Talk:Virtual reality/Archive 1

Virtual Reality page
It was mentioned on this wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality in section 3.1, that elements of virtual reality go as far back as the 1860's, and then follows up with this by mentioning Antonin Artaud. I believe he was not born until the late 1890's. So if it is a matter of that editor referencing the two sentences together or not, it comes of as such when reading. I don't feel comfortable editing the section, and I apologize if this is the incorrect way to make note of an "error" in an article, but like I said I do not feel comfortable changing anything directly myself, whether or not it needs to be corrected.

a-ha
I know the band is famous for their smash-hit "Take On Me", but there have been too many "VR" concerts in that past 2 years to make this one notable enough for this article. If anyone disagrees please take it up in talk. I would suggest a separate "VR Concerts" page for everyone looking to preserve the experience for posterity ;-)

VR cameras
Cameras with one lens use the fisheye principle. For this technique, cameras film at an angle of 360°x235° so that no complete 360-degree image is produced. A black spot in the image on the VR glasses can be seen. Other camera models have two lenses, which are mounted close to each other. These VR cameras produce a fully spherical and gapless image. With this technique, the images are stitched together using special software. As of 2019, 360-degree cameras with two lenses had problems sewing the two images together. This means that the seam that is supposed to join the two images together is often still visible. Other camera models have more than two lenses. As with dual lens cameras, these are stitched using camera software. In addition, 360-degree images can be created by connecting several cameras. Camera rigs are usually used to attach six conventional action cams, available in different versions and connect several individual cameras. The rigs are constructed like a cube, with cameras placed in this cube and record the surroundings in all directions. If several "normal" cameras are combined in a network, these are referred to as mosaic-based cameras. Each of these cameras records a small area of the surroundings, and the individual images are then joined together like mosaic stones to form an omnidirectional overall image. The number of cameras to be used depends on the focal length of the lenses used; the smaller the focal length, the larger the angle of view and the fewer cameras are required.

Timeline?
Will somebody please do something about that timeline. Wikipedia is not built on material that is hypothetical-paul@wiki

Timeline needs a review. It was in 1986 (and not in 1966) when Thomas Furness presented his simulator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.13.176.157 (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it just nitpicking?
I would just like to know. Of all the comments and discussions I read, are people complaining about the layout, or references and other things in the article, or really attempting to learn and further the fields?


 * No. I placed the original Brainstorm reference being next to the original work done at Ames (where the NASA goggles photo was taken). If this is a B-class article, then CS is in pretty bad shape.  The important early references to flight simulation have been removed. The article rates D-class in my book and needs serious reworking. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

'Future' section
The whole Future section seems to violate the 'WP is not a crystal ball' policy as well as being almost totally Unsourced & Original Research. I think the section should be removed. The Challenges section suffess from similar problems. Ashmoo 05:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC) -- I also do not understand why this entry would already be sealed from further edits as VR continues to evolve and corporate, military, and academic research continues. Bias is inevitable--it can also be called 'interpretation' but I do find the page currently lacking in any broader assessment, outside of entertainment functions, of VR's relationship to broader cultural issues. To tout my own horn, this entry should include a reference to my own book-- Ken Hillis, 1999, "Digital Sensations: Space, Identity and Embodiment in Virtual Reality," Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-3251-0. Posted February 9, 2007.

Protected?
Why is this page protected or semi-protected? It includes some blatant spam (amigahistory) that needs to be removed. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 12:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you call?
You know, it's like a space shuttle that wobbles around and you sit inside and watch like a 3D roller coaster? It's quite a popular attraction... Thanx in advance --Shandristhe azylean 11:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A motion platform? 69.95.50.15 18:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, that's what I meant! =PP --Shandristhe azylean 12:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Television
Many of you may not known it, but in 1988 RAI TV Italy channel 2, national italian TV broadcaster in a young people show called "Tandem", (staging from 1984 to 1989 circa) featured a virtual reality installation. It was realized thru Mandala System by Vivid Group Inc. a firm based in Canada. It is made of 3 Amiga A3000 (one to acquire images), another to genlock images with the object created by the third computer.

It featured an experience of yourself on TV screen interacting with your gesture with computer generated objects.

I have only some incomplete proofs on italian TV sites and some fan sites of this ancient TV show.

How can I insert this fact in "Television" section being believed of this fact? Another user deleted my contribute, perhaps he believed it was false or uncredited.

--Raffaele Megabyte 16:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After careful study of what you wrote, I've concluded it does not qualify as VR. Could you explain?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Virtual reality could be immersive or not immersive. Mandala it is an example of NON immersive VR.

Regarding Mandala System check with google what it does and what kind of virtual reality it is...

Italian RAI TV show "Tandem" predates of many years other tv shows showing other examples of VR.maybe stuck with helmets and gloves.

--Raffaele Megabyte 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A real computer-simulated environment?
From the first sentence: "a computer-simulated environment, be it a real or imagined one". On first reading this doesn't make sense to me. If it is computer simulated, it's not real. Is it supposed to mean: either computer simulation of reality or computer simulation of fantasy? Nurg 05:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes that is what it's supposed to mean. The current wording made immediate sense to me when I first read it. Grammatically I think it's correct: it's saying "a computer-simulated real environment, or a computer-simulated imagined environment." You could change the word "real" to "realistic" or "real-world", and "imagined" to "fantasy", as possible suggestions. That might be a little clearer. Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:13, 09/30/2007
 * It is a little confusing, but I think it means to indicate that VR can be, and often is, used to simulate a real environment. Some place you can't really go, the core of a nuclear reactor for example, Or some real place like the deck of an aircraft carrier, where you want to test not-yet-built equipment.  APL (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should take it to mean real verses imaginary VR simulations, i.e. ones that have been built physically verses those in design or in SF stories. That gives us four subfields. :) We can stretch it a bit further and let the homunculus principle add a few more -- an imaginary VR sim running a real VR sim of a real poly-dimensional cube and an imaginary one. Of course that might get a little confusing. Lucien86 (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So What?
"It is a little known fact that one of the first users of Virtual Reality was Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, when she officially opened the visitor centre in June 1994"

Who cares? 203.96.86.10 (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Health risks
Doesn't say anything about health risks or virtual reality like Mental Confusion, Motion Sickness and Eye Damagefrom those little screens being close to the eyes. 86.128.163.183 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have citations for any of that then feel free to add it. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be very interested in reading any cites about health dangers of VR, but I don't think the points you raise here are a serious issue. Not encyclopedic, but if I could just touch on these issues briefly from personal experience :
 * Motion Sickness can be an issue if the framerate or sensor latency is too slow, but it's not really a "health risk" (Becoming a little dizzy will not permanently damage your body.)
 * You're probably thinking of eye strain not "Eye Damage". This isn't as bad as you would think because of the way the eye-pieces are lensed. It feels like looking at screens several feet away. (Think of looking through a microscope. That doesn't hurt your eyes even though the slide is right there, inches away.)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "mental confusion". Can you elaborate? I hope you don't mean people not being able to tell reality from virtual reality, because if that's your concern I can assure you that the technology just isn't that good yet. Sadly.

I've seen a great many people use immersive VR and the only thing that even approaches a uniquely VR related injury is the one time I saw a guy stumble because he tried to lean on something that wasn't really there. (He was fine.)

