Camera-wiki.org:Community discussions/Archive04

From Camera-wiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search

Topics from Community discussions that have gone more than one year without further comment have been moved here. Also see the Archive Index page for parts 1, 2, and 3.

Vox Edits [to help pages]

I have been going through some of the Editing Guidelines pages, rewriting a few explanations with the hope of making them clearer to wiki newbies. The goal is to encourage people who are not experienced with wiki markup to join us, by offering them more explanations and hand-holding as they begin. I am the guinea pig for this, because I'm mostly trying to clarify issues that I found a bit confusing myself at first. However I encourage all your more wiki-savvy editors to re-check my edits, to make sure I have not introduced errors. --Vox 22:47, 1 February 2011 (CST)

Suggestion [new page template]

I would like to suggest that a "create new page" link be added to the left in the "Navigation" column. It would make it much easier for new users to add a new camera that doesn't already have a page created. Plus, it speeds up the process for experienced users as well. Pages can be created without a link there, but newbies wouldn't know where to find this information or even if it's listed in the help section somewhere. HaarFager 14:46, 8 February 2011 (PST)

I think that's a good suggestion. I'm the guinea pig for "how do newbies perceive this site," and I think that would be much clearer. It could even be helpful for a page to open with a few standard elements pre-filled, such as a placeholder for one main image, links and notes sections at the foot, etc. Naturally the veterans would understand everything could be changed but it would keep beginner pages to a certain minimal standard of clarity and consistency.
That's an excellent suggestion about having some pre-filled areas already on the blank page form. That's the way we do it over on the Hot Wheels Wiki and it helps new users immensely. Yes, veterans would understand that a typical blank form page for a new camera article could be made blank quite easily if they're creating another kind of page, so having the standard blank page form be set for new camera articles would be the best basic form you coule go for. I'll try to work up one and post a link to it in this section. HaarFager 16:08, 8 February 2011 (PST)
I suggest something simple like this, pretty basic for a page, but a lot of pages don't have much information and this template can be expanded quite easily: New Camera Page TemplateHaarFager 16:32, 8 February 2011 (PST)
That's a great start. I'm not sure the block of specs needs to be at the beginning--maybe invite some comment from the other admins?
I figured that if it was kept at the beginning, people would be able to find it uniformly across every page. If it were left to the user and how much information they were adding about that particular camera, this information might wind up anywhere. I feel that's the kind of important information about the camera that people will be wanting to know about anyway. It's the same reason that the navigation bar at the top left of this page can be found in that same area on every page. There's a good reason why it's locked there. HaarFager 20:41, 8 February 2011 (PST)
Hey, Vox, you can sign your comments in a wiki discussion by appending four tildes (~~~~) to your comment. That will put in your name and a time stamp so we know who said what and when.
Steevithak 21:07, 8 February 2011 (PST)
After doing a little reading myself, I noticed there was an existing template referenced in the help area about creating new camera pages: Camera_wiki:_Standards_(cameras). Since I needed to try creating a new page anyway, I used that template as the basis for a new page on the Ansco Viking 6.3. I think this may be the first new camera page I've created so any feedback on the results is welcome. It's a bit minimal and doesn't have a manufacturing section because I just don't have enough info on the camera's history. Maybe somebody else can add that section and fill it in. I read the help section on adding category tags and tried to include the correct set of tags.
Steevithak 12:21, 9 February 2011 (PST)
Steve, I followed the link for the new page template and it looked pretty close to what is already found on here. Only it was more of a guideline than a template and new users might not comprehend the intracacies of wiki building. I'd like to know one thing about the page you created, which was very nice - by the way. Where did you find the coding for the infobox along the right side? I've only seen it on a couple pages here, and sadly, one of them I removed because I was trying to make the page more in line with most of the others I'd seen on here. It was a real mess, though. The infobox looks really good and goes a long way toward unifying the look of all the camera pages. Have you had a look at the template I created? I'm going to go over and amend it to reflect the infobox coding as well. As to your asking Vox to sign his posts - I spent 20 minutes going through the history of this topic because I thought I had accidentally deleted his signature on a comment above mine. I didn't think that it was just that it had never been there! Oh well, I'll live and learn! HaarFager 14:14, 9 February 2011 (PST)
The infobox is the camera template referenced in the new camera page standard I was talking about above. Here's a direct link to the template itself: Template:Camera. It has a few drawbacks. There should probably be separate template/boxes for each camera type so you don't end up with a lot of unused fields. Also there's no clear indication of what the possible contents are for some of the fields. For example on Camera Type, I can guess most of them but would be handy to have a definitive list.
Steevithak 15:01, 9 February 2011 (PST)
I noticed the confusion as well. That can probably be fixed in the template itself. HaarFager 16:33, 9 February 2011 (PST)


