Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Template talk:Visualization -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

	This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Systems     (Rated Start-Class) Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to Systems science. Systems rating: Start Class Top importance  Field: Visualization Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please also add comments to suggest improvements to the article.

Contents 1 Note 1.1 Some background 2 Reorganize? 3 Restored three last changes

Note

I believe this template is of little use, as the articles in it have little to do with each other. You could as well group together articles having something to do with sound, from deafness to music and traffic noise. I removed it from the bottom of matrix (mathematics) as not relevant to the topic. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am still not sure of the usefulness of this template, but I do agree that recent changes gave it more of a character. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feed back. I'm just started to reorganize the field of visualization in Wikipedia. I agree that this template should be focused, but the question off cause is how. The article about visalisation is still underdeveloped if you compare this for example with the article on the German Wikipedia, which is my example.

Now you removed the following items.

• Cartography
• Data mining
• Gestalt psychology
• Graph theory
• Representation (arts)
• Representation (psychology)

I will look at them some more, but two things I allready don't understand:

The Chart and Graph are listed as Techniques. It is logical to me that you list Cartography and Graph theory as related fields? The only thing I can think of is that "related fields" should be mentioned "related theories", but I prefer the term "related fields". -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, graph theory is not about graphs, if by the latter you mean graph of a function. Graph theory is about points and edges between them. Also, cartography is about map-making, it is as related to visualization as painting and printing, meaning not much, as far as I see. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand:

• You say: "graph theory is not about graphs"... but the article graph theory stated "graph theory is the study of graphs"
• And you say: "cartography is about map-making"... and maps are a visualisation technique, so related to visualization.

This kind of argumentation doesn't make any sense to me.

However. I do agree this template should have it's own notable character. Maybe your attention is right that visualization is a too broad and undefined subject. Because of this I changed title of the template to Scientific visualization. Other steps I will take is:

• Develope the visualization article
• Develope the current Visualization (computer graphics), which should be renamed to Visualization or Scientific visualization.
• And further develope the articles in the field, and the article about it's experts.

This work is directly connected with the development of this template. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Graph theory is the study of graph (mathematics), not of graph of a function. Graph theory is the study of things which are made of points and vertices, something you can draw, but which has little if anything to do with visualization. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maps have no more to do with visualization than do computer monitors, printing, and blindness. You have to draw the line somewhere. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have my reasons to include them:

• I consider visualization as the study of Information graphics, and then maps are considered an essential part of information grafics by multiple experts. And the it is only logical to add cartography.
• I consider Graphs (Graph (mathematics)) as a specific type of diagrams, which are based on specific mathematical theory.

That is why I have added them, and I want them to stay. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I will object to this template added to Graph (mathematics) and to map as not relevant to those articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I just don't know yet for sure, and there are a lot of problems in the Wikipedia representation of visualization. The whole concept isn't even made clear yet... I am trying to clear this on different levels, in different kinds of articles. It all depends on how those things will develope. Maybe you are right about the Graph (mathematics) and the Graph theory. You are definitely wrong about maps and Cartography not beeing close related to "visualization in science".

This is what I can do for the moment:

• Remove the Graph (mathematics) and the Graph theory.
• and keep the maps and readd the Cartography

Maybe this is that acceptable for you for the moment? And we can renew this discussion in a week when more things are made clear. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK then, as long as Graph (mathematics) and Graph theory are out, I do not have an opinion about the maps and cartography pages. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Graph (mathematics) and Graph theory are removed for now (for at least a week). I can't garantee they stay out. It is one of the things I will investigate further. I will only put them in again if I have some reliable sources to back this up. Thanks for your feed back so far. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Some background

I just noticed why Graph (mathematics) and Graph theory where added to the template in the first place (and not by me):

The old article Scientific visualisation explained the difference between Information visualization and scientific visualization. It stated:

(In computer science...) information visualization and scientific visualization have overlapping goals and techniques. There is currently no clear consensus on the boundaries between these fields, but broadly speaking the two areas can be distinguished as follows:

• Scientific visualization deals with data that has a natural geometric structure (e.g. MRI data or wind flows).
• Information visualization handles more abstract data structures, such as trees or graphs.

Maybe the real question here should be if this statement about information visualisation is right or wrong. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganize?

I think it's odd that this template includes creative visualization and music visualization, which aren't closely related to the other types of visualization. Would it perhaps make sense to remove these, and put this template only on the type of visualization that's meant to convey data? I think the need is especially acute since the rest of the template doesn't have anything to do with creative visualization, e.g. there are no creative visualization experts listed.

Of course, it might be that the whole visualization cluster of articles needs to be reorganized, although that seems to have been tried a few times already! --Infografica (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just started reorganizing this field some 6 to 7 weeks ago, and some 4 weeks ago started reorganizing things in Wikicommons also. So I am interested in what you mean here? And what kind of things you are thinking of? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Restored three last changes

I restored the following three changed:

• Relisted Michael Maltz because he is directly related to Crime mapping
• Relisted Adolphe Quetelet because he made important contributions in the visualization of statistical data in the 19th century
• Moved Visual analytics from "Fields of visualization" to "Related fields", because it is not primary about visualization.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 20 October 2008, at 20:14.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Template talk:Visualization".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Template_talk:Visualization

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.