If you ask me the biggest "health risk" in virtual reality is tripping over all the damn cables. APL (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Insert non-format

Recent Edit
Actually, I apologize somewhat for my hasty edit summary. But I still feel that that the material I removed didn't add anything to the article, only confused it. Lucid Dreaming is a separate subject from VR, and computerized gadgets to help induce it are not new. More importantly they're not VR. A vital component of VR is that a computer is simulating a virtual world. Lucid Dreaming doesn't work like that. APL (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Improper merger
Some one moved the content from Immersive virtual reality and Immersive digital environment articles to Immersion (virtual reality). I think it would be better to merge them here. SharkD (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

making VR environments
Perhaps a section can be made on how VR environments can be made. An example is by using software as Quest3D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.210.145 (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

List of current VR devices?
Hello, Does anyone know is there anywhere list of virtual reality glasses & other virtual reality devices? I am planning to buy virtual reality glasses, but I would love to get some more information what is the lates technology. I would be a happy man if someone could make product list that would give infortmation of all devices that have been sold througout time. Contect of list could be similar as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hybrid_vehicles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.205.27 (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Therapeutic Uses
I just want to call attention to this section and to citation 17. A particular user keeps adding the tag unreliable source, and personally I don't think he knows what a scholarly source is considering the fact that this source is a research centre within a university, and cites not just it's own articles but also of it's peers in published periodicals. So is this a scholarly source or no? Ahtcan (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Was this source peer reviewed? - MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you can take a look yourself. There are various research papers cited and even the KC, all of which are from peer-reviewed periodicals/journals, none of which are of the research centre's. Ahtcan (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see that they cited peer reviewed papers, I am asking if the text that they wrote was peer reviewed. - MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen - yes. Ahtcan (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for another post, but from WP:SOURCES I can't find anything contradicting this source. Ahtcan (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find any mention of their editorial process. Can you point me to what states that this was peer reviewed? - MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I can't seem to find it for this particular document, however can you point me to where it states that this is unreliable - I still cannot find it anywhere in the WP policies. Even if this is self-published, it is clear that the document is not self-serving, the individuals that have written the article have published material in peer-reviewed journals, and the references on the page are all on peer-reviewed papers, none of which is self-referencing. Ahtcan (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) If the source was from peer-reviewed papers, we should quote those papers, and possibly use a CanChild URL as a courtesy link. You have not provided evidence that CanChild, itself, is a reliable source.
 * It being "self-serving" is not relevant&mdash;it's a question of whether the organisation as a reputation for honesty and fact-checking. Without that, all, we could say is that "CanChild asserts that ...."  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this text is referencing claims of therapeutic value the relevant guidelines are at WP:MEDRS. - MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence referenced and the reference cited, both do not make claims countering current consensus. However, if MrOllie such is the case, then would it not be better to use the relevant MEDRS tag rather than the current tag being used to make the matters more specific? I still disagree that the document or the claimed conclusion is asserting something even controversial when the source itself is reputable, and it references peer-reviewed journals, however to better the quality of this statement, the current tag is irrelevant and should be changed at the least to {{MEDRS} if you feel WP:MEDRS applies in this case. Ahtcan (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than quibbling about which template to use, we should focus on whether the source should be used. Since it seems at this point that there is no question that it is self published and not peer reviewed, and that we do have peer reviewed sources available (the canchild article cites them), I think the proper course of action is to remove the canchild reference and cite the underlying sources directly. - MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The document there is a review of other research papers so you cannot simply remove that reference and cite underlying sources... Ahtcan (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I can: I just did. The Sandlund review covers the material well enough to support the text and has the benefit of having been published in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. - MrOllie (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oculus is not the first VR Helmet for Gamers.
Not by a long shot. There've been a lot of them. Oculous is only the latest in a long line of attempts to make VR goggles for gamers.

As a professional in the VR industry, I've had the fun of trying many of these devices.

For gamers, probably the best so far was the "Z800 3dVisor". It originally hit the market at $500. It had gyros and accelerometers for head-tracking and 800x600 (Per eye,1600x600 total) displays. (Only a small number of gamers were interested. When they realized that most of their customers were professionals and VR researchers they promptly tripled the price!)

I understand that Sony has a nice one too.

I have therefore removed the edit that claimed Oculous was the first in this regard.

It's possible that they'll be the first successful one, but only time will tell. (I haven't tried one yet, but I don't see that they've solved the fundamental problems, and 640x800 resolution is bad enough when you're looking at a monitor from 1995, when it takes up your entire vision it's miserable.)

APL (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The editor replied with this edit summary.
 * Haha! Sorry for being a "delitionist" by removing a promotional false claim from the article! APL (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to talk about resolution theoretically without trying it, since hundreds of people have tried it at the CES 2013 (many more before then) but nobody (so far) has criticised it about low resolution. That tells you something. And there is a huge difference between those of previous attempts (Z800 3dVisor, etc), ones made for watching movies (Sony HMZ-T2) and Oculus Rift. Oculus Rift is not like having a 40 inch screen 10 feet in front of you; but, it is meant to be fully-immersive. Even if Oculus Rift doesn't warrant a mention just because it is still in the development stage, a section about VR gaming should be a topic about which VR geeks would readily like to discuss. Shouldn't there be a section for the history/timeline of VR gaming (if not an entire wikipage)?

A few years ago I read this wiki page, I was disappointed that no mention of gaming was discussed. Now, it's still the same. If there's a section about movies, why can't there a section about gaming? Or is it because VR people don't want others to find out about this nice little niche market?

I would hope that such a section (or a wikipage) will be created before the average consumer can buy something like the Oculus Rift (circa late 2013 or 2014). They should know about why VR hasn't be possible until now. The situation with VR technology is like that with AI, there was a lot of expectation in the 60s and 70s and then they realised it's not as simple as it first appeared.

Not sure if you know about this forum http://www.mtbs3d.com, but many VR enthusiasts are there (I'm not a member there). The reason why many DIYers are there to make their own VR HMD is because there has not been a full-immersion VR headset on the mainstream consumer market ever until 2013 (There might have been a few that cost tens of thousands of dollars for professionals in a last decade or so)

This video may help clarify a lot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gaqQdyfAz8 John Carmack (id Software) and Michael Abrash (Valve) are very credible and notable people. They talk about VR with Palmer Luckey (Oculus).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpV7qq1vyd4 Here Palmer Luckey (Oculus) explains why Oculus Rift is so different from everything else.

60.240.110.90 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the last thing VR profesionals want is more customers and affordable equipment. We're editing Wikipedia out of a conspiracy to drive ourselves out of business.
 * Seriously, I'm well aware of the Occulus Rift's features, and am eagerly anticipating when I can buy one. (December 2012, right?) Nobody wants VR Gaming to become popular more than me.
 * It's possible the OR has gotten enough publicity to push it past the chicken-egg problem that so much unique game hardware has, and the realism-makes-games-harder problem that makes that influential hard-core market segment more skeptical. (You know the type, the people that would play games in black-and-white if it somehow increased their score by 1%)


 * If the OR is The One that's fantastic.
 * ...but it isn't yet.


 * Right now it's just the latest in a long line of attempts. A bit better than the previous attempt, but aren't they all?
 * (By the way "full-immersion VR [X]" is a marketing buzz-word. It has no agreed upon meaning beyond the basic idea that it usually involves head-tracking and either goggles or a 3d cave. I've seen the phrase applied to all kinds of weird crap. Including stuff I helped develop!)
 * Yes, people are blown away with the OR when they first use it. (And I'll admit that I have not had the opportunity to try it yet. Can't wait!) However, I have had the opportunity to watch hundreds, maybe thousands of people have their "first introduction" to face-mounted-displays. They all react the same way. They're always blown away. They're always astonished at how real it seems. They're always surprised that there isn't motion sickness. They react the same whether we're using the cheazy Z800 or an expensive professional headset that costs more than a house. People don't start to get frustrated with the low rez or the motion sickness, or whatever, until they've been using the things for a few hours or days.  Then the novelty wears off, and they start to see all the problems.


