Difference between revisions of "User talk:Hoarier"

From Camera-wiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(Being bold: strawmen, moving, caution, edit summaries)
(SLR Template: new section)
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
If your login chokes one more time, will you return as "Hoariest"? (Hrm, something doesn't sound right about that.)--[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 20:38, 14 April 2011 (PDT)
+
[[User talk:Hoarier/old01|old stuff]]
  
:I'd been thinking of Hoarendous. -- [[User:Hoarier|Hoarier]] 21:06, 14 April 2011 (PDT)
+
==Lens mounts==
 +
Question on edits to [[Lens mounts]] page. You made a change to all the dimensions that rendered them unsearchable. I'm not certain what the change was, the diff highlights them and it appears you replaced the 'x' character with an uptypeable character (at least on a normal US style keyboard). Previously I could do a control-F and search for, say a "24 x 36" value and find them but that no longer works. I'm curious what the motivation is as this new character looks the same but thwarts searches?<br/>[[User:Steevithak|Steevithak]] 21:58, 4 January 2012 (PST)
  
==Being bold==
+
:Ah. It hadn't occurred to me that people would ''search'' for "24x36" or whatever, especially as the table can be ordered by any column. I changed "x" to "&times;" ("&amp;times;") which in the computer/browser I'm using now and in most others I'm used to looks different and a bit better. It's very widely used here in CW; though now I remember that it's not used for categories (presumably to ensure ease of input); thus the '''Mine Six''' "is the name of a series of 6×6 folding rangefinder cameras [...]" ("times" sign) but it's in "[[:Category:Japanese 6x6 rangefinder folding]]" (lowercase "X"). Shall I change them all back? Doing so would be simple. -- [[User:Hoarier|Hoarier]] 22:13, 4 January 2012 (PST) slightly reworded 01:39, 5 January 2012 (PST)
  
<div style="background-color:#d8e8e8; color:#000; margin:1em 20px; padding:10px">
+
::If it's easy to revert, I'd prefer that. Though if it's worth discussing on the mailing list first, I'm okay with seeing what everyone else thinks. My feeling is 99% of users won't know how to use XML entity values to create a multiplication symbol vs an 'x', so we'll end up with a mix of both and complaints from editors about unnecessary complications when we end up with a mix of both on a page. I tracked down a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Common_mathematical_symbols reference in the WP style guide] that says the multiply symbol is preferred for math equations but 'x' is okay to mean "by" in dimensional reference such a 6 by 6 or 6x6.<br/>[[User:Steevithak|Steevithak]] 22:23, 4 January 2012 (PST)
Hi Hoarier
 
  
I just sought the text were I first heard of "be bold" wiki philosophy and linked the new [[be bold]] page to that text passage (of You). I remembered it when I found a similar "be courageous" hint in a German wiki, and now I found the related page in Wikipedia. So You didn't necessarily needed to revert that "tampering", it was just a special attempt of honoring Your idea as being established now in this wiki. I made the new page because some makers of this project already became too doubtful concerning changes, because they could be "damaging" to the whole project. But I learned from another wiki: No change, no life. We want a living project, so we can't discourage change. If we won't allow anonymous edits that would be good, but the ones who have decided to become project members shall not be discouraged by doubtful discussions, they should find a place to become creative with their ideas to enrich this camera knowledge base. Be bold, of course carefully, not loosing view for good compromises and consent, and let this wiki grow.
+
:::There, I've invited people to comment here. I suggest waiting a day or so; if people prefer "x" I'll then happily change back to "x". -- [[User:Hoarier|Hoarier]] 01:18, 5 January 2012 (PST)
  
Best regards, [[User:U. kulick|U. Kulick]] 10:52, 29 April 2011 (PDT)
+
:::I changed back. -- [[User:Hoarier|Hoarier]] 04:45, 8 January 2012 (PST)
  
:What an extraordinary response.
+
:::: We do use the character entities for fractions, and suggest that in our [[Help:Markup_reference#Characters_not_on_your_keyboard |help pages]]. Is there a search issue with that?  I've been known to use the multiplication symbol myself; but it's only with serif fonts that a lowercase x looks noticeably wrong.--[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 11:55, 9 January 2012 (PST)
:#That was my comment, signed by me. I do not tamper with your comments; you do not tamper with mine. (Are you interested in Wikipedia guidelines? [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments|Here]]'s one that covers this.)
 
:#You say ''it was just a special attempt of honoring Your idea.'' Amazing. Here's my idea, exactly as I wrote it, though with '''emphasis''' added: ''English-language Wikipedia has a policy "Be bold"; it's well intended but '''it doesn't transfer well to this kind of article''' here [...].'' So, simply, my idea was that "Be bold" was a ''bad'' principle for editing that article and others like it. Your "special attempt" to "honor" my idea seems to have been to pretend that I said the opposite.
 
