This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infographic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Sbwoodside 05:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
According to Edward Tufte (1983): "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information", page 40, Minard's graphic shows six variables:
Not to be nitpick about the variable count but I never saw "altitude" being mentioned as a displayed variable in the graph and I can see no hints that show altitude.
--Michael N
Wouldn't it be worth mentioning the ways in which graphs and charts can be distorted (such as starting the y axis of a bar chart at 50 instead of 0) in order to mislead? After all, in this way they can be turned from tools of information to tools of misinformation, which seems kind of important to me. Kasreyn 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
not really appropriate here (too specific...) , but maybe in an article about the environment or maps. Sbwoodside 04:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I am the author of several books and articles on information graphics and visual communication. My books show anyone how to turn their ideas into clear, communicative, compelling images. They are the first "how to conceptualize" books (that I am aware of). The books were targeted toward businesses so the title "Billion Dollar Graphics: 3 Easy Steps to Turn Your Ideas Into Persuasive Visuals" may lead one to believe it is not educational. On the contrary, I wish these books had existed when I was learning visual communication. I would like permission from the wathchers/administrator to link this resource (www.billiondollargraphics.com) to this page. College professors use the books as a training tool and as an example of how we apply visual communication (information graphics) to everyday needs. The books are a valuable resource for anyone interested in infographics and/or visual communication. Thank you and forgive me if this is an inappropriate venue for this request. MikeParkinson 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for investigating my request and thank you for believing in the educational value of the material. To answer your questions... The books are new and being used for upcoming classes at UMUC and UMBC. The ISBNs are 978-1-4243-1668-7 and 978-1-4243-1665-6. I am working with Amazon right now to be added to their vast database of books. I self published because of my passion for visual communication, conceptualization, and infographics. I believed in the material's benefits far more than the publishers I approached and I did not want to compromise the content to lower printing costs, etc. My published associates strongly suggested I self publish for other reasons. The only way I could think to get people to care was if I showed them how conceptualization and visual communication could benefit them (hence the title and the marketing approach). It would be a shame if the educational benefits of the books were lost because of the marketing approach. (No revenue = no books = a lost opportunity the spread the word.) The "43%" is from a 1986 study sponsored by 3M at the University of Minnesota School of Management. All statistics are from independent research done by reputable learning institutions and organizations. I will be adding my findings to Wikipedia. The history I found, my professional experience, and the sea of research from which to pull data is extraordinary and MUST be shared. I hope other Wikipedia watchers and administrators will see the value in the books and its application to Wikipedia users. If anyone doubts the value, please download a free copy of the Introduction at http://www.billiondollargraphics.com/books.html. Thanks again to all who support Wikipedia and care about the content. You touch more lives than you know.
The Wikipedia infographics entry assumes all infographics are used for objective communication. What about businesses? Most professionals use infographics to communicate AND influence or motivate. The goal to persuade as well as communicate does not prevent a visual from being classified as an infographic. I added a link to an article that explains this fact (Billion Dollar Graphics). Please keep the link available for those of us that use infographics for persuasion as well. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeParkinson ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
Yes, I agree. The term "information graphic" is very broad indeed. There is a long list of subcategories (depending upon how granular the list). Entertainment was not addressed because business professionals typically focus on communicating information (data or the like) as well as less obvious messages like trustworthiness and professionalism. (There is more to it than that but for sake of brevity I will stop.) Many of the graphics we see are often informative and entertaining (some ads, political cartoons, book covers). I consider myself an “information graphic artist.” My goal is to share information in a way that is easily digested, memorable, appealing, and influences or motivates the audience. I strongly believe that most “aware” designers are information graphic artists and may not even know it (or categorize it as such). It sounds as if you have focused some time on the topic. If you have time to chat email me at info@billiondollargraphics.com. Perhaps, I can send you my books and get your thoughts. 68.100.249.171 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need the terms "Information graphics" or "Infographics"? What do they denote that is not already encompassed by existing terms such as "chart," "graph," "diagram," "illustration," etc.? Nothing, it seems. If the new term(s) do add something, then the opening paragraph of this Wikipedia entry should explain what. Otherwise, the new terms are just creating noise/confusion. (And why do we need to employ two words--"information graphics" --or join two syllables--"infographics"--when one will suffice--"graphics"? In other words, what does "information" add that "graphics" does not already convey?) I suggest that a broad enough term already exists to encompass all concepts that the new term(s) appear likely to comprise: The existing phrase is "illustration." Jeff10706 ( talk) 03:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Infographics are commonly used by businesses for advertising and by non-profits for spreading awareness. It would help to provide context if there was more information on the role infographics have come to play in social media, business and advertising. ChatterbotALICE ( talk) 09:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't find anything in the major listings that would describe this (
chart?)
