This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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 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.
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.
The article currently opens with the sentence "Multimedia and content that uses a combination of different content forms." This is not a full sentence. I'm changing the first "and" to "is", but I'm not sure if that was the intention of the sentence. It might also have been meant to start with "This article is about...". 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
It's a nice image for the video game article. It would depend on the caption how well it would fit into this article. As you said, without the text, it could mean anything. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Most game has cut scenes in them, I'd consider them video but maybe not Gnevin (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I know that 3D rendering and motion capture is pretty good these days, which can easily be mistaken for video footage. But there is no rule that says multimedia must contain all six formats to be considered multimedia. If you want to include it, I would use the caption without the mention of video. And I promise I won't delete it. :) Oicumayberight (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend putting the screen capture image in the "usage" section. Part of the reason why I thought the icons worked well is because they weren't industry specific. Nobody should think at a glance that multimedia is specifically for entertainment use. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Move the image to where you think best I've no real preferenceGnevin (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
For anyone who misses the icons or missed the discussion on why they were removed, it's been archived here. That doesn't mean that the article was better without them. The consensus to remove them was not unanimous, and didn't include anyone showing evidence of an expert opinion or much concern for art-related articles. Contrary to the opinions of the 6 who voted to remove the icons, 16 translators thought that they were working well enough to include them in their translations of the article. . The conditions which they were removed shows disregard for visual learning. The manner in which the rfc was conducted showed lack of patients and lack of concern for professional opinions. Out of respect for the local consensus to remove the icons, and despite the international approval of the icons, I will not re-include them in this article. However, since I'm not convinced that the icons weren't helpful, I won't remove them myself if another user were to reinsert them. Since I was the only person in the discussion showing evidence of having a professional opinion, I don't consider this a closed discussion. I'm still waiting to here from other users showing evidence of a professional opinion either for or against the icons. And I understand that consensus can change in this matter. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Do others think that this section adds anything to the understanding of Multimedia? Seems to me these statements are obvious and don't explain anything about the term "Multimedia", the techniques, the production process, or the experience.--Vistawhite (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)