 * The point is, that when you brush aside the marketing hype, (And similar hype has existed for previous flops, not as much, but just as enthusiastic.) OC is just one of many. Presenting it as the "Only" something or the "First" something, without presenting all its predecessors is deceptive and essentially wrong.
 * You're absolutely right that this article needs a section on VR Gaming. And, as you point out, the OR is definitely notable enough to be in that section, even pre-release. Actually, this article needs a pretty serious overhaul in general, it's kind of scatter-shot.  I keep telling myself that one-day I'll put some time in to sort it out but I never do. I guess I'm lazy. APL (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For the early adopters (kickstarters), they will get theirs in March 2013. For the rest, they'll be shipping the developer's version in April, 2013. You can pre-order it on their official site now if you want. As for me, I'll wait for the consumer version (2.0). Since I just upgraded my PC, I'm not willing to shell out $300 this soon. The dev OR can already work with Doom 3: BFG, Hawken, Miner Wars 2081 out of the box, and many others soon. (For a full list, read Oculus Rift)60.240.110.90 (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it originally Dec2012? I was trying to be sarcastic, but I might have just been wrong.
 * To be honest, that compatibility list is skimpy. I'm a little surprised, other, crazier devices have done better. I understood that it had more confirmed titles on it, but maybe it's just too early.
 * Don't get me wrong, I'm eager to see the OC, and at that price, really, you can't lose if you're a VR enthusiast.
 * I hope it works with my Ouya! APL (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Little to no discussion on how Virtual Reality technology works
While the article talks extensively about the use of VR in media and it's real life benefits, it never actually describes the process of how Virtual Reality works — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.219.69.131 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Facebook Purchase, Timeline
Is the purchase of Oculus VR by Facebook really important enough to be on the timeline, or is it just included because it is a recent event? 76.198.37.8 (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the inclusion of it here, temporarily, will sort itself out over time as to whether or not it is an important even for VR or something else that warrants inclusion on a page for Facebook, Oculus, or something else. Sir.eldren (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Current
I just removed the notice that said "Virtuality redirects here" which was FALSE because Virtuality has its own page. PiPhD (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC) <-- Someone just reverted this change. Just realize that it is VERY CONFUSING to have TWO entries for "Virtuality" one of which is IN ERROR! PiPhD (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I tried to add my first input to Wikipedia, writing a reference in the movies section to the VR in Avatar. But it was removed. Maybe I needed to get it approved here first or what?RonSyme (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It could be my little kids were messing with Wikipedia few years back. RonSyme (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.242.94.57 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont this the The Lawnmower Man did misunderstood Cyberspace as it is written here. If you pay attention to the movie, you see that the VR Stimulations regain the long lost ability to cast magic, that is what the movie is all about. So The Lawnmower Man is using Magic Spells, not VR when in the real world!

-

I think it should be noted that while in "The Matrix", the information goes both ways (brain to computer, computer to brain) in Sony's proposed method, the information only goes from computer to brain, which makes the "ala de Matrix" label given to it somehow incorrect or misleading. -

Hey, someone else can include some new stuff here? I thought that wikipedia would be open for contributions. It doesn't seem anymore - at least on computer related topics.

I want to add Eric Howlett, inventor of the LEEP systems technology and a pioneer in Virtual Reality, to the list of Notables and Pioneers here. Will try to get a page on him built soon also.

rpelman 13:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)rperlman


 * Not a request for changes to specific text. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Impact?
Interesting. Thank you for your watchful eye! Does Michilo S. Cline merit inclusion in this entry? I don't know. -If we want to stick to the big names, he clearly does not merit inclusion. Although, due to a lack of big names in this area, it may be necessary to simply remove the section. -Even if we don't want to stick to the big names, does he have a sufficient reputation and is the material of sufficient merit? That is a bit tricky. If we are asking, is he qualified, the answer is, probably. He reportedly studied under Dr. Lueck (see the Distance Matters article on his blogsite), co-leader of the Silicon Valley Culures project and a serious heavy weight in the field; and VP Dr. Cooper. But, this of course, merely suggests that he may be qualified to have an opinion, not that his opinion has any merit. Does the material have sufficient merit? Maybe, haven't read the book. -But, does the material add to the Wikipedia entry on VR? If this is the criteria, and I have some reservations, it may make sense to leave the text as is. Or what if we changed, the phrase "perhaps most notably, Michilo S. Cline, blah blah blah" to "one author argues," or something along those lines? Of course, it would be necessary to give him credit for his ideas, but it could be footnoted or something. -ML

Check the changes between 22Nov and 30Nov made by IP #70.191.85.193. Did anyone verify that information? I've done some checking and see no authority associated with that entry. The added source, Mychilo S. Cline and the book that he is apparently self-publishing through the University Village Press (linked as a source at the bottom of the page and a domain that lists him as administrative contact... and on which his blog is maintained) have been subjected to what level of scrutiny to allow their inclusion? Who is Cline? Has anyone read this book?

I've been looking into IAVRT and his name has been linked to that possibly fictional organization. I don't know if any of this is real or fiction, but I don't see anyone else asking the questions and thought you guys might be interested.

I have removed the link to the reBank website (in the paragraph above). According to Wikipedia guidelines, "Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians should be removed." I would also recommend, that due to questions of objectivity, neutrality, verifiablity, that the rest of this paragraph be removed. This is not the place for wild speculation.

-ML


 * I'm removing the Cline referenced material as part of a major clean-up. - Seazzy (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Replaced Cline info. Deeper look shows his 2005 book has been cited in other works (The Age of Virtual Reality. Thomas Hohstadt, 2013), and a short review was posted to Kurtzweil's site in 2009 (http://www.kurzweilai.net/power-madness-and-immortality). As mentioned above, VR has historically attracted pretty out-there people - my bad for removing the info. Will try to source the person who posted initially. Seazzy (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Stanislaw Lem
If this author is going to be included under pioneers and notables, there needs to be some sort of justification. It needs to be more than the author having written stories featuring the technology or an environment with VR-like qualities. Many writers would fit that criteria. -- Dx 17:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Stanislaw Lem didn't just write few stories. He devoted a whole chapter in his Summa Technologiae (1963) to the problems resulting from creating virtual reality (which he called phantomatics). As for his s-f, "Skrzynie profesora Corcorana" in 1960s described professor, who constructed something like matrix. Szopen 12:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC) EDIT: actually, I can't find exact date for "Skrzynie profesora Corcorana". On internet the different dates for the publishing of this short story are: 1957, 58, 1960, and 1961.. Anyway he was definetely before "Simulacron 3" Szopen 13:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Term "virtual reality" used in a metaphorical sense?
216.213.209.137 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) In Italy, after the media craze about VR of the mid-90s died out, many people (especially older, non-coMputer-savvy people) started using the term "virtual reality" in a metaphorical, i.e. non-computing related, sense. In Italy, the term is now mostly used to mean a lie you are forced to believe, an illusion you convince yourself about, a status of ignorance you have been forced into... Many Italians actually find it confusing when it is used in its primary sense of a computer-generated interactive environment. Is it the same in other countries?

Devil Master 23:03, 26 Sep 2005 (MET)

By hope spruill & dakota cogburn (her bf)

Perhaps the article needs to make a distinction between the concept and possibilities of a virtual reality (looking at etymology of both words) and the current consumer technology. --98.14.255.77 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed addition regarding games
The following section was added at the end, but seemed too light on facts and heavy on rumor to leave in. If others disagree, or more facts are added, maybe it can be put back in:

"Nintendo in fact has been studying virtual reality every since the Virtual Boy failed back in the mid 1990's. Rumors a buzz in the industry came when the reported Nintendo On video was released. Many gamers thought it was going to be the next Nintendo system. Unfortunately it was determined to be fake and made by a fan. However lately the SeriousGamer007 Blog has been creating a lot of buzz with talk of Stereoscopic 3D Visor. In fact reportedly the Blog may actually be a hyping tool to create buzz about Nintendo's next console led by Nintendo's marketing team. SeriousGamer007 even claims to have played the latest game system and hints to either true Virtual Reality or full immersion through Stereoscopic 3D glasses." hope spruill

Jaron Lanier
I added a link to Jaron Lanier's page where he states his claim to have coined the term VR. I have no idea why this reference doesn't work i.e. it shows as a reference but when clicked goes nowhere. I would be most obliged if someone could fix it. Sincere apologies. Morgan Leigh 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ubiquitous Computing
I strongly disagree with the tone of this article. It's as if VR were in a battle with UbiComp. Or that UbiComp arose in response to VR.

UbiComp comes about because it's just USEFUL to put computers everywhere.

And VR will still come to pass. And it's hardly intrinsicly "anti-social," any more than Wikipedia is intrinsicly "anti-social." It's just a medium for communication.

