User talk:AVarchaeologist

Welcome!

Hello, AVarchaeologist, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
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 Wikipedia: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.[reply]

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)[reply]

About references

Hi, AVarchaeologist, and welcome to Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gramophone record

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

RCA Records and the 45

Re RCA Records#The post-war 1940s

Thank you for correcting the longstanding mis-information about the development of the 45rpm record. One small detail I would like to question. You state "At first, most 45s were issued on colored vinyl specific to the musical genre: classical music was on red vinyl, country music on green vinyl, children's music on yellow vinyl, pop music on blue vinyl, etc." I'm not sure I could say that "most" were issued on colored vinyl. The reason is that by far the biggest selling series was the 47-prefix that corresponded to the 20-prefix 78rpm series (though not on a one-to-one basis at first). I have never, ever, in 40 years of collecting seen this series issued on anything other than black vinyl. Yes, the earliest issues in this series used a blue label, not a black one as usually found within a couple of years, but the vinyl itself was still black. There was a blue vinyl "pops" series used for musicals and light instrumental music, this series didn't last too long although the "Rose Marie" set turns up regularly. Have you seen a copy of the regular popular series (47) in colored vinyl? I have learned that you always find out something new you've never seen before when collecting phonograph records. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks. All that was "heritage" text, not added by me but blue-penciled a bit as part of my editing. Based on personal record-rummaging experience, I'm rather skeptical, too. On visits to the record store as a 1950s preschooler, I was always fascinated by the array of exotic vinyl colors of the 45s prominently displayed as a visual attraction, but none of the labels featured the funny little dog listening to the record player. They had names like "Fantasy" and "Jubilee" and "King" and my mother wouldn't buy any of them for me just because they were pretty. I can't recall ever seeing an RCA Victor 45 in any color but black, transparent red or blue, but I am not a collector of rare 45s. RCA Victor's early press releases to the trade do indeed state that color-coding of the vinyl, not just the labels, was to be a standard feature of the product. At least one such statement may be found in the 1949 issues of Billboard now available online. Some histories of the 45 (categorized as "good quality" in my mental filing cabinet, but I can't cite one now) state that it was implemented at first but soon abandoned because of the onerous manufacturing complications, so it seems that there may indeed have been yellow and green and orange wax issues very early on. AVarchaeologist (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Your query prompted me to refresh (and augment) my memory with some googling. The 1949 Billboard issues are available in the original via Google Books but are difficult, although interesting, to search through that way. Most of the relevant material is conveniently quoted here [1]. This book [2] claims that colored wax was retired from commercial pressings "by 1952". I believe red wax was still being used for some collector's and "prestige" issues at least a few years beyond that date, and I suspect that the rarer colors were discontinued within a year of introduction. In this discussion [3] a collector reports actual physical examples:

Eddy Arnold (country) 48-0025 & Lawrence Duchow (polka) 48-0024: Green with Green label. (both a very nice "emerald" green)

Jarl-Franzen Duo (Scandinavian) 53-6252: Teal with a Black label.

Fran Allison (childrens, little nipper series) 47-0218 Yellow with Teal label.

No specimens of orange or cerise, alas. It appears that you're familiar with RCA Victor's oddball numbering system, so perhaps you can determine the years of first issue for these. I'll probably fuss with the WP edits a bit more -- a list of the colors might best be put in a footnote rather than left bulking up the main text -- and also make a start at legitimizing them with a cit of this reprint of the big 1949 RCA Review article [4], which ought to make it clear to any reasonable person that the system was not just arbitrarily thrown together as a hasty response to the LP. AVarchaeologist (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have copies of each color, including the orange/cerise. All these colors did exist. If the statement had said "The majority of the series were colored vinyl" that would be a 100% correct statement. These are the colors they used (in order of how commonly I've found them:

pop - black

classical "Red Seal" - red

children's - yellow

green - country/western

blue (blue label) - popular classics

teal (black label) - international

orange/cerise - "blues and rhythm"