So what type of graphic would you classify it as, and why isn't that part of the 'types' section (or why doesn't the type of graphic it is, have a description which encompasses it)?
~ender 2007-04-25 12:22:PM MST —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
70.167.217.162 (
talk) 19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
I was trying to encourage the use of inline citations. See WP:CITE for more info on them. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Since the two concepts are related, shouldn't the two articles be linked somehow? -- Syd Barrett ( talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
For example:
Are the plainest data charts like the image to the left considered to be infographics? I think they are, but I am not sure. See:
I think it is an evolving term. I like the definition here:
This broad definition would help greatly in classification and category naming at the Wikimedia Commons. "Infographics" is a very common term, and a Google search finds hundreds of thousands of pages using it:
Looking at the pages seems to confirm the broad definition of the word. So do Google Scholar searches:
At the moment there are now three definitions of infographics in Wikipedia and Wikicommons:
In this article, in the category and in commons]:
There is a conflickting situation here, because all point at different directions.
Now the difference is in the second part:
I think this is confusing situation which we should avoid. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Timeshifter has renamed Category:Infographics overnight on his own to Category talk:Diagrams Category:Information graphics, claiming this first was a bad name. The thing is that both names are common good. I think changing the one to the other should be talked about first? Isn't there a procedure here? Could somebody take a look at this? Thanks you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 12:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we please discuss this subject here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 15:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the category has been renamed for the wrong reason. User:Timeshifter names "bad name", but seems nothing bad about this name "Infographics". It is a common name. This name seems even more familiar then "Information graphics". I googled both terms and found:
It seems logical to prefer the term infographics above information graphics. I will copy this argumentation to the Wikipedia page, and hopefully get some more response over there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Why do we need the terms "Information graphics" or "Infographics"? What do they denote that is not already encompassed by existing terms such as "chart," "graph," "diagram," "illustration," etc.? Nothing, it seems. If the new term(s) do add something, then the opening paragraph of this Wikipedia entry should explain what. Otherwise, the new terms are just creating noise/confusion. (And why do we need to employ two words--"information graphics" --or join two syllables--"infographics"--when one will suffice--"graphics"? In other words, what does "information" add that "graphics" does not already convey?) I suggest that a broad enough term already exists to encompass all concepts that the new term(s) appear likely to comprise: The existing phrase is "illustration." ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff10706 ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Information graphics -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
We need a better image than that DC map to represent infographics. I say "better" because the DC map has only a few variables, compared to other, richer maps. The DC map contains: line colour, stop name, relative stop location, some municipal boundaries and names. I propose we change the image to the Cincinnati transit map because it contains more variables in a smaller space. It therefore is relatively richer in information than the DC map, and a more effective example of an infographic. The variables it contains are: line name, line frequency both relative and absolute, neighborhood boundaries, zone boundaries, area characteristics(park, city, or institution), transit hubs, street names, bus speed(in the "timepoints"), travel time(from "timepoints" and frequency), and business districts. Also, by incorporating the ten-minute "timepoints" it gives the reader an idea of geographic distortion, something the DC map fails at, since DCs central stops are much closer together than people using the map would suspect. Bike756 5:42, 6 March 2012
Fair point. Still, I'll say we need something better. The DC map is little more than a diagram. How about we bump up one of the classics like the Nightingale rose chart or the Minard Napoleon march? We could also enlarge a slice of the Cincinnati map which does indeed look better up close. Bike756 —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC).
The result of the move request was: page moved. No explicit opposition to the suggested target. DrKiernan ( talk) 10:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Information graphics → Infographic – These are referred to as infographics in the field of journalism. [2], [3] Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 03:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I have just worked with two other people to do extensive edits to this page. Here is a summary of what we did:
1) The History section was regrouped into Early Infographics, 20th Century, and 21st Century. The Modern Practitioners section was deleted and that information was added to the history section. Most of the information in the History sections was heavily edited (for grammar and organization) and added to in some places. Some irrelevant or extraneous information was deleted. The previous organization just seemed slightly disjoint, and we felt it would be more cohesive with this reorganization.
2) The Information Graphics Subjects section was deleted, as well as Visual Devices. Both of these headings seemed a bit unclear, and relevant information was put into other sections. Elements of Infographics was significantly added to and made into a main section.
