Talk:Oren–Nayar Reflectance Model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] On notability question

I'm not convinced of the notability of the "Oren–Nayar diffuse model." An anon IP editor claims that the one independent book ref is sufficient, but he has not said whether he has seen that book, nor has he offered to tell us what it says, which I do hereby request. It is rare to accept a topic as notable on a single mention; even more so when nobody can tell us what they mention says. If the source says "known as" or "referred to as the Oren–Nayar diffuse model" or something like that, then maybe we can accept that as sufficient evidence of notability, assuming the author is independent of Oren and Nayar. But if it just advances the name itself, or says something like "the model of Oren–Narar", then we have business annointing that as a name. That's my only concern. Anyone have that book handy? Dicklyon 01:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, I just checked on who put the ref. It was the guy who created the original stub, who hasn't been on wikipedia since the day he did so; he gave no indication of what point in the article that ref was intended to support. Nobody has added a ref or any useful info since; it looks like some are findable, so I'll work on that. Dicklyon 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, no book refs for "Oren-Nayar diffuse model", but plenty for "Oren-Nayar model", so I added a couple of those and removed the tag. I think the topic name with "diffuse model" is pretty lame, because the model is not diffuse, and this topic doesn't say it's about reflection, and serious writers don't call it that. I suggest we move to either Oren–Nayar model or Oren–Nayar reflection model. Comments? Dicklyon 03:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's specifically a model of diffuse reflection, thus the name. It's the "model" that is superfluous in a search, searching for "Oren-Nayar diffuse" finds far more hits. If you don't even know what this is, why are you trying to judge its notability? --88.195.54.90 16:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do know what it is, since I looked it up and read about it; and judged it to be notable, since the article contains citations to reliable sources about it (which I added). What behavior are you trying to criticize here? Have you done anything to help? Dicklyon 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And I find only 3 book hits for "Oren-Nayar-diffuse" compared to 13 for "Oren-Nayar-model". I realize it's a model of diffuse reflection. But what title should the article adopt? A common one? Or a more rare one? Should we attempt to be parallel with Phong reflection model? or maybe Blinn–Phong shading model? Dicklyon 23:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)