The following are some of the newest history of photography–related on Wikipedia. Please feel free to edit this list and to keep it on your watchlist.
I was considering to place a link to a concise Diane Arbus biography and critical evaluation of her work in the Wikipedia article about her. I have written this bio a couple of years ago and recently included it on my website: http://gerbis.net/publications/arbus.html. Since there is an obvious conflict of interest, I am proposing that someone else should put the link there. My article may be a personal website but I am well qualified to write about Arbus, holding an M.A. and Ph.D. in art history. Furthermore, my much longer and rather more detailed biography of her was a commissioned work by Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon (AKL - World Biographical Dictionary of Artists; ref: http://www.degruyter.de/cont/fb/km/kmAklEn.cfm). It has been published in 2005 and is definitely a quotable source. But it is written in German and only available online to subscribers. The English version on my site contains the condensed essence of my research about Arbus and is very informative for anyone interested in the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerbis ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have a bad track record of antagonizing editors with my AfD submissions. Nevertheless, I keep finding articles that seem highly dubious to me. Many of these articles have not been submitted to the List of photographers article and may be flying under our collective radar. I considered placing the articles on the List to call greater attention to them, but that represents something of an endorsement by me. As such, I was wondering if other editors would see a value in looking at some of these articles as a group and then making improvements or submitting the article to the AfD process. I'd appreciate your comments on this proposal. To kick things off, I've started a proposed list below. TheMindsEye 03:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a list of articles that have some problems. It may be those whose notability is at least questionable, or have other potential problems. These articles may or may not merit an AfD discussion, but should be looked at by several editors with an eye towards either improving the article or submitting it to the AfD process. [writes TheMindsEye
Articles (many of which have since been deleted) added to the list some time ago are here.
Having discovered that an article on Iris Prosch appeared to have been "borrowed" from this, I deleted it and proceeded to look at its contributor's list of edits. They're mostly about photographers and seem distinctly adulatory, but I didn't notice any more plagiarism. (There's certainly a relationship to the people listed here, though.) Somebody with more time and energy may wish to take a look through them. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Here they are:
Most, perhaps all, of these people seem to be "noteworthy". But while the adulatory tone of the articles grates on me, I can't summon the interest to fix any of them. I mean, other things interest me more. If somebody else here can take slebs and beautiful people without dozing off, go for it! -- Hoary ( talk) 06:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
" Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Photographers needing articles": T the Tiger created the following templates and the photographers have many redlinks. I am not sure if any of them are important photographers [...] "Important", well.... I looked at a few names and none seemed even slightly familiar. But they're important to US lovers of cheesecake, I suppose. (Ah, the inscrutable Americans.) -- Hoary ( talk) 15:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Mark Power article seems to have become a playground for somebody who's either deluded or a troll. If matters get worse, I'll semi-protect it. If anyone has a little time and a book about Magnum photographers, do please check that's what written about him is correct. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that articles normally only get a mention here when they're problematic. I for one would like to hear of good new articles too.
Most of the new or almost new articles I work on are about photography in Japan and thus get listed at Template:Newest Japan-related articles. I'd like Template:Newest photographic history articles or similar, because I'd like to see what's new.
Of course List of photographers works similarly, but it is an article, and although I find it convenient I'd be hard pressed to cite any policy to defend it if it were ever taken to AfD.
Also, I think that listing promising articles might help to make this somnolent Project look a bit more inviting, which would be no bad thing.
How does such a new template (of course for transclusion anywhere people wish) sound to y'all? -- Hoary ( talk) 09:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that these must be good articles. But I find at least one of them most depressing. Is there something missing in it, or in me? -- Hoary ( talk) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There are now C-class as well as FA-, A-, GA-, B-, Start- and Stub-class articles. C of course comes between B and Start. WikiProjects aren't obliged to bother with C-class, but surely large numbers of WikiProject HOP editors will love to go through all the B- and Start-class articles, deciding whether or not they should become C-class.
Um, hello?
Ah well, perhaps not. In the meantime, I've made bad and good discoveries. Bad: there's no way of automating generation of the numbers in the table of ratings. Good: it's pretty easy all the same. So there it is at the top. We just have to remember to update it now and again.
