Talk:Image development (visual arts)/Archive 1

No References

This article contains no references or sources, and a simple google search showed no results of the phrase being used in the manner described here - all results being of the "Corporate Image Development"/ Branding type. Suggest the article is deleted. --Davémon 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the term is simply "image development". It's advertising agency jargon. The problem is the same industry used the term to describe branding. I added "Graphical" to make the distinction. The word "image" has multiple meaning. Here's a google search that puts it closer to the context. It's fair to say that there isn't references, but that slightly different from OR. It would have been challenged long before now if that were the case.

Note the content of this page speaks nothing of branding or corporate image

GraphicMentor is a website that provides tutorials for graphic design and image development. The objective of this website is to provide you with another resource that you can use when researching ways to complete a design, construct an image, or add asthetic value to your artwork.

here's a course

Integrated Digital Application 1 — GMD-104 This course introduces three major software applications used throughout the Graphic Media Design program: digital illustration, imaging and layout application. The content focuses on image development using digital media. Students learn to work with principles of design, colour and typography while improving their technical proficiency.

This page calls it "visual image development".

Here's another course page Oicumayberight 22:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I still maintain that the term is not in common useage under the definition you have here, and will be confused with it's more popular Branding meaning to the layman, however you have supplied some sources so that helps! There are still several unqualified statements, such as "Since the computer has merged skills" which require citations - surely the Airbrush was used with Photography in 'Graphic Image Development' before the common use of computers? Also "creative professionals may find "image development"..." is mealy-mouthed, and needs verification of people who do find it usefull, and use the term. I'll flag up the ones that need attention on the article. --Davémon 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "since" doesn't necessarily mean "not before" or "not until". The article isn't about computer graphics as much as it's about multi-talented methods. Oicumayberight 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's just the overuse of the word may in the article it should be rewritten as making definite statements. See WP:WEASEL. Also there is a considerable overlap with what would be commonly considered to be mixed media illustration. --Davémon 15:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This neither contradicts nor echos either the mixed media article or the illustration article. If anything it compliments those articles. The mixed media and the multimedia articles are about combining multiple forms of media. Mixed media is mainly associated with traditional media. Multimedia is associated with electronic media, new media, and digital media. This article is about combining multiple methods of producing media. For example 3D modeling and Photoshop illustration are both methods of producing photorealistic illustrations. In the context of mixed media, they both are the same form of media, digital. In the context of multimedia they both may be the same form of media, still pictures. And yet, in the context of image development, they are two different methods, 2D rendering vs 3D modeling. Within photoshop there are multiple methods such as using filters vs using a stylus.

As for the use of weasel words, not every statement needs to be sourced if it's obviously true. You could put a reference request on every sentence in every article, but what would be the point. It's make it necessary when the obvious is stated and nobody disputes the facts. Oicumayberight 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is 'obviously true' to you is just 'your opinion' to someone else, and yes, your 'facts' are being disputed. I do not see that "visual image development" warrents inclusion in Wikipedia, and can see no evidence of it's common usage in Graphic Design literature. I may be wrong, but without citations, how can anyone know? Either way, the content of Wikipedia still needs to be verifiable. The sources you have sited seem to appear to be only primary sources and not secondary sources. i.e. they are of people using the phrase "Image Development" in order to define their practices, and not reports about the use of the phrase "Image Development" (please see WP:CITE). I've no idea why you've bought multimedia, process, and media into the debate, as it doesn't seem relevant at all. Please update the article so it avoids weasel words and has verifiable citations WP:CITE to back up your claims. --Davémon 15:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't warrant inclusion in the wikipedia? Look at all the websites that reference this article. "Graphic image development" is #1 on google searches for the term. This article is #2 on google searches for the term "image development". Out of all the people reading this, you are the only one who has objected to it. What's your agenda? It's seems to be just your opinion that it's just my opinion. Oicumayberight 20:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does pointing to 13 automated scraper sites answer my objections to the lack of citations, and therefore the lack of validity, of your article? As an example: "Image development also includes images generated without human interaction such as fractal art." According to who? can you cite a source for this statement? If not, then it's unverifiable, and has no place in Wikipedia. My only opinion is that this article doesn't cite it's sources, so I can't verify whether it's correct or not.--Davémon 14:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything doesn't have to be printed for it to be obviously true. If you have a reason to disbelieve, than state it. Oicumayberight 19:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. However, articles in Wikipedia do need to be verifiable, see WP:VERIFY and again, I refer you toWP:CITE.--Davémon 21:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources

This article only references primary sources:

Image development can be linked into participatory exercises, using it as an opportunity to extend involvement in a programme and to give valuable feedback. Steps could include: – Testing material with groups, building in their own ideas – Participatory exercises like mapping – Photography: people can be given disposable cameras to use, with minimal instruction and little cost. Results can be used in different ways.

Reference: Adam Burke, Communications & Development a practical guide, March 1999 pp:29 web link

Juxtaposition:An image-development strategy used to place,side by side,two or more images or elements in a way that changes the meaning or affect of each.

Reference: Melanie Scott, ArtsSmarts: A handbook for artists and educators Using the power of the arts to release the creative potential of young people, Canadian Conference of the Arts 2003 pp:66-70 web link

While the printing process changed, physical materials were still the basis of image development.

Reference: web link

None of the references given suggests that the phrase is used to "encompass the development of graphics (mainly computer graphics) for use in media." Computer graphics aren't mentioned at all, nor is media, and nor specifically are graphics. Two of the cases specifically mention traditional media - print and photography.

Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary

WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT - defining terms

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY -

WP:NEO

Not only is this article defining a term - a purpose which Wikipedia is expressly not intended for it is, by definition of it's references, defining that term incorrectly.

As such I've flagged this article for deletion.--Davémon 21:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a dictionary article. Just because there is no word for word definition of graphic image in those articles doesn't mean that those articles do not define graphic image development. The articles define the meaning by the content of the articles in which the term is used. There are plenty of articles and authors on wikipedia that don't quote there references word for word. You just don't like the article for some other undisclosed reason. Oicumayberight 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a nice, well written, and (now) well referenced article, it's just not Encyclopedic in its content or scope, so it should be removed, perhaps you could publish it elsewhere? Please read: WP:NEO section titled Reliable sources for neologisms. I'll leave it for now, and AfD it in a couple of weeks. --Davémon 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every wikipedia article is defining a word or term in it's opening. It's almost impossible to write about anything without using definitive words like "is". This article discusses the importance of the term, which is more than a dictionary would do.

Nowhere in the article does it mention the "importance" of the term - and even if it did, it would violate NPOV. --Davémon 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of neologisms and statements that don't quote references word-for-word. Very few people would subscribe or contribute if none were allowed. WP:NEO article says to avoid them, which I interpret to mean avoid them if possible.

Image development isn't a new word. It's a phrase of old words with new importance. There's no denying that any means of developing images is "image development". It's like saying "red cars" to describe cars that are painted red. If there were no books published exclusively about red cars, would you call "red cars" a neologism? If I wrote an article about "red cars" that stated "red cars are cars that are painted the color red", would you need a word-for-word reference in print to believe it were true? Would it be wrong to write about the importance of red cars because the opening statement of that article is not referenced?

