Talk:Interior design
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Definition too narrow
The distinction in this artickel vewbnfe f akfiefkd keifk between interior design and 'interior decoration' is one relevant to the US but not common elsewhere. A British or European reader would be confused to read that there is a difference. Nor is qualification a necessity in most of the world. The distinction should be removed for the purposes of this encyclopedia but the unusual US situation referred to in a subsection. 82.109.17.170
[edit] Education problem:
Following the example of the Architecture article, I have created a separate article for Interior Design Education and moved all of the specific program information there. This will keep the interior design page from becoming a marketing vehicle for multiple programs. K8tey 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)k8tey
←
[edit] Headline text
''''Olvia to Oliv''''ia State University, as UW does not even have a Baccaulareate program. Most of the information for Master's degrees in the United States is incorrect and needs to be fleshed out, but I do not want to continually revert it until the end of the quarter when I have the opportunity to write something more appropriate and correctly cited. The way the information about Interior Architecture in the United States is presented is inadequate to explain the depth of issues surrounding the semantics of the profession and its legal status in the US. This section also reads as if there are 5 or so INDS programs in the US, which is a gross understatement. I think it would be much more informative to discuss different degrees (AA, BS, BFA, MS, MFA, MA, MID, PHd, DD) instead of specific programs.
Marketing information for specific academic programs seems NPOV and impacts the article negatively (imagine if every school added marketing information for their program to the article!) It appears that the article has been reverted multiple times by someone from the Stuttgart program. I am not going to revert it back again, as I do not want to break the WP:3RR or get involved in back-and-forth editing.
BartaS, I see you have invited me to discuss this with you over email, but I do not have your email, and this is better discussed here. I think you could be a fantastic source of information on European ID education for this article if a NPOV is taken, and specific programs are not marketed. K8tey 22:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
K8tey, I fully agree with you on the above and I'm glad you're interested in European ID education - I'd be pleased to write more. I considered my contribution here an introduction (perhaps to students researching ID), and would have welcomed editing by others to expand on the article; I was planning on adding more information as I had the time. I was a bit surprised at the blunt deletion of the information: a bit mundane, no? As to specific programmes, the HfT Stuttgart along with 4 other European unviersities and the European Union have created a unique Master's programme for designers bound the normal bounds of ID - and I think this deserves special mention, as it redefines the work of an ID to meet today's economic demands. I admit, it tends to stick out a bit, but I think this is more due to the fact that there is not enough information about other education possibilities than to the "marketing". --BartaS 06:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright problem
As pointed out on WP:CP, this article seems to have contained a significant amount of text copied from http://ncidq.org/definition.htm since August 2004, and is thus an apparent copyright violation. I have reverted the page to the last "good" version for the time being; it doesn't leave much. I think the material merged in from Elements of interior design may be OK, as it cited two sources, but I'm not sure. --rbrwr± 20:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Definition problem:
The problem with this definition of Interior Design is that the focus is on 'decorating' rather than defining the term around 'design'. One can see from the FIDER & NCIDQ information that Designers do more than 'decorate'! This definition should be revised to reflect what Designer's actually do (verb & noun)and the above definition should be placed under the heading Interior Decoration. We must clarify the definition between the two rather than continue this misinterpretation!
--Definition problem has been solved but needs to be expanded on. I keep meaning to get to it. :)--User:k8tey
[edit] External links in body of article
The external links in the new section, The profession, need to be moved to an external links section at the end of the article. WP articles are not supposed to have external links from the body of the article like they are in this section. -999 (Talk) 19:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Style section
This section seems misplaced or rather misnamed. I had envisioned this section to contain information about the various decorating styles for interior design, such as Asian, Baroque, Mission, and so. I general information that I mentioned would better fit under the interior decorating topic, with a new topic (Interior Decorating Styles or Design Styles) created to show examples of various decorating styles. (--lwalt 14:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Unreadable Format
Was there a reason for changing the format of the content? The content, as viewed on the page, is now unreadable, as it now looks like a sea of gray. Don't forget that some of us who have low vision or are partially blind have to also read content on the Wiki. In its present format, it's easy to lose one's place on this page. Also, remember that people need to know what you're talking about when you use acronyms, all of which I had spelled out in my revision of the article. That effort has been undone, not to mention placing links that launch from the body of the content instead of accessing the references at footnotes, which I also had taken care of in the revision. OK, I can agree to disagree about the substance of the content, but it's another thing to make the page unreadable. And this comment comes from a partially blind professional writer and graphic artist. So, if this format is supposedly cleaned up, I wonder what messed up looks like. Does it look like this??? If you're going to clean up, you need to do it right with professional taste. lwalt 05:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
FOLLOW-UP -- Another editor reverted article to its previous version to remove copyright violations. lwalt 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
LWALT - As of the 17th, when you left this message, I had cleaned up the article to get rid of the boxes of grey -which were created by a vandal- I have no idea why you saw them. I reverted the definition to it's correct wording (NOT a copyright violation!) because as a Professor of Interior Design I feel it is imperative that the wording that has been decided by ALL 5 interior design associations and is being used for legal purposes is used. As an Interior Design educator with a long professional history of graphic design and user-centered design I would never intentionally create a difficult to use article and I resent your implication of that ("professional taste...") Your other edits were fantastic and I tried to keep them intact. If I made a mistake in that endeavor, I do apologize. Please do not change the wording of the definition again. Thank you. 69.252.248.150 17:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC) K8tey K8tey 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- TO K8TEY -- Your comment is farfetched. I commented on the FORMAT only -- the professional presentation of the content. I was referring specifically to format changes occurring in some or all of these versions: (1) 13:32, 16 December 2006 69.252.248.150 (cleanup), (2) 13:30, 16 December 2006 69.252.248.150 (Clean up), (3) 13:28, 16 December 2006 69.252.248.150 and (4) 13:27, 16 December 2006 69.252.248.150 (Huge chunck of official definition missing. Fixed.).
