Talk:Digital art

Digital artist was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 January 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Digital art. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Computer graphics Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contemporary Art (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contemporary Art, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Contemporary ArtWikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary ArtTemplate:WikiProject Contemporary ArtContemporary Art articles

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Title clarifation

Could someone clarify what authors or communities use the term "digital art" in this manner. This is not a poor definition, but I imagine that there are other equally valid ways to define "digital art". Unless this is a generally accepted term, defined as currently defined in the article, we need to clarify whose ideas are represented here. -Ryguasu 07:15 Nov 17, 2002 (UTC)

links to organisations

I don't think there should be a link to Amoda within the main description, if they have paragraph, then there should be a description on every organisation. Their approach is not unique. Can I delete or at least change it, perhaps add others then to make it fairer and more rounded? keith watson

I've waited a while and no reply so I've deleted this apragraph, its not fai on all the other venues, we either have them all or none. Keith

Wiki Education assignment: Writing and Literacy in the Digital Age

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CcDc15 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by CcDc15 (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Social Media

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2024 and 29 October 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mitsurichan3 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mitsurichan3 (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filling in missing software information

Hello everyone! I am noticing that Medibang Paint, Paint Tool Sai, and are missing FireAlpaca as a digital art software. I am a user of FireAlpaca and hold a Bachelor's degree for Fine Arts. I would be more than happy to help provide a bit more information about FireAlpaca and Medibang Paint as they are both under the same parent company.

What previous attempts or information has been submitted about these missing software that I can help try to dig up? Mitsurichan3 (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues with article banner

Hello all,

I see that the article for digital art also has a banner with the following bullet points of not reflecting the tone and style that reflects the encyclopedia tone of wikipedia articles. I also see that there is a need of reorganization for the article's information.

I think that we can rewrite a bit more clearly the Artificially-Intelligence Art section, specifically the generation process. It reads a bit confusing, so I was wondering if I could edit it to read a bit more clearly with the prompt-input section. I can elaborate on how the user can input a prompt into an image-generation AI, and state that there are options that the user can select on how many images to generate.

Would anyone be opposed to this change? I can definitely write a draft in my sandbox and share it with other fellow Wikipedians before making the published change on the article. Mitsurichan3 (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have also been interested in addressing some of the issues described in the banner, including reorganizing and working on the enclopedic tone. I don't think the encyclopedic tone would be improved by the suggestion to "elaborate on how the user can input a prompt into an image-generation AI, and state that there are options that the user can select on how many images to generate." That is less encyclopedic in tone, and more like the tone of an instruction manual. That actually looks like one of the most encyclopedic sections. Issues with encyclopedic tone are things like the "Computer-generated visual media" section that has an image caption about "Designer Madsen." (Who?) Asparagusstar (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]