Talk:Lenticular printing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- See also: Talk:Lenticular lens
Contents |
[edit] Commercial links
Since almost everything related to lenticular technology was invented or popularized by Vari-Vue, it is only fair to have a link to the company. After all, they patented the motion lenticluar technology in 1936, they were the creators of the Cracker Jacks and similar lenticulars, and everything till 1968, when they licensed their patents to other companies in Japan, Hong Kong and elsewere. Further, the http://www.Vari-Vue.com website provides a wealth of historic and technical information that only they would know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.185.125 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TracerGraphix Morph2.jpg
Image:TracerGraphix Morph2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Didik/Varivue
The history in this article relies a bit too much on the articles on the Vari-Vue/Didik website:
- Didik, Frank X. (2001). A brief history of stereo images, printing and photography from 1692–2001.
- The History of Vari-Vue.
While these provide useful information, they are not independent sources and cannot be relied on as citations to support facts on Wikipedia. The articles also make some claims that are strangely vague, contradictory, and perhaps even misleading. In particular, they claim in some places that Vari-Vue coined the term "lenticular", and in other places attribute the coining of the term to a 1936 patent that predates the existence of Vari-Vue. It's not clear who filed that patent or how it is connected to Vari-Vue. The first article implies that this technology was developed in Russia, but isn't clear. The owners of the Vari-Vue trademark clearly have a financial interest in asserting proprietary rights to terms like "lenticular", and to associated technologies. They also have an interest in presenting the history of Vari-Vue in the most favourable light possible. For this reason, these articles cannot be viewed as independent sources in terms of Wikipedia's citation guidelines.--Srleffler (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The apparent contradiction stems from the fact the company was in business producing lenticulars for some considerable time before being incorporated as Vari_Vue.
"In 1936 the modern Lenticular image was patented and this formed the seed which led to the formal incorporation of the Vari-Vue company in 1948."
http://www.didik.com/varivue/3dmain.htm
- (Vari-Vue - the company which popularized Lenticular ™3-D, flip and motion technology , and used the word "Lenticular" to describe linier lenses , "Winkies" and others through its predecessor in the patents of 1936 and other registrations in the 1940's and 1950's).
Confirmation:-
"The company that pioneered the process in the 1940's, Variview, started by making animated political campaign badges with the slogan "I Like Ike!" and moved on to animated cards that were stuck on boxes of Cheerios".
Reprint from the New York Times.
http://www.depthography.com/times.html
The patents (I found) were in the name Victor G. Anderson. As Kay Anderson was the president of Vari-Vue in the sixties and seventies I assume it was her husband who invented the process. See U.S. patent 2,815,310. Filing date: Mar 1, 1952
Aimulti (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- That patent is much too late to be the 1936 patent referred to above. That patent is important since in some places the Didik website attributes the coining of the term to that 1936 patent. --Srleffler (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Lenticular printing.
Good idea. It is lost in space, as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimulti (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Commercial links
Since almost everything related to lenticular technology was invented or popularized by Vari-Vue, it is only fair to have a link to the company. After all, they patented the motion lenticluar technology in 1936, they were the creators of the Cracker Jacks and similar lenticulars, and everything till 1968, when they licensed their patents to other companies in Japan, Hong Kong and elsewere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.185.125 (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is not established that Vari-Vue patented the lenticular in 1936. No reliable independent source for this claim has been presented, which is surprising since patents should be easy enough to look up. Besides that, the 1936 patent is before the formation of Vari-Vue as a company. There is some history there that needs to be made clearer (with independent sources) before this can be included. An exact reference to the patent would be helpful.--Srleffler (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have removed all commercial links in the history section. The problem is if I had not included them in the first place I would have been asked to provide references. Non commercial references for products of this kind simply don't exist. A case of damed if you do and damed if you don't or Catch 22.
As Vari-Vue is now defunct I cannot see how the references (to them) are 'commercial'.
Aimulti (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- While commercial links are a problem, the main problem with the Vari-Vue links as history is that they are not reliable sources. When discussing the history of a company, we require sources that are independent of that company. In this case in particular, the history presented on the Didik/Vari-Vue site is unclear, vague, and questionable. Other sources are required.--Srleffler (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfC on HISTORY section
 |
A user has requested comment on this page, but there is an error in the RFC template. Please review the RFC template syntax and try again
To add a discussion to RFC:
|
[edit] History section
Wow, I see someone deleted the entire history section. That was probably overkill. It is not wrong for a Wikipedia article to talk about the history of a commercial process, and to discuss the companies that participated in the development of that process. The discussion has to be neutral and balanced, and needs good sources. Some of the material that was deleted was fine. I think that some references citing the Didik site are OK too, as long as the claims made in this article are not doubtful or exaggerated, and don't attempt to promote Didik/Vari-Vue. The linked pages also need to not be overly commercial, etc. It's best if someone not affiliated with Didik/Vari-Vue do the work, however, to avoid bias.
This revision might be a good place from which to start. It needs some pruning, but contains some good content.--Srleffler (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I reinserted the history section, starting with the version referred to above. I pruned it a bit, and reformatted the references. It may still need some work, but I think this is a reasonable starting point. Note that only one paragraph of it is actually about Vari-Vue, which doesn't seem unreasonable if their role in the history of this technology is as big as they claim. I've removed some of Mark Hanau's self-promotion but left some of the material on picture disks, which are interesting and deserve mention. Whether there is still too much material on them is open to debate.--Srleffler (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that there may be some confusion among some editors about commercial links. Links to commercial sites can be used as references. The rules are a bit different from the rules for external links, because of the distinct purposes references serve. The references must be done in good faith, of course. The page cited must usefully support a point in the text, and must be a "reliable source" for the information cited. Suitable pages will not generally be strongly focused on promoting products. Typical examples of acceptable references to commercial material are pages of company history and white papers or other technical information. Note that editors who are personally associated with a company should avoid making links to that company's site or using it as a reference and should defer to other editors regarding the merits of such links. This is necessary in order to maintain Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Editors affiliated with a company often have difficulty being unbiased about that company, and may be tempted to promote the company by creating unnecessary links to the corporate site. Links to pages that actively promote a company's products or services are almost never acceptable.--Srleffler (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I removed several of the citations to history pages at the VariVue website. Per WP:SELFPUBLISHED, we can only use material on Vari-Vue's site as references for facts about Vari-Vue itself, not about others. The paragraphs are marked "citation needed" for now. Hopefully alternate sources can be found.--Srleffler (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
