Difference between revisions of "Talk:United States of America"

From Camera-wiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(Yes, stuff like this should be deleted.)
m (What is the point of this page?)
 
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
:IFF somebody announces that in the next month he or she (i) will improve this article to the point where it informs the reader and doesn't merely say what Wikipedia etc already say, and (ii) will present reliable sources for what it says, then it may stay. Otherwise, it should go. -- [[User:Hoarier|Hoarier]] 19:15, 8 February 2012 (PST)
 
:IFF somebody announces that in the next month he or she (i) will improve this article to the point where it informs the reader and doesn't merely say what Wikipedia etc already say, and (ii) will present reliable sources for what it says, then it may stay. Otherwise, it should go. -- [[User:Hoarier|Hoarier]] 19:15, 8 February 2012 (PST)
 +
 +
 +
Just discovered this page and I really don't get it! It doesn't appear to say anything relevant to Camera-Wiki, nor have any logical thread? I think it should go. --[[User:Johnbear|Johnbear]] ([[User talk:Johnbear|talk]]) 17:33, 17 December 2016 (CST)

Latest revision as of 23:33, 17 December 2016

The "country" articles in camera-wiki.org need substantial re-thinking.

We have no need to duplicate Wikipedia in providing a general description of the whole country. But there might be value in a broad overview, e.g. the "History of photography in the United States," as long as it steers clear of vague editorializing. Country pages should note a nation's key inventors and breakthrough inventions; manufacturers; perhaps also the history of photography's public adoption, or significant photographers. This is the direction our article Great Britain has evolved towards, after contributions from different authors. In any case, the names of the articles ought to be changed to reflect their contents more exactly.

The present article does not offer much content of value; but if an editor feels ambitious enough to make these changes I'd welcome it. Otherwise I think it might be best deleted. --Vox 07:21, 11 January 2012 (PST)

I agree.
I do also recognize that C-W adheres to the philosophy (more or less understood in Wikipedia, but I think deriving from free software) of releasing something as soon as it could be useful and then improving it. However, this doesn't apply here, as this kind of stuff isn't useful.
IFF somebody announces that in the next month he or she (i) will improve this article to the point where it informs the reader and doesn't merely say what Wikipedia etc already say, and (ii) will present reliable sources for what it says, then it may stay. Otherwise, it should go. -- Hoarier 19:15, 8 February 2012 (PST)


Just discovered this page and I really don't get it! It doesn't appear to say anything relevant to Camera-Wiki, nor have any logical thread? I think it should go. --Johnbear (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2016 (CST)