Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography/History of Photography/Archive/2007

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

Notability criteria for photographers

[edit]

I've arrogantly stolen and substantially altered Pinkville's list. I hope that he doesn't (you don't) mind.

One major change is removal of the "Che Guevara" criterion. Eudora Welty and Claude Simon are hugely better known as writers than as photographers. But there are books of their photos, so they're in. It's widely believed that the British Queen Liz II takes photos; as long as these are not seen by the rest of the world, she's no more notable a photographer than I am. (I'm not knocking her: I'm willing to believe that she's better than me.) -- Hoary 12:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, and the changes are for the better. Pinkville 14:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would American combat photographers whos work was in many newpapers and which captured many memorable moments of a war (WWII in the case i'm discussing) be appropriate? I would assume yes - or do i need to provide samples for approval? The other steve jobs 17:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Template-splattering

[edit]

[comment moved from the project page:] All the articles listed above have now had the template added. But there are more to come! Pinkville 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template needs to be splattered on a lot of article talk pages. When you've checked that all of a list or category of articles has been splattered, please list it below. If you add an article to the project page, please make sure that you've added a template to the talk page of the article itself.

Already splattered with templates

[edit]

Quality of article, importance of topic

[edit]

Quality of article

[edit]

In the section above titled "Hello", Badbilltucker discreetly recommends adoption of the 1.0 assessment system: Doing so is both useful for your project and wikipedia as a whole, in that it helps you and others help determine which are the best articles, and which ones are closest to Wikipedia:Featured article and Wikipedia:Good article status. Having quickly reread what's written about the assessment system, I strongly agree. Does anyone disagree? -- Hoary 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following a perfunctory discussion below, it's already set up and running. -- Hoary 05:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotlists

[edit]

(In the sense of "lists of subjects that probably deserve articles")

It would be useful to have lists of photographers (etc) covered by such works as the Oxford Companion to the Photograph. I'm not sure about the legality of copying in lists that have been composed for copyright books; I suspect that these are copyright. While I'm confused, I'll just say that the editor 20th Century (Zenhan) Art, who unfortunately hasn't been active here for some months, has created a list of the 328 photographers in 日本写真家事典 (an excellent dictionary of Japanese photographers). Its legality aside, it should be used with some care as although the names are in the Wikipedia-approved but dreadful Hepburn romanization it skips macrons. Also, the list doesn't put the names of people born after the Meiji "restoration" back to front, to accord with sclerotic prejudices and a daft WP rule. Thus for example NAITO Tadayuki ("209. NAITO Tadayuki, b. 1941 (内藤忠行, ないとう ただゆき)") should be "Tadayuki Naitō". And User:20th Century (Zenhan) Art presents other, shorter hotlists on his user page. -- Hoary 00:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldnt copy lists like that wholesale I think - the wikipedia missing articles went through this decision process and decided not to. Its very unclear though so dont worry about the existing one, but its best to not post more. I should get a copy of the Oxford Companion I guess. Justinc 08:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement drive

[edit]

Now

[edit]

I've just now gone through much of Henri Cartier-Bresson, and I hope to continue. It has the makings of a "Good Article", but there's a lot to be done. Some I can easily change, e.g. the chummy way in which it describes the photographer as "Henri". Others I can't, notably sourcing of all the quotations. Those of you with books about HCB, please pitch in. -- Hoary 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the period of over one month since those three were selected, progress on each has been massively underwhelming. Suggestion: we demote any two of them to "Later" and concentrate on just the one. Any nomination for which one of the three should stay in [what's labeled as] the express lane? -- Hoary 06:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more... we should just focus on one for now and see if that gets us anywhere. I prefer both Cartier-Bresson and Photojournalism to Link (they seem more important, generally speaking), but I don't particularly care which of the two! — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 09:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since work has already been undertaken on the Cartier-Bresson article, and since biographies are usually easier to tackle than more general and theoretical articles like Photojournalism, let's deal with him first. Pinkville 13:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. Unfortunately I lack any book that says anything substantive about HCB. I'm very wary of most web sources as I get the impression that HCB is the subject of various myths. (Certainly I've seen some bizarre statements confidently made about him, agreed with, and only later debunked.) -- Hoary 10:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later

[edit]

Photographers

[edit]

Please add any name after considering the critical reputation, or at least fame, of the photographer, or the quality (or ease of improvement) of the existing article, and please explain it on the discussion page. Let's not forget the earliest, the most recent, those whose work is published primarily or exclusively with texts in languages other than English. And let's keep the number of FA/GA-wannabes well under fifty, so that this list is inspiring rather than dispiriting.