And now the exciting bit: How about articles on photographs yet to be taken? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Now here's what I call categorization. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the article about Federico Borrell García mainly discuss Capa's photograph, anyway he is known for appearing in this famous picture. Thus, maybe the article should be renamed to The Falling Soldier, move his biography to a specific section into this article, and the history of the photograph to another new section. IMHO this historic photograph deserves a specific article, like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Furthermore, I think that there is not enough info about the photograph and Federico Borrell to justify two different articles, but in the future a new article about the soldier could be created if needed. Opinions? — surueña 10:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There's been such a suggestion. Comment at Category talk:Photographers, please. -- Hoary ( talk) 07:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
and
-- 129.143.4.65 ( talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1259 articles are assigned to this project, of which 206, or 16.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The notability of the photographic career, etc., of Joe Kleon is being discussed here. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm embarking on a mini-project to add/update entries for women photographers who were members of the Photo-Secession. If anyone has any interest in working on this with me, please let me know. The photographers are:
+ Found the The Getty Union List of Artist Names
It's possible some of these name may not merit full entries once more is known about them, but for now it's interesting to look atthis list in its historical context and see what can be found out. Lexaxis7 ( talk) 19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A simple measure of notability for secessionists is how many photos they had published in Camera Work. My index lists Boughton (6), Brigman (11), Kasebier (12) and Watson-Schütze (4). Bruguière was a man (Francis Joseph Bruguière). All the others had 0 or 1 images published. Some surnames suggest they may be wives of published photographers. Samatarou ( talk) 02:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
El Lissitzky has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here..-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 02:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Are these orphaned? Do I have to use some excessively broad project like 'WikiProject Technology' or something? How I wish this project could be a bit broader in scope... Richard001 ( talk) 21:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
List of photojournalists is an embarrassment. Please see my annoyed comments on its talk page. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a human has, seemingly in all earnestness, translated at least one of the squillion crappy substubs. Now perhaps he'll program some bot to translate the rest. What a gift to fr:WP! -- Hoary ( talk) 10:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:14, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Regarding list of photojournalists, seems like a lot of highly regarded individuals were removed. I'm new to wiki so please tell, does the person need their own page with full references prior to being put on a list of notables? I do archival research in photojournalism and I know that many notables of the 1950s are no longer around to post their references, with the exception of Tony Vaccaro and a couple others. Thanks. By the way, i'll be making mistakes as I try to enter documentation for photojournalists, just because I'm new to the forum, but I have heaps of historical materials. Photoarchiver —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
There are problems concerning the notability of African-American Errol Sawyer. Although his work is present in important collections, he had article of 8 pages in a very respectful photography magazine in Holland, and although he broke ground as the only African-American photographer working in Paris in the Seventies and as an very highly respected photographer in Holland etc., there are two editors who refuse to accept him in Wiki. Your advise/help is appreciated. 1027E ( talk) 09:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Pigeons in aerial photography is a new article combining history of photography, military history and history of aviation. Members of this project might be interested in improving the first aspect. They might even have access to sources that I don't know about or cannot reach. (E.g. all sources currently list under "Further reading". The last 2 are from photography journals.) Please help if you can, or just make sure you don't miss an interesting topic. Hans Adler 11:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Hiroh Kikai/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Despite being a Good Article (and having had this status recently confirmed), Demi's Birthday Suit strikes me as a mess. It's much less about photography than about slebrity, but so long as it has the "HoP" template stuck on it, it's an embarrassment. I've just now put an hour into making it less awful and saying what's wrong with it but "RL" prevents a continuation any time soon. If nobody can fix this quickly, I'd urge that it should be downgraded from GA. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently reverted [1] the placement of the right hand image above in the article John Quincy Adams. While I appreciate the effort I have major problems with the intentions and results of the editors who did this. The original daguerreotype image was so significantly altered as to destroy any historical context it possesses. The left hand original image was originally from the Library of Congress as can be seen on the Commons description page. These edits were made in the past two days. I am concerned enough about the potential for abuse to alert the member at this project, and I would like to know what your opinions about it are and if anyone has had experience dealing with such "cleanup" efforts in the past. Sswonk ( talk) 01:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I am a hard liner on this whole process, I think anything that is done in this manner constitutes original research and can only be viewed as an interpretation of the work. My feelings notwithstanding, there are now more examples of this work cropping up. Here is the original request at the Commons "Graphic Lab School" (!) [2]—scrolling down on that page will reveal two newer requests. I think as long as these "restorations" continue to go unchallenged, many more will be done and the historical record will be diluted. I fear the consequences of an acceleration of this work once more people notice the photos that have been "fixed" so far. I don't know who to turn to or what to do to stop it, so please let me know if there is any recourse available. Sswonk ( talk) 18:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
[Bounce left] I disagree with the use of modern techniques to alter the historical records in this way: I want to see the original photograph from the Library of Congress, not what your requestor Connormah views as better looking. ¶ You may be in the lucky position of being able to see the original, but the closest [or not] most of us will get is either the LoC's digital reproduction thereof, or a reproduction in a book. Yes I agree that one should at the least (i) think very hard before "restoring" an image, and (ii) acknowledge that this "restoration" has been done. [Let's skip the quotes around "restoration" and variants thereof: these become tiresome.] However, it's conceivable that a restored digital copy presents the original print more faithfully than does the pre-restoration digital copy. I'd agree that this is unlikely, but it's worth at least a moment's thought. I'd be particularly interested in a comparison between these two files and a reproduction in a meticulously edited and printed scholarly book. ¶ Let's agree, though, that the unrestored version is more likely to represent the photograph. Now, is it desirable to process a photograph such as this in an effort to make the result more realistic or a better representation of what the camera was pointing at? (For the sake of brevity, let's make the dangerous assumption that the photographer aimed at realism, and put aside the question of what realism consists of.) ¶ I'm no expert in photo restoration, old emulsions, or gimping, but off the top of my head I can think of three things that people might do. First, the "removal" (replacement) of dirt, cracks, and other "noise". Secondly, bending the whatever-it's-called curve to "bring out shadow detail" and "unblow" highlights and so forth. Thirdly, more local fiddling in an attempt to compensate for the pre-panchromatic sensitivity. Now, I'd guess that most people would rush to approve of at least the first two of these. After all, it is, or sounds like, the still equivalent of what they've come to expect (or been brainwashed to expect) in DVDs. Moreover, their own family collection of holiday snaps and so on from color negatives will provide abundant evidence of deterioration in photos over merely two decades. ¶ So advising people, even thoughtful people, that restoration is not a good idea -- this is going to be a very hard sell. Can you point to a persuasive (thoughtful, not overly long or technical, non-strident) web page on the virtue of non-restoration? -- Hoary ( talk) 09:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed. It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to try to distort the facts or position being illustrated by a contributed photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be deleted from the article and a note should be posted at the file page informing users that the file contains Original Research. It is also suggested that the file be posted to Wikipedia:Files for deletion.