:#You say that what you call my idea (actually ''your'' idea, and in some ways the opposite of my idea) is ''established now in this wiki.'' That's in your article "[[Be bold]]". (This is in mainspace. Why? Is "Be bold" something like a photographic process, or a kind of camera?) You've stuck it in [[:Category:Editing guidelines|Editing ''guidelines'']]. How is it "established"? There seems to have been no discussion of it whatever. It's merely ''your'' idea. If this were Wikipedia, it would certainly not be a "guideline"; it would instead be an "essay" until somebody objected to it (which would happen quickly), whereupon it would be moved to your userspace. ([[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#essay|Here]] is what Wikipedia has to say about essays.)
 
:I stoutly reject your panglossian clichés above about "change". Changes for the better are good; those for the worse are bad; it's as simple as that.
 
  
:I reject your new, simplistic pastiche of Wikipedia's "[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Be bold|Be Bold]]". The latter is intelligent; you manage to violate it, by (for example) ignoring differences among namespaces.
+
==Category rethink==
  
:You are an administrator here. I expect ''any'' editor here, and certainly any administrator, to behave responsibly. Some aspects of responsible behavior are:
+
On ''':Category:Root category''', you have written ''Camera-Wiki realizes that there are problems with the category tree, and is planning an improvement''. This troubles me because no discussion of such a plan has reached my ears. If '''you''' are planning anything, I recommend that you have the discussion first. Major, un-discussed changes by any individual are unhelpful, in what is supposed to be a community, and as the Help pages say, categories can create a lot of work.  
:#Reading others' comments carefully. If you don't understand them, ask. Avoid misrepresenting them.
+
Secondly, we generally write as ourselves, not as the personification of Camera-wiki.org, don't we? --[[User:Dustin McAmera|Dustin McAmera]] 03:31, 9 January 2012 (PST)
:#Keeping your hands off others' comments.
 
:#Providing edit summaries for all your edits.
 
:#Getting agreement for changes of policy before you announce them.
 
:-- [[User:Hoarier|Hoarier]] 16:59, 29 April 2011 (PDT)
 
</div>
 
  
I' sorry, I accidentally wrote into Your User page instead into You discussion page. I don't mind it as "tampering" if You'll move our discussion to this talk page where it should belong to. Sorry, my mistake. I also don't agree that we have a change of policy. The "[[Be bold]]" article comes from my experience with Camerapedia. We cooperated well, and we had a majority of cases were changes were not reverted but respected and further developed by the others. The first mentioning of "be bold" philosophy was by You (when You were "Hoary"). It was necessary to remind the project community of the "be bold" idea since there were discussions on our mailing list going into the direction: Don't change anything, that's dangerous. If your opinion is that nothing should be changed in this wiki we should lock all articles. I wouldn't like that. We can trust each other as we could in the past. In the article [[Be bold]] I wrote nothing else than You: "''Changes for the better are good; those for the worse are bad; it's as simple as that.''" Changes for the better, in my words "improvements". Please read the texts carefully that You criticize. [[User:U. kulick|U. Kulick]] 18:06, 29 April 2011 (PDT)
+
:Yes, very good points. Where's the best place to discuss this? Name your preferred place, and I'll be happy to kick off the discussion. (''':Category talk:Root category''' is not a good place, because I think I can persuade you that ''':Category:Root category''' is better deleted to make way for two replacements -- I don't want to start a discussion and later to delete it.) -- [[User:Hoarier|Hoarier]] 05:14, 9 January 2012 (PST)
  
:OK, I've moved the start of the discussion here, putting it in a colored DIV. (Posting it to my user page was obviously just a mistake; I didn't mind.) -- [[User:Hoarier|Hoarier]] 18:19, 29 April 2011 (PDT)
+
:: Dustin, this follows up on some email discussions we had. I have always found our category system perplexing, and inconsistently applied. I suggested to Hoarier that his background might make him a good person to look into this. The hope is to repair some of our system's inconsistencies and unclear logic. --[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 08:07, 9 January 2012 (PST)
  
