Talk:Camera (magazine)/Camera (Swiss magazine)

こんにちわ、Hoary.

Your move of Camera (magazine) was fine (although I wouldn't call the Japanese version a "rival"), but perhaps a more eloquent disambiguation would be Camera (magazine, Japan) and Camera (magazine, Switzerland). Now that I think of it, appellation cannot apply to the latter magazine:Camera existed between several countries (France, Switzerland, Germany and the US) from 1965 to its 1981 demise — a period almost as long as the life (in a much later period, in the bargain) than its Japan-only "rival". <added>It seems that this is not mentioned in any clarity in the article - my apologies. </added>

By the way, you may be interested to know that the editor in Chief of Camera magazine for the above "international" period later became a longtime contributing editor to Asahi Camera with his article "Porter's Corner". Small world, eh?

Cheers, take care,

THEPROMENADER 17:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Rival for the title Camera magazine", perhaps.

There'd be a difference between Camera (magazine, France) and Camera (French magazine) in that the former couldn't be Belgian, etc. But outside Japan there are no Japanese-language publishers that might publish a camera magazine, and there's no Swiss language; I don't like to say this in response to your most amicable message but I think your suggested disambigs sound a bit less eloquent than my own solution. But yes, there's something to be said for yours: it's imaginable that people might later come up with a Camera from Spain and another from Argentina, and then consistency might be helpful. If the non-Japanese Camera that already has an article was Swiss to a considerable degree, can't one just ignore its other domiciles when titling it?

I don't remember "Porter's Corner". I tend to flip through Japanese magazines very lazily and miss a lot, so I can easily believe that I've missed this. Roughly when was it? -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In its last (and best) years, Camera wasn't known as a Swiss magazine. You can even find hardbound volumes of the magazine here in Paris's most prestigious libraries (the BPI at the Centre Georges Pompidou, for example), so I think the "Swiss magazine" title is not only inapplicable but misleading - it was not at all a reflection of Swiss culture as this formula would insinuate. For this I would really like you to move the article back to where it was.

I'll be talking with Allan this weekend, so I'll let you know more about his article in the coming days. Thanks for your interest : ) THEPROMENADER 21:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The article starts Camera magazine was a photography revue published out of Luzern, Switzerland between 1922-1981. The wording is slightly odd, but what seems clear from this sentence and the article as a whole is that it was published in Luzern for its entire lifespan. This implies to me that in at least one sense it was Swiss for its entire lifespan. Above, you seem to say that from 1965 it was published elsewhere than Luzern, or perhaps in various places in addition to Luzern; but this isn't clear.

Something not known to be Swiss may still be Swiss. The last time I looked, Nestlé was Swiss, but it wasn't trading on its Swissness (no talk of "Swiss precision", no little Swiss flags), and I don't suppose most of its consumers were particularly aware of its Swissness as they bought or consumed its products. Of course there's no need to title its article Nestlé (Swiss company), but if there also happened to be an unrelated French company making a similar range of products, I'd have no qualms about so titling it.

I would assume that the Centre Pompidou would have more or less complete runs (whether hardbound or not) of the more substantive west European photographic magazines. If it has rows of hardbound volume after volume of Camera, all well and good: the JCII library in central Tokyo similarly has shelves of bound copies of the (only intermittently interesting) US magazine Modern Photography, but this fact doesn't make MP any less American.

If I understand you right, you want Camera (Swiss magazine) to be retitled Camera (magazine). The latter would then need a disambiguating hatnote telling people that it wasn't Camera (Japanese magazine). The latter was for 35 years one of the top two photo magazines in a large and competitive market (though unfortunately in a single language that the huge majority of the world's photographers can't read): it may not be as significant as the Luzern (-plus?) publication, but it isn't dwarfed by it. So the need for a hatnote would be unfortunate.

At the same time, there's something to be said for a claim that (even until 1965) the Luzern Camera was a lot less Swiss than the Tokyo Camera was Japanese: even when the magazine was exclusively in German it would (I presume) have been widely sold in Germany and Austria. So maybe Camera (Swiss magazine) is unfortunate even to describe the magazine before 1965.

Can we come up with a different solution? I propose that Camera (magazine) would remain a disambig page, pointing to Camera (Japanese magazine) and Camera (XYZ), where XYZ is something we can discuss.

(We could even have Camera (1922-1981) and Camera (1921-1956), although the proximity of the start years could be confusing.)

Hoary (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)