Talk:Main Page/Archive01

Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for Main Page/Archive01. 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.

"Unknown" Category

Should there be a "Misc" catch-all category or perhaps an "Unknown" category?

For example, where would (or could) I place the Time-Life Magazine Toy Camera I own? I don't think Time-Life needs it's own manufacturer category because it was simply a re-branding but I'm still not sure who actually made this camera. --phule 15:13, 21 Jan 2005 (EST)

An "unknown" category makes sense to me. --Lbstone 04:11, 23 Jan 2005 (EST)
I was just going to add an "unknown" category, but after seeing it in the edit preview, I realized it actually makes no sense at all. Think about it: how in the world are you going to list every type of "none-of-the-above" camera there? You could put in the Time-Life camera, but there must be 10,000 other cameras like it as well.
But what would make a lot of sense would be a "toy camera" category; perhaps even a "junk camera" category, which would easily cover cameras like this. (For reference, in case you haven't seen Marcy Merrill's great site, you owe it to yourself to check it out.)
And that's not to even mention another glaring deficiency of this site: nothing about pinhole cameras. (But that's another discussion for another day.)


Shouldn't there be a category for various film types? (i.e., B&W, C-41, infrared, silver types, etc.)

I say go for it. --Lbstone 19:30, 21 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Camera makers

Before people add each and every maker existing or having existed in the past so many years, and there is a bunch, maybe we should make subcategories:

  • Digital only makers, ie all the brands that are mainly electronic brands and make digital cameras, (ex. Apple, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba)
  • Today's analogical makers (ex. Konica-Minolta, Nikon, Canon), or ex-analogical which went all-digital for their cameras (ex. Kodak)
  • Analogical camera makers no longer in activity

--rebollo_fr 23 Sep 2005

My concern is that so many makers are both digital and analog, so it may be a little confusing. In any event, I don't believe the list is too overwhelming at this point. Maybe later on down the road we may have a greater need to group them, but right now I don't see it as a big deal. --Lbstone 13:35, 19 October 2005 (EDT)

Well, there are two fewer analog camera makers; scratch Konica-Minolta as they are quitting all cameras completely and selling high end to Sony, and Nikon is ceasing film camera and most lens production for film cameras, just maintaining some accessories.

What about a list of camera reviews? I personally have a hard time finding profs reviews in one site. I mean, I gotta go to different sites to check how my powershot a95 is rated! Maybe a list of sources in camerapedia could work?

Camera Makers vs. Top Camera Brands

I've been giving a lot of thought to the homepage and I think it's best to make a differentiation between camera makers and camera brands. The maker is the company that made the camera, but their name may not be widely associated with the actual brand of the camera. (Take Ihagee (Exakta) for example... I'm not sure that Ihagee needs to be on the homepage... and Exakta should be filed alphabetically under the letter "E".) Since the brand is how everyone knows the camera, I think the homepage should reflect the most well-known brands and display them alphabetically. This way the majority of people will more easily be able to find what they're looking for.

We may even consider splitting the homepage into "Well Known Brands" and "Lesser Known Brands". Although, I'm not sure how we would make that determination. (And it may actually lead to some arguments.)

I also think it would be helpful to link to some of the various categories from the homepage. From there we could link to the exhaustive list of Category:Camera makers, Category:Lens makers, etc. --Lbstone 16:44, 5 February 2006 (EST)