No it would be wrong to define the term 'Red Cars' in the way you describe on wikipedia, because wikipedia is not a dictionary. The Image Development article is re-defining a word pairing in a way which proposes that it has a special significance outside it's common, and obvious use, and therefore should be considered a neologism for reference purposes. --Davémon 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no denying the term "image development" is out there and being used in context. There is currently no other word in our vocabulary to describe image development in general. "Mixed media illustration" (the alternate term you suggested) only applies when there is mixed media. Yet a 3-D model wouldn't be considered mixed media unless it included photography or illustrations created by other means than 3-D modeling. But nobody can deny that 3-D modeling is a form of image development. So, for lack of a better word, image development will be used with or without this article. Isn't it nice that someone can look up the meaning and importance of the term with references in context somewhere? Oicumayberight 07:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet'image development' doesn't require any further explanation than simply looking up the words 'image' and 'development' in a dictionary, any more than "sausage manufacturing" or "goat farming" or "drawing pictures" does. And futher, the specific explanation this article proposes is directly contradicting many of the sources provided (or worse isn't used at all in the case of the "Further Reading" section. --Davémon 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What contradictions are you referring to? Oicumayberight 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 are noted at the beginning of this talk page, in the section subtitled Primary Sources. --Davémon 11:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not contradictions. A contradiction would be an opposing definition. Oicumayberight 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman. They are contradicting your definition by not using the term in the way you belive it is used. --Davémon 17:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't understand the meaning of umbrella term. Not every umbrella term was defined in mass print as such before it was understood to be an umbrella term. You still haven't shown a more accurate umbrella term to describe this concept. Mixed media and illustration are two separate concepts. Illustration is not commonly associated with photography as proven by the number of links that separate the two and the Illustrator article that mentions illustration as an alternative to a photograph. Mixed media does not address different methods and tools of image development on the computer. Oicumayberight 22:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to define terms, 'umbrella terms' or otherwise. --Davémon 11:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being defined on the wikipedia. It's being cited on the wikipedia as having been defined by the referred sources and the context in which those sources used the pre-existing term. Oicumayberight 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not define the term, they simply use a common word pairing in a general manner. What is the agent that is synthesising the specific definition from the primary sources and context? is it you, or is it a reliable, verifiable secondary or tertiary source? --Davémon 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to use the term "image development" in the same sense: [[1]] Bus stop 22:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. The article is a good example of the term used in context and the importance of the term. Oicumayberight 00:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articls is a primary source, and so not a reliable reference. it just furthers the case of this entire article being original research, based soley on primary sources. I.E. going around colecting examples of use, from books and websites, then saying that they all mean one thing (when clearly the authors intentions differ), is original research. As for 'importance' see Wp:notability --Davémon 17:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't used in the article. So calling it a primary source doesn't invalidate it's relevance in the discussion. Oicumayberight 22:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is providing primary sources helpful in regards improving this article? this discussion page isn't intended for any other type of discussion. --Davémon 11:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was useful for the the discussion, not the article. Oicumayberight 21:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't Remove AFD

Can you please not remove the AFD flag until after the period of discussion is up and a consensus has been reached. It's important that the wider Wikipedian community get to have a say other than the author and the challenger. There is no 'official' or 'unofficial' way of flagging an AfD. --Davémon 17:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an attempt to by pass discussion. It didn't look like the AfD template I'd seen before. I overlooked the link to the discussion page and thought that it wasn't included. That's why I was originally deleted it. Oicumayberight 00:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Cite Sources

After a discussion with the admin it was agreed that I should AfD this article again. However, I thought it might be useful to allow other editors to actually cite any sources which may exist for these claims first, so have flagged up the statements require citations (again). Please note: citing sources isn't the same as just making a random list of books which happen to have the words 'image' and 'development' in them - we need specific evidence here!

You are misrepresenting the admin's position by stating that the "admin agreed that you should AfD this article again". Here's a copy of that discussion. I highlighted in red what seems to be ignored in your misrepresentation:

Could you clarify reasons for the 'keep' decision, it still looks like unverifiable original research which mis-cites its sources to me! Thanks. --Davémon 15:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I acted based on the discussion. More people wanted a keep and they had quite good arguments, you were the only one who opposed and yours was a little shaky. Thanks. Cbrown1023 talk 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit my grounds are shakey - after all it's impossible to prove a negative (i.e I can't prove that there are no secondary sources for the so-called-phrase) - however no evidence emerged to forward the positive case that these sources do exist. None of the keep arguments actually addressed the issues of WP:OR, WP:V or WP:NPOV. As for the 'Keeps' themselves, 1 was made before I'd fully written out the reason (my mistake!) - so is only responding to dicdef. 1 was the original author. 1 was a claim about 'importance' (which contravenesWP:N?). Also, I don't want to finger point, but the final one of the Keeps was an anonymous users first edit - possibly a sock-puppet? So I'm not sure a consensus was actually reached as such. --Davémon 17:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Then, renominate itfor a better decision. Cbrown1023 talk 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Would you advise that over a WP:Deletion_review? --Davémon 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
yes, because this isn't really a Deletion... Cbrown1023 talk 17:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an advisory to renominate it for a better decision. The admin actually called the argument to keep "quite good" and your argument "a little shaky". And now you are just making the same shaky argument over and over again. It's become your mission to defy common sense. Oicumayberight 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an appropriate debate for an article talk page, if you want to address me directly, please feel free to use my talk page, as I will reply to you on yours. --Davémon 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own advice. Your the one who brought it up on this page. Oicumayberight 20:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was about improving the article, your comments seem to be about me and your imaginary version of my interpretation of the conversation with the admin. Please read my comment on your talk page with regards personal attacks. We do have different opinions, but we're all on the same team here - trying to build the best encycolpedia in the world! --Davémon 20:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goal has always been to improve the article. If you really want to improve it, find the resources that would meet your level of expectation as valid. Your arguments have been made and disputed. They are well documented on this talk page. Repeating the same arguments over and over again, scrutiny beyond levels normally tolerated on the wikipedia, and demands for word-for-word quotations in secondary sources are counterproductive. Oicumayberight 21:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:V "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." If you think the level of scrutiny is too high - any source that actually defines the phrase as a term with a specific meaning, or uses it expressly in each the ways mentioned in the article seems reasonable to me - I've marked the material with 'citation needed'. --Davémon 21:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now you admit that you are just seeking to remove it. That's not exactly trying to improve the article now is it? I've provided sources. You just don't except them as valid. Your reasons are well documented and well disputed. There is no reason to beat a dead horse here. Oicumayberight 21:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If no sources are supplied for the spurious claims being made, then they should be deleted. That's how we stop false information being entered into wikipedia, and so improve it as a whole. I've shown (above) that your 'sources' do not back up the claims in the article - nobody other than myself has actually claimed to have checked them. --Davémon 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are making assumptions. Your arguments are circular. It's basically an argument that the sources are not valid sources "because you say so". Oicumayberight 22:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They only appear circular because they actually haven't been answered. Do you have a source for: "The term is also in contrast to "image editing" which excludes the capturing of images, creation of images from scratch by sculpting or rendering, and creation of images by calculating fractal mathematical functions" at all? --Davémon 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is referring to wikipedia articles that exclude (meaning don't include) those definitions. If you wish to edit those articles to include or can find other sources that include what is excluded, then it would be questionable if "image editing" means more than image editing. Oicumayberight 00:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask what it was refering to, I asked for a source. Specifically what is being asked for is a secondary source where the term 'image development' is explicitly used in contrast to 'image editing' - preferably with reference to scultping, rendering, and fractals. Otherwise this statement is just an opinion of how the term might be used, but in reality isn't. --Davémon 12:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

If by chance you are reading this article and find it odd that every single statement (no matter how true) is being challenged as needing a source and that every source is being challenged as insufficient, perhaps this is the reason. It's painfully obvious that the sole disputer of this article is rejecting community input. The sole disputer is either disrupting to illustrate a point or has a hidden agenda. The sole disputer's arguments are well documented and well disputed by multiple members. Oicumayberight 00:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by chance your reading this article, and find it odd that none of the statements has a source, perhaps this is the reason. It's painfully obvious that the sole contributor of this article is rejecting community input. The sole author is either attempting to own a corner of wikipedia or meerly advancing another pet theory. The sole authors inability to provide sources for the statements made is well documented is well disputed by multiple members on multiple occasions. --Davémon 12:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a disambiguation page

This page is not a disambiguation page. There is an Image development (disambiguation) page for this article which is linked at the top. The same user who nominated the page for deletion appears to be doing more disrupting to illustrate a point and rejecting community input. For the unbiased version of this page, see the version after the AfD notice was removed. Oicumayberight 20:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody suggested that this was a diambiguation page) but that the use ascribed in the article isn't supported. --Davémon 09:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is supported even if you consider the sources primary. And even if it were not supported, that doesn't give you the right to turn it into a disambiguation page when one already exists and is linked from that page. That's disrupting to make a point. Oicumayberight 21:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I did not turn it into a diambiguation page, this is a strawman argument. I simply added evidence for the non-notability of the "phrase" and improved the formatting somewhat. February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can look at your edit and see what you did to the page. You did everything short of labeling it a disambiguation page. Oicumayberight 10:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estabishing Meaning

