Talk:Sepia tone

message: Grendelkhan, your revert led me to look up Wikipedia's policy on dashes.  Here's the relevant part from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) (emphasis mine):
:*Editors who do not want the bother of keying in HTML entities or prefer to maintain the readability of the wikitext are free to type their dashes in this fashion. However, subsequent editors are free to convert any double-hyphens they come across to any of the first three types described above, depending on:
:**Personal preference between en dashes and em dashes, and
:**How the hyphens were initially entered. That is, a spaced double hyphen may only be converted into a spaced em dash or a spaced en dash. The original editor's spacing preference is respected.
It turns out that we were both wrong.  I was wrong to remove the spaces on each side of the dash, but you were wrong to revert it to two hyphens.  Em and en dashes are acceptable.  If we weren't supposed to use them, why would they be in the "Insert:" box under every edit field?  There they are, right between å and [].  Okay?  —RadRafe 22:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dashes 

message: I found this picture while browsing trought commons and it just amazed me. I figured this article would be a nice place to put it as I find it not exactly apropiate for the articles related to human anatomy. I won't post it unless someone aproves first... I'll post it and see what happens, figure that if people dont like it, they'll likely remove it.Nnfolz 11:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it as not everyone may appreciate it on a page where one does not expect nudity. Plus it does not add significantly over the other images. Janderk 10:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a good picture?

message: I, and many others, remember "Sepia Tone" as a cheap way to simulate color in film. It does not necessarily have anything to do with "digital" photography. It really is a product of the 1970s that predates digital photography. I am making a few targeted edits to reflect this fact. In general I am just making the article less specific.
Beau Wilkinson  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.61.136 (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original, general, film process is documented at Photographic print toning. There is already a note to this effect at the top of this article. --Imroy 03:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be, but "sepia tone" as a term generally has been known as the film process. It is reasonable to believe that an average user searching for the phrase is not looking for the digital topic. I'd suggest that this article be moved to Digital sepia tone or something similar which makes it obvious that the article is about digital simulation techniques, and redirect Sepia tone to Photographic print toning. Does that sound reasonable? Girolamo Savonarola 21:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that makes sense. Selenium toning already redirects there, so your idea would make things more consistent. The only problem is that this article also has the section on pop culture references, which really isn't about digital toning. Perhaps it would be better to spin off the digital section into a general Digital photo toning article - then either leave the pop culture stuff here or merge it into Photographic print toning. --Imroy 02:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article should be merged into there.  The section on pop culture references is mostly unsourced trivia, which should be removed anyway.  --jacobolus (t) 18:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's also in color photography, something that has gotten lost between the two articles. "Sepia Tone" could accomplished in color photography with a colored glass or plastic filter over the lens. Merennulli (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sepia does not imply "digital"