Jump to content

Talk:Photograph: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
96854253.8
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1: Line 1:
Akhilesh Kumar Gupta


== Photograph (Definition) ==
== Photograph (Definition) ==

Revision as of 01:48, 13 March 2020

Akhilesh Kumar Gupta

Photograph (Definition)

A photograph is an image created using a record of light falling on a light-sensitive surface, usually photographic film or an electronic imager such as a CCD or a CMOS chip.

Disambiguation

I felt this article needed a link to a full disambiguation page, rather than calling out one or two other possibilities in the header. So, I created Photograph (disambiguation) and put everything in there I could think of. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

Ths History section does not say a lot abotu when the first photograph was made, or anything about pre-photograph technology.

Skunk Ape fiction

The "skunk ape" is so totally fake!!!!!!!!!!!I don't know why anybody believes in this guy/girl who basically runs around in the woods grunting and monkeying around and to explain the disgusting stench that is probably some really bad cologn/perfume.Don't believe anything you hear about this monkey!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.3.114.161 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Vandalism

Someone has clearly vandalized this page, but has blocked anyone from editing it. This article should be flagged and restricted.

Same here... this always happens every now and again... Factual80man

Vandalism

Someone needs to unblock and fix this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.9.176.30 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What is the vandalism? It looks like people can edit it fine to me. Recury 16:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This always happens by all these unregistered idiots who blank our useful articles and write trash. But why won't they get blocked permanently? That's the only way to defend Wikipedia. Factual80man

Sources

(1) Unless there's some rule I'm not aware of, the sources for an article should be in the article itself. Claiming in an edit summary that the sources are all in linked articles, besides being hard to easily verify, isn't sufficient.

(2) I don't believe everything is sourced, even by the above method. Шизомби 22:19, 4 March 20