This discussion has been copied to this subpage in an attempt to formalise a consensus for developing guidelines for historical image use. -- mikaul talk 22:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
According to what Wikipedia says, Zolochiv (the city where the famous fotographer Arthur Fellig alias Weegee was born) belonged to Austria in 1899 (and not to Poland). The city passed to Poland in 1918 and today is part of Ukraine. Due to this fact, maybe the name of the place Weegee was born should not be written as Złoczów, as it is the way it is written in Polish. Thank you. -- 79.155.163.148 ( talk) 22:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the artcile which you can see at Talk:Jacob Riis/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I collated from the various Request pages all the names of individual photographers and organized them onto the Biography Request page. The Biography page is a reasonable place for them, I think, because it's well organized and has clear instructions and notability warnings; I also added a link to the notability guidelines in this project. I'm less qualified to judge, but probably a significant portion of them are self-promoters or non-notable. It would be really useful if a knowledgeable editor or two would undertake to brutally sift through the list and clean out the non-notables (move them to the Non-notability section). -- Joseph Hewes ( talk) 15:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone help with Color photography? Proxima Centauri ( talk) 13:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know much about photography so I wanted the opinions of members of the WikiProject before going ahead with creation of this article.
Ann Sanfedele is a professional photographer. In this list on Amazon of her works, some are self-published, but Sign Language ( ISBN 978-0806513560) was a book of her photos from a non-vanity commercial publisher, and Letterati: An Unauthorized Look at Scrabble and the People Who Play It ( ISBN 978-1550228281) from ECW Press featured her photos. Her website at http://annsan.smugmug.com/ has more information about her work.
Based on the foregoing, she appears to me to satisfy the notability criteria for photographers. Am I right? JamesMLane t c 15:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks,
We've had a request from Greg Williams if an article could be written about him. It came in at OTRS:4338374 and is as follows:
> > Its Greg Williams, photographer from the Maurice Lacroix shoot in > > Miami. How the devil are you? > > It was a real pleasure meeting you. As discussed I would love to touch > > base with you some time this year in NY and film you talking about > > Wikipedia. > > We also talked about getting some profile of me on Wikipedia. > > As well as a bit of promotion the main point I want to get out there > > is that I have produced the worlds first moving magazine cover (for > > web). and the first printed magazine cover taken on the Red One > > digital cinema camera (a video camera). > > Since I did both these several magazines have come out claiming they > > are the first and I want to straighten it out. my real reason is that > > in 10 years from now our print media will have completely changed and > > will predominately be online so to have done the first is pretty cool. > > The first moving cover was shot for Esquire US edition June 09 see > > http://www.esquire.com/video//?click=vid_sr#v20980595001 > > we then did the first magazine cover taken on a video camera with kate > > beckinsale for Esquire's sexiest woman alive cover Nov 09 > > 2 months later Time magazine ran the end of decade cover-story shot in > > the same way and wrongly claimed it as a world first, then changed > > their tune to "first news magazine" > > In July 08 I shot the worlds first moving movie poster for Quantum of > > Solace which ran on screens around London and New York. see > > http://www.gregfoto.com/portfolio/image.php?album_id=44&album_item_id=576 > > examples of all my moving covers and movie posters can be seen at > > http://www.gregfoto.com/portfolio/index.php?album_id=44 > > To get a feel for my work please see http://www.gregwilliams.com > > I saw the potential of the Red One camera http://www.red.com back in 06 when > > they first announced their plans and seeing a still frame decided the > > files were big enough to print in magazines. > > I shot my first red footage for an italian vogue editorial published > > august 08. I believe this was the first ever red still used over a > > spread. > > I am now starting to shoot commercials and just completed my first > > proper dramatic short film last week and shoot another end of this > > month. > > It is my belief that all photographers will be director/photographers > > within 3-5 years and would love my place in that historical transition > > in the art for. FIlms will no longer have to fit traditional > > structures and may be as short as a second or as long as you like. > > Nest will be the opportunity for everyone to sell their movies online > > and effectively to become their own movie studio capable of shooting, > > editing, marketing, selling and distributing. I am hoping to establish > > the first big paying short film in february but that for another day. > > Ill keep you posted. > > I'm waffling now sorry. Please let me know if something can be written > > and if you need more substantiation of any of these facts. > > here are a few links that may help. > > see more of my filming at http://www.vimeo.com/user2761369/videos > > > http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/04/megan-fox-gets-the-red-one-treatment-for-esquire-cover.html > > http://gizmodo.com/5229743/megan-fox-esquire-cover-shot-in-video-not-stills > > http://visualjournalist.org/?p=362 > > > http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/11/another-red-one-magazine-cover-times-crying-baby.html
