Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Graphic design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Too narrow?

I'm not sure that a focus as narrow as graphic design will get as much attention as it needs without it being tied to a broader focus such as design, visual communications or media studies. Graphic design is only one interdependent discipline among many others in art and media development. Other disciplines include marketing communications, creative direction, art direction, copywriting, technical writing, instructional design, engineering, multimedia development, image development, and production. A broader focus would attract more cooperation from professionals on the cutting edge of graphic design working in advertising agencies and the film industry. Artsmartconsulting 19:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason we can't focus on all those things seperately while also addressing their interdependency. There's room for everyone. This particular project concerns graphic design and is centered on Wikipedia's graphic design page - which is sorely in need of improvement. But that hub is just part of the project; we'll also deal with articles linking to and from that page, specifically their relation to graphic design.
If you're saying graphic design shouldn't even be it's own project, and that it only exists as a subset of other things, then I think you're drastically underestimating the scope and complexity of design as a process, a form, and a career.Rasi2290
Graphic design should be it's own project. The page does need much improvement. I'm just guessing that there would be more professional participation on the graphic design page if the WikiProject had a broader focus. The people who know the most about graphic design, most-likely started their careers with graphic design and have since been promoted to positions of broader concerns, like advertising business management, creative direction, marketing communications, art direction, copywriting, project management, production management, ect. Those people may be willing to add professionalism to the graphic design page, but may not come across it unless it were tied to a WikiProject with a broader focus like marketing, visual communications or media studies. Artsmartconsulting 17:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why it's necessary to have a wikiproject to fix just one article (Graphic design). Just work on the talk page there. If you're going to start a wikiproject, have it look at the whole graphic arts community: printing, design, computer graphics, etc. Sbwoodside 05:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Graphic design is a distinct discipline and profession, with a well-developed body of ideas, and a distinct history. Lump it in with areas like computer graphics and illustration, and you lose that essential connection to ideas behind graphic design. To understand its scope, look at the number of graphic design schools -- just in the US, the National Association of Schools of Design lists about 140 accredited undergraduate graphic design programs, and roughly two dozen graduate programs. There's material here for an entire project. It's not as if one page covers the breadth and depth of the subject. Chelt 15:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Graphic Design is definitely its own project and one that's had a dynamic history for more than 5,000 years. I believe that Graphic Design is more than a discipline or profession. Its theory, history, science, communication, debate, art, and nature all rolled in one. To begin this project we need to think about Graphic Design as more of an entity (whatever that means) than a specific job title or profession. One thing I find intriguing about the idea of going forward with a graphic design project is to see how this thing could blossom globally. Communication is a global concept thats an essential part of every society. As we move forward to a more globalized society it will be interesting to discuss and document the differences and similarities of our histories and concepts and to see where they lead us into the future. Sh0wnpc 14:50, 1 October 2006
Actually I'm for the broader view. Graphic design certainly one day needs to be its own project, but as long as we don't have a fluently working wikiproject for design in general and need more manpower I'd go for that one instead. Prove me wrong by showing that together we can get this project going without a parent ,) –Zinjixmaggir 06:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Just a note-

I am a third year graphic design major at a small liberal arts college. As a student of this discipline, I must agree with user ShOwnpc on this article. Graphic design is an "entity," in and of itself; to "lump it in" with illustration, printing, etc., as some have suggested, is incorrect. Just as you would not call an interior designer a "painter," a "builder," an "art framer," a "sewer," or a "shopper," though his/her job may involve some or all of these, a graphic designer is not simply an "illustrator;" aspects of illustration, marketing, printing, etc. are parts of the graphic design process. This, anyway, is the way in which we study graphic design at my college and the way the subject is represented in our texts.

Also, Paul Rand is an extremely influential modern graphic designer who is not on your graphic designer list.

Thank you for your time. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.254.2 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New face & help with articles & userbox/banner

Hey there fellow designers! I'm a Finnish industrial/graphic designer interested in taking Wikipedia further in this area. I just finished creating the pages Lo-Type and Louis Oppenheim. The latter's importance however was questioned right from the beginning so I was wondering if you could help me expand the articles or point me to more sources on the topic.

