Talk:New Camera Page Template
| This is the discussion page for New Camera Page Template. Click here to start a new topic.
|
New sample of full-scale template application: Sony Alpha DSLR-A900.
Please try yourself! U. Kulick (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2013 (PST)
This does look helpful; but there's a couple of things to consider before we can start publicizing it: We ought to use the current Template:Flickr image format which adds its own attribution and image rights fields. While the wiki text is under copyleft, we need to help protect the copyright of photos that users kindly donated to us, e.g. when their Flickr license specifies All Rights Reserved. Even for CC-licensed photos, we want to note if the license specifies {{non-commercial}} use only.
The sample photos should use the image_source URL format http://blahblahblah/in/pool-camerawiki to encourage its use--it makes the origin of the image permissions human-readable; also I believe specifying pool membership helps stop link breakage if a Flickr non-Pro account adds >200 photos after the linked one (not conclusively tested yet). One final minor note is that it's nice to run together the words in the template fields so double-clicking will select the whole field for editing.--Vox 10:56, 22 February 2011 (PST)
- Good points. I've updated the New Camera Page Template with the new Template:Flickr image, so that's taken care of. I just hadn't been aware of it when I created the page and found the old template in the help forums here Help:Adding images. Perhpas that coding should be updated to reflect the new image template. And as far as your suggestion about the sample photo on the New Camera Page Template being from the camerawiki pool, it's not in the pool because it doesn't belong in the pool as it's not a camera. I saw your other suggestion about creating a "companion" camera wiki group for images such as this or from manuals. I think that's a very good idea and this blank image holder image I'm using here could be uploaded to that pool for usage here. Thanks for all the suggestions and sooner or later, we'll have everything working smoothly. This open dialogue we enjoy between members really is a benefit! HaarFager 19:49, 22 February 2011 (PST)
- Excuse me, the comment about a "companion" camera wiki group was made by heritagefutures, not you. Sorry about that. But, it's still a good suggestion anyway. HaarFager 19:53, 22 February 2011 (PST)
- The Flick Image template at Help:Adding_images#Flickr_issues is the latest one as far as I know. I edited one of the photo links to show the format we want to promote. (And there are a number of illustration in the Camera-wiki pool that are diagrams, sample photos from weird cameras, etc.) Attribution to photographer goes in its own field, not in "image text"; and you don't need to use the small tag--the template automatically shrinks that for you. I also edited the Links section, to show that we prefer external links to include both a deep link and a top-level link to the source website--that's only being polite when we're piggybacking on other people's content.--Vox 20:28, 22 February 2011 (PST)
- Thanks, those look good. The image you replaced overlaps the infobox on the right, but I'm sure it's just my browser. The one I had before didn't do that, but it's probably only because I used a small image instead of a medium one. Apparently, it shows properly for most other browsers than mine. I guess I got the image coding before it was updated. I did go over and check it out again, and it looked right to me this time. Things are just changing fast around here. For the better, though! HaarFager 20:32, 22 February 2011 (PST)
- We've been kind of stuck with Flickr's canned options for different images sizes: The default is 500 pixels on the long dimension; while "small" is 240 pixels on the long dimension (you just add "_m" before the ".jpg" to get that size). Sometimes the inflexible size choices make layout a problem. I usually try resizing the browser window a few ways to see if anything goes haywire. Some pages also look bad when stretched out to a widescreen 1920 pixel monitor width. --Vox 21:05, 22 February 2011 (PST)
- HaarFager, can you take a look at one of the pages using the camera template infobox that also has photos and see if the photos still obscure the infobox on your browser? I (hopefully) modified the infobox to force it to the top of the Z axis. I'm hoping the infobox will now overlap the photos instead of the other way round. Steevithak 08:26, 26 February 2011 (PST)
- We've been kind of stuck with Flickr's canned options for different images sizes: The default is 500 pixels on the long dimension; while "small" is 240 pixels on the long dimension (you just add "_m" before the ".jpg" to get that size). Sometimes the inflexible size choices make layout a problem. I usually try resizing the browser window a few ways to see if anything goes haywire. Some pages also look bad when stretched out to a widescreen 1920 pixel monitor width. --Vox 21:05, 22 February 2011 (PST)
- Thanks, those look good. The image you replaced overlaps the infobox on the right, but I'm sure it's just my browser. The one I had before didn't do that, but it's probably only because I used a small image instead of a medium one. Apparently, it shows properly for most other browsers than mine. I guess I got the image coding before it was updated. I did go over and check it out again, and it looked right to me this time. Things are just changing fast around here. For the better, though! HaarFager 20:32, 22 February 2011 (PST)
- The Flick Image template at Help:Adding_images#Flickr_issues is the latest one as far as I know. I edited one of the photo links to show the format we want to promote. (And there are a number of illustration in the Camera-wiki pool that are diagrams, sample photos from weird cameras, etc.) Attribution to photographer goes in its own field, not in "image text"; and you don't need to use the small tag--the template automatically shrinks that for you. I also edited the Links section, to show that we prefer external links to include both a deep link and a top-level link to the source website--that's only being polite when we're piggybacking on other people's content.--Vox 20:28, 22 February 2011 (PST)
- Excuse me, the comment about a "companion" camera wiki group was made by heritagefutures, not you. Sorry about that. But, it's still a good suggestion anyway. HaarFager 19:53, 22 February 2011 (PST)
Alternate "Camera" templates?
I have a question about this using the Template:Camera ...and I wonder whether it makes sense to use this as a "one size fits all" solution.
For example "Focus areas" is apparently intended to mean the number of autofocus points; but for manual-focus cameras some editors are filling in this field as the minimum focus distance e.g. Regula_II
Should we have a couple of alternative camera templates?
