Talk:Focal-plane shutter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To avoid the objected-to pedantry, I just went ahead and corrected "focal plane shutter" to the correct form with hyphen: "focal-plane shutter." If anyone doesn't get why it's important to do it right, let's talk. Now, the trouble is, my changes show up, but there's no history entry for it. So I tried again. Still not showing up there, nor in my contribution or watch list. Strange. Dicklyon 04:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Strange indeed; did you forget to click the "Save" button or something? Not trying to call you stupid or anything (of course, I would never make such a mistake myself--hah!). Anyhow, it looks as if you never did edit the page. I suppose something wacky could be going on with the Wiki-servers ... ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Followup: it looks like my hyphenation change shows up in the diffs for the latest edit by Like2BeAnonymous, probably because the hist/diff code detects no word changes in my edits or something like that. Dicklyon 04:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's because I changed them all. I wasn't disupting your assertion about language, just pointing out the inappropriateness of your comment about it in the article. Focal-plane shutter is fine by me. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I bet we did it concurrently and got merged without conflict, whereby my edit had no effect on top of yours. Dicklyon 15:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's possible. Just a quick note to say that when that happens, you see a message pointing out an "edit conflict", and showing what text would be saved if you saved it then. Maybe that happened and you missed it. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick books search and found that most early-20th-century uses of focal-plane shutter included the hyphen, though there were some not-so-correct uses as well. [1]. Seems like a precedent worth following, for us sticklers at least. Dicklyon 05:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Sorry about the revert. I moved the article back to Category: Photography equipment because I am eliminating Category:Photography terms. Wikipedia articles are about the things terms describe, not the terms themselves (in general). A shutter is a piece of hardware, not a "term". In the course of this reorganization, I have moved articles on components and features of photographic equipment into Category: Photography equipment for now. It may be that these would be better organized by creating one or two subcategories for components and features of photographic equipment.--Srleffler 08:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

True, it's a piece of hardware, but not a piece of "equipment", which, as I pointed out in my edit summary, is widely understood to mean a discrete, complete object that can be bought and used, such as a flashgun, motor drive, etc. Since a shutter is something built into a "piece of equipment" (i.e., a camera), it shouldn't be placed in this category. (This used to not be true: in the olden days, shutters were available as separate pieces of equipment, to be mounted onto a camera by the user, but those days are largely gone.)

If someone wants to invent a new category—"Camera hardware" or similar—I'd have no objections. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I moved the article up to Category:photography for now. Someone can create an appropriate subcategory and go through the equipment category recategorizing hardware articles when they have time. --Srleffler 21:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous race car photograph?

There this famous photograph from the 20ties that shows a racecar with distorted wheels. Can anybody say which photographer this was? I read somewhere he was french, made the pic as a teenager, left photography, went to the US and became a photographer again for WWII. Any hints? Thanks :-) Peter S. 14:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)