Oh and is there a banner or a userbox a project participant could add to their user page? –Zinjixmaggir 07:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I added a userbox for this wikiproject and put it on the page – feel free to use it =) –Zinjixmaggir 06:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiGFX

there is a Wiki dedicated totally to graphics at http://www.wikigfx.com that needs help if you want to add some in-depth articles about GFX stuff there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harrisale (talk • contribs) 04:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Typeface article

I've been reading wikipedia for a few years, but only recently decided to start putting in my two cents on articles (mostly in discussing potential issues/ suggesting solutions on the talk pages so far). However I was curious if anyone in the graphic design project thought that typeface should fall within the scope of this project? seems to me an integral piece of graphic design. Crocadillion 12:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

After helping out with the newly created Template:Typography terms and getting on a Typeface article categorization kick, it dawned on my that there was no central place to discuss matters of typography on wikipedia. My first thought was to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Typography, but I wanted to check out the existing wikiprojects (and here I am). This WikiProject doesn't seem that active, so perhaps, instead of adding a new wikiproject just to tackle typography, we could expand this wikiproject to include typography? What do people think?-Andrew c 23:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, instead of hijacking a wikiproject, we could just use either Talk:Typeface or Talk:Typography as a location for centralized discussion and ask users who want to be involved to add that article to their watch list (that is basically the technique used with illuminated manuscript related articles).-Andrew c 23:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don’t know if it would be hijacking, I mean typography is a part of graphic design. I say we include the discussions in this WikiProject. Max Naylor 16:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization of typefaces

I have proposed that Category:Programming typefaces be deleted, because the usage of a typeface such as in programming environments is not a notable feature and is not listed in any type classification that I have ever come across. Here are some of my thoughts/proposals. I'd like to remove the Category:Typefaces from most of the typeface articles, because it is a parent cat and redundant with various other subcats. We should use List of typefaces as the place to group all of the typefaces together in one bunch, and allow the categorization system to group them by various characteristics. I think that all typeface articles should have at least one style category, then if possible, a foundry category, and a date category. I also think we should group all of the style subcats in their own parent cat called Category:Typefaces by style. I'm not sure if we have enough typefaces to fill each subcat, but I would like to see a style categorization tree similar to the following: Category:Typefaces by style

I'm not sure how we should break up the scripts (formal? semi-formal? casual? calligraphic? handwriting? brush?), and I do not believe we have enough blackletter to worry about textura vs. fraktur vs. rotunda vs. schwabacher. Not sure where we'd place uncial.

We then could have further optional stylistic categories that don't fit into the above tree:

Anyway, what do others think of filling out the classification like this? Good idea or bad? Anything you would change to make things better?-Andrew c 17:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is—as I understand it—the most often used categorization and appropriate. Lets do it! --Parhamr 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Let me note that I used a number of sources to come up with the tree, namely Type Classification, Typographic Design: Form and Communication by Rob Carter, Ben Day, and Philip B. Meggs, and The Thames and Hudson Manual of Typography by Ruari McLean. -Andrew c 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] to anyone with an interest in how the practice of photo editing is portrayed

There is a small group of article manipulators who seem to think that photo manipulation better describes photo editing than image editing. I don't have to tell you the negative implications that are associated with the word manipulation. By directing the term "photo editing" to that article, it implies that every form of photo editing is a form of manipulation. So if you don't want to feel guilty for using photoshop, I encourage you to join the debate. Oicumayberight 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo editing does not redirect anywhere, it actually points to a disambig page for Image editing and Photo manipulation – two very different articles. Someone way back decided, without any consensus at all, to re-name the latter Photo editing which has now finally been reverted. As the disambig page clearly points out Photo manipulation is (and has always been) about the ethics of photo editing, including political uses, through to the cultural impact that the proliferation of image editing software has had, concerned with historical statements of fact. It's clearly NOT concerned with POV judgments of a profession, as you imply. Far from involving a "small group of manipulators", the discussion about it was months and hundreds of posts long, involved several RfCs and many different editors. If you missed getting involved then, by all means, bring up the subject again, but I would advise you to read the original debate before jumping to absurd and unfounded conclusions. --mikaultalk 09:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aviary (application suite)

I've created Aviary (application suite), mainly because it wasn't there. I have absolutely no knowledge of the subject, but I had been seeing it around the internet, so there you go. It is currently a bit crap. I would very much like it if people who are actually good at doing things would fix it up a bit. Thanks. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)