Talk:Land Camera

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Land Camera article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion

I was told it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion so I have nominated it for regular deletion Landcamera900 (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of your reasons are valid CSD criteria and prod'ing isn't a "regular deletion". Expansion is not a good reason to delete. Cburnett (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Land camera

This is not an acceptable encyclopedia page. If it is improved it wont need to be deleted. No attempt to fix this page has been made since the last substantial edit in September Landcamera900 (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) contribs)[reply]

Staleness isn't a valid reason either. Cburnett (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is it appears no effort is going to be made to fix this unacceptable article. Landcamera900 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, irrelevant. If you find it unacceptable...then expand it. I'm not stopping you and neither is anyone else. The only person stopping you from making it acceptable to you...is you. Cburnett (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this page has no purpose there is already an acceptable "instant camera" article, this is just a image gallery and only serves to clutter the encyclopedia. it should be deleted. Landcamera900 (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are new here, I'm fine with that but IMO you're being wayyyyyyyyy over zealous on this article. First speedy deletion. Then delete prod. Now RFC.

Wikipedia is not paper so "clutter" is meaningless. WP has room for both the general concept of instant camera and a specific line of instant cameras called the Land Camera. The need for expansion is not grounds for deletion, especially for something that is verifiable, not original research, and wholly neutral. Those are the 3 core policies of WP and "clutter" and "needs expansion" are none of the above. Please, be bold and expand the article yourself instead of wasting time trying to get rid of it. WP will be for the better if you do. Cburnett (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im far from over zealous, wiki-pages are not image galleries please stop saying it "needs expansion" it needs to be deleted and re-started from scratch. Landcamera900 (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Deletion is not a requisite to expand an article. Cburnett (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

{{RFCsci}} is int this "article" unnecessary and eligible for deletion? it is just a bunch of photos, the topic is adequately covered by the "instant camera" article.Landcamera900 (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. An RFC is overkill for an article that is clearly a case of "needs expansion". Cburnett (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all those photos have to go... images I might remind you that you helped add... wiki-pages are not image galleriesLandcamera900 (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had images of them so I contributed them. Darn me for contributing! Mind you that they are images of cameras my generation will never use or likely see & hold. And please stop using bold, it's not necessary at all. Cburnett (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this conversation is going nowhere. Landcamera900 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment. I assume the participants in the deletion process will be able to answer the question whether this article should be deleted. Also, if the topic is already covered in Instant camera then perhaps a merge proposal would be better. Then again, if the Land Camera was the first Instsant camera it probably deserves its own article. Labongo (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All polaroid instant cameras were land cameras untill the 80's. They make up a large majority of all instant cameras. Therefore they are not unique compared to post 80's land cameras. I agree with the merge Proposal Landcamera900 (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no merge proposal on the table, just an RFC. If the Land Camera existed for decades then that's all the more reason it should stand alone. There should be plenty of verifiable sources out there that can be used to expand this article to the point the images are incorporated into the prose. Again, deleting or merging is not necessary as expanding is obviously needed. Cburnett (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then, the preposal to prepose a merge. The land camera ias just a polaroid with land stamped in the front. If you are going to have a page for early polaroid cameras than you should remove detailed land camera information from "instant camera" On a side note the article name should be "Polaroid Land Camera" anyway. Landcamera900 (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this RFC is now moot since it has been nominated for deletion. Cburnett (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspected image copyvio

Please see User talk:Landcamera900. Tyrenius (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

restoration of the old images

please don't restore those photos in that manner. It ruins the look of the article, I understand your attachment to the photos but they are already in use in "instant camera" can't that be enough? Thank youLandcamera900 (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not own this article and therefore you do not dictate it. I think the pictures belong and the fact that I took them is irrelevant. You were complaining earlier today about assuming good faith, but it seems that's lost on you now. Do you have anything more substantial than your opinion that it "ruins the look of the article"? Cburnett (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly do not think I own the article, no one owns any wiki article. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be attached to the photos (whether you are or not) so good faith does not come into play, furthermore I do not want any animosity with you, so please stop acting so terse with me. The cameras are already well documented as far as images are concerned. the old photos are unnecessary and confusing IMO Landcamera900 (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my post on User_talk:Landcamera900#Image_copyvio, which you haven't answered. Tyrenius (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the current way the photos have been reinserted is much better than it was before.Landcamera900 (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the way wiki works - collaborative improvement. Tyrenius (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am "terse" because of how you've acted with this article and toward me. You don't know nor understand WP's policies, but that doesn't stop you. You tell me to, basically, shut up about expansion. You argue, repeat, and don't want to listen to someone like me who's been here longer and understands things around here better. (The AFD being closed via WP:SNOW says a lot!) That's arrogance, and I don't particularly care for it. The whole time you refuse to collaborate and make it better: nope, delete is the only answer. Every attempt to delete has failed so now you're forced to deal with it and the first thing you do is delete images. Nothing you have done here has been to make anything resembling a consensus: your way or your way. Period. If you don't want animosity then stop culturing it. Please. (I apologize for making this excessively personal and off-topic.) Cburnett (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I did come across that way, but it was not my intention, I'm a very agreeable person... really (I'm sorry if I somehow offended you)Landcamera900 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert A. Bing, design engineer with Polaroid

The chemistry for the Polaroid process was adopted and developed at Polaroid but there was a practical problem with containing the process in a marketable product. Edwin Land invented a spreader that squeezed the negative, chemistry and print paper through two strips of metal. The invention failed to produce satisfactory results. Herbert A. Bing, a graduate of M.I.T. was hired from Eastman Kodak and assigned to come up with a functional design. His result was a sprung roller system that included a machined gap. The system proved effective and overcame the largest obsticle to the production of a practical consumer camera that produced acceptable prints. Admittedly, the first prints were of a sepia tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.53.58 (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I question the year 1948 as a time for the marketing of the first consumer Polaroid instant camera. It is a patent date and may not include the roller spreader system noted above. My recollection is that Herbert Bing was hired after 1948.