Talk:Image development (visual arts)/Archive 1

message: Can you please not remove the AFD flag until after the period of discussion is up and a consensus has   been reached. It's important that the wider Wikipedian community get to have a say other than the author and the challenger. There is no 'official' or 'unofficial' way of flagging an AfD.  --Davémon 17:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't an attempt to by pass discussion. It didn't look like the AfD template I'd seen before. I overlooked the link to the discussion page and thought that it wasn't included. That's why I was originally deleted it. Oicumayberight 00:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Don't Remove AFD 

message: After a discussion with the admin it was agreed that I should AfD this article again. However, I thought it might be useful to allow other editors to actually cite any sources which may exist for these claims first, so have flagged up the statements require citations (again). Please note: citing sources isn't the same as just making a random list of books which happen to have the words 'image' and 'development' in them - we need specific evidence here!
:You are misrepresenting the admin's position by  stating that the "admin agreed that you should AfD this article again". Here's a copy of that discussion. I highlighted in red what seems to be ignored in your misrepresentation:
Could you clarify reasons for the 'keep' decision, it still looks like unverifiable original research which mis-cites its sources to me! Thanks. --Davémon 15:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I acted based on the discussion.  More people wanted a keep and they had quite good arguments, you were the only one who opposed and yours was a little shaky.  Thanks. Cbrown1023 talk 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Then, renominate itfor a better decision. Cbrown1023 talk 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the advice. Would you advise that over a WP:Deletion_review? --Davémon 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, because this isn't really a Deletion... Cbrown1023 talk 17:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It was an advisory to renominate it for a better decision. The admin actually called the argument to keep "quite good" and your argument "a little shaky". And now you are just making the same shaky argument over and over again. It's become your mission to defy common sense. Oicumayberight 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not an appropriate debate for an article talk page, if you want to address me directly, please feel free to use my talk page, as I will reply to you on yours. --Davémon 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your own advice. Your the one who brought it up on this page. Oicumayberight 20:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was about improving the article, your comments seem to be about me and your imaginary version of my interpretation of the conversation with the admin. Please read my comment on your talk page with regards personal attacks. We do have different opinions, but we're all on the same team here - trying to build the best encycolpedia in the world! --Davémon 20:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The goal has always been to improve the article. If you really want to improve it, find the resources that would meet your level of expectation as valid.  Your arguments have been made and disputed. They are well documented on this talk page. Repeating the same arguments over and over again, scrutiny beyond levels normally tolerated on the wikipedia, and demands for word-for-word quotations in secondary sources are counterproductive. Oicumayberight 21:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   From WP:V "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." If you think the level of scrutiny is too high - any source that actually defines the phrase as a term with a specific meaning, or uses it expressly in each the ways mentioned in the article seems reasonable to me - I've marked the material with 'citation needed'. --Davémon 21:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So now you admit that you are just seeking to remove it. That's not exactly trying to improve the article now is it? I've provided sources. You just don't except them as valid. Your reasons are well documented and well disputed. There is no reason to beat a dead horse here. Oicumayberight 21:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If no sources are supplied for the spurious claims being made, then they should be deleted. That's how we stop false information being entered into wikipedia, and so improve it as a whole. I've shown (above) that your 'sources' do not back up the claims in the article - nobody other than myself has  actually claimed to have checked them.  --Davémon 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making assumptions. Your arguments are circular. It's basically an argument that the sources are not valid sources "because you say so". Oicumayberight 22:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  They only appear circular because they actually haven't been answered. Do you have a source for: "The term is also in contrast to "image editing" which excludes the capturing of images, creation of images from scratch by sculpting or rendering, and creation of images by calculating fractal mathematical functions" at all? --Davémon 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is referring to wikipedia articles that exclude (meaning don't include) those definitions. If you wish to edit those articles to include or can find other sources that include what is excluded, then it would be questionable if "image editing" means more than image editing. Oicumayberight 00:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I didn't ask what it was refering to, I asked for a source. Specifically what is being asked for is a secondary source where the term 'image development' is explicitly used in contrast to 'image editing' - preferably with reference to scultping, rendering, and fractals. Otherwise this statement is just an opinion of how the term might be used, but in reality isn't. --Davémon 12:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite Sources 

message: If by chance you are reading this article and find it odd that every single statement (no matter how true) is being challenged as needing a source and that every source is being challenged as insufficient, perhaps this is the reason. It's painfully obvious that the sole disputer of this article is rejecting community input. The sole disputer is either disrupting to illustrate a point or has a hidden agenda. The sole disputer's arguments are well documented and well disputed by multiple members. Oicumayberight 00:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptive editing

message: Here is an article on Skills management. I think this is somewhat a parallel to the Image development article, in that it is just two words put together. One can argue that the putting together of two words need not constitute the subject of a valid article. But one can also argue that meaning exists in that particular pairing, as concerns a history of usage. I still do not know if Image development is a valid topic for an article. I simply do not know. But I thought I'd call your attention to this other article. Perhaps the parallels can shed light on the present issue concerning the Image development article. Bus stop 06:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input Bus Stop. Design engineer is another example. Perhaps its because the dictionary doesn't include phrases. There are many of these articles, some under-sourced and well noted. I would consider those works in progress as this article may be. It's these works in progress that make wikipedia so useful. Some of these articles get merged, renamed, or deleted. This article is more of a sub-page link for multiple articles than a stand-alone article.  Merging it would be OK if it were only pertinent to one article. Renaming it would be OK if there were a better more widely used umbrella term. Deleting it was already considered and voted against in the AfD. Debates over what the term means, the scope, and if the term is being used are counter-productive at this point. In context the meaning is obvious, but the scope is not. The article is about the usage and scope of the term. Citations of term usage makes the scope a little clearer. At this point it's a question of how it's being used on the wikipedia, how can it be improved, and what are the alternatives.  Oicumayberight 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a good example of a similar problem. The term 'skills management' does appear to be used very frequently by major (and minor) software vendors selling products for HR departments. Filling wikipedia full of marketing 'buzzwords' and 'catch-phrases', and then trying to find sources for them post-hoc probably isn't a good idea. The article really does need to be sourced properly by someone. Establishing a history of usage is a good take on the problem - but this must be through secondary or tertiary sources(a dictionary of Human Resources terms for example) , so as not to constitute original research. It's only really  when the actual statements being made have direct references and citations that we can decide whether the information is verifiable or not. If it's not verified, then it's my understanding that WP:VERIFY says we should delete it. Also by way of contrast -  'skills management' is 90% about a set of activities that the phrase 'skills management' refers to, wheras 'image development' article appears to be 90% about justifying the use of 'the term' itself, contrasting it with other terms, where 'the term' may be used, how 'the term' supposedly originated, the terms 'significance',  etc.  --Davémon 19:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps this is where the confusion occurs. Corporate 'image development' does actually have a narrow, specific definition when used in identity and branding whereas everyone is free to use the words 'image development' in any other situation - as defined by the meanings of the words image development. Just because there is 'a' narrow definition of a given word-pairing used in one certain circumstance, it doesn't follow that all (or any other uses require a defintion. --Davémon 19:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to consider