Difference between revisions of "Talk:Argus C3"
m |
m |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Why was it necessary to remove the text identifying the red C3 as having a custom, non-original covering? Again, I have no problem with the inclusion of the photo, but with nothing identifying it as a non-original color, it misleads viewers of the page into possibly believing the C3 was manufactured in red as well as black. | Why was it necessary to remove the text identifying the red C3 as having a custom, non-original covering? Again, I have no problem with the inclusion of the photo, but with nothing identifying it as a non-original color, it misleads viewers of the page into possibly believing the C3 was manufactured in red as well as black. | ||
| − | : Sorry, | + | : Sorry, accidentally edited old version! Now all is changed correctly. U. Kulick 15:39, 30 December 2010 (EST) |
Latest revision as of 20:40, 30 December 2010
I am unhappy with the new photo at the top of this page. While the camera restoration and the photo of it are nice, a red C3 should not be the representative of this camera model. The C3 was never made in red and having this photo at the top of the page is misleading.
I have no problem with the inclusion of the photo on this page, but I do not think it should be at the top and I think it should certainly be described as a custom-color restoration.
John Kratz
________________________
Why was it necessary to remove the text identifying the red C3 as having a custom, non-original covering? Again, I have no problem with the inclusion of the photo, but with nothing identifying it as a non-original color, it misleads viewers of the page into possibly believing the C3 was manufactured in red as well as black.
- Sorry, accidentally edited old version! Now all is changed correctly. U. Kulick 15:39, 30 December 2010 (EST)
