Talk:Infographic

message: * the cat Infographics is incomplete and  is basically the same term as Information graphics. Can a term be a category and an article?
* Possible overlap with other pages:  Information visualization, Information design, Visualization (graphic) etc
:Information visualization is not the same as information graphics (one is usually computer generated, the other generated through a creative process). Information design seems to be for the most part a synonym for information architecture. Visualization (graphic) should probably be merged with Information visualization -  Sbwoodside 05:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sbwoodside. Redirecting from Information visualization to Information graphics is very arguable. --JiggySoo (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: * Image:Wash-dc-metro-map.png subway map
* Image:Atmometer.jpg mechanical schematic
* Image:Dolphin_head_sound_production.PNG sectional diagram
* Image:Muybridge_horse_jumping.jpg photo sequence
* Image:CometDiagram.gif time / space
* Image:Altchristliche_Basilika_MK1890.jpg church floor plan
* Image:VolcanicPipe.jpg cross section of a volcano
* Image:Sunlayers.gif layer diagram
Sbwoodside 05:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  images to incorporate from commons 

message: Wouldn't it be worth mentioning the ways in which graphs and charts can be distorted (such as starting the y axis of a bar chart at 50 instead of 0) in order to mislead?  After all, in this way they can be turned from tools of information to tools of misinformation, which seems kind of important to me.  Kasreyn 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading graphs? 

message: * UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library, web-site from the UN Environment Programme with hundreds of information graphics and maps
not really appropriate here (too specific...) , but maybe in an article about the environment or maps. Sbwoodside 04:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted link... move somewhere else? 

message: I didn't find anything in the major listings that would describe this (chart?)
So what type of graphic would you classify it as, and why isn't that part of the 'types' section (or why doesn't the type of graphic it is, have a description which encompasses it)?
~ender 2007-04-25 12:22:PM MST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.167.217.162 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a chart.  It seems you do too, as you call it a chart & posted another statement on the talk page for chart. --Karnesky 20:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In particular, it is a segmented column/bar chart. --Karnesky 20:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Graphics 

message: I was trying to encourage the use of inline citations. See WP:CITE for more info on them. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that there is no policy that requires inline citations.  If you think they are appropriate, but can't/don't want to add them yourself, it is probably better to use one of the citation-needed templates to flag specific passages that you'd like to see inline citations for. --Karnesky 12:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced 

message: Since the two concepts are related, shouldn't the two articles be linked somehow? --
Syd Barrett (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Added a basic link there (feel free to work it into the text :) but the :Category:Infographics will have to suffice for a link from here; there are too many to list them all here individually, I think (plus it's already listed at List of graphical methods). -- Quiddity (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cross-reference with [[sparkline|sparklines]]

message: It seems to me that the category has been renamed for the wrong reason. User:Timeshifter names "bad name", but seems nothing bad about this name "Infographics". It is a common name. This name seems even more familiar then "Information graphics". I googled both terms and found:
* Infographic - 801.000 google rate
* Infographics - 723.000 google rare
* "Information graphic" - 134.000 google rate
* "Information graphics" - 207.000 google rate
It seems logical to prefer the term infographics above information graphics. I will copy this argumentation to the Wikipedia page, and hopefully get some more response over there.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at those numbers I wonder why this Wikipedia article is named "Information graphics" and not "Infographics". -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad reason 

message: commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Information graphics --Timeshifter (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories for discussion 

