Talk:Leica R4–R7

From Camera-wiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for Leica R4–R7. 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.


Old R4 article

See Talk:Leica R4–R7/Leica R4 (previous article) for the old article on the R4 (whose content I am about to merge), and for its history. -- Hoarier 16:42, 12 January 2012 (PST)

Old R6 article

See Talk:Leica R4–R7/Leica R6 (previous article) for the old article on the R4 (whose content I am about to merge), and for its history. -- Hoarier 17:17, 12 January 2012 (PST)

Edits

Hi, it seems you disagreed with some of the edits I made to the prose of this article, and reverted almost all [several] of them. A basic principle of a wiki is that it is a collaborative project. The web offers many opportunities for you to publish your own work if you would prefer not to have others alter and modify what you write. I made some changes to the phrasing not for arbitrary reasons, but because I felt it improved the clarity and flow. Naturally if I introduced factual errors those should be corrected. I hope you can continue to add contributions to the wiki with this understanding.--Vox 12:22, 27 January 2012 (PST)

Of course I support the collaborative nature of Wiki otherwise I wouldn't be making submissions. I have contributed to Wikipedia and more recently this site. Contributions should be reasonable and not merely tampering and I honestly don't think that adding subjective, rather than grammatical, punctuation is useful. DesmondW 05:34, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Camera-wiki.org lacks the wealth of "community guidelines" articles that one finds at Wikipedia, but this one seems relevant. Without knowing me or my background, it's understandable to question whether some edit I've made is helpful or simply arbitrary. However we all have blind spots when it comes to our own writing. A fresh set of eyes may uncover phrasing which could be confusing to the reader, even when the meaning seems self-evident to the author. Publications employ editors for just this reason.
By all means, consult whichever style guide you find authoritative. But:
The RE, like the R4s, was a lower-cost version lacking P and T modes. Or: The R4 has a Leitz-developed mirror box [...]
You removed the hyphens. But in a phrase which modifies a noun, they are perfectly valid.
Information display in the viewfinder is simplified, the previous vertical scale of exposure LED's is replaced by a three-segment LED beneath the main view [...]
Where I had inserted a colon, you reverted it to a comma splice.
In those examples, it could reasonably be argued that my changes were grammatical ones. In any case, I hope you understand that I made those edits in good faith, with the intention of improving the end result—and thus presenting your work in the best possible light. --Vox 15:38, 29 January 2012 (PST)
I have to say that I agree with Vox on all counts, if not in every detail. (It's less a matter of grammar in punctuation than of convention in punctuation -- but the convention often has grammatical correlates.)
Yes, there is some room for divergent opinions here. A well-known (if trivial) example is of the "serial comma": "Nikon, Canon(,) and Pentax are...." Another that's rather less trivial is of where to place closing quotation marks:
. . . claimed "record profits".
versus
. . . claimed "record profits."
Wikipedia (whose rules are actually pretty sensible, most of the time) says that when two conventions disagree (extended to US versus British spelling differences, etc), editors should follow the lead of the person who first created the article. (I simplify, but I think I'm faithful to the main thrust.)
However, this "follow-the-lead" is irrelevant to (for example) The RE, like the R4s, was a lower(-)cost version lacking P and T modes, within which I would always expect the comma within carefully proofed text, whether the text were from Cambridge University Press or Princeton University Press. -- Hoarier 19:14, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
External
Tools