![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Halcombsr.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I am pulling this leaf image -- no longer convinced it is a collage. Contacted the author. No response.
I have been developing this article based upon sources documented in the References section. But do I also need to footnote sources or insert the citation for specific claims to "world's largest montage" in the Montage enlargement section? Fishdecoy 19:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Who is David Ridge? -- Dan121377 01:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
How about Adrian Brannan? I am going to remove the sentence from the section on Russian/ Soviet Constructivism, as it is wildly out of place temporally and geographically and has no references other than a Wikipedia page that seems similarly undersourced, making it in a sense a form of vandalism. Brannan does appear to be primarily operating in the commercial world, FWIW. More importantly there are many more contemporary photomontagists, quite a few of them women, a gender that appears to be almost totally lacking from this page. Actio ( talk) 01:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
This article has a bunch of issues. The tone is one of art criticism, rather than a general encyclopedia. It voices a lot of opinions that fall into POV or original research. The layout also needs work, as it's overloaded with images. A few examples are fine, but it seems like everybody wanted their work included in this article and piled it on with no regard for overcrowding. On my monitor it's an absolute mess. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 05:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. These are not exemplary historical examples but some sort of armchair photoshop bullshit. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
169.229.207.111 (
talk)
19:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
"But it is largely soccer moms cutting and pasting family images into scrapbooks who are propelling a worldwide interest in montage. " ... Are we sure it's worldwide? Rich Farmbrough, 14:14 24 November 2006 (GMT).
sorry about that...I thought I was editing my own page..oops
The photoshopping issue should be addressed by reasoned arguments based on verifiable sources. DreamGuy's removal based on "actually, there IS consensus that Photoshopping means Adobe Photoshop..." was pointed out to be assuming a false state of arffairs. He re-did it with "regardless of hotly contested there, no verifiable and authoritative resource has ever been offered to support the idea that the term means anything other than use Photoshop so it's gone". So I provided one such verifiable source. We can talk about what's authoritative, but there are certainly many reliable sources that use the term and/or define the term as different from using Adobe Photoshop. Dicklyon 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Following a copyedit of the useful Renau (et al) content, I've pulled this as I can't find any sources to support it. If you have the refs (and you know what it refers to!) by all means reinsert it.
[...]coming from magazines like Life, Squire, etc.
mikaul talk 21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added the {{ inclusion}} template here, this is an indiscriminate list of people who may use the photomontage technique and as such is not encyclopedic. As the tag says, there is no inclusion criteria defined, for instance, are these artists prize-winning? Are they all members of a group or a specific genre? No. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
If you think that this is an interesting example of step by step photomontage, you are welcome to add this series to the article. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky ( talk) 13:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Halcombsr.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I am pulling this leaf image -- no longer convinced it is a collage. Contacted the author. No response.
I have been developing this article based upon sources documented in the References section. But do I also need to footnote sources or insert the citation for specific claims to "world's largest montage" in the Montage enlargement section? Fishdecoy 19:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Who is David Ridge? -- Dan121377 01:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
How about Adrian Brannan? I am going to remove the sentence from the section on Russian/ Soviet Constructivism, as it is wildly out of place temporally and geographically and has no references other than a Wikipedia page that seems similarly undersourced, making it in a sense a form of vandalism. Brannan does appear to be primarily operating in the commercial world, FWIW. More importantly there are many more contemporary photomontagists, quite a few of them women, a gender that appears to be almost totally lacking from this page. Actio ( talk) 01:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
This article has a bunch of issues. The tone is one of art criticism, rather than a general encyclopedia. It voices a lot of opinions that fall into POV or original research. The layout also needs work, as it's overloaded with images. A few examples are fine, but it seems like everybody wanted their work included in this article and piled it on with no regard for overcrowding. On my monitor it's an absolute mess. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 05:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. These are not exemplary historical examples but some sort of armchair photoshop bullshit. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
169.229.207.111 (
talk)
19:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
"But it is largely soccer moms cutting and pasting family images into scrapbooks who are propelling a worldwide interest in montage. " ... Are we sure it's worldwide? Rich Farmbrough, 14:14 24 November 2006 (GMT).
sorry about that...I thought I was editing my own page..oops
The photoshopping issue should be addressed by reasoned arguments based on verifiable sources. DreamGuy's removal based on "actually, there IS consensus that Photoshopping means Adobe Photoshop..." was pointed out to be assuming a false state of arffairs. He re-did it with "regardless of hotly contested there, no verifiable and authoritative resource has ever been offered to support the idea that the term means anything other than use Photoshop so it's gone". So I provided one such verifiable source. We can talk about what's authoritative, but there are certainly many reliable sources that use the term and/or define the term as different from using Adobe Photoshop. Dicklyon 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Following a copyedit of the useful Renau (et al) content, I've pulled this as I can't find any sources to support it. If you have the refs (and you know what it refers to!) by all means reinsert it.
[...]coming from magazines like Life, Squire, etc.
mikaul talk 21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added the {{ inclusion}} template here, this is an indiscriminate list of people who may use the photomontage technique and as such is not encyclopedic. As the tag says, there is no inclusion criteria defined, for instance, are these artists prize-winning? Are they all members of a group or a specific genre? No. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
If you think that this is an interesting example of step by step photomontage, you are welcome to add this series to the article. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky ( talk) 13:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)