Referencing Specific Statements

Do I really have to go and get the quotes from every single one of your so-called references in order to prove to you that they don't correlate with your "definition" of the term? Wouldn't it be easier, and better for the article, if you linked the individual references to the individual statements being made, so that they could be verified by a casual reader more easily? Or can't you do this, because the references don't actually support your position and there is a small leap of imagination required from reading the references to inferring your definition? --Davémon 08:43, 23

I can't link the statements. The references are in print. By your statements, it appears that you haven't checked the references. Get the books and the quotes and post them if your so sure that they don't support the article. The only one that doesn't is the C. P. Wong one that I removed but accidently restored when I reverted your disruptive editing. The rest of the references are obvious when you read the full context. You can even tell by the titles of some of the references what the context is. There are 100s of books on the subject that I didn't list because they don't use the term. Sure, there is no book about the use of the term. There doesn't need to be. When the words are used in context, the meaning is obvious. The article is a citation of cases where the term is used and why it may be used. It has some WP:POV which is allowed on the wikipedia. The only point you've made against the article worth noting is the neologism argument, which is questionable at best. It's not even a new term as much as it is an old phrase with new importance. Oicumayberight 10:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you've misunderstood me, I don't mean link to a web-resource, that would be asking too much! Where you've made a statement in the article like:

"Image Development means this"

Link the actual reference, like:

"Image Development means this" <ref>Your reference here</ref>.

That way, the actual statements in the article are being referenced, rather than the reader having to assume that your statements are born out by your 'references' and inferring meaning by context. Is there any reason this cannot be done? --Davémon 11:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I had it set up that way. I changed them to general references because you seem to expect word-for-word quotes, which none of them are.

I've looked through the document history, and can't find a version where this is done. Either way, it should be done for the current version. --Davémon 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The meanings were defined by the context in which they were used. Some of them supported multiple statements. I was indecisive about which statements were supported more by which sources, so I left them general. Oicumayberight 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could break down your statements into ones that can be directly sourced, rather than the menaing being inferred. --Davémon 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful to who? For what purpose? Helpful for you to make more troll arguments against it? All you are looking for is things to the contrary. Everyone else who has read this article accepts the obvious and doesn't need it spelled out word-for-word. I've already spent way too much time on this article, and you are just looking for ways to undo the effort. Oicumayberight 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It simply can't be done because the sources do not back up your position. Otherwise it would be a simple thing for your to do. This isn't trolling, it's simply asking that your content is verifiable. --Davémon 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None-use of term.

Why do these major, relevant sites not use this so-called term at all?

Professional computer graphics companies do not use the specific term "Image Development"

"Adobe "Image Development" Search". Retrieved 21/02/07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
"Corel "Image Development" Search". Retrieved 21/02/07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Design communities do not use the term

"Design Talkboard". Retrieved 21/02/07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

People do not identify themselves as an "Image Developer"

"Design Week". Retrieved 21/02/07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
"Monster "Image Developer" Search". Retrieved 21/02/07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
"AIGA search for "image developer"". Retrieved 21/02/07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

So now we actually have some real evidence about the non-use of the phrase as a specific term as described in the article. Is there any out there to support it's use? --Davémon 09:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are these? Anti-resources? The lack of popularity of the term does not cancel out the meaning or usefulness of the term. There still isn't another term with as broad of a scope, distinguishing all methods of image development from any method of composition, that's as easily understood when used in context. Find one and I would be happy to use it instead. Oicumayberight 21:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-resource?" No. This is positive proof that the term is not notable. Popularity would be better guaged by simply counting the number of times the two words appear next to each other, and would prove very little. What the above list contains are highly relevant sources which one would expect to use the term, were it actually in use by creative professionals as the article claims. If we deal with issues around notability and establish the use (or lack thereof) first, we can progress to addressing "meaning and usefulness" separately. --Davémon 08:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the article never states that anyone identifies themselves as an "image developer". Most image developers have a forte which they use. Most creative professionals don't call themselves "creative professionals" either. You are making straw man arguments.