To separate the brands from the makers would not be without problems: Plaubel and Makina are both reasonably well-known (to the point that someone had created a Plaubel 67 page for the Makina 67), which one would we choose? I think today's way is good, the maker's name and the better known brand name between brackets.
I have made an attempt to put in bold the better known brands.
Maybe we could distinguish between the makers still in existence and the other, this should be objective enough. The lesser known brands are mostly lesser known because of their age.
More generally, the site has to address two kinds of demands: the normal user/buyer that buys modern up-to-date digital cameras and does not care too Sandbox Maimuch about the lesser known models, and the user/collector, always happy to discover previously unknown makers and models. Of course both demands are legitimate. This difference will be reflected in the rest of the site: the discussions about the size and contents of the infobox template reflect this, as well as the choice of one page per variant versus one page per family. --Rebollo fr 05:30, 6 February 2006 (EST)
You bring up very good points. I'll be giving this some more thought. --Lbstone 12:40, 6 February 2006 (EST)
An additional thought to add... If I'm looking for a Horizon camera, I'm more likely going to hope to find it under the letter "H" rather than under "K" (for KMZ). It's likely that this will cause confusion for some people. --Lbstone 12:43, 6 February 2006 (EST)
I think that if you're serious about making this into a useful repository of information—that is, an encyclopedia, and not just one guy's hobby site—then you probably want to consider this: there should be (at least) two lists, one of "Cameras by manufacturer", the other of "Cameras by model". Otherwise, as you point out, people looking for Horizon[t] won't find it, as it should properly be filed under KMZ under the current scheme. This problem is only going to get worse as more cameras are added, especially obsolete and classic ones. (I discovered this problem on my own, as I just added an article for the Paxette, made by Braun; I put the camera in the list, which is incorrect the way things stand now.) --ILike2BeAnonymous 15:39, 1 March 2006 (EST)
As you can see from the previous discussion, the current solution is only a compromise, probably not a completely satisfactory one, so feel free to experiment with the main page's layout.
Note however that in McKeown's encyclopedic book about classic cameras, the classification by makers is yet more strict than our current one, to the point that they are listing Pentax under "Asahi", and Leica under "Leitz". Some years ago, they were even listing Rollei under "Franke & Heidecke" and Kodak under "Eastman". But it was considered as an invaluable source of information all the same. --Rebollo fr 19:03, 1 March 2006 (EST)
Well, I might just take you up on that and take a crack at it.
Regarding your comment about a strict classification system, that shouldn't be a problem here; easily handled by helpful references. For instance, "Cameras by manufacturer" entries might look like:
I'm sure something workable could easily be done. --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:35, 1 March 2006 (EST)
OK, I went ahead and did it (split into 2 lists, "Cameras by Manufacturer" and "Cameras by Model"). I think this is a lot better. Of course, I'm sure I got some things in the wrong place, for which I apologize in advance; if anyone sees something out of place, you can put it where it belongs.
I also put a TOC in. The only way I could find to do this was with the "__TOC__" directive. If there's a better way, let me know or change it yourself. --ILike2BeAnonymous 21:15, 1 March 2006 (EST)
OK, phew; after adding in camera models from only two mfrs. (Agfa & Zeiss), I can see that the "cameras by model" list may end up being way too big. If it does, how about going to an alpha TOC ("A B C D ... ")?
Also, question about listing models with variants, e.g., the Contax series: how about always having a single page for the series ("Contax") which then lists the variants (Contax I, Contax II, etc.)? The list would only show "Contax", not all the variants.
Finally, another question: why are some of the entries in the list bolded? What does this mean? There's no explanation on the main page text. --ILike2BeAnonymous 21:41, 1 March 2006 (EST)
I have just seen your reorganization. It is interesting but I have the following concerns:
  1. the "cameras by manufacturer list" is the first thing people will see, and it is yet less explicit for the majority of people than the previous list (with the brackets, and the bold type to emphasize the better known brands)
  2. the "cameras by model list" will grow forever and easily reach hundreds or thousands
  3. the whole thing is targeted to collectors only, the average user looking for a review of the latest digicam only finds impossible model names such as Leotax or Colorflex, and will flee from the site. Of course we can add all the digicam model names on the main page, but it will be kilometers long of alphanumeric poetry.
I think what you are suggesting would make a great index page. We could have a link from the main page to the index page, with a comment such as "If you don't find your camera model, please look at the index. Do not add a camera brand to the main page unless you are sure it is not already there."
As you can see, the problem is difficult. As the main page tells much of the whole site, and as we would not want to be qualified as "collectors only" in people's mind, I suggest to revert to the previous version and transfer the new proposals to a separate "Main Page:Working Version". But before that, let's wait for Brandon's opinion. -- Rebollo fr 06:02, 2 March 2006 (EST)
Well, OK, I share your concern about what the user sees on the main page. I don't think this necessarily argues against the organization scheme I used, but it does call for a reorganization of the main page. It might be better if the things near the bottom, like the list of camera topics and types, were at the top instead. That way, the casual user would see links to general information first, before an exhaustive list of camera makers and models.
Recognizing the problem with the size of the list of cameras, the question is, what cameras would you want listed on the main page? Would it be some subset of the entire list? How would you select those cameras? It would seem to only make things more confusing, since you now would have two lists, not one.
I'm leaning towards putting the big list of cameras under an alphabetical index ("A B C D ...") as I suggested before. Another way to make the list more manageable would be to divide it; one logical division that would greatly reduce its size would be to separate digital from film cameras. Any further division (by type, format, physical construction, etc.) might only make it more cumbersome to use, since not many people are knowledgable enough about cameras to even know the difference, say, between a strut folder and a folding-bed camera. --ILike2BeAnonymous 14:53, 2 March 2006 (EST)
I went ahead and changed it again, this time with the alphabetical index as I discussed. This seems to work very well; I'll let others look at it and comment on it. One thing I should say is that I realize that way I implemented this is a total kluge; I'm sure it could be much more easily done by using categories or some other way, by someone who knows a lot more than I about how Wiki-stuff works. I won't be upset if someone changes it. The work was still worth it, I think. --ILike2BeAnonymous 16:33, 2 March 2006 (EST)
It looks good. The upward move of the general info was needed. The A to Z links are useful. Eventually this classification can be managed with categories, I will try to setup that. I would like to reintroduce the bracket thing for some important model names, when they are better known than the maker itself. I will add an explanation with it. --Rebollo fr 10:50, 3 March 2006 (EST)
I have added alphabetical categories for all the cameras that you had listed in the "cameras by model" index. There are still many cameras to categorize. -- Rebollo fr 12:48, 3 March 2006 (EST)
Good, and thanks for doing that. I knew categories would be a better way to organize things.
One little thing: can I rename that list "Cameras by model"? I think that's more meaningful than "Alphabetic list". It says exactly what it is. (And it is obviously alphabetical, so no need to describe it so.) --ILike2BeAnonymous 14:55, 3 March 2006 (EST)
Yes, of course: the wiki is yours! --Rebollo fr 15:24, 3 March 2006 (EST)
Thanks. One more thing; sorry to bug you with so many little details, but one thing that kind of bothers me is that now all camera articles are shown to be in some alphabetic category at the bottom (e.g., "N cameras"). I'm not complaining about the categorization scheme, only that it shows at the bottom of each article. First question: do you think this is a good or a bad thing? (The user could use this to browse cameras that start with the same letter, but how likely is it they would want to do so?) Second question: if it's not a good thing, is there some way to suppress the display of this categories—in other words, put the camera article in the appropriate category but not have it display at the bottom of the page? --ILike2BeAnonymous 17:14, 3 March 2006 (EST)
I have reworked it to make it less obtrusive, with better category names: "A" instead of "A cameras" and so on. It think a little A or B at the bottom of the page won't be disturbing. --Rebollo fr 08:39, 4 March 2006 (EST)