:I don't think that anybody has suggested that nothing should change. Certainly I haven't. (Indeed, I hope that CW changes ''a lot.'' And while I'm happy to see it expand, the changes I want are definitely not limited to expansion. Actually I'm more worried about quality than quantity.)  
+
::: Ok! I agree that something needs doing about Categories; I was only concerned that it seemed to be a personal project, so my hackles are now down. Discussions could be held at [[Camera-wiki.org:Community discussions]], or in the Google mail-list, depending how widely you want to consult. Doing it in the wiki would have the advantage that those who come after us can see what we were thinking.  I'll hold off any comments on the Cat system itself for now; perhaps someone could set out how far discussion elsewhere has got? Cheers! --[[User:Dustin McAmera|Dustin McAmera]] 10:24, 9 January 2012 (PST)
  
:Your article, though clearly well intended, strikes me as not well thought out. (Wikipedia's own page on "boldness", which you claim to admire, argues not for boldness but for ''caution'' when working on guidelines.) And even if it were well thought out, it would obviously be in the wrong place. I invite you to move it to your own userspace (maybe [[User:U. kulick/Be bold]]), to work on it there, and to invite comments on it there. If people like it, ''then'' it can go somewhere like [[Camera-wiki.org:Be bold]]. (If I don't like it but the majority who comment do like it, then ''of course'' it can go there. I am just one editor; my opinion is of no special importance.)
+
:::: I'd suggest starting a topic at [[Camera-wiki.org:Community discussions]], with an invitation to comment there mailed to the Google list. This will spare a lot of email traffic for those who don't have much interest or an opinion.--[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 11:48, 9 January 2012 (PST)
  
:Meanwhile, how about supplying [[Wikipedia:Help:Edit_summary|edit summaries]]? -- [[User:Hoarier|Hoarier]] 18:34, 29 April 2011 (PDT)
+
== Case Sensitivity ==
 +
 
 +
Hello. I have noticed that when searching the "Leica R" part of these articles' title is case insensitive, but the "E" in "Leica RE" is case sensitive so that "Leica Re" does not find it. How can this be fixed? [[User:DesmondW|DesmondW]] 02:01, 28 January 2012 (PST)
 +
 
 +
:Now fixed! Check for yourself: [[Leica Re]]. (See [http://camera-wiki.org/index.php?title=Leica_Re&redirect=no here] how it's done.) -- [[User:Hoarier|Hoarier]] 04:52, 28 January 2012 (PST)
 +
 
 +
Thank you, I had of course thought of that. However Leica R4, leica r4, lEICA R4, all seem to redirect without separate pages, or must there be a page for every possible case combination? [[User:DesmondW|DesmondW]] 06:00, 29 January 2012 (PST)
 +
 
 +
:You don't have to worry about the case of the very first letter. This is always taken to mean uppercase. "Leica R4" and "leica R4" will be processed identically, even before anybody adds any redirects.
 +
 
 +
:It seems that MediaWiki here tries capitalizing the first letter of any subsequent word too. Thus although there is no redirect from or anything else at "[[Mine six]]", typing "Mine six" in the "find" box will take you to "[[Mine Six]]".
 +
 
 +
:I don't think it's a good idea to add lots of redirects with the vague idea that somebody somewhere might benefit from them. For example, the, ah, spelling-challenged might benefit from redirects from "[[Lieca]]" and "[[Leika]]" to "[[Leica]]", but that would be enough: no need for "[[Leika R3]]" and the rest. The way the "find" box now presents a list of guesses makes it a lot easier for people with wobbly spelling/memories to find what they want. -- [[User:Hoarier|Hoarier]] 06:19, 29 January 2012 (PST)
 +
 
 +
::Agreed, multiple redirects are a nuisance and that is what I was trying to avoid. However, it seems that the case of the entire first word is ignored, then the case of the first letter of subsequent words. Even something obviously crazy such as "lEiCa r4" works.<br/>The listing of choices in search boxes now so common is incredibly useful for all of us. Best wishes - [[User:DesmondW|DesmondW]] 06:41, 29 January 2012 (PST)
 +
 
 +
== Olympus scandal ==
 +
 
 +
In [http://camera-wiki.org/index.php?title=Olympus&curid=5055&diff=125003&oldid=124968 this comment] I red-flagged a new section of [[Olympus]] which describes their recent financial scandal. The paragraph is very poor—and perhaps libelous, if implying that payments to mobsters is proven fact. I'm not sure if you have access to any better news sources than the global ones; but personally I find the details of the scandal quite confusing. I ''think'' that only the parent corporation's management is implicated (not the camera division); and that they disguised old operating losses through bogus acquisitions of small companies (with bloated consulting fees)—which were quickly written off. But I don't quite get why one type of loss was more acceptable than the other. If you have any insight or definitive sources, feel free to replace what is there.--[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 07:53, 20 February 2012 (PST)
 +
 
