I'm new here and am not yet certain what the right way to do things is. I infer from Konica Autoreflex T3 and thereabouts that one (the?) right way is to have one article per model. This might be OK for the T3, in that it's imaginable that people will flesh out each page. (As it is, I have to say that I find it rather tiresome.) But it seems a very odd way to write up the various Mine cameras (and their obscure predecessors the Daido and Sisley); the differences between each model can be described simply, and the whole lot can easily be read about on a single page. I therefore propose that this should remain a single page, at least until people start contributing such an amount of detailed information on these cameras that the single page becomes unwieldy. (Don't hold your breath.) But of course I don't set policy here — so what I propose is that my, uh, superiors should think hard before creating lots of sub-pages. -- Hoary 04:40, 7 May 2006 (EDT)
- This has been discussed a little at the Camerapedia.org:Community Discussions page, but no general policy emerged, and I can only give you my opinion.
- I completely agree with you about the "one page per variant" scheme being tiresome, even for well-known models, and I would tend to group a camera series under one page (like Olympus OM-1/2/3/4, Leicaflex, Contaflex (SLR)).
- However I tend to separate the maker's page from the camera's page, even for obscure makers (like for example Rengō and the Semi Renky), because they are indexed very differently in the category tree, and it it easier to setup navigational templates pointing to the model names (like Template: Japanese Semi and Six).
- By the way, you will probably be interested by the "Indexing a page" help page, that somehow explains Camerapedia's current category tree and indexing methods, and by the List of templates.
- --Rebollo fr 14:50, 7 May 2006 (EDT)
Thanks for the reply. I understand and agree, and shall shunt things around accordingly once I've woken up sufficiently. -- Hoary 16:50, 7 May 2006 (EDT)
I've written: The manufacturer that became Takane was started by Mr Izawa (井沢広治). I'd agree that "Mr" looks very bizarre. The problem is that although my source repeatedly refers to this person, not once does it give the reading of his name. While the surname can only be Izawa, the personal name is most likely Kōji but there are alternative possibilities. I'd rather leave this a blank, even if the result looks odd, than risk spreading misinformation. -- Hoary 01:41, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
Same problem with 中里隆. He's probably Nakazato Takashi, but it's not so unlikely that he's Nakazato Ryū. (It's even possible that his family name is Nakasato rather than Nakazato.) -- Hoary 17:32, 19 May 2006 (EDT)
Takamine ? Edit
The McKeown lists three company names, "Takamine Optical Works", "Takane Kogaku" and "Takane Optical Co". I am wondering about the name Takamine: the character 嶺 can be read "mine" or "ne". This page from en:wikipedia says that Takamine is a family name written 高嶺. Apparently, both Takamine and Takane are acceptable readings. That could explain the name of the Mine Six. --Rebollo fr 13:38, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
- You're right and McKeown (a copy of which I don't possess) is, I think, wrong. 高嶺 is indeed a family name, but it's not only a family name. As a family name, "Takamine" is not only acceptable, it's the more obvious reading. For the camera, 高嶺 is not a family name (I'll write more on this later). The company clearly used the romanized form "Takane"; I've seen no evidence that it ever used "Takamine" (and it would be very strange if it had wobbled between these two versions). Yes, the "Mine" of "Mine Six" comes from 高嶺. My guess is that "Takamine Optical Works" is an English translation by somebody who has encountered the name as 高嶺光学 but has not been able (or has not bothered) to look either at the camera or at materials about it. Let's not repeat this misinformation in the article. -- Hoary 22:58, 14 May 2006 (EDT)
- Thanks for the precisions. Indeed I have found 高嶺 (たかね) as a common name meaning "high summit". --Rebollo fr 05:58, 15 May 2006 (EDT)