Talk:Panorama

Reorganization
I've moved the original article that was here and which talked exclusively about panoramic paintings to that title, and moved the article which resided under panoramic format here; I also slightly rewrote both articles and changed the disambiguation page. Simply put, it didn't make sense to have the main article exclusively about panoramic paintings, with an obscure "see also" to panoramic photography at the bottom. Most people who go to this article probably want to read about the latter, and panoramic photo links kept being added to the "panoramic painting" article. So this is now a non-discriminating overview, which could still be much improved.--Eloquence* 21:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup.
I broken the article into clear sections but there is a lot of very vague and duplicated content. Megapixie 04:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete one of the two stitched images?
I think it's redundant to have two stitched photographs in this article. I'd suggest deleting one of them. --Jeremy Butler 12:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's hard for me to understand how another example could be a bad thing. Thoughts from anyone else? --roguegeek 2006-03-28 10:11am PST
 * I guess my thinking is that an encyclopedia should be as succinct as possible. Why use two examples when one gets the point across? --Jeremy Butler 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point. If no one else cares, you can pull it down if you want. --roguegeek 2006-03-29 5:16am PST
 * As in the case of Silhouette article, a gallery for those wanting to add their treasured panorama photos might ensure the images in the main article stay in place, are relevant, and are of the optimum quality. I won't do this unless there is agreement however as I am not in favour of cluttering pages with countless, redundant examples. sinarau (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Panoramic Effects
Been debating it for a while and finally decided to remove the "Panoramic Effects" section. It's just not very important and I don't see how relevant it really is to the article. If anything, it should just be mentioned in another section and not have its own section. From looking at the history, I think it may have been someone's attempt to just put up pics of themselves. Thoughts? Roguegeek 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tools to create Panoramas (stitching tools)
This completely new section about links to stitching tools should IMHO be added to image stitching which is already mentioned above in the article and btw could use some good editing. This Panorama article seems to me more general. The also newly added (and prominently positioned) external link to a personal homepage (Rohits Panoramas) is self promotion by the same person, isn't it? Is it ok to sort the external links alphabetically and discuss maybe the last one? Can I move the newly created section to the other article? Looks like redundant information here. -- Einemnet 13:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that update Einemnet. I have reverted the changes that Mordani made. I also noticed he added three of his panoramas to the Featured Pictures list so I have reverted these as well. I left a message on his talk page about this. I'm not sure that an extended list of programs to create panoramas is necessary, but yes, I agree that it would be much more suited to the image stitching article. In fact, the articles Panorama and Panoramic photography could possibly be merged, with some of the information transfered to image stitching. We would need to get consensus for this first. Any thoughts, people? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge
This article is exact same topic as Panoramic photography 210.49.25.22 08:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There were panoramic paintings long before photographs existed, so "panorama" refers to a wider class of objects. So I oppose a merge.  Spebudmak 02:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose a merge with the same reasons as above. Also modern panoramic techniques exist that don't use photographic imagery. The anon user who seems to have proposed the merge should have a look at both articles' "What links here" and follow some of the links to see how the articles are cited to see that both articles should stay as they are. It's a worthy distinction, Panoramic photography is a specialised enough topic. Einemnet 07:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I plan to do an extensive page on panorama creation techniques that should allow us to clean up some of the rouge panorama pages that pepper the Wikipedia. Let's get that in place before doing the panorama shuffle. John Spikowski 19:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that a merge with panoramic photography would be a good thing to do. --Kri (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, panoramic photography is specific to photography. It would be more appropriate to merge this page with panoramic painting which is not exclusively about photographic panoramas as it also includes sections on paintings and non-photographic and moving-image panoramas. JamesMcArdle 02:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus to merge, so I'm removing the tags. -- Elphion (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Etymology
From greek : Pan (all) + horama(to see) , found from google. Reference needed Hgkamath (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

suggestion for article improvement
This article could use section headings.. if that meets consensus. OlEnglish (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added sections for clarification, based on the varieties of panoramic representation formats.sinarau (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger Discussion: Panoramic painting and Panoramic photography with Panorama Suggestion
Since a 'panorama' refers to an image in most definitions it seems redundant to have these three articles separate, especially since they each ought to refer to a common history and since painting and photography are only two of the technologies for creating panoramas. I propose that the very comprehensive article Panoramic painting and the fairly lightweight Panorama be merged here under the title Panorama, followed by the incorporation of information from Panoramic photography. If there are no objections from editors of these articles, I will go ahead after a suitable delay. JamesMcArdle 03:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I object. There is a great difference between the subjects, and this "lightweight" article may still be expanded. The painting article is very long, and would overshadow the other techniques. However, including a (short) section on painting (as has been done with panoramic photography, also a separate article) would be nice, so please go ahead and do that, if you wish! --Janke | Talk 07:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Janke, it would make a long article, but not as long as many. With a thorough introduction and a sensitive amalgamation of information repeated here and on the other two pages, I believe the combination would make a high quality, comprehensive entry. The opinion of other editors will be helpful. I only say 'lightweight' on account of the lack of referencing here, even though I have been working on it. Best Regards, JamesMcArdle 07:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Panoramas in literature?
Many Articles include such sections. I didn't know about the "popular spectacle" aspect until reading the intro to Strange Tale of Panorama Island by Edogawa Ranpo. (Originally パノラマ島綺譚 in Japanese.) The Article doesn't make it clear, but some of these "popular spectacle" panoramas were circular buildings entered from underneath. Sort of like museums with admission charges? But the business model was crushed when movies became available. Shanen (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)