I don't know where else to post this, so I'm putting it here. (Hey, folks, how about a few instructions and hints about things like that, huh?)

I need help with a couple of things:

1. Adding images to an article: no go. I've tried all the following:

  • [[image:<image URL>]]
  • [image:<image URL>]
  • image:<image URL>

(without the angle brackets, of course)

Each does something different, and interesting, but not what I want it to do, which is to just display the damn picture. Actually, all of these "work", sort of, but I see the "[image" and "]" on the left & right sides of the picture, respectively.

So how do you add an image? Your instructions are nowhere near enough to do this. I did figure out the Flickr part of it, and uploaded my pictures there.

Are there formatting options like on Wikipedia that let you align the image left, center, right, all that kind of stuff?

2. Adding an article: The only way I've found to do this is via the address bar in my browser, by constructing a URL that has the name of the article I want to create and "action=edit" in it. Pretty klugey. I've looked everywhere and can find no button, link or anything else to create an article. (Since on Wikipedia you automatically get a link to create an article when you search for one that doesn't exist, I kinda thought that might be the case here, but no.) So what's the secret to doing this? Do you think you could put some kind of simple control somewhere where a mortal human being might have a chance of stumbling across it? Thanks. --ILike2BeAnonymous 23:23, 27 February 2006 (EST)

To add an article, I type the intended title in the search box, and the first sentence is: "No page with this exact title exists, trying full text search.", and this exact title being a link to create the new page. --Rebollo fr 11:28, 28 February 2006 (EST)
The easiest way to make a new article is to just link to it first from an existing page. For example, if I wanted to create a page called A Brand New Page I could just link to it from here like this A Brand New Page... now I can follow the link and edit it. --Lbstone 10:46, 6 March 2006 (EST)
No, the easiest way to create a new article would be the way it works on Wikipedia, where if you search for a nonexistent article, you get the link, as described above by Rebollo; however, on Wikipedia, the search page very sensibly labels the link with the text "No page with that title exists. You can create this article or request it.", with two links for those actions. Why not use their model? It's simple, and obvious to anyone who uses the system. What you have is far less obvious (in other words, if you already know how it works, it's fine, but not if you're not already familiar with it). Remember "user friendliness"? --ILike2BeAnonymous 14:36, 6 March 2006 (EST)

Order of Sections on Homepage

Hey all... Looks like some good progress being made here. I made some minor tweaks to the homepage. It seemed like things were getting a little verbose, so I tried to trim it down a little. I also put the camera makers near the top, since that represents the main content of the site. Hopefully these were steps in the right direction. --Lbstone 14:08, 5 March 2006 (EST)

Hmm; not really, so far as order goes. Both I and Rebollo_fr agreed that the introduction should go at the top (that's where one expects to find introductory material, and the TOC should serve to locate the maker and model lists), so I moved that back. --ILike2BeAnonymous 18:11, 5 March 2006 (EST)
I am not sure about the order. Logic might tell to put the intro first, but really the main content is the info about specific cameras, and it is what the visitors need to see first, without having to browse down. I am strongly against the TOC, it is only eating space. I agree with Brandon's concerns about the main page becoming too verbose, and needing to be trimmed down. --Rebollo fr 06:59, 6 March 2006 (EST)
The homepage needs to be concise and clear in its message. It is the single most important page of the site, so we need to carefully consider each decision we make here.
"really the main content is the info about specific cameras, and it is what the visitors need to see first" Yes, this is also my reasoning. "I am strongly against the TOC, it is only eating space." Absolutely.
When it comes to wikis it's generally good to boldly make edits to pages... but when it comes to the homepage, I believe it's best to have a measured and deliberate approach that is supported by sound arguments. Let's try to have more discussion before we make significant changes to the homepage in the future. --Lbstone 10:24, 6 March 2006 (EST)
I've reverted back to an older version. I'd like to have more conversation about this before we proceed. I'm also working on my own draft of the homepage. If anyone is interested in reworking the homepage, I strongly suggest you make your own draft example first. That way we can discuss it before we decide to make it live. --Lbstone 10:43, 6 March 2006 (EST)

Camera by country categories

Why are we using categories like Japan instead of Japanese cameras? (Actually, to make things even more confusing, both sets of category exist.)

Rebollo, I noticed you moved some cameras from the latter into the former. Don't you think it would make more sense for the cateogories to be named "xxxx cameras", rather than just the name of the country? or is there something about the categorization scheme used here I don't know about? --ILike2BeAnonymous 21:39, 5 March 2006 (EST)

I am transfering this discussion to the Community Discussions page. --Rebollo fr 06:09, 6 March 2006 (EST)

Erroneous classifications

I see you reverted the changes I made when I put Asahi Optical Co. in the list of makers and took out Pentax.

Don't know if this was deliberate or not, but it's just plain wrong the way things stand now; Pentax is a model of camera (actually many models), not a maker. Can we put things back to the way I had them? --ILike2BeAnonymous 14:17, 6 March 2006 (EST)

Pentax has adopted the name "Pentax Corporation" (ペンタックス株式会社, Pentax Kabushiki-gaisha) in 2002, and abandoned the name "Asahi Optical Corporation", so the current maker's name is Pentax. It is good to explain in the Pentax page that its previous name was Asahi, and to make a redirect from Asahi and Asahi Optical Corporation to Pentax, but there is no need to take this to the main page. --Rebollo fr 15:58, 6 March 2006 (EST)
Whoops, my bad; you're right. Even if there's no entry for Asahi (but that's easy to do, so why not?), there should be a "History" section in the Pentax article where they're mentioned. And I guess I should shut up and start work on that, huh? --ILike2BeAnonymous 18:38, 6 March 2006 (EST)
Lubitel was not a camera maker but a brand. The Lubitel cameras are now listed correctly on their maker's pages GOMZ and LOMO (successor of GOMZ)

replacing Yashica 108/109MP bodies on Contax?

Hi, there! I'm new in analog photography - so, I'm apologizing for not knowing the subject but here is my question: I have 108 MP and 135mm Yashica lens which came with it. I very unhappy with body itself and quality of pictures - I have to use my GOSSEN Digisix all the time in order to get right settings (and pictures consequently)! Can I buy just better body (Contax or Yashica) to use with my 135mm lens (bodies are cheap now on eBay - even new!) or I have to abandon all Idea? Any suggestions? I thank You for Your help!

First thing - are you sure you know how to use the camera properly? On many SLR's you have to adjust shutter speed and aperture according to the light meter in the view finder (if there is one); if the light meter isn't working (point it at the sky and see if the needle/indicator goes up) try replacing the batteries in the bottom of the camera body. The quality of the pictures will depend on the film used, lens quality, your focusing ability, the settings you use, and mechanical action of the camera. If you're sure you're doing it right then I suggest you do look out for a replacement body, look for one that says it's been cared for and is from a private seller, ebay is a good place to start. How much you spend is up to you, but shop around and see how much finished auctions made.
Added by Jonathan on June 29, 2006.


I notice there is no section for Hanimex, I don't know if they're a reseller (like Vivitar) or manufacturer or what, but I have a zoom lens sitting in front of me which has Hanimex written on it and no other name so I would like to add it to Camerapedia - where can I put it? I wasn't able to add to the list of lens manufacturers, there was just a category link in the edit screen. Also on the same subject, can we have a link to lens manufacturers on the main page? I had to hunt for the lens manufacturer section!

Added by Jonathan on June 29, 2006.

Hanimex was surely only a distributor, but it sold many cameras under its own name. You can feel free to add an article about it and link it to the Main Page.
A link to Category: Lens makers and to Category: Shutter makers could be nice in the main page, but maintaining three separate lists would not be very convenient imho. Some caution is needed before changing the site's main page, so if you feel like doing important changes (for example adding a whole list) please do so in a separate page, like User:Jonathan/Main Page. --Rebollo fr 14:43, 29 June 2006 (EDT)
OK, so if I want to add Hanimex to the main camera manufacturer list (as I understand it Vivitar are only a distributer too, but they have a listing there), what do I do? When I go to the main page and click the edit tab I just get the link at the bottom and not the big list. Really I don't know anything about Hanimex, I just want to add my Hanimex lens into the camerapedia.
Added by Jonathan on June 30, 2006.
I'm afraid that I too know nothing about Hanimex -- and that's one reason why I don't intend to write about it. I don't have any "Hanimex" product; but I do have a lens branded "Topman", and only "Topman", and I know nothing about Topman. That's one reason why I'm not planning to write about Topman. There's an enormous amount of information (as well, of course, as mere blather) out there about many other subjects: I suggest creating articles about subjects when there's information to provide about those subjects, and not before. -- Hoary 09:34, 30 June 2006 (EDT)
I'm sure it is not too difficult to find something to say about Hanimex, even if only a couple of sentences. I'm sure one can even find something about Topman, for example beginning with Topman's official website (sorry, I couldn't resist), or more seriously compiling some past eBay auctions to have a first idea of the list of products (and maybe also having a look at this post at I'm not saying that I feel like doing it now.
Anyway, for Jonathan, it is not normal that you do not see the big list when you click the edit tab on the main page. To put a link in the main page, normally you just have to edit it and insert the link in the correct position in the alphabetical order, for example:
* [[Hanimex]]
Please also note that you can sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end.
--Rebollo fr 13:48, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

Vivitar was not only a "reseller". At least some of the time, it seems to have designed cameras and then had other companies make these for it. -- Hoary 18:02, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

I found this info about Hanimex, it was a forum post in response to a statement about a Haminex 28mm lens. "Hanimex was about as much an offshoot of Pentax as Kellogs or Sears. Hanimex was actually an Australian company that had all sorts of cheap cameras and optical goods (like lenses, telescopes, and bincoculars) OEM manufactured for them in places like Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. They also were the Fuji distributor in most of Oceania for about 30 years. Their OEM products were distributed widely in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and to a lesser extend, North America. If I were to guess, the lens is probably a rebadged Chinon or Ricoh design - if it says made in Japan is is probably made by Cosina, if it says Taiwan, it will have been made by Chinon." --Sok 05:43, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Critical size of the main page?

Hoary and I keep adding a couple of obscure Japanese makers every week. I hope this is of interest at least to some people, but maybe the main page now needs to be purged from some hopelessly obscure makers. I propose to put a link to Category: Japanese camera makers, that will soon be created. --Rebollo fr 14:42, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

Except that I'm wondering about the term "maker"; please see Category talk:Japanese companies.
Moreover, if you propose to keep Nikon, Pentax, and the top ten or even twenty, and to purge the rest; that might be a good idea in principle but with Camerapedia in its current state I think it's a bad one. After all, the articles on Nikon and Canon, for example, are (or the last time I looked at them, were) crap. They're a very poor introduction to Camerapedia. I think a better idea would be to scrap any list of "makers" from the main page and instead have a frequently changing list of ten or so pretty (or very) good pages. Special:Longpages gives ideas; however, I'd be wary of including any of the top 15 or so because they (and I definitely include articles of which I was the major author) may smell a bit offputtingly of collector obsessivism; also, we shouldn't have too many obscurities in the list at any one time. And perhaps we should emphasize articles that are illustrated, too. -- Hoary 18:13, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

A proposal for a new version

I have worked on a Main Page/Draft, that is beginning to look good, at least better than the current main page. The format and colour scheme is closely inspired by the English Wikipedia main page. If you find this too close, you can begin by playing with the colours.

In this draft version, there is a list of about thirty important camera makers, and there are only three featured articles (according to three different criteria: usability of the camera, in-depth collectors coverage, prettiness of the article). I am rereading Hoary's comments above, maybe we should not link the camera makers and put more featured articles instead. The featured articles in the draft I nominated myself, in the future we can imagine a more democratic procedure. --Rebollo fr 08:35, 25 August 2006 (EDT)

I like it . . . mostly

Remove the notion of links to companies. On average, the articles on companies just aren't good enough.

Well, on average the articles on individual cameras aren't good enough either, but with models the newcomer can always tell himself that he has been unlucky. Having seen feeble articles on two or three companies, the newcomer can't tell himself this.

I like the idea of "articles of the month", but I fear that six per month is pushing it. There aren't many more good articles where those came from! I'd take out "pretty article" and try to prettify the other articles. (OK, OK, I'll try to remember to blow the dust off my digicam and take some photos of my toys.) -- Hoary 08:30, 26 August 2006 (EDT)

This main page is better, but only indexing cameras alphabetically leaves us with a rather dry main page. Maybe we can introduce some of our categories here: "TLR, folder, digital"... Or we could categorize by period; "1960's SLR". I think this would allow visitors to use this site in more than one way. What I like especially about the new design is that is highlights the good articles. --driesvandenelzen 12:26, 26 August 2006 (EDT)

It is a good idea. It would be great if we has introductory articles about some specific categories (like Japanese 4.5×6 folders). But I find the current articles about SLR, TLR, rangefinder quite feeble.
To sum up, we should:
  • get rid of the companies, or put a link to another page with a list of all the companies (because I think it is useful)
  • put links to some prominent categories and to some of the introductory articles mentioned above
  • restrain the list of good articles to three per month, or define a longer periodicity
If we decide for three good articles at the time, Main Page/Draft is a better starting point than Main Page/Draft2.
--Rebollo fr 12:49, 26 August 2006 (EDT)
Well done! Definitely a step in the right direction. --Lbstone 22:34, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

Preserved History of Homepage

Hey all... I just realized that the history of the homepage had been basically erased when we moved the old homepage out and moved in the new one. I want to make sure that we preserve that history, so I moved it back and just updated it with the latest version. I hope that all makes sense. --Lbstone 17:14, 10 September 2006 (EDT)

OK. I think that the history was still accessible through Main Page/Old, but I'm fine with this too. --Rebollo fr 17:52, 10 September 2006 (EDT)
Yeah... it was still accessible for people who were aware of that page... but, if a more casual visitor didn't know about that page, then they might be confused. Also, the little counter at the bottom of the page was reset. The number 131,618 is more accurate than the number 992.
At any rate, the new homepage is a big improvement... And that's the most important thing. ;) --Lbstone 21:31, 10 September 2006 (EDT)

Protected the main page

I have protected the main page because there are three spurious edit links that show up and don't allow to edit anything. They would have confused many people who don't know very well how to use a wiki.

Most of the contents is still changeable by a regular user by way of the two templates:

--Rebollo fr 12:13, 16 September 2006 (EDT)


Hi there,

I misunderstood the goals of the site and created a page about the photographic technique of panning. Luckily I did not get far before I realised my mistake.

Can someone please delete it, or tell me how to?


--Manamarak 11:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I have just deleted the page, per your own request. (Only the administrators can do it.)
--Rebollo fr 06:43, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

mid year

what about a new set of recommended articles? U. Kulick 17:59, 29 June 2008 (EDT)


a new set of recommended articles, please, see