User talk:Nebrot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Canon EF 28-105mm lens, Commons
Hi, thanks for adding pictures to Canon EF 28-105mm lens. Both of your pictures are high quality. I think, however, three pictures of only one of the two lenses in that article is excessive; one would suffice. Opinions? Also, have you heard of Wikimedia Commons? Basically, if you instead upload your pictures to Wikimedia Commons, they can be linked to in any Wikimedia project (eg foreign-language Wikipedias), so if you have free licensed photographs, you might want to consider uploading them there rather than here. Thanks, thegreen J Are you green? 04:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, thought the same thing when I posted them, but I was going to change how things looked afterward. I never got around to that! Basicly I took the photo's because I saw something simular on the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L lens page, but never took the time to make a full edit. Anyways, I did some editing and placed the source code here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nebrot/Canon_EF_28-105mm_lens Have a look, If you are ok with this let me know, and I will copy the code to the actual page. If you want to play around with the code you can do that too.
-
- Looks good to me. I think the zoom is of slightly more interest in the 24-70 because the lens extends at the wide end and recesses at the long end, the reverse of most lenses, but in any case your version is much cleaner than it is right now. Looks good. thegreen J Are you green? 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 50mm CM pic
Sorry that it's taking so long. I'm having trouble uploading the photograph. Hopefully tomorrow I will have access to another computer to upload the photo. thegreen J Are you green? 00:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Here it is: Image:Canon EF 50mm Compact Macro extended.jpg. Your edit to the EF 50mm page was a vast improvement over its previous state. Also, there's no need to post about edits that probably won't be controversial on talk pages. Your new 17-40 pic is better than the current one; go for it. Just in case you didn't know, you can link to images by using a colon in front of the "Image," i.e. [[:Image:Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM lens mount.jpg|the Canon EF 17-40]] for the Canon EF 17-40, instead of using an external link. thegreen J Are you green? 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] EF/EF-S chart system
GreyCat I undid your edits not beacause I feel they are necessarily wrong or bad, but because they contradict the choosen "look" of the charts used among most EF/EF-S lens pages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think if we decide to change the chart "look" of the main EF/EF-S pages, so should all the individual EF/EF-S lens pages. Consistency should be maintained. I think this should be discussed further, as this should obviously be a decision based on census. Weather or not the chart "look" is constaint with most wikapedia pages is not relavent. The current "look" was choosen 18 months ago, and has been used and accepted by all who edit since, and now is the standard for new EF/EF-S lens pages. If you belive that the changes you made have merit, I would like to here your reasons. Like I said, I only undid, because the change you made was quite significant. Please discuss! Nebrot (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Both work fine. GreyCat's style is easier to read in a large chart like those in the EF page, but the old style definitely looks nicer in the single-column infoboxes on the lens chart pages. I'm fine with either. thegreen J Are you green? 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] EF/EF-S
The 30D, and all other 1.6x cameras since the 300D, have lens modified EF lens mounts that allow for the rubber ring on the back of EF-S lenses to mount. The placement of the mirror is different, and a small white box is painted for the alignment of EF-S lenses. Here's a true EF mount. A minor difference, but its worth making the distinction, IMHO. Thegreenj (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds perfect. Thegreenj 03:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Nbarth
I skimmed though his edits, and as far as I can tell, they all seem in good faith. I don't see any malicious intent here, though I agree that we really don't need tons of external links that are not directly relevant to the article. To be honest, I think that your note on his talk page is a little harsh, and I don't think any of his edits amounts to spamming. None seems particularly to promote one site over another. If you think that the links shouldn't be there, I wouldn't consider it trigger-happy to revert the edits. Really, I don't think it's a big deal, but since we're here, we might as well get everyone's thoughts before making any changes. Thegreenj 21:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Nebrot (and Thegreenj),
- Thanks for getting in touch with me, and thanks for assuming good faith.
- Good point about the startling number of external links, which are particularly pronounced, say, at Canon EF 50mm lens#Reviews.
- For reference: WP:NOT#LINK, WP:LINKS.
- To give some context: I've recently gotten into photography, and am currently writing up a photography how-to at the Wikibooks How-to shelf at: b:Photography Overview, and am currently working on b:Photography Equipment. As such, I found myself referring to various lenses, and hence referring to the Wikipedia pages on them, and rather than spreading information across Wikibooks and Wikipedia, I thought to add to the Wikipedia pages. (As I'm using a Canon system, that's where most of my edits have been, but I've left red-links for Nikon systems (and others)), and plan to fill them in as time and energy permit. For other equipment, such as Gitzo et. al. tripods, there are no Wikipedia pages because they are of narrow interest, and I do not plan to add them; they can reasonably be summarized at Wikibooks.)
- I think the main problem is that, as you point out, the external links are not integrated into the articles at all: they are just collections of links, and as such don't add much beyond what someone can (with tedious Googling) find. Some of the links provide consensus or divergent views on equipment (which, as in reviews of art works, is reasonably part of an article), while others provide copyrighted data of interest which cannot legally be integrated, such as MTF data. I've linked to the standard websites, and a major reason for including the full gamut of links on each page was to avoid favoritism; previously there'd been sporadic links to dpreview and photo.net, which there still are on a number of other pages.
- I'll take a stab at integrating the links into proper references, and actually saying something with them, instead of dumping them. I'll start with Canon EF-S 17-55mm lens, which already has some of this.
- Thanks again for bringing this to me for discussion, and hopefully we'll be able to find a copacetic resolution!
- Nbarth (email) (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I've changed the Canon EF-S 17-55mm lens to reflect what I was talking about above–integrated comments and proper links–and in fact I found that some links really didn't add anything (there were just a couple reviews or specs), so I removed them. I find that the article reads rather better now: it says something beyond "it's a good zoom lens". Now before I go off and change 17-85, 18-55, 10-22, 50, and 85 (and presumably some body articles), does this seem a reasonable way to do it?
- Nbarth (email) (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly. The only thing that I'd point out is that you should merge the Notes and References sections; the citeweb templates should go inside the ref tags. Thegreenj 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
De gustibus...done! I've also integrated the comment about the 28-90 (which, as you correctly point out, is not a comparable lens, despite the similar focal length) into a section on similar lens, which I think a useful section generally.