Notable Photographs

[edit]

Notable Exhibitions and Photobooks

[edit]

Processes

[edit]

Techniques

[edit]

Equipment

[edit]

[please don't add individual products or brands]

History

[edit]

[History of photography in various countries]

Theory

[edit]
[Representation (arts) and photography]
[Realism and photography]
[Feminism and photography]
Photojournalism (listed Nov '06)

Theorists, historians, curators and collectors of photography

[edit]

Photographs

[edit]

Kiss

[edit]

I've started to look through Category:Photographs. Seeing Kiss (photograph) listed among them, I immediately thought of two or three likely choices. It turned out to be none of these, and instead something that strikes me as entirely forgettable. No claim is made for its quality, rather, it's said to be very popular. Is there anything to this? -- Hoary 04:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the image, it enjoyed some 'popularity' on Google for a while. I have the vague recollection that it was part of an advertising campaign for something or other. Does any of that make it notable or worthwhile? I doubt it. Unless we wnat to have WP articles on any photograph that's making the rounds at any given time. On the other hand Robert Doisneau's Kiss would make sense! Pinkville 13:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pond-Moonlight

[edit]

I just went ahead and created The Pond-Moonlight because I happened to have a high-quality JPEG on my hard disk and noticed it was on our list of notable photographs (scroll up on this talk page). I don't actually know much about the photo, though, so it's just a stub until someone wants to write something! — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 05:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photobook

[edit]

I think there is value in bringing up articles on influential photobooks. Wiki only has a few articles on these books, which I find to be appropriate. I'm not suggesting that we create a lot more of these, but I do think we should capture some information on the really critical books that influenced future photographers. I've added a new section above and listed the top two books that came to mind: The Americans and The Family of Man. TheMindsEye 17:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographic processes

[edit]

In splattering templates on the articles listed in this category, three main issues came to mind: 1) at least half the articles were apparently written under a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term photographic process (to wit: "procedures by which light-sensitive materials are made to produce an image" ~ The Getty), 2) at least half the articles have been substantially or entirely lifted from other sources, and 3) many of those articles that aren't mere copy/paste jobbies (actually, also many that are) are very poorly written. Another issue that may be worth considering is that of how to deal with proprietary photographic processes when different brand names essentially duplicate the properties of each other but have been given separate articles... Pinkville 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a related but separate note, I don't believe it's necessary to add templates to the articles on photographic chemicals since they really are more concerned with issues in chemistry than photography. Pinkville 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of the miscategorization problems have to do with the fact that the inclusion criteria aren't very clear. With that category, if you don't know that definition of photographic process, the name must seem pretty vague. Category:Photographic techniques has the exact same problem. I've used your definition to write at the top some criteria for the category. I think if we go through that category really good and take out the stuff that doesn't belong, we won't have this problem in the future. Recury 17:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In fact, the Getty definition I linked above includes a useful definition of photographic techniques that could be placed in the latter Category page. I'll do that myself. Pinkville 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which ones are copy/paste? We should delete/rewrite them urgently. I have references for many processes so could work on this... Justinc 08:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo Farsari

[edit]

The Adolfo Farsari article is about ready for renomination to FA (thanks almost exclusively to Pinkville). Before it's renominated, others here are warmly invited to give it a once-over. -- Hoary 05:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collodion process

[edit]

Would you guys be willing to take a look at Collodion process? There's been some odd stuff going on recently, in which the entire article was replaced with a different, largely how-to one. I've cleaned up as best I could, but there seem to be some unresolved issues about the distinction between wet and dry plates. I'd be grateful for an expert eye; thanks. Chick Bowen 05:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photoclinometry

[edit]

I created Photoclinometry a while ago. It was recently nominated a photography-related stub. I was thinking of adding a picture example..which I do not personally have. Could anyone also look at the page to see if anything is missing or how to make the article better? Icez 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


George Eastman House

[edit]

I serve as webmaster for the George Eastman House, and I believe we can help contribute content for this project, as we have similar internal efforts with wiki stuff in the field of photographic conservation.

We're in the final stages of putting an educational resource online, known as Discovery Kits. We're still working a few bugs out, however, there is a wealth of content on a wide range of subjects involving photography and in particular, photographs as objects of cultural heritage and significance. If anyone has some ideas as to how we can more directly contribute, I'd be happy to try and make that happen. Rpd9803 09:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramic photography

[edit]

There are several well known photographers who specialized in pano photos, dating back to the mid 1800's. Techniques included balloons, kites, and very tall poles (I remember seeing one vintage photo of a famous pano photographer standing on top of a wooden pole about 30 feet in the air by his farm house!) Would a stub or section on tis be appropriate? ie: http://www.bigshotz.co.nz/images/vaniman1.jpg melvin vaniman --Rickdrew 05:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created and am working on the page for "Melvin Vaniman" - comments and suggestions welcomed.

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion, but there already is an article on Panoramic photography (which still needs much improvement). As for Melvin Vaniman, well go for it! Pinkville 00:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really fascinated by him, and he is recognized as one of the pioneers of wide angle / pano photography. He has special sections at the Library of Congress and government collections in Australia and New Zealand, as well as state collections in Hawaii. As for the Pano section, I agree. It's really non-specific - plus is a lot of duplication in other pano areras on the Wiki. --Rickdrew 03:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Le Secq

[edit]

I have recently created Henri Le Secq article and needed some opinion on it as I am not an expert on photography history. STTW (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start on a very important early photographer. Obviously more can be added and some rewriting is necessary, but a good start. If you like, I'll join in on expanding it in the next few days. Pinkville 12:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photographic process

[edit]

