User talk:Zuleika

Revision as of 08:19, 6 May 2011 by Zuleika (talk | contribs) (New ID)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for Zuleika. 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.

Image rights pages

Hi! I responded to your question about 'French PD after 1923' on my Talk page. Have to say I admire what you're doing. There's a lot of criticism of CP about copyright, and it's completely appropriate that some attention is paid to this issue here. Most of those odd-named image_rights categories are (I think) Rebollo_fr's creations. He has a wealth of old advertising, and it must be said it's sometimes the only source of a picture of a camera. In some cases, I believe there are advertisements for cameras that may not even have been produced. Others are good for showing (say) what variety of lenses was offered, or what cameras were comparable in price. I think such uses are completely defensible as scholarly, but excessive use for decoration is considerably less so. Cheers! --Dustin McAmera 10:11, 24 March 2011 (PDT)


Hello, Zuleika! Thank you for your recent edits. Please stick around and write more! --Vox 17:46, 26 March 2011 (PDT)


Dear God. If you are ever looking for a chewy topic to sink your teeth into, please take a look at the page lens. It needs serious rewriting, and possibly breaking up into several different pages. It's unimaginable to me that we don't have an explanation of spherical aberration anywhere in the wiki... --Vox 19:45, 8 April 2011 (PDT)

Yes, parts of it seem to have been written by an enthusiastic if underinformed teenager.
It starts off alarmingly with a photograph captioned "lens element's surfaces: 1. ground, 2. polished, 3. coated". Of course I can easily fix the apostrophe, but the larger problem is that the photograph is utterly uninformative/unpersuasive. I'm inclined to retitle it "three lens elements with a light pointing at one of them". Or, better, just to remove it.
Spherical aberration is a matter of physics, and only thanks to this a matter of photography. I cannot do better than "Spherical aberration" (Wikipedia), and though that article is flawed I'd happily send people there. Zuleika 21:54, 8 April 2011 (PDT)

Soviet Factory Logos

Hi, Soviet Factory Logos is an article headline, so its writing must be with capitals !--Dr.Süleyman Demir 02:24, 25 April 2011 (PDT)

Uh, no. In English we have two main ways of capitalizing titles, the "up" style and the "down" style. In the "down" style, only proper names and so forth are capitalized, as if this were regular text. This is very common in articles on the web. The top story today in what may well be best (or least bad!) English newspaper on the web: "Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison". Now, "Guantánamo Leaks Lift Lid on World's Most Controversial Prison" (the "up" style) would have been OK too (though a bit old-fashioned); but no, chose to use the former. The "down" style is what Wikipedia consistently uses; and it's what Camera-wiki uses (except when written by newcomers or the chronically careless): see Cable release, Hot shoe, Digital camera, etc. Zuleika 06:58, 25 April 2011 (PDT)

New ID

I am User:Hoarier; please write to me at User talk:Hoarier. Thank you. Zuleika 01:19, 6 May 2011 (PDT)