User talk:Jan von Erpecom

In response to the proposed removal of suggestions provided for prospective editors of articles on historical cameras, the following clarification has been compiled:

It would be a great loss to Wikipedia if potential editors were not offered advice on how to edit articles. This does not limit their opportunity to contribute, but rather to do so in an efficient and accurate fashion. Every field within knowledge has its own terminology and way of expressing information. This may not always reflect the generally excepted way, but non the less be the way practised in a specialised field, possibly limited to a certain period of time in history. Any conflict with existing established Wikipedia guidance demonstrate the need for specialised guidelines as required. Please note that the guidelines here in question do not concern the article language, but the style of the source information of the subject in hand. The engravings on cameras or lenses, and the printed contemporary literature are such examples.

It is no doubt such guidelines should exist and be part of Wikipedia guidelines. However, in order to be effective and reach the casual editor it must be concise, short and above all easily discovered. Hence, each article where special terminology is useful should be tagged accordingly.

Several factors have made this proposal necessary:
 * Automatic boots tagging or making edits without any consideration to the material in question.
 * Running smart boot programs on specialised subjects may not discover subtle differences in writing and thus degrade information.
 * Tags being added saying the article is too short, citing too few references etc. without offering any suggestions on the issue, or just not knowing what is available of reliable source information on the subject.
 * Adding tags indicating a camera model article is within the scope of a WikiProject - which is fine, but rating it as a Stub, presumably without any knowledge on the subject, isn't. It degrades the content, and it is misleading to the Wikipedia reader searching pertinent information on the subject. Quantity is not the same as quality. (Se definition of Stub below)
 * Adding or editing descriptions without distinguishing accurately between terms like presentation, introduction, production start, launch or marketing date. These are events seldom happening at the same moment in time.
 * Describing subjects inaccurately or inefficiently. A typical example of inaccurate description is saying the camera has interchangeable lenses or finders. This seems harmless, but it means that the camera is supplied with several of those items, which rarely is the case. The accurate description would say the camera has a removable or detachable lens or finder - in singular form. Likewise it is surely inaccurate to describe existing things in the past tense.
 * Introducing the equivalents of port and starboard for cameras are especially useful to improve writing about cameras. In existing literature, there are examples of features on it moving from on side of the camera to the other in the same paragraph or article. Left-hand side and right-hand side may help solving this problem, and then there is no need to add: "as one holds the camera for picture taking" or "looking at the camera from the front".
 * Articles of historical character must rely on documented sources and reflect the terminology used at that period and in that profession.
 * No contribution should be added without giving reliable source reference with particular attention not to change or break up the existing information unintentionally.
 * WEB pages can never provide reliable permanent information. They tend to change content or to disappear altogether eventually.

The short list of 'Historical camera terms' provided initially, reflected some of these considerations. With respect Jan von Erpecom 12:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

STUB articles as defined
A Stub article is defined in the WikiProject article quality grading scheme as:
 * A very basic description of the topic: The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category


 * Reader's experience: Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition.


 * Editing suggestions: Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority.

BTW: The Leica Standard article is tagged as a STUB-Class article on the Quality Scale.

Periflex
I note with interest your suggestions above about how editors should edit and add to articles about Cameras, however, this is not agreed and adopted by consensus of Wikipedia editors and I suspect that some, including myself, might well demur from some of what you propose. However, with regard to the Periflex article ( and I speak as a Periflex owner), I consciously removed all the "How to do" text as Wikipedia guidance is clearly against the inclusion of such material. I also altered the tense to the past because these cameras were made in the past and not the present. I also removed material that is not distinguishing of a Periflex or particular to the brand. Thus almost all cameras of that age had a rewind knob or lever and a shutter release button and therefore require no mention unless they are both special and unusual. I have no disagreement with your intent but I am also a believer in succinct articles that include pertinent information and do not read as if they were camera manuals. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 16:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Contarex issues
Hallo Jan von Erpecom,

I can see at once that you are highly knowledgeable about historic cameras, and that you have taken great care to be accurate and clear in articles such as Contarex.

However, in the same manner as Velella's comment above, there are some issues about the construction of Contarex that I believe need attention. I hope you won't mind if I'm very brief about them.

1) The lead section should summarize the rest of the article, without adding claims of its own. (Therefore, it generally does not need to be cited.) However the lead in Contarex talks about Zeiss Ikon - not the subject of the article - and talks about other cameras. This may be good for background but is certainly not what should be in a lead (WP:LEAD).

2) Good sources are named in references 1..5, but these are not used in most of the body of the article, which remains uncited (WP:V).

3) Articles are supposed to avoid describing instructions (WP:HOWTO), but a substantial part of the article is very close to being instructional.

4) The article style is largely that of an expert explaining a complex topic, as when a skilled engineer gives a technical but "chatty" talk: in short, it feels like 'original research' (WP:OR). It feels very far from the usual tone of the encyclopedia, where each fact is neutrally stated (WP:NPOV), and supported by a citation.

I believe these issues apply also to other articles such as Nikon F, Exacta, Kine Exacta, and no doubt many others, so I suspect this list of issues will seem somewhat unwelcome, for which I apologize. However, given the accumulation of Wikipedia policies in recent years, it is probably appropriate to consider them now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern of the style regarding the camera articles mentioned. The issue is relevant and I have for quite some time considered it, my regrettable conclusion being not to contribute substantially any more since each article requires too much time and effort, yet its original content will inevitably gradually change and eventually completely disappear. It simply isn't worthwhile. Jan von Erpecom 23:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear that. There is no doubt that the historic cameras form notable topics, so I doubt they will completely disappear, but they certainly need work as you say. I suspect your specialized work has been insufficiently thanked over the years, so let me do that now: you have made an enormous contribution to Wikipedia, and it is and will be appreciated. Cordially, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)