Talk:Optical microscope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Optical microscope is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Optical microscope at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

What was wrong in my proposal?[edit]

My proposal to mention about the possibility of building very cheap, yet powerful microscopes was deleted. Why? Now I am afraid even to name the university where the invention took place. But the mere fact that 2,000X magnification can be obtained for less than a dollar is interesting enough to be reflected in Wikipedia. This flat folding microscope is made out of paper! This is a very simple yet revolutionary idea. A poppy seed-sized spherical lens, held very close to the eye, results in enormous magnification. Now every kid can have a powerful flat microscope in his/her pocket. It can also serve to diagnose illness in developing countries, as a portable tool for every doctor. The list of uses is limited only by our imagination. As to "advertising" or "promotion" - if I give a link, you will delete my post, right? But look at IPhone and the like. There are precise links and... millions of dollars at stake, unless Apple Inc. is a charitable institution... (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Your links were removed by me because Wikipedia is not a "how-to" or a vehicle for promotion of any kind (see WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTPROMOTION), nor is it a directory leading on to that type of stuff. The purpose of this article is to describe Optical microscopes based on what can be referenced to text books and other reliable sources. Addition of links or information to Wikipedia (multiple times) with the purpose of promoting an outside organization, individual or idea, and is considered harmful to the encyclopedia and the definition of WP:SPAM. It does not seem wrong to promote such a device but it is wrong here because this is a boring encyclopedia that just describes things ;). You can always post over at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) for further discussion or input from other editors as to what you want to do, they may have some advice. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr wrote:
> "Addition of links or information to Wikipedia (multiple times)"

  • "multiple times"? Would it have changed anything if I had done it only once?

> "with the purpose of promoting an outside organization"

  • Explicit "promoting an outside organization" etc. is in almost every article here, for example in articles about Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Samsung and their products which are present-day commodities, waiting for buyers.

> "is considered harmful to the encyclopedia and the definition of WP:SPAM."

  • How can spam be harmful to its own definition?. How can anything be harmful to any definition? ;-)

> "but it is wrong here because this is a boring encyclopedia that just describes things"

  • But Wikipedia by definition does describe things - of course only the ones deserving it. But information about the revolutionary microscope certainly deserves to be in the current article. I even consider a separate article, but it would be an even better promotion. Optical giants like Olympus and Nikon may not be delighted. ;) Am I allowed to do it?

PS. Could you show the difference between WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTPROMOTION?  ;-) (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You should read up on Wikipedia, maybe Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. In a nut shell, you would have to base this entry, or an article on the device, on what other people (who have the authority to say such a thing) are saying about it. Supply those sources and you are golden. Your other questions are answered in the links I provided. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Optical microscope/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

While going through this article, I was curious to read the historical developments. The article on wikipedia on Robert Hooke ( mentions , "He is also remembered for his work as "the father of microscopy" — it was Hooke who coined the term "cell" to describe the basic unit of life". I am surprised to see this name completely ommited in this article. This creates confusion. What was Robert Hooke's role in microscopy? -- (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 01:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"Diagram of a compound microscope" is problematic[edit]

The reverse extension of leftmost light ray emitting from "image 1" doesn't intersect anything, neither a piece of lens nor any light source, then where does the light ray come from? 2001:250:4000:8180:3011:8F1:411:FED1 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)