Camera-wiki.org talk:About

From Camera-wiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for About. 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.


Contents

More information

If anyone likes the text I began on this page, we we can cut/paste from it to expand [[Camera-wiki.org:About]]. Seems we ought to acknowledge the fork, give newbies a little more info. --Vox 17:33, 3 February 2011 (CST)

This happened; the Welcome Mat page no longer exists. --Vox 17:19, 25 March 2011 (PDT)


Name

While I'm disinclined to be fanatical about consistency in naming, I do think that consistency helps to give a good impression. As it is, we often see:

  • Camera-Wiki
  • Camera-wiki
  • Camera-wiki.org

and more.

I get the impression that instances with lowercase "w" are commoner than those with uppercase "W", and therefore that the former is better. Is this so?

Sticking ".org" on the end seems a bit pedantic, but perhaps it's at least necessary in any context where it's necessary to distinguish between "Camerapedia.org" (now no more than a set of redirects) and "Camerapedia" (now an area of Wikia.com). Comments? -- Zuleika 17:03, 25 March 2011 (PDT)

I do think consistency would be good, and I agree the capital-W version is probably the least desirable. One of the weaknesses of our new site name is that it's a bit generic-sounding, which I think is the impulse behind using the full Camera-wiki.org. I agree it's a mouthful but it's also the most specific —e.g. in a context where we're saying "submitting a photo to our Flickr pool will be understood as granting permission to display your photo in the pages of Camera-wiki.org." --Vox 17:19, 25 March 2011 (PDT)
Of course what would really be a pain in the posterior would be to decide on one form of the name, make lots of changes, and then have somebody pop up with good reasons to use an alternative -- "Oops, yes, you're right, we hadn't thought of that". I suggest that you suggest this new standardization on the main discussion page and that we then wait a few days before winding up the discussion and standardizing one way or another. Zuleika 17:23, 25 March 2011 (PDT)

Sourcing

I'd like to make the following changes:

When writing for Camera-wiki.org, we encourage ask you to confirm factual statements about company history, release dates, pricing and so forth by citing (and where possible, linking to) independent sources. These might include collector websites, price guides, specialist books, company records, or historical publications.
But one difference between Camera-wiki.org and Wikipedia is that we actively appreciate "original research" where appropriate (Wikipedia discourages prohibits it<ref>"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Wikipedia:No original research]".</ref>). Simply having a particular camera model in your hands is sufficient if you'd like to describe its features and specs, or make comparisons with other brands specifications. Even somewhat subjective assessments are acceptable ("the build quality is flimsy"), when not excessively controversial. This wiki is encyclopedia is also a conversation between among people who enjoy cameras, so we don't always need you to write in some dry, omniscient style. But do remember that the wiki is not a personal blog or a venue to discuss your own or your friends' photography.

What do you all think? -- Hoarier 19:32, 7 February 2012 (PST)

Nothing too controversial there, IMO.--Vox 08:40, 8 February 2012 (PST)
Seconding Hoarier's rewording of the referencing bit. The better referenced, greater credibility, bu also the mor avenues for some collectors to come on board and share their info and passion.--Heritagefutures 13:04, 8 February 2012 (PST)
The changes look good to me Steevithak 09:00, 13 February 2012 (PST)

Thank you, both. I'm tempted just to go ahead and make the change, but I'll first wait a couple of days for others' reactions.

Incidentally, I'd agree that "sourcing" a claim about what Wikipedia does -- a claim that isn't at all controversial and that merely illustrates something unlike C-W and so is inessential here -- is rather pedantic. But far worse is a page that tells readers that they should do such-and-such while conspicuously failing to do this itself. (I'm reminded of this; recommended!) -- Hoarier 16:21, 8 February 2012 (PST)

Link fix

upd link people powered digital history http://www.urbanoasis.org/?p=1021 Tkmedia 07:36, 14 February 2012 (PST)

Fixed! (And sorry about my stupid failure to activate references.) -- Hoarier 08:02, 14 February 2012 (PST)
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
External
Tools