Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:14, 28 October 2012

Welcome!

Hello, AVarchaeologist, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Open for comments, suggestions, contributions and discussions.

Louis Ducos du Hauron

Thank you for the alert. I have reverted the change, and warned the uploader not to do it again, thus:

I have reverted your recent change. Please do NOT change to your "better color" version again. It is artificially saturated, shows print through the sky, and omits the edges, which are crucial in understanding the three-color subtractive process. I repeat, do NOT change to that version again.

Greetings from Finland, --Janke | Talk 19:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

About references

Hi, AVarchaeologist, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. I noted your changes to Reversal film starting here. Thanks for spending the time to add to the article. I realise that you know a lot about early colour photography, and wish to correct errors in Misplaced Pages, and that's a great attitude. But please use references when changing referenced text and adding new text. if in doubt, you can always discuss the proposed changes, or request sources, on the article's talk page.

I have copy-edited a few of your additions. Regarding your change to the referenced date of Autochrome's discontinuation; the reference used is Sowerby (ed) 1961, which gives the date as 1937. If you have conflicting evidence, you can add something like "...however, Jones and Smith give the date 1934.".

Unless something is patently obvious, please give references for your additions. For example, if you're adding material to Photography, the text "Most photographers use cameras to produce images" wouldn't require a reference, but "Some photographers stand on their heads when taking photographs" would be questioned without a reference. Unreferenced material can be challenged and possibly removed without discussion.

I know that Misplaced Pages can be confusing, but you can always as for help at the Help desk, or search the extensive help pages. I've added a welcome template to the top of this page, which I hope you'll find useful.

Cheers, and happy editing :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

thank you for the glass lantern slide help

I might work that into the illustrated song page some day, just a little too busy right now. But thank you much for the info.Peter (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Tartans and Maxwell

Your friend is quite possibly correct that it doesn't correspond to a known (ie, named and registered) tartan, but that doesn't rule out it being a tartan regardless...

Most tartan patterns available today are named ones, but it isn't the case that a pattern has to have a formal name in order to be considered tartan - it simply has to be constructed in the right sort of way. There is a central registry, but it's descriptive rather than prescriptive - it aims to describe the versions in existence rather than "authorise" them, as would be the case with heraldic registries. A particular piece of 1850s/60s tartan having no known named pattern is perhaps unsurprising; there was a widespread craze for tartans around this period, which no doubt led to an equivalent boom in the number of short-lived "fashion" patterns produced by mills, and the formal registries didn't come into existence until a century later.

Examining the picture, I'm quite confident it's some form of tartan - fabric design isn't my field, and it may technically be something very similar, but it certainly looks like it to me. The perpendicular lines on the two main strips aren't clear (and the fact that it's a little crumpled isn't helping) but they do seem to be present - I can tentatively see five on the left and three or four on the right - and the distinctive diagonal "dark" weave on the coloured sections is also visible. Perpendicular lines on the lower sections are harder to make out - I can see one - but one of the features of tartan is that the patterns are quite large, and so small foldings of it may well not show any cross lines.

Maxwell describing it simply as a "coloured ribbon" is interesting, but I don't think it's safe to assume that he did so out of some particular belief it wasn't tartan - it could be as mundane as his wanting to seem less provincial when speaking to the Royal Institution! I'd be happy to use "coloured ribbon" if we've got a solid source to point to saying it isn't tartan, but the term does seem pretty widely used - I don't think we should drop it without a solid reason. Shimgray | talk | 20:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Whilst some of them are probably highlights (the broad white bar on the left ribbon, for example) there's also some which are quite likely to be lines on the fabric - just below the broad white line, for example, there's a thin one which exists in the shadowed region and visibly folds along with the lay of the cloth. It's worth bearing in mind that because of the large squares on some tartans, it's possible to cut sections without any apparent crosslines, which might explain why we don't see many on the bow.

As to saying "often described as...", the problem is that this implies a challenge to the existing interpretation without explaining what it is. If we're going to have caveats we should probably present a source for them, to avoid confusing the reader, but I'm not sure there is one that explicitly challenges the term.

I've had a look at the original documents, incidentally, and I think I can explain why "coloured ribbon" may have been used - note that while Maxwell's name is on one, they're both written in the third person. ("The speaker then proceeded..."). If they were written up retroactively from notes by a third party, they won't have had the image to refer to and so will be describing their recollection of what they saw, possibly at some distance. In that situation, it seems quite likely they'd not mention details of the pattern! Shimgray | talk | 22:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Gramophone record

Good job with your recent edits to this and other vintage audio articles. Keep up the good work! ThemFromSpace 21:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Excellent work on Gramophone record and related articles. This was long-overdue. 78.26 (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for improving the article Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky. Again, very much appreciated! Regards. Kürbis (✔) 21:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Improvements to Sound recording and reproduction and other AV articles -—Kvng 14:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Fox Talbot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Negative (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)