Talk:Knowledge visualization

Should this be merged?[edit]

Knowledge visualization Talk Page

Can someone explain to me how this is different from information graphics ? Sbwoodside 02:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling this is an marketing exercise for a particular slant on it. As the article states "Knowlege visualisation is a young..." - it's not really an established area and the content should really be merged back into information graphics / Graphic Design, unless anyone has any objections? --Davémon 09:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may put {{merge}} tag or one of its variant on these pages. This may bring more attention. Pavel Vozenilek 17:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge to Scientific visualization (which merged Information visualization). The article here has been repeatedly listing unpublished materials, often by what appears to be the authors themselves. With a merge it will be easier to avoid the WP:V, WP:OR and WP:VAIN issues. I'll go ahead with the tags when I have a bit more time. --Ronz 15:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if the purpose is to better visualize business information? ThreePD 01:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific visualization doesn't really describe the educational, knowledge or paradigm transfer purpose of representations or models of mathematical structures. For instance where does using an Argand diagram for complex numbers go? Those programs trying to show us how to see 4d figures are another example. And do we really have to call it visualisation when it's haptic or aural? Information graphics really doesn't cover them either. Here's an [meccano 3d viewer] I made which shows the sort of thing I mean, for a better 4d feel I'd like something with force feedback too. -Dmcq 09:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I cleaned up the external links and completely removed the "Knowledge Visualization references" section per WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:NOT. This is a very short article so far that could benefit from cleanup and verifiable, reliable sources. If I removed anything that was actually used as a source, please reenter it specifically as a reference. --Ronz 18:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paper references were accurate and reliable, at least reenter tergan/keller and burkhard/eppler, the guys who defined the discipline.--Bitdragon 11:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]