3) A section was added for Data visualization in Infographics since data visualization is commonly used in infographics. Several pictures were added here as examples (all from Wikimedia Commons)
4) A section was added for Infographic Tools, since there are so many of these available today
5) Many references were added
6) A few external links were deleted that seemed irrelevant or inappropriate.
Please let us know what you think of these edits, we are hoping that everyone will like them. We feel that they really helped to flesh out this article and improve the organization.
Debralynng ( talk) 01:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed content about infographic resumés since it was supported only by commercial web sites or primary sources (actual resumés). I think this would be a useful addition to the article but it needs good, non-commercial secondary sources. I am uneasy with linking directly to individuals' resumés and think we should link to a reliable, external list of example resumés instead. I also think we should add a section on Applications where this use and others could be described. Joja lozzo 18:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
A user has created a new article titled Edugraphic. It looks to be a fork of this article. Can some editors familiar with the subject take a look at that article and see what attention it needs? — C.Fred ( talk) 15:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Edugraphic as currently written is unduly promoting usage of the term while admitting it is not in wide usage, and thus may not be a notable topic. Additionally, the term is defined so vaguely as to include potentially any image in a textbook. If edugraphic is found to be a distinct thing, then develop it as a subset of Infographic with reliable sources and only split if its size and/or distinctness eventually requires it. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 19:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a new fashion of posters referred to as "Infographics" but which in fact do not use graphics to convey information and thus do not appear to conform to the definition of Infographic presented in this article ("graphic visual representations of information, data or knowledge intended to present complex information quickly and clearly"). I've tried to find discussion of this extension of the definition online, but failed to find any notable source. Here are some mentions of this issue from non-notable sites (please add anything more informative):
The reason I'm bringing this up is that an image of this sort has been used as an example on this article for a long while (a political pamthlet added on 15 September 2013 by Ryomaandres):
I removed this image, since I believe it does not agree with the text at all. An option I could see as reasonable is to add a new section to the article discussing these kinds of posters that convey non-graphical information as falling under a broader definition of "Infographic". This new section would need to contain notable references that refer to a broadening of the definition.
"Six by nine. Forty two." ( talk) 22:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Infographic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Infographic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Give a example picture of infographics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.24.121 ( talk) 07:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infographic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Sbwoodside 05:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
According to Edward Tufte (1983): "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information", page 40, Minard's graphic shows six variables:
Not to be nitpick about the variable count but I never saw "altitude" being mentioned as a displayed variable in the graph and I can see no hints that show altitude.
--Michael N
Wouldn't it be worth mentioning the ways in which graphs and charts can be distorted (such as starting the y axis of a bar chart at 50 instead of 0) in order to mislead? After all, in this way they can be turned from tools of information to tools of misinformation, which seems kind of important to me. Kasreyn 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
not really appropriate here (too specific...) , but maybe in an article about the environment or maps. Sbwoodside 04:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I am the author of several books and articles on information graphics and visual communication. My books show anyone how to turn their ideas into clear, communicative, compelling images. They are the first "how to conceptualize" books (that I am aware of). The books were targeted toward businesses so the title "Billion Dollar Graphics: 3 Easy Steps to Turn Your Ideas Into Persuasive Visuals" may lead one to believe it is not educational. On the contrary, I wish these books had existed when I was learning visual communication. I would like permission from the wathchers/administrator to link this resource (www.billiondollargraphics.com) to this page. College professors use the books as a training tool and as an example of how we apply visual communication (information graphics) to everyday needs. The books are a valuable resource for anyone interested in infographics and/or visual communication. Thank you and forgive me if this is an inappropriate venue for this request. MikeParkinson 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for investigating my request and thank you for believing in the educational value of the material. To answer your questions... The books are new and being used for upcoming classes at UMUC and UMBC. The ISBNs are 978-1-4243-1668-7 and 978-1-4243-1665-6. I am working with Amazon right now to be added to their vast database of books. I self published because of my passion for visual communication, conceptualization, and infographics. I believed in the material's benefits far more than the publishers I approached and I did not want to compromise the content to lower printing costs, etc. My published associates strongly suggested I self publish for other reasons. The only way I could think to get people to care was if I showed them how conceptualization and visual communication could benefit them (hence the title and the marketing approach). It would be a shame if the educational benefits of the books were lost because of the marketing approach. (No revenue = no books = a lost opportunity the spread the word.) The "43%" is from a 1986 study sponsored by 3M at the University of Minnesota School of Management. All statistics are from independent research done by reputable learning institutions and organizations. I will be adding my findings to Wikipedia. The history I found, my professional experience, and the sea of research from which to pull data is extraordinary and MUST be shared. I hope other Wikipedia watchers and administrators will see the value in the books and its application to Wikipedia users. If anyone doubts the value, please download a free copy of the Introduction at http://www.billiondollargraphics.com/books.html. Thanks again to all who support Wikipedia and care about the content. You touch more lives than you know.
The Wikipedia infographics entry assumes all infographics are used for objective communication. What about businesses? Most professionals use infographics to communicate AND influence or motivate. The goal to persuade as well as communicate does not prevent a visual from being classified as an infographic. I added a link to an article that explains this fact (Billion Dollar Graphics). Please keep the link available for those of us that use infographics for persuasion as well. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeParkinson ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
Yes, I agree. The term "information graphic" is very broad indeed. There is a long list of subcategories (depending upon how granular the list). Entertainment was not addressed because business professionals typically focus on communicating information (data or the like) as well as less obvious messages like trustworthiness and professionalism. (There is more to it than that but for sake of brevity I will stop.) Many of the graphics we see are often informative and entertaining (some ads, political cartoons, book covers). I consider myself an “information graphic artist.” My goal is to share information in a way that is easily digested, memorable, appealing, and influences or motivates the audience. I strongly believe that most “aware” designers are information graphic artists and may not even know it (or categorize it as such). It sounds as if you have focused some time on the topic. If you have time to chat email me at info@billiondollargraphics.com. Perhaps, I can send you my books and get your thoughts. 68.100.249.171 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need the terms "Information graphics" or "Infographics"? What do they denote that is not already encompassed by existing terms such as "chart," "graph," "diagram," "illustration," etc.? Nothing, it seems. If the new term(s) do add something, then the opening paragraph of this Wikipedia entry should explain what. Otherwise, the new terms are just creating noise/confusion. (And why do we need to employ two words--"information graphics" --or join two syllables--"infographics"--when one will suffice--"graphics"? In other words, what does "information" add that "graphics" does not already convey?) I suggest that a broad enough term already exists to encompass all concepts that the new term(s) appear likely to comprise: The existing phrase is "illustration." Jeff10706 ( talk) 03:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Infographics are commonly used by businesses for advertising and by non-profits for spreading awareness. It would help to provide context if there was more information on the role infographics have come to play in social media, business and advertising. ChatterbotALICE ( talk) 09:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't find anything in the major listings that would describe this (
chart?)
So what type of graphic would you classify it as, and why isn't that part of the 'types' section (or why doesn't the type of graphic it is, have a description which encompasses it)?
~ender 2007-04-25 12:22:PM MST —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
70.167.217.162 (
talk) 19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
I was trying to encourage the use of inline citations. See WP:CITE for more info on them. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Since the two concepts are related, shouldn't the two articles be linked somehow? -- Syd Barrett ( talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
For example:
Are the plainest data charts like the image to the left considered to be infographics? I think they are, but I am not sure. See:
I think it is an evolving term. I like the definition here:
This broad definition would help greatly in classification and category naming at the Wikimedia Commons. "Infographics" is a very common term, and a Google search finds hundreds of thousands of pages using it:
Looking at the pages seems to confirm the broad definition of the word. So do Google Scholar searches:
At the moment there are now three definitions of infographics in Wikipedia and Wikicommons:
In this article, in the category and in commons]:
There is a conflickting situation here, because all point at different directions.
Now the difference is in the second part:
I think this is confusing situation which we should avoid. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Timeshifter has renamed Category:Infographics overnight on his own to Category talk:Diagrams Category:Information graphics, claiming this first was a bad name. The thing is that both names are common good. I think changing the one to the other should be talked about first? Isn't there a procedure here? Could somebody take a look at this? Thanks you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 12:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we please discuss this subject here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 15:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the category has been renamed for the wrong reason. User:Timeshifter names "bad name", but seems nothing bad about this name "Infographics". It is a common name. This name seems even more familiar then "Information graphics". I googled both terms and found:
It seems logical to prefer the term infographics above information graphics. I will copy this argumentation to the Wikipedia page, and hopefully get some more response over there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Why do we need the terms "Information graphics" or "Infographics"? What do they denote that is not already encompassed by existing terms such as "chart," "graph," "diagram," "illustration," etc.? Nothing, it seems. If the new term(s) do add something, then the opening paragraph of this Wikipedia entry should explain what. Otherwise, the new terms are just creating noise/confusion. (And why do we need to employ two words--"information graphics" --or join two syllables--"infographics"--when one will suffice--"graphics"? In other words, what does "information" add that "graphics" does not already convey?) I suggest that a broad enough term already exists to encompass all concepts that the new term(s) appear likely to comprise: The existing phrase is "illustration." ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff10706 ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Information graphics -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
We need a better image than that DC map to represent infographics. I say "better" because the DC map has only a few variables, compared to other, richer maps. The DC map contains: line colour, stop name, relative stop location, some municipal boundaries and names. I propose we change the image to the Cincinnati transit map because it contains more variables in a smaller space. It therefore is relatively richer in information than the DC map, and a more effective example of an infographic. The variables it contains are: line name, line frequency both relative and absolute, neighborhood boundaries, zone boundaries, area characteristics(park, city, or institution), transit hubs, street names, bus speed(in the "timepoints"), travel time(from "timepoints" and frequency), and business districts. Also, by incorporating the ten-minute "timepoints" it gives the reader an idea of geographic distortion, something the DC map fails at, since DCs central stops are much closer together than people using the map would suspect. Bike756 5:42, 6 March 2012
Fair point. Still, I'll say we need something better. The DC map is little more than a diagram. How about we bump up one of the classics like the Nightingale rose chart or the Minard Napoleon march? We could also enlarge a slice of the Cincinnati map which does indeed look better up close. Bike756 —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC).
The result of the move request was: page moved. No explicit opposition to the suggested target. DrKiernan ( talk) 10:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Information graphics → Infographic – These are referred to as infographics in the field of journalism. [2], [3] Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 03:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I have just worked with two other people to do extensive edits to this page. Here is a summary of what we did:
1) The History section was regrouped into Early Infographics, 20th Century, and 21st Century. The Modern Practitioners section was deleted and that information was added to the history section. Most of the information in the History sections was heavily edited (for grammar and organization) and added to in some places. Some irrelevant or extraneous information was deleted. The previous organization just seemed slightly disjoint, and we felt it would be more cohesive with this reorganization.
2) The Information Graphics Subjects section was deleted, as well as Visual Devices. Both of these headings seemed a bit unclear, and relevant information was put into other sections. Elements of Infographics was significantly added to and made into a main section.
3) A section was added for Data visualization in Infographics since data visualization is commonly used in infographics. Several pictures were added here as examples (all from Wikimedia Commons)
4) A section was added for Infographic Tools, since there are so many of these available today
5) Many references were added
6) A few external links were deleted that seemed irrelevant or inappropriate.
Please let us know what you think of these edits, we are hoping that everyone will like them. We feel that they really helped to flesh out this article and improve the organization.
Debralynng ( talk) 01:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed content about infographic resumés since it was supported only by commercial web sites or primary sources (actual resumés). I think this would be a useful addition to the article but it needs good, non-commercial secondary sources. I am uneasy with linking directly to individuals' resumés and think we should link to a reliable, external list of example resumés instead. I also think we should add a section on Applications where this use and others could be described. Joja lozzo 18:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
A user has created a new article titled Edugraphic. It looks to be a fork of this article. Can some editors familiar with the subject take a look at that article and see what attention it needs? — C.Fred ( talk) 15:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Edugraphic as currently written is unduly promoting usage of the term while admitting it is not in wide usage, and thus may not be a notable topic. Additionally, the term is defined so vaguely as to include potentially any image in a textbook. If edugraphic is found to be a distinct thing, then develop it as a subset of Infographic with reliable sources and only split if its size and/or distinctness eventually requires it. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 19:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a new fashion of posters referred to as "Infographics" but which in fact do not use graphics to convey information and thus do not appear to conform to the definition of Infographic presented in this article ("graphic visual representations of information, data or knowledge intended to present complex information quickly and clearly"). I've tried to find discussion of this extension of the definition online, but failed to find any notable source. Here are some mentions of this issue from non-notable sites (please add anything more informative):
The reason I'm bringing this up is that an image of this sort has been used as an example on this article for a long while (a political pamthlet added on 15 September 2013 by Ryomaandres):
I removed this image, since I believe it does not agree with the text at all. An option I could see as reasonable is to add a new section to the article discussing these kinds of posters that convey non-graphical information as falling under a broader definition of "Infographic". This new section would need to contain notable references that refer to a broadening of the definition.
"Six by nine. Forty two." ( talk) 22:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Infographic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Infographic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Give a example picture of infographics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.24.121 ( talk) 07:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)