Talk:Infant visual development

References

in my opinion, the references section could be better formatted 169.235.14.253 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Pikez33

Comments

Somebody named "yanksox" is vandalizing this page by redirecting it to a totally inappropriate entry.

There doesn't seem to be any way to stop this annoying action.

Love.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Love26 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

You are promoting, the page belongs with infant which touches base on the senses. Yanksox 16:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The entry may 'touch base' on the senses but it is both inaccurate and misleading in the case of the field of infant vision. The consideration that the underlying science of the matter expounded in "infant vision" should be in "pediatric ophthalmology" is totally misguided since the practice of pediatric ophthalmology is rooted in the science of infant vision, not the other way 'round. At any rate the decisions about which hierarchy previals in wikipedia should be left in the hands of those whose careers are entwined in such matters. The idea that having links to the science of something is some sort of spam/phish undertaking is ludicrous. Love.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Love26 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

Love26, according to the information you provided on your Talk page, you appear to be a researcher at Smith-Kettlewell[1]. Please do expand upon your area of expertise, but per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is not to be used for self-promotion or advertising. -AED 21:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

-- I do not really have "expertise" in much although I've been connected with the Institute for over 40 years. The process of bringing the scientists here into wikipedianess is my current goal/passion and of course we can use all the help we can get. It's not about promoting/advertising Smith-Kettlewell but about enhancing the content of wikipedia, particularly in areas of science whose frontiers we are presumably attacking. The instant article and the one at visual neuroscience are being grown in place. My own article RIAS (Remote Infrared Accessible Signage could stand wikification. I'm not sure how to title it because "RIAS", although it is an acronym used as a word hereabouts isn't that ubiquitous yet. Any help with that one would be nice. love26

As long as you are clear on the difference between enhancing Wikipedia content and promoting/advertising Smith-Kettlewell, then you shouldn't have any problems here. Per Wikipedia:Guide to layout, it would be nice if this article began with a definition: "Infant vision is...". Would you be able to provide that, please? (By the way, please sign your posts with four tildes as noted at the top of this page.) -AED 05:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yanksox's merge header

As written, the article appears to be nothing more than spam for Smith-Kettlewell. A redirect or merge is may be warranted given the amount and type of information that is currently provided. I suggest Visual perception. Article looks much better now. -AED 21:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)last edited 05:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

Oppose:

• -- The article is much better. Yanksox 19:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Against:

• I think the current version tries to meet some of the criticism, so I change my opinion, keep the article. --Steven Fruitsmaak 15:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Promotion of knowledge isn't necessarily mere "promotion"!

As this entry grows from its present near-placeholder status, it should have gathered edits/add-ons from people in the field. love26.

I'm glad to see that you are no longer merely promoting knowledge of your place of employment in this article. -AED 05:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible External Link

I believe the following link would be of merit to the article. However, MrOllie has removed it. If you disagree with MrOllie then I will repost.

(Link redacted)

It is a 'baby' eyesight simulator you can enter the age of a new born and select an image to simulate the child's eyesight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Young1991 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It was correctly removed. The link was improperly spammed over multiple pages, and the validity of the pictures on the site is dubious. ThemFromSpace 23:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Neuroscience project

Hi Wikipedia World, My name is Sepura and I am an undergraduate student at Georgia Tech. I am currently working on this Wikipedia article regarding infant vision for my class project in Intro to Neuro with Dr Potter. Please read my article and provide me with any additional modifications that will enhance my article. Thank you.

Sepura

I think you've done a terrific job. The one thing I'd like to see is more citations to recent WP:MEDRS that way readers can be confident the material is up to date when they look at the references section. Biosthmors (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Also please see WP:REFSPACE examples on where exactly to place your references, that way the article will look even more polished. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, see if you can avoid saying things like "more recent study" (time dependent) or "According to Maurer and Salapateck" (but not other people?) or "thanks to researchers Gibson and Walk". These are examples of phrases you might hear in a review article, but not an encyclopedia. Might we be able to to just state the facts? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I see why you've cited Gibson and Walk now, and you have a secondary source (Campos, J.J. Hiatt, S., Ramsay, D., Henderson, C., & Svejda, M. (1978). The emergence of fear on the visual cliff. The origins of affect. New York: Plenum.) So that makes it all the better. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! With numbers - such as (one month-old infant, three month-old infants, after six months) ...do you write it out in words or do you write it in numerical numbers (1 month-old infant, 3 month-old infants, after 6 months)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepura (talk • contribs) 18:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think for this we'd follow the general WP:NUMERAL convention and write out the numbers from zero to nine. Thanks for asking! Biosthmors (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Also see WP:CHEAT for how to sign your talk page posts. =) Biosthmors (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am really sorry. I have a few more questions. I am trying make my wiki article to look outstanding by using images and stuff. One of my peer-reviewers mentioned that I should add a picture of the anatomy of the eye (retina, cornea) - should I do that? I wasn't sure if that was a good idea considering that I briefly mentioned it. I was wondering if there are any other ways to make my wiki article stand out. Also should I leave my references in column form or not? I wasn't sure when to use it.

