Talk:Visualisation (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mental visualisation

I don't understand why the mental visualization should dominate this page. Since visualization through visual imagery for all sort of purposes theese days is such an important part of human activity. -- User:MrMambo of 04:27, April 12, 2004

• Suggest to 1) remove {disambig} 2) make this article more general and include texts from Knowledge visualization and Information visualization. Any opinions? --AndriuZ 06:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

---

TUT, Inc. promotes a visualization philosophy of "Thoughts become things. Choose the good ones." It is a good resource to learn practical visualization skills.

• Suggest link to TUT and/or competitors

Arguements against? Visualization and particularly TUT's take is self-helpish but who is to say you can't help your situation through visualization? In fact, Mike Dooley promotes open-mindedness as part of being realistic. At a fun seminar last August he told the crowd, in short, that you can usually succeed (make your dream feelings, etc come true), but you can almost never dictate the "cursed how's" of how it will happen.

Should a commercial site be linked to? The Wikipedia article on seduction links to commercial self-help guides in Double Your Dating. It is worded to specify the links are to commercial sites.

"There are also many commercial seduction products available for men. Recommended ones are All About Women by Giuseppe Notte, Double Your Dating by David DeAngelo" - Wikipedia: Seduction

The TUT link should be done similarly.

~Anonymous, August 22, 2005

New subheading relating to meditation?

What do you think of adding a new link from visualisation to meditation. It is a common meditation technique (at least it is in Buddhism), so maybe link it to Buddhist meditation (which at the moment does not have a visualisation section yet). 21 November 2005 (UTC) R.Sok

Educational visualization

Which of the links in this dis-ambiguation page is educational visualization a sensible re-direct to?? Georgia guy 21:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Silva?

How does Silva really relate to visualization? It's a very loose connection! GregA 12:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

autosuggestion technique?

as a brook, pond, waterfall, one's baby, etc.. An autosuggestion technique frequently used for "mental practice" by athletes, in which one imagines perfect performance A self-help technique for goal setting and refinement, as set forward in Shakti Gawain's 1978 book Creative Visualizaton

---

I'm sorry, but no, lucid visualization isn't an autosuggestion technique. Autosuggestion is one technique, used by self hypnosis practioners, as is visualization. They are completely different. Somebody decided "self hypnosis" wasn't quite kewl sounding enough, and has skewed the entire network to a comical taxonomical error.

This is a disambiguation page

So I've change it to match WP:MOSDAB. The following probably belongs on a visualization (psychology) or some such page, but I'm not qualified to create it.

• Creating internal mental images (internal visualization and imagination)
  • A technique of relaxation, whereby images that invoke a relaxed state are visualized, such as a brook, pond, waterfall, one's baby, etc..
  • An autosuggestion technique frequently used for "mental practice" by athletes, in which one imagines perfect performance
  • A self-help technique for goal setting and refinement, as set forward in Shakti Gawain's 1978 book Creative Visualizaton

John (Jwy) 05:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Visualization (computer graphics)

I propose to merge the Visualization (computer graphics) into this article. The Visualization (computer graphics) has become the general article about different kinds of visualization, but the title is confusing. I think all that content can be add here, in one general article about visualization. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposed merge. First of all, visualization in psychology and visualization in computing is very different. How does putting something together in Maya similair to mental image? Secondly, I've taken a look at both of the articles, thinking that if there was something misplaced in either of them, I would move the content in question to their relevant articles. I have found nothing similair except that the word "computer" was mentioned a few times in the mental image article, in a proper context (related to psychology), and that the word "mental" was mentioned once in the computer graphics article, once again in a proper context. Rilak (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your arguments here:

1. I propose to merge this disambigation page with the Visualization (computer graphics) article, which has become the general article about "scientific visualization".
2. I proposed this merge in the first place because the title of the Visualization (computer graphics) article, doesn't make any sense. That title should be visualization, scientific visualisation, information visualization or datavisualisation. Now because that article explains most of these terms, I think, visualization is the most common title.
3. Now this disambigation page can easily be merged with that article, because both article give an overview of different types of visualization.

Now you start talking about the mental image article, but I haven't mentioned this at all. This should just be a separte article. Maybe you can explain some more about your opposition? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You said, "The Visualization (computer graphics) has become the general article about different kinds of visualization, but the title is confusing. I think all that content can be add here, in one general article about visualization."

