Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripple pictures


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ansh 666 09:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ripple pictures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can find no evidence that this term is widely (or even occasionally) used in English to describe this type of image. Just translating a German word into English doesn't make it "a thing". In contrast, the term "ripple image" is used in a number of other contexts including graphical and scientific representations. Lithopsian (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * moved to Tabula scalata, as motivated in "keep" comments below
 * Redirect Weak redirect to Lenticular printing and expand that section if necessary: this subject doesn't need a standalone article. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 23:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 23:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: now moved to "Turning picture", a term found in literature about this type of image (see source links in article). Although the terminology is somewhat unclear and not very common, the actual technique it describes has been quite common for some centuries. Redirecting to Lenticular printing and expanding that section would clutter up the Lenticular printing article, while it is only a predecessor of that subject and not a form of lenticular printing. I hope to find more relevant content from useful sources soon. Possibly better terminology can be found. Joortje1
 * Comment: I've carried out a Google Book search and a Google Scholar search for "turning pictures": the only relevant results all trace back to an essay by Alan Shuckman in the Art Bulletin. While this publication appears to be a wholly reputable source, I'm still not convinced that a single is essay enough to prove that the phrase passes GNG criteria. I'm open to persuasion, though, so I've changed my !vote to reflect this. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge: While I think I can see where the original editor is coming from, I don't agree (as it says in the article) that Anamorphosis is an imprecise term for the thing on the 1-pound coin (just to use the most familiar example in the article). Rather, I think the thing on the coin is one type of anamorphosis, in its sense as a general term for perspective-based optical illusions. The turning pictures described in Shickman's article are elsewhere called “channel anamorphosis," after the appearance of the image slices in ridges or channels. 1 2 With that said, the Wikipedia anamorphosis article is very scattered. It looks like it started as an article about anamorphosis in European painting and gradually turned into a grab bag of 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional and lens-based perspective illusions, without a thesis that pulls them together. I'm not confident that adding Ripple pictures to that article will immediately strengthen an understanding of either anamorphosis or turning/ripple pictures. But I do think putting it there will get it to the right place for when someone tries to clean up the anamorphosis article. KR26740 (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree that this can be regarded as a type of anamorphosis, although it arguably is slightly different in that it conceals more images and these images are not really distorted in the way that other types of anamorphosis are - it is more like they are scattered and reassembled when viewed from the correct angle. "Channel anamorphosis" would be a more precise term, but also seems very uncommon. I found the term "tabula scalata" which seems to be much more common, and moved the article again. I also put a few lines about it in the Anamorphosis article, but don't believe merging would work. I'll check more sources now I've found the right term and I intend to keep expanding and editing the article.Joortje1 (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per discussion at Deletion review/Log/2018 January 8

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Update from the original proposer. In case anyone is struggling to know where everything went and now is.  Following this AfD, Ripple pictures was moved to Turning picture.  Then Turning picture was moved to Tabula scalata.  Then the Ripple pictures redirect was retargeted to Lenticular printing (the article exists but that section does not).  Tabula scalata was briefly turned into a redirect to Lenticular printing and the double-redirect bot edited Turning picture to match.  Tabula scalata has now been returned to a standalone article, although as of right now there are no redirects to it.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are 3 main article links in the history section of Lenticular printing which give pages with further information, one of them for the article being discussed here. The article under AFD offers useful encyclopedic information and the refs look ok. The article creator appears to have been involved in adding substantial new content to many pages in this field, a valuable commodity, and rearranged pages accordingly. Szzuk (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK I did some more digging around to see what is going on here...first off this is a separate entity to anything else on wikipedia that I can find. It isn't Lenticular printing because that requires a) a lenticular lens and b) printing, neither of which is satisfied. It isn't anamorphosis because that requires a distorted image and a real one, once again not satisfied. Second the phenomenon is historical and goes by a few different names hence the confusing article moves around the time of this AFD. Based upon a reading of the refs and googling I think the article should be left where it is at Tabula scalata and Ripple pictures and Turning pictures should redirect to Tabula scalata. This may not end up being the final name, whichever the case I don't think the project is improved by deletion. Szzuk (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the current name does appear to be used, and the content appears to be sourced. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.