Wikipedia talk:No 3D illustrations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Good start

Seems an excellent start to me, suggest that a few more comments be solicited (from prolific image uploaders perhaps, from those that seem active in the area, from the 3d uploading user so that there's some counterpoint) and then this page moved to Wikipedia namespace as a proposed guideline or even policy.... ++Lar:

Marty- I too think that this is a good start, but then again I am not an authority on Wikipedia policy. Stude62 22:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments copied from 3dnatureguy's talk page

3D "compatible image technique" is intended to allow images with encrypted stereo information to be postedfor general use. Obviously there are 3D images that would look terrible on a general reference site. Anachrome is a techniquethat is practiced without "royalties" or certification by hundreds of photographers, world wide. It is an "alternative"methodology, because it trades off extreme 3D effect for "compatability. There is a National Association of Stereoscopy,that has thousands of supporters. Most Wiki editors are not members. Most Wiki editors know knowthing of the recent advances in 3D. The very same thing was true in 1935 when Eastman Kodak introduced Kodachrome. It took years for National Geographic much less the Encyclopedia Britianica to include color photos on a large scale. Anachrome is analagous to this. It is superior to previous simple 3D in regards to color. It is used, and mentioned by USGS website dealing with the US National Parks. The advise the public that there images will look best with Anachrome filtering. To lump Anachrome with crude, poorly layered 3D images would be unfair.3dnatureguy 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC) The USGS page you talk about is a specific 3D website. I have no problem with that and feel it is a great resource for people who have easy access to the required glasses and actually want to wear them to browse the web. What you are doing at wikipedia is the equivelent of the USGS replacing the images on their main webpage with a 3D ones. This would significantly reduce the quality of their webpage for users not fanatical enough about 3D to have there "anachrome" 3D glasses handy. I am lumping "anachrome" with crude 3d images because it still shows visible artifacts that I and many others think detract from the image, and leaves a very unproffesional taste from a website claiming to be an encyclopedia. If and when anachrome becomes as popular as colour photography, I will give up complaining and you will be welcome to come back and replace every image on wikipedia with a fantasticly 3D one. Until that point I believe these images should form a secondary layer on wikipedia rather than be used as primary illustrations. --Martyman-(talk) 22:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This guideline and associated talk page was moved from User:Martyman/Sandbox3. The edit history of the pages before this time is recorded there. --Martyman-(talk) 00:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Martyman: I don't doubt your good motives. I too am interested in a great Wikipedia. I have been involved in museum and documentary work since college days. My historical film on the Navjo Indian "Code Talkers" has been well recieved,even praised by critics. All new technologies must consider the issue of "backward compatibility". Anachrome, unlikely earlier forms of simple stereo acheive that. here are some images at thumbnail size. Are they not vivid? Are they not capable of teaching or illustrating a point? The fact is that "false color" electron microscope image of a virus, or the output of NASA's new "STEREO" 3D solar dual orbiters of the sun, or anything small and hard to interpret, gains from 3D presentation.

• Image: 1951 Mercury.jpg
• Image: 1940 Ford.jpg
• Image:Modern "basic" Hot Rod.jpg
• Image: Commodus in lion skin.jpg
• Image: Antoninus pius.jpg
• Image: huyganslanding.jpg
• Image: NASA Mars Ex.rover in3D.jpg
• Image: Xray for shoes.jpg
• Image:closed helmet.jpg
• Image:gorilla skull.jpg

I have changed these images from thumbnails to links as they where ruining the format of the page. --Martyman-(talk) 00:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

More feedback

IMHO, every one of those images is inferior in appearance, because of the false colors at the edges, than a straight 2D image would be. Since the goal of this encyclopedia is to make a reference work that anyone can use, even the "little girl in africa", who will be reading this on a hand cranked 100 USD laptop, and won't have 20 cents to spare on glasses, I oppose use of those images. WP is not:

• a primary source.
• a place to seek notability for new things
• a place to experiment with new technologies in imaging

I think it would be better to introduce a new image classification, and to provide a straight 2D version of the image (you do have 2D versions, right?), with a linkthrough, somewhere in the image tagging, to the 3D version. IF and WHEN 3D images actually become widespread, that's when it would be time for the 3D version to be the first choice. This policy is correct as written. ++Lar: t/c 00:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to 3dnatureguy. You make your point using images at thumbnail size where the image artifacts are much harder to see. I would guess the 3D effect is also non existent at thumbnail size too. The distracting artifacts become much more noticable at full size view.

You also choose examples where the artifacts are less noticable. For an examples of images which I think look really bad see Image:Brass Lion Wine container.jpg Image:Interior of Silver Arrow cockpit.jpg and Image:Allosaurus Refleshed.jpg. I fail to see the point in settling for a reduction in image quality for a minority of people who are fanatical about 3D. The other point is that wikipedia has a long term goal of printing hardcopy versions, you yourself claim in some of your comments that the you feel the anachrome images are of no use in books. How does that fit with wikipedia's goal of being distrubted in paper form? --Martyman-(talk) 00:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for NPOV, the guidlines probably don't need to mention that the contributor of all of the 3D images also makes the glasses. It is concievable that other people may want to contribute 3D images at some point.... --nixie 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, removed. --Martyman-(talk)

Copied from villiage pump (policy)

Response from User:3Dnatureguy. Me have a chance to respond to the "tempest" that seems to have arisen over my 100 pictures posted. First I want to stress that they a generally good pictures in terms of color and relevancy. Secondly,they are supposed to look at least average, overall compared to the typical illustration at the thumb size. Has anyone bothered to look at them with any of the millions of paper glasses distributed each year? These are actually offered FREE on several websites. Here are three images posted in small thumbnails, to illustrate: Image:facade detail.jpg Image: Commodus in lion skin.jpg Image:Modern "basic" Hot Rod.jpg Anachrome is a process that places very high value on "backward compatiblitiy".There are only about 5 topics where bad 3D images ought to be "tolerated" on Wikipedia, articles about 3D and perhaps some NASA related articles. On that, we agree!

I ask you to consider that the ideal encylopedia is no longer the Britanica 1911 format, but rather something like a fusion of modern Britanica and National Geographic. Good color has come to be a staple in National Geographic, but there were many in the thirties, who couldn't conceive that a 35mm camera and a roll of Kodachrome could capture the real world in color for the magazine. Let me send glasses to the first 10 editors who take any interst. Look at these images, form an opinion on the over-all value of what you see. In the meantime I will refrain in posting more than 10 images per month, They will all be of the best possible quality in terms of "compatibility" and of course, relevancy. Finally, and most importantly I think thumbs for 3D should restricted to no larger than 150px wide, and always marked 3D as a warning to readers. Also, when both a flat version option is posted as primary, a secondary can be thumbed at one third the size of the primary. A good example is a NASA artwork, which, I think could be offered both ways. Another option would be for "stereo fans" to create our own Stereopedia, using Wiki text with our images. Is that legally doable?3dnatureguy 02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Above comment copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) with thumbnails changed to links to simplify page layout. --Martyman-(talk) 02:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that to look "Average" at thumbnail size not good enough. These images are viewed at full size and will be used as such in any printed version fo the wikipedia. The fact that there are many glasses out there does not mean that everyone has a pair at the ready while browsing the internet. Even you would have to admit the examples I posted in my post a couple up look pretty terrible in 2D. I am not arguing for the deletion of these images or for their number to be reduced, I am arguing that they should be used for a different purpose, one of an auxiliary illustrative format available through wiki commons or some other non-inline means. --Martyman-(talk) 02:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Further response to updated comment. Yes, it is fully legal for you to take the wikipedia database and install it on any system you want and add any images to it you want, though it is probably more effort than is worth just to make the 3D images the primary images for the articles. --Martyman-(talk) 02:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be over reacting to the suggestion that the 3D images not be used as primary illustrations. I feel they can still add value to the wikipedia as a secondary source of information. Hell, I would even volanteer to fancy up the example template a bit to try and pull interested people through to the wiki commons page containing the 3D images. --Martyman-(talk) 02:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Colour photography didn't require special glasses to get the intended effect - so the analogy isn't valid. As others have said, the vast majority of people simply aren't going to have the glasses to hand while browsing the internet, and the images are of very poor quality without them. - John.Conway 06:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

9th century

I agree with this proposol. For seconday images, the 3D ones are great. But, in general, I don't think they are suited as primary pictures. I found this page when I looked at 9th century. I can't say I really liked the pictures there. Although I probably would have loved it if I had 3D glasses. But who browses the internet with 3D glasses handy? Garion96 ^(talk) 02:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Exploring alternatives

I added a few alternatives in the policy section, including introducing the idea of pairing and of adding preference for people to select which of the two paired (2D and 3D) images they prefer to see, as an alternative to linking through. In my view, while I am opposed to 3D images as the primary default image type for articles that are going to print I think there's merit in allowing flexibility if it can be done. Some of the ideas I proposed on the policy section would require code changes presumably as they would add preferences. ++Lar: t/c 02:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that interest in this topic would be enough to generate code changes to implement a feature. --Martyman-(talk) 02:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how much work it would be, and how interested a developer might be in it. If the feature had more general use (some other area where alternate presentations are useful or needful, sounds perhaps?) it might either already exist, or be something implemented with great enthusiasm. My purpose in adding alternatives at this point is to broaden possibilities, if there are more... early brainstorming to make sure some clever solution no one has yet thought of isn't being overlooked. Refinement and elimination can happen later. ++Lar: t/c 02:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Paired 3D/2D images versus a 3D commons template

The suggestion that 3D images be paired with 2D images as the default sounds like a good solution, but unfortunatly will be greatly crippled by the fact that AFAIK none of the images being uploaded to wikipedia have 2D version available. Which if indavidual 3D images where disallowed would rule out most images from being used.

