not advance more than the interest of Wikipedia.

- The edit is little-known but valuable. I am a subject matter expert as I author such books and subject matter experts are encouraged to edit according to Wikipedia.

- Even though the edit is informative, it would not oppose or challenge the existing information.

- Our discussion with an editor went on that an edit would need trade journals, mainstream newspaper backing and referred me to notability. However, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, it is stated that notability determination is related to whether a topic would have a separate article on its own. These are guidelines only to outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit content of an article or list. My addition is simply an addition to an existing topic and backed by reputable third party distribution as explained above.

- After further discussion, I was referred to undue weight section (According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight) However, my addition is not opposing a majority view. My information is an addition to majority position. I do not argue whether comic books, or digital content distribution stop using ink illustration or sprite animation. I simply stated other, such as 3D format exists and released  and this is a factual statement with example. It is not demonstrating a different viewpoint from majority view. According to these guidelines "John Doe had the highest batting..." or "Many people think...." should not be used and I am not using such argument or statement. But the edit would be an informative addition.

- During our discussion, it also came up whether the link highlight of Immortal and Indigenous or the link highlight of www.DigitonePictures.com can be included in the body of the text or to provide below the External Link section. According to Wikipedia whether to include external link in the body text can discussed case-by-case. Thus, I would like to recommend to include link highlight in the body of the text for easy readability so that the viewer can quickly find the example and helps user understand. If you’d rather keep the link highlight at bottom at the External link section, I can accept that.

The external links would be:

Immortals and Indigenous

Digitone Pictures