Talk:Digiscoping

Afocal_projection merge

Should Afocal_projection be merged with this article? -- Anonymous 12:24, 6 June 2006 (GMT)

done --Marc Lacoste 10:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why I deleted all external links

I deleted all external links from this article by commenting them out.

I did this in order to make the article editable by getting rid of the blacklisted link. If I were told WHICH link is blacklisted, I woul have deleted only that one. I don't have all day to research the question.

The main purpose of my edit was to delete the colossally absurd "stub" notices. Michael Hardy 01:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blacklist warning does give the name of the blacklisted site. You just needed to read the full message. Patience is a virtue. :) --Srleffler 03:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Further talk by User:Mcdomik removed by Mcdomik on 10 April 2010[1].)~~

Digiscopy birding merge

too much redundant information --Marc Lacoste 10:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus of this article

I think there is a significant problem with the focus of this article.

The term digiscoping arose from the activities of birders and nature photographers. Astronomers have not typically used the term "digiscoping". They use the term "afocal projection" or "eyepiece projection" as noted in the article. Any web search shows that the term "digiscoping" is very closely aligned with terrestrial nature photography and birding using terrestrial type spotting scopes - typically with erecting prisms. The term has certainl grown into more general use and I have no problem with including a reference to astronomy. But the priority and emphasis of this page is quite incorrectly skewed. The connection with astronomy should be secondary, not primary. And it is very odd that the only image posted is one of the moon and not one of a bird.

I'm posting this to give anybody concerned the chance to air an opposing viewpoint. But I urge you to first do an extensive websearch on the term. Also check the various online astronomical sources. "Digiscoping" is not their preferred term. "Digiscoping" is a rather non-technical term that was invented and promoted in the online birding community. Wturber 02:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Further talk by User:Mcdomik removed by Mcdomik on 10 April 2010[2].)~~

On first glance this article may have no basis for existence on Wikipedia per WP:NEO since it is described as a neologism for afocal photography. After extensive websearching and checking reference I find the term is so ill defined that it can’t even be said that this is afocal photography, re: prime focus photography - DphotoNews's blog - Nikon introduces the Digiscoping System - Fieldscope Digital SLR Camera Attachment FSA-L1. It is simply a buzz word spread through birdwatching internet forums. One member said: “What can be said definitely about digiscoping is that it includes a digi-something and a something-scope.”[3]. I have rewritten this article to broadly describe the “activity” and moved most of the material off to Afocal photography. It may be a case for redirect. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be partially incorporated and redirected into Afocal Photography. Scyg (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links

ARE A MESS!!![4] We got dead links, blog/forum links, vanity links, links of questionable authority, how-to links, spam links. See WP:EL for what should be linked. What we need are neutral authoritative links describing the activity of Digiscoping, not links telling readers "how to do it", showing off pretty picture, or selling adapters. 70.208.47.44 (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Further talk by User:Mcdomik removed by Mcdomik on 10 April 2010[5].)~~

RM'ed links again. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a how-to nor is it a directory or external linkfarm WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:NOTHOWTO WP:NOTDIRECTORY. And blog links fall under WP:ELNO #11, and they still have to be more than just a how-to WP:ELNO #1. Links are here if anyone can find anything encyclopedic in them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Digiscoping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]