A commons 3D template link could be used for any uploaded 3D image. The example commons 3D template I have provided on the proposed guideline could be re-designed to make it more appealing. This would function in much the same way as the audio version links, wikiquote links and standard Commons links work at the moment. --Martyman-(talk) 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You're assuming 2D versions of 3D images aren't available. But aren't 3D images made from pairs of 2D images in the first place? Hence SOMEONE has, or had, the images. I'd like to hear from 3dnatureguy to see if one image of the pair is easily obtainable for the images he's been uploading... ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright on the underlying image might be a problem for the commons (and Wikipedia). It seems most of the "ancient" images have been lifted from various web sources, also with images like the dinosaur ones, are most likely derivative works from a 3D artwork. --nixie 03:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Response and input from User: 3Dnatureguy

Nothing has been lifted from anywhere except NASA, which is perfectly ethical and legal. These are proprietary images that I thought would be welcomed on Wikipedia. I should point out that the 100 or so images posted have only been actively challanged by a handfull of editors. Most articles were continued to be edited for content refinement. If they look so bad, why have more Wikipedians NOT raised a ruckus? I'm a former director of a small youth staffed museum, and a documentary director with a good reputation. I really believe in the value of 3D for science and art education. A statue is, after-all, a 3D picture "in the round". What you see in an electron microscope make more sense in 3D. Try to understand this concept: If a thumbnail is quite small and marked as "compatible 3D", or "opens in 3D" and it adds something to the photo coverage that would otherwise be lacking, why not cater to the few hundred thousand that do keep 3d glasses near their computer. In 2005, about 30 million pair of paper glasses were distributed, They don't all go in the trash, especially with kids. Most of the 3D fans are kids or old folks from the era when 3D was considered "more hip". Frankly, the quality of the "commons" images is not all that good, and the finding of the right one is a clunky process. Wiki needs all the photo professionals it can draw in to donate clear original material, direct from the source.

You seem to be missing the point. The claim is not that the images have no worth. It is that we should not sacrifice image quality for the "few hundered thousand" as you state it. You don't seem to understand how the commons system would work either. The images would reside on commons and the link in the specific "wikipedia" article would take you directly to the commons page with the specific 3D images on it. The pages on commons are editable the same way wikipedia is and they can be made to look nice.

Also you have been asked several times if there are 2D versions of thes eimages available. Are there? --Martyman-(talk) 04:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As to your claim that people not removing the images signals their acceptance. The point is that maybe the weren't feeling bold enough to remove them and cause a stir or maybe they just didn't care too much either way. The images have been removed from several articles, and I would have started removing them wholesale myself but thought it better to try and thrash out a policy for how these images could be best used. Also are you also User:Nativeborncal? As there are quite a few more images uploaded there by someone claiming to be you. --Martyman-(talk) 04:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

---

3Dnatureguy,

It's certainly not that we're anti-3d images, or questioning your motives or deriding you for your enthusiasm. I literally cannot WAIT for 3D monitors to hit the stores. I'm in fact a little embarassed that we've gone so far, but still don't any good, easy way to transmit a 3D image to people.

I used to do work in Visual Psychophysics research, and it would have been impossible without stereoscopic techonlogy. And I'll never forget how truly AMAZED the research subjects were the first time they put on the glasses and experienced the 3D vision. I'm sure the effect is a thousand times greater when it involves kids.

The Wikimedia world definitely needs a good, large repository of these images, and we definitely need dedicated photography professionals like you to contribute them.

The only question here is whether they're the best choice for articles pages themselves. A lot has been said about people without the glasses having to look at slightly blurry images. But really the issue goes both ways. Let's say I'm a kid who's just received a pair of the glasses. I want to start looking at all the 3D images I can find. If they're all in one place, like a wikibook, then I can easily find them, and I can enjoy all of them. But if they're spread out all over wikipedia article pages, then it will be impossible for me to find them-- I'll have to just randomly start looking through pages and hope to hit on one. There aren't going to be very many, relative to how many wikipedia articles there are, so my search for 3D images on wikipedia will wind up being very frustrating, rather than gratifying.

I too very much hope for a time when 3D images can become standard-- when every monitor can display them without needing glasses, and when almost every image on the web has 3d information. But it's not yet.

Us using 3D images on article pages would be exactly like us making pages that are only viewable under the webbrowser Opera 8.51, and completely incompatible with other browsers. It make enhance the experience for the small minority has has precisely that version of that browser, but it alienates a huge majority of visitors.

But please--- seriously consider starting a Wikibook or something like that. It would be a horrible shame if the effect of this policy was for Wikipedia to lose an enthusiastic and skilled contributor. -Alecmconroy 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, the 3D images have got to go

I hate to say it, but I don't think there's anyw way around it. The 3D images just don't work. I first stumbled upon Image:Gorilla Skull.jpg. I looked at it once. I squinted. I squinted again. I hit reload. Finally I figured out what the deal was, and so I posted something to the user who uploaded it and suggested that the images might not be appropriate.

I don't know what alternative is appropriate. It seems that so few people have glasses that I dont' know if some sort of coding "default" image preferences would be worth it, and then making visitors to the encyclopedia aware there even IS such an options.

So, I think i'd tentatively support a policy banning them outright from being inline in the articles themselves. 3D images are a wonderful idea, but unfortunately, their time just hasn't come yet. But I think there must be a home somewhere in the wikisphere for all these fabulous images (assuming copyright isn't an issue).

(I should make one very very minor technical mention about the policy-- the images should of course be allowed in articles about stereoscopic images; articles like Anaglyph image and Autostereogram obviously should include examples. ) -Alecmconroy 04:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If I didn't know what a red-green stereo image looked like, I would say that that image suffers from a bad case of chromatic aberration. --Carnildo 08:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

3D images are innapropriate for the wikipedia environment

Frankly, they just don't look right. People come to wikipedia expecting good clear images that will further their understanding of what they're reading about. People shouldn't have to go digging through their childhood memorabilia boxes or go to the toy store to get special glasses just to see a nice, clear image.

I support the idea of pairing images, so if you really want to see something in 3D, go for it. I honestly don't see that being a very popular phenomenon. If somebody's willing to put something together I'm not stopping them, so long as there is a 2D image of equal quality paired with it. --tut 05:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd go even further - 3D images simply do not belong on Wikipedia at all. We're aiming to be accessible to as many people as possible - for this reason, maps that are confusing to colourblind people are often the source of objections to featured article status. Why, then, would we have things which make no sense to most, let alone a majority, of the people looking at them? These should be shot on sight. Ambi 06:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Do 3D images illustrate the subject of the article

I really have enjoyed reading the discussion on this page. Good ideas, and good dialogue. I became involved in this discussion through the automotive makes and marques pages, so I'll frame my opinion in those terms.

My question is, do the 3D images on those pages help to illustrate the subject, or do they distract from the subject? While I find the images interesting from a technical standpoint, they do not help to provide a visual reference as they relate to the topic of the article itself.

For example, an artful photograph of a portion of the grille on one car (Pierce-Arrow) with a limited caption ("3D Anachrome image of '33 Silver Arrow") does not give the general reader any information about the car itself; that there are three images of the same car in the same format (showing the car, grille, and cockpit, ie interior) is overkill. The space would be better given over to a single 3D image and two images of other examples.

And I do think that we must keep the general user in the forefront in this discussion. Can they look something up (other than 3D imaging), go to that article and come away with truthful, verifiable information and images that clearly illustrate the topic at hand?