Thanks for the help, Pinkville. Le Secq used salt negative process some call it wax negative process, it is one and the same thing? STTW (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology in the early years of photography can be confusing. Basically, salt-paper photography began earlier than wax-paper photography, but the two were used together (e.g. in this salt print from waxed-paper negative). Salt-paper photography, though, refers to the prints, not the process (which was usually the Calotype process) - it's a bit like the distinction between colour film photography and Kodak paper... Wax was sometimes applied to calotype negatives after they'd been exposed and fixed, but Le Gray refined the process and used wax before exposure - resulting in better definition of the final image. Unfortunately, people tend to be very loose in describing the techniques used by early photographers, but suffice it to say, Le Secq did use wax paper negatives to produce salt-paper prints. Hope that makes sense. Pinkville 13:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Jindřich Šechtl

[edit]

I am (with help of John Titchener) now trying to expand stub on Josef Jindřich Šechtl into full sized article. Part of motivation is need to write biography on the planned exhibition of his Leica photography works. Opinions are very welcome. --Honza 15:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to be mostly done with putting together the most important facts. I don't feel competent to judge quality of the work, so I've just quoted small comment from Pavel Scheufler's biography on portrait work of Josef Jindřich Šechtl. How the article reads and what are the main problems?

--Honza 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I didn't notice your posting of 31 March (and that nobody responded to it here). I've just had a quick look through the article and I'm very impressed. I hope to write more on the article's talk page sometime tomorrow or the day after. -- Hoary 13:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to references for Beaumont Newhall article

[edit]

The web domain name livingtreasures.kxx.com is no longer valid. Please now use sflivingtreasures.org Thank you. Sflivingtreasures 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Scope question

[edit]

Does every notable photographer belong as part of the HOP project? That is, is the criterion for biographical notability all that is needed to be part of the history project, or should they be more historically relevant for that? Dicklyon 18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take "biographical notability" to mean photographic notability.
(Some people have suggested, apparently in all seriousness, that because the British queen is famous, has been seen toting this or that camera, and presumably uses the camera, she's a photographer of note -- even though the fruits have never been viewed by her loyal subjects. This I reject. I'm open to the possibility that, in the manner of Lartigue, she'll suddenly unwrap a private portfolio to critical acclaim; but till this happens she doesn't interest me or, I think, most of the participants in this rather somnolent "project".)
Photographic notability is tough too. I'm sure each of us can name one or two photographers whose critical acclaim, publishability or income is a mystery or blackly humorous. To avoid a flamewar, I'll refrain from listing my own Top Five Photographic Phonies. Yet each of the five has an article on WP, an article that I'm willing to defend against vandalism and to whose discussion page I'm happy to have the WP HOP template attached. A decade or two from now, either (a) changes in tastes will vindicate my skepticism and the article will survive as a monument to critical or consumer stupidity, or (b) I'll actually be proved wrong (a rare occurrence, but not unknown).
So a photographer is notable if their photography is notable in terms of demonstrable critical acclaim, books whose photographs are of some interest beyond their subject matter, exhibitions, newsworthiness, technical innovation, or some combination thereof.
Which photographers were pivotal in photographic history? It's hard to say. Take Cartier Bresson as an example of a supremely obvious "historic" figure: It's easy to think that photography would have developed differently (or indeed less) without him; but I suspect that the conditions (camera technology, periodical and book printing technology, appetites) were ripe for somebody with the undeniable genius of a Cartier Bresson, and that if he hadn't existed a bit more attention would have been paid to some of his contemporaries and the course (?) of photography as a whole wouldn't have been much affected.
Instead of demanding any importance to the subsequent flow of photographic history, I just think of the photographers who might appear in others' intelligently compiled histories of photography. The history needn't be concise or introductory; for example, I've got several (partial) histories of photography in Japan alone, and I think almost every Japanese photographer whose WP bio I've worked on makes at least a fleeting appearance in at least one of these.
(Kensuke Kazama is an exception I can think of offhand; his acclaim is simply too new for him to appear in any of the histories that I possess, but he'd very likely be mentioned in a history published this year or next. It's also true that a number of people on whom printed histories linger -- Natori, Domon, Tōmatsu, etc -- are still missing from WP. This is very sad. Well, anyone is welcome to create articles for them. )
I hope this longwinded screed manages to present something that's not only my own PoV but also not too far divorced from what others here think. -- Hoary 02:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hoary, I get that your position is that all photographically notable people belong in the HOP project. As you know, it's not what I was expecting of this project, and I'm still looking for other opinions. Dicklyon 02:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the weeks go by. . . . I think I might have mentioned that this "project" is a somnolent one. Come back a year from now; there might be a third opinion for you by then! -- Hoary 23:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several more weeks go by... There's no need for me to echo Hoary's careful and reasoned comments, so I'll just add a point or two of my own. This Project isn't intended to focus only on biography, and it need not adhere to a historian's or historicist's orientation (the Project name came about primarily because WP:Photography was already taken, and that Project's focus is more narrowly confined to articles on photographic equipment and techniques, etc.). In my view, this project could be beneficial in encouraging and aiding the creation/improvement of articles on any aspect of photography. The apparent emphasis on biographies has come about because the most active members of the Project have (for whatever reasons) been primarily working on biographies. I have chosen to work on the biographies of photographers who are fairly obscure... so the link to history has to do with my wish to wedge their careers and work back into history. Ultimately, I'd like to see some comprehensive articles that deal with broader themes and issues in photography, but creating the biographies of the photographers that need to be discussed in such articles is a necessary first step. Pinkville 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also true that a number of people on whom printed histories linger -- Natori, Domon, Tōmatsu, etc -- are still missing from WP. Tōmatsu now has a very scrappy start to an article. -- Hoary 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking comments on a peer review

