Talk:Lithophane


 * 13,313 views Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Better version
See here. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The proposed new version is now at User:Johnbod/Lithophane btw. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * See Requests_for_history_merge just now. They say just copy paste, which I will. If there is any "of the big picture" you think should be added, please say. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Lithophanes as erotica?
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)
 * 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)

Placement of images
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)
 * 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)