Camera-wiki.org talk:About

More information

If anyone likes the text I began on this page, we we can cut/paste from it to expand [[Camera-wiki.org:About]]. Seems we ought to acknowledge the fork, give newbies a little more info. --Vox 17:33, 3 February 2011 (CST)

This happened; the Welcome Mat page no longer exists. --Vox 17:19, 25 March 2011 (PDT)

Name

While I'm disinclined to be fanatical about consistency in naming, I do think that consistency helps to give a good impression. As it is, we often see:

• Camera-Wiki
• Camera-wiki
• Camera-wiki.org

and more.

I get the impression that instances with lowercase "w" are commoner than those with uppercase "W", and therefore that the former is better. Is this so?

Sticking ".org" on the end seems a bit pedantic, but perhaps it's at least necessary in any context where it's necessary to distinguish between "Camerapedia.org" (now no more than a set of redirects) and "Camerapedia" (now an area of Wikia.com). Comments? -- Zuleika 17:03, 25 March 2011 (PDT)

I do think consistency would be good, and I agree the capital-W version is probably the least desirable. One of the weaknesses of our new site name is that it's a bit generic-sounding, which I think is the impulse behind using the full Camera-wiki.org. I agree it's a mouthful but it's also the most specific —e.g. in a context where we're saying "submitting a photo to our Flickr pool will be understood as granting permission to display your photo in the pages of Camera-wiki.org." --Vox 17:19, 25 March 2011 (PDT)

Of course what would really be a pain in the posterior would be to decide on one form of the name, make lots of changes, and then have somebody pop up with good reasons to use an alternative -- "Oops, yes, you're right, we hadn't thought of that". I suggest that you suggest this new standardization on the main discussion page and that we then wait a few days before winding up the discussion and standardizing one way or another. Zuleika 17:23, 25 March 2011 (PDT)

Sourcing

I'd like to make the following changes:

When writing for Camera-wiki.org, we encourage ask you to confirm factual statements about company history, release dates, pricing and so forth by citing (and where possible, linking to) independent sources. These might include collector websites, price guides, specialist books, company records, or historical publications.

But one difference between Camera-wiki.org and Wikipedia is that we actively appreciate "original research" where appropriate (Wikipedia discourages prohibits it<ref>"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Wikipedia:No original research]".</ref>). Simply having a particular camera model in your hands is sufficient if you'd like to describe its features and specs, or make comparisons with other brands specifications. Even somewhat subjective assessments are acceptable ("the build quality is flimsy"), when not excessively controversial. This wiki is encyclopedia is also a conversation between among people who enjoy cameras, so we don't always need you to write in some dry, omniscient style. But do remember that the wiki is not a personal blog or a venue to discuss your own or your friends' photography.

What do you all think? -- Hoarier 19:32, 7 February 2012 (PST)