Talk:Visual information fidelity

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 1 May 2017 by reviewer TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs).

Science

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 13 October 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Information Fidelity → Visual information fidelity – WP:LOWERCASE and WP:CONSISTENCY with articles in Category:Image processing. Sawol (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a short earlier discussion at Sawol's talk page (permalink) - Nabla (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I see no support for treating this as a proper name. The article is also full of other over-capitalization that needs to be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – VIF is a proper name given to that particular model/algorithm developed by the LIVE laboratory. As mentioned in the other thread, it's not about the concept of “fidelity in visual information”, but the actual model, which is to be treated like other image quality models (e.g. Structural Similarity (SSIM), MOVIE Index, VMAF, …). (I don't see any other over-capitalization in this article. If there is, this can be fixed separately, and has nothing to do with its title, no?) Slhck (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The capitalisation makes the topic more recognisable, and thereby improves reader experience. (I note also that this would reverse the previous move 21:21, 12 October 2017‎ Nabla (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (58 bytes) (+58)‎ . . (Nabla moved page Visual information fidelity to Visual Information Fidelity: Seems to be a proper noun). I see they have commented above.) Andrewa (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copy-pasted text from academic article[edit]

The text in the "model overview" section is at least partly a copy-paste from the original academic article on VIF, a draft of which can be accessed at this link. The text beginning with "Images and videos of the three-dimensional visual environments come from a common class: the class of natural scenes" can be found starting at the bottom of Page 2.

I haven't checked further to determine if other parts of the article have similar issues. 143.159.89.111 (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]