-
- To remind you, here's what I said in my original message of December 17 (message has been paraphrased for brevity): "'Was there a reason for changing the format of the content? (Emphasis mine.) The content, as viewed on the page, is now unreadable, as it now looks like a sea of gray.' *** 'OK, I can agree to disagree about the substance of the content, but it's another thing to make the page unreadable.' *** 'So, if this format (emphasis mine) is supposedly cleaned up, I wonder what messed up looks like. Does it look like this??? If you're going to clean up, you need to do it right with professional taste.'" (That is, referring again to the final presentation of the content's format.)
-
- In my follow-up comment, I referred to the reversal made by another editor (16:31, 18 December 2006 Mwanner (Talk | contribs) (rv to version by User:Lwalt to avoid copyvio text)). Obviously, seems that you didn't check the history before your WILD accusation. Therefore, it's best to look first at the article history and carefully read the feedback here so that you don't accuse others of doing or not doing what you claim. Hopefully, this explains where I'm coming from and that this response closes the matter, since this issue has now been resolved by another editor. lwalt 04:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I checked my history carefully and was asking you to do the same. I have been involved with this article for over a year. The unreadable formatting you were referring to was created by a vandal, and cleaned up by me. You can see this very clearly if you look at the article's history. You refer to me making "WILD" accusations. Huh? I didn't accuse you of anything at all. I was defending myself against your accusation that my edits messed up the article and were of poor professional taste. All I was doing was cleaning up the grey boxes a vandal created. Look at the history!!! After your edits, someone vandalized the page. Here is the page with the vandalism, as I found it on the 16th: [[1]]. I made a string of edits and cleaned up the formatting to get rid of the vandal's mess. This is how I left it: [[2]]. I am so confused as to why you are reacting this way! Seriously, if you feel I have accused you of something, I don't believe I did any such thing and apologize for offending you. As far as the copyvio issue, you can read further on this talk page to see the resolution being undertaken. K8tey 21:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- And I have reverted it again to the non-copyright version. You may be convinced that it is not a copyright violation, but until I see something explicitly indicating that it is in the public domain or licenced under GFDL or the equivalent, I will remain convinced that it is a copyright violation. Please note that text does not have to bear a copyright notice to be copyrighted-- rather copyright happens automatically upon publication. Thus, for this text not to be a copyright violation, there would have to be an explicit statement releasing copyright or stating that a free distribution licence applied. Please do not restore this text without pointing out where copyright is waived.
- Further, I feel quite certain that Wikipedia has no reason to worry about your legal issue-- it should be possible to satisfy any such concerns by reference to the text on the Association sites. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, ha ha, funny. Why the "clever" remark? I believe that copyright notice is a standard footer coded into the NCIDQ website and am contacting them for further explicit statement that the definition belongs in the public domain. I still stand by the fact that I did not vandalize the page as Lwalt seems to be claiming. As an expert in this subject matter, I will continue to edit this article. K8tey 00:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I really didn't consider that an especially clever remark, just an appropriate additional piece of evidence in the question of whether or not this is copyrighted material. And yes, I agree, it probably is just a standard footer. Nevertheless, it is a footer that they are going to have to deal with explicitly if we are going to be able to use the text directly. Meanwhile, it seems to me that your concern with the paraphrase could be covered by adding a disclaimer along the lines of "The preceding definition is a paraphrase of language developed jointly by NCIDQ, [etc.]. Please see [web link] for the precise definition." -- Mwanner | Talk 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think that you have found a fantastic resolution to this issue until we get explicit direction otherwise. Thank you for your editing help. I wish I had known your original message was a boilerplate template so that I did not take it personally. I have addressed some of your other comments on my talk page, if you are interested. K8tey 01:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
