Talk:Zeiss formula
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
OR?
[edit]Unless I'm mistake, this is an essay based on the author's own research? — BillC talk 07:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yup. I say delete this page. C.anguschandler (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The "recent" discovery notion is incorrect, since the Zeiss d/1730 formula has been known as standard fact for many decades, from before WWII (perhaps long before?). The article is correct that there are hundreds of Google hits about 1/1730 + "depth of field", but it is a huge jump to imagine this was a recent discovery or contribution by the named individuals. The d/1730 fact is good stuff to know, but its recent origin is wrong. 173.64.206.142 (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I searched long and hard for sources, but the closest I could find was d/1500. Please share your sources with us, so we can fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to cut this page down to the bare essentials, and maybe it can be built back up from there with more citations, etc. C.anguschandler (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that needed to be done. The article was my first attempt at a wikipedia article, several years ago, and it was full of my own OR that I had written for other purposes. I've added back material from sources, with minimal interpretation and properly cited, which makes for a much more concise and appropriately toned article. Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Zeiss formula. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN01e/$File/CLN1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- LGTM. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)