Sources–Original Documents [where to host scans]

We need to discuss policy at one point..many of us own out of copyright documents (eg old manufacturer catalogs), which can be scanned and be made widely available, like Silvain has done over at www.collection-appareils.com. Note that I am not referring to user manuals, for which wa can link to Butkus' site. Many of of us have done this one page-by-page basis as needed for an article. I have some obscure items, which could be made available in toto, but which would be lost in my image stream or in the camera-wiki pool. My suggestion is to

a)---set up a class of pages called 'Source' which allows us to provide a full 'publication of that item; say with a standard layout, all as small page images, four or five columns wide. The resulting document electronic document can then be referred to in footnotes in a given camera's main article.
b)---set up a new group 'camera-wiki-docs' where the scans of these things (as well as historic ads etc, should go. That stops the main pool from getting flooded with historic page images and keep that pool's emphasis on the camera pictures. Also, we don't own the rights to such page scan images, just to the actual scans we made. So keeping them separate is useful from a rights perspective too.

As the page scan images will sit on Flickr, the additional server load will be low, but the value-adding to camera-wiki will be huge, I would think...

Keen to get the community input on this. --Heritagefutures 13:49, 22 February 2011 (PST)

Steevithak has been pondering whether Camera-wiki even might set up its own separate Flickr account, dedicated to public domain material and images donated from outside Flickr (e.g. eBayers). This comes out of a discussion over what to do with Rebollo_fr's large collection of public-domain scans from old Japanese publications. (We can't assume Rebollo_fr will want to maintain his Flickr Pro account forever for our benefit.) Otherwise, I'm not overly worried about swamping our pool with document scans. First, some folks (e.g. Mario Groleau) have added dozens of doc scans to our pool already. It makes browsing the pool less pleasurable; but as long as there is some searchable text accompanying a page, we can always use Flickr searches to sift through the pool for particular items. But spawning a new Flickr group is easy & free if this seems useful to folks--Vox 12:20, 24 February 2011 (PST)
Just to follow up on this.... the Camera-wiki Flickr account now exists, and among other things we've started posting scans from vintage publications. You can Flickrmail that account if there's anything that would be best to host over there (donated images, large volumes of scans, etc.) --Vox 17:08, 22 March 2011 (PDT)

I haven't thought this through. But for now, just one comment. Heritagefutures writes: we don't own the rights to such page scan images, just to the actual scans we made. I understand that (i) Flickr.com is hosted in the US, and that US copyright law would apply to what's on it; and that (ii) as clarified by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., US copyright law does not recognize anybody's rights to scans, however painstakingly made, of images that are themselves in the public domain. (IANAL.) Zuleika 17:18, 25 March 2011 (PDT)

Page names, wiki name [page-title cruft due to site renaming]

I've just commented in the talk page of something named Camera-wiki.org:About. But in the last day or two I have been tinkering with such pages as Camera wiki: Adding images. Or to highlight the differences, Camera-wiki.org:About versus Camera wiki: Adding images. Shouldn't there be one, consistent pattern for the names of pages about/for (rather than straightforwardly of) ... um, Camera-wiki.org, or Camera-Wiki.org, or Camera-wiki, or Camera-Wiki, or whatever this site is called? Zuleika 17:08, 25 March 2011 (PDT)

PS There's other odd naming. For example, what had been Camerapedia:Image used with permission is now simply Image used with permission. Shouldn't this too be prefixed? But I'm not going to rename until there's agreement that there should be a prefix and on what the prefix should be. Zuleika 18:38, 25 March 2011 (PDT)