I am of the thought that while these images are technically interesting, when placed "en masse", they distract from the subject of the article and attempt to steal focus towards their own reason for being. Stude62 13:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Use in Education

One argument used by 3Dnatureguy is that these 3D images are valuable for educational purposes. This is true to the same extent all the other counter-argumnts here are. That is, to a limited degree that does not arrent equal standing with regular 2D color images. As an educator myself, I have students every day who use the internet to find images suitalbe for various projets. None use or have access to 3D glasses. Wikipedia is a great place to find not only information on a topic, but compatible images for use in things like PowerPoint presentations. In everyday educational contexts, 3D images are completely useless and just create more filler for studens to sift through in order to find appropriate information. I agree that there are a few instancs where these images might be apropriate, but they should be linked to as discussed on this page.The Thagomizer 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How to make 2D images from 3D

So, I'd hoped 3Dnatureguy would get around to explaining this, since his answer would probably be a lot better than mine, since he is the pro. But, I'll take a crack at it.

Yes. It is possible to reconstruct a 2D image from a 3D image. Since the anaglyph is made by taking ONE image and using image to define "RED" channel, you can simply use almost any photomanipulation software to isolate just that image. In Adobe Photoshop, the tool that does this operation is called the Channel Mixer. I have reconstructed the 2D image of Image:Gorilla skull.jpg and uploaded it to Image:Gorilla skull 2Dmono.jpg.

Since the 2D image is 'hidden within' the 3D image and no "creativity" is required to extract it, the 2D image would be of exactly the same copyright status as the 3D image.

Unforunately, this simple method can only produce a black and white image. Amazingly, there exist sophisticated algorithms that can recover the 2D images IN COLOR. See here for an example. This would NOT be easy to do, but if anyone's life depended on it, a dedicated computer scientist can reconstruct a color 2D image from a compatible anaglyph. I personally am NOT such a dedicated computer scientist, however. (whether I lack the dedication or the computer science knowledge is an open question :) ).

All this said, I don't know what effect this has on the overall debate. This means a 2D / 3D solution is possible-- we can always make a black-and-white 2D version of any given 3D image. But whether the fact that it is possible makes all the work a 2D/3D version would require worth it, I can't say.

-Alecmconroy 00:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth anyone's time but the uploader in creating 2D versions of the 3D images, and 3D uploaders don't seem to be interested in providing 2D versions. I am also not happy with a possible black an white 2D version of the images, this seems like a step backwards to me. --Martyman-(talk) 00:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Comment

When I started running into the 3D pics on articles, I thought, #1 - How odd, and #2 - I can't really see that picture. I have no problem with them going off to their own separate wikiplace, and even being connected to in articles, but I think they are distracting and disruptive to the normal articles. I am just too lazy to ever get out some kind of special device to view Wikipedia. The whole fact that this user could potentially profit from their inclusion makes me very, very ,very leery of allowing them at all, but as long a they are assigned a place (like relevent articles and lists to 3D veiwing), I'm ok. Pschemp | Talk 07:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My initial list of pros and cons. Please feel free to add you own.

• Overall PROS and CONS
  • PRO 3D images will no longer be displayed intermixed with 2D images within articles. --Martyman-(talk)
  • CON Added complication and instruction creep. --Martyman-(talk)

• I am not too sure what the exact differnce is between the first two 2D/3D options. --Martyman-(talk)
  • I guess I haven't done too well at explaining them, let me try to clarify but the basic difference is that in the more restrictive case, a 3D image (for general use, not the exceptions like for use in 3D articles) CANNOT be uploaded unless it has a matching 2D. This makes the "preference" user option meaningful (if implemented), that if there's a 3D paired with a 2D you can choose which you want presented first... In the less restrictive case, a 3D can still be uploaded but can't be used in an article (as an illustration) unless it has a 2D paired image... rewording help appreciated! these two are exclusive of each other but not of the rest (commons, etc) ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of the second option, allowing 3D images to be uploaded to wikipedia if they aren't allowed ot be used in articles and have no 2D alternative image means they would not be accessable. --Martyman-(talk) 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

They could still be LINKED from articles, just not embedded via the enhanced Image: tagging method (enhanced meaing that the automatic 3D glasses linkthrough would work). But the counter argument for that would be just upload them to Commons, then link them. So ya, maybe it's redundant. Consensus seems to be shaping nicely without it anyway. ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• • PRO The images can be uploaded to either wikipedia or commons and still work. --Martyman-(talk)
  • CON I don't think it will get support from image uploaders as they don't seem to have access (or want to give access) to the 2D images. In the case of 3dnatureguy in some of his uploads he has claimed that the 3D images have no commercial worth so he doesn't mind releasing them freely (implying this would not be the case with 2D images). --Martyman-(talk)
  • CON It would require mentioning the 3D version in every relavent caption. --Martyman-(talk)
  • CON The preference system requires support from on high to make chanegs to the code. --Martyman-(talk)
  • CON 3D images would be dispersed amoungst wikipedia's articles making them hard to find. --Martyman-(talk)

They could get their own category (take type of glasses as a sub-cat). And what about usting {{3d glasses}} in the picture caption, that way all articles with 3d pictures can easily be found (put the template into a category). --Dschwen 23:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wikibook option
  • PRO It would collect all 3D images in one place to help people with 3D intrests find a large collection of useful images. --Martyman-(talk)
  • PRO If images are placed on commons it can happen in conjuction with the other methods. --Martyman-(talk)
  • CON If used as the sole solution the images would no longer be connected with wikipedia. --Martyman-(talk)

• Commons 3D link option
  • PRO Would link into articles using a similar template as currently used for audio, wikiquote, wiktionary and standard commons. --Martyman-(talk)
  • PRO Categorisation could be used on commons to group together all 3D images to make it easier for interested people to find 3D images. --Martyman-(talk)
  • PRO Would utilise the existing commons pages that already exist for many articles. --Martyman-(talk)
  • CON Existing images would have to be re-uploaded to commons and moved off wikipedia. --Martyman-(talk)

I concur with Martyman's analysis

Just stopping by to put in my two bits on this debate: I concur with Martyman's view that 3D pictures should be kept to a minimum on Wikipedia. While interesting, they should generally be posted on Commons and connected to Wikipedia through appropriate links from relevant Wikipedia articles. I concur with all of the above editors who have expressed concern that such images are annoying and distracting to the vast majority of Wikipedia users who do not have 3D glasses nearby. The typical user in a public library or at home is simply not going to have 3D glasses handy, because most people do not need to look at 3D pictures most of the time. Even if I owned a pair, I doubt I'd be able to find them quickly in the clutter on my desk. --Coolcaesar 09:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

OK, it looks as if there may be support behind this guideline, so what excact form should it take? I would suggest that it could be a combination using almost all of the current options. ie:

• 3D images can be uploaded to wikipedia if paired with a 2D image, the 3D image will be displayed on the 3D image's description page and be advertised through the use of a template in the image caption.
• If there is no 2D version available the 3D image should be uploaded to commons and can be linked to from a cross wiki template at the bottom of the article.
• The 3D images on both wikipedia and commons should have some sort of template added describing how to view them and added them to a 3D image category for easy finding.
• The option of creating a 3D wikibook is always open and is not effected by this guideline. As well the option of added functionality for optional 3d images could always be added at a later point.

I have created a mockup at User:Martyman/Sandbox2 with linked images. The two templates could do with some more work. I would like clicking on the glasses in the image caption to be a direct link to the paired 3D image (maybe utilising {{click}}), at the moment it isn't too inuitive. I have also included a 3D commons link at the bottom, I think this could also be made to look better, maybe incorporating the glasses into the look. I think it would be good if the glasses motif could also be used to highlight the 3D images on the associated commons page though I am unaware of their policies on that. Possibly just a section heading saying "3D images" woudl suffice. --Martyman-(talk) 11:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

{{click}} seems to work neither in Firefox nor in Konqueror (you know, the browser that just passed the Acid2 test :-) ). The 3D images sister-project-box should not link to the commons gallery page, but to a subsection of that commons page which always has the same title i.e. #3d_images. --Dschwen 12:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sure there must be another way of doing it. You are right, linking to a section of the page is a good idea. --Martyman-(talk) 20:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have played around a bit with my mockup and come up with a template that seems to work for the 3d glasses thing. You can specify where you want them to link to. It still needs a little fine tuning, as there are some unexplained issues with it. --Martyman-(talk) 04:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually like this idea, but I think it would be nicer if the image of the 3D glasses (in the thumbnail frame) was a little smaller, like the other Zoom button. This is just a UI consistency thing. And don't forget Safari was the first one to pass the Acid2 test :-P.--Ctachme 12:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a go making at a bit smaller, not sure I prefer it though. --Martyman-(talk) 13:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Custom Logo

For 3D images see the Wikimedia Commons page on:

No 3D illustrations/Archive 1

I went ahead and created an SVG anaglyph version of the commons logo. This might be problematic due to the license of the original logo! --Dschwen 12:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I like this design, it gets the idea across nicely. I wonder if there is anyway we could get permission to produce this derivative work and license it unde rhte same rules as the commons logo? --Martyman-(talk) 20:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This design is probably great when you are wearing 3D glasses. It is, however, unpleasant when you are not wearing 3D glasses. I suggest you modify that. --Fasten 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That is also the case for many of the 3D images it is intended to represent. Making the logo look like an anaglyph is the simplest way to get accross that the 3D images it is refering to are anaglyphs, otherwise there may be confusion as to what 3D means. --Martyman-(talk) 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That isn't generally true (e.g. Image:Schr%C3%B6dinger_cat.png). The logo is unpleasant and creates a wrong impression. --Fasten 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The ownweship of the logo is officially transferred to the Wikimedia foundation. --Dschwen 20:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily resolve the license question though, does it? It's a derivative work, so unless you secured foundation permission there's still an issue. I guess I (marginally) favour using the original commons logo with the 3d glasses image below it as that uses the logo "as is". ++Lar: t/c

I don't like the idea of using the standard logo (plus glasses) becasue if it is too similar to the standard commons box (and linking to the same place) then editors will argue it doesn't need to be there at all. --Martyman-(talk) 21:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving Foward is Moving Forward

I feel that 3d images are a very good idea for Wikipedia. This first off makes this encyclopedia far more unique and raises an adds whole new other interests. One for example where else would you even find such a debate. The 3D images have already began a great interest in Wikipedia and seem to have a power of their own as it would seem to me as I read all sides of the discussions.

