Talk:Land Camera

message: I was told it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion so I have nominated it for regular deletion
Landcamera900 (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of your reasons are valid CSD criteria and prod'ing isn't a "regular deletion".  Expansion is not a good reason to delete.  Cburnett (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: is int this "article" unnecessary and eligible for deletion? it is just a bunch of photos, the topic is adequately covered by the "instant camera" article.Landcamera900 (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on.  An RFC is overkill for an article that is clearly a case of "needs expansion".  Cburnett (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had images of them so I contributed them.  Darn me for contributing!  Mind you that they are images of cameras my generation will never use or likely see & hold.  And please stop using bold, it's not necessary at all.  Cburnett (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  this conversation is going nowhere. Landcamera900 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no merge proposal on the table, just an RFC.  If the Land Camera existed for decades then that's all the more reason it should stand alone.  There should be plenty of verifiable sources out there that can be used to expand this article to the point the images are incorporated into the prose.  Again, deleting or merging is not necessary as expanding is obviously needed.  Cburnett (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine then, the preposal to prepose a merge. The land camera ias just a polaroid with land stamped in the front. If you are going to have a page for early polaroid cameras than you should remove detailed land camera information from "instant camera" On a side note the article name should be "Polaroid Land Camera" anyway. Landcamera900 (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: Please see User talk:Landcamera900. Tyrenius (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspected image copyvio 

message: please don't restore those photos in that manner. It ruins the look of the article, I understand your attachment to the photos but they are already in use in "instant camera" can't that be enough? 
Thank youLandcamera900 (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not own this article and therefore you do not dictate it.  I think the pictures belong and the fact that I took them is irrelevant.  You were complaining earlier today about assuming good faith, but it seems that's lost on you now.  Do you have anything more substantial than your opinion that it "ruins the look of the article"?  Cburnett (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I most certainly do not think I own the article, no one owns any wiki article. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be attached to the photos (whether you are or not)  so good faith does not come into play, furthermore I do not want any animosity with you, so please stop acting so terse with me. The cameras are already well documented as far as images are concerned. the old photos are unnecessary and confusing IMO Landcamera900 (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my post on User_talk:Landcamera900#Image_copyvio, which you haven't answered. Tyrenius (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the current way the photos have been reinserted is much better than it was before.Landcamera900 (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the way wiki works - collaborative improvement. Tyrenius (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I am "terse" because of how you've acted with this article and toward me.  You don't know nor understand WP's policies, but that doesn't stop you.  You tell me to, basically, shut up about expansion.  You argue, repeat, and don't want to listen to someone like me who's been here longer and understands things around here better.  (The AFD being closed via WP:SNOW says a lot!)  That's arrogance, and I don't particularly care for it.  The whole time you refuse to collaborate and make it better: nope, delete is the only answer.  Every attempt to delete has failed so now you're forced to deal with it and the first thing you do is delete images.  Nothing you have done here has been to make anything resembling a consensus: your way or your way.  Period.  If you don't want animosity then stop culturing it.  Please.  (I apologize for making this excessively personal and off-topic.)  Cburnett (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose I did come across that way, but it was not my intention, I'm a very agreeable person... really (I'm sorry if I somehow offended you)Landcamera900 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  restoration of the old images  

message: The chemistry for the Polaroid process was adopted and developed at Polaroid but there was a practical problem with containing the process in a marketable product.  Edwin Land invented a spreader that squeezed the negative, chemistry and print paper through two strips of metal.  The invention failed to produce satisfactory results.  Herbert A. Bing, a graduate of M.I.T. was hired from Eastman Kodak and assigned to come up with a functional design.  His result was a sprung roller system that included a machined gap.  The system proved effective and overcame the largest obsticle to the production of a practical consumer camera that produced acceptable prints.  Admittedly, the first prints were of a sepia tone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.53.58 (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herbert A. Bing, design engineer with Polaroid 

message: For me, basic Q's are unanswered.  They overlap somewhat:
-  What is the world's 1st commercially available instant camera?
-  Did the Land produce black-and-white or color prints?  "Sepia-colored" tells me neither.
-  What is the world's 1st commercially available instant color film and/or camera?
-  Cameras and film are conflated, or at least not segregated.  Polaroid's introduction of instant "sepia-colored" prints is presented by way of a camera, i.e. the Land.  But its introduction of instant color prints is presented by way of a film, Polacolor.  Leaving us trying to compare apples and oranges.  How many and what products are we talking about here?  What Polaroid film was used in the Land (if that's a meaningful Q)?  Or was it sold with the film inside?  What camera/s accepted Polacolor film?  (Had Polaroid's policy, say, changed by the time Polacolor was introduced so you could now, or now had to, buy the film separately?  If so, since when?  All unclear to me.)
-  Year 1957 is mentioned, but only in a picture caption.  Relegate no content to only a caption.  If that year is important, tell us why in the text.
-  Etc.
Jimlue (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Camera vs. film; etc.

message: This Q seems fundamental enough to be stated in a separate entry:
Why is an article w. title Land Camera covering other cameras—SX-70, 100 Series, etc.?
Should it be re-titled Polaroid cameras?
Jimlue (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title