FANDOM

Links to retrography.comEdit

You seem to be adding quite a lot of links to the top page of retrography.com.

I first noticed this in this edit of yours to Nettar, where you write Nettars on Retrography.com by Simon Simonsen, Denmark.

I took the link and arrived at a page that didn't mention the Nettar. There seemed only one link to click, so I clicked it and reached a second page that didn't mention the Nettar. The likeliest option then was collection.htm. This page also didn't mention the Nettar.

It increasingly looks as if you are just trying to get people to visit that site.

The site has adverts, but clearly it is related to cameras. It could be worth linking to in some way. Please, therefore, link to it sparingly and helpfully, otherwise all links to it will be zapped.

Notes for the webmaster, if you happen to be in touch with him:

  1. The truth is, that out of the japanese policy of shameless copying western designs, did in fact come many really good and excellent cameras. / The truth as I see it is that out of the Japanese policy of improving on others' designs came many really excellent cameras.
  2. there are room for yet a couple of small manufactures of totally mechanical analogue cameras, if anyone dared to invest in the right project, but they would have to be of outstanding quality, handbuilt in Europe, / Because, of course, Asians are incapable of such work, as evidenced by (to take just one example) Nikon's recent utter failure to re-create the Nikon SP. (Oh, no, wait -- Nikon succeeded, didn't they?)
  3. I have deliberately chosen not to collect American cameras. The main reason for this is (of course) that they, in my opinion, are nothing worth collecting. / Right, as evidenced by such trashy cameras as the Deardorff, Anscoflex, Kodak Medalist and B&H Foton.

That website aside, I encourage you to add content to Camerapedia. -- Hoary 08:07, 27 January 2008 (EST)

AnswerEdit

The website retrography.com are a totally non-commercial website, and all links and banners are posted at n/c. Many of the links on camerapedia are links to websites with adverts. The website are a private persons own personal cameracollection and offers free scans of f.e. manuals. I admit, that I have made a mistake, and not linked to the specific subpages, and will rectify this ovet time. Apart from this mistake, the website is just as "worthy" as a relevant link as any other links posted on the different camerapages!. Providing that links are made directly to the relevant subpages, the links (or the quantity of these) are not in violation with Camerapedia rules as far as i know. Finally, pleasy clarify your sentence: "link to it sparingly and helpfully, otherwise all links to it will be zapped."

Yes, fair enough. Sorry about my tone above. What happened was that I took the link from the Nettar page, didn't see anything about the Nettar, clicked a link, still didn't see anything, clicked another, still didn't see anything, and at that point got irritated and deleted the link and wrote the comment. I later found that there was material about the Nettar and added a specific link -- but was too sleepy to rewrite my comments. So please ignore the sentence you're asking about, please gradually work to make specific the links already added, and please feel free to add more links of this kind. While you're doing this, you are of course very welcome to make substantive additions to one or two (or of course more) of the articles here. As it is, this site says more about some obscure Japanese brands that even most Japanese photographers haven't heard of than it says about, say, Zeiss. There's nothing wrong about informing the world about obscure Japanese cameras, but a bit more about Zeiss (etc.) would help. -- Hoary 10:07, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Community content is available under GFDL unless otherwise noted.