 +
:It seems pretty clear that various bad practices have occurred. Quite what did occur -- well, this is coming out, piecemeal. The picture is [[:wikipedia:Olympus scandal|very complex]]. Until more is known for sure, I'd direct readers to [[:wikipedia:Olympus scandal|that Wikipedia article]].
 +
 
 +
:Of course I'm never keen on poor paragraphs, but I'd agree with you that extraordinary care is needed when attempting to summarize others' allegations of fraud. If such care is not evident, writing shouldn't wait for improvement; it should instead be deleted. -- [[User:Hoarier|Hoarier]] 17:05, 20 February 2012 (PST)
 +
 
 +
:::Ah, I see now that it was speculative "bubble" investment losses that had to be disguised. Well, at least that's one fairly clear point.--[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 07:55, 21 February 2012 (PST)
 +
 
 +
::::The article linked [http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/the-story-behind-the-olympus-scandal.html from here] goes into some good detail; but the long comment below by Bruno Masset seems to get to the heart of it. --[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 06:47, 27 February 2012 (PST)
 +
 
 +
== gakken ==
 +
 
 +
I see it edit out. How to describe electric block system that gakken made?--[[User:Tkmedia|Tkmedia]] ([[User talk:Tkmedia|talk]]) 05:43, 3 July 2012 (PDT)
 +
 
 +
== SLR Template ==
 +
 
 +
Hello. I have added the template Infobox_35mm_MF_SLR to the [[Leicaflex]] article. However, the template is missing a tag for {image caption} and I didn't want to change it myself. Could you fix this? --[[User:DesmondW|DesmondW]] ([[User talk:DesmondW|talk]]) 13:19, 14 January 2013 (PST)

Latest revision as of 21:19, 14 January 2013

old stuff

Lens mounts

Question on edits to Lens mounts page. You made a change to all the dimensions that rendered them unsearchable. I'm not certain what the change was, the diff highlights them and it appears you replaced the 'x' character with an uptypeable character (at least on a normal US style keyboard). Previously I could do a control-F and search for, say a "24 x 36" value and find them but that no longer works. I'm curious what the motivation is as this new character looks the same but thwarts searches?
Steevithak 21:58, 4 January 2012 (PST)

Ah. It hadn't occurred to me that people would search for "24x36" or whatever, especially as the table can be ordered by any column. I changed "x" to "×" ("&times;") which in the computer/browser I'm using now and in most others I'm used to looks different and a bit better. It's very widely used here in CW; though now I remember that it's not used for categories (presumably to ensure ease of input); thus the Mine Six "is the name of a series of 6×6 folding rangefinder cameras [...]" ("times" sign) but it's in "Category:Japanese 6x6 rangefinder folding" (lowercase "X"). Shall I change them all back? Doing so would be simple. -- Hoarier 22:13, 4 January 2012 (PST) slightly reworded 01:39, 5 January 2012 (PST)
If it's easy to revert, I'd prefer that. Though if it's worth discussing on the mailing list first, I'm okay with seeing what everyone else thinks. My feeling is 99% of users won't know how to use XML entity values to create a multiplication symbol vs an 'x', so we'll end up with a mix of both and complaints from editors about unnecessary complications when we end up with a mix of both on a page. I tracked down a reference in the WP style guide that says the multiply symbol is preferred for math equations but 'x' is okay to mean "by" in dimensional reference such a 6 by 6 or 6x6.
Steevithak 22:23, 4 January 2012 (PST)
There, I've invited people to comment here. I suggest waiting a day or so; if people prefer "x" I'll then happily change back to "x". -- Hoarier 01:18, 5 January 2012 (PST)
I changed back. -- Hoarier 04:45, 8 January 2012 (PST)
We do use the character entities for fractions, and suggest that in our help pages. Is there a search issue with that? I've been known to use the multiplication symbol myself; but it's only with serif fonts that a lowercase x looks noticeably wrong.--Vox 11:55, 9 January 2012 (PST)

Category rethink

On :Category:Root category, you have written Camera-Wiki realizes that there are problems with the category tree, and is planning an improvement. This troubles me because no discussion of such a plan has reached my ears. If you are planning anything, I recommend that you have the discussion first. Major, un-discussed changes by any individual are unhelpful, in what is supposed to be a community, and as the Help pages say, categories can create a lot of work. Secondly, we generally write as ourselves, not as the personification of Camera-wiki.org, don't we? --Dustin McAmera 03:31, 9 January 2012 (PST)

Yes, very good points. Where's the best place to discuss this? Name your preferred place, and I'll be happy to kick off the discussion. (:Category talk:Root category is not a good place, because I think I can persuade you that :Category:Root category is better deleted to make way for two replacements -- I don't want to start a discussion and later to delete it.) -- Hoarier 05:14, 9 January 2012 (PST)
Dustin, this follows up on some email discussions we had. I have always found our category system perplexing, and inconsistently applied. I suggested to Hoarier that his background might make him a good person to look into this. The hope is to repair some of our system's inconsistencies and unclear logic. --Vox 08:07, 9 January 2012 (PST)
Ok! I agree that something needs doing about Categories; I was only concerned that it seemed to be a personal project, so my hackles are now down. Discussions could be held at Camera-wiki.org:Community discussions, or in the Google mail-list, depending how widely you want to consult. Doing it in the wiki would have the advantage that those who come after us can see what we were thinking. I'll hold off any comments on the Cat system itself for now; perhaps someone could set out how far discussion elsewhere has got? Cheers! --Dustin McAmera 10:24, 9 January 2012 (PST)
I'd suggest starting a topic at Camera-wiki.org:Community discussions, with an invitation to comment there mailed to the Google list. This will spare a lot of email traffic for those who don't have much interest or an opinion.--Vox 11:48, 9 January 2012 (PST)

Case Sensitivity

Hello. I have noticed that when searching the "Leica R" part of these articles' title is case insensitive, but the "E" in "Leica RE" is case sensitive so that "Leica Re" does not find it. How can this be fixed? DesmondW 02:01, 28 January 2012 (PST)

Now fixed! Check for yourself: Leica Re. (See here how it's done.) -- Hoarier 04:52, 28 January 2012 (PST)

Thank you, I had of course thought of that. However Leica R4, leica r4, lEICA R4, all seem to redirect without separate pages, or must there be a page for every possible case combination? DesmondW 06:00, 29 January 2012 (PST)

You don't have to worry about the case of the very first letter. This is always taken to mean uppercase. "Leica R4" and "leica R4" will be processed identically, even before anybody adds any redirects.
It seems that MediaWiki here tries capitalizing the first letter of any subsequent word too. Thus although there is no redirect from or anything else at "Mine six", typing "Mine six" in the "find" box will take you to "Mine Six".
I don't think it's a good idea to add lots of redirects with the vague idea that somebody somewhere might benefit from them. For example, the, ah, spelling-challenged might benefit from redirects from "Lieca" and "Leika" to "Leica", but that would be enough: no need for "Leika R3" and the rest. The way the "find" box now presents a list of guesses makes it a lot easier for people with wobbly spelling/memories to find what they want. -- Hoarier 06:19, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Agreed, multiple redirects are a nuisance and that is what I was trying to avoid. However, it seems that the case of the entire first word is ignored, then the case of the first letter of subsequent words. Even something obviously crazy such as "lEiCa r4" works.
The listing of choices in search boxes now so common is incredibly useful for all of us. Best wishes - DesmondW 06:41, 29 January 2012 (PST)

Olympus scandal

In this comment I red-flagged a new section of Olympus which describes their recent financial scandal. The paragraph is very poor—and perhaps libelous, if implying that payments to mobsters is proven fact. I'm not sure if you have access to any better news sources than the global ones; but personally I find the details of the scandal quite confusing. I think that only the parent corporation's management is implicated (not the camera division); and that they disguised old operating losses through bogus acquisitions of small companies (with bloated consulting fees)—which were quickly written off. But I don't quite get why one type of loss was more acceptable than the other. If you have any insight or definitive sources, feel free to replace what is there.--Vox 07:53, 20 February 2012 (PST)

It seems pretty clear that various bad practices have occurred. Quite what did occur -- well, this is coming out, piecemeal. The picture is very complex. Until more is known for sure, I'd direct readers to that Wikipedia article.
Of course I'm never keen on poor paragraphs, but I'd agree with you that extraordinary care is needed when attempting to summarize others' allegations of fraud. If such care is not evident, writing shouldn't wait for improvement; it should instead be deleted. -- Hoarier 17:05, 20 February 2012 (PST)
Ah, I see now that it was speculative "bubble" investment losses that had to be disguised. Well, at least that's one fairly clear point.--Vox 07:55, 21 February 2012 (PST)
The article linked from here goes into some good detail; but the long comment below by Bruno Masset seems to get to the heart of it. --Vox 06:47, 27 February 2012 (PST)

gakken

I see it edit out. How to describe electric block system that gakken made?--Tkmedia (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2012 (PDT)

SLR Template

Hello. I have added the template Infobox_35mm_MF_SLR to the Leicaflex article. However, the template is missing a tag for {image caption} and I didn't want to change it myself. Could you fix this? --DesmondW (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2013 (PST)