Talk:Pose (computer vision)

Requested move 9 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved Rosedaler (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pose (computer vision) → Pose – Pose is used in many fields like robotics, 3D game programming, and virtual reality, as well as computer vision. Hence the name change to be more generalized. The “Pose” article currently redirects to an article with a closely related topic so I cannot make the change myself. EDIT: I see that I was mistaken about the redirect. Never mind. Please delete this request. EDIT: Actually, due to Wikipedia’s notability guidelines I would still like the change to occur. As the term Pose has many uses in technology now. Rosedaler (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – Ammarpad (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Object to speedy move I object to this being a speedy move. It should have a full discussion. I also note the existence of Pose (disambiguation) -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not the primary meaning of the term. -- Netoholic @ 19:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no way this is the primary topic—blindlynx 21:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 162 etc. (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:Netoholic and User:Blindlynx. Not the primary topic by a long shot. JIP | Talk 05:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heard. Rosedaler (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, maybe something like Pose (technology) or Pose (computing). Suggestions are welcome! Rosedaler (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pose (computing) is definitely a step up from 'computer vision'—blindlynx 16:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose even ignoring the generic meaning the TV series has many more views (59,395) than the computer vision (954)[[1]] perhaps no primary topic but definitely not this one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. please see my comment above Rosedaler (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it primary over the TV series? The TV series is quite old and the generic meaning has more long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I agree with you. I no longer want to move the page to Pose. I'm thinking maybe moving it to Pose (computing) would be better. Maybe closing the discussion makes sense Rosedaler (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes please close it then In ictu oculi (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this article renamed?

@Netoholic, @Blindlynx, @Crouch, Swale, and @In ictu oculi: Since this article was about computer vision, it was titled Pose (computer vision). The article was renamed to Pose (computing) after the discussion above. This new title is more vague than the original title; is the article intended to describe poses in computing applications that are unrelated to computer vision, such as computer animation and inverse kinematics? Jarble (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3D pose estimation might also be the same situation. To me the two articles look like random collections of abstract information on topics that have the word "pose" in them and are somehow computer related. So we have a chicken and egg situation. The content doesn't define the topic and with the rename, there is no defining of the content by the title.

At least with Pose (computer vision) there was a topic. Computer Vision (and related Machine Vision) involves imaging of something in the real world. Some of the other content refers to things created in software (= no imaging of real word stuff involved) I have some expertise in the former but not the latter. Does somebody know if there is a coherent topic here regarding the latter and what a name for it might be? North8000 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back to the previous name (while it is still possible for me to do) while we discuss.North8000 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]