Talk:Morris Schwartz
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
WikiProject class rating
editThis article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 00:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Contested deletion
editThis article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... it was me who created it and the mere suggestion of deletion has made me very cross the man invented a couple of things. There's a couple of assertions of notability for you. And there's no suggestion of promotionalism here as he's long dead. Sorry, can't add any more right now because (i) it's a long time since I created this and I therefore have no memory of what I've read, and (ii) I'm racing to meet a couple of deadlines. But I'll attend to it in the next couple of days. -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
"lens coupled range fliers"
editRebeccaGreen, thank you for your excellent work on this article. I'm not at all in a mood to niggle, but "lens coupled range fliers" makes no sense. What's meant is "lens coupled rangefinders". Lens coupled, because back in the thirties or forties" one might have had a separate, non-coupled rangefinder (you use it to get two images to coincided exactly, it tells you that the distance is X metres, you swivel the lens (or a single lens element) to the X metre setting); whereas with a "(lens-) coupled" rangefinder, as you swivel the lens (element) toward the right distance setting, the two images in the rangefinder gradually coincide. I don't have access to the source that you cite, and so don't know: should this be "lens coupled rangefinders" or "lens coupled [rangefinders]"? -- Hoary (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Hoary, I have just checked the source, and that's exactly as it was printed, so I have added "[sic]" after the fliers! (I accessed it through Newspapers.com, which is a subscription site.) There appear to be more sources in books and contemporary journals, from what I can see on a Google Books search, but hopefully what I've added will be enough to keep the article here (I've just added a few more, too). Perhaps another source will also list what the award was for, more accurately than this one seems to have done? RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)