All points made here are true to each point of view. There is no argument to any of them really except for anyone that would suggest banning 3D images. I believe this is a great feature of Wikipedia and with the newer interest and technologies in 3D imaging these will grow to perfection along with Wikipedia and Wiki with 3D imaging. This all gives Wikipedia more. Which encyclopedia would you really want to use, one with more or one with less and still looks at things with one eye (pun intended)?

I sort of like the idea where User:Martyman was going with his mockup sample. However it is decided I think the 3D images are a good key to a greater interest in Wikipedia and should be a highlighted feature. Leonardo Bjork 14:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

But for the vast majority, 3D image inline are not "more", they are less - being sub-standard 2D images with distracting artefacts. Wikipedia is not a showcase for emergent technologies, it is an encyclopaedia. - John.Conway 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. So if we can get to consensus on a proposal that does not allow them as primary images except where they are specifically needed (3D topics) but DOES allow for their uploading, (when paired so they can be clicked through to from the primary 2D image), to Wikipedia, or when not paired, to Commons or WikiBooks, as appropriate, that seems goodness. We seem almost there, as the majority of voices here seem to be supportive of encyclopedia quality and usability by the most people as being far more important and on mission than fostering new technologies for their own sake. ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Simplicity should always be considered when adding or forbiding something in the Wiki world. The poster, of most of the existing images calls them "compatible". His definition of that is that the images are supposed to look good up to postcard size. So why not limit the actual size of the file to perhaps 500px wide, when opened to the first stage. Also, if "compatible" images can be used, any editor could, subject to peer justification, remove the images as "noncompliant" in terms of compatibility. The thumbs for a 3D image should be no bigger than 1/3 of the size of the largest picture posted on the article. So if the biggest would be 300px the 3D would be 100x. We need to consider that having a blanket, and stated anti-3D policy, will be seen as rather "Ludite-like". Please consider this simple soltion. Newbie User:Jbarnwell 03:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC) 3D policy

The uploaders definition of compatable is not relavent. The 3D images introduce visible articfacts that are not desirable in an encyclopedic illustration. Illustrations in wikipedia should be of as high a quality as possible, not limited in size in the hope no one will notice they look bad. Also the uploader in question is not claiming they look good up to postcard size, he said thumbnail size. I question your opinion of what works in the wikiworld with your extensive history of one edit to this page. Finally, as the only edit your account has made is to this page, this means you are likely either someone who has been asked to come and join in on this debate from outside of wikipedia or you are a sockpupet of 3dnatureguy. --Martyman-(talk) 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are really combative. Sure, I happen to like 3D, and lots of people know your 3Dnatureguy. I would guess thousands do. He makes 3d that is about 10 times better than most. I see that you have somehow cut his off Wikipedia, so, of course others will try to speak for our point of view.Jbarnwell 03:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

We have in no way cut off 3dnatureguy's wikipedia. We are trying to come up with a solution that benefits as many people as possible, and I get a little annoyed at non-wikipedians trying to tell us how a wiki should be run. It is 3dnatureguy who seems un-willing to compimise at all, and won't try to help develop a solution to this. --Martyman-(talk) 04:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My read of general consensus is that these images are widely viewed as not appropriate for primary images in articles. Arguing about how well liked they are outside wikipedia misses the point, as the matter under consideration is whether they are appropriate FOR wikipedia. It is not, in my view, disputable that artifacts are visible with these images, even when they are very small (100 pixels or less). Nevertheless the compromises offered all seem offered in the spirit of finding a way to make use of these images while still upholding the standards (including print standards, including accessibility standards, including the little girl in africa with the hand cranked laptop standards) of Wikipedia. User:3dnatureguy could participate here, and in fact has been asked some specific questions about availability of 2D versions of the images he has, but has chosen to ignore those questions, chosen not to participate. While I don't know that I'd bandy the sock/meat puppet suggestion about, I think User:Martyman has acted in terrifically good faith here, trying his hardest to work to a compromise at some great personal effort, and I'm not sure that characterising him as "really combative" or "trying to cut off wikipedia" is either useful or accurate. To the 3D advocate(s), I suggest for best acceptance of your suggestions, that you participate in the discussion in a civil and constructive manner, and that you try to format your contributions in accordance with talk page convention when doing so. (I have taken the liberty of correcting the indenting, but refactor if you object) IMHO. of course. ++Lar: t/c 05:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, really good faith. There are those of us who don't want the 3D images on Wikipedia at all, but User:Martyman has done an excellent job of suggesting an equitable policy. More than equitable IMHO. Pschemp | Talk 07:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to also recognize User:Martyman for his efforts in this - my feeling has always been that these are specialty images, that could enhance the article content if used in right context, but as the primary image source for the article. Personally, I find the images interesting from a technical standpoint, but I also strongly view them as distracting attention away from the topic, and not a good source of illustrating the topic at hand. Martyman, if I were wearing a hat, I'd take it off to you! Stude62 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is all I was saying in “Moving Forward Is Moving Forward.” You see I have recently gotten in to 3D my self as in an art form and I have been researching it and this is how I became involved in the discussions here. So I am pro 3D because of my learning and liking of it. I seen how it has come a long way and there is a large fast growing to it’s interests and applications. I find it a grand idea to have this feature in Wiki. I am agreed that the use of 3D images as primary image is not in the best interest, but is a splendid feature and to have a link to or a thumbnail link to a 3D version of the images. Just as Usrer:Martyman has shown in his samples. I think this should be a greatly highlighted feature as this will bring an interest of other people looking for that little bit of something more. This is what I meant when I said 3D gives Wikipedia more. I only wish we had 3D encyclopedias, science and history books when I was in school! Any way, I am all for that with the highlighted featured links or paired images. Even a mirrored site that would be of 3D would be pretty neat just as well but this might be out of reach, I don’t know. I just strongly believe that if Wiki really uses this idea of 3D imaging it will benefit Wikipedia’s popularity for the good. Even my own three children have now a great interest here because of it, and they seem to think the images are great though they feel it best to have the option to view 3D or Not 3D (pun intended). Thanks for the honor of posting here at Wikipedia. Leonardo Bjork 00:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

3Dnaturguy is blocked from signing in

Try accessing his talk page. This is that person, posting without sign-in. Martyman...please let's work out what's best for Wikipedia's quality as an encyclopedia. I am neither a vandal or a boogy-man. I am a photographer in the educational-science-art history area. You seem to reject the notion that 3d can ever be compatable, meaning that it must look overall good in wikipedian sized thumbnails, and if opened to postcard size. After postcard size the quality for flat viewers suffers. Therefore, as my friend tried to tell this forum in a posting here, our side, ( and there are hundreds of Wikipedian 3D oriented reference users), who would express themselves on the subject if they thought 3D was being "banned outright" by so few activists within the editor corps. Let us post with a small mini thumb. mark each simply "opens in 3D". If we can, we will provide a good flat image to Commoms, whenever it is available to us. Posters will comply with proper copyright documentation. I got an E-mail saying that somebody had added a red-cyan paper glasses icon to one or more pages. That might be a good alternative. I'm prepared to submit propose image small thumbs to the talk page in advance of posting for say 5 days, for "peer" review of their "compatibility". Just so you know, it is possible to shoot and process, "ultra compatable" images. These would look better than average at a 10 inch wide display, on screen. They have less 3D, but they look very good for most purposes. We could use those, in all future postings. Please see what can be done about the blocking that seems to be in effect. 3Dnat---. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.54.6 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 February 2006

There is no blocking in effect. I have specificaly checked. If you where blocked you could still log in but only be able to edit your own talk page. Your inability to log in is either because you are using the wrong username "3dnatureguy" (case matters) or that you had a blank password (which has been disabled). If you need to reset your password you will need to use the email password replacment system. I highly resent the suggestion that we have in some way blocked your acces to wikipedia.