Thanks, Sepura (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura

How about we trade? How about you make the article follow the WP:REFSPACE examples (which shouldn't take long), and then I'll comment! Does that sound fair? Biosthmors (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

So when you cite a fact,^[1] there shouldn't be any spaces.^[2][3] That's the "right way."

So this would be "wrong": see the space after the comma, ^[1] and the period? ^{[2] [3]} Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didnt realize that was what you meant until now. haha thanks for pointing it out. Sepura (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura

I think I fixed all of it. Is that what you meant by the spacing? Sepura (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura

Looks great, thanks. Yes, I think a picture next to the text that says "Visual acuity, the sharpness of the eye to fine detail, is a major component of a human’s visual system. It requires not only the muscles of the eye – the muscles of orbit and the ciliary muscles – to be able to focus on a particular object through contraction and relaxation, but other parts of the retina such of the fovea to project a clear image on the retina." Would be helpful. In the picture's text, you could add explanatory prose, that perhaps directly relates to infant vision. An example of a picture with text is here. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for replying. I was thinking of adding the following images http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Gray872.png (thats of ciliary muscles) and http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Lateral_orbit_nerves.jpg (thats of muscles of orbit). These were the only two i could find on wikimedia commons and they are already used in their respective pages. Is it okay that I reuse them here? Also, would I put them right on top of one another? side by side? Sepura (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura

Why not http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Schematic_diagram_of_the_human_eye_en.svg I found it at eye and it is labeled. Try other eye pages? Also, look at other language Wikipedias? (Go to eye and try the featured articles in other languages (on the left, gold star), such as [2], there's a good photo there [3]). I think you want something that is labeled like that one. You can try {{double image}} for side by side pictures. Play around with it? And please try to directly describe how the image it relates to/differs from infant eye/vision perhaps? Biosthmors (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for helping me out. I was wondering if its better to make bullets in the caption of the images. There are many changes that occur in the physiology of the eye overtime - those are just a few of the important ones. I dont want anyone to think that is all of them. I was hoping to make bullets and say that some of the changes are... Are we allowed to make bullets in captions under images? How do I go about doing so? Thanks again, Sepura (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Sepura

Requested move 20 November 2015

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: moved to Infant visual development. There is a clear consensus to move, so much so that by the conclusion of the discussion no one was in favour of the current title. That being the case, I have decided to close this as moved. I've gone with "Infant visual development" as the title because it seemed to receive the most support (several comments were vague about which title they were supporting) and I found the arguments in favour of it to be the most logically sound. No prejudice against a new discussion with any of the other variants as the proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Infant vision → Development of the visual system – I propose we move this article to a more comprehensive 'development of - ' style article that includes development in infants and adults as it is expanded. I think this article is too large to be merged into Visual system but that it's unnecessary to have a split all the way to "Infant vision" at this stage. A 'Development of-' article can act as a central focus for this information as the article is developed. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• oppose The title Infant vision is clear. The proposal Development of the visual system has many different meanings. To me it means the development of the visual system from light sensitive spots on the back of a primitive life to the complex devices used by predators and other living creatures alive now. The title would need to be more specific: Development of the visual system from the human infant to old age but that's top heavy. Infant vision is fine. Apuldram (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I might be able to get behind "Early development of the human visual system", but that is way too long of a title. "Infant visual development" seems the most appropriate move request for this article. If you want to propose a content change, I would propose instead creating a separate article "Human visual development", creating a subsection on infant visual development, and linking to this article, and eventually requesting an article merger if deemed appropriate. EDIT: OR alternatively, simply add material in a couple of sections near the end of this article about adolescent visual development, and possibly vision degradation with old age (macular degeneration), and then suggest a new article title change to something like "Human visual development".  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  13:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd support Human visual development. Apuldram (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Move to Infant visual development, unless and until this article's actual content is broad enough for something like "Human visual development" or "Development of the visual system". (It need not contain "human"; we have a long-standing if uneasy consensus that medical articles are presumptively about the matter as it pertain to humans – either entirely, with zoological articles separate, or mostly, with zoological material in sections.) I concur with the nom that the present title is inadequate. It seems to imply "what seeing is like for infants", not "development of vision in infancy".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• support Infant visual development answers my original objection Apuldram (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• support as per Tom (LT) Development of-' article can act as a central focus for this information as the article is developed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support-- Basically it is to bring this title inline with the same title format used in similarly-scoped articles. Bigger picture, consistency. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Relisting comment. Seems to be a consensus to move, but no clear agreement on what exact title it should be moved to – more input/discussion would be helpful. Jenks24 (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

?? the comment: to date there are three supporters for Infant visual development and none for anything else.
? no clear agreement ? Apuldram (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Move to Development of the visual system in infants (or something that is clearly about humans and not about development via evolution). "Infant visual development" seems acceptable but perhaps not optimaal. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, this goes on for ever and gets nowhere. I suggest we close the discussion now with no consensus and start again in a month's time. Apuldram (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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.