Camera-wiki.org:Pages to be deleted

This page is a list of pages to be deleted. If you think that a page should be deleted, you can add it here, with the reason and your signature. In addition, you can put the following template on the page concerned: {{To be deleted|reason=Insert reason here}}.

Special:Shortpages

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Olympus_mju_300_Digital may be superfluous

All the pages with 0 bytes are great candidates for deletion. From what it looks like to me, most of these were created by spam-bots. --Lbstone 15:09, 31 January 2006 (EST)

What about all the "void" pages -- Olympus Auto, Olympus Wide, etc.? People will assume that they have some reason, however small, to click the blue links to them, click the links, and find nothing. It's a waste of their time. -- Hoary 01:30, 16 May 2006 (EDT)

OK, I will begin to delete them. --Rebollo fr 12:24, 16 May 2006 (EDT)

Good! -- Hoary 23:18, 16 May 2006 (EDT)

Olympus M1, Olympus OM1n, Olympus OM2, Olympus OM2n

Duplicate of Olympus M-1 (both are redirected to Olympus OM-1/2/3/4). Olympus M-1 is the correct name, Olympus M1 is not. Same story for OM1n, OM2, OM2n.
--Rebollo fr 11:05, 4 February 2006 (EST)

Http:/www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landhome.htm

The page with this title is obviously a mistake. For some reason, I do not manage to insert a functioning link to it. --Rebollo fr 15:46, 30 January 2006 (EST)

I am unable to delete it. --Rebollo fr 16:25, 6 March 2006 (EST)

Two categories

Please delete [:Category: Japanese Digital] and [:Category: Japanese Digital SLR]. (I created both; I quickly replaced them with Category: Japanese digital and Category: Japanese digital SLR.) Thanks. -- Hoary 03:51, 23 June 2006 (EDT)

I just killed 'em. --Lbstone 04:22, 23 June 2006 (EDT)

Thanks very much. And (irrelevantly), thank you for arranging things so that REF works: I'll be making good use of it very soon. Hoary 04:52, 23 June 2006 (EDT)

Richter-Tharandt and Superfecta

I created the page Richter-Tharandt while Richter would be the correct name. Similarly, the category Richter now replaces the old Category Richter-Tharandt. [Superfecta] should be spelled with a K, so the original (now empty) page can be deleted. Please delete all three--driesvandenelzen 15:24, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Done. --Rebollo fr 15:46, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Pothof&Co and Montanus Kamerafabrik

Content of both articles was moved to Montanus Please delete these now empty pages.--driesvandenelzen 16:13, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

I deleted Pothoff&Co because of the typo but kept Montanus Kamerafabrik as a redirect to Montanus (not very useful but not harmful either). --Rebollo fr 17:51, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Germania Geheimkamera

Not a Richter, Tharandt camera. Please remove. Probably Ernemann or other maker. More sources needed. --driesvandenelzen 06:05, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Removed. I added a small footnote to the Richter for future record. --Rebollo fr 13:32, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Wikipedia

Not a camera, lens, or photographic process, and only dubiously meriting an article here. As it stands, this substub Wikipedia says next to nothing. There seems to be little or no chance that it will ever be rewritten to be anywhere near as informative or useful as [English] Wikipedia's own article on itself, which can very simply be linked to from an article here via the string "[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia|]]". Articles in Camera-wiki.org that, like this, are risibly inferior to their equivalents within Wikipedia merely serve to cheapen Camera-wiki.org. -- Hoarier 22:39, 4 May 2011 (PDT)

Here is my edit to the page. It has the edit summary "Deletion request". Here is the next edit to the page, in which the creator of the page removes the deletion request, and provides no edit summary.

To me, it's obvious that (1) if you create an article and somebody else puts a deletion request on it, you leave the request where it is and let the discussion play out openly; and (2) if you are an administrator you provide edit summaries. -- Hoarier 15:04, 5 May 2011 (PDT)

Be bold

Not a camera, a lens, a photographic technique or similar, and therefore very obviously in the wrong namespace, just for starters. Quite aside from matters of phrasing (and capitalization) that can be attributed to the writer's effort in a foreign language, the way this is put across is extraordinarily confusing, and, if taken seriously, wasteful. The reader is encouraged to blunder, to think of changes and reversions as a game, and so forth. There's not the slightest hint that the bold blunderers should check their facts, let alone cite their sources, which all adds to the impression that they may boldly write from what they read in a discussion forum, or vaguely remember having heard on a TV program or while sitting on a barstool, or whatever. By contrast, the original page at Wikipedia is carefully written, distinguishing between articles on the one hand and categories, etc, on the other; no mention of any of that here, leading to my suspicion that the writer of this article hasn't even read and digested what he praises. Wikipedia (or its English version) also differs from Camera-wiki.org in various ways that seem to me to be pertinent here: the former is overseen by many more humans (not to mention bots) than the latter is, and new articles may not be created there by brand new accounts. ¶ Now, perhaps I should just be bold and rewrite this personal essay accordingly, but I cannot be bothered to do so; moreover, I'm not convinced that the Wikipedia "philosophy" would work well here even if it were articulated carefully. Having been courteous and invited the writer to move it to his own userspace while he works on it, and having seen this idea dismissed and the "article" not improve in the slightest, my bold move is to request deletion. Material such as this, which both misrepresents what Wikipedia says and provides an inferior version of it, would do a disservice to both websites even if it were in the appropriate namespace ("Camera-wiki.org"). If people here want to cite Wikipedia's far superior original they can do as simply as Wikipedia's "[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Be bold|Be bold]]" or similar. -- Hoarier 23:09, 4 May 2011 (PDT)

My addition of this notice to the page was a "horrible change", I am told.

It may indeed have been. But I think that this is for other, independent editors to judge. -- Hoarier 15:21, 5 May 2011 (PDT)

You see that totally wrong. Nobody is encouraged to blunder by my text - really! In the contrary, any bold changer who thinks to be the truth in person learns from the text that he/she might be confronted with the situation that his/her change might be unwanted by seeing it (partially) reverted. And he/she shall not be discouraged to re-enter his/her change activity, but not without re-thinking "Did I go too far?" or entering discussion to find a consent. Changer and reverter are kindly reminded NOT to play a big game of bossiness but to switch to serious consent finding soon. This article is not about "Who has the better knowledge" but about how to get contributors who may (partially) be laypeople into fruitful cooperation. The article Be bold is no delete candidate. It introduces an idea that helped Wikipedia for years and will help us too.U. Kulick 15:37, 5 May 2011 (PDT)

Please read the page that you praise, and specifically this part of it.

Please also read "Not part of the encyclopedia".

As for boldness (or not) in developing new guidelines (let alone proposals) for Wikipedia, read "Good practice for proposals". -- Hoarier 16:27, 5 May 2011 (PDT)

The article, or help page, or whatever it is, remains seriously flawed. But it's hugely better than it was before. Therefore I retract my request that it should be deleted.

However:

1. It should be moved to a different namespace, almost certainly "Camera-wiki:org"
2. As Wikipedia's "Be bold" itself suggests, pages such as this should not be presented as guidelines until they have been discussed and, if necessary, argued over.

-- Hoarier 23:22, 6 May 2011 (PDT)

Mailart

This is actually Vox's nomination, not mine; though I support it. Vox started the discussion at Talk:Mailart, so perhaps it should continue there. -- Hoarier 18:41, 10 May 2011 (PDT)

Gone now.--Vox 08:07, 10 February 2012 (PST)

Mamiya 645AF, 645AFD and 645AFDII

'Mamiya 645AF, 645AFD and 645AFDII'

I created this page by a Move, to include more models, and then moved again to another new title (Mamiya 645 AF and 645 AFD series) when I realised there were even more than I knew about. Incidentally, the {{To be deleted...}} template referred to at the top still automatically adds the candidate page to Camerapedia.org:Pages to be deleted (although that redirects here).--Dustin McAmera 07:59, 9 July 2011 (PDT)

Pentax PC35 AF

PC35_AF(-M): I created it by mistake (didn't saw the old entry with incorrect camera name)

Pentax PC35AF: Old entry, the name is not correct.

I corrected the name of the cameras in several entries and now the article should be this one: Pentax PC35 AF. There is a space between "35" and "AF" and I added some more information etc.

I think best is for you to update old page with your new info, and delete new pages you made, preserving history of old. and move old page to correct name.--Tkmedia

I deleted the wrongly-named new page. I turned the existing page Pentax PC35AF into a redirect (but it will still have a page history).--Vox 11:41, 9 February 2012 (PST)

Not best but it ok. Understand, very confusing which page is which, but would be better if the (updated) page has history from the original creators of page from 2008. sorry if I sound two critical. (note: it was the page that orig led me to use camera pedia so many years ago. :-) --Tkmedia 20:23, 9 February 2012 (PST)

OK, great! Thanks. I think it's ok now. --Esdy 11192 16:20, 9 February 2012 (PST)

Talk:Film or Digital

'Talk:Film or Digital' is still there, when the page it talks about has been deleted. It also contains a red page-link to another deleted page 'Other Technical Considerations'. If nobody objects, I'm deleting this talk page soon. --Dustin McAmera 14:53, 17 May 2012 (PDT)

Yes, please delete. Normally the talk page should be deleted when the article is deleted but sometimes it's forgotten. Steevithak 14:57, 17 May 2012 (PDT)

Done. --Dustin McAmera 13:37, 19 May 2012 (PDT)

FSU Camera

I propose FSU Camera for deletion, and have added the {{To be deleted}} template to it. Once one knows the meaning of 'FSU', the phrase doesn't need explaining, any more than we need a page explaining what 'French camera' means. Any thoughts? If there are none in a couple of weeks, I mean to go ahead and delete the page, so speak up! --Dustin McAmera (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2012 (PST)

If FSU camera is not linked from anywhere, I'd delete it too, esp. as we have an entry "Soviet Union". If FSU camera links, then just make an auto redirect or replace the links/--Heritagefutures (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2012 (PST)

Digital film

I find I proposed this for deletion (in its Talk page) in October (though I don't remember doing so; getting old here!), and I still think it should go. I have never seen his term used to refer to digital media (such as flash memory, as the page says). A google search for 'digital film' brings up a lot of college courses on digital cinematography, and further down, a lot of tedious digital-versus-film forum posts. If nobody objects in the next few days I'll just go ahead and delete it. We already have the pages that should replace it (though I bet what we have as digital media is behind the times! I'm not the man to put that right.)--Dustin McAmera (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2014 (PST)