On the issue of 3D images. You are not listening, we are not suggesting that 3D images be "banned outright", we are trying to find a solution with the least negatives. Have you read the proposed guidelines. They would still make it abundantly clear that the 3D images are available for users who are equiped to view them. You can't keep saying that the images are fine at thumbnail size, that is not good enough. Wikipedia images should be easily expandable to full size while retaining their quality, both for closer inspection and for paper printing purposes. --Martyman-(talk) 05:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I see good faith in 3dnatureguy's efforts and value his intent to contribute, just as I value Martyman's efforts to mediate. 3D pics are a nice complement for the usual images but should never take over an article completely. That beeing said I'd find it totally acceptable to sparsely drop in one or the other pic in to an article (marked with the glasses icon to avoid confusion) just to generate awareness for the new content WP is offering. In many longer articles adding one 3D picture does not hurt, if it is on-topic, and if another 2D picture would have been badly needed it could have been added already. For shorter articles I have to agree the best solution is the sister-project-infobox at the bottom of the article. --Dschwen 07:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For those that would like to validate that there is no blocking in effect, just check the block log: Special:Log&type=block&page=User:3dnatureguy... And 3dnatureguy, please sign your posts with ~~~~, which automatically gets expanded into a name and time/date, as explained on your talk page way back on January 8th. Signing posts really helps keep it clear who said what, and saves others the work of adding the {{unsigned}} template (as I have done for your latest unsigned contribution). Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

His sloppyness does not help his cause

After having edited more than 30 pages modified by 3dnatureguy I'm starting to get a little irritated. Most contributions were totally cluttering the articles with way too many images. The captions and image description pages have slim to no encyclopedic value and are formulated inconsistently. There are lots of typos and it seems that 3dnatureguy still is not familiar with the image wiki-tag syntax. This does not help your cause! It would have been clever to start slowly and wait for some feedback instead of creating such a huge mess. All those pictures have to be reuploaded to commons eventually. Who is going to add meaningful captions? The 3d images degenerate into a mere novelty act without encyclopedic background information. 3d is nice, but not just as a gimmick! --Dschwen 13:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Since this discussion is dispersed across three or four pages let me state here that 3dnatureguy is cooperative and susceptible to reasoning. His pictures were not the first 3d pics on wikipedia, let me just mention the NASA rover pics, the NOAA Louisiana Superdome pic. It is all about encyclopedic usefulness. I don't believe these pictures confuse any readeronce they are consistently marked. For usefulnes quite a bit of work has still to be put into the captions. Yesterday I edited about fourty pages to address complaints about image placement and number. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going around this effort of finding a consensus with the edits, just improving the pages for the time beeing. Still I think it is worth a try integrating some pictures into some articles to get a broader response. I'd rather have a consensus of a 100 people than just 5. And with the marking of the pictures they'll be easy to retrieve in case 3d gets voted off the pages. --Dschwen 08:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions for 3dnatureguy

• Do you have 2D versions of your 3D images and if so would you be willing to upload them to wikipedia as described in the proposal?
• Do you understand that uploading images to commons is not a "lesser" option, it just opens up more options on how the images can be used within the whole wikimedia project?
• Is User:Nativeborncal also you? In which case repeated your claim that it's all about only 100 images doens't stand up.
• Will you please undertake to go back through all the images uplaoded by both accounts and make sure their descriptions and copyright disclaimers are acceptable by wikipedia standards (as I and many others have described on your talk page repeatedly)?
• Will you please refrain from uploading further 3D images until a guideline has been decided on? --Martyman-(talk) 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Matt

Having read over the discussion here, I'll add my two bits. 1) If these 3d illustrations are under a free license then they should go to the commons where they are of greater use (if they're not under a free license then we don't need them). 2) I have looked at some of the images in question and was surprised that they were of acceptable quality for viewing without 3d glasses. I'll grant you that they aren't great, but WP has worse quality images than these. This being said, I think that the policy/guideline should be worded to state something to the effect "articles will be created to the highest standard possible for viewers without 3d glasses". So under such a policy, if our only image of a subject is a reasonable quality 3d one, perhaps it's better to include in the article. I can even consider an article benifiting from a 3d image even if it has other 2d images (if the 3d image provides a unique perspective and the article isn't overflowing with pics as it is.) But in most cases the 2d images will be used and the 3d images stored on the commons until the day that someone decides to publish a 3d encyclopedia (I'd buy that). Matt 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is that many of the images are of less than acceptable quality in 2D. The policy aims to encourage a linked 2D/3D system that ultimately benifits both groups. Failing that then the 3D images should be uploaded to commons and linked to with a 3D specific template on the article. I feel that it is stupid for the 3D images to comprimise their 3D performance in order to me almost acceptable as 2D images. The best solution would be if they where uploaded as the ultimate in 3D images but also provide a 2D version for displaying as the default image inline in the article. I think this would be much more likely to happen if the major uploader didn't make money from teaching people to use photoshop to make "compatible" images. --Martyman-(talk) 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you look at the sample images on User:3dnatureguys page

The images there were all taken from Wikipeda posting. Please take note of the poor image at the top of the page. It was in a wikipedia article for many months. The images posted are generally superior to the average Wiki commoms free picture. Perhaps the lead person in this "restriction effort" will grace my user page with say his worst 5 images... I don't think he, or you collectively can find even 5 that look really bad. I have said before. Any editor who finds a picture to be bad is free to drop the image from the article, with his rationale on the record. I think someone should take me up on the free glasses to judge the quality with as well as without the glases 3dnatureguy 06:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Hardly anyone has the appropriate glasses, therefore the images are practically useless to almost the entire readership of Wikipedia, and thus do not belong in Wikipedia. Ambi 06:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think they have a place on Wikipedia, but hidden away. The large majority of people reading Wikipedia articles are not going to have 3D glasses on hand, and they'll just look weird, but some people may want it, and if we have these images, that's good. enochlau (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Ambi, except I'd put more amplifying adjectives to really drive home how few people are going to be able to use the images. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Bad" examples

In response to the request, I picked out a few of the "most inappropriate for 2D viewers" and stored them at Wikipedia:3D Illustrations/Bad Examples.

For my part, I might be starting to begin have some very tentative second thoughts about 3dnatureguy's motives. He may certainly be just a dedicated enthusiast. On the other hand, one could start to maybe suspect him to be a Sock Puppet created by Nativeborncal explicity for the purpose of spamming Wikipedia. The two users of course have similar viewpoints, editing interests, and both have the permissions to images from anachrome.com .Someway more disturbing is this: On 7 January 2006, Nativeborncal responds to charges on Talk:Anaglyph image that he is committing link spam. 3dnatureguy makes his first edit the hour-- to upload a 3D image. Within 3 hours, he explicitly mentions anachrome.com

I don't mean to be accusatory-- this certainly could be explainable by coincidence or good intentions. And either way it has no bearing on this policy: I despise ad hominem arguements, and 3dnatureguy's arguments stand on their own regardless of who his is or what his motives are. (I just mention it because i came across that pattern in looking for bad examples of 3d images, and thought i should mention it in so that it can find it's way to whoever looks into such stuff. ) Alecmconroy 11:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

3dnatureguy has explained to me that Nativeborncal was also him, and that he decided to change usernames, for various reasons. Though the issue of link spamming wasn't mentioned. --Martyman-(talk) 12:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What I find most frustrating is that it seems to me that we just aren't communicating with 3dnatureguy. We've (I'm speaking for what I perceive to be the rough consensus of the majority of us, forgive me, dear reader, if I'm not speaking for you personally, dear reader whoever you are) pretty painstakingly and methodically explained why there's a problem, why "compatible" isn't a good approach for primary images and it just seems that he (willfully or not, I won't go there) doesn't get it. Instead he's turned his user page into sort of an attack against the very idea that there are valid reasons not to put images directly in articles, and some sort of promise to fork. Well, OK then, perhaps it's time to fish or cut bait. Let's move the policysmithing forward, tie up the loose ends, reannounce on village pump, and move it from proposed guideline to guideline, and see if it sticks. Then start enforcing it by removing images from articles where they don't fit, with the suggestion that if they are to be put back, they need to conform to the guideline, that is, they need to be 2d-3d paired with linkthrough links in the caption (the 3d symbol is a useful thing to hang the link to the 3d image on, and a template to allow easy embedding would be easy to put together, I can do it if no one else can or already has), or if unpaired, they need to be just a commons pointer, not embedded. ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Pschemp | ^Talk 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Templates

I will go ahead and create the templates, but would like to know if there are any other alternatives to immediatly declaring this a guideline. --Martyman-(talk) 23:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have created the templates at {{3d alt}} and {{3d commons}}. I am not sure if I should move them to "3D alt" and "3D Commons". Feel free to tweak them. I have also changed my mockup at User:Martyman/Sandbox2 over to the templates. --Martyman-(talk) 00:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