PPS An "advanced" search for a term (example) brings a list of discrete namespaces. Among these are Camera-wiki.org and Camera-wiki.org talk. ("Camera [space] wiki" and so forth do not appear.) So rightly or wrongly, "Camera-wiki.org" is the "official" prefix. And rightly so, I think. If I'm right on both counts, then a lot of pages need to be renamed, and I'm willing to do part of this work. But I hesitate to rename important pages, and don't recommend that others do so, until others chime in here. Comments? Zuleika 21:34, 25 March 2011 (PDT)

Maybe I can shed some light on the cause, if not the solution, to some of the crazy page names. When we exported from Camerapedia and then imported into Camera-wiki.org, I didn't realize the "Camerapedia.org:" namespace even existed until some editors started randomly renaming pages into new camera-wiki namespace variants. The renamed pages resulted in major problems when I tried to update the config file to a new community namespace (e.g. lots of the renamed pages went missing).
I finally ended up getting some help on the MediaWiki IRC from the experts. We went through a lot of page rename reverting and finally got the configured community namespace renamed to Camera-wiki.org. But the whole process left a trail of confused pages names in its wake. Some of the vanished pages reappeared and in some cases there were duplicates of pages in two different namespaces. I think all the duplicates and redirect-loops are fixed now.
Officially, the config file refers to the sitename as "Camera-wiki.org". If any other variants still exist as namespaces, they should be renamed or nuked. You're welcome to either do it or add any you see to the ToDo list.
One other weirdness I've noticed is that some pages have an embedded space in the name "Camera-wiki.org: foo" which results in an underscore in the URL. Not sure if that's normal but it's kind of annoying. I'd like to see those renamed too.
Steevithak 16:15, 26 March 2011 (PDT)
On the last point, recall that an URL can't have a space (although it can have "%20", which may be rendered as a space). Mediawiki software automatically converts a space in a page name not to "%20" but to "_" -- or anyway this is how Wikipedia itself is set up.
OK, I'll start renaming. And as I work at it, I'll try to check that I'm not somehow managing to make matters even more confused. Zuleika 17:42, 26 March 2011 (PDT)

This could be tricky. I first tried to rename this page, but was told (in red!) A page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name. The page does already exist; but even if it did not, then my guess is that I couldn't rename this page to it because the renaming would be across namespaces. However, I'll try elsewhere. Zuleika 17:51, 26 March 2011 (PDT)

I can move across namespaces. I'm not at all sure that it's desirable to give non-admins this ability, but it's certainly useful for me today. Zuleika 18:08, 26 March 2011 (PDT)
Pages I'm not authorized to rename:
Pages I'm not authorized to edit (and in which I can't update links):
Zuleika

For deletion? [three articles, now deleted]

I'm sure that

were meant well, but the former seems to me to require elaboration into an entire website before it would be of real use, while the latter is a decade out of date, addressing "beginners" who now would anyway be using digital (perhaps in their cellphones). Delete? Zuleika 19:42, 26 March 2011 (PDT)

It seems nothing links to Film or Digital, so its deletion is far from urgent, but there would be no tears chez Vox if it mysteriously vanished. --Vox 21:02, 26 March 2011 (PDT)

I don't fully understand what a "WikiNode" is, but my impression from Google is that I should use the past tense when talking of it, and thus that this article is better deleted. (If it's retained, then it should be moved to "Camera-wiki.org:WikiNode" and extensively revised.) Zuleika 00:18, 27 March 2011 (PDT)

I added a link to the original documentation - what is left anyway. Wiki is a slow medium. Just because google isn't showing you growth of WikiNode - I can tell you that wikis are developing their WikiNode slowly but surely. I can help start to flush it out if you would like. As for putting it in the project space - maybe project spaces are better for bigger wiki? Small wiki don't seem to need to build out in the project space. My thoughts anyways. Best, MarkDilley
This wiki already has a project space. Perhaps it shouldn't have, but it does have.
Two "neighbors" are now specified. It's implied that one is dead. The other is a missing page on a website that seems to lack any wiki.
To me, this looks like an idea that looked mildly interesting a few years ago but that has subsequently died. Zuleika 05:34, 27 March 2011 (PDT)

