Talk:Storyboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

I WOULD LIKE SOMEONE TO TELL ME THE LAYOUTS OF A STORY B OARD

The main article on storyboards mentions 'corollary notation'. What does that mean in this context? How can I use it in teaching elementry student.

They were fancy words instead of just "additional text"... --Janke | Talk 05:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital media references changed to interactive media

I changed the oversimplified references from digital media to interactive media. Not all interactive media is digital, or even electronic for that matter. Film (the motion picture category) and animation could also be digital media, which adds to the confusion if the term is used to distinguish from film and animation. Oicumayberight 19:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your final change because the article ended up by saying "or interactive media sequence, including websites and interactive media" which doesn't make much sense. I also reinstated information that was removed because it duplicated the opening (lead) section, because that's how good articles are supposed to be written, though few enough are, see Wikipedia:Lead section. Notinasnaid 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
A complete revert of all the changes was not necessary. I made the one sentence clearer by adding the word "other" to show that websites are included in the description of digital media.
Simply reverting didn't address the oversimplified use of digital media where interactive media should have been used.
I don't understand your point about the opening section. The information wasn't removed, but instead moved to the sections which it was discussed. There is no need for a "description" section, because the opening section is a description. Oicumayberight 20:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
By opening section, you mean the lead section, the bit before the first section? If so, it is correct, and preferred, to repeat (or expand) what the lead section says later in the article. Removing the lead section should not remove any information from the article. Notinasnaid 20:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)