{{3d alt}} looks good. I don't think it matters much about the name... just asked on IRC and lowercase is the way to go probably, by a slight margin... 03:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Martyman has a good idea, if it applies to future photography

3Dnatureguy likes Martyman's concept, with one caveate. It should apply only to images taken after January 1, 2006. The reason being, that both I and honestly at least another several dozen science/art/education/photographers who like the technique, can start saving both sides in their archives. I can make a general announcement on the various on-line 3D photo groups that Wiki editors are giving us the oppertunity to post dual purpose images. With the nice little icon from our German contributor, we can dispense with any reference to "compatible 3D" and even go with some deeper type. Thanks for the effort in working out the mechanism. Just give the best of the present pictures a date-based exemption, and I will delete the ones that can't be pass reasonable muster. Any other editor can deep-six the bad ones as well. I will try to fix that awfull "Charlemagne brass jug", because it is historically important. Please check out the posting of Zhou Enli on my user page. That is truly a "compatible" image, but I agree, the icon and split file is a fair and reasonable solution. Thanks Martyman, for your dedication, I sorry to have given you a rough time,frankly I didn't get to your sandbox soon enogh to see what you were coming to. I will be presenting at the National Stereo Association Convention this summer, and will encourage others to submit good 3D in terms of artist, and image quality and a good flat full sized image. Please let me know what size, is best compromise to save bandwidth while providing a good 2D resource as well. All this being said, I still intend to proceed more slowly than in the recent past,and with due regard to neatness and clutter issues, as per User:Dshwen3dnatureguy 23:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No, unfortunatly the existing images clause is not really acceptable. Images that do not have a 2D version available will have to be re-uploaded to commons and made available through the 3D commons link (Which I agree is not the ultimate solution). As you have already pointed out there are thousands of 3D images out there that could continue to flood wikipedia if this guideline contained an exemption for existing photographs. I fully welcome all and one to start uploading high quality 3D images to wikipedia that are linked to a 2D version, though there is also the problem of over illustrating articles, which means that once an article is suitably illustrated any further images 2D or 3D will have to be added to the commons page. --Martyman-(talk) 23:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Above comments copied from User talk:3dnatureguy to get further fedback on User:3dnatureguys suggestion. --Martyman-(talk) 23:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your question about file size for the 2D images. There is not really a file size or bandwidth problem, so as long s they are at least as big as the 3D images that you have been uplaoding that would be fine. --Martyman-(talk) 23:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving images to commons

In response to 3dnatureguy's reworded response above. I might think about making the 3D guidelines only apply to images uploaded since the guideline was written, with the removal of only the less compatible images. But I really do not see that as being a better solution than moving all of the already uploaded images (which do not have 2D version available) onto commons pages and linking them through with the 3d commons template near the end of the article. I would volunteer to do the work of moving the images over and adding the tempaltes, if no one else was feeling up to the job. What do others think? --Martyman-(talk) 04:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think moving and changing embeds to links is the better way to go. I'd help out too... we need to develop a list of them and divvy them out. Shouldn't be too hard to do I reckon. Need someone to document the process steps though, as believe it or not, I've never uploaded anything to Commons... ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help do the work. Can we put the liston the guideline page or do we need some sort of project page?Pschemp | ^Talk 06:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A full blown project may be overkill, just a subpage of the guideline page probably will do fine. I need to go ask Interiot or Titoxd if there's an easy way short of looking at contributions logs of telling what all the images are. Just parsing out 3dnatureguy's contributions log will probably get most of them, and that's something I could probably bang out quickly using ultraedit macros or whatever.... gimme a few min. (starting from here: [1]++Lar: t/c 06:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

K, here is the list Wikipedia:3D Illustrations/Review list It may have dups and images that aren't there, etc, it was just a quick hack. Once we're at consensus, we just need to divide and conquer I guess. Suggest we tag them as done as we do them or mabye divide into sections based on how many people volunteer. Again, I'd ask for a little cheatsheet on what exactly needs to be done.... someone could paste it in there at the top? Note, if anyone else was uploading 3 d images I may have missed them, I would need to know who else was... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 06:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You will also want to add the User:Nativeborncal images if you haven't already. I can post a step by step method for transfering them to commons tomorrow morning if you want. There really isn't too much in it, I suspect the hardest part is going to be finding the apropriate articles and categories to place the images in. I will see if I can also add a list of Commons cats and articles that will suit the various topics that the images span. --Martyman-(talk) 10:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look and add those to the list as soon as I get a chance. Meanwhile, as to what to actually do.. consider, for example, the last two on the current list: Image:Zhou Eli.jpg and Image:Zhou Enli.jpg... clearly these are dups of each other, only one should live, and further maybe neither should, as no articles link to them. (that's not an isolated example) Or are you saying that as we move them we should find at least one article to link to the image from? That seems like a fair bit of work. ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, duplicate images should be tagged with {{redundant image}}, I don't think it matters which one. There are two reasons that many are not in articles at the moment. A lot have been removed from articles (which will make matters hard), and 3dnatureguy has been uploading some to use on him userpage which he has not been adding to articles due to this ongoing discussion. There is no rule saying that images that freely licensed can be deleted if not included in an article. I think the best thing to do would be to move them all to commons and any we have questions about we could ask 3dnatureguy which article they are appropriate to. --Martyman-(talk) 02:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In some cases it does, in my view, matter which one. If it's a person, and their name is spelt wrong in one filename, that's the one to ditch... 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Automatic migration via pywikpediabot

I'll try to get a bot coded today to process the page and automatically move all images. You might want to hold off the manual moving a bit :-) --Dschwen 07:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I slightly tweaked pywikipediabot to allow mass move of a list of images without human intervention. I tested it on the first few pics of the list. But here come the problems. Of the first four pics three are already problematic. [[:Image:1907_Olds.jpg and Image:1904_Olds.jpg are the same pic, Image:1911Pope-Hartford.jpg says 1910 Royal Tpurist on the pic. What is it? I had my share of patience with 3dnatureguy, but this is just causing too many problems. I'd vote for a total deletion of al of 3dnatureguy's contributions and restart from scratch. There are too many un- or mislabeled pictures. Desinformation wich will be hard to filter out. And I don't see any effort by 3dnatureguy to improve the captions, instead he continues uploading pictures as he has done before. This is borderline vandalism. --Dschwen 10:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that is pretty damn funny. I am not sure if it is just cause for deleting them all, but it is pretty bad. The question is, what to do about it. I guess we can manually mark all duplicates and mislabeled images for deletion and then see what is left. Or if you think we can swing it, declare the guideline retroactive and remove them all. --Martyman-(talk) 10:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We always were going to have the guideline apply to all images regardless of date, I thought. I say delete them all and let God sort it out... so to speak. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a differnece between making the guideline retroactive and deleting things compared to making it retroactive and putting in the effort to move them. The second one is much less likely to cause offence but it is questionable in this case if it is worth the effort. --Martyman-(talk) 22:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well my take is that right now two smart people have tried, one manually, and one with a bot, and as of yet failed to successfully move a single image through all the steps. (Image:'32 roadster.jpg is close, it's moved over, just needs to have the "now OK to delete as it's duped on commons" tag applied) That may be a misread. But if more people try and everyone fails to make much headway, if we can't get 3dnatureguy hmself involved in fixing things, then it's either delete them all or leave a big mess. Note that images not used in any article which are improperly licensed, or which are duplicates, are deletion candidates as things stand now, regardless of this new guideline. Not saying we should give up yet but do want to point it out. I need to give it a try myself before I actually will favour deletion rather than just favouring consideration of it. Hope that clarifies my thinking. And thanks for your work on this! ++Lar: t/c 23:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Uhum, thechnically moving with a bot works now Image:1911Pope-Hartford.jpg was moved fully automatic (all tags applied on both copies, copied image description, and history to comply with GFDL). And I can supply a list of images as an ASCII file, so the whole move would be a matter of minutes. But thanks for calling me smart though ;-) --Dschwen 07:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you want me to finish going through looking for duplicates then, so you can run the bot through? --Martyman-(talk) 08:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be great. Just rededicate the Review list as a place to look for duplicates and share the effort. I'll try and help as well. --Dschwen 08:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The bot only moves the image to commons doesn't it? It doesn't remove the images from aritcles, add the 3d commons tag and add the image to a suitable image gallery and all suitable categories on commons. So there is still a lot of work even without the actual proces sof re-uploading the images. --Martyman-(talk) 08:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On Image:1911Pope-Hartford.jpg, once it's moved to Commons, shouldn't it then get a deletion tag here? (and don't get me started on whether we should keep an image that has a name vastly different from what it purports to be) ... NOT knocking what the bot does, any step that's automated is goodness, just asking... ++Lar: t/c 12:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It gets a {{NowCommonsThis}}. That's the way it is meant to be according to the pywikipediabot developers :-) --Dschwen 13:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

