Talk:Synthography

Petition to purge this article and ban it from ever existing again.
Petition to purge this article and ban it from ever existing again. 50.35.91.228 (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this a real thing?
I have never heard someone use this phrase before, and the references look rather weak. jp×g 06:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It's unbelievably real
Synthography may be a new word, nonetheless it well describes the output of DALL-E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and many other apps are creating that are otherwise not yet well-described. See https://twitter.com/mrdoob/status/1637685071619698689. MrDoob is a hugely respected software developer in this realm. TheoA (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Notes about weak sourcing, suggestion for merging
The references in this article are still incredibly weak, so I am adding back the note on the article that "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for neologisms." Current sources include multiple unreliable self-published sources, multiple sources that don't even use the word, etc. I am also adding back the note that "It has been suggested that this article be merged into Artificial intelligence art," since that note is still on the Artificial intelligence art article, and the conversation about merging does not seem to have reached a conclusion or consensus. Elspea756 (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

is and Was photomosaic a Synthography?
given the definition about the image-to-image method, it seems to be that. If so, it should be added as an early sample of this 151.71.31.109 (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced original research in this article, for example, the "Methodology" table
There is a large amount of unsourced and poorly soured original research and incorrect information in this article. One of the more egregious examples is the "Methodology" table which makes as series of unsourced and poorly sourced, novel claims such as that chatbots are an example synthography, when synthography is a proposed term for synthetic photography. The entire 13-cell table is sourced with just three external links, none of which as far as I can see even use the term "synthography," so these are not adequate sources to use. I have previously removed this table for being unsourced original research and for contradicting the rest of the article, however this table has been restored to the article with an all-caps edit summary, "NO YOU DO NOT GET TO UNILATERALLY DELETE EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THIS PAGE AS CONTENT BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING USEFUL TO CONTRIBUTE THEN DO SO. YOU DO NOT GET TO START A POLL TO REMOVE THIS PAGE AND THEN BASTARDIZE THIS PAGE AS WAY TO FURTHER YOUR PERSONAL AGENDA AND EGO. YOU DO NOT GET TO SIMPLY REMOVE EVERYTHING FROM THIS PAGE." Besides being incorrect on a number of levels, that edit summary does not address the issues with the table's sourcing, original research, and being incorrect and contradictory with the rest of the article. So if anyone can provide improved souring for these ideas such as that chatbots are an example of synthography, please do so, otherwise, let's again remove this unsourced and incorrect table. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the table that was unsourced and false. Chatbots and "audio-to-audio" are not examples of synthetic photography. It is the responsibility of editors wishing to include information to provide reliable sources that directly support that information. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Corrected unsourced original research in the "Etymology" section
I have used a reliable source, Elke Reinhuber's "Synthography – An Invitation to Reconsider the Rapidly Changing Toolkit of Digital Image Creation as a New Genre Beyond Photography," to replace the incorrect information in the "Etymology" section, The previous incorrect information seemed to be based on an editor's misinterpretation of sources that do not even mention synthography. We can't use such poor sources, and we can't combine sources to reach a conclusion that the sources don't actually say. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

"History" section is incorrect, improperly sourced, does not relate to the main topic
This article currently has a "History" section that is full of incorrect information that is improperly sourced to four articles, none of which even mention "synthography." Web pages that do not mention synthography are not acceptable sources for a history of synthography. Three of the four sources are self-published sources, like Ted Underwood writing at tedunderwood.com and Alexa Steinbrück writing at alexasteinbruck.medium.com; these are unreliable and unacceptable sources. I have earlier removed these as unacceptable and unreliable self-published sources that do not even mention the topic of synthography; however, this incorrect information has been restored by an editor who despite a lengthy all-caps edit summary has not addressed any of these issues. Again, we can't use such poor sources, and we can't combine sources to somehow reach conclusions that the sources don't actually say. The responsibility for providing reliable sources that directly support this "history" of synthography is on the editor who wishes to include this material. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)