Jump to content

Talk:Lithophane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Better version

[edit]

See here. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also see discussion on my talk, from which Johnbod has apparently failed to take any hints that there might be something worth saving in the current stub before bulldozing it over with his clone of the old DC article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By all means - there you will see my reasons for rejecting these "hints" (or the main ones, there are plenty more). In fact the version here now is FAR closer to the deleted article, as anybody who compares them will see. I don't think Eppstein can be bothered to do that. If there was anything from the stub worth adding, I would happily do it, but there isn't, which is hardly surprising given how short it is. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed new version is now at User:Johnbod/Lithophane btw. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Far closer to the deleted article" is exactly the problem. It replicates the deleted article creator's typical focus on a randomly selected subset of historical details at the expense of the big picture. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's your stub version I'm talking about! Do keep up. You obviously still haven't bothered to compare the texts at all. Johnbod (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there is any similarity at all between the stub and the deleted article, I'd be fascinated to learn exactly what evidence you have for that, since I wrote the stub entirely from other sources without looking at the deleted article (with the single exception that, after the stub was entirely drafted, I looked at the categories of the deleted article to see which ones might be appropriate to re-use). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just compare the texts! Your main source was a teaser paper for Coldwell's main source (Carney's book), and both versions give undue (and inaccurately rendered) prominence to her speculations about a Chinese origin, which other authorities don't follow. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources were prominent in Google Scholar, which is how I found them. Perhaps their prominence is meaningful. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it shows there has been little active academic interest in lithophanes in the shortish period Google Scholar covers. Carney, formerly curator of the single dedicated museum for them, has written what seems to be the only monograph, but that doesn't mean everything she says is accepted, as you'd see if you used a wider range of sources. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Lamp by Vista Alegre, Portugal
Lamp by Vista Alegre, Portugal
  • ... that images on porcelain lithophanes only display properly when lit from behind? Source: "How Lithophanes Are Made", Blair Museum of Lithophanes: "Lithophanes are three-dimensional translucent porcelain plaques which when back-lit reveal detailed images."

5x expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 03:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lithophane; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thank you for this charming article which brightened up my life when I read it. The QPQ is a rescue job, but I believe that it must have involved a full re-assessment by you, so it counts for DYK. Good to go, with picture. Storye book (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod and Storye book: Interesting article. Just a note to say you may have missed a citation after the first paragraph of the history section. Also I wanted to promote but I am unsure about the image. The uploader states "own work" but then points to a website where the image is from. I am not an image expert, but I think we need to make a determination before running the image on the. main page. Bruxton (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the page on that website for the item says "2019, August – veröffentlicht in commons wikimedia" (under provenance) - I think it's his website. Many of the commons lithophane pics are uploaded by him. Obviously copyright in the 19th-century object is not an issue. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to be sure of a free image, then this image - File:Colt lithophane 1855 - backlit.jpg - is clearly free, being taken from an original 19th-century photo of the object. Also, any photo of a 2-dimensional (2D) 19th-century object (like that one) is free, no matter when the photo was taken, or by whom.
  • If we assume that all uploaders are potential liars about the photo being their own work, then bearing in mind that all or most of the lithophane images on Commons are of 19th-century objects, the only way to be sure of a free-use image is to check that the 19th-century artwork is 2D. For example, it is agreed on Commons that stained glass windows are copyright-free, because they are judged to be 2D. I have photographed hundreds of 19th-century stained glass windows for Commons, and many of those contain etched or cut glass, e.g. where a piece of glass containing coloured and clear layers is cut through to reveal different colours. Luckily, we have a number of 19th-century etched 2D lithophane plaques among our Commons images. I agree with Johnbod that the image of the lit lamp above was taken by the uploader, so that it is truly free. However, if you are any doubt, I believe that you can't go wrong with a photo of a 2D 19th-century etched lithophane, and we have several of those on Commons.
  • .Re the missing citation, when reviewing I took that sentence to be an explanation rather than a fact to be cited, but if you are in doubt about that, then iit would not harm the article if we temporarily removed that sentence to the talk page until a citation could be found. Storye book (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good plan for the un-cited paragraph end @Storye book:: regarding the image I am going to promote it and then based on the opinion of @GRuban: it will either stay or be removed. I think the hook is infinitely better with the image but will need a second opinion and GRuban is the best I know. Bruxton (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding after the closing of the nomination, below the "Please do not write below this line" comment which I am consciously ignoring per WP:IAR, because I was asked. So, first, the Lithophane is a 3D object, not a 2D object. It says so right in the quote used at the top of this nomination, "Lithophanes are three-dimensional translucent porcelain plaques...". Yes, I understand it's mostly 2D, but so are coins, and photographs of coins that aren't mechanical scans are considered to include sufficient originality to have their own copyright for our purposes, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Currency, and this photograph clearly isn't a mechanical scan, it has artistic shading, lighting, all that. (I'm pretty sure there isn't a Commons:Lithophanes guideline, so I'm using Commons:Currency as a precedent.) So we need the photograph to be free, separate of the item itself being way too old for copyright.