He can be contacted at gregwilliams2mac.com; can someone please look into this? Stifle ( talk) 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'm working on an article about Tošo Dabac, a Yugoslav/Croatian photographer who was active between the 1930s and 1960s. Apparently he was notable internationally in late 1930s and some of the Croatian biographies I've found online say that his photographs won five monthly contests in the American photography magazine called Camera Craft some time in the period between 1937 and 1939. His work was also shown at several exhibitions in the United States and around Europe around the same time. I was wondering whether there are any online archives or sites with scanned copies of Camera Craft from that period, or perhaps exhibition programs which I could use as sources or for article illustration as English-language articles on him seem to be scarce. Also, any suggestions on how to improve the article would be appreciated. Thanks. Timbouctou ( talk) 01:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as your project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Demi's Birthday Suit/GA2. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 01:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Would someone be willing to look at the article titled Frank S. Matsura and rate it, comment on it and add it to this project? He is an amazing early 20th century photographer whose work rivaled or exceeded that of the Curtis brothers. His work is archived at Washington State University and he has had books and expositions done of his work. I am a complete neophyte at Wikipedia and apologize in advance for all of the conventions I am probably violating. Jason Benjamin ( talk) 06:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I've started articles on three historically important photographers of Central Africa — Joseph Makula, Herzekiah Andrew Shanu and Casimir Zagourski — and think all of them would benefit from the attention of those specializing in work on photography, and perhaps especially from illustration by those familiar with the requirements and regulations of wikipedia images (so far only Zagourski has a picture, and it's not a terribly relevant one). -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Michael Joseph (photographer) is an article that, um, has been assembled with remarkable vigor. Perhaps with more vigor than scruples. More eyeballs would be welcome. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Gah.
Anyone here up to the task of attempting to derive actual content from this stuff? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Project Icarus has been proposed to be split. 76.66.197.151 ( talk) 01:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the History of photography articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Here they are:
I started by looking through the first twenty. Harold Lloyd is of extremely low importance to photography but worthwhile all the same. Linda McCartney seems a minor photographer and I wonder about her importance. The other 18 seem OK. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
As for the remainder, Jean Baudrillard too seems of trivial concern to photography. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I've already objected to Manuel Rivera-Ortiz and recommended Ueno Hikoma. I think Josef Jindřich Šechtl, Hans Namuth, and Photography in Denmark are recommendable too. But what do others here think about the list? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if I could get some unbiased opinion on what I perceived to be some biased edits to this article. You can see the edits I'm talking about and discuss further at Talk:Guy Bourdin. Thanks, Ubcule ( talk) 21:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Felice Beato for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.. Jan 1922 ( talk) 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
During the last few days I've created and started to populate
(and in that order, if I remember right). I've also populated
rather more than before. The basic idea is that for example Category:Photography in Iran contains Category:Iranian photographers and also the names of any non-Iranian photographer who's done a significant amount of work there; plus photobooks of Iran; Iranian magazines that present a lot of photographs, photography galleries, schools. (The dull reality is that Category:Photography in Iran actually contains very little, but the others are a little better.)
I'd be happy if categories such as this were more numerous and better populated. Anyway, if you're working on the article of, say, a Dutch photographer who's put out a book of photographs of Ethiopia, then consider creating Category:Photography in Ethiopia, adding this photographer to it, and then searching Wikipedia for other suitable additions.
In order to Category:Photography in Brunei (or whatever), you may wish to follow my method: copy a category I've already made, paste it to the right place, edit it to taste, and then save.
I'd be sorry if, say, Category:Photography in the Czech Republic were to attract photographers who'd just (verifiably!) done a magazine article or two on that country. However, there's no need to be elitist or driven by aesthetic concerns. Unfortunately, the best known photographs of Iraq may be those of prisoner abuse, taken by the abusers; these are important in a disturbing episode of Iraqi history and the categorization of the photos and those who took them within "Photography in Iraq" seems appropriate to me.