Not at all, the term 'creative professionals' is used to describe these people by third parties. 'Image Developer' is not, and nor is 'Image Development' used to describe what they do - unless you can provide sources that show it is used. So we can delete "creative professionals may find 'image development' a more flexible umbrella term to avoid over-specifying".--Davémon 11:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an obfuscating troll argument. If everyone were as critical as you are on this simple and obvious meaning, wikipedia would have never got off the ground. The article is about image development. You are the one making assumptions how "Image developer" would be used. The first reference in the article supports the statement in question. And it is a POV statement anyway. The only reason to delete it would be a reference showing that it would be inaccurate to use the term in that way. Oicumayberight 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. It says that at the bottom of every edit window. That doesn't mean 'Encycolopedic content is justified unless proven otherwise'. If you can't verify it's use in the way you have described, then it's deleteable --Davémon 19:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing your searches prove is that you are looking in places where it's less likely to be used as the exact phrase. Do a search on "image"+"development" and you'll get hits on even those pages. Oicumayberight 10:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that will find pages which have the words "image" and "development" on them, but a search for the phrase "image development" would find the exact phrase, if it existed. The exact phrase is what we're talking about. As for Adobe, Corel, Design Week and AIGA being 'less likely' to contain phrases specifically refering to the production of images in relation to media and using computers - this is clearly nonsense. --Davémon 11:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the subject and the terms. There is plenty of reference for the exact phrase being used. But if you were actually interested in the subject (instead of just suppressing the article) you could find reference to the subject by using the two words "image" and "development" in those articles as I've shown. Oicumayberight 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that doesn't establish that the two words "image" and "development" are widely used as a phrase. --Davémon 19:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add the words "graphic" or "visual" and you get even closer. The exact phrase is found on monster.Oicumayberight 10:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link monster - lists jobs about creating "software images / bundles", commonly known as gohost images, and have nothing to do with creating visual images, but rather 'disk images' or ghosts of software. Are you actually reading the sources you're claiming? --Davémon 11:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Oicumayberight 10:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the one for a "content producer" which uses it in context. Obviously you didn't or you purposely ignored it.

The Content Producer is responsible for development of content and assessments to be included in SCORE! educational products. ... Three to five years experience in development of content for online products, including broad knowledge of various processes involved at the individual contributor level including art design, image development, Flash animation development, audio recording and integration, instructional item development, editorial processes, quality assurance procedures, etc.

Sure, there are other contexts. That's why I made the disambiguation page. Oicumayberight 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even you must admit that 1 use out of 18 isn't a very good score! Also, we can't be sure that someone having written that job-spec hasn't been misguided by this article. --Davémon 19:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've shown plenty of links on the web that use the exact phrase in context in addition to the resources in print. You are just trying to divert attention from those and this article. Oicumayberight 10:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they aren't as reliable sources as the ones that don't. If you'd like to build a case for the use for the explicit use of the words as a phrase, that would be very helpful to this debate. --Davémon 11:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Oicumayberight 10:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the case. You are just ignoring the evidence. And you making a case of where the phrase is not used, doesn't invalidate where it is used. Oicumayberight 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the case you've made. --Davémon 19:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

READ FROM THE TOP OF THE TALK PAGE AND THE REFERENCES. IF YOU DON'T AGREE AFTER THAT, THEN IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION VS THE CONSENSUS. I'M DONE FEEDING WP:TROLLS HERE. Oicumayberight 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have linked to 4 none notable websites above. No consensus has been reached about their validity. I really wonder why anyone would believe that the marketing materials of a minor web development business such as "outflow.net" should be accepted as a more reliable source than than AIGA or Adobe in determining the use of language relating to the development of images for use in media. --Davémon 11:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the term were not notable or useful, than this page would simply be ignored. A simple google search shows otherwise. Oicumayberight 10:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already countered this argument. They are scraper sites, and don't help establish notability. --Davémon 11:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki article wouldn't get as high of a ranking if people were not reading it. Oicumayberight 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding of how Googles ranking algorythem works. It's not based on people reading the content. You might notice Wikipedia articles come up at #1 for most terms which are titles of wikipedia articles - it doesn't establish notability. --Davémon 19:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something to consider