[edit]

Hello, historians of photography. I recently filed a request for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sheldon Dick/archive1, on an article I've recently written, Sheldon Dick. I haven't gotten any responses (not atypical), and I was wondering whether anyone here would be interested in commenting. Dick was a Farm Security Administration photographer. You can ignore the questions if you like; any feedback would be helpful. Thanks! Chick Bowen 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the most unlikely article. Despite not being a member of the peerage, I've commented. -- Hoary 13:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your great comments. I've responded there is some detail. Chick Bowen 15:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs needed:

[edit]

Okay, I've been expanding the article André Kertész significantly (please try not to alter it too much, it's a work in progress - see the talk page...) and after the only picture in the article was removed due to copyright violations, the article looks rather bare. I'd appreciate any photographs to do with Andre Kertesz - it would help a lot & I'm sure there'd be a barn star at the end of the road since he's a difficult subject. On another note, since some of his work was created ages ago, am I allowed to include them in the article or are they bound by some sort of copyright? I know older pictures are allowed, but would these count? Any info & pictures that are legal would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Spawn Man 09:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Konica and Minolta

[edit]

Another editor -- not me -- has proposed that Konica and Minolta should be merged within Konica Minolta. I can't find any argument for this proposal. (My own comment is on Talk:Konica.) -- Hoary 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Konica and Minolta started off as separate companies and now, since Sony has acquired Konica Minolta, I'm not too sure about this proposal so I vote "No" on merging.--MurderWatcher1 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the preferred method would be to have Konica and Minolta discuss each of their respective companies prior to the merger, and then have the Konica Minolta article cover from the merger onwards. Girolamo Savonarola 17:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Proprietary) list of (fairly) contemporary photographers

[edit]

I've just come across this list for the first time. I noticed a very few spelling mistakes, and there are problems about diacritics and alternative romanizations, but it looks useful. I wonder about copyright issues, though. If it's OK to do so, I'd like to copy it into a subpage here, and, with the help of others, eventually link (mostly in red) to the photographers. -- Hoary 11:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names of WP Projects: Photography & History of Photography

[edit]