I'm not so happy by the way in which "Photography in [nation]" makes photographers of other nations more conspicuous than photographers of that nation (who are one further click away), and I've brought this up here but as yet I haven't managed to interest anybody else in it. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 07:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
We now have a mixture of article titles, "Freedonian photography" and "Photography in Freedonia". Though I prefer the sound of the former, I am proposing that we change all examples of the former pattern to the latter pattern. Please see my reasoning and comment for or against here. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello to all! I'd like to know if anyone has information regarding a photographer, who was probably French, called Paul Gavelle, who worked in the early 20th century in France. He took pictures of Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil during her exile in France and I'd like to know at least when he was born or died, so that i could upload the pictures. Thank you very much! -- Lecen ( talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
There has been a long outstanding request to redefine WikiProject Photography from what is an internal maintenance project to a project about photography. I decided to take the step of starting to reorganise this, but would like some input from other before going to far. Currently have move the original project to a sub-project of WikiProject Images and Media and redefined the WikiProject Photography page. I have also edited the {{ WikiProject Photography}} template with a suggestion for task forces of the project. Do others think these task force subjects would be useful? What do participants of WikiProject History of photography think to moving articles to these task forces or should this project be left as is? -- Traveler100 ( talk) 09:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
[Leftward]
Your suggestion and my comment:
Right then, weeks have gone by; time to get back to work.
I think that it would be exceedingly hard to draw a line between these. And if the line were drawn, it would be hard to get the distinction across to people adding the templates. I think it would be better to throw them together (as "WikiProject Photography/Photographic principles and technology", perhaps). Let's call this (A). Later, some bunch of people may or may not care to volunteer itself as a "Film photography workgroup" or whatever.
I've rephrased that a little intoto wording that's compact and I think gets the message across (which is not to say that it can't be bettered). Let's call this (B).
(A) is likely to interest hugely more editors than (B), which would correspond to much of this Project (which is of course pretty much moribund). But let the editors in (A) develop their own enthusiasms and, if it seems sensible, spin these off into independent workgroups.
Quite separate from these two halves of "WikiProject Photography", of course, would be (or rather is) Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Photography (the old "WikiProject Photography"). -- Hoary ( talk) 07:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Photography and finding articles in sub-categories that are not to do with Photography but with films and computer games. Some were due to bad categorisation, which I have fixed (reduced the list from 90000 to 14000 with that), but others are not so clear cut. For example Category:Stereoscopy is a photographic topic but some of the sub-categories are not, but do use stereoscopy methods. Any ideas how to fix this?
A recent edit to this page added Luminous Lint to our list of resources for verifying the notability of photographer biographies. I'd be curious to hear some discussion of that site as a verifiable resource as it is now listed as one of only four accepted resources. The other three resources - Union List of Artist Names, George Eastman House Catalog, Library of Congress Authorities - have long-standing acclaim as good quality resources. As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Luminous Lint operates on a much looser basis than the other three resources. LL seems to be an open resource, in some ways similar to Wikipedia, that accepts entries from public editors. Please add your thoughts below on the adequacy and verifiability of LL for our purposes. Thanks, TheMindsEye ( talk) 21:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Pigeon photography, an article in the scope of this project, is currently a featured article candidate. Members of this project might be able to help double check some facts. In particular: Is it plausible that a camera developed in 1933 and patented in 1937 was one of the first that used a clockwork mechanism (for film transport and shutter control)? Hans Adler 08:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Someone is adding an external link to all the german photographer pages, see: Special:Contributions/Solo_Zone the site in question lists their names but doesn't seem to have any relevant content on the people, do people agree it is spam? I don't know how to revert the edits in bulk though. Samatarou ( talk) 22:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
As the new Wikipedia-in-Residence fostering institutional cooperation at the the Museum of Modern Art, I'd love to invite WikiProject History of Photography folks to come participate! In particular, we are also looking for anyone to be a History of Photography Ambassador to WikiProject MoMA (see Wikipedia:GLAM/MoMA/Members).-- Pharos ( talk) 15:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Felice Beato for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 20:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
People here might be interested in WP:GLAM/TNA#Free_a_Photographer_Challenge - an effort to provide copyright-cleared images from 19th- and early-20th-century photographs taken by commercial photographers and registered for copyright at Stationer's Hall. Dsp13 ( talk) 15:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
On the linked page are some ideas on restructuring and revitalizing WikiProject History. It may be easier to keep discussion in one place, perhaps here. DCI talk 16:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Do we have a list of websites and online databases that contain large numbers of free-use images? Bms4880 ( talk) 21:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ought someone follow the procedure here? I'm going on a trip and won't have time in the next week or three. Jim.henderson ( talk) 15:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Step 2 is to modify the banner. Do we mention the task force in the modified banner, or just use the Wikiproject Photography banner? Bms4880 ( talk) 15:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I believe that for the very simplest conversion (one without any "task group" or "subproject" stuff or similar), you'd have to get some bot to convert every instance of {{WikiProject History of photography to {{WikiProject Photography (NB my avoidance of a closing }} is deliberate, in order to account for quality classes).
However, this would require some clearing up (deletion of duplicate templates, etc). And it would lose any distinction among kinds of article, so that for example Yasuhiro Ishimoto (a photographer, from "History of photography") would be thrown together with TIFF/EP (a file format, from "Photography").