I also think it's unnecessary to have the word "focus" be a wiki link, especially as the page doesn't exist.--Vox 07:48, 26 February 2011 (PST)
- I agree, the infobox used here is the old camera template that was created back in 2006. Looks like even back then they proposed breaking it into two templates, one with specs for film cameras and one for specs for digital cameras. From what I can piece together of the history, Rebollo_fr then created specific infoboxes for some of his Japanese camera types and ignored the Camera template. I think long term, it would be ideal to have an infobox that was specific at least at the camera type level (e.g. SLR, Rangerfinder, etc). That would fit better with what Rebollo_fr did and would give us more specific technical fields for the type of camera we're trying to describe. Steevithak 08:15, 26 February 2011 (PST)
- I'm totally down with multiple templates. Another question is whether there could be some tricky coding that would suppress displays of a field if left blank? (I have no idea if this is even possible--help ) Otherwise it seems like about four options might cover us: Film Cameras, simple versus fancy; Digital Cameras, compact versus fancy. In digital, fanciness might be defined by interchangeable lenses, but for film I'm less sure... yes/no light meter? --Vox 11:31, 26 February 2011 (PST)
- Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I'm usually on the road most weekends for my work. I think the idea of several different types of templates for the different types of cameras is an excellent idea. I would take care of potential blank spaces in the infobox because they don't apply to that particular kind of camera. I also checked what you did with the infobox/image overlap issue and the pages look much better, whatever you did to them. For me, what I'm seeing anyway, is that the images aren't overlapping the infobox and are moved down below it. Actually, it's not any different than the way it looked for what I was doing. But, if it helps everybody else out, I suppose that's what matters the most. I suppose I shouldn't do any more editing until they stop changing everything all the time and it settles down to where everybody can use and see the same internet. Nobody wants to keep changing computers, software, operating systems and browsers all the time, it's just that the greedy companies keep making it so that you have to keep buy new stuff or you won't be able to use the internet. I had a computer that ran Windows 98 and used that to access the internet. That is, until they kept "upgrading" things so much that my computer couldn't even speak with the internet and I had to buy another computer and install Windows XP. My Windows 98 computer still works fine and is still my best, fastest computer, believe it or not. But, I will not buy a third computer just because greedy companies think that's the only way to keep getting money from me. When I can longer speak to the internet with the equipment I have, that will be it. It will be the internet's loss, not mine. I add a lot to the internet and if they want to keep making it so that I can't keep doing it, well, that's their problem. Sorry for the rant, but you're doing good work, Vox, and so is everybody else connected with the Camera-wiki pages! Kenny HaarFager 22:27, 28 February 2011 (PST)
- I believe Uwe did some work on the Camera template--yes, more changes!--so that certain fields would only appear if certain other fields were used. I must confess I have not even tried this out myself yet. But keep in touch with him and as long as the latest version of the Camera template is used everything may be fine. I use computers for so much that I don't mind the $$ a new one every 4 years; it's CARS that I want to forget about and drive for 20 years. --Vox 17:11, 1 March 2011 (PST)
- Well, when you put it that way, it doesn't sound so bad! Now, if only I could get 10 years out of every car and computer alike, I'd be pretty happy. I had my last car exactly 10 years, but my first good computer for 13. I guess I'm getting overexpectant and greedy! HaarFager 21:25, 1 March 2011 (PST)
- I believe Uwe did some work on the Camera template--yes, more changes!--so that certain fields would only appear if certain other fields were used. I must confess I have not even tried this out myself yet. But keep in touch with him and as long as the latest version of the Camera template is used everything may be fine. I use computers for so much that I don't mind the $$ a new one every 4 years; it's CARS that I want to forget about and drive for 20 years. --Vox 17:11, 1 March 2011 (PST)
- Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I'm usually on the road most weekends for my work. I think the idea of several different types of templates for the different types of cameras is an excellent idea. I would take care of potential blank spaces in the infobox because they don't apply to that particular kind of camera. I also checked what you did with the infobox/image overlap issue and the pages look much better, whatever you did to them. For me, what I'm seeing anyway, is that the images aren't overlapping the infobox and are moved down below it. Actually, it's not any different than the way it looked for what I was doing. But, if it helps everybody else out, I suppose that's what matters the most. I suppose I shouldn't do any more editing until they stop changing everything all the time and it settles down to where everybody can use and see the same internet. Nobody wants to keep changing computers, software, operating systems and browsers all the time, it's just that the greedy companies keep making it so that you have to keep buy new stuff or you won't be able to use the internet. I had a computer that ran Windows 98 and used that to access the internet. That is, until they kept "upgrading" things so much that my computer couldn't even speak with the internet and I had to buy another computer and install Windows XP. My Windows 98 computer still works fine and is still my best, fastest computer, believe it or not. But, I will not buy a third computer just because greedy companies think that's the only way to keep getting money from me. When I can longer speak to the internet with the equipment I have, that will be it. It will be the internet's loss, not mine. I add a lot to the internet and if they want to keep making it so that I can't keep doing it, well, that's their problem. Sorry for the rant, but you're doing good work, Vox, and so is everybody else connected with the Camera-wiki pages! Kenny HaarFager 22:27, 28 February 2011 (PST)
- I'm totally down with multiple templates. Another question is whether there could be some tricky coding that would suppress displays of a field if left blank? (I have no idea if this is even possible--help ) Otherwise it seems like about four options might cover us: Film Cameras, simple versus fancy; Digital Cameras, compact versus fancy. In digital, fanciness might be defined by interchangeable lenses, but for film I'm less sure... yes/no light meter? --Vox 11:31, 26 February 2011 (PST)
