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 Graphic design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of graphic design-related subjects 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.
I'd like to see a link to a program that lets yo make triptych images by simply dragging in 3 JPGs. This would be very useful in creating more triptychs and giving people a working example of the concept. ClintJCL 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I know me to i would like them to put more stuff about the triptych because thier is nothing on this page then exept like 10 sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Just put the pictures side by side with html or wiki markup. Erudecorp 02:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Triptych images can be created easily using IrfanView image editing software and the Image/Create Panorama image... menu selection, then by selecting the horizontal direction radio button.--CheMechanical (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
File:Harbaville.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Harbaville.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
There is literally no remove related information without consensus, with was neither sought or reached. There will be a discussion or this will be brought to admin attention. Icarus of old (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
And your opinion is not the only one that matters in a publicly-constructed encyclopedia. I will ask for admin intervention in this matter. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
There are standards of inclusion that you are seemingly unaware of, and you are wrong on wanting to include either image, I mean a screen capture of some guy from a some documentary, please, and running to admins as first defense is what children or adult bullies do. Ceoil (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
It's actually standard Wikipedia protocol, as I posted on your talk page. Calling people children or bullies is actually not protocol. I will be asking admin to step in, seeing that you don't want a rational conversation or consensus. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Can we stick to the issue please. You threathned me here and on my talk, I've essentially told you...that wont work with me, and lowers my openion. More to the point, that you argument, if you can call it that, is weak. Oh wait, what are your inclusion criteria again...ILIKEIT? Ceoil (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not in the slightest a threat to follow Wikipedia standard protocol for disputes, which is definitely what I am filling out now. You will receive notice on your talk page sometime today. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Can we have a fact based and thoughtful discussion on inclusion backed up by rational, criteria and sources, rather than gaming the system and blindly following misconceived notions of "protocol". You have yet to advance an argument. Ceoil (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I did, in my edit summaries. Unlike you. I stated that removing the only photographic example from the photography section is ludicrous. I also stated that more than your (or my) opinion is needed before removing long-standing information. Icarus of old (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
A second opinion is that the video sheds no light on the subject of triptychs in general, so I don't see its relevance here. It *might* be worth including in the external links section of said work, but it certainly doesn't work here. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. And given that that the format has been utilised since at least the 12th century and the examples number in the thousands, the burden for inclusion should rely on originality or inherent notability, with the onus on you to prove, not me to disprove. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)