Here is an article on Skills management. I think this is somewhat a parallel to the Image development article, in that it is just two words put together. One can argue that the putting together of two words need not constitute the subject of a valid article. But one can also argue that meaning exists in that particular pairing, as concerns a history of usage. I still do not know if Image development is a valid topic for an article. I simply do not know. But I thought I'd call your attention to this other article. Perhaps the parallels can shed light on the present issue concerning the Image development article. Bus stop 06:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Bus Stop. Design engineer is another example. Perhaps its because the dictionary doesn't include phrases. There are many of these articles, some under-sourced and well noted. I would consider those works in progress as this article may be. It's these works in progress that make wikipedia so useful. Some of these articles get merged, renamed, or deleted. This article is more of a sub-page link for multiple articles than a stand-alone article. Merging it would be OK if it were only pertinent to one article. Renaming it would be OK if there were a better more widely used umbrella term. Deleting it was already considered and voted against in the AfD. Debates over what the term means, the scope, and if the term is being used are counter-productive at this point. In context the meaning is obvious, but the scope is not. The article is about the usage and scope of the term. Citations of term usage makes the scope a little clearer. At this point it's a question of how it's being used on the wikipedia, how can it be improved, and what are the alternatives. Oicumayberight 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of a similar problem. The term 'skills management' does appear to be used very frequently by major (and minor) software vendors selling products for HR departments. Filling wikipedia full of marketing 'buzzwords' and 'catch-phrases', and then trying to find sources for them post-hoc probably isn't a good idea. The article really does need to be sourced properly by someone. Establishing a history of usage is a good take on the problem - but this must be through secondary or tertiary sources(a dictionary of Human Resources terms for example) , so as not to constitute original research. It's only really when the actual statements being made have direct references and citations that we can decide whether the information is verifiable or not. If it's not verified, then it's my understanding that WP:VERIFY says we should delete it. Also by way of contrast - 'skills management' is 90% about a set of activities that the phrase 'skills management' refers to, wheras 'image development' article appears to be 90% about justifying the use of 'the term' itself, contrasting it with other terms, where 'the term' may be used, how 'the term' supposedly originated, the terms 'significance', etc. --Davémon 19:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pairing of two words isn't so much the issue here as is the pairing of two words when one of them is a homonym and another is a vague word. I'd say that it constitutes an article even more so than the pairing of two words that are not a homonym or as vague. Take "project management" for example. Because it is a profession in high demand, the term is used much more widely and therefor, nobody questions it's need for an article. However, because those words are so easily understood, the subject can be summed up in a sentence like I did for this inquirer on the talk page. Is there really anything different that a project manager does that a person with "manager" in his or her job title wouldn't do when managing a project?

Back to the original point. Here we have a homonym "image" that needs to be defined by the context in which it's used. A dictionary won't do that by itself. It will only show the different contexts in which a word is used. Is it a mental formulation or a physical appearance? The subject must define the context. As explained in the article the same profession may use it in either context adding to the confusion. Then there's the vague word "development", which can be as narrow as anything involved in development or as broad as everything involved in development. So the two words by themselves are not as self-explanitory as say "project management". There is a sharper distinction between corporate image development and graphic image development than there is project management and management in general.

So why would someone use graphic image development? That's what the article is for. There's no doubt that the phrase is being used as shown by the sources and link on the talk page. The reason is simple. It's an umbrella term. Nobody would use an umbrella term if it weren't needed. But because it's potentially confusing, there should be some source somewhere clearing up the confusion. The thing wikipedia is best at is clearing up confusion with rare articles explaining things. If I saw a website where a company offers image development as one of there services, and I looked it up on google, there is a good chance I might get a page showing the wrong context. Seeing as how graphics are most often required in developing the corporate image and yet graphics are used for numerous other applications besides corporate image development, its safe to say that there is more graphic image development being done on a daily basis than corporate image development. And yet there is more advertisement and talk surrounding improving the corporate image. So unless there is a better umbrella term, the issue will come up again and again. It's nice that when you do a google search now, the confusion can be cleared up with a click and a quick read. Oicumayberight 20:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is where the confusion occurs. Corporate 'image development' does actually have a narrow, specific definition when used in identity and branding whereas everyone is free to use the words 'image development' in any other situation - as defined by the meanings of the words image development. Just because there is 'a' narrow definition of a given word-pairing used in one certain circumstance, it doesn't follow that all (or any other uses require a defintion. --Davémon 19:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]