It feels like there's an agenda in this article- a model of the computer mediums as "anti-people," and material mediums as being "pro-people." Both rediculous notions. Neither system is "pro" or "anti" people. This is a war in someone's head, it seems to me.

I'd rather if the Virtual Reality article were more about, well, Virtual Reality.

I also am not very happy with the tone of article. The first sentence claims that Virtual Reality "can be referred to as computer simulated life" and can do this and that. Could we just say that Virtual Reality is the a computer simulation of life like experiences? The most advanced virtual reality technology included stereoscopic, taste, smell, movement, etc etc etc. VR entusiasts and others will always be interested in the most advanced VR technology with maximum immersion, and there will always be an interest in consumer level VR computing too. --98.14.255.77 (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the term
Origins are given for the terms "artificial reality" and "cyberspace", but not "virtual reality" itself. I believe that the first use of the term is often attributed to Damien Broderick's science fiction novel The Judas Mandala (this is indeed claimed in the entry on Broderick), where it is used in a slightly different sense, but there may be other candidates. Someone might want to check this out and add a sentence early in the article.

Metamagician3000 13:32, 23 December 2005

Looking further down in the article, I see that the term is attributed to Lanier in 1989. This really should be mentioned earlier in the article where there is a reference to the origin of other terms. In any event, Lanier certainly did not invent the term (at least not in 1989) as The Judas Mandala was several years earlier. However, he may have been the first to use it in the sense that is now in common use. Metamagician3000 01:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

RE - Revised the VR term attribution to reflect your points. It was a holdover from the old content. -- Dx 02:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Total rewrite needed
This is without a doubt one of the worst articles I have seen on Wikipedia. Very little referencing, ridiculous speculation, and a terrible style of writing mean that this really needs a complete rewrite. Any volunteers? SaintedLegion 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree, though I don't think there is nearly enough speculation in the article. It would be clearly better if it wasn't a bare unimagitative list of various mentions of VR and early VR products. As it currently stands it's a really horrible article. Paranoid 17:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup dreadful. The thing that really gets me is that it gives the impression that VR in fiction was quite a small phenomenon, when it was like a tide and there are hundreds and hundreds of movies and TV programs and books. There is even a special VR story episode of Murder She Wrote with Jessica Fletcher. As for its earliest appearances in SF - a good search might push it back as far as the 1940's or even 30's. There were a good few VR stories by the 1960's - at least one by Issac Asimov. There are things in early Flash Gordon that are a little like VR (and maybe in one of EE Doc Smith's books).
 * One particularly notable book to me was Samuel R Delany's 'Fall of the Towers' which gives a particularly precise description of VR. The young soldiers sent out to a ferocious war are in fact all being put in 'coffin like' capsules, to fight and live out their lives for years in a shared communal computer generated fantasy. When/if they die in the simulation the machine kills them for real and the dark side is that the whole war is a fake and they are mainly being killed to reduce over-population. Its set in a far future post apocalyptic society but it was in fact written during the Vietnam war. Great Book.
 * Lucien86 (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What about a split in articles between Virtual Reality (Technology) and Virtual Reality (Concept)?

Also, see the wikipedia page Augmented Reality, it is much clearer than this VR page and could guide a re-write.

A BETTER INTRO?.... aye carumba. Virtual reality is a form of technology that displays immersive environments which people can explore and interact with. The most cutting edge virtual reality tech. includes highly developed: simulation, interaction, artificiality, immersion, telepresence, full-body immersion, and network communication.

POSSIBLE OUTLINE Consumer Virtual Reality Technology -gaming -entertainment Business Virtual Reality Technology -simulation/training -viewing panoramic images Timeline of improvements in virtual reality technology Virtual Reality in Science Fiction --Kactapuss (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I commented below in another subsection but as a relatively new Wikipedian that would love to contribute to this page, I don't understand the structure - it makes no sense to me, has no cohesion.TotoroRules (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Very nervous System by David Rokeby
I wrote a section regarding "Very Nervous System" by David Rokeby, a kind of virtual reality experience that involves the visitors to walk or making gesture in a delimited space. In this "special" space continuously monitored, sensors detected movements by the visitors and generate music thru synthetizers. All the system it is controlled by a Macintosh computer.

David Rokeby has also already a brief article on Wikipedia.

Unfortunately another user (Arthur_Rubin), continuously delete this section as he believes that David Rokeby has no relevance at all in the history of Virtual Reality.

My position is that Mr. Rokeby deserves a place in this article because he is a real pioneer. His systems David Rokeby site received since 1986 a vaste number of awards and acknowledgements.

Description of Very Nervous System is here and here. It is a very innovative system, different from normal virtual reality systems and never ever equalled.

Thanks to its genie and its installations Mr. Rokeby won award at Biennale of Arts in Venice in 1986. He won Prix Ars Electronica Award of Distinction for Interactive Art (1991), He was awarded of one of the highest honour in Canada, the Governor_General's_Award.

Due to all these acknowledgements I ask that the section regarding Mr. Rokeby to be reissued in this article.

He deserve its place in history of Virtual Reality.

Sincerely,

--Raffaele Megabyte 17:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The description you gave doesn't qualify as "virtual reality", but as "non-mechanical interaction". There seems (again, from your description) to be little relationship between the user/participant's action and the result in the image.  You might as well call a theremin a "virtual musical instrument".  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A virtual musical instrumente is not what you described. A virtual music instrument, it is a musical instrument realized thru emulation, of a precise instrument different form any other existing. Very nervous system does not create new and non-existing instuments. It just plays already existing instruments using any body moves, and it plays randomly, not complete sequences. The reality naturally does not plays music excepts than sounds of nature. When you entered in a space with precise bounduaries, monitorized by sensors that pilots synthetizers which emit different music at every move you made (VNS virtual reality experience), then you could had experienced a different reality than normal one, and this is just another form of virtual reality. It not uses the sense of sight but the sense of hearing. I am lucky because I personally experienced Very Nervous System and Mandala VR System in a science exhibit in Naples, Italy, 1993. This fact teach me that VR it is more than a 3D helmet and gloves. Why other senses should be punished and removed from virtual reality simulated experiences?

--Raffaele Megabyte 11:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Virtual reality is a generated environment whose intent is to "fool" you as completely as possible into thinking you're actually in another place, by allowing you to not only interact with it to create effects, but to interact with other virtual objects, virtual characters, and with other real people who have entered that virtual environment. What you're describing is just a system for playing music. A synthesizer does the same thing, only you control it by pressing keys instead of moving your body. An element of randomness doesn't make it any more "virtual reality". I realize you like it and think it's great, and it probably is, maybe even deserving its own article -- but it doesn't belong here. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)22:21, September 11, 2007


 * Upon further thought, it might be virtual (spacial awareness → sound) synesthesia. I'm still not convinced it should be here, but that opens up A Whole New World.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the RfC: The "Very Nervous System" section certainly doesn't belong in this article. Not only is it only tangentially related to the idea of "virtual reality", it's also expressing an opinion rather than encyclopedic facts. Since it's clearly against the neutral point of view policy, I'm removing it.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  21:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Virtuality
Ted Nelson wrote an article in the November 1980 issue of Creative Computing magazine called "Interactive Systems and the Design of Virtuality". Using the term "Virtuality" in reference to computers may have been coined by Nelson. Virtuality (software design) -- an uncited article, credits the term to him. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article. -- &#x2611; SamuelWantman 10:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems quite a bit off topic to me. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. I worked with Tom Zimmerman on early ideas that led to the Data Glove (Tom was one of the founders of VPL).  After reading the article,  we started talking about "virtuality" quite a bit.  I would not be surprised if that is how it got to Jaron and morphed into VR.  But I don't have any cites for this... -- &#x2611; SamuelWantman 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

sfsf xcxc
ted text here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.226.195 (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

one thing that could be rather severe is if a player in a virtual reality game gets killed inside the virtual reality. that could result in real death because it tricks the brain into thinking that the injury is real. think i might have heard of that in star trek.84.213.45.196 (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

