I believe this template is of little use, as the articles in it have little to do with each other. You could as well group together articles having something to do with sound, from deafness to music and traffic noise. I removed it from the bottom of matrix (mathematics) as not relevant to the topic. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am still not sure of the usefulness of this template, but I do agree that recent changes gave it more of a character. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your feed back. I'm just started to reorganize the field of visualization in Wikipedia. I agree that this template should be focused, but the question off cause is how. The article about visalisation is still underdeveloped if you compare this for example with the article on the German Wikipedia, which is my example.
Now you removed the following items.
I will look at them some more, but two things I already don't understand:
The Chart and Graph are listed as Techniques. It is logical to me that you list Cartography and Graph theory as related fields? The only thing I can think of is that "related fields" should be mentioned "related theories", but I prefer the term "related fields". -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, first of all, graph theory is not about graphs, if by the latter you mean graph of a function. Graph theory is about points and edges between them. Also, cartography is about map-making, it is as related to visualization as painting and printing, meaning not much, as far as I see. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I don't understand:
  • You say: "graph theory is not about graphs"... but the article graph theory stated "graph theory is the study of graphs"
  • And you say: "cartography is about map-making"... and maps are a visualisation technique, so related to visualization.
This kind of argumentation doesn't make any sense to me.
However. I do agree this template should have it's own notable character. Maybe your attention is right that visualization is a too broad and undefined subject. Because of this I changed title of the template to Scientific visualization. Other steps I will take is:
This work is directly connected with the development of this template. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Graph theory is the study of graph (mathematics), not of graph of a function. Graph theory is the study of things which are made of points and vertices, something you can draw, but which has little if anything to do with visualization. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maps have no more to do with visualization than do computer monitors, printing, and blindness. You have to draw the line somewhere. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have my reasons to include them:
  • I consider visualization as the study of Information graphics, and then maps are considered an essential part of information grafics by multiple experts. And the it is only logical to add cartography.
  • I consider Graphs (Graph (mathematics)) as a specific type of diagrams, which are based on specific mathematical theory.
That is why I have added them, and I want them to stay. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will object to this template added to Graph (mathematics) and to map as not relevant to those articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just don't know yet for sure, and there are a lot of problems in the Wikipedia representation of visualization. The whole concept isn't even made clear yet... I am trying to clear this on different levels, in different kinds of articles. It all depends on how those things will develope. Maybe you are right about the Graph (mathematics) and the Graph theory. You are definitely wrong about maps and Cartography not beeing close related to "visualization in science".
This is what I can do for the moment:
Maybe this is that acceptable for you for the moment? And we can renew this discussion in a week when more things are made clear. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK then, as long as Graph (mathematics) and Graph theory are out, I do not have an opinion about the maps and cartography pages. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. Graph (mathematics) and Graph theory are removed for now (for at least a week). I can't garantee they stay out. It is one of the things I will investigate further. I will only put them in again if I have some reliable sources to back this up. Thanks for your feed back so far. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some background

I just noticed why Graph (mathematics) and Graph theory where added to the template in the first place (and not by me):

The old article Scientific visualisation explained the difference between Information visualization and scientific visualization. It stated:

(In computer science...) information visualization and scientific visualization have overlapping goals and techniques. There is currently no clear consensus on the boundaries between these fields, but broadly speaking the two areas can be distinguished as follows:
  • Scientific visualization deals with data that has a natural geometric structure (e.g. MRI data or wind flows).
  • Information visualization handles more abstract data structures, such as trees or graphs.

Maybe the real question here should be if this statement about information visualisation is right or wrong. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think it's odd that this template includes creative visualization and music visualization, which aren't closely related to the other types of visualization. Would it perhaps make sense to remove these, and put this template only on the type of visualization that's meant to convey data? I think the need is especially acute since the rest of the template doesn't have anything to do with creative visualization, e.g. there are no creative visualization experts listed.

Of course, it might be that the whole visualization cluster of articles needs to be reorganized, although that seems to have been tried a few times already! --Infografica (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I just started reorganizing this field some 6 to 7 weeks ago, and some 4 weeks ago started reorganizing things in Wikicommons also. So I am interested in what you mean here? And what kind of things you are thinking of? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Visualization is any technique for creating images, diagrams, or animations to communicate a message." That's pretty broad. It doesn't say what type of message. Either the scope of the article Visualization needs to be narrowed, or this template needs to be broader. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think "to communicate a message" is generally restricked to communicating information. You generaly don't say "paintings are a means to communicate a message". It is restrickted to the communication of information. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. I think we should exclude creative visualization and music visualization as fields of visualization, but call them related fields.
What kind of information? A painting communicates information about the artist's vision. If it's a painting about something shocking, it sends a political message however vague or abstract artistic it may be. If by information you mean only factual or scientifically proven information then it is scientific visualization. You cant exclude artistic information from scientific information without redefining the word "information" altogether. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You use the term "scientific visualization" in a general way, but the term scientific visualization nowadays relates to a very specific field in science. The rest of you statements make even less sense to me. Don;t you have anything better to do? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Better? Like what? And what's better than disputing oversimplification? And which part specifically doesn't make sense to you? I'm saying that the articles should be consistent at minimum. It's pointless to have the article Visualization (computer graphics) be broad and then narrow the scope by excluding related articles in the template that points to it. Either the scope of the main article needs to be narrower or the template needs to be broader. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do you want to define visualization? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the article defines it just fine. The dictionary defines it broadly too [1]. It's the template that is narrowing the scope. There's also another article called information visualization which better describes utilitarian information. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree. This template has a limited scope to... let's say the visualization of information or the visualization of technical information. I am developing a new visualization article, that will explain, see User:Mdd/Visualization‎.
If you read the information visualization article (I wrote for 95%) more closely, you will see that term, nowadays relates to an even more specific field in science then scientific visualization.
I don't see a problem here. It is normal that an article or template has a limited scope, especially when the subject has multiple meaning. As far as I know, there is not one word to explain this all. It is the collection of terms in the template, which eventually defines the scope.
Are there any more sections and/or Wikipedia articles you want to add to the template? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Graphic image development and visual communication should remain in it. Visual communication is even a subsection of the article. The scope of graphic image development goes beyond artistic usage. Oicumayberight (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I explained the scope of the template some more in the title. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restored three last changes[edit]

I restored the following three changed:

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contemporary visualization expert[edit]

I removed Fernanda Viégas from the listing which was added their with the comment: added a top contemporary visualization expert.

It seems the person has received a PhD in 2005, and is currently listed in 2 wikipedia articles. I checked some of the external links, and the work is no doubt interesting. But I think it is to early to list the person in the template here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eric Gould Bear[edit]

I removed Eric Gould Bear who was added by the creator of his page, currently an AfD at WP: Articles for deletion/Eric Gould Bear. Mcewan (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, you are quite right. -- Mdd (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]