Talk:POV-Ray

message: Friday; February 8, 2008, http://www.wikipov.org/ The POV-Ray OpenWik is down  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattclare (talk • contribs) 14:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep all external links. I'm not going to make a long-winded argument in support; just in general, for any piece of software, I want to see the longest list of external links. Biased or whatever, I don't care -- I'll make my judgements when I get there. At minimum, move all links rm from article to a list. John Reid 21:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I think we should change the image in the infobox to glasses (from teapot). Indeed I think we should remove teapot from here altogether - it's only here because at the time this article didn't have an image.  It isn't, and never was, a representative example of what POV-Ray can be used for. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would be an objective ideal. The glasses still life has a somewhat artistic expression to it, whereas a representative image should be a neutral demonstration. However the teapot doesn't demonstrate much reflection or refraction. Maybe somebody could make a new example (in a while I might try if nobody does, but I'm useless at POV-ray) with, perhaps, three spheres on the ubiquitous checkered plane, one glass, one chrome and one coloured to demonstrate reflection, refraction and radiosity. A Utah Teapot with a glass spout might not have the same effect! BigBlueFish 13:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I added the infobox I used the teapot image because it was the first one in the article, not because of any representation. I can make a new image if the teapot falls out of favour (the spheres seem simple enough). Shen 19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am dismayed to see that there is no shiny sphere over a checkered plane.  I'll get on it any month now.  —Tamfang 05:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  be sure that it has some HDRI applied to it.  it's the latest fad... :P namekuseijin at gmail.com  3 April 2006
I'm reverting User:Bruce89's last edit: the box image sure looks like a teapot to me (though the Povray logo is also there above it).  —Tamfang (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change the infobox image?

message: I've seen a lot of links for POV-Ray in the reference section. I'm interested in SDL since a user named it in shading language talk page but I cannot affort wandering thuru all of them to find the needed information. Could you please point out a few 'best of' links about SDL for me? Thank you,
MaxDZ8 talk 06:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SDL info 

message: Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Poll discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.
======Free 3D graphics software======
:Category:Free 3D graphics software is the current category, which some (but not all) believe refers specifically to free software (as defined by the FSF/OSI/DFSG/etc.)
* Indifferent yes. I think there might be some further comment in the article about the genuinely ambivalent status of pov-ray whichever way the vote goes, but I also think users can reasonably expect to find it in that category. Why not just accept that pov-ray is an edge case and err on the side of generousity? Tomandlu 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Freeware 3D graphics software denotes software that doesn't cost anything, but which doesn't expain whether or not the source is available
* Descriptions are clear and follow the most popularly held definitions.  Other "almost free" software is in "freeware" instead of "free." --Karnesky 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What category should POV-Ray be placed in?

message: :Category:Free 3D graphics software is the current category, which some (but not all) believe refers specifically to free software (as defined by the FSF/OSI/DFSG/etc.)
* Indifferent yes. I think there might be some further comment in the article about the genuinely ambivalent status of pov-ray whichever way the vote goes, but I also think users can reasonably expect to find it in that category. Why not just accept that pov-ray is an edge case and err on the side of generousity? Tomandlu 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free 3D graphics software

message: :Category:Freeware 3D graphics software denotes software that doesn't cost anything, but which doesn't expain whether or not the source is available
* Descriptions are clear and follow the most popularly held definitions.  Other "almost free" software is in "freeware" instead of "free." --Karnesky 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Freeware 3D graphics software

message: Much has been said about ambiguity of "free software" and of "open source."  May I point out that "3D graphics software" could be just as ambiguous?  The term has been used to refer to anything which uses 3D graphics (games and even browsers).  Even lengthening the title to "3D graphics creation software" won't do--CAD/CAM software would still fit.  Of course "render" has all sorts of conflicting definitions too, so it is out (and many programs in this cat aren't renderers).  In the specific case of POV-Ray, perhaps we could actually mention the much less ambiguous "ray tracing" in the cat title (but even fewer of the programs are ray tracers).
The way to disambiguate categories is NOT to name them so precisely and incontrovertibly that they are complete phrases and exclude most articles.  We should, instead:
# Give precise definitions on the category pages
# Add and link to categories which fit the other definitions of the ambiguous phrase (like "free" and "freeware") --Karnesky 23:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you want to remove POV-Ray from the 'Free 3D graphics software' category because it does not belong into '3D graphics software'?  Or do you think both categories should be deleted alltogether because they are not well defined (this could be a valid point - i am just not sure if that is what you want to say). Imagico 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: #Of course any category should have a precise and WP:NPOV description.  This does not mean it does not have to fit the category name.  There are lots of categories without description that are completely clear what they mean from the name.  Imagico 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: #This should be done by subcategories - if two categories have very similar definition and content they should both be a subcategory of a common parent with relation to that similarity.  Imagico 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything is ambiguous 

message: Any objections to removing the unreferenced template, which has been up since August?  Several references have been added to the article since then & I think that the we're at the stage where a more specific citation request template would serve better. --Karnesky 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "unreferenced" yet? 

message: "POV-Ray was the first ray tracer to render an image in orbit, rendered by Mark Shuttleworth inside the International Space Station.[3]"
C'mon, surely this is not in the slightest bit noteworthy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.46.110 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this bit really noteworthy? 

message: The category states POV-Ray is Freeware, however, since 3.7 the license has changed to the open source AGPL 3. I suppose the category can be changed to something like "free sofware"? I don't know the category, so please have a look and make the edit!  Smile4ever (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeware?