User talk:Rebollo fr

Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for Rebollo fr. 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.


Adding Categories

I really like how you've started to use the categories! That's awesome. --Lbstone 12:32, 16 December 2005 (EST)

Thank you, any ideas are welcome. --Rebollo_fr 18:43, 16 December 2005

Welcome Sysop!

Just upgraded you to sysop. This should give you a little more freedom to get things done. Keep up the good work. You're really helping to bring this place alive. --Lbstone 12:48, 6 March 2006 (EST)

Copying over from en-Wikipedia

Hi; I've a hunch you, as somebody who's experienced and active, are the right person I should direct to the newly (and hugely) augmented Talk:MPP. If I've done something wrong, tell me straight (I'm not thin-skinned). Thanks. -- Hoary 06:34, 8 May 2006 (EDT)

Hi, I have answered you in the corresponding talk page. --Rebollo fr 15:51, 8 May 2006 (EDT)

A link

Top-Link for old-camera specialized camerapedian:

Added by U.Kulick on May 29, 2006.

Paging Mr Sysop!

Bonjour Monsieur Administrateur! Please use your experience, wisdom and superpowers to do either one of these:

Merci mille fois -- un rosbif

One of the above links has turned red, guess which one! --Rebollo fr 15:35, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

Superbly interesting! Poor old Canon doesn't get a single "superb"; Voigtländer ensures that it will always have at least one.

As I wrote in email a couple of days back (check your spambox), the prospect of emailing all those megabytes was just too depressing, so I popped them all in the post perhaps nine hours ago. -- Hoary 18:19, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Those interesting links that you see and we normals don't

Well done, Rebollo "Terminator" fr!

A different matter: Jeez, the categories here are a mess, aren't they? But before I continue, are the changes to Canon T-60 and those to Yallu Flex OK? -- Hoary 07:05, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

Yes, they seem pretty reasonable. --Rebollo fr 07:14, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

I emailed you a few seconds ago -- Hoary 11:20, 7 June 2006 (EDT)


Thank you for your work categorizing . . . but really, you don't have to bother. That was and is on my (unwritten) "todo" list. You've already done so much work on images, templates, etc. If you have any spare energy, write up yet another obscure camera!

OtOH if you really like catting, then you could do worse than have a look at the Minolta SLRs. I know there are two very different mounts (cf Canon), but I forget what the earlier one is called, while the latter one seems to be called "A" in the Youess but "α" in Japan. I do know which camera has which mount, so I can categorize them (the boring part) -- but I don't know what to call the cats.

As for the Koni-Omega, Mamiya 7, etc., they're not so numerous. Category: Japanese 6x7 - 6x9 (which I wouldn't subcategorize) is an awkward name but I think a handy concept. Comments? -- Hoary 11:44, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

I was just wanting to make the Zeitax page good to the last category! I am OK for the category you are proposing. Of course you are not thinking to include the 6.5×9 plate cameras in it? --Rebollo fr 11:48, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
No I'm not, don't worry.
An even more awkwardly titled but a convenient additional category would be something like Category:Japanese cameras for paper-backed rollfilm narrower than 127, which would include those taking "Boltax" film, the Konilette, etc. Uh-oh, perhaps that should be Category:Japanese cameras for paper-backed rollfilm narrower than 127 (apart from subminiatures). Plus Category:Japanese subminiature cameras (apart from half-frame 35mm). Oh, and there's also Category:Japanese cameras for regular 35mm film with frame width intermediate between 18mm and 35mm. Aaaaaaaarrrgghhhh! -- Hoary 21:57, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
Huh, I hope these links won't turn blue!
I think that the "Japanese something" categories must reflect somewhat the wider category system. Maybe a Category: 6x7–6x9 could be useful, instead of Category:6x7, Category:6x8 and Category:6x9. Maybe we could also extend it to 6x10 (Category:6x7–6x10) to cope with the Plaubel Veriwide 100.
The current Category:Subminiature does not contain the half frame cameras (and I think it's good). We can create Category:Japanese subminiature as well. By contrast, I don't think a category for 24×32 or 24×34 would be useful, and I would leave these cameras in the corresponding 35mm category. And for the Boltax size and other plain weird size cameras, we will wait for some devoted fellow to write at least one article about one such model, then let him torture his brain to find an appropriate category title: maybe Category:Japanese cameras for miscellaneous film, where they would happily join the Disc cameras and other insanities.
Incidentally, a ndash "–" character in the category title seems to work as expected. If you want to have real fun with the categories, you can consider replacing Category:4.5x6 by Category:4.5×6 and do the same with all the others. (This is a joke, don't even think of wasting that amount of time! We will do this when we master the bots.) --Rebollo fr 02:31, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
I don't object to any of that, with one exception. Maybe a Category: 6x7–6x9 could be useful, instead of Category:6x7, Category:6x8 and Category:6x9. Maybe we could also extend it to 6x10 (Category:6x7–6x10) to cope with the Plaubel Veriwide 100. I thought of that, but it doesn't seem a good idea to me. The Veriwide was sold as a very wide angle camera (even though it doesn't seem so these days). 6x9 was the standard size; anything even slightly wider seems to me to belong more with 6x12, 6x17, etc than to 6x9. Further, although there haven't been many Japanese 6x9 cameras, there have been so many non-Japanese ones that 6x7 and 6x8 (classed together) might be usefully separated from 6x9. -- Hoary 02:44, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
It is true that the Veriwide 100 was sold as a wideangle camera (like the Hasselblad SWC for example), but it was not sold as a panorama camera (like the Linhof Technorama and other starting with 6x12 format). It would be strange to separate it from the Proshift 69 just for one centimeter.
It is also true that there were many 6x9 cameras, but the biggest lot are folders that would go in Category:6x9 folding. The cameras that would be interesting to group together would be the 6x7 and 6x9 rangefinders (not folding). For example we can have:
Category: 6x7–6x10, containing Category: 6x7–6x9 rangefinder (itself containing Category: 6x9 rangefinder folding), a Category: 6x9 folding and a Category: 6x7–6x10 viewfinder for the Veriwide, the Alsaflex Cyclope, the Royer Altessa and other weird cameras. By the way, there is a problem with the use of the word 'viewfinder' in the current category scheme: today it is used only in the sense of 'viewfinder rigid body'. You are probably right in saying that we need to put all the viewfinder folders in 'viewfinder folding' categories, themselves subcategories of the 'viewfinder' ones. --Rebollo fr 03:22, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Older Japanese script

Rebello fr, how odd it is that you're suddenly, today (and not, say, yesterday) making such elaborations as "東京寫眞商會 in the old writing, 東京写真商会 in today's writing"....

Some time ago, I thought of doing the same myself, but abandoned the idea. It's admirably didactic and precise, and may conceivably add to the exotic ambience of the article, but I really can't see much use for it. People who know about kanji will anyway know that 寫眞商會 back then would now be 写真商会 and that 写真商会 now would have been 寫眞商會 back then; people who don't know about kanji won't know and are unlikely to be interested. Providing this kind of information (?) in a few articles would be OK, but to be consistent one would end up doing it in thousands, to little or no benefit that I can think of.

Canon does continue to use rather antique katakana style, which is something that somebody who knows a bit about Japanese script would understand but would not be able to predict. I think it's worth noting. But 寫眞, etc.: I think not.

Not that I want to dampen your spirits at all. . . . -- Hoary 07:00, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

Yes I agree that if I begin to put this in each and every article about pre-WWII Japanese cameras, the result would be tedious.
However I am not this confident that any person able to read 写真 is able to recognize the old form, it is not the kind of thing that you learn in JAP 101. Even the mere existence of old forms is something that many people don't know.
When I'm describing the contents of an ad, I'd rather respect the original writing. I want to avoid people challenging what is written because "what's written on the ad is obviously not what you're saying in the page", something that could happen especially with the ads visible on the Web.
I'll try to make a page explaining the most commonly encountered old writings, for example Sources: Old Japanese writing or Sources: Old kanji characters. In the article, we would have "東京寫眞商會 in old writing" or "東京寫眞商會 with old kanji characters".
--Rebollo fr 07:22, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

OK! (Irrelevantly, spot the moron and block his edits.) Hoary 08:58, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

REF tag Working Now

I just upgraded the wiki software and installed the Cite.php extension. So you should be able to use the REF tag now. I just tested this in the sandbox and it seemed to work just fine. --Lbstone 20:34, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

Great! Thank you for the software update. With 1.6, we have access to other new features as well, such as default parameters for the templates, that could help to make an usable Template: Camera. --Rebollo fr 07:27, 23 June 2006 (EDT)


Just Hi. The thing 10:30, 8 July 2006 (EDT)

If you want to go on another wiki, you can go here. The thing 10:37, 8 July 2006 (EDT)

Re: Copyrights


I'm very sorry about that, I'm new to this, and don't know much at all about copyright. That's fine that you have deleted it, I just don't really know enough about white balance, apart from that it is important when taking photos.


Added by Onearmedscissor on July 19, 2006.

Another question related to Copyrights


I just scanned some ads for "SUN"-lenses. Even though they're in English and/or multi-lingual (English/German/French), they're "printed in Japan" and hence might be public domain by now (as I assume that they're from the early 1960s). Is it okay to upload them into this wiki (even though the PDFs are rather large: 5.4MB and 8.3MB)? Or shall I upload them somewhere else and only add a link?

Jpolzfuss (talk)

Open wide

while I pull the chain! -- Hoary 00:36, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

Silly Distinguished names

How's this? I want one or two more subcats that will collect Frank, Carl, Oscar, Doris, Eliza, et al., but haven't decided the best titles and anyway thought I might get your input first. -- Hoary 02:49, 3 August 2006 (EDT)

That's fun, and gives the reader readymade collector themes... But where will you put the Luck, Semi Lucky and Semi Blond? --Rebollo fr 04:05, 3 August 2006 (EDT)
I've already thought of adjectives, which would link Lucky, Proud, and others. But "Adjectives" would be a very boring title. Better wait at least until a more appealing title comes to mind. -- Hoary 04:19, 3 August 2006 (EDT)
OK, I'll be away for a few days anyway. --Rebollo fr 04:27, 3 August 2006 (EDT)

inspired by SIAP

They say "fnac" even though phonology texts are likely to assert that they can't say it.

I've been amused to be given lists of made-up words by students of phonology for whom English is not a first language and who are thus using me as a native informant. Of course some words, like "gtak", are impossible (unless they get an extra vowel of course). But I happily say all sorts of words with sound-combinations that aren't in English or either of the two other languages I kind-of speak. "But you're not supposed to be able to say that!"

Back to "ICA". It's so short that it looks as if it could be pronounced (in English) "eye-see-aye". How is it normally pronounced? If "eye-see-aye" is common, leave it; if it's rare (and the pronunciation is typically disyllabic, not trisyllabic), then it's better changed. It's not a name that I've ever heard in conversation, so I really don't know. -- Hoary 10:54, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

The only way I've ever heard "ICA" being pronounced was as "ee-tsee-aah". This would be the normal pronunciation in German. This resembles the way "IHG" was changed to "Ihagee". "Agfa" would be another case, as you already pointed out. --driesvandenelzen 13:37, 3 September 2006 (EDT)
I didn't know that and spontaneously pronounce "Ica", maybe influenced by the "Icarette" model name. But I trust you and won't bother you with this. Better, I'll correct my own "Ica" links. --Rebollo fr 15:20, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

Got your email.

Just wanted you to know that I got your emails. Will respond as soon as I can. I'll see if I can do the things you asked for. (Things have been really busy with my day job lately, so I apologize for not getting back to you sooner.) --Lbstone 13:42, 31 October 2006 (EST)

Thank you. Of course there is no real hurry. --Rebollo fr 14:19, 31 October 2006 (EST)

Email might be dodgy for the next few days (though check yours!), so: see what a Mycro can do. G'night! -- Hoary 10:43, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Authorities, SGML, and commas

Only one surviving example of this model has been observed so far / Who says there's only one? / Rebollo_fr has seen only one

Ah, implying "by the creators of CP". Sorry, I misread that as meaning "within some longterm, major enterprise known to many people". For example, like Dechert's project on Canon cameras: years before the book was published, he would have ensured that people interested in Canon knew about it and would have reported rare cameras to him. I'm not complaining here, just pointing out that there's a possibility of misinterpretation. I'll try to think of better wording.

<!-- says who? where? -- Rebollo_fr again -->

Careful: "--" shouldn't go inside an SGML comment, if I remember right.

As you'll have noticed, I've been converting "''xyz''," to "''xyz,''". This has nothing whatever to do with odd US "stylistic" preferences; it's because (i) italicized commas look just about the same as non-italicized commas (at least in the screen fonts I use), and (ii) with the comma immediately after the italics-off switch, Mediawiki software can put a line break between the two: xyz
(which I think is a bit unsightly). -- Hoary 18:50, 22 January 2007 (EST)

I agree about all that you say, except perhaps the minor point about "--" in an SGML comment: see the source of this page. --Rebollo fr 14:11, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Woah, strange. Yes, I know, your comment works. I can see it in the Mediawiki source when I edit section. But when I use the "view source" option in my browser to look at the edited page (the one for regular display, not the editable page), I see nothing at all! So I understand Mediawiki even less than I'd realized. Meanwhile, today's leisure reading. -- Hoary 20:17, 23 January 2007 (EST)

About the above, I made a test in the Sandbox and it looks like statement (ii) is incorrect: all the linebreaks went in the correct position, whatever the size of the browser window. --Rebollo fr 11:35, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Japan "before" and "during" the war

While there's not much argument over the distinction between "wartime" and "postwar" Japan, that between "prewar" and "wartime" Japan is a lot fuzzier. Europeans may tend to think this happened when Japan became a worrisome ally of Nazism. For Americans, it can be simple: it started with Pearl Harbor. After the war, the Japanese were strongly discouraged (very likely even barred, but offhand I'm not sure) from using their wartime term for the war; the motives for this renaming are understandable but its effect has been to encourage a US-centric idea of "the" war as something starting in 1941, and thereby to downplay or even whitewash what predated it. Even if we put aside Japan's shameful history in Korea, the start of its war in China easily predated the Nazi annexation of the "Sudetenland". However, I've seen some strange phrasing in CP articles that suggest that "the" war started in 1941 (or perhaps a little earlier) and I think we should be careful with phrasing here. We are under no obligation to teach world history in CP, but we should not assist in the distortion or miseducation of history. -- Hoary 20:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

and "after" the war?

Image mining in our pool offers the unique opportunity start a nicely illustrated article about camera maker Nagaoka in Osaka. Please see the new images of the magnificent view camera.
best regards, Uwe (29. April '07)

Super, baby

Heh heh heh. -- Hoary 10:34, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes! I thought this fbprc would never get tired. --Rebollo fr 10:36, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Olympus Chrome Six

I hate to say it, but what's a fine article here has been turned into a crap article there. Well, there's half the problem: it hasn't been "turned into" anything; it's been dragged up like a fish out of whale out of water, and so of course it's dead and putrid.

Another issue is that outside the little world of folding Japanese rangefinders, it's all pretty trivial. True, this little world happens to encompass me as well as you, but if I moan about trivia elsewhere in WP I have to moan about it here. (Though I only changed a comma or so in this article on CP, I did make quite a lot of contributions to, say, Mine Six. But I'd never dream of creating a WP article, no matter how different from the one that's here, on the Mine Six. It's just unnecessary.)

So I hit the article with an AfD. You may wish to comment there. -- Hoary 10:09, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

How stupid it was from the Wikipedia contributor who dumped the article there! He left all the Camerapedia-specific templates, and removed the bibliography. The result is caricatural. And I don't see credit to the original authors in the history section, nor in the talk page, only a link to Camerapedia, which looks insufficient to comply with the GFDL.
I looked at the comments of the AfD; I'm sad to see such harsh comments directed towards the contents of the article, and indirectly towards its author, without realizing that I never wrote this with Wikipedia's so-called "quality standards" in mind, whereas nothing unpleasant is said about the moron who took four minutes to cut and paste two years of work, then deface it by cutting the biblio, leaving hundreds of red links, etc.
I wouldn't have had the bizarre idea of writing camera fandom there in the first place, and I don't come to Wikipedia to say that the fandom hosted there on video games or on popstars is crap, whatever interest I might have in knowing that "Jackson's third child, Prince Michael Jackson II (also known as Blanket) was born in 2002.[100] The mothers identity has not been released by Jackson but he has said it was the result of artificial insemination, from a surrogate mother and his own sperm cells" (from Wikipedia's page on Michael Jackson).
I'm open to criticism on the way I manage the articles, their repetitiveness, the need to include some sort of summary or section placing things in a wider context, or anything else. But I'm open to that only if politely expressed by people with enough genuine interest in the subject to have constructive remarks. I'm not interested in criticism whose main motivation is the lack of interest in cameras, and I'm actually upset by passing-by Wikipedia editors saying that this work is crap, or looks like an ad, or whatever else.
If Wikipedia editors decide to keep the article and edit it, I might give a hand at that, provided Wikipedia explicitly forbids once and for all the mere dump of Camerapedia articles without subsequent major edition.
If Wikipedia doesn't succeed in taking some intelligent action on this, it would mean that any important Camerapedia article may be copied and defaced there, then harshly criticized by people who hardly care about cameras. I'll consider Wikipedia hostile territory, and a potential threat for Camerapedia's reputation and eventual survival. If things get really worse, I might want to leave away "free" wikis and publish later revised versions of my work on another – unfree – support. This would get rid of any concern towards Wikipedia's inclusiveness.
--Rebollo fr 06:50, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Uh ... you raise a lot of points.
How stupid it was from the Wikipedia contributor who dumped the article there! We agree this far. To stupidity, I'd add arrogance. I mean, it's obviously a terrible mess, so the person who left it like that (a) expected somebody else to clear up his mess or (b) was happy to have it remain a mess or (c) was too stupid to realize it was a mess.
And I don't see credit to the original authors in the history section, nor in the talk page, only a link to Camerapedia, which looks insufficient to comply with the GFDL. I'll have to read up on GFDL again. There'd be a hell of row if I were to delete it now as a copyvio; still, it might be an issue worth bringing up.
I'm sad to see such harsh comments directed towards the contents of the article The first of the two uses of the word "crap" is mine. Sorry about that. But of course I meant "crap in its present, red-templated state, and in the context of WP rules on 'OR and the like".
If Wikipedia editors decide to keep the article and edit it, I might give a hand at that, provided Wikipedia explicitly forbids once and for all the mere dump of Camerapedia articles without subsequent major edition. I can't believe that it ever would. The idea is endemic that anything (as long as it's neither a blatant copyvio or libelous) is better than nothing. And people bend over backwards to be polite to lamebrained editors.
Michael Jackson, hah! See this by the great Matt Taibbi. -- Hoary 12:09, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm watching the "article for deletion" debate, and I see that someone "rewrote" the article from scratch. I'm sorry to say that the result looks miserable. It looks like I don't have to worry too much on Camerapedia's reputation and survival...
--Rebollo fr 12:57, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

new template

Hello Adrien we have a new template for featured articles for August and one as work in progress for September. Please use them. Best regards, Uwe (U. Kulick 18:01, 8 August 2008 (EDT))

Thanks for the reminder, I have updated the main page. Best regards. --18:50, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
Hello again, it's already October 2008, and as every year in October we should change the featured articles bar. Therefore I've prepared Template:Featured_articles/October_2008. The concept is to have one article mainly made by Awcam, one article like you prefer it (You made it) and one about a less known camera type
Best regards, Uwe (U. Kulick 06:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT))
Thanks for the new template, and for all you're doing for Camerapedia!
I only made minor amendments to the captions, and added it to the main page.
Best regards, --Rebollo fr 13:52, 3 October 2008 (EDT)


"Fuji Shashin Kōgyōsha (富士写真工業社, meaning "Imperial Photographic and Optical Industrial Company" . . .

Um, really? -- Hoary 02:04, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Mmh, my initial thought was that this ridiculous mess was added to the big Fuji page by some illiterate overenthusiastic contributor. A bad case of self-indulgence: on this obscure "Fuji Photographic Industrial Co.", the page history obviously proves me guilty. I have an excuse involving cut and paste, which is so miserable that I won't even try to explain. --Rebollo fr 14:30, 12 January 2009 (EST)


Hi, I found a lovely picture of a Fujica AX-5 in an old (1983) book about many different camera's. It's a picture of the AX-5 with the top plate taken off, so that you can see the electronics underneath. I can't find anything about copyright in the entire book, and the publisher doesn't exist anymore. Is it okay to add this photo to the Fujica AX-5 page? I would also like to add a homemade photo of the AX-5 to the page, is that okay too? Kind regards, mcv100

You are certainly welcome to add a picture of the AX-5 that you took yourself. About the picture in the 1983 book, the answer is no: even if the publisher doesn't exist any more, the author still owns the rights on the contents, even if it was published anonymously. While we might claim "fair use" for really old books (1950s), this one is not old enough in my opinion.
Best regards, --rebollo_fr 06:02, 19 December 2010 (EST)
Hi, I just read every page of the book, but I can't find a single copyright claim in the entire book. The author didn't seem to care whether his images got copied or not. If there isn't a copyright claim on the image, I can put it on the AX-5 page, right? Regards, mcv100
Not necessarily. First, it depends on the country where the book was published. The copyright notice with the © symbol was only mandatory in the United States, and only until 1989.
Works published in the US prior up to 1977 with no © symbol were automatically falling into public domain; from 1978 to 1989 the author or publisher had the ability to register them up to five years after publication. Works published after 1989 are automatically under copyright regardless of the © symbol. See this informative page.
For works published in other countries, the general rule is that they are under copyright regardless of the © symbol, except for some very specific countries. For example they are protected until 70 years after the death of the author if they were published in the European Union, and for 50 years after the death of the author if they were published in Japan.
Of course the case when the copyright owner of a work cannot be located even after diligent investigations is problematic (those are sometimes dubbed "orphan works"), see e.g. this page of the California University Library.
Finally, it is perhaps possible to publish the image under "fair use". But I need to know the title and author of the book to make an opinion.
Best regards, --rebollo_fr 13:46, 19 December 2010 (EST)
Well, the book is Dutch (so am I), the title is "Alles over Camera's" and there are 13 employees listed in the book, so there are several "authors". And, by the way, the book isn't about one specific camera, but about many different cameras (110 cameras, 120 cameras, disk cameras, 35mm cameras ,4x5" cameras and some more). So it's just an informative book about cameras.
I see. If there is no clearly identified author for the book and for the specific picture, and the publishing house has disappeared, there is no way to contact the copyright owner, and we may publish the image under "fair use". You should still specify the source (book title) under the image, and add a {{fair use}} tag.
Best regards, --rebollo_fr 11:43, 20 December 2010 (EST)
Well, I've added the image now, but the page ( doesn't look very good now. Could you please edit the page so that it looks good again? And could you also add a "fair use" tag?
I've modified the page so that it looks better, and I've added the proper image tag. --rebollo_fr 08:50, 30 December 2010 (EST)
Wow, that was fast! Thank you!
Regards, mcv100

Angel Six 645x6


I'm new to camera-wiki, but I am writing to let you know that I came across a fully-functional example of a camera in an article that lists it as "no known examples have been discovered, no photos...."

You can see images here: \

You are welcome to use these images to update the Angel Six entry. Jim McKeown has asked me to ship him the camera so he can shoot it (I guess he didn't like my photos - sniff!) but after that I'm probably going to put it on eBay. Jo Geier from WestLicht in Austria wanted me to airmail it to him for the May 2013 auction but I think I'm going to put it on eBay instead. Let me know via email ( if you want me to let you know when it gets posted - I always start at a penny with no reserve :)

Need your assitance

Hello Adrien,

I need your help concerning a Minolta question. Could you please contact me at

Thanks and best regards, Dennis.


Personal tools