This discussion began on my talk page, so I've moved it here since it might be of interest to everyone involved in the project. I've left out the parts of the discussion that relate to other matters. Pinkville 01:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I think that WP Photography is probably wrongly named, because that project is really a Wikipedia maintenance project (expanding articles with photos), whereas a WikiProject bearing that name should be about editing the articles covering the subject of photography - which I presume is why HoP was created. Ideally, I think you HoP guys should be allowed to take that name, while the Photography project should be renamed something like WP Article Photography or WP Wiki Photography - or perhaps even consider merging with WP Illustration, which functions to maintain all images within the wiki and is still a very active project. Not certain what your thoughts are on the matter, but I hope that we are somewhat of the same mind, since it's irksome that you guys at HoP were forced to chose a name that's slightly too specific. Anyway, best of luck and hope to talk soon! Girolamo Savonarola 17:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... I agree completely, it's a shame such a [WP] specific project came to use the most general term imaginable. But since that's the case, I think it would be more trouble than it's worth to refine the two projects' names, diverting our respective energies from proceeding with the projects themselves. Thanks for the thoughtful note. Until next time! Pinkville 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, then! Having had to populate a project with talk page templates myself, I completely understand. As far as the project names go...would you mind if I kicked up a fuss, then? I do understand the desire to keep the energies well-focused, but I think that this is worth it for several reasons - possible merging of Photography with Illustration (also regrettably misnamed), avoiding HoP having a dispute about scope with someone on the basis that its name implies a limited scope to history, and ease of use for editors, amongst many others. Girolamo Savonarola 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... I agree with your reasoning, but I'm still leary about the effort that may be required (if name changes were accepted) to change all the implicated links in these two projects. But then, maybe there are programming and mark-up short cuts that I (not surprisingly) know nothing about that would expedite such a process... Why don't we... see what others think, and then approach the WP Project: Photography folks if necessary. Thanks again for your helpful thoughts and suggestions. Pinkville 00:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the more general title should apply to the HoP project as it is broader in scope. I would want to make this change with as little controversy as possible. I don't think we should usurp the title of the other project without their consent and agreement. Also, I want to make sure our limited time is spent improving the articles and adding knowlege to Wiki, not making purely formatting changes. SteveHopson 01:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Steve, but I'd go further. ¶ Every day for the last week I've carried a little digicam around with me (in addition to the one in my phone, I mean), and I bought a sparkling new lens just yesterday. Thus I'm just another pathetic male toy-collector/nerd, really. I rather like my digicam. It's an example of a kind of camera that has historical significance. But I doubt that the particular model has any historical significance whatever. <span class="pipedream">Given 60 hours in the day and the post of general editorship of the world's biggest ever encyclopedia of photography,</span> I'd allocate no space to the particular model of digicam that I use. While I wouldn't rush to send a WP article about it to AfD, I'd be prejudiced against such an article and I certainly have no intention of creating one myself. But this is just the kind of article that I can easily imagine swamping WP-HOP-renamed-as-WP-Photography: see List of Canon products, for example. There's nothing wrong with writing articles about (some) cameras (and indeed I've done so myself at Camerapedia); but partly inspired by an essay by Ken Rockwell, I happen to think that it's handy to separate (a) photographs and photography from (b) the particular tools used for it. If this separation persists (and I understand that it may be controversial), then "Photography" would be a misnomer for the former half of it, and "History of Photography" seems as good a term as any. Moreover, I suspect that it may be a good term for the way its very title implies a test of significance: No, we don't care if this or that photograph or photographer or whatever was mentioned in such-and-such an episode of The Simpsons. ¶ But perhaps I'm wrong, and there should be a Grand Unified WikiProject about photography. I wouldn't mind that much if it were a fait accompli by other, more energetic people; however, I am unexcited by the idea of changing lots of templates, etc., by hand. I've never used a bot, am not keen to read about how to use one, and get the impression that most bots use Windows, which I no longer bother to use. ¶ So all in all I have no enthusiasm for a change. -- Hoary 08:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • More agreement. I don't have a problem with the name History of Photography anyway, but think it's unfortunate that - in my view - the Project Photography is misnamed, and would probably have been better off as Wikipedia photographs or Wikipedia images, but c'est la vie. The project names are less important than careful descriptions of their missions, etc. The important issue is the public content, not the backstage form. Pinkville 16:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving - I'd just like to point out things like what's recently happened in Talk:Raw image format - where the WikiProject tag was changed to WP Photography before being reverted by me - as an example of why the project name is not a frivolous issue, and how the confusion not only has the potential, but is actively hurting this project due to good faith edits detagging its articles. I am not a project member, but I feel the need to reassert that this seems grievously in error. Girolamo Savonarola 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A similar problem happened on another page, where I reverted a revert before learning that Wikiproject Photography is about article photos, not about photography. I haven't read all above but quick scan didn't reveal a specific new name proposal, so if there's one, I suggest you repeat it. I'd suggest moving Wikiproject Photography to Wikiproject Photo Requests or something like that, and make a new Wikiproject Photography to work on articles on (non-historical) photography topics. Dicklyon 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue (as far as I can observe) is that though the project scope as discussed on the main page is not technical bits, the discussions and tags seem to indicate otherwise. Which is fine. I don't think that there need to be two projects for "historical" photography and everything else; one can always create task forces for sub-sections. Girolamo Savonarola 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any inherent need for a division between (potentially) historical photography and other photography, but I also haven't seen much desire from people wanting to write about (say) reciprocity failure or CCDs that this Project should let them in and be renamed accordingly.
My own guess is that a Project that encompassed photography would be overrun by people obsessed with the trivial details of their digicams, but perhaps I'm too pessimistic. -- Hoary 06:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not qualified to speculate on that, but my main point is that this project's title was fabricated out of a need to not occupy the name already taken by WP Photography. And I think most of us can agree that WP Photography should not by the title of the project currently taking up the space, which does not actually maintain photography articles of any sort, historical or not. Girolamo Savonarola 06:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their use of that name does seem odd to me. But they have it. If they want to change from it, they're free to do so (as far as I'm concerned). This project might then change its name. (But who'd change all the templates? I don't run a bot, and I'm sure I don't want to do even a small percentage of it by hand.) -- Hoary 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs massive template change - the template code needs changing, but there's no need to change the template name immediately. (Or ever - it could just redirect to a new template name.) Anyway, I've heard no major objections yet, and I've heard nothing from WP Photography. If they have nothing to say, then I'm gonna follow the silence implies consent rule and start implementing. Hopefully that will at least out anyone wishing to oppose this via ignoring the question. I'll give it a week. Girolamo Savonarola 18:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how keen I feel about Wikiproject Photo Requests as that function is already being explicitly handled by {{reqphoto}}. However, I absolutely agree that something should be done to liven up the otherwise largely inactive WP:FOTO. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with being called that - many WikiProjects serve to actually organize the work collected by the template tagging. But if the name isn't acceptable, I'm happy to leave the decision for others as to what the new name for the current Photography project should be, but it seems that consensus is that it shouldn't remain as is. Girolamo Savonarola 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that that project describes itself as being concerned with all images, I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia images would be the most suitable name. I would expect a project named as such to be about photography articles, not internal matters. Furthermore, I don't like to see an internal project (albeit a very important one) displace a mainspace oriented project to an equally unsuitable name. Richard001 09:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the only real problem here is that there aren't enough active contributors to the WP Photography project to fulfill the scope that the all-embracing title suggests. If this were the case I believe the "name" issue would be resolved, as all photography-related wiki-activity could be covered and coordinated from the one project. As I noted on the WP:PHOTO talk page, earlier discussions on this issue came down to four main points of consensus (see the discussion for details) proposing that:

  • the project (WP:PHOT) be solely concerned with encouraging quality photo content on the encyclopedia, ie. other stuff belongs in other projects;
  • Other projects (like HoP) function as sub-projects, dealing with topics and issues too in-depth for the main project page;
  • the project centralise currently diverse activity to galvanise collaborative activity;
  • Keep track of the wiki's regular photographers and keep them informed of developments, improvement drives, etc.

It seems to me the HoP name sugegests a too-narrow scope and it's this which causes the majority of confusion with category tags etc. Where HoP-scope articles are often over-technical or otherwise non-historical, it might suggest the need for another sub-project rather than a problem with the name of the main project; as it's a really diverse topic/activity, the ideal here IMO is a centralised project team contracted out, so to speak, to the various aspects of wiki photo-activity. In any event, the most workable solution is always the one that creates the least work, so any re-naming of existing activities probably a non-starter. --mikaultalk 17:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the thing is that (AFAIK) WP Photo never had any mandate or desire to handle anything other than what can be classified as a meta-project - maintenance and creation of photos for usage in articles of all stripes. It had no aspirations for article creation, in other words, and in another measure, probably would not have any method or call to do assessments. This is fine, and there's nothing wrong with that. The only problem is their annexation of the WP Photography name, which I would gather is why this project currently bears the awkward onus of being called HoP, and all the attendant confusion wrought from this.
Therefore, the compelling question in my mind is - is there any explicit reason why WP Photo should not have its name changed, and so, what? Otherwise, we might as well do it - there seems to be little argument with the idea, just no one wants to deal with it. I am happy to, however. Girolamo Savonarola 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's cool. I assume that in "dealing with it" you're happy to take on the template changes etc involved..?
The only real issue I have with all this is that there's a dire need to properly organise image use across the encyclopedia, and on the face of it this would appear to detract from that: maybe what we have here is an opportunity to relaunch that effort under its new moniker. I'm thinking of stuff like Wikipedia:Graphic Lab, commons:Commons:Picture requests, Category:Wikipedia requested images and Wikipedia:Requested_pictures which are hopelessly uncoordinated, such that willing contributors (like me) spend more time trawling around than contributing. I got onto the case following this discussion and like many there, I'd like to see the meta stuff like this (as well as WP:FP and WP:FPC) be handled in a much more organised manner. A name change won't help this at all unless it includes a serious attempt to bring it all together. WikiProject Images would, I agree, describe the activity better than WikiProject Photography currently does, but it needs much more than an honorary title with which to dispatch it to the back burner. It needs setting up as a kind of internal portal where wikiphotographers and editors in general can quickly find the resources they need and/or provide those resources in a timely manner. --mikaultalk 14:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where to move to?

[edit]

Another question raised above is, if we move WP HoP to WP Photography, where should the content currently on WP Photography move to? Some suggestions above:

  • WP article photography
  • WP Wikipedia photography
  • WP Wikipedia photographs
  • WP Wikipedia images
  • WP photo requests
  • WP images

Personally, I think I'd favor images, since Wikipedia ____ may imply only photographs of Wikipedia or something equally confusing to some readers. (And it avoids self-reference.) Although "images" technically may apply to illustrations, animations, and maps. On the other hand, there's no reason why images couldn't incorporate all of these projects together as a single project with task forces for each of these particular types of image - in fact, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea, since it would allow for more cross-participation and awareness. However, that obviously will need discussion with those projects, although it doesn't prevent a putative WP Images from covering only photos for the meantime. Girolamo Savonarola 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any suggestion that the topic covers anything but internal management of Wikimedia images/photos, so I can't see how a WikiProject on photography is a daughter project of it. It does need to clarify its scope though - either it's images in general or just photos. Images in general may be better, with photos, maps etc as subprojects or work groups as you suggested. They're all working towards the same goal of improving Wikipedia's images.
I think Wikiproject Photos, Images or Wikipedia images/photos would be good names. I would only suggest using the Wikipedia prefix if there are potential article oriented projects it could clash with. I don't think there is any problem with self references in project names; WikiProjects themselves are self-references. Richard001 23:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Images is the obvious choice. I'd support some kind of merge or cooperation with WikiProject Illustration, come to that. --mikaultalk 14:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. At the start of this section: Another question raised above is, if we move WP HoP to WP Photography, where should the content currently on WP Photography move to? ... I agree that "WikiProject Photography" seems an odd name for what it does, but its oddness doesn't bother me and I suspect it doesn't bother so many other people either. Still, if you want to rename what's now "WikiProject Photography" to something else and get agreement for this, that's perfectly fine with me. (But why are you asking about it here?)
If what's now "WikiProject Photography" is renamed, then a renaming of what's now "History of Photography" might be considered. But the more I think of it, the happier I am with the name "WikiProject History of Photography", and the warier I am of having it renamed "WikiProject Photography".
However, the discussion here seems to have twisted this, suggesting that that the project that has appropriated the name "Photography" should relinquish its name toot sweet. I disagree. WikiProject Photography has that name and as far as I'm concerned it's welcome either to change from it or to retain it. You're very welcome to persuade it to change, but it seems bizarre to use this as the place to do it. And if it does relinquish its name, I'm not going to rush to have this project adopt the name. -- Hoary 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel no need for a name - or names - change(s). If there's confusion regarding the purposes of these two Projects I can't see that the project names are the fundamental reason - people ought to actually read the Project pages to understand what they're about. And, like Hoary, I have come to like History of Photography, a name that suits the orientation of the project quite well. Note that history doesn't end at some point 50-odd years ago (for instance), but continues to the present, and it covers a variety of subject matter, from biographies, to techniques, to theory, etc. Finally, my impression of current WP events is that there's now much more effort on the part of editors and administrators on meta-issues and the workings, etc. of Wikipedia itself and much less on the content of the encyclopedia; personally, I don't want to spend any more time than I have to behind the scenes (admittedly, I haven't been particularly active in any aspect of Wikipedia for the past few months, but you never know, that might change...). Pinkville 22:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]

Please remove mention of an article from which the PROD template is removed, or which is deleted.


Three hundred or so substubs on Japanese photographers

[edit]

Really.

If you look at this list, you'll see them. Every article marked "BGSS" is a bot-generated substub (or was when last examined). True, there aren't many of them. But most of the blue links marked "NC" are also bot-generated substubs. Moreover, most of the red links marked "NC" too have macronless equivalents that are bot-generated substubs: thus redlinked Shimamura Hōkō probably means that there's a substub titled Shimamura Hoko that ought to be retitled Shimamura Hōkō.

I don't know what to do about these.

There's also an issue over naming. Aside from the occasional slip, the names are all the right way around. However, our beloved en:WP has a Manual of Style that dictates that Japanese people born after 1867 must have their names the wrong way around. (Intercoursing stupid, if you ask me, and in contravention of scholarly western practice, let alone Japanese practice.) I've raised this matter over at WP Japan. If you have a comment on the naming, better do so there; if you have a comment other than on the naming, feel free to make it there, here, or both. Thank you! -- Hoary 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craziness. I don't think a bot should be in the business of deciding who is notable or renowned, and creating new articles; just because a photographer appears in a compilation of "outstanding" photographers does not mean he is notable per wikipedia guidelines. Is there any policy about this? Can we make a bot to fix it? Dicklyon 14:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia guidelines for notability are, as we both know, problematic. Read them one way and they're extraordinarily strict. But then they're "merely" guidelines and therefore (some people claim) can be blithely ignored. (Meanwhile, nobody gets away with questioning the notability of the most trivial aspects of "popular culture" for juvenile consumption, and I'm inclined to think that just about any photographer is more notable than this or that spaceship or planet or whatever that makes a fleeting appearance in Final Fantasy, the Neverending Story Part 43 (Platinum Edition).) I think that your position and mine on notability differ and don't much want to get into an argument about it here: I'll merely say that even if a particular person does merit an article, I don't see why he or she merits one that says no more than what's already in some list. (Deleting a substub doesn't prejudice the fate of a real article on the same subject.) I can't make a bot to fix this; perhaps you can. If you did make one, I'd prefer that it fixed the substubs by redirecting each to a list article in article space than that it added prod notices. The list article doesn't exist but I could make it rather quickly from a list that I've already made for Project purposes. Still, I wouldn't much mind if the bot simply added prod notices to all the substubs and waited for them to die a natural death -- though, please, it should refrain from deleting what aren't stubs. -- Hoary 16:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do bots, but maybe someone who does will follow your suggestions. As to your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument with respect to so-called popular culture, I agree, but I give it no weight. Dicklyon 16:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've slept on it and can't think of any good reason even for redirects. The whole lot can be prodded and die a natural death. I hope that most will later be revived -- by one thinking human or other. -- Hoary 01:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Had I seen this earlier I'd have been saved an evening's work. One has been prodded already, but as (amazingly) it was a name I'd come across before I've been busy trying to make the article presentable. Perhaps you'd care to help? Paularblaster (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More than one have been prodded: I know, as I've deprodded and then hurriedly developed at least two myself (Ken Domon and Ei-Q). I think you're referring to Naitō Tadayuki and its AfD rather than prod. Yes, I'll attend to that article, but a day's worth of paid work will unfortunately have to come first. (I have done a few of these already, y'know.) You may also be interested by this and its talk page, and this. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

collaboration of the history projects

[edit]

Hi, I'm newly appointed coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject History. I was coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject Military History before. My scope is to improve the cooperation among the different history projects andf use the synergy of a common infrastructure to improve article quality. One idea would be to merge small project into a larger wikiproject history with a common infrastructure and the small projects continuing independently as task forces of this project. What are your suggestions? Greetings Wandalstouring 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very worthy, I'm sure; but phrased so abstractly that I don't know what it means. Moreover, if you define "history" so widely that it includes the history of photography (which continues to this day), then "history" would seem to include at least half of what's in WP. -- Hoary 15:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, what I wrote a few hours ago is already history... No, seriously, we could do with a cut between historic photography and recent photography, for example, but that definition is not my scope, rather yours and whether you can work under the umbrella of a history project. Wandalstouring 17:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naitō Tadayuki

[edit]

The stub Naitō Tadayuki has been put up for deletion. I've tried an emergency rewrite, but it doesn't really camouflage my own ignorance of photography. Can somebody with knowledge come and take a look at it? Paularblaster (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed this message earlier. But I got the message elsewhere. I'm happy that the article was rescued. (On a personal note, I've looked long and hard at Naitō's zebra-motif works and they leave me utterly blank. So I didn't contribute to the rescue the article as a matter of personal taste.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"needs-infobox=yes"

[edit]

My watchlist shows me the recent addition to some talk pages of minor variations on the following:

{{WPBiography |needs-infobox=yes |needs-photo=yes |listas=Kim, Miru}}

(my emphasis), adding the page to Category:Biography articles without infoboxes.

I imagine that there are various opinions on biographical "infoboxes". My own can easily be expressed in terms whose primary meanings relate to the lower reaches of the alimentary canal; I wonder how unusual they are hereabouts.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes tells us that:

Certain biography articles have opposition camps on infoboxes. With the current work groups, it is generally safe, but, for instance, scientist articles can have some heated debates on these.

"Scientist articles" would seem to come under Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia. Not so surprisingly, there's no Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Photography. I wouldn't be surprised if Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment said that photography is an Art and stuck Template:Infobox Artist or Template:Infobox Person or some new Template:Photographer on it. The last could have some jolly super fields such as "brand of camera" and "URL of blog". Would this be an excellent idea, or what?

I have my own answers to that question. But you have a go first, please. -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would articles on photographers benefit from biographical infoboxes?

Yes

  1. Yes, i've used the artist infobox for some photographers and, eventhough they are sometimes incomplete and seem useless (Philip-Lorca diCorcia), i am optimist that they will be completed eventually. Infoboxes are very usefull when it comes to see movement/style/etc with a quick glance, there's no need to go through the whole article searching for influeneces/etc. Maybe we should come out with a "Infobox photographers"? we would sometimes have the same dilema that those "scientist articles" have, but i think it's worth it. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No

  1. I was recently told that all [WP] pages of anybody important have infoboxes... and even if that were true I'd argue strenuously for their removal. As a reader of encyclopaedias (and even - yikes - other printed matter) I don't appreciate being coddled and condescended to. Encyclopaedias are already sources of brief overviews of their subjects, and WP has a guideline (or policy, whichever it is) of demanding lead paragraphs that summarise the contents of articles... to further reduce the information in an article to a dozen factoids that are placed in a distracting and cluttering frame near the top seems ridiculously reductionistic and misguided. Infoboxes provide little of use to readers, though they are a boon to lazy editors who can feel a sense of accomplishment for having performed a bit of manual labour, without having expended any effort to actually increase anyone's knowledge of the subject in question. Finally, because infoboxes reduce information below the threshold of meaning... they distort readers' understanding of the subject, they allow no subtlety. So, for example, I see that Pablo Picasso was affiliated with the Cubist movement, fine... but anything else? Apparently not. Or Egon Schiele... Expressionism? Alright, but what about the Secession? And there has been much academic discussion as to how comfortably (or uncomfortably) he fits in either movement. Such complicated issues can be dealt with in the article, but infoboxes imply that any such issues have been resolved, or that their complications are unimportant. The result resembles nothing more than dressing people up in various team colours... hardly a worthwhile pursuit. Pinkville (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I see your point, but some people just need the basics. And if they need more than that they will indeed plonge into the article. I had the same discussion at Yeat's article recently, if i wanted to know only the main points...because i have some lame homework to do, or i am just curious to know where El Greco died, and what was his field again? etc. I would have to go through the entire article, because, even IF the lead summarised the whole article, chances are that (because of some debate about to which movement does he belong or because of his work in what field is he mostly know, etc) the information will most likely be inconcise. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I hear you... but if the information is not concise, there's probably a good reason - and it can't be readily condensed into the infobox format. Pinkville (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like infoboxes. For countries, wine regions, articles about software, military conflict and model railways, they can't be beat. For people articles they're just hopeless, probably because people are more complex than war, wine and railways put together and any description of any person of any note is unlikely to be enhanced by facile bullet-pointing. As Pinkville points out, people infoboxes are misleading, ineffective and a largely pointless repetition of everything in the lead section. Use a decent lead image, add a decent caption: job done. --mikaultalk 14:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Gernsheim

[edit]

I'm surprised to discover there's no Helmut Gernsheim article, he's of equal importance to Beaumont Newhall in documenting the history of photography, and some would argue more so, since his History was more comprehensive and became the standard reference work that (at least according to Gernsheim!) everyone else copied instead of doing their own research. I see he's mentioned in several bio articles due to having written books on the person in question (Julia Margaret Cameron for instance), he was also the person who discovered Lewis Carroll's photographs and Niépce's first ever photograph (ie the first ever photograph!). I could create a stub, but the only info I have personally is a 20 page interview with him, this gives a good account of his life but is not going to be entirely objective and I don't know when he died. Samatarou (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good question/comment. I've had HG on a "to do" list for quite a long time now, but haven't been able to get to him... I could create a stub (with birth/death dates), but I have reservations about creating the impression (via a blue-linked stub) that he has a "real" article. Oh well, I'll do it anyway... Pinkville (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Lahusen

[edit]

Hello, all. I created the article for Kay Lahusen today, and thought she would be appropriate under the scope of your project as she is considered the first photojournalist of the gay rights movement, and has taken thousands of photographs in her lifetime documenting LGBT rights before Stonewall. You can see two notable photos taken by her in the Barbara Gittings article. The New York Public Library owns most of her photos now and they're currently organizing them for display and possible book format (I hope). --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Photography/History_of_Photography/Archive/2007&oldid=1036784334"