Talk:Replica
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
[edit]This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University supported by Anthropology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Article Review
[edit]There is an abundant amount of information on the topic however it does not flow very well. It makes it hard to read due to this, more work needs to be done on the overall consistency of the page. Although there are a number of references, many areas of the page have not been cited. A lot of the sentences can be cut out, especially in the introduction, because it is basically repeating what has already been said. A merger with fake may be appropriate however not all replicas may be seen as "Fake" in some contexts. Shelbeglidden (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Article Review:
- Please elaborate
- Create more sub-sections
- Please find several source to add to clarify authenticity
- Needs more work.
- Alright start.GSaundersLikeGlue (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This page makes a lot of judgements and has facts that are not supported by citations. There is a lot of information contained by this wikipedia page that requires a fair amount of structuralization. To move this away from an opinion piece and more into a article, please provide links for important figures, descriptions, and definitions. Improvement is advised. Once proper sources and linkages are made to other wikipedia articles, this page might be utilized more profeciently, if it merged with the wikipedia page titled "fake". GSaundersLikeGlue (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSaundersLikeGlue (talk • contribs) 18:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Merger with 'Fake'
[edit]I agree with this merger. Both articles have similar content although one is more expanded than other. I see no benefit to haveing them as seperate pages. Alice P14 (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree Fake is a disambiguation page, and covers many more meanings. This article concentrates on one meaning only. Bazonka (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Fake and replica are completely different terms, not at all synonymous, and historically have different functions aesthetically, pedagogically (e.g., the use of plaster casts to teach from) and economically. They should NOT be merged at all.Icjfc (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- No merger: Fake and Replica are two completely separate subjects and should not be merged. IQ125 (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Definitely do not merge: the term Replica does not imply any intent to deceive. Fake, forgery and counterfeit (which already have their own separate pages) do imply an intent to deceive. So Replica must remain separate.
Having said that, I agree with other comments that the page is hard to read and that some of it is in rather strange English. But quite a bit of work would be needed to clarify it all. Alan-24 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a new article (above, "Mona...replicas..."). There are sources referenced there which may be helpful with this article; help yourself! Specifically see the section which talks about the Chinese artists churning out Renaissance replicas, among others. Just don't plagiarize me, please! This Replica article could really fill out nicely if someone spends some time doing the searches! There must be such an abundance of material to fill this article, and there must be plenty of Images at Commons; a search of "replicas" there may also seed further content here. As it stands, this is very fragmented and doesn't "teach" me anything or "take" me anywhere.
As for the discussion at hand: NO merge. I believe this article should remain on its own, but with MUCH further attention! The "fake" issue should be: that a "fake/counterfeit" section become a part of this section (I'm sorry; IS there already a section like that here? Don't remember! <because the article is so fragmented). "Replicas" is a RIPE topic worthy of the time required. I'd take it on myself but I just went-public with the Mona Lisa replicas & reinterpretations article and my dance-card is full as it is! Penwatchdog (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Proper English?
[edit]I am not a native speaker but it seems to me that most of this article is written in some funny lingo.
Example: With works of art museums assert their intellectual property rights for replicas and reproduction of images which many museums use commercial licensing for providing access to images. Issues are arising with more images being available on the internet and it being free access
Can anyone make appropriate grammar and style corrections in this article? Looks like translated with Google Translator.Kotoviski (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)