So the question is, is the photograph "free enough" for our purposes? I think it probably is, mainly because I looked on the uploader's Commons talk page, and found https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Detlef_Dauer which is a mass nomination of files by the uploader from this source, oblivion-art.de, including several other Lithophane photographs, even if this one isn't specifically listed among them. Not just one or two, dozens and dozens. As you can see, that deletion request was closed as a Keep per OTRS permission by User:Krd. I can't see what that OTRS permission specifically says, but since there are so many images listed there, it quite probably doesn't list them and just says something like "Yes, Detlef Dauer is (the official photographer of / a long time associate of / the husband of the third cousin twice removed of the director of) Oblivion-Art.de, and any images he uploads to Commons are properly released", and even if it does specifically list all those images only, it seems highly likely that if Dauer could get Oblivion-Art to release all those images he could probably get them to release this one as well. I'm going to ping User:Krd and User:Detlef Dauer on their Commons talk pages, to see if that is correct, but I think it is likely enough that we can feel safe to use this image. --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's even better than that - the Oblivion-Art.de page for that image specifically says "Provenienz ... 2019, August – veröffentlicht in commons wikimedia" / or "August 2019 - published in Wikimedia Commons", so they know very well the image is on Commons. I think we're very safe here. --GRuban (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Krd agreed and added the ticket to the file. Vielen Dank! --GRuban (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: you are the best. Bruxton (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled this from Queue 7 per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Queue 7: Nitpicking Edition (permalink) because the hook as written fails verification (no source says this is the only way to display it), and the nom wanted time to think of a new hook. There were also concerns raised that this article is currently ineligible for DYK, since it already ran on May 19, 2008. - Aoidh (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm reposting ALT1 by RoySmith here, for the record:
  • ALT1: ... that images on porcelain lithophanes are intended to be viewed when lit from behind? (from Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Queue 7: Nitpicking Edition
  • If I may please give my opinion here? I believe
  • (1) that ALT0 is true, but I accept that since there are people who object to it strongly on the abovelinked page, it's worth looking for another ALT which is acceptable to the nominator, Johnbod - and
  • (2) that this nomination should not count as a disallowed repeat nom, because none of us has been able to see the deleted original article, which apparently was copyvio anyway, and should not be used against this decent article. Disallowing this nomination on those grounds would be on the same logical grounds as (hypothetically) putting a son in prison because his father (whom he never met) had been a criminal. To get everyone on the same page and in the hope of agreement, I suggest that we try to give a chance to some new ALTs, including possibly ALT1. Storye book (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, now that I look at it again, I'll offer a shorter version:
    ALT2: ... that porcelain lithophanes are intended to be viewed when lit from behind?
    I do agree with Storye book that while people were being overly-picky about the word "only" not being used in the sources, there was sufficient pushback that it really wasn't worth fighting over. I have no strong opinion on the "Should we allow this DYK repeat?" question. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, ok with that. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the previous version of the article was deleted as a copyvio I'm certain I'm not permitted to share its contents here, but I've compared the deleted version with the current version and I don't see any indication that they are the same or that this version is based on the old one, they are about as different as two editors writing about the same topic would reasonably be. Their lede and even basic structure is different and using something like a duplication detector shows only things like image captions and names matching (a lot of the images are the same which is reasonable). I have no objection to it running again in this incarnation, I only mentioned it here to note that such concerns were raised at WT:DYK about it. - Aoidh (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. I did eventually get to see the deleted one, after someone pointed out the Internet Archive had it. I've never understood why something that has supposedly been published before (and hence is a copyvio) is Top Sekrit and can't even be emailed! Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will promote again, I am not sure the hook is just right but it may be my own issue. I am sure other editors will be able to adjust it in the prep. Bruxton (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lithophanes as erotica?

[edit]

I note that the lamp by Vista Allegre, provided as an illustration in this article, appears to feature several partially clothed women. Presumably their state of dress is not obvious when the lamp is not lit, and it provides a surprise to the viewer when lit. It would be interesting to know if that was a common practice for lithophanes, and if so it might be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:CA70:911D:1E87:A2E6:FF28 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The large number of images on Commons don't mention it, nor do the sources. Generally the lithophane was a highly respectable medium. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of images

[edit]

@Johnbod: is there a reason you keep reverting edits that place the two pictures of the Frederick lithophane? Since the captions reference each other anyway, and the point is a comparison, it makes sense to me that they should be side-by-side. I'm open to other viewpoints though if you think something is lost by not having them separate. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I don't like it. There is a side-by-side comparison below (Colt), which makes the images too small to read properly on most devices, as multiple images normally do. Remember over 50% of our readers are on mobiles. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lithophane&oldid=1195125781"