User talk:Adamant1

Postcards of the Cherry Street Bridge has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at [[{{{2}}}|its entry]].

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Geo Swan (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SVG NBC station logos has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at [[{{{2}}}|its entry]].

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logos of local Fox television stations has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at [[{{{2}}}|its entry]].

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"RP-F"-tag

Hi Adamant1, re: Printed images being put in categories for photographs. The example mentions this file. There is a simple explanation why it was categorized as a based on a photo. Search for the tag "RP-F" delivers any photographic item in the collection of RMA. There is still a lot to do,1 This is a wide range of images based on a diversity of photographic procedúres including repro-techniques. Many of these have there own cats in this museum. One of the newer cats is 'Reproduction prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam' containing also bookpages like the example above. Best regards. Peli (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelikana: That seems to be wrong. As well as super redundant overcategorization. If you look at the definition of a repoduction print in Category:Reproduction prints it says "reproductions of works of art by means of mechanically reprinted photographs." A photograph of a book isn't a "mechanically reprinted photograph" obviously. It's a photograph of a book. Otherwise Everything in Category:Books and similar would qualify. Ergo, making the category pointless. With File:Fotoreproductie van drie plattegronden en tekeningen van de tombe van Romulus in Rome Tomb of Romulus, son of Maxentius (titel op object), RP-F-2001-7-164-12.jpg specifically, it's already in 4 other categories for photographs, books, Photogravures, Etc Etc. At three of the categories are totally pointless and serve no purpose. Category:Reproduction prints being one of them. But the category is really pointless. I think people are confusing a photogravures with "reproduction prints" here or using later as a needless general category for anything that's a photograph of a printed work.

Again, every image of a printed work on here is a technically a "mechanically reprinted photograph" or whatever. Otherwise I'd like to see an example image of something like a book page that isn't a "reproduction print." --Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In you last quote and generally you tend to leave out the notion of 'copy of a work of art, not done manually'. So here is some examples, notice the context of a museum collection and the need to name techniques of the numbered objects properly. This is not merely a category by medium and object type but also by subject. The topic being: art history.

Repro print of a copy of a painting
Repro print of an engraving of a painting
Repro photo of a painting, printed
lichtdruk, the object is not a repro of a work of art
lichtdruk, the object is not a repro of a work of art

I really don't think this is overcategorized and it could use some help. So where to put these repros? Peli (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Pelikana: I follow some of your argument, but probably not all of it. Let me start with a question with reference to that fourth example. Are you saying that a photograph cannot be a work of art, or that this particular photograph is not, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 19:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth does not show a copy of a work of art as in classical wall art. To me it shows a reprint of a photograph hence it would not fit in Cat:Reproduction prints (of works of art). Do you agree to rename the cat to emphazize that it is about the subject 'art history in photomechanical copies of individual works of art'? I'm also looking for a place that shows early stages of photo copies like 'lichtdruk'. I agree that the cat Bookpages where a mistake on that spot, more a todo list. sort this. I also agree that the toplevel cat reproduction prints is too ambivalently named to be enough clear about the subjectmatter. Shorter would possibly be just to make it "Reproductions in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam" for the first 3 and just treat 4 and 5 as photographs. Peli (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in what Jmabel's opinion about this is, but you have File:Reproductie van schilderij Trennungsstunde van R. Eichstadt, RP-F-00-6352.jpg in both Category:Reproduction prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam and Category:Albumen prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. As far as I know all albumen prints are reprints of original works. So the extra category specifically for "reproduction prints" is totally superfluous.

As far as having a category specifically for "art history in photomechanical copies of individual works of art" goes, I think that's already served by Category:History of printing and/or Category:History of photography. Maybe it would be worth creating a category that combines them but if so, it shouldn't just be a place to dump random photographs based on the vague assertion that they show "the history of photomechanical photographic processes" or whatever. That said, I'd argue all photographs are inherently reproductions. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term "print" is a little tricky here. After all, for any photographic method that uses film negatives, every paper copy is technically a "print", but usually we just call it a "photograph" or a "photo". - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see categories as a particularly good way of tracking printing methods for the paper (etc.) items that have, in turn, been digitized. We would either end up with massive categories or would end up duplicating an awful lot of the category tree (as is already happening under Category:Black and white photographs, and I think it is foolish even there). I could imagine using P15549 (P15549) to store these in SDC (though I think there should be some broader discussion first as to whether that is acceptable).

I could also imagine creating just a gallery page with a fair number of good examples rather than trying to spread this over all of Commons' photographs.

Question: do we currently even systematically distinguish scanned paper photos from all-digital photos? - Jmabel ! talk 02:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]