Talk:Schematic

message: Is this article really a stub? - dcljr 18:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub status

message: Hi, Thanks for creating such a nicely written entry.  I particularly appreciate the extra exposition regarding the "unrealistic elements that aid comprehension language."  "A schematic is a diagram that represents the elements of a system using abstract, graphic symbols rather than realistic pictures. A schematic usually omits all details that are not relevant to the information the schematic is intended to convey, and may add unrealistic elements that aid comprehension."  Did you write the above sentences entirely from your own recollection?  Did you draw certain elements of the sentences from another source?  I am very curious to know.  Thanks so much.  Sincerely, Chicodedough (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources of article text

message: It would be helpful if this article included, in its lead or otherwise, wikilinks to the articles for types/classifications of diagrams that are not schematics.  In other words, it may be helpful to define a schematic in terms of what it is not.  What do you call a mechanical illustration that shows all the parts drawn to scale and in their proper assembled or exploded configuration?  This is no longer a schematic but a...  What do you call a circuit diagram that shows the circuit elements drawn as they would actually be laid down on a breadboard, PCB, microchip, or what-have-you?  This is no longer a schematic but a... (Etc.) Robert K S (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for article improvement

message: There have been a couple of recent edits that have attempted to narrow the scope of a schematic to a very narrow focus on engineering. This is contrary to the use of the term in the broader design fields such as architecture and graphic design. The edits removed the classic London Underground layout, a brilliant piece of schematic representation, and focused on a myopic engineering-centric view of the term. I've restored the status quo ante and  will semi-protect the article to force discussion if undiscussed removals continue. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the subway map could be thought of as a schematic however it seems more accurate to call the subway map a "topological map". In a typically schematic there is less of  an attempt to maintain distance, direction or scale, instead elements are more often  placed  as convenient.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptCarlsen (talk • contribs) 19:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Underground map was a landmark in that it abandoned almost all pretense of scale or accuracy in favor of readability. It is a map in the loosest possible sense. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Underground map can be thought of as a schematic. But in the article it seems like it would be better if the first example of a schematic was less map-like and  more pure schematic with all spacial information removed, for example a simple line diagram. CaptCarlsen (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent alterations 

message: This page incorrectly describes a schematic as a diagram and a schematic. Instead, a schematic is a subset of a diagram. In other words, it is a "type" of diagram. For whatever reason, the author has combined all diagrams into this subset and is calling them all schematics. The difference needs to be defined and the diagrams that are not schematics need to be removed. https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/diagram-vs-schematic50.125.255.227 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagrams vs. Schematics