User talk:Nebrot

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oh, I might add that if I can't find anything in a reference worth including or discussing in the main article, it clearly isn't contributing anything to the discussion, and thus isn't worth linking!

Nbarth (email) (talk) 22:19, 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.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation of my identity for SUL

This is confirmation of my identity for SUL. I need to usurp user name Nebrot on Danish wiki, and German wiki. Nebrot (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

TS-E lenses

Wanted to get your input on the TS-E lenses. Currently, we have three:

• TS-E24mm f/3.5L
• Canon TS-E 45mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift lens
• Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift lens

The Canon museum lists them without the space, so should we move the 45mm and 90mm articles to remove the space, or to move the 24mm article with a space? Second, use of f/stops seems to contradict the other EF/EF-S article naming conventions. And third, is it really necessary to write "tilt-shift lens" in the article? I mean, the other articles don't follow that; it's not called the Canon EF 70-200mm telephoto lens.

So, should we move them, or maintain the status quo? hbdragon88 (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's really funny how that both canon museum, and the box that lenses come in have no space between the lens type and focal length. Example: EF300mm. But at Canon USA, and whats printed on the lens itself: EF 300mm. So should there be a space? I don't think even Canon knows! I think having a space seems right. I do agree that having max aperture in the title might be a bit too much information. How many TS-E 90mm lenses are there? Exactly... And the "Tilt-Shift lens" is redundant, as this is described in the article. Thanks for asking! Nebrot (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver Special image request

See comment at Skookum1's talk page in reply to your request there and note at Talk:Vancouver Special about these images. --KenWalker | Talk 19:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigma 8mm

I just read your comments over on Commons. Haha, I'm so sorry! I had no idea that was going to happen! I never even submitted the image and have no idea how it was even nominated. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Images from articles on Messier 55 and Messier 56

I have seen your note to me (hewholooks) on the pages of Messier 55 and Messier 56 in that it is your opinion that the images I provided are redundant to the main image already present. I have to respectfully disagree because the images on those pages are very narrow field Hubble (or otherwise) images (and pretty low quality at that) and look nothing like these objects seen in amateur telescopes, nor anything like images taken through telescopes available to most of us who read Wikipedia. I have provided images to many pages with a goal of showing a more realistic, but quality view of these objects for the average reader. I have no intention of jamming the pages with redundant images and avoid this as far as I can. I have replaced the images at this time as I really feel that they add much to the articles without using excessive bandwidth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hewholooks (talk • contribs) 00:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Canon PowerShot S

Why do you think these cameras deserve their own articles? Please reply at Talk:Canon PowerShot S. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Because they are notable. Just those few camera models, are used by hundreds of thousands of people. And even though the other types of canon cameras do not have articles, does not not set precedence to remove articles that have been written. Wikipedia is a work in progress, always will be. Sooner or later somebody will to take the time to write articles for all of them. Some think these articles are controversial, because they are consumer products, and that they are a viral form of advertising. Currently this *could* be true, but I think in a 100 years, these article will be read by people to research what technology was like, and what devises were used by there great grandparents. If we remove information, because its currently available elsewhere, can you guarantee that information will be available forever? What if Canon goes belly-up in 50 years? do you think they will still serve information? Doubtful. Wikipdea is truly an awesome tool, as not only is it an invaluable source of information. But also a way for us the people, to keep information available for future users, that may not always be available elsewhere. Kinda like how we are trying to preserve nature for the future generations. Not trying to get political, but its the control of information, that allows governments and other organizations (who do you think writes the text books) to control the masses. The less we know about the past, the more they can get away with things. Like the saying goes "beware of those who wish to deny you access to information, for in there hearts they wish to be your master" I feel that anything... Anything! that was once known, should always be known. This is why I think these cameras all deserve there own articles. Personally, I don't ever read them, but somebody will, and that is enough. To remove them, would be a crime against humanity, forever. Nebrot (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How serious. The majority of the information, I feel, is still there; just not as wordy as it used to, or taking up as much space. In fact, I see the table as the better way to present the information, because you can compare the direct stats for each camera, and see the timeline and sequence of when the camera was released and how it falls with the others (such as the new Sx series).

I'm not firmly opposed the articles period; just in the form right now, mostly spec and fact sheets. If review information, development information, etc. is sourced and found, I would not oppose un-merging the articles.

I've never thought of Canon as a reliable source for information; nahh, I usually hit Dpreview for information. It looks to be a nice, stable source with its republishing of all of Canon's press releases, as well as doing stuff we can't – professionally-done photographs of how the camera looks from the front, side, and back. Will it be around? For that matter, are we so sure that Wikipedia will be around, either? hbdragon88 (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You really hit a nail here when it comes to the biggest problem with most camera, and lens, articles. And I do think I'm starting to understand your point. There is really only just the specs, nothing more. Really just information that can be found on other websites. Most of the articles could easily be just a list of links for users to find information.

This is something that occurred to me some time ago, but felt that at least how the articles were, was better than nothing. I think the big problem, and problem with a lot of articles, is that because of there popularity, they get edited a lot , by users that do not know what makes a good article.

But the question is how do we make articles for these cameras, without original research? There is so little information, other than the specs. Sourcing is quite difficult.

So do we just forget it? Just have a simple list, with basic specs, and external links to more information?

Is it not said, that information should be given in an article, before using external links?

What is really the problem, with the articles, as they are? Yes they definitely need improvement. But removing anything that is not 'good enough', will seriously hinder progress. Who would take the time to try and make an effort, if somebody then decides it's still not good enough. Honestly HB, do you think this makes is a positive environment, for people to contribute? More than likely, it will cause wikipedia to spiral down, into a cesspool of edit wars, and ignorance. Of course you may not agree with this, but I have seen similar arguments in other discussions. Wikipedia will definitely not last, if there is not a environment that is inviting to people who want to help. Just look at most edits, they are many more edits that are "policing" in nature, than actual contribution.

I have to admit, I more than likely will do nothing to contribute to this specific problem, because I feel that It will be heavily scrutinized. Nebrot (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that combative merging is a problem, and like you, have seen areas that I've worked hard in been undone by merging (mostly, these are fictional characters, and some video game remakes). That does contribute to an environment that is less-than-welcome to new users and even experienced ones. I don't think the problem, persay, is that the articles do any harm.

I haven't thought about this too hard for cameras, but for fictional charcters, once you have them in a list, it's easier to focus on them as being fictional and a part of something, whether being talked about in a movie (recent films have a nice characters list) or in a list. When they have their own article, it just becomes too easy to slip into in-universe language, treating them like real people, going into and describing them in ways we shouldn't (as if their world is real, not fictional). It also tends to duplicate when you retell every character's history in both the separate article and in in the main film/video game article.

But back to the topic...again, I really don't have all the answers. To make better articles, we find sources. I don't know if Canon ever discusses their cameras, but others do. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm lens article is a good example of what a camera article should be: cites reviews, problems, praise, and compares with other lenses. I recently combined several lenses articles; at one point each Canon EF 300mm lens variation (f/2.8, f/4, f/2.8 IS, f/4 IS) had their own article. I combined them to make a table, which allows for direct comparision and more content. Reviews will be harder, given that all four variants were released pre-Internet age, but I imagine we could find magazines and such that reviewed the lens.

For now, because of a lack of interested people, the camera and lens articles are mostly in pretty bad shape: lists of specs and such. So I just combine the most numerous of them and leave the ones that have potential to be expanded, such as the major camera releases (the flagship EOS line). hbdragon88 (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hi Nebrot!

I just did a few minor copyedits to your userpage (here and on commons). I hope you did not mind. Regards, decltype (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, my English sucks. I blame teachers that gave up on me! :D Nebrot (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)