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Does the bold text not mean that you propose that all articles on visualization, including the psychology related ones should be merged into a single article? Rilak (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, now I understand the confusion. What I mean is, only to merge the data from the Visualization (computer graphics) article here, and not all other articles mentioned here.

Some more background. Around 18 jan 2008 the Visualization (computer graphics) article has become the general article about different kinds of visualization. Before that time there where six different articles:

1. Visualization (computer graphics) (11 jan 2008)
2. Scientific visualization (11 jan 2008)
3. Knowledge visualization (11 jan 2008)
4. Product visualization (11 jan 2008)
5. Educational visualization (11 jan 2008)
6. Visual Analytics (11 jan 2008)

These six articles have been merged to the one Visualization (computer graphics) article by User:Teryx on 14 January 2008, see his changes and his arguments. This merger created the, what I call, general article about visualisation.

My problem is that the title Visualization (computer graphics) is incompetent. The most logical thing to do is to merge all taht content under the article title Visualization. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand the reasons for your proposal to merge the articles now, and I've invalidated my first comment. What I do not understand is why Visualization (computer graphics) should be renamed to Visualization. It makes sense to have a disambiguation page as visualization refers to a few things, all different. Rilak (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe you are right.

• Maybe the Visualization (computer graphics) article should be renamed to Scientific visualization after all.
• And this article should be developed showing all different aspects of visualization, from visual art to Scientific visualization, and from imageprocessing to cognition and knowledge representation.

The reason to rename Visualization (computer graphics) in the first place, remains that the term "Visualization (computer graphics)" is an artificial Wikipedia term, with no direct relation to reality. In the theory and practice terms like "Scientific visualization", "Data visualization" and "Information visualization" are often used. I think the article should have such a normal title, and not an artificial one. The term "Visualisation" is/was my first choice, but maybe that term is to broad. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm... how exactly is "Visualization (computer graphics)" artificial? It's done on a computer, and it is not only scientific visualization that is being discussed in the article. Rilak (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I will try to explain.

• The current computer graphics article talks about Visualization done on a computer.
• The current "Visualization (computer graphics)" article was intended to be the general overview article about visualisation in science.
• The title "Visualization (computer graphics)" is not a good title for a general an overview article about visualisation. Better titles are " Visualisation" or "scientific visualisation" or "visualisation in science".

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The "computer graphics" article doesn't describe visualization. Visualization is a separate-sub field in the field of computer graphics. Computer graphics refers to generating graphics using a computer - it can apply to games, art and media for example. Visualization, in my opinion, is about taking data, eg. something describing the airflow around an aircraft wing, and representing that information visually using computer graphics. Its a separate field - you can't use Maya, a computer graphics application, which is used heavily in movies and games, to do this. The article should therefore be called "Visualization (computer graphics)" as it can cover engineering, scientific, medical and industrial/commercial aspects, and not "Visualization", Scientific visualization" or "Visualization in science" as these are all too specific or too general. It makes more sense to discuss all aspects of computer visualization in one article. -- Rilak 13:51, 27 June 2008.

I think you are right not to merge "Visualization (computer graphics)" here, but not for the reason you give here: I don't think Visualization is one separate field. I think there are separate traditions that use visualization as a central concept. The most important traditions here are:

1. Statistics and the display of quantitative information. Representatives her are Edward R. Tufte and Michael Friendly, see for example his Reader "Milestones in the History of Thematic Cartography, Statistical Graphics and Data Visualization"
2. Cartography towards Graphics and Graphic Information processing, based on the work of Jacques Bertin in the 1960s.
3. Computer science and the emerge of Information visualization and Scientific visualization since the 1980s.
4. Philosophy of science and the emerge of visual knowledge representation. See for example Luc Pauwels (2006). "Visual cultures in science".
5. Graphic design towards the reflection of information graphics, See for example Peter Wildbur (1989). Information graphics. In this tradition you can also place the work of Otto Neurath's Isotype (pictograms)

Now I think:

• It is possible to write one introduction article about all these traditions:
• ... and this general introduction article about all these developments and related items shouldn't be called "Visualization (computer graphics)", but just "Visualization"
• The current "Visualization (computer graphics)" is a lot about, what is now called in Computer science "Information visualization" and "Scientific visualization".

