Talk:Selenium meter

From Camera-wiki.org
Revision as of 06:03, 19 April 2011 by Zuleika (talk | contribs) (Bruno Lange construction?: belated follow up)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for Selenium meter. Click here to start a new topic.


Discussion pages are for discussing improvements to the article itself, not for discussions about the subject of the article.


Bruno Lange construction?

What exactly does the "first practical construction of Dr. Bruno Lange" mean here? Shouldn't there be a source or an explanation for that? --A*J*P 16:16, 9 April 2011 (PDT)

I don't know what it means; yes there should be a source. This part was added in this edit by Grzesio (talk page).
(But this article should also provide a source for the claim that Rhamstine manufactured the first meter.) Zuleika 07:34, 10 April 2011 (PDT)
You're right, of course. I added a source for Rhamstine history, and word "presumably", since there is no definite proof. But it was definitely before Weston 617.--A*J*P 12:41, 10 April 2011 (PDT)
The larger problem is that on average, Camera-wiki isn't "sourced" anywhere near as well as it should be. Thank you for taking this matter seriously, and keep up the good work. Um, I don't want to niggle, but the use here of "presumably" strikes me as rather odd (although correct): I for one had never presumed anything about Rhamstine, not having heard of the company until yesterday. How about something like "Rhamstine's Electrophot DH of of 1931 is believed to be the first selenium light meter manufactured/marketed [?] for photographic purposes"? Zuleika 16:01, 10 April 2011 (PDT)
Thanks for the correction, that sounds much better. English is not my native language, so I can't hear all the nuances. --A*J*P 16:32, 10 April 2011 (PDT)
Your English is excellent and your knowledge of exposure meter history is even more impressive.
Thinking about the matter a bit more, I wonder if part of the problem in the article is that it's supposed to be a glossary entry (which wouldn't normally need references), and yet it obviously is an encyclopedia article (and thus does need them), and . . . well, it doesn't really know what it is.
Please don't hesitate to make other well-informed changes. Let's treat it like an encyclopedia article--if people then won't want to look in the footnotes, they won't have to do so. Zuleika 23:03, 18 April 2011 (PDT)