User talk:Tamasflex

Newtonian telescope
Hi, per this edit, the image you added to this article is pretty but it is not very useful encyclopedicaly. It is of limited usefulness since it only diagrams the consumer type, the article is about more than the consumer type and Wikipedia is not a consumer guide to telescopes. It is also unreadable at thumb scale, a requirement per WP:IMAGE). I have moved it to gallery. 75.199.73.178 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Images
I don't mean to wiki-stalk but the images you are adding to telescope articles are not improvements over the diagrams they are replacing, they seem to show limited commercial subtypes with confusing unrelated details,and some are actualy incorrect. You may want to re-think them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can cite a few problems;
 * Maksutov-Cassegrain.png - Maksutov-Cassegrains have a nearly concentric corrector, not the strong negative shown. Secondary on most types is a silvered spot, not the mounted secondary shown.
 * Schmidt-Cassegrain.png - Schmidt-Cassegrains and Maksutovs do not normally use rack and pinion focusers - they focus by moving the primary mirror.
 * Dobson.png - The dobsonian, graphic does not show any of the features of a dobsonian telescope.
 * The detail and shading in all the images adds extra complexity to the image, hard to tell what is a lens/mirror, whats a strut, whats a dew cap or barrel part. These are not improvements over the simple optical path diagrams they are replacing.
 * Image details are to small to be read at thumbnail scale.
 * Wikipedia in general prefers vector images over BMP images.


 * Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC, Modified on 15:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been answered--Tamasflex (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Their are very clear guidelines on image pertinence and encyclopedic nature at WP:IMAGE. In a nutshell images are not decoration, they should have complimentary content. I don't know how this will translate (I understand you speak another language) but the images your are inserting are nether "fish nor fowl", they show no increased content over the vector images, are not a preferred format, and replace an overall design diagram with a very specifically rendered variation of telescopes that don't exist for the most part, or are a minor variant subtype. Please see my talk page for a more detailed reply Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Solar-eyepiece
I did some moving around. This illustration seems to have the wrong title. Per "" this is not really an eyepiece at all. The illustration should be relabeled and maybe narrowed down to depict the "Herschel Wedge" - good idea for an article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)