You suggest above: [merging] this project with the "Photographic Work" task force on the Photography project [. . . to] include the history of photography, biographies of notable photographers, and notable photography publications.
But as I think about it, I can't see how anything can be "photography" but not the "history of photography". (TIFF/EP, for example, doesn't seem historical now, but soon enough it will seem so.) And for this reason (as well perhaps as others), I can't see how anything can be "photography" but not "photographic work".
And so Ishimoto and TIFF/EP are tossed together. But photographers account for a lot of articles, and whether they're 19th or 21st century, and whether they use(d) glass plates or cellphones, they have something in common.
Let's get back to the descriptions on the WikiProject Photography page:
At first glance, this looks pretty good. But the longer I look at it the screwier it gets. The separation between the second and third is unclear: How are "principles" (2) independent of "science" (3)? What's the difference between "techniques and methods" (2) and "processes" (3)? And even if these terms could be defined clearly and sensibly to avoid confusion, wouldn't people then blithely ignore the definitions, resulting in wrongly assigned articles and (yawn!) arguments about reassignment and redefinition?
So how about avoiding those problems by merging the second and third of the three above, to produce (A) "Photographic work" and (B) "Photographic principles and technology"? If this were done, then much (not all) of what's now "History of photography" could become the task group or subproject "Photographic work" of "Photography". -- Hoary ( talk) 00:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's refine the pseudocode for what we want. (And with apologies for my amateurishness.) It's a four-stage operation.
I. For every member of the following list, and every member of every subcategory of the following list:
do the rest of this section I:
A. If there is already a talk page, go to B. There is no talk page: (i) create the talk page, (ii) add a template for WikiProject Photography, Task force Photographic work (below, "WPP TFPW", (iii) end.
B. There is a talk page. If it has a template for WikiProject Photography (below, "WP P"), go to C. If there is no template for WikiProject History of photography (below, "WP HoP"), (i) create a template for WPP TFPW, (ii) end.
There's a template for WP HoP. (i) Convert it to one for WPP TFPW, (ii) end.
C. There is a template for WP P. If there is no template for WP HoP, (i) convert the template for WP P to one for WPP TFPW, (ii) end.
There are already two templates. Now things get complicated, and I skip the detail. (i) Find the quality class, if any (and if there is disagreement, choose the lower), (ii) delete the WP HoP template, (iii) convert the WP P template to a WPP TFPW template, with quality if applicable, (iv) end
(We've now gone through that list of categories above.)
II. For every member of Category:Photography and every member of its subcategories (excepting the subcategories listed above), do the rest of this section II:
D. If there is already a talk page, go to E. There is no talk page: (i) create the talk page, (ii) add a template for WP P, (iii) end.
E. There is a talk page. If it has a template for WP P and no template for WP HoP, (i) end.
If there is no template for WP P, (i) Convert the template from WP HoP to WP P, (ii) end.
There are already two templates. (i) Find the quality class, if any (and if there is disagreement, choose the lower), (ii) delete the WP HoP template, (iii) add quality to the WP P template if applicable, (iv) end.
We've now gone through the whole of Category:Photography. We turn to the stragglers.
III. Category:WikiProject History of photography articles and all its subcategories should contain very few talk pages. But nevertheless ... for every such talk page, do the rest of this section III:
F. If there is no template for WP P, (i) Convert the template from WP HoP to WP P, (ii) end.
There are already two templates. (i) Find the quality class, if any (and if there is disagreement, choose the lower), (ii) delete the WP HoP template, (iii) add quality to the WP P template if applicable, (iv) end.
Whew. And finally:
IV. Every subcategory of Category:WikiProject History of photography articles will now be empty. Delete the lot (and delete the top category too).
(Actually stage IV is easy: a human can do it. Indeed, I'll do it.)
Again, apologies for my terrible pseudocode. But its spaghettiishness aside, do I get it right? -- Hoary ( talk) 02:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Photography#Camera_timeline_templates_missing.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
May I propose an article start for the word trichromy? Edouard Albert ( talk) 18:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The following are some of the newest history of photography–related on Wikipedia. Please feel free to edit this list and to keep it on your watchlist.
I was considering to place a link to a concise Diane Arbus biography and critical evaluation of her work in the Wikipedia article about her. I have written this bio a couple of years ago and recently included it on my website: http://gerbis.net/publications/arbus.html. Since there is an obvious conflict of interest, I am proposing that someone else should put the link there. My article may be a personal website but I am well qualified to write about Arbus, holding an M.A. and Ph.D. in art history. Furthermore, my much longer and rather more detailed biography of her was a commissioned work by Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon (AKL - World Biographical Dictionary of Artists; ref: http://www.degruyter.de/cont/fb/km/kmAklEn.cfm). It has been published in 2005 and is definitely a quotable source. But it is written in German and only available online to subscribers. The English version on my site contains the condensed essence of my research about Arbus and is very informative for anyone interested in the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerbis ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have a bad track record of antagonizing editors with my AfD submissions. Nevertheless, I keep finding articles that seem highly dubious to me. Many of these articles have not been submitted to the List of photographers article and may be flying under our collective radar. I considered placing the articles on the List to call greater attention to them, but that represents something of an endorsement by me. As such, I was wondering if other editors would see a value in looking at some of these articles as a group and then making improvements or submitting the article to the AfD process. I'd appreciate your comments on this proposal. To kick things off, I've started a proposed list below. TheMindsEye 03:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a list of articles that have some problems. It may be those whose notability is at least questionable, or have other potential problems. These articles may or may not merit an AfD discussion, but should be looked at by several editors with an eye towards either improving the article or submitting it to the AfD process. [writes TheMindsEye
Articles (many of which have since been deleted) added to the list some time ago are here.