"See Also"
Do "Second Life" and "Minecraft" belong in this article? I'm under the impression that VR is more of a whole-sensory experience/use, as compared to these games which are virtual worlds, but lack anything more than keyboard and mouse controls while watching a computer screen. If these qualify as "virtual reality," couldn't Super Mario 64, Mario Kart, and Tomb Raider also qualify on the grounds that they have immersive graphics and responsive controls? Also, wouldn't MUDs qualify because of their virtual existence? World of Warcraft, Ultima Online, and even text-based games such as Medievia could be listed too. Where is the line drawn? Sir.eldren (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

CULL THE LIST! This article needs to be a well written overview on VR! Not an all inclusive list. Kactapuss (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm culling the See Also list. It's grown ridiculous. There's no need for a general topic like VR to link to a small subset of the commercial products used for it. APL (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I also started to look into the "Challenges" section, because it's a mess, (For instance, it doesn't talk about any actual challenges, of which there are many.) it's mostly an overview of ubiquitous computing, oddly enough. But I wasn't sure how it was supposed to go, and I don't have references on hand, anyway, so I left it for now. Any ideas on how to proceed there?

About four years ago now I copied portions of a draft survey paper (the most generic) into Wikipedia to reboot the article and inject a bit of rigor into it. For the most part, I am pleased with what people have done with it over the ensuing years. It is a difficult topic to cover because it is so interdisciplinary. The "mess" that is the Challenges section was one paragraph out of an entire page put in as a stub for others to flesh out. The content is out of context, but my main motivation for putting the section there was to call out the need to have it. Apparently no one has done much with it, and as a working professional without the time to pursue altruistic pursuits such as Wikipedia I have little motivation to do so. In the article itself and talk page I see lines and lines of people wanting to name drop their favorite author, book, or what have you and debate over pop culture impact. I see less of wikipedians actually wanting to make a scholarly technical contribution to what is essentially a technical topic in the encyclopedic sense. VR in literature and media could easily be its own article, as could VR technology. If I were to rework it again, more daunting a task given the broader appeal of Wikipedia now, I would split them. Dx (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If the question is where do the challenges sit today, they are much the same because there has been little progress in moving beyond them. Control schemes are still lacking. Video games have made tremendous strides in fidelity of interaction, but the schemes break down when attempts are made to generalize them because gaming worlds/rules are still too constrained for general utility. Augmented reality has not closed the gap sufficiently because of limitations in calibration to both the surrounding environment and individual user. The systems are still too difficult to personalize for workable "walk up and use" applications. Brain control interfaces seem to be on the verge of a breakthrough in the commercial space, but have yet to show results in the mass market. There's a product I'm thinking about that's caused of a lot of buzz this past year, but I can't think of the name and don't have the time to dig through my notes. There are many more unresolved challenges, but the main barrier to mainstream use is the inability to create a one size fits all immersive interaction scheme for these environments. Composition tools usable for scenario generation by lay people/non-technical domain subject matter experts are also missing. Without feasible economies of scale in business applications, VR will remain primarily an entertainment and specialized training technology. I welcome anyone to use the text above as a starting point to expand the Challenges section. Dx (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In my mind the biggest challenges for full immersion VR are the input and output. (pretty much the same as ever, I suppose.)
 * Tracking methodologies are getting better, but most have serious flaws. Optical tracking is probably the best contender for most applications but it has serious occlusion problems, especially in multi-user environments. Acoustic suffers similar problems. Magnetic tracking works well, but only in small areas, and is very sensitive to the influences of conductors and electric currents.
 * For outputs, there are a variety of affordable head mounted displays on the market. (Finally!) However, most of them have low resolution and very limited fields of views. Very expensive helmets that try to address these issues are beginning to come onto the market to combat these issues.
 * Another serious challenge to full immersive VR is that without force feedback, fine manipulation of objects is nearly impossible regardless of how precise your datagloves are. Even gross manipulation of objects takes a little practice to stop being disconcerted when you 'grip' something and your real hand forms all the way into a fist.
 * And of course, there's all those damn wires to trip over!
 * I could easily write this up in a more formal way, but it's all personal experience and I have no idea how to cite it. I'm not aware of any papers or books that give a good overview of the challenges and limitations of current VR technology. APL (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I could easily write this up in a more formal way, but it's all personal experience and I have no idea how to cite it. I'm not aware of any papers or books that give a good overview of the challenges and limitations of current VR technology. APL (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The I/O for VR as it exists now for many applications is fine. Flight simulators have been put to effective use for years.  It is more a question of application fit.  I do agree that the distinction needs to be made between the different types of VR (immersive and non, hybrid, etc), and borrowing the taxonomies from recent virtual worlds research would go a long way toward doing that.  One of the overarching challenges for Immersive VR since the 80's is that incremental change and progress has not been viewed favorably.  There is this notion that each effort will result in the next big thing.  Untethered VR control schemes were/and are going to be more favorable for widespread adoption because people in general do not like having to put gear on unless absolutely necessary.  There are plenty of references to support that, but there is plenty of observable research and funded programs which reinforce the idea that funding proliferation of gadgets that a program reviewer can see and touch is easier than funding core research on human perception and psychophysics related to VR.  DARPA AugCog has done some very interesting research that could be tied into VR research lines easily if not inexpensively.  Multimodal research of the last few years has also delved into using visual and audio cuing to assist with finer control of fully digital objects.  The infatuation with HMDs and data gloves is one of the reasons Immersive VR research languished for so long before affordable CAVEs came on the scene.  A practical application is more likely to have a combination of interaction modes for best response.  Optical tracking currently doesn't have the resolution required for fine scene manipulation even with the occlusion issue taken out of the equation.  Then there is the issue of operator fatigue.  Wireless devices have come a long way are a good intermediate option.  Between what APL contributed today and whatever I typed up, there's plenty to Google and clean up to drop into the article.  Dx (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Movies
Why, oh why is The Matrix not in this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.15.16 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Because you haven't put it there. Tragic romance (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Who is Ryan Chester? And what is "Virtually Reality"? Is it a TV production? Is it possible that Googling these terms produced no single coherent result? Corwin.amber (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A year has passed and now this sentence has propagated to so many web pages (which probably harvest Wikipedia for text in order to improve their Google hit rate). I am so curious! Who is this mysterious filmmaker? Corwin.amber (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Concerning "Inception" (2010)

I changed: "Inception," made in 2010, features Virtual Reality in use to convincing suggest and an unwise business decision to a business leader at the behest of a competing corporation.

To: The movie is very convoluted and actually is about a character who is "trapped in Virtual Reality." This fact isn't revealed to the viewer until the last scene, one can even speculate the protagonist is actually insane or simply dreaming since he never gets out of this reality. This point doesn't need to be addressed on this page, but that is why just the stated purpose of the beginning of the movie should be here, where it is clearly virtual reality. The first sentence above has describes a slightly larger impact Virtual Reality can have society, but may partially spoil the viewing experience of reader who hasn't seen the movie yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.177.171 (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Inception," made in 2010, features operatives termed "Extractors" who are employed by corporations to use Virtual Reality to steal business secrets from rival corporations.
 * Correction: "Inception" features operatives termed "Extractors" who are employed by corporations to use virtual reality and a completely fictional device to enter people's dreams to accomplish various goals, including steal business secrets from rival corporations. Mattwillmarron (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Reality Check -Predon Ultimately VR was just the obvious Cop Out for the ~Matrix~ Universe; and it didn't even exist in the real world as built machines to provide VR to stationary humans to begin with. It was all just imagined or something...in the core of the earth...the sentinals...etc.