At the moment I am trying to write a three renewed articles about "visualization", "information visualization" and "visual analytics" and a lot more, for example the redesign of the template:visualization. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If the following articles, "visualization", "information visualization" and "visual analytics", and their subjects are diverse enough, and with not too much overlap, then you should act on your proposal. Rilak (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Merge: I don't see any reason to merge the Visualization (computer graphics)‎ with this DAB. The DAB works well as a DAB. I'm not against a separate article on visualization about the general concept. I am against narrowing the scope of the term to exclude artistic usage. If anything, the article Visualization (computer graphics)‎ should be deleted if you feel that it's a bogus title and the Template:Visualization should be restored to look more like this DAB page. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I agree. I have removed my merge proposal. I now understand your concern here. We do need a DAB page, to show both the technical and the artistic (sub) usages.

Eventually I will propose to delete that Visualization (computer graphics)‎ article, but this could take while. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Further discusion

In the current state the computer visualization is one of several points in the vis. article, and that makes sense. So the merging question is IMHO now invalid. --Bernd vdB (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you first have to explain some more, before you can call of the merge. Your argument for example doesn't make sense to me, and I question you even understood the reason for this merge proposal. There are two articles now:

• Visualization, and
• Visualization (computer graphics)‎

And they both have the potention to give a general overview of the field of visualization as defined in the visualization template:

You speak of a computer visualization, but this not the subject here, but Visualization and Visualization (computer graphics)‎. I think the initial reasons for this merge proposal are still valid:

1. There should be one overview article of the field of visualization
2. This article should be called Visualization
3. And not Visualization (computer graphics)‎, which is an artifical created title which can mean any thing.

I guess this confusing title let you believe that the Visualization (computer graphics)‎ is about computer visualization. You could also suggest it should be about computer graphics or computer graphics visualization... To avoid these sort of confusion we should just eliminate the artifical Visualization (computer graphics)‎ article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed in the edit summary you asked clear question: Why should it be merged when one is a part of the other? My answer is simple. They are not. The one isn't a part of the other. Both give a general overview, or could give a general overview.

Music visualizations and other types of visualisation

My objection to that merging is that "Visualization (computer graphics)" doesn't cover all the aspects of visualizations. Take "Music visualizations" the descriptions in "Visualization (computer graphics)" don't cover that at all and changing the descriptions of that of the general one will change the meaning of the whole thing. This is a different area to the science visualizations and still a popular meaning for 'visualizations' just google it, after this article it appear a high match. This will confuse people IMHO Rovastar (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I fully agree that, "Visualization (computer graphics)" doesn't cover all the aspects of visualizations. It doesn't cover Music visualizations", crime imaging, geovisualization, medical imaging, visual analytics, and maybe only part of infographics, data visualization, information visualization and scientific visualization.

It is not my intention to rename "Visualization (computer graphics)" to "visualization". I want to design a new umbrella article about "visualisation", which does cover these all these types of visualization. If this article is ready, then the "Visualization (computer graphics)" can vanish.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha ok that is fine then. I got the impression from the initial comments that you would simply merge "visualization (computer graphics)" as one master "visualizations" section. Rovastar (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To merge an article with a dab page

I restored the merge proposal tag, which User:UnitedStatesian had removed with the argument:

doesn't make sense to merge article and dab page; tagged other uses)

merge tag: doesn't make sense to merge article and dab page; tagged other uses)

In Wikipedia it is completely normal to propose a merge between an article and a dab page, so UnitedStatesian's argument doesn't make any sense to me.

I already explained here above that the article title "Visualization (computer graphics)‎" doesn't make any sense to me. This article is designed to be an umbrella article in the field of visualization. Now three thing:

• An umbrella article about visualization in science can just be called visualization.
• The title "Visualization (computer graphics)‎" is artificial and I think even wrong, for an umbrella article about visualization in science, as I have explained above
• Even if an dab-page is needed here, which I seriously doubt, this dab-page can be called Visualization (disambiguation)‎, and under the title "visualization" the general umbrella article about visualization in science can be positioned and further developed.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Undone recent rearrangment

I have undone the recent rearrangement in three sections

• Automated data displays, or Visualization (computer graphics)
• Communication of data
• Mental imagery and other creativity enhancement

I have a couple of reasons:

1. It is highly questionable that the series: Interactive visualization, Scientific visualization, Software visualization, Flow visualization, Geovisualization is mainly about Automated data displays. This seems rather a personal Point of view.
2. The second title "communication of data" suggests that for example the first series is not aboout this, which agian is highly questionable.
3. Such a rearrangement suggests a higher order here. If there would be, it should be referenced.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Many links to here

Visualization is one of the most linked-to disambiguation pages on Wikipedia [1]. Any help in changing incoming links to point directly to the most appropriate article would be very welcome. Certes (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1