Having discovered that an article on Iris Prosch appeared to have been "borrowed" from this, I deleted it and proceeded to look at its contributor's list of edits. They're mostly about photographers and seem distinctly adulatory, but I didn't notice any more plagiarism. (There's certainly a relationship to the people listed here, though.) Somebody with more time and energy may wish to take a look through them. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Here they are:
Most, perhaps all, of these people seem to be "noteworthy". But while the adulatory tone of the articles grates on me, I can't summon the interest to fix any of them. I mean, other things interest me more. If somebody else here can take slebs and beautiful people without dozing off, go for it! -- Hoary ( talk) 06:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
" Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Photographers needing articles": T the Tiger created the following templates and the photographers have many redlinks. I am not sure if any of them are important photographers [...] "Important", well.... I looked at a few names and none seemed even slightly familiar. But they're important to US lovers of cheesecake, I suppose. (Ah, the inscrutable Americans.) -- Hoary ( talk) 15:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Mark Power article seems to have become a playground for somebody who's either deluded or a troll. If matters get worse, I'll semi-protect it. If anyone has a little time and a book about Magnum photographers, do please check that's what written about him is correct. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that articles normally only get a mention here when they're problematic. I for one would like to hear of good new articles too.
Most of the new or almost new articles I work on are about photography in Japan and thus get listed at Template:Newest Japan-related articles. I'd like Template:Newest photographic history articles or similar, because I'd like to see what's new.
Of course List of photographers works similarly, but it is an article, and although I find it convenient I'd be hard pressed to cite any policy to defend it if it were ever taken to AfD.
Also, I think that listing promising articles might help to make this somnolent Project look a bit more inviting, which would be no bad thing.
How does such a new template (of course for transclusion anywhere people wish) sound to y'all? -- Hoary ( talk) 09:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that these must be good articles. But I find at least one of them most depressing. Is there something missing in it, or in me? -- Hoary ( talk) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There are now C-class as well as FA-, A-, GA-, B-, Start- and Stub-class articles. C of course comes between B and Start. WikiProjects aren't obliged to bother with C-class, but surely large numbers of WikiProject HOP editors will love to go through all the B- and Start-class articles, deciding whether or not they should become C-class.
Um, hello?
Ah well, perhaps not. In the meantime, I've made bad and good discoveries. Bad: there's no way of automating generation of the numbers in the table of ratings. Good: it's pretty easy all the same. So there it is at the top. We just have to remember to update it now and again.
And now the exciting bit: How about articles on photographs yet to be taken? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Now here's what I call categorization. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the article about Federico Borrell García mainly discuss Capa's photograph, anyway he is known for appearing in this famous picture. Thus, maybe the article should be renamed to The Falling Soldier, move his biography to a specific section into this article, and the history of the photograph to another new section. IMHO this historic photograph deserves a specific article, like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Furthermore, I think that there is not enough info about the photograph and Federico Borrell to justify two different articles, but in the future a new article about the soldier could be created if needed. Opinions? — surueña 10:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There's been such a suggestion. Comment at Category talk:Photographers, please. -- Hoary ( talk) 07:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
and
-- 129.143.4.65 ( talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1259 articles are assigned to this project, of which 206, or 16.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The notability of the photographic career, etc., of Joe Kleon is being discussed here. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm embarking on a mini-project to add/update entries for women photographers who were members of the Photo-Secession. If anyone has any interest in working on this with me, please let me know. The photographers are:
+ Found the The Getty Union List of Artist Names
It's possible some of these name may not merit full entries once more is known about them, but for now it's interesting to look atthis list in its historical context and see what can be found out. Lexaxis7 ( talk) 19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A simple measure of notability for secessionists is how many photos they had published in Camera Work. My index lists Boughton (6), Brigman (11), Kasebier (12) and Watson-Schütze (4). Bruguière was a man (Francis Joseph Bruguière). All the others had 0 or 1 images published. Some surnames suggest they may be wives of published photographers. Samatarou ( talk) 02:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
El Lissitzky has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here..-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 02:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Are these orphaned? Do I have to use some excessively broad project like 'WikiProject Technology' or something? How I wish this project could be a bit broader in scope... Richard001 ( talk) 21:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
List of photojournalists is an embarrassment. Please see my annoyed comments on its talk page. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a human has, seemingly in all earnestness, translated at least one of the squillion crappy substubs. Now perhaps he'll program some bot to translate the rest. What a gift to fr:WP! -- Hoary ( talk) 10:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:14, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Regarding list of photojournalists, seems like a lot of highly regarded individuals were removed. I'm new to wiki so please tell, does the person need their own page with full references prior to being put on a list of notables? I do archival research in photojournalism and I know that many notables of the 1950s are no longer around to post their references, with the exception of Tony Vaccaro and a couple others. Thanks. By the way, i'll be making mistakes as I try to enter documentation for photojournalists, just because I'm new to the forum, but I have heaps of historical materials. Photoarchiver —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