"incredible" stuff [quality of 2 toycam articles criticized]

Both of these are, I think, embarrassments:

NB I have nothing against either product. If something can be said lucidly and informatively about either, by all means let's keep an article. But these articles don't look even slightly "encyclopedic". Zuleika 00:47, 28 March 2011 (PDT)

Do You want to chaperone camera-wiki.org a little?? A plain collection of fact sheets truly cannot be called encyclopedia. Some text is always better. Some humour about toy cameras simply must be allowed from time to time since it's impossible to take them all as seriously as other products. Many articles here may be as brief, but it's good to have them in the wiki. This way it covers not just a handful of perfectly described items but embeds the perfect articles in a real good excerpt of the big world of cameras. You may feel free to add the missing fact sheets in these articles, but first You must find out the facts. But we don't want copy & paste from fact sheet sites, we have the "self-authoring priority" tradition here. Thus don't complain too much about a few articles which may ripen later - feel free to write better ones. Just look into the stubs category and you find a universe of picture-only articles. We appreciate if You do add some appropriate text to the illustrations. There's a lot to do, please don't hesitate. Don't worry, be happy. U. Kulick 11:24, 28 March 2011 (PDT)

Polemics [Article on Camerapedia criticized]

Believing that this is an encyclopedia of cameras and not merely a collection of ramblings that may encompass a polemical essay about old scores, I have altered this (then titled "Camerapedia", although this may not be obvious now) to this. If I (or others) should hesitate to make similar cuts and edits in the future, do please explain. Zuleika 20:15, 26 March 2011 (PDT)

That instance was a very personal statement, which I found moving, although it was far from a NPOV. While I agree the article needed to be made more factual, I think the Talk: page might need an acknowledgement of the aggrieved feelings which caused the earlier draft to be written. --Vox 20:29, 26 March 2011 (PDT)
I think the writer should be encouraged to post such material within his or her own blog. This is a fledgling encyclopedia that's going to flourish or wither depending on a number of factors. Exhibiting sour grapes is going to do nothing to make the encyclopedia appeal to the huge majority of its potential readers and contributors, who I think are more likely to infer a persecution complex etc etc. Zuleika 00:02, 27 March 2011 (PDT)
@Zuleika, I think You should be encouraged to let the writers here the freedom to write the truth. It is right to point out the fault that was made by Lbstone - and it's right to repeat that until that guy gives the necessary excuse to the community and its main contributor rebollo_fr.U. Kulick 10:56, 28 March 2011 (PDT)
Whether or not a statement is true is a different question to that of whether or not it's a good idea to utter the statement. Lbstone appears to have pocketed his money and left. You and I are free to object, either in this discussion page or on personal blogs and the like. But I see no sign that he's ever going to give anything that you'll call an excuse. So if you want to retain the claim that there was an injustice until he makes an excuse, you'll probably retain the claim for ever. Unless it's worded very carefully, it's going to look like an eternal display of sour grapes. And however truthful its content, this would not enhance but instead diminish camera-wiki.org. -- Zuleika 18:12, 28 March 2011 (PDT)
@Zuleika, very good points! As such statements will remain in the history, they are etched into the net forever, so to speak. I wholeheartedly agree that we should strive to provide factual and dispassionate information here. Value-laded comments, if they have to be made at all, should be made in the talk page of the respective camera.--Heritagefutures 00:24, 29 March 2011 (PDT)
Thank you, Heritagefutures. Can I interest you in editing the page a little? Although I've just added material (about the laughable "camerapedia.com") to it, I think that other material within it requires either deletion or very careful rephrasing and additional evidence. Zuleika 16:50, 3 April 2011 (PDT)

Please see Camera-wiki.org talk:Camerapedia. Zuleika 19:17, 28 March 2011 (PDT)