What's this article about?
Is it about the history of the two words "virtual reality", or is it about the technology that most people today actually think about when the concept is mentioned. If someone used it to describe the theatre somewhere in the 30s, shouldn't that be mentioned in the into, instead or being an essential part of the article? 84.210.60.115 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty new to Wikipedia but as someone reading this for the first time and who knows a decent amount about the VR space, this article is really disjointed. I'd like to help shape it but I don't even know where to start - there are real structural issues it seems from a first impression. TotoroRules (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Grassroots
Maybe a talk on how the USB light can be configured from the USB cable using all four wire sets (power +,- : data =,\) onto the LED and wire lead. This would lead to further understanding of 'it' in the in~home usage of VR. Currently there is only data on using the 2 power leads from the light to the 2 power wires in the USB cable in the HOW to`s. {Sorely Inc.} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.117.16.45 (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Virtual reality? That's an oxymoron!
It can either be only real or virtual, since Real means "True, genuine, not merely nominal or apparent. " (Wiktionary, real), and Virtual means "in effect, not fact." This means it can only be either or, it cannot be both. Just like there is no "Jumbo shrimp". This is just constructive criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The f18hornet (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's just the name people use for this particular genre of technology, which makes the virtual appear real. -- Beland (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Virtual Reality or virtual reality?
This is a very minor thing, but I don't want to make a mistake. I've uncapitalized both "virtual realities" and "reality" in the lead section, as most search results show that this as the convention. However, if this is incorrect, please inform me so I may refrain from neurotically changing it back to its uncapitalized form. Me, Myself &#38; I (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Exclusion
This is my favorite subject. "Without" the computer, what is V.R. really. Not where, that isn't important. think about it.
 * Sorry, but could you clarify a bit? This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Is it even relevant? Mattwillmarron (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

VR 360 degrees cameras
More and more videos on yotube have a 360 degrees view and VR videos too. But in the Wikipedia I cant find much about the cameras. We should improve it.

Some examples :


 * Odyssey GoPro
 * Jaunt Neo
 * Nokia Ozo
 * 360Fly
 * Spehricam
 * Giroptic
 * Kodak Pixpro SP360
 * Immerge
 * Sphericam

Studios:
 * PanaoptikonVR

--Noobius2 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Live-action virtual reality game
Most of this new article appears to be original research (without any in-depth, reliable coverage in secondary sources). The one source that does go in-depth (the title source) discusses the idea as a neologism—it would need to have been picked up as a widespread concept before we have a dedicated article on the topic. The few statements that can be reliably sourced would fit just fine within the main article. czar 16:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge - I agree with Czar. Zamaster4536 (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge- I also agree with Czar. Minecraftpsyco (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hackers
My name is CampHire (cpmp). If there is nothing new about virtual reality then this does not need an edit. There is a lot of warez out there and most of the stuff you use is VRE compatible. Make sure you even use vr before you start talking about it here or anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:2D0:A900:46AF:1E95:E590 (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Lanier popularized the term???
I challenge this unreferenced assertion. It is certainly wrong to state that "BY the 1980's the term was popularized...". Also this section is factually WRONG. Zimmerman at Atari is clearly credited with developing several data gloves (which had obvious use for electronic games). Spending so much time on Lanier's supposed influence smacks of self-promotion. Also, StarTrek:Next Generation debuted in 1987 and had the VR holodeck in many of the series's plot-lines. While fictional, it probably did more to "popularize" the concept of VR than anything else in the 1980s, and should be mentioned (since Sci-Fi authors are).Abitslow (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Splitting Fiction section into a new article Virtual Reality in Fiction to give other editors more space to flesh this out. Summary can be included/adapted for Virtual Reality. Will look into the Lanier reference, and delete/modify as necessary. - Seazzy (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

VIR
VIR is the New Keyword being used to Promote Virtual Reality by Startups, As it Sounds & Look better & Surely Pass the Audio Test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.162.4 (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Addition of a "Media" Section under use?
360 films have been produced specifically for the use of a virtual reality apparatus. 360 Films and videos

On Valve's Steam, Disney has released "Disney VR" which allows a user to experience Disney, Marvel, and Lucas Film worlds through Virtual reality. Disney VR

Other examples of VR integration in media exist and is only growing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilricksanchez (talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Steppenwolf
In Herman Hesse's Steppenwolf (1927), the main character enters a theater with several rooms and sees a "virtual reality" in each of them.82.160.114.8 (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC) ''

Usage in Pornography
Is it appropriate to add this sub-section? Or should it be merged with a more 'covered up' section?— Squid Homme  (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Technology in the Modern Age
The ultimate trial usage of virtual reality appears to be coming to a conclusion. More devices are being sold and are V.R. ready. However, such an existance of virtual reality as exposed in science fiction may be far off. It is unclear if this technology will ever be readily availiable to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.154.42 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Major clean-up needed!
Aside from the lede, a lot of work needs to be done, particularly considering the growing use of and interest in the topic. I've added an advert template to the Use section, would like to see some more work put into it. I am working a bit on the concerns and challenges section. I've also downgraded the project ratings. There is no way this article approaches B-class considering the lack of citations for major sections and multiple flagged page issues. Would be really, really nice to get a few more eyes on this one. - Seazzy (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Completely agree with you, Seazzy. I am tackling the Education and training section at the moment. Smojarad (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Healthcare, education and training still need some work - particularly regarding original research and neutral tone: cited papers need more specific description of results, or better secondary sources; as descriptors, "positive" and "successful" don't pass the test. I'm working on getting better sources and background on software/programming level info. - Seazzy (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Cruz-Neira
A lot of early VR research and computer-science work was carried out by Carolina Cruz-Neira, and her lab continues to develop a lot of interesting applications in healthcare and training. I removed unsourced info as part of a major clean-up a while ago, but was wrong to to that. She was very visible before the 2015 VR boom, has slipped from widespread consciousness since. Would be good to expand info on this, and to develop her wikipedia bio more. Some resources if anyone is interested in taking this on:
 * 2014 - http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2014/nov/24/engineer-envisions-sci-fi-as-reality-20/
 * Google Scholar citations - https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=A0mJXMsAAAAJ
 * 2014 UCF Seminar Series - http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/seminar_flyers/4February2014.pdf
 * Short 2016 video on the "Virtual Dissection Table" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxJgnyLvn0Y
 * 1992 documentary on The Cave - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKL0urEdtPU

- Seazzy (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Architecture
I recently made my first edit here on the Virtual Reality under "Architectural and urban design" and my edit said "Architecture firms like CO Architects are using VR technology for pre-visualization". However, do to the company that I provided does not have Wikipedia page it was taken down but I will definitely find a better example for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdinh (talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The company that I will be using for an example will be AECOM, which has a notable Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdinh (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for wanting to improve the article. What we do here is summarize reliable, secondary sources.  So if you can find an article in a good quality publication - an architecture trade magazine, or something like the New York Times, that talks about how VR is being used in the field, that would be great.  We try to avoid what we call "primary sources" here - doing so helps us to avoid many, many problems. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Virtual reality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sega-16.com/feature_page.php?id=5&title=Sega%20VR%3A%20Great%20Idea%20or%20Wishful%20Thinking%3F
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150820001906/http://data-reality.com/comparison-of-best-vr-headsets-morpheus-vs-rift-vs-vive/ to http://data-reality.com/comparison-of-best-vr-headsets-morpheus-vs-rift-vs-vive/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.roblesdelatorre.com/gabriel/GR-IEEE-MM-2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Lede modification
Made some changes to the long-suffering lede. Put focus on the conceptual, then the technical. Removed statements that are not reflected anywhere else in the article. Good enough to remove the lede flag?