message: We need a better image than that DC map to represent infographics. I say "better" because the DC map has only a few variables, compared to other, richer maps. The DC map contains: line colour, stop name, relative stop location, some municipal boundaries and names.
I propose we change the image to the Cincinnati transit map because it contains more variables in a smaller space. It therefore is relatively richer in information than the DC map, and a more effective example of an infographic. The variables it contains are: line name, line frequency both relative and absolute, neighborhood boundaries, zone boundaries, area characteristics(park, city, or institution), transit hubs, street names, bus speed(in the "timepoints"), travel time(from "timepoints" and frequency), and business districts. Also, by incorporating the ten-minute "timepoints" it gives the reader an idea of geographic distortion, something the DC map fails at, since DCs central stops are much closer together than people using the map would suspect.Bike756 5:42, 6 March 2012
:While I agree that the Cincinnati map is packed with more information, I'm not sure it is better as an iconic image for the lead paragraph of this article. As a thumbnail 250 pixels wide, the DC Metro map reads pretty well as a representative infographic. As a 525 pixel wide preview it is  perfectly legible. The Cincinnati map, on the other hand, needs much more enlargement before all that information is usable. As a poster on a wall, or on a large screen, it shows a lot, but at thumbnail size, it reads as a pastel blur. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A diagram is an infographic; what "more" is needed? The DC Metro map is sparser than some, but appropriately so, considering its purpose and intended audience. See cartographic generalization. An image easily recognizable as a metropolitan transit schematic seems fitting in the lead paragraph of this article. Those classic images fit well in the history section... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: I have just worked with two other people to do extensive edits to this page.  Here is a summary of what we did:
1) The History section was regrouped into Early Infographics, 20th Century, and 21st Century.  The Modern Practitioners section was deleted and that information was added to the history section.  Most of the information in the History sections was heavily edited (for grammar and organization) and added to in some places.  Some irrelevant or extraneous information was deleted.  The previous organization just seemed slightly disjoint, and we felt it would be more cohesive with this reorganization.
2) The Information Graphics Subjects section was deleted, as well as Visual Devices.  Both of these headings seemed a bit unclear, and relevant information was put into other sections.  Elements of Infographics was significantly added to and made into a main section.
3) A section was added for Data visualization in Infographics since data visualization is commonly used in infographics.  Several pictures were added here as examples (all from Wikimedia Commons)
4) A section was added for Infographic Tools, since there are so many of these available today
5) Many references were added
6) A few external links were deleted that seemed irrelevant or inappropriate.
Please let us know what you think of these edits, we are hoping that everyone will like them.  We feel that they really helped to flesh out this article and improve the organization.  
Debralynng (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive Edits 

message: I removed content about infographic resumés since it was supported only by commercial web sites or primary sources (actual resumés). I think this would be a useful addition to the article but it needs good, non-commercial secondary sources. I am uneasy with linking directly to individuals' resumés and think we should link to a reliable, external list of example resumés instead. I also think we should add a section on Applications where this use and others could be described. Jojalozzo 18:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infographic resumés 

message: A user has created a new article titled Edugraphic. It looks to be a fork of this article. Can some editors familiar with the subject take a look at that article and see what attention it needs? —C.Fred (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a poorly written article unduly promoting the usage of the term without adequate citation. Any useful, non redundant content from reliable sources should be merged here with a redirect.--Animalparty-- (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Edugraphic]] fork? 

message: There is a new fashion of posters referred to as "Infographics" but which in fact do not use graphics to convey information and thus do not appear to conform to the definition of Infographic presented in this article ("graphic visual representations of information, data or knowledge intended to present complex information quickly and clearly"). I've tried to find discussion of this extension of the definition online, but failed to find any notable source. Here are some mentions of this issue from non-notable sites (please add anything more informative):
*http://understandinggraphics.com/visualizations/infoposters-are-not-infographics/
*http://notaninfographic.tumblr.com/
The reason I'm bringing this up is that an image of this sort has been used as an example on this article for a long while (a political pamthlet added on 15 September 2013‎ by Ryomaandres):
PDAF_4.png
I removed this image, since I believe it does not agree with the text at all. An option I could see as reasonable is to add a new section to the article discussing these kinds of posters that convey non-graphical information as falling under a broader definition of "Infographic". This new section would need to contain notable references that refer to a broadening of the definition.
"Six by nine. Forty two."  (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infographics without graphical information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Infographic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006012124/http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/geo/courses/geo466/topics/humboldt.html to http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/geo/courses/geo466/topics/humboldt.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Infographic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121213054437/http://www.epra.com/regulation-and-reporting/the-property-business/ to http://www.epra.com/regulation-and-reporting/the-property-business/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Give a example picture of infographics  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.24.121 (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science