Outdated links within talk pages

I don't understand why links within dated (and thus obviously old) and signed material in talk pages should be updated. But if somebody has already changed them, then I don't propose to change them back. But what should I do about this edit? Within it, one editor changes a perfectly good (in its clearly marked day) Camerapedia.org link to its newer and (Steevithak and I believe) wrong address within camera-wiki.org. I've subsequently moved the relevant page to a new address. Should I re-update the link, or revert the earlier change? Zuleika 00:02, 27 March 2011 (PDT)

Category:Wiki [Pre-overhaul category oddity]

I've been looking at categorization of pages that aren't articles. Plenty of it is bizarre. Exhibit A: "Category:Wiki". What's this for? (Perhaps something important, as it is indefinitely protected against edits by mere non-admins.) Zuleika 09:13, 27 March 2011 (PDT)

No reason to worry: this is a wiki! Nothing in it is bizarre. We have a strict categorization, basing all categories and sub-categories on the ":Category:Root_category". But we can't worry users mixing general wiki categories with the special camera topic categories. Therefore we need the wiki category to bundle the general wiki categories in a separate branch of the category tree. So there's nothing bizarre
Other wikis prefer to fill category pages with contents. That is not our tradition. Category pages in camera-wiki.org are just one navigation path offered to the readers. We have one article categorized with postfix |* in many categories, thus making it appearing as first article before the alphabetic listing of articles. In addition we use navigational templates and of course many inter-page links. That means that there are three pathes to surf thru this site, beside the search function.U. Kulick 10:27, 28 March 2011 (PDT)
Thank you for the response. I understand the idea of categories; I was just puzzled by this particular category. But partly thanks to your explanation, partly because I'm wider awake than when I wrote my question, I think I now understand. I think it means "Category:Wiki maintenance". But within this, the Wiki part is self-evident. So how about "Category:Maintenance"? Zuleika 18:17, 28 March 2011 (PDT)

Quality, please [Call to improve seemingly-"finished" articles]

I don't like to say this, but I have good reason to think that there's a considerable amount of untruth within this encyclopedia. As examples, until my edit to it just now, TLR told the world that:

  1. The camera uses two equal lenses [...] [The cameras] normally consist of two equally constructed lenses with equal focal length and equal "speed".
  2. unlike SLR cameras, the viewed image is not exactly the same as the image recorded on the film

The first is wrong. The viewing lens is typically (and very sensibly) of simpler (and lighter and cheaper) construction. (Hint: Just read the names on the lenses.)

The second tries to make a sensible point, but fluffs it. Maybe the writer had forgotten the percentages given for the coverage of the finder of an SLR.

I can't come up with a recipe for a quick solution, but suspect that a very large amount of what's already here needs improvement. Quality drive, anyone? Zuleika 19:16, 27 March 2011 (PDT)

Of course the contents of the wiki need improvement. We are a volunteer workforce, pitting our imperfect and incomplete knowledge, and limited abilities, against a near-infinite mountain of potentially describable cameras and photographic phenomena. If you can see what's wrong, write something better; If you can't do better, don't criticise; we need writers not critics. Your sentence 'The viewing lens is typically... ' could be cut and pasted.--Dustin McAmera 11:32, 28 March 2011 (PDT)
I take your point, but I think you dismiss mine too hastily. (If so, this was partly because I'd been too lazy to present it well.) As well as whining about TLR, I did actually improve it. What I guessed was that there's a tendency among contributors not to look at the "obvious" articles once a quick glance suggests that these are done: editors (understandably) prefer to work on their own particular enthusiasms, their own truffles of learning. Yes we need writers, but we also need critic/writers: people who will -- benevolently but sceptically -- go through articles on key subjects, checking their veracity, correcting them when they are able to do so quickly, and raising questions when they can't. In the short term, this may lead to a proliferation of whatever camera-wiki.org might use in the place of Wikipedia's "{dubious}" flags, and might cause some hurt feelings. But in the medium term (let alone the long term), it should lead to an encyclopedia that is both better and perceived as better. Zuleika 18:33, 28 March 2011 (PDT)
Retrieved from "http://camera-wiki.org/index.php?title=Camera-wiki.org:Community_discussions/Archive04&oldid=132948"