Seazzy (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"Use" of VR
Am floating the idea if anyone is against me re-titling the "Use" section to “Applications of VR" to help clarify the section's included information. Also, should there be a separate article called “Applications in Virtual Reality” because the current "Use" section seems to be cluttering the article with the different ways VR is used, which is helpful for readers to know; however, to help preserve the experience and focus of the article, which is "what is virtual reality," my recommendation would be to create this new article and link it to the current "Virtual Reality" article. Please let me know your thoughts and opinions on these topics. Dcr1076 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dcr1076. Great suggestion. This article often gets abused for promotional purposes and your proposal could do a lot to help that. Seazzy (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any content in this article that is "written like an advertisement." Can you explain why you added this cleanup tag here? Jarble (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This section is often used/abused in ways like "The VRThing300 is the leading software for experiencing VR in [industry]" (press release and/or obscure business blog for source) or "[Company] used VR for [something] in 2016", when there are a significant number of organizations doing the same thing in the same field. Non-neutral tone is often reflexive. I've put some work into maintaining firsts and general industry overviews, but haven't removed the tag. If the section looks cleaned up to you, go ahead and remove it. Seazzy (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for both your comments on the matter of this article being used for promotional purposes. I took the liberty of creating another article called "Applications of VR," which is essentially all the original information copy-and-pasted from the "Applications of VR" section of this "Virtual Reality" article. I have now reorganized it a bit with some copyediting for a better word flow. Would like your thoughts on this separate article before jumping to whittling down the "Applications of VR" section in this "Virtual Reality" article. Dcr1076 (talk)
 * Looks good. I've made some changes to Fine Arts, the lede, and categorization. I suggest that the replacement section in this main article include a brief prose style listing of applications. This thing is still a dogs breakfast... Seazzy (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Commercial Industries
I've cut this section. It is largely redundant, and has had a prose-style banner since 2015, and most of these topics are covered within the other sections. I've added internal links to important topics like 360 video. I have placed some of the topics as one liners where missing in the main section, and created links where they were already present but unlinked. Seazzy (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Pioneers and Notables
Most names were listed within the article, so I. Below are the names left over - most are involved in VR, but it's not clear what could be meaningfully added about their contributions that wouldn't invite a free-for-all. If anyone wants to have a go at including them prose style in the appropriate section (or related article) that would be lovely.

Please consider expanding the bio articles first before adding significant info on these people to this article.

Removed:
 * Anshe Chung - Second Life might be a virtual world but it is not under the strict definition of VR
 * Mark Bolas
 * Fred Brooks
 * Edmond Couchot
 * James H. Clark
 * Doug Church
 * Knowbotic Research
 * Jacquelyn Ford Morie
 * Randy Pausch
 * Mark Pesce
 * Warren Robinett
 * Susumu Tachi

Seazzy (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Why was the future section removed?
I recently added a future section under timelines. These predictions comes from Oculus and more specifically Micheal Abrash who is well respected in the computer society. This was revoked by Jytdog:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_reality&diff=850416018&oldid=850415952&diffmode=visual

I wonder why and if I can put it back? What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrconter1 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Any discussion of the future is by definition speculative, and opens the door to lengthy insertion of opinions. This is on the edge of promotional content. There is one source with a vested interest in a proprietary device. Rather than putting it back, consider making contributions to a wikipedia page on Oculus. - Seazzy (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"I understand your point and agree with you. It's possibly that he is biased. - Mrconter1"

Military section moved to main article for Applications of VR
The Applications subsection has been a dumping ground for questionable VR projects in numerous industries, and as a result is maintained as a broad overview. Moved most of the paid content from User:Annafarrell_2 to main article Applications of VR. There were significant weasel words, and content that could be considered promotional and speculative. The general summary has been maintained and included in the Applications section of this article. --Seazzy (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Edits to the Health Section
I added a few sentences going more in-depth on the side effects of using VR headsets, especially about seizures, for information from a Business Insider article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsengr410 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Today I added some more sentences elaborating on eye fatigue, and a few sentences elaborating on VR sickness and its causes to the Health and Safety Section -Zsengr410 (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)ZSengr410

Getting rid of "In Fiction and Popular Culture"?
This section has long been a dumping ground for individual projects and an endless list of books, movies, tv, games, etc. It is now down to two sentences, neither of which is useful. Most notable pop-cultural and fiction-based info is included in the timeline. Does it make sense at this point to let the section go? -Seazzy (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So long as the handful of notable historical references are in the main body of the article, there's no value in having a list of mostly modern references to what is increasingly a common every day thing. ApLundell (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm still a layperson using mostly other (unreliable) Wikipedia articles to learn about stuff so you might check out the current version of the lead summary in particular
I'm just unsure did I insert any incorrect terminology or just nonsense. And into the other parts of the article too, actually, but the lead is obviously most important. (And no, I didn't check any refs.) SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good concise top lede paragraph. I did some minor copyediting. Examples in lede were inconsistent (medical and engineering uses are training, like military), so I broke it into entertainment and educational uses with examples. - Seazzy (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, anyway just simplified it further. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Etymology
I feel I had inserted the information I found into the wrong part of the article the lead is important, but I felt it did not give a full summary of Virtual Reality. I feel the different version of virtual reality's etymology meaning "near-reality", I found, from a source already used, should be added to the article as another paragraph under etymology.


 * I can see how you would want to include this info, but the source does not appear to be reliable (see WP:RS), particularly as "virtual" is not defined as "near". It would not be accurate to include this in this article. - Seazzy (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I was wondering, since this source appears unreliable, if we should remove the other information from the source in the article. the other information from this source is under citation 6.


 * Good catch. Replaced the promotional link with original source. It may have been switched at some point. - Seazzy (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sensorama-morton-heilig-virtual-reality-headset.jpg

Subtle vandalism
I encourage editors to carefully review the contributions of to this article. Xe has recently been on a spree of subtle vandalism across many articles with sometimes exceedingly deceptive edit summaries (e.g. "wikified" when the edit blanks stuff). Unfortunately, this article's history is too complex for the rollback tool. Uncle G (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh damn, it's a pretty funny troll. Who's weirder, the person who spends hours writing wikipedia articles, or the person who slowly and methodically destroys them? The latter is definitely more creepy. I rolled back to a version in May as that seems to be the best in terms of restoring content. What's the procedure to ban this account/IP? -Seazzy (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

New editor contributions
Hello, regular editors at Virtual reality,

Recently, made this edit to the article, introducing new information about a particular project at Autodesk. The way it was worded, made it look pretty WP:PROMO to me, but I was a bit on the fence about it. The fact that this was this editor's first ever contribution to Wikipedia, kind of tipped the balance for me, and I reverted, along with a welcome message at the user's talk page.

I prefer that regular editors here make the call, about whether this change is for the better or not, and whether the wording needs to be changed to make it both neutral, proportionate in weight to the rest of the article, and without that kind of PROMO-ey flavor it had. I've invited Thad Norberg here to make his case. Previous bits of discussion about this topic can be found both at User talk:Thad Norberg, and at my Talk page in this discussion. Pinging top editors. I won't contribute further unless pinged; whatever you folks decide is fine by me. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, hello regular editors at Virtual reality:

As mentioned to in response to his reversion, I consider the seminal work of Autodesk in achieving the first VR implementation on a PC in 1988 to be an important and neglected part of the early history of VR, perhaps neglected because the time frame is pre-internet. The Autodesk video I linked, from the Timothy Leary (!) archives and hosted at the Internet Archive, provides a good perspective of the state of VR technology of that era. Equally important in my opinion is the subsequent work of the ex-Autodesk personnel at Sense8 Corporation, also hitherto neglected in the article. Sense8 became the VR industry leader in the 1990s, was the first to implement texture mapping on a PC, had its WorldToolKit SDK product widely used by government labs, industry, and academia, (I cited a couple of papers, there are a lot) and was acquired in a public stock swap in 1998. said he reverted because he considered my contribution WP:PROMO, but given these things happened 30 years ago and are (or certainly should be, IMHO) part of the historical record, I fail to see what he thinks they are advertising. In my opinion the Autodesk and Sense8 work is more historically significant than some of the other developments mentioned in the article (examples: Virtual Environment Theater and Angels). I am keen to hear the opinions of the regular editors, thanks. Thad Norberg (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Presumably this made Mathglot a bit suspicious because it's all sourced to first party promotional material instead of a third party source.
 * I don't think it's a WP:PROMO problem. Both the Autodesk Cyberspace project and WTK are pretty much dead in the water. At a certain point promotional material becomes a historical document, so long as we take it with a grain of salt.
 * I guess the only remaining question is whether it's notable or just trivia. We could probably find sources for WTK's notability.  The autodesk thing is probably more just trivia, but personally I'd leave it in. It's an interesting and provides context, but if someone removes it because it's trivia I wouldn't fight over it.ApLundell (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

