User talk:Cbatz
| This is the discussion page for Cbatz. Click here to start a new topic.
|
Welcome to Camera-Wiki.org!
Thanks for creating an account here on Camera-Wiki.org! We appreciate your willingness to help us create the most comprehensive camera and photography encyclopedia on the web. Camera-Wiki.org is a big website, so we'd like to offer a few quick pointers to help get you started.
You also have a profile page that you can edit to tell us more about yourself if you'd like. It's purely optional but it's always nice to get to know another camera lover.
This website uses software called Mediawiki that's also used by WikiPedia. If you already know how to use and edit WikiPedia, you'll feel right at home here. If not, we have special page where you can learn to edit, called the Sandbox. It's a place where you try things out and experiment with no worries of breaking anything.
Where to find answers:
- Help pages (this is the best place to start learning!)
- FAQ page
Where to ask questions:
How you can help:
- Start improving or adding articles!
- Check our ToDo list for something you'd like to do
- Post photos of your camera gear on Flickr and add them to the Camera-Wiki.org Flickr group
- Make a donation to help us pay for hosting
Botscura (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2015 (CDT)
Greetings and apologies
Hello, and may I add my human welcome to Botscura's robot one!
However, I must also make my apologies - I have reverted the change you made to categories on Rolleiflex SL66, Contaflex (SLR) and Kodak Instamatic Reflex. I understand that the existence of the sub-category Category:German 126 film SLR for just three cameras may seem silly: I'm not sure I would have created this sub-cat myself. However, if it is true that these three are German-made cameras, then if the sub-category exists, they should be in it. Certainly they shouldn't be in both Category:126 film SLR and the 'German' sub-cat. If you think we should delete the sub-cat, it would be best to start a discussion about that first: other editors will have opinions about it. Ideally, you might start such a discussion on the Talk page of the cameras, but it might be seen by more people in the discussion forum of the Camera-wiki Flickr group. Personally, I think there are other more important improvements that could be made. The category system has always been inconsistent and silly in places. If you know about these cameras, maybe you could add more details to one of the articles. Cheers!--Dustin McAmera (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2015 (CDT)
Hello, I'm a real camera geek and not a robot! And also my apologies for the changes I made, which you reverted. I don't know all the rules here. However, I don't see the point why the mentioned cameras can't be in both, category and sub-category. Anyway, I should have discussed this before and there are certainly more important things to do. I will look at the to-do list and see what else I can contribute. Cheers
- However, I don't see the point why the mentioned cameras can't be in both, category and sub-category.
- I guess the honest answer is only 'because that's what we've always done': a choice made by the founders of the wiki (years before I, or I think any of the current admins, got involved). Now, with over 8000 articles and at least 1000 categories (not including the 'image-by' categories that list what pictures we are using from each contributor), changing this policy consistently would be a big job, and we'd need to be sure we wanted to do it. Although I always add categories to pages as I work on them, I don't think they're very useful to wiki users, because the software that runs the wiki doesn't offer great searching tools (it would be good to be able to say 'show me all the Swedish AND all the Norwegian cameras', or 'show me French cameras that AREN'T 35 mm').
- Categories have been discussed before: see Camera-wiki.org:Community_discussions#Category_clean-up. That Community discussions page used to be a lively page.
- There's also a Help page specific to categories: Help:Categories. At first glance, I think it could be a bit clearer...
- Cheers!--Dustin McAmera (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2015 (CDT)
