From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Opening sentence[edit]

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...". (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


What do you think of Image:GRAW2_X360_El_Paso_Medic_Tankcover14_full.jpg for a image . Gnevin (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2008 (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)
Caption such as Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 is a video game that includes a combination of text, audio, still images, animation, video, and interactivity content forms of multimedia.Gnevin (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It has video in it? Oicumayberight (talk) 23:42, 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)

Missing icons and discussion[edit]

For anyone who misses the icons or missed the discussion on why they were removed, it's been archived here.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. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. 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)


I think the images belong...Modernist (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is entire page of why we don't need these (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That seems inconclusive, and consensus can change if there are enough opinions to keep them. For now in my opinion they should stay...Modernist (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
If they stay do they really need to be that big? (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Done...Modernist (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

informacijo o dogajanju v igri posreduje računalnik z več mediji: animacijo, zvokom, sliko in besedilom. Tako posredovanje informacije imenujemo multimedija.

Nasprotno od multimedije je monomedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Word usage and context[edit]

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)

Opening paragraph and definition[edit]

"Multimedia refers to content that uses a combination of different content forms. This contrasts with media that use only rudimentary computer displays such as text-only or traditional forms of printed or hand-produced material. Multimedia includes a combination of text, audio, still images, animation, video, or interactivity content forms."

This gives the impression that a newspaper with both text and images is a multimedia format, while the rest of the article usually excludes the like and only talks about electronic multimedia. I still don't know if printed material is considered to be multimedia or not. There are some quotes from dictionaries and discussion about the ambiguity of the term further down in the article, but I think some sensible definition for the rest of the article should really be in the opening.

And surely non-multimedia content can use other than "rudimentary" computer displays (whatever the reason that classification even merits a mention). What does "traditional forms of printed material" mean? Why does it list all those content forms and then further on include haptic technology and smell etc.? (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

remove reference #10, not accurate information.17:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977, thank you for notifying us about the broken link. I have fixed the link. -- (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Section "Structuring information in a multimedia form" not about multimedia[edit]

I believe the section "Structuring information in a multimedia form" at the end of the article doesnt belong here. It is specifically about webpages and websites, but those are a different things altogether. Websites were never really part of the "multimedia thing", and most websites even nowadays wouldnt qualify as multimedia. Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:983:3BAF:1:59B3:8BF:4C66:D230 (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

True. It has been deleted now. Nurg (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Use by Stanley Kubrick[edit]

It could be relevant that Stanley Kubrick used the word in 1972 in a published letter to one critic who had accused his film A Clockwork Orange (1971) of promoting "a new Fascism". Kubrick responded by saying that his film actually warned people of a "new psychedelic Fascism", and "multimedia" is among the adjectives he uses to characterize this "new psychedelic Fascism", basically referring to a manpulative and conditioning use of the entire media in order to manipulate the populace. See the source here on the Kubrick Site. --2003:71:4E42:3F96:8829:A49A:4062:C8EB (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The missing link between the 1968 usage as a synonym for "PR" and the Kubrick use in relation to a "new Fascism" in 1972 may be found in the short story The chameleon by Larry Eisenberg, originally published in the March 1970 issue of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. In it, the first-person narrator refers to himself as a "renowned master of the multimedia", by which he means that he's a member of an advertizing agency specializing in political PR that uses all existing media (print, press, TV, radio, etc.) to push a candidate. Within the story, they're using a technology to telepathically tap into the minds of viewers and voters to adapt the candidate according to their conscious and unconscious wants in order to increase his chances at the Presidency. -- (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)