As I recall, the Autodesk Cyberspace project got significant worldwide press at the time of its announcement and demonstration, as one might imagine of something so radical coming from a major company. Here's a relatively recent Wired article that reprints in full the 1990 article by John_Perry_Barlow, which mentions the Autodesk project 11 times in a fairly detailed way. I can dig to find more major press references, if that is necessary for Autodesk's project to be considered non-trivial and permissible for inclusion.Thad Norberg (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I take it from the lack of further comments that none of the regular editors of this article object to my addition, so I shall once again make the change and also include a reference to the Barlow article in Wired, which I hope is generally regarded as WP:RS.Thad Norberg (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Virtual Reality is something that is really interesting, especially since it is used in so many ways. I am impressed with the author because they gave a clear understanding of what virtual reality is in the lead section. I like how the article is organized because it gives information about how virtual reality first started, versus how it is today. I like how the author gives information about how virtual reality can be used not only for entertainment purposes but for medical purposes as well. The only improvement that is needed for this article is adding citations to some statements that don’t have a citation, or the citation needs updating. Brigpaulson15 (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
My family recently has been obsessed with Virtual Reality. This was a very interesting read for me. I learned a lot about the origins and how virtual reality games and technology has shifted. My only constructive criticism for this article would be to include more on the health and safety part. This might not be the fault of the author, more and more studies are being done all the time I am sure. I guess the future can only tell what kind of effect video gaming like this will have on our society. I would also add more to the privacy portion of the article. Overall this was a great insightful article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica Cragun (talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
I found this article to currently be the most well informed and articulated! I have always found Virtual Reality interesting and I think this article was up to date and has plenty of information about the topic. One thing that I think could really add to this article are more images. I am a visual learner so I am very excited when I see all the images on the Wikipedia pages. I think that there is a lot of information to go over and look through to add and update this page! - Tonilynn Ludwig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10658513uvu (talk • contribs) 22:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Share the Love •	First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I think this article is very well written. It includes so many things that anyone might want to know about virtual reality. It has a great amount of sources to back up its claims and to allow further study into the subject. •	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? For the most part I believe this article is very well written and is very informative, if I had to give a suggestion for improvement it would just to go over each paragraph and try to shorten it as much as possible. Sometimes when articles are too long or give too much information it makes it hard to read and hard to stay focused on the overall subject so if its possible to shorten any of the long paragraphs I think that could improve the article a little bit. •	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? See above. Kbarlow18 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
I think this was by far the best article that I have reviewed for this class. I think it has a solid foundation as to what Virtual Reality is and where it stands today. I love how right after that the article just jumps into the history of the Virtual Reality with other hyperlinks to help support what the article is stating. I would just quickly suggest that you proof-read the article to make any punctuation or spelling correction that you may need. Other than that I really do enjoy this article but that may be because it is something that I am interested in reading about. I feel like I always favor these types of articles. - Mary Polatis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marypolatis (talk • contribs) 03:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Virtual Spaces not all Virtual Reality
I was looking for "Virtual Spaces" and "Here" in the sense of an online meeting, which might happen with a Virtual Reality headset, but also works for text-based chats. I think it's useful to retain this distinction. Perhaps a short article on Virtual Space would be appropriate. --Masinter (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The One Article
This article in British gaming magazine The One gives some insight in VR technology in 1991 as shown at a tech expo; this may be useful for early history of VR, putting this here as I have no interest in the subject myself. Waxworker (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Haptics
The new research on haptics in virtual reality has provided new insight on how to create more immersive experiences.

How is the new Wireality research from CMU HCII going to transform the virtual reality games and interactions we know today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raisinpies (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Heptic technology
Haptic technology, also known as kinaesthetic communication or 3D touch, refers to any technology that can create an experience of touch by applying forces, vibrations, or motions to the user. These technologies can be used to create virtual objects in a computer simulation, to control virtual objects, and to enhance remote control of machines and devices (telerobotics). Haptic devices may incorporate tactile sensors that measure forces exerted by the user on the interface. The word haptic, from the Greek: ἁπτικός (haptikos), means "tactile, pertaining to the sense of touch". Simple haptic devices are common in the form of game controllers, joysticks, and steering wheels. Haptic technology facilitates investigation of how the human sense of touch works by allowing the creation of controlled haptic virtual objects. Most researchers distinguish three sensory systems related to sense of touch in humans: cutaneous, kinaesthetic and haptic. All perceptions mediated by cutaneous and kinaesthetic sensibility are referred to as tactual perception. The sense of touch may be classified as passive and active, and the term "haptic" is often associated with active touch to communicate or recognize objects.

History

One of the earliest applications of haptic technology was in large aircraft that use servomechanism systems to operate control surfaces. In lighter aircraft without servo systems, as the aircraft approached a stall, the aerodynamic buffeting (vibrations) was felt in the pilot's controls. This was a useful warning of a dangerous flight condition. Servo systems tend to be "one-way," meaning external forces applied aerodynamically to the control surfaces are not perceived at the controls, resulting in the lack of this important sensory cue. To address this, the missing normal forces are simulated with springs and weights. The angle of attack is measured, and as the critical stall point approaches a stick shaker is engaged which simulates the response of a simpler control system. Alternatively, the servo force may be measured and the signal directed to a servo system on the control, also known as force feedback. Force feedback has been implemented experimentally in some excavators and is useful when excavating mixed material such as large rocks embedded in silt or clay. It allows the operator to "feel" and work around unseen obstacles.[10]

In the 1960s, Paul Bach-y-Rita developed a vision substitution system using a 20x20 array of metal rods that could be raised and lowered, producing tactile "dots" analogous to the pixels of a screen. People sitting in a chair equipped with this device could identify pictures from the pattern of dots poked into their backs.

The first US patent for a tactile telephone was granted to Thomas D. Shannon in 1973. An early tactile man-machine communication system was constructed by A. Michael Noll at Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. in the early 1970s and a patent was issued for his invention in 1975. 103.109.74.6 (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Virtual reality headset into Virtual Reality
The article Virtual reality headset has a lot of the same or similar info as the main Virtual Reality article (WP:OVERLAP), it may be best to either merge it into this article, adding any information that isn't here already, or better distinguish what information should be in each article so they can be more unique, as the current VR article focuses heavily on headsets already due to them being by far the most common way to use Virtual Reality.

If we do the former, I'd suggest renaming the Visual immersion experience section in this article to Constraints as it is in the headset article, as it seems to more accurately reflect what the section is for. Could also theoretically be put in the technology section, maybe as a subsection of hardware for head mounted displays. Another Crafter (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose While the article on VR is a WP:BROADCONCEPT on the topic, I think there is much to be said specifically about the headsets and what technology they use to operate. If there is an overlap that can be remedied by removing unnecessary information that is already explained in the main article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not rearrange information to make each article more independent while also keeping the topics connected? Rzzor (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing systems that was out there and was being used for entertainment and development of VR applications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuality_(product)
 * Virtuality (Initially on Commodore Amiga), was used by many on gaming centers as entertainment. Had a few games like VTOL VR.

https://techmonitor.ai/techonology/sun_and_silicon_graphics_users_get_virtual_reality_treatment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfiniteReality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.133.0 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * SGI Had dedicated hardware, like Glove and HMD for developing VR applications and was also used for training:

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdinh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Abeerjanakat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nickkauf. Peer reviewers: Ecdaniel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zsengr410.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Killersrampage, MiguelG16. Peer reviewers: Brigpaulson15, Kbarlow18, 10658513uvu, Jessica Cragun, Aewlarsen, Marypolatis, Baysibenwiki.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ixf23. Peer reviewers: User212197, Lionwolf53.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 September 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joseita Tesolin. Peer reviewers: Umiuottawa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue
— Assignment last updated by OneGoodNut (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Ruizhouruizhou (talk) 07:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)