List of steps

I have started to put together an list of steps in moving these images over to Commons. User:Martyman/Sandbox is probably complicated enough to scare most peole off ;-) --Martyman-(talk) 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

One suggestion on process: instead of putting the list of images you are working at the top, I suggest we bracket the actual images with your name (and once done, move them to a new section at the bottom called "done" or something...) For dups, if one is a bad spelling, that's the one not to keep. Image:Zhou Eli.jpg is a bad spelling of the name of the individual depicted. That's not always obvious of course. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to think of a way of tagging them that doesn't involve long or multiple edits so that there is less chance of an edit conflict. But seeing as the number of people involved will actually be quite small, you are probably right, how about just signing your name after all the image syou intend to deal with, I agree moving them to a seprate section once done is a good idea. I have already done Image:Gorilla skull.jpg but haven't marked it because i am not sure if you will replace the list when addign the nativeborncal images. --Martyman-(talk) 03:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I did the User:nativeborncal ones too, the list Wikipedia:3D Illustrations/Review list now has both mingled together in alpha. Note that one reversion back is a list that has them NOT mingled together but rather in alpha but sorted first on who did them. If that's better we can revert back to that. I also have the data saved locally. I am not sure how many I can actually DO though, next week is going to be busy for me... should be able to do SOME though. Maybe if we do a few, we could get User:3dnatureguy to do some too? I looked at the sandbox again, I say put it in the header of the list.. ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I just delt with two of them and wow that's a slow and involved proccess. I don't see us being done very soon. I have a sneaking suspicion people will not choose to use the commons gallery option as it is quite involved. I wonder if we should mark the guideline as a guideline before we go any further? Also the 3D commons icon in use needs to be cleared by the hirachy. --Martyman-(talk) 05:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, mark it as a policy I'd say, not just a guideline, then publicise on Village Pump again. ++Lar: t/c 13:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think getting it through as policy is a very achievable goal. If you look at the list of new policy it is a pretty rare thing. I think we are going to have to be happy with guideline status. The main problem with gettign stuff through as a polciy is that there are rules on wikipedia against instruction creep, which this very arguably is. --Martyman-(talk) 20:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Polishing of the Guideline

There are a few things that should be spelled out in the guideline before we can call it completed. It should specify how images should be added to commons including which categories and how they should be placed on the relavent article page. I have created a commons category "Anaglyphs" and suggest 3D images on asubject be placed under the heading "3D Images" to make them easier to find. I am going to remove mention of wikibooks and trim down the proposed guideline to better fit the current concensus. --Martyman-(talk) 04:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, let's cut the stuff that mentions requireing code development, that can be done later if there is interest in such code, the guideline is compatible with it as written. When it's polished there should be no alternatives remaining unless they are alternatives that people can choose as part of uploading or workign with these images... (contrasted to alternatives that were in there because we needed to choose which one we wanted in the guideline)... ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Existing images

As has been pointed out there are heaps of problems ranging from mis-labeling and bad copyright info to duplicates and even triplicates of some images. I have been trying to sort out the mess in order to re-upload them to commons, but I am starting to get frustrated and lean strongly towards running a bot through to delete them all. I am worried though that if an admin did that if they would be putting their head on a chopping block. I would be very happy if they did it, wink wink. --Martyman-(talk) 11:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I will try to think of who among the admins I could ask... ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to delete all 3D images posted by me under my original non-3D related name , User:Nativeborncal, and User: 3Dnatureguy.

For the record, the name Nativeborncal refres to being a Califorina native, I am NOT a nativist...not in any way. I changed the name to reflect the 3D focus, and my green orietation. I have nearly 8000 images, only a few of the recent ones have a 2D flat version. I haven't time or the stomach to reshoot them. The idea of compatible 3D, may not be good for Wikipedia. But I think the 2 file approach is resonable for the future. If it is possible to purge the Wikipedia files of all of these images, I would prefer that.

I appreciate the offer to let us remove these images. I am not sure that that is the best outcome for the wikipedia. I would still prefer to move them to wikicommons and hopefully add links to the commons pages from the relavent articles. It is just turning out to be an awful lot of work. It may turn out the only way to easily do it is to automate the process which will not end up with the fine grained categorising etc, that could be done by hand. The 2D/3D image linking system should be working already. If you have some 2D/3D images you would like to upload, it would be most appreciated. I will add a comment on your user page regarding this. --Martyman-(talk) 06:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The generic way images are classified in Commons, and the image quality is very poor in my opinion

Wiki would do well to try to attract working Pho-Journalists to contribute. The Wiki image collection isn't much better than Google images. It is a pity that you didn't see these images with the proper glasses or any glasses at all. Any multi-uploading was related to unfamiliarity with the interface. Please note there were no double posting, only upload duplication. When the mechanism is in place for a 2D image to be linked to a 3D image. I will have a few good images. more over time. This "policy" makes useless 8000 profesional images for use by Wikpedia. Please leave in place the 2 or 3 images directly placed in the 3D stereoscopic article. I look forward to your coming up with a dual image link through. I can see that there is a minimalist slant to your use of pictures on wikipedia. I know the classic 1911 E.B. had few pictures, and lots and lots of verbage. With modern digital page compositing there is no reason not to have 30 to 50 picture to an important article. Emulate the National Geographic, not the 1911 E.B.3dnatureguy 05:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that many sections of wikipedia are lacking in good illustrations, though over the time I have been here the number of well illustrated articles has been increasing. Hopefully with the help of more photographers we will eventualy get wikipedia up to the standard that you expect from it. Unfortunatly I don't think the time is right to puch 3D images the mainstream illustration format of wikipedia. --Martyman-(talk) 06:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Add an example?

Any opposition to adding an example of how to do the 2d/3d pairing to the guideline page? The Bronze Mars statue just uploaded seems a good one as the 2d image is color and therefore perhaps more illustrative of this than the gorilla skull, which is B&W... If no one objects I'll do it later today. (including showing the coding) ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Martyman-(talk) 09:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Could we change the name of the 3dalt template?

I just had a thought. At the moment the proposal uses the {{3d alt}} template. I think that because there are differnet types of 3d (you can have crossed-eyed pairs, red-blue anaglyph, red-cyan anaglyph, etc...) maybe we could have a different template for each type of 3d. That way, if you have a red-blue nasa piture, the little glasses icon could be red and blue instead of red and cyan. --Ctachme 15:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This was planned for the {{3d_glasses}} template I originally made the icon for. The color can easily be supplied as a template parameter. --Dschwen 15:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Support this idea of adding parms to the template if they aren't that way already (I SHOULD go check but hey, lazy!). Using the hidden structure construct or using qif, whichever (I haven't been following those wars closely) to make it optional but default to the current would be my preference... ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about bringing over that functionality from 3d_glasses when I created 3d_alt but left it out at first for simplicity in testing the new template and then later decided it wasn't worth the extra complication involved. If someone wants to play with the template and get it back in again feel free, but I think this guideline is already a bit of a steep learning curve for new editors who wish to contribute 3D images. --Martyman-(talk) 20:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You need neither hidden structure nor qif. Just create the image filename using the parameter and choose red_cyan as default. Check {{3d_glasses}}. --Dschwen 11:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

From what 3dnatureguy was saying and what I have read ont ehweb I think the Red/Cyan glasses willa ctually work for pretty much all anaglyphs, so there isn't really a need for multiple coloured templates. --Martyman-(talk) 12:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Red/Cyan. with red on left, is the nominal standard

People say red-blue because CYAN is a techno-word. Today, all mean some type of cyan, although the amount of blue in it varies among suppliers. This is mostly cost driven. Since about 2000 red-cyan has been the general standard for anaglyphs, and is the basis of the filtration in RGB. The blue cellophane used years ago was blue just because the sheets were half the cost of cyan. Both American Paper Optics, and Rainbow Symphony, the two largest suppliers, primarily sell or give away red-cyan glasses. Red on left is also an imformal international convention. The U.S. National Stereoscopic Association has passed out RED-CYAN exclusively at their conventions since 2000. Any image in color must have both the blue and the green mixed in the cyan image, and the left in red only.3dnatureguy 20:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Help relicensing please

There is guy (troll?) on commons who reverts all my relicensing efforts back to noncommercial. His reasoning is, the pics are still noncom on en.wp. Sigh, this is like rolling a rock up a hill. :-( --Dschwen 10:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I will ask 3dnature guy to clarrify if he means for the images to remain with the non-commercial tags or if he is happy to remove it. Then you can direct any complaints to that comment. --Martyman-(talk) 11:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

3dnatureguy replies

In response to Martyman, I am happy to upload the images to "Commons", but also using the combination of a 2D thumnail/primary article image linked with Dshwan's little icon to the 3d image. I am trying to find and remove the most artifacted images. It takes about 20 minutes to manually recreate a good 2d image, I can only do a few of these each week, but I am trying. All future shooting that I will do with Wikipedia in mind will have two things: 1. A good 2d actual image as thumb and primary. 2.Every effort will be made to refine the quality of the 3D images, so that they will have good color, gamma, etc. If 3D is going to take up some Wikipedia bandwidth it should look good to those who want to see it. Has anybody seen these images with RED-CYAN glasses yet? Nobody has addressed my estimation that 30 million pair of these glasses were shipped last year. If that is even half correct, it is a lot of kids and others who we want to become Wikipedia friendly. I will be talking to several thousand educators at a convention in a few weeks. They are not 3D buffs, just the general run of secondary ed, and college instructors, so the feedback will be interesting.3dnatureguy 06:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. Even if, as you claim, thirty million pairs of glasses were shipped (and you cite no source for this), this falls massively short of the amount of people Wikipedia is aiming to reach. Thus there is still a massive section of the target audience that cannot view your pet images. Ambi 08:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I am glad you are intendign to contribute matched pairs of images, I believe that is the best solution for wikipedia. You didn't answer my quesiton about the existing images which are labeled non-commercial. Can we remove the non-commercial claim? --Martyman-(talk) 07:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I should also make it clear that all your existing 3D images have been moved to commons already, so to include any in a wikipedia article you only need to upload the 2D version (not re-upload the 3D one). --Martyman-(talk) 07:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

3dnatureguy, How are you making 2D versions?

3dnatureguy, I'm really glad to hear you're doing the 2d/3d option. I would have hated to have them just deleted outright as was discussed earlier at some point. Is this something we could help with?

You say: "It takes about 20 minutes to manually recreate a good 2d image". I'm dying to know-- how are you recreating them? In black and white? in color? I'm guessing in color, because B&W would probably be pretty quick.

I've spent the past week trying to track down this professor from Germany who has this advance neural network software that can maybe kinda sorta do it, but I don't know if it's publically available. Is it that since you made the 3d version, that you still have access to each of the 2d images that made the 3d? Or is there some other way that you can do it?

My thinking on this problem of making color 2d images is that it's pretty dang fascinating. When this whole discussion got started, I dug out an old pair of glasses I had from years ago, and looked at the images. I was amazed to discover that I can perceive them IN COLOR. Now, when you think about it-- my left eye is only getting RED light. My right eye is only getting Cyan light. So that's 2 color channels, but we all known that our color vision requires 3 channels. So there should be NO LOGICAL WAY I can see it in color. But I can.

I have no idea why this is. But it turns out that if you have a sufficiently powerful image processing system (like the human visual cortex or a neural network) you CAN in fact see color. This is why I'm glad all of science doesn't depend on me, because I'd have gotten this question wrong on Jeopardy.

So, when it comes to the problem of recreating color 2Ds from the anagylphs, it's quite a problem. some part of my brain can solve it. Some german software can solve it. How are you solving it?

-Alecmconroy 10:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

3dnaturguy responds to questions above

All color information can be covered by RGB, Red, Green, and Blue. If RED is on the left, both Blue and Green have to be on the right. Cyan is a techno term for equal parts Blue and Green. It is all of the range between blue and green. If a 4% leakage is allowed in the Cyan for the various shades of Red to broaden the spectrum through the "shoulder colors" you see full color IN THE BRAIN. The Red appears to be monochromatic, in effect, RED SCALE, as in "GRAY SCALE". Actually the colors needed are there but masked by the way we take in pure Red. Those "OFF REDs" are blended to form tens of thousands of discreet colors in the brain. This process is a fairly new discovery. It is called Anachrome 3d rather than simple anaglyph which is usually a monochromatic display using RED and BLUE. I beat up on the CEOs of the companies who make paper glasses back in about 1999, so that they changed to RED CYAN by 2001. That change. set the stage for good color anaglyphs. In the same period, I noticed that the red images were always much softer on a computer screen, which is normally close to the viewer.I finally figured out that the 250 nanometer differential in wave-length was screwing the red focus. I added a corrective diopter to plastic glasses to correct the focus difference. That has proven to be a very good idea, and is now built-in to a large part of the world's plastic 3D glasses production. They are mainly used by serious fans of full color 3d, rather than the cheaper paper type that are made in the many millions. Another factor in these new images is the fact that 95% of the MAL-REGISTRATION between the two layers is eliminated. This produces a "compatible" image up to postcard size, if done properly. When opened to full page size, they do show the 5% or so mal-registration. With glasses you don't see the artifacts, but rather, amazing detail and clarity. I think if the many critics here on Wikipedia were to see the images with good glasses, at least half would change their opinion. In some ways, kids are more progressive than adults. A large portion of kids love the effect, and even want it in their video games. HDTV is able to show really great anaglyph 3D. As the new disks come on the market soon, a certain part, especially animation will be in 3D, I'd say with a year or two.3dnatureguy 09:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, please answer my licensing question I have asked like three times now. People are going to a lot of effort here to make sure your images are not lost to the wikipedia and you can't even bother to answer my question. Do you agree to remove the non-commercial restriction you placed on some of your earlier uploads? --Martyman-(talk) 10:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

2D Image Recreation

I would like to point out that I do not believe 3dnatureguy's proccess for recreating "2D" images from his 3D images is at all satisfactory. See Image:Neanderthal 2D.jpg for an example. It looks terrible at full view, with numerous artifacts that make it hard to even make out details. 3dnature guy is still uploading to wikipedia (en) rather than commons as has been requested of him multiple times, and is uploadign yet more duplicates of 3D images he has already uploaded. I am getting very frustrated with this whole thing. --Martyman-(talk) 11:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the quality observation, there seem to be a lot of artifacts ans signs of remaining color separation in that image. We need to move this guideline out of proposed status, it's been long enough and it has wide enough acceptance (one more round of announces at village pump and then just edit proposed out of it and that does it, see Wikipedia:How to create policy). As for the issue of images going to the wrong place, or being licensed wrong, since 3dnatureguy indicated acceptance of these principles, another round of reminders, and then start tagging the images for deletion, I think, instead of fixing things up for him indefinitely. Ones that have quality issues can be tagged for deletion now. That's my view on all of this. I'll edit 'proposed' out of the guideline tomorrow if it hasn't been moved by then. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments from 3dnatureguy

thumb\right

There are thousands of far worse images on Wikipedia than this. I'd give it an "A" as an depiction of a Neanderthaler, and about a "C" for quality of digital image."C" meaning about average for Wiki images. You know we haven't saved flat versions of our pictures because they are far more likely to be mis-used by publishers. My status as a Photo-journalist takes me only so far. These are self-made, non-commercial, journalistic photos, that are also in a very specialized format, namely,95% "compatible for dual use" stereo. The "3D" commons logo is very "ghosty", my images generally are not. It is like making a jew wear a yellow star, in pre-war Germany. The glasses icon is clean, and is good art. I can't say that for the "double vision" version of the "Commons" icon.It "almost mocks" the 3D effect with its "confusion". A better design, in my opinion would be the Commons logo with the little glasses under it...Much cleaner! {{3d commons}} I really question if something as important and final as these rules should be formulated by perhaps a dozen editors whoose "bailwicks" were touched. I think we should take this to a panel of 6 to 10 administrators, and have a fair hearing in the open. (you'll likely win, as I'm a newbie, and my witnesses would be ordinary Wiki using teachers and students). I can bring testimony from legitimate Wikipedia student and teacher users (non-editors) who are an important part of Wikipedia as well. Be honest about Wikipedia. Here is a central fact that nobody can hide: Wikipedia editors are like the proverbial,"Too many cooks, spoiling the stew". These articles are constantly revised with little improvement. Editing for the sake of editing. Since, most editors can't provide a good 3D image to save their lives, they don't want something new that might become an important aspect of the Wikipedia model. I'm able to legitmately shoot museum objects in 2D & 3D all over the world. You poohoo the 30 million glasses, but some have suggested almost NOBODY has these glasses, or would take advantage of the free glasses offered on line by the manufacturers. it is very easy for the "purists" to ignore the little icon at the bottom of a picture. But to a kid, many scientists, or just a "tech-progressive", this 3D visualization can be an attractive plus. 3dnatureguy 12:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

2D image shown above. That image is far below par in terms of image quality. I resent the suggestion that the illustrations I contribute to wikipedia are in any way close the the quality shown by that picture. The image looks only marginally better than the 3D version and has no 3D effect to justify it's artifacts. --Martyman-(talk) 22:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

martyman's version

OK, I thought I would have a go and see what I could do in under 5 minutes of work in photoshop. The attached image is more what I would find acceptable as 2D version of the neaderthal 3D image. With abit more practice and tweaking I think it could be an acceptable 2D thumbnail for use in the linked system. --Martyman-(talk) 22:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)