There are problems concerning the notability of African-American Errol Sawyer. Although his work is present in important collections, he had article of 8 pages in a very respectful photography magazine in Holland, and although he broke ground as the only African-American photographer working in Paris in the Seventies and as an very highly respected photographer in Holland etc., there are two editors who refuse to accept him in Wiki. Your advise/help is appreciated. 1027E ( talk) 09:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Pigeons in aerial photography is a new article combining history of photography, military history and history of aviation. Members of this project might be interested in improving the first aspect. They might even have access to sources that I don't know about or cannot reach. (E.g. all sources currently list under "Further reading". The last 2 are from photography journals.) Please help if you can, or just make sure you don't miss an interesting topic. Hans Adler 11:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Hiroh Kikai/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Despite being a Good Article (and having had this status recently confirmed), Demi's Birthday Suit strikes me as a mess. It's much less about photography than about slebrity, but so long as it has the "HoP" template stuck on it, it's an embarrassment. I've just now put an hour into making it less awful and saying what's wrong with it but "RL" prevents a continuation any time soon. If nobody can fix this quickly, I'd urge that it should be downgraded from GA. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently reverted [1] the placement of the right hand image above in the article John Quincy Adams. While I appreciate the effort I have major problems with the intentions and results of the editors who did this. The original daguerreotype image was so significantly altered as to destroy any historical context it possesses. The left hand original image was originally from the Library of Congress as can be seen on the Commons description page. These edits were made in the past two days. I am concerned enough about the potential for abuse to alert the member at this project, and I would like to know what your opinions about it are and if anyone has had experience dealing with such "cleanup" efforts in the past. Sswonk ( talk) 01:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I am a hard liner on this whole process, I think anything that is done in this manner constitutes original research and can only be viewed as an interpretation of the work. My feelings notwithstanding, there are now more examples of this work cropping up. Here is the original request at the Commons "Graphic Lab School" (!) [2]—scrolling down on that page will reveal two newer requests. I think as long as these "restorations" continue to go unchallenged, many more will be done and the historical record will be diluted. I fear the consequences of an acceleration of this work once more people notice the photos that have been "fixed" so far. I don't know who to turn to or what to do to stop it, so please let me know if there is any recourse available. Sswonk ( talk) 18:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
[Bounce left] I disagree with the use of modern techniques to alter the historical records in this way: I want to see the original photograph from the Library of Congress, not what your requestor Connormah views as better looking. ¶ You may be in the lucky position of being able to see the original, but the closest [or not] most of us will get is either the LoC's digital reproduction thereof, or a reproduction in a book. Yes I agree that one should at the least (i) think very hard before "restoring" an image, and (ii) acknowledge that this "restoration" has been done. [Let's skip the quotes around "restoration" and variants thereof: these become tiresome.] However, it's conceivable that a restored digital copy presents the original print more faithfully than does the pre-restoration digital copy. I'd agree that this is unlikely, but it's worth at least a moment's thought. I'd be particularly interested in a comparison between these two files and a reproduction in a meticulously edited and printed scholarly book. ¶ Let's agree, though, that the unrestored version is more likely to represent the photograph. Now, is it desirable to process a photograph such as this in an effort to make the result more realistic or a better representation of what the camera was pointing at? (For the sake of brevity, let's make the dangerous assumption that the photographer aimed at realism, and put aside the question of what realism consists of.) ¶ I'm no expert in photo restoration, old emulsions, or gimping, but off the top of my head I can think of three things that people might do. First, the "removal" (replacement) of dirt, cracks, and other "noise". Secondly, bending the whatever-it's-called curve to "bring out shadow detail" and "unblow" highlights and so forth. Thirdly, more local fiddling in an attempt to compensate for the pre-panchromatic sensitivity. Now, I'd guess that most people would rush to approve of at least the first two of these. After all, it is, or sounds like, the still equivalent of what they've come to expect (or been brainwashed to expect) in DVDs. Moreover, their own family collection of holiday snaps and so on from color negatives will provide abundant evidence of deterioration in photos over merely two decades. ¶ So advising people, even thoughtful people, that restoration is not a good idea -- this is going to be a very hard sell. Can you point to a persuasive (thoughtful, not overly long or technical, non-strident) web page on the virtue of non-restoration? -- Hoary ( talk) 09:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed. It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to try to distort the facts or position being illustrated by a contributed photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be deleted from the article and a note should be posted at the file page informing users that the file contains Original Research. It is also suggested that the file be posted to Wikipedia:Files for deletion.