Talk:Argus Carefree
| This is the discussion page for Argus Carefree. Click here to start a new topic.
|
Similar Cameras
I just noticed tonight that an Argus Carefree 126 camera, other than the front face of the camera, is identical to the Imperial Magimatic X50 126 camera. They're both made so that any writing is on aluminum plates with tabs so that they can be inserted into the plastic body. Very convenient for renaming a camera if you need to. I also notice that the Argus Carefree was made in 1967, while the Imperial Magimatic X50 was introduced in 1975. This leads me to believe that Imperial acquired the molds to some of Argus' cameras and did a little work to them and reused them. I wonder if there's a way to confirm or deny this? HaarFager (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
|
| Argus Carefree (top) and Imperial Magimatic X50 (bottom) image by Kenneth Dwain Harrelson (Image rights) |
|
| Argus Carefree (left) and Imperial Magimatic X50 (right) image by Kenneth Dwain Harrelson (Image rights) |
|
| Argus Carefree (left) and Imperial Magimatic X50 (right) image by Kenneth Dwain Harrelson (Image rights) |
|
| Argus Carefree (left) and Imperial Magimatic X50 (right) image by Kenneth Dwain Harrelson (Image rights) |
Links
Aren't the links on pages traditionally at the bottom of the page? I notice the links are in the middle of the content, instead of at the bottom. Is it supposed to be that way? HaarFager (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's a matter of personal taste; but to me it's nicer to pack all the text together—subheads like Description, Version, Notes, Links—and then have the final photo with white space flowing around it to end the page. The alternative is a photo trapping a lot of white space and then the Links subhead stranded off at the bottom of the page and maybe not being seen at all.--Vox (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's so little text in this particular article that it's a bad example of what I'm talking about, but here's an example.--Vox (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I just received your message, but before I had read it, I got to thinking, I wonder if my screen displays pages differently than everybody else's? My desktop computer monitor is still 4:3 instead of widescreen and that could make a difference. I'll check your link and see what you mean. HaarFager (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I saw your example. I see what you mean. But to me, since the coding we use is two equal signs, before and after the heading word, in this case, "Links," the coding is used there to put an underline beneath the word to divide it from the rest of the page following below it. Notice at the top, just below the title of each page, the divider line goes the entire way across the article space. It seems odd that, if that's what the coding and the divider line is supposed to be and do, and then further down the page, if it doesn't do or represent the same thing, that's why I can't rectify it in my mind. But, to me, when something is defined (such as this dividing line) as demarking a section that is seperated from some other section, it should be the same every time it's used, shouldn't it? But, I'm a perfectionist and I realize it probably doesn't matter to most other people any way. I will go along with whatever is the standard. I just have to be able to define the standard in my mind so I can understand what it is. I don't want to do the wrong thing. HaarFager (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ha, going back to the old Camerapedia there have been hundreds of page contributors of all different backgrounds & skills; so I think it's impossible there will ever be total consistency! Now I see your point, but I will caution you not to get overly hung up about the horizontal line crossing the page. it may be more impermanent than you think. I will explain:
- In MediaWiki when we type double or triple equal signs (or single and double asterisks for list items) those are intended as semantic tags. They indicate where the item stands in a hierarchy of importance. As far as how the appearance is eventually rendered (e.g. whether subheads are underlined), that is determined by MediaWiki "skins."
- Camera-wiki.org only uses one particular skin called "Vector," which is familiar as the Wikipedia default. But dozens of skins have been created and in fact Wikipedia itself offers five choices. Amusingly you can force a very different look to any Wikipedia page by appending a skin choice to the URL. (If you log in to Wikipedia, you can make your personal skin preference persist site-wide.)
- Vector has remained pretty conservative, but as camera-wiki.org keeps its MediaWiki installation up-to-date it is possible Vector will get new tweaks, or the mobile-oriented MinervaNeue will replace it, etc.
- We certainly have lots of pages which use weird hacks to adjust the layout according to their appearance within Vector, but I would discourage that. I try to keep all the text content in a single block with photos to the right or below, except when small photos need to be inline to illustrate model variations etc.--Vox (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I saw your example. I see what you mean. But to me, since the coding we use is two equal signs, before and after the heading word, in this case, "Links," the coding is used there to put an underline beneath the word to divide it from the rest of the page following below it. Notice at the top, just below the title of each page, the divider line goes the entire way across the article space. It seems odd that, if that's what the coding and the divider line is supposed to be and do, and then further down the page, if it doesn't do or represent the same thing, that's why I can't rectify it in my mind. But, to me, when something is defined (such as this dividing line) as demarking a section that is seperated from some other section, it should be the same every time it's used, shouldn't it? But, I'm a perfectionist and I realize it probably doesn't matter to most other people any way. I will go along with whatever is the standard. I just have to be able to define the standard in my mind so I can understand what it is. I don't want to do the wrong thing. HaarFager (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I just received your message, but before I had read it, I got to thinking, I wonder if my screen displays pages differently than everybody else's? My desktop computer monitor is still 4:3 instead of widescreen and that could make a difference. I'll check your link and see what you mean. HaarFager (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's so little text in this particular article that it's a bad example of what I'm talking about, but here's an example.--Vox (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
