Jump to content

Talk:Dr5 chrome

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please explain the opposition to this article. I have input outside articles of this important photographic process. A direct article to dr5 has proven to be deleted in the past. Advise on this friction.user talk:pillhall

I don't see any trace of a deleted article on "dr5". Exactly what was its title? -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about 2 years ago i saw an article about "dr5". it was promptly deleted, considered to be spam. since that time I have watched several notable magazine articles. I believe this process and it's inventor should be noted. those of us in the traditional photo industry already know these facts. how else should the article i wrote be noted? User: talkpillhall

i have removed the template notice as described in the "contesting a proposed deletion" explanation. please advise if i have done this incorrectly. (User talk:Pillhall) AUG 3 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the removal was fine. ("Prod" notices are freely removable, "AfD" notices are not.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no. as the wiki link explains and this website [1] explains. a TRADE SECRET. Trade secrets are no public neither is the filing. the only proof a TS has been filed is the paperwork itself. CokaCola & KFC come to mind. What else might i add to bolster this section? does not the external links provide this info? BTW, A&I is one of the largest photographic labs in the US. Pillhall (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the trade secret bit and added a bunch of calls for citations. Probably most of them can be answered using Template:cite web to convert the external links to something a lot more useful. Dicklyon (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If A&I is one of the largest photographic labs in the US (and as I'm not in the US, I wouldn't know), then it probably merits an article. You're free to create this.
As Dicklyon has said, the list of external links could probably be reused to better effect. I'm reluctant to do the necessary work myself, as I've already put a fair amount of time into making these links more informative.
In general, though, please read "WP:AMNESIA". -- Hoary (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am at odds here and fully protest the opposition to a very important process to photography. i see now why this has failed in the past to get published in the medium. i would also request that non-ignorant photographic people help in editing this article. i am new to this operation so i am not fully educated in its workings. it is one thing to ask for a citation and know what you are asking for. examples of just about 75% of articles have not one citation you ask for here. ..it is truly mind boggling. dr5 is out there, in the public. explain what you dislike and i will provide it. asking for a citation is pointless where it is not needed and if it needs one explain why you want it. Maybe we should put back the "person" and not the process? i am going to put the trade secret info back. it is needed there, advise.Pillhall (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody opposes the dr5 process.
I don't think that anyone here opposes the notion of an article here on the dr5 process either. I can't confidently speak for Dicklyon, but I doubt that he's opposed to a good article on this subject (he's quite accustomed to nominating articles for deletion, yet he hasn't nominated this one), and I'm not opposed either.
I don't know that "75% of articles have not one citation" but you're certainly right that a large percentage of articles have poor sourcing or none. However, "other Wikipedia articles are crappier" is no defense against an insistence that any given article should be improved (even if a list of other crappy articles is provided).
You say "dr5 is out there, in the public." Frankly I'm not even sure what this means. Is dr5 a process that I (if sufficiently skilled) can use in my darkroom? Can I at least read up on the chemistry involved? Is it something offered by more than just one company, e.g. by some company in Japan? But OK, I accept that whatever else dr5 may be, it's a service that I'm eligible to receive if I pay for it (at least if I'm in the right place). So in one sense, it's "out there".
Now consider the quarter of Tokyo where I happen to live. It indubitably exists. It's out there. You're free to come here and walk around and verify anything I may say about it, e.g. that there's a level crossing right next to the station. However, this won't wash. I can't expect people to come here (or appeal to common knowledge hereabouts) in order to verify what I say about it, and in the same way you can't expect people to try dr5 (or appeal to common knowledge among photographers) in order for them to verify what you say about dr5.
dr5 sounds worthwhile. Good. There are disinterested, authoritative, printed sources about it, and a number of these are conveniently reproduced on the web. Good. So source every assertion you make about dr5. If you can't find a source for any assertion that nobody who knows dr5 would question, tough: that assertion gets cut out.
As for the "trade secret" stuff, the way you have presented it so far makes it sound like mere mumbo jumbo. For all I know, dr5 may indeed involve the submission to some public office of papers that the public aren't allowed to read: if an authoritative, disinterested source says so, the article can cite the source to say so; if no such source is specifically cited as saying so, readding this kind of thing is a particularly efficient way to raise red flags. -- Hoary (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The filing bit was certainly mumbo-jumbo, but there does seem to be some support in sources for the process being a trade secret. Phil, if you want your work on this topic to survive, you should be working on finding and adding such references. Unreferenced assertions are not likely to outlast your attention, but sourced stuff will typically survive well in wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dick, mumbojumbo? What classifies you as a photographic expert? I find your edit distasteful. I am familiar with this process and it's creator, are you? The darkroom cookbook is published material now in it's 3rd edition. I would consider a book listing many of the current experts in traditional photography creditable, included is Mr.Wood. have you even read the 3rd edition book? It is a current release from FOCAL PRESS. If you are not familiar with it please look it up. I have made it a mission to see this viable work get noticed and i protest an edit of viable information. How is it that Mr. Wood being listed as an industry expert and his creation in this form of processing, listed in this book in several chapters, in a world wide photographic publication be ignored in this format? please explain?? would you rather see a FOCAL PRESS link rather than the author, who in his own right deserves a wiki page as well. If you have an issue with an edit, please explain in this section 1st. A baseless edit is not respectful. This is viable information and not mumbojumbo! Pillhall (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with expertise; it's about normal wikipedia policies and style. Cite a source for what you put into the article (follow the examples of refs already there). If "Mr. Wood and dr5 are featured", then cite a source that says they're featured. Otherwise, say what the book says about them, without interpretation, and cite the book. It's not mumbo jumbo, just ordinary wiki editing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example, it would be most useful to include one of the formulas that Wood gave Anchell (mentioned here: "David Wood of .dr5 Chrome Lab worked with me on reversal processing and even provided variations of the formulas he uses"). Then instead of just being spam for the book or for the guy, your edit can be informative. Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Thanks for the tip. Yes, I am familiar with that APUG posting. There are many references to book contributions in the online encyclopedia without this formulation. can you link an example...?
obviously this book will not be online, they want the book to be sold. how do i reference the book contribution? without the link? if yes, why not edit the link instead of wiping out the whole reference? Pillhall (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your questions. But the edit you made (Mr. Wood and dr5 are featured in the just released 3rd edition of The Darkroom Cookbook, Author: "[2]"Steve Anchell.) sounds a lot like a plug. It would be much better to say something about the process, or about Mr. Wood, that it's the book, and then cite the book as verification. To say that they are "featured" is hard to verify. Write something from the content of the source, instead of plugging the source; since it's not available online, a quote from it would be useful (either in the text or in the footnote to back up what you say in the text); I can help with footnote formatting if that's an issue. Do you have the book? Dicklyon (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dicklyon. I highly protest your last edit. as a matter of fact, I dont think I understand any of your edits. you make them without explaining yourself. how is it that a world wide radio program is not a featured verified source??. if you edit this again I am going to bring several other wiki persons in on this one, you are wrong! if you want the reference reworded than reword it or say it here and i will reword it. ADDITION: I just read your note. While the text does not use the word 'creator' or 'inventor' the wording leads in that direction. ALSO if you'd listen to the program you would see this reference as well. so what was the point? Pillhall (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I put your source back with some re-wording, to try to illustrate how it can be done better; the assertions in the text really ought to be supported in the cited source. I listened to the program; it's a good show. No need to also put it as an external link. If any of my edit summaries are not clear enough, do feel free to ask. Dicklyon (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I am sorry to be such a pain, but i truly believe in this procedure, even though Mr Wood likely doesn't jump up and down at my effort. It is an amazing process. Pillhall (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see that you're excited about dr5. Please don't let your personal excitement get in the way of wikipedia policy and quality. Read up on WP:V and WP:RS and such, and try not to be a biased WP:SPA. Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Love Krittaya, DR5 the car doesn't belong on this page. Thank you. Pillhall (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move Proposal

[edit]

THIS PAGE SHOULD BE DELETED AND REPLACED WITH THIS dr5 Chrome updated name, to avoid the many dr5 name conflicts. Pillhall (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you're proposing is called an "improper move". The right way to move the article to a new name is by using the "move" button on the article (up near the "edit" button); however, now that you've created an article at dr5 Chrome, you'll get a conflict, so you've now made the easy difficult. I converted your new article to a redirect to the old. If you still think a move is in order, you'll have to do a move proposal. Try the move button; when it doesn't work, it will direct you what to do next. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. messed up! think I did it correctly the 2nd time. Pillhall (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now you moved it to dr5 chrome, with what's probably incorrect case if it's a proper name. You can still do a move request to fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dr5 chrome. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dr5 chrome. 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) 18:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dr5_chrome&oldid=1253005392"