Wallpaper Computer Background Information
Source(google.com.pk)
It seems to me that either computer wallpaper has the trivial definition of "any image used as a desktop background" (probably including single coloured, dithered shading and tiling), in which case we might want to decide whether to either put every*1 image that we have into this category (as they are potentially usable as "wallpaper", or more strictly only include images that have actually ever been used as desktop wallpaper (which would be an interesting insight into peoples tastes :-)*2.
Currently categorisation as "Wallpaper" appears to be done without any assessment as to whether images really are likely to be used as a computer desktop background. The stated criteria for this category is that the images are of a particular aspect ratio*3. If that is the criteria, then just get a bot to maintain the category. In fact aspect ratio is fairly irrelevant as most computers have a variety of crop/stretch/tile options that can make use of most any image. Most people will use whatever image they happen to like at the time as their desktop, whatever the aspect ratio. In short, the tag as presently applied is worthless.
I have endevoured to find a discussion about desktop wallpaper that suggests criteria, I have as yet found nothing useful. I think it boils down to something that is not too distracting when trying to spot icons that you have stored on the desktop. In my experience the images that I use for the longest periods are ones that either:
are predominantly one colour (or shades there of), and not too bright (pale colours) and low contrast
or have large horizontal bands of a couple of colours
Images that don't work at all are (mainly because they camouflage icons)
images with lots of detail and sharp edges or high contrast
images with lots of text or numbers
images with lots of fine detail ("busy" images)
overall bright images
images with a bright spot like the moon/sun etc (distracting and what about monitor burn?)
I have looked at sites which offer "computer wallpaper" and they do appear to have selection criteria, although what that is, is never stated. I realise this is very subjective, and depends on things like whether you have few or many icons on your desktop, and your preference setting for things like text colour.
So is it possible to agree on criteria, or does the term have so little meaning that we should either put all or no images in here? --Tony Wills (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
1 Including animations and movies - VLC and probably other programs can play material as a desktop background image (uses DirectX on Windows platforms, may not be available for other platforms)
2 Might want to specify that they have to have actually lived with it for more than a day, before it is acceped as "used" ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
3 I haven't mentioned resolution as that really depends upon your computer, maybe 800x600 is good enough. I haven't mentioned "pleasing" as a criteria as that just means an image that pleases someone, I expect almost every image pleases someone. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Wallpaper assessments lacks any kind of accepted criteria currently aside from that it needs to be a FP. I wonder if such a criteria is really necessary?
Automated means can be used to assess the height and width of the file as well as the files size and type. These can be used to eliminate some files that are too small (such as animated gifs and the earliest FPs) or incompatible (svg, ogg files) to be wallpapers. Multiple categories based on resolution can also be populated automatically. Such technical means are unavailable currently as this discussion was rushed. I was hoping to start a discussion such as this one once the technical means were available.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 10:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you still confused by the categories and templates? This computer wallpaper category doesn't require anything to be featured. Have you read the above material - ogg files can be used as wallpaper too. The whole question is not a technical one, it is a question of definition. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Featured or not assessment can be made automatically. It would be similar code to make automatic assessment. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
That is not an "assessment" that is a computation. Just as it has little value to select FP, QI or VI with a computation, an assessment of usefulness as "wallpaper" by computation is of marginal value. If you want to automate categorization of images by aspect ratio into aspect ratio categories, then that's fine, do it with a bot or add-on to the wikimedia software. But don't put that computation in the same class as other Commons assessment processes. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The process does not have to be entirely human oriented. Assessments can be based on computation. The user should merely worry about "this image is good enough to be a wallpaper" and software (template code) should determine how to categorize it. A user shouldn't be expected to worry about technical issues like aspect ratios, file sizes and etc.
I would think it would be a better place to start with FA, QI and VIs as wallpapers than files that have no such prior assessment. Promotion to "wallpaper" status does not have a vote associated with it so using FA/QI/VI would be a QC mean readily available.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Thank you for bringing the subject to discussion. Although it is a relatively minor issue it has already caused serious lateral disputes and needs to be solved in a consensual way. I fully agree with Tony's initial assessment and also find very difficult to establish clear criteria on what a computer wallpaper is or should be. In my opinion the questions that need to be answered are: i) Is it really necessary to define the concept and classify the pictures accordingly?; ii) If the answer is 'yes', how should the tagging be done: with a template, by categorization or both? iii) Should the tagging be applied to all pictures or only to FP? Personally, I very much doubt that identifying the potential wallpaper images is really useful for someone looking for a suitable background. Anyway, categorization is the correct way to do it and the process should be extended to all pictures, not just to FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Source(google.com.pk)
It seems to me that either computer wallpaper has the trivial definition of "any image used as a desktop background" (probably including single coloured, dithered shading and tiling), in which case we might want to decide whether to either put every*1 image that we have into this category (as they are potentially usable as "wallpaper", or more strictly only include images that have actually ever been used as desktop wallpaper (which would be an interesting insight into peoples tastes :-)*2.
Currently categorisation as "Wallpaper" appears to be done without any assessment as to whether images really are likely to be used as a computer desktop background. The stated criteria for this category is that the images are of a particular aspect ratio*3. If that is the criteria, then just get a bot to maintain the category. In fact aspect ratio is fairly irrelevant as most computers have a variety of crop/stretch/tile options that can make use of most any image. Most people will use whatever image they happen to like at the time as their desktop, whatever the aspect ratio. In short, the tag as presently applied is worthless.
I have endevoured to find a discussion about desktop wallpaper that suggests criteria, I have as yet found nothing useful. I think it boils down to something that is not too distracting when trying to spot icons that you have stored on the desktop. In my experience the images that I use for the longest periods are ones that either:
are predominantly one colour (or shades there of), and not too bright (pale colours) and low contrast
or have large horizontal bands of a couple of colours
Images that don't work at all are (mainly because they camouflage icons)
images with lots of detail and sharp edges or high contrast
images with lots of text or numbers
images with lots of fine detail ("busy" images)
overall bright images
images with a bright spot like the moon/sun etc (distracting and what about monitor burn?)
I have looked at sites which offer "computer wallpaper" and they do appear to have selection criteria, although what that is, is never stated. I realise this is very subjective, and depends on things like whether you have few or many icons on your desktop, and your preference setting for things like text colour.
So is it possible to agree on criteria, or does the term have so little meaning that we should either put all or no images in here? --Tony Wills (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
1 Including animations and movies - VLC and probably other programs can play material as a desktop background image (uses DirectX on Windows platforms, may not be available for other platforms)
2 Might want to specify that they have to have actually lived with it for more than a day, before it is acceped as "used" ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
3 I haven't mentioned resolution as that really depends upon your computer, maybe 800x600 is good enough. I haven't mentioned "pleasing" as a criteria as that just means an image that pleases someone, I expect almost every image pleases someone. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Wallpaper assessments lacks any kind of accepted criteria currently aside from that it needs to be a FP. I wonder if such a criteria is really necessary?
Automated means can be used to assess the height and width of the file as well as the files size and type. These can be used to eliminate some files that are too small (such as animated gifs and the earliest FPs) or incompatible (svg, ogg files) to be wallpapers. Multiple categories based on resolution can also be populated automatically. Such technical means are unavailable currently as this discussion was rushed. I was hoping to start a discussion such as this one once the technical means were available.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 10:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you still confused by the categories and templates? This computer wallpaper category doesn't require anything to be featured. Have you read the above material - ogg files can be used as wallpaper too. The whole question is not a technical one, it is a question of definition. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Featured or not assessment can be made automatically. It would be similar code to make automatic assessment. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
That is not an "assessment" that is a computation. Just as it has little value to select FP, QI or VI with a computation, an assessment of usefulness as "wallpaper" by computation is of marginal value. If you want to automate categorization of images by aspect ratio into aspect ratio categories, then that's fine, do it with a bot or add-on to the wikimedia software. But don't put that computation in the same class as other Commons assessment processes. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The process does not have to be entirely human oriented. Assessments can be based on computation. The user should merely worry about "this image is good enough to be a wallpaper" and software (template code) should determine how to categorize it. A user shouldn't be expected to worry about technical issues like aspect ratios, file sizes and etc.
I would think it would be a better place to start with FA, QI and VIs as wallpapers than files that have no such prior assessment. Promotion to "wallpaper" status does not have a vote associated with it so using FA/QI/VI would be a QC mean readily available.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Thank you for bringing the subject to discussion. Although it is a relatively minor issue it has already caused serious lateral disputes and needs to be solved in a consensual way. I fully agree with Tony's initial assessment and also find very difficult to establish clear criteria on what a computer wallpaper is or should be. In my opinion the questions that need to be answered are: i) Is it really necessary to define the concept and classify the pictures accordingly?; ii) If the answer is 'yes', how should the tagging be done: with a template, by categorization or both? iii) Should the tagging be applied to all pictures or only to FP? Personally, I very much doubt that identifying the potential wallpaper images is really useful for someone looking for a suitable background. Anyway, categorization is the correct way to do it and the process should be extended to all pictures, not just to FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Pictures Photos Images 2013
Pictures Photos Images 2013
Pictures Photos Images 2013
Pictures Photos Images 2013
Pictures Photos Images 2013
Pictures Photos Images 2013
Pictures Photos Images 2013
Pictures Photos Images 2013
Pictures Photos Images 2013
Pictures Photos Images 2013
Pictures Photos Images 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment