Talk:Panoscan

looks like advertisement ...

Updated neutral
This article no longer reads like an advertisement. It also has multiple notable references. I don't see any problem with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchavalas (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am now VERY FRUSTRATED with Wikipedia! This camera is absolutely noteworthy. The article is NOT WRITTEN LIKE AN ADVERTISEMENT. It is simple statements of FACT. This camera is as noteworthy to digital panoramic camera technology as the "brownie" camera was to popular photography. I can't imagine how the article could possibly be written with a more neutral tone nor less "advertiserly". It's just FACTS backed up by textbooks...

The loss of this page to Wikipedia is like throwing away history... This camera is absolutely pivotal to the the history of digital panoramic cameras and if Wikipedia removes it they IGNORE HISTORY. This camera was a crucial in 1998 when it was introduced... And it is still relevant and revolutionary camera today.

If someone can please explain the objections specifically... And make specific suggestions for how to make the article read "less like an advertisement" (Which it is NOT.)  Please feel free to respond to this conversation.

Otherwise I just see these comments as another example of Wikipedia CENSORSHIP for no valid reasons whatsoever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.16.185 (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about the proposed merger with Rotating line camera (I bizarrely seem to have suggested merging it with itself!), that article is more extensive. I re-wrote this page to be less ad-like, but it still has "this camera can do this..." and not a trace of "..but it can't do that or this...". In omitting criticisms and shortfalls, it appears like an advertisement. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested merge with Rotating line camera
I think this article should be merged with Rotating line camera. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since nobody's bothered, i'm merging this article as suggested above, not that there's much to merge. Ta, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)