Wikipedia talk:No 3D illustrations

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

Stereo image template renders this policy obsolete[edit]

Stereo image
Right frame 
Closeup stereo of a cake photographed using a Fuji W3. Taken by backing off several feet and then zooming in.
Stereo image
Right frame 
Sterescopic image of Greenland P-3D by Volkan Yuksel DSC05293.JPG
Sterescopic image of Greenland P-3D by Volkan Yuksel.

The stereo image template allows a stereo image to be used in such a way that it is displayed as flat image by default but can be seen as cross or parallel by simply clicking on the appropriate option without leaving the article. This makes the stereo image readily available for those who wish to see it without "imposing" it on others. Perhaps the policy should be changed to "no anaglyphs" as stereo pairs can enhance many subjects that wikipedia articles are written about.

There doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason to object to stereo images inserted in this fashion. John Alan ElsonWF6I A.P.O.I. 04:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the General Policy of disallowing 3D Images in Articles[edit]

While I am glad that there are accessibility-minded people here on wikipedia, you have turned the issue on it's head. Instead of speaking in the positive you have turned it into a negative thing. Here's what I mean: do we disallow audio media because some people are deaf? Or, on the other hand, should we disallow text because some people are blind? Of course not. Our goal is NOT to reduce the amount of media available so that it is accessible to everyone. Our goal is to INCREASE the variety of medias and methods that we include on wikipedia. Thus, while someone who is deaf might not be able to listen to an audio clip, but they can still read the article. 3D images are no different. While it would be wholly inappropriate to make EVERY image on wikipedia 3D, there is nothing wrong with a limited set of 3D images for those people that DO have 3D glasses.

It's about increasing the content of wikipedia so that it spans the MAXIMUM audience, not decreasing the content so that while everyone can access it, it has less inherent value. Oh, and BTW, I always have a drawer in my desk that has some various 3D glasses (Red/Cyan, Red/Blue and Chromadepth) because there is occasionally the image you have to use them on. Really, this issue is the same as allowing SVG images on wikipedia. Most people don't have a SVG enabled browser, but there is no reason to make the lives of those that DO less valuable.

If we would like to discourage 3D images as the primary article images, that would be fine, but for secondary images in articles, 3D images work great. Also, if someone here would volunteer to convert every 3D image on wikipedia to 2D I would have nothing against 3D/2D pairs, but as it is that is an unlikely alternative. --Ctachme 13:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is not to outlaw the use of these images at all it is to stop them being used directly inline in articles. They should still be available to poeple like you who have the glasses handy. I don't even care if they are a "limited set" of images as you say, I would be perfectly happy if they outweighed 2D images three to one, they just shouldn't be inline in the articles in place of 2D images. Your comparisons are not valid. The images will be a click away, in your comparison the current situation would be the same as having every page immediatly start talking at you as soon as it loads just in case you are deaf. SVG is no comparison at all as it is automatically down converted to a format all browsers can display with no loss in quality. If the 2D/3D proposal was the one selected it would become the responsability of the uploader to provided a 2D version, I don't think this is going to happen though. --Martyman-(talk) 20:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That's one flavour of the proposal. Another flavour is possibly to disallow them completely. Another flavour is to allow them with arms wide open. Part of what we're trying to do here is get a consensus on what to do. Perhaps it's time to ask folks to list pros and cons of the various proposal permutations and see which have strongest support.
Another possible answer is to allow the uploader to upload the two source images, and display one of the images by default as 2D, with 3D available, using one particular method, for those that wish to see it in 3D. -- Beojan (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

VRML and X3DV/X3D models[edit]

Please add possibility of uploading VRML/X3D *.wrl/*.x3dv/*.x3d models to Wikipedia. This would be useful. Wikinger 16:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Realtime 3d display with animation[edit]

Hi, I am new and my first post. I am currently working on a realtime 3d encyclopedia, display in JAVA 3D in PDF. The next generation 3d enabled reference source in 360 degree, would be good to have it here. 3dassets (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

3d encyclopaedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparent violation of 3D rule??[edit]

User:Superpika66 has been adding the Anaglyph image tag, {{3dglasses}}, to the tops of articles that contain images that should be seen thru red/blue glasses. Yet, according to this guideline, 3D images should not be used. What's going on here? Should I remove the images? Madman (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. one such article is Ivory carving

That's not quite true. They just should not be used exclusively to illustrate articles. Take it with a grain of salt. Anaglyphs can make sense and add additional value. --Dschwen 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I will take it with a grain of salt. Can we get rid of the banner at the start of the article? I can't see its value. Madman (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm, yeah, I guess Superpika was just WP:BOLD, but I cannot see the value either. Or rather: the banner is overly obstrusive for the tiny information it transmits. --Dschwen 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

MoS naming style[edit]

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)