perhaps I could take a picture of these, might be useful for the article. By the way, there's a press release here, showing the colors [5]. This release doesn't show the difference between blue and teal, but they vinyl is indeed different colors. The years of first release for each color was 1949. RCA released a box set introducing the 45rpm, and one record from each series was in the set. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 05:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear (no waxy pun intended), non mea culpa regarding the word "most", which, along with "pop music on blue vinyl", was already there before I did any editing. I believe my last edit whipped it all into a factually accurate statement, with one likely exception: "orange" and "cerise" are not the same thing. The latter is a purplish red, sometimes described as the color of a baked cherry as opposed to a fresh one. Were both colors used for R&B? The illustration you link (a little hard to judge by -- the Red Seal is very far from ruby red and the black is greenish) shows the "blues and rhythm" wax as dull orange. The upload of a nice new true-colored photo of examples of all the colors lined up and suitably lit would undoubtedly be a boon to Wikipedia and discophilic mankind. There's a "cit needed" tag on a statement about early RCA colored wax in another article and a widespread misconception that colored vinyl was a much later development, IMHO most directly dealt with by photographic evidence. As you can tell, I am by no means an expert in this corner of the phonographic world, but -- the story of my WP life -- I eventually get sick and tired of seeing the same wrong or misleading or very badly worded statements and dig in, figuring that as long as I leave the article better than I found it, as usually seems to be the case judging by the absence of reversions or negative feedback, I'm doing my bit to stem the online proliferation of error until some more expert hand comes along. AVarchaeologist (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Work on Lee-Turner colour

Thank you for your work on Lee-Turner colour!Da5nsy (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for your nice contribution to the Technicolor talk page today.... Ariconte (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar for you!

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Thanks for the elegant, high quality edits you've brought to several technical subjects, including the Volta Laboratory and the Photophone articles. The clarity you provide is notable. Best, from one of the muddlers: HarryZilber (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Please look at this article Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Carbon_tissue. It need some rewriting, Could you help me with this.-- 117.221.227.138 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

House of Wax (1953 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anaglyph

Revenge of the Creature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anaglyph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Creature from the Black Lagoon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaglyph (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) 08:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daguerreotype, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mercury and Gold chloride (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) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emile Berliner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cylinder (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) 08:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, AVarchaeologist. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page.
Message added 20:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 20:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoons

What do you think of these schemes? Suggestions welcome. I figure we need some sort of scheme for what is going on chemically. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

draft cartoon for photographic processing

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicéphore Niépce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Wedgwood. 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) 09:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Janez Puhar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slovene. 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) 09:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested "television article" text

I have modified your version slightly. I really don't see a huge need for the reference to "true LED television displays" in the lead. My main concern was just to identify the commonly used marketing of "LED" as generally being used for LED-backlit LCDs. Here is my suggested text:

"The replacement of bulky, high-voltage cathode ray tube (CRT) screen displays with compact, energy-efficient, flat-panel alternatives such as LCDs (both fluorescent-backlit and LED-backlit), plasma displays, and OLED displays was a major hardware revolution that began penetrating the consumer computer monitor market in the late 1990s and soon spread to TV sets."

Rreagan007 (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays...

	Happy Holidays...
	and may the coming year bring peaceful melody accompanied by joyous harmony. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

request for comment: electrical transcription

Please see: Talk:Electrical transcription for a merge proposal in which your expertise would be greatly welcomed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silhouette article comment Comment

Thank you for the input about the camera obscura contribution to the technologies of silhouette making - great point! Are you going to amend/expand the article with this input?

No, the subject of silhouettes is not within my field of special study or expertise. In checking that article before linking to it from another, I noticed the unfortunate word choice (which came from the cited source, but as the clearly intended meaning is preserved my change does not contradict the source) and felt obliged to fix it. Sorry, I can't supply a cit on the use of the camera obscura for making silhouettes, but that information came from at least one citable online source of good quality (or so it is rated in my mental filing cabinet of odds and ends) which can probably be searched out without too much effort. AVarchaeologist (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Diggers of Broadway

I have no doubt that everything you wrote about the two-color Technicolor process for this article is accurate, but could you please provide some references to for it? Doing so will prevent more gung-ho editors from deleting it as being unsourced. Thanks. BMK (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has marked your Technicolor reference as not being verified - in other words the source doesn't say what is written in the text. I don't have time to go through the source right now, but since you're familiar with it, perhaps you can clear up the problem? BMK (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon

You may be interested in additions by me to Talk:Music!_Music!_Music! recently. Pst (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AVarchaeologist. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lippmann - bravo!

Thank you (very belatedly) for your lucid description (edits 2011-2015) of the Lippmann colour process; a more comprehensible, sensible explanation I have not read anywhere! Jamesmcardle^(talk) 04:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]