Talk:Glitch art

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (it was originally copied from here to facebook) --Nickamust (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a copyright violation of this page, either. The content was originally written for Wikipedia between 2007 and 2009, while the blog is dated 2010. See this revision, for example. A more complete version of the article is at User:Freshacconci/Glitch art. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to go ahead and recreate the article, we should go with the slightly better version that had been userfied. I managed to find some decent sources but didn't have the time to really work on rewriting the article. I will migrate some of the old article from my userspace into the article and we can go from there. freshacconci talktalk 15:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

At this stage, AfD would be a more appropriate venue than PROD. Also, the restored template was still messed up, so I removed it again. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've found a number of sources that should now establish notability--I've listed them under "further reading". They all directly address this topic. The article needs some expansion and those sources need to be incorporated into the article, but as it stands I think this article can be kept. freshacconci talktalk 13:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

File:AproposAutismGlitchArt.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AproposAutismGlitchArt.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

.TIF uncompressed?

"The best image file types to use for this method are “.TIF” and “.RAW”, as these are uncompressed formats".

TIFF is sometimes uncompressed, but it's entirely possible (even common in some contexts) to have compressed TIFFs. Moreover I get the impression that section is talking about file-formats without headers or meta-data ("Other file types normally contain data which acts as a specifier, letting the computer program know what the file is"). TIFF has a header which is likely to be corrupted by transformations performed in Audacity. I'd suggest removing the reference to TIFF, or perhaps moving it alongside the BMP reference (a format which is usually uncompressed but carries a header; though again, there are variants of BMP which have compression).Dave (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glitch art. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229055113/http://thecreatorsproject.com/blog/chicagos-glitch-fest-disrupts-the-traditional-gallery-space to http://thecreatorsproject.com/blog/chicagos-glitch-fest-disrupts-the-traditional-gallery-space

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent deletion

Obviously, there is no rationale for removing this section. The original link is archived and clickable. There's nothing controversial about the actual text and unless @Elis Greth: has a better reason to delete this section, they should refrain from reverting, especially as they've now reached three reverts. Also pinging @Felida97:. freshacconci (✉) 13:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Updates needed

Seems most literature and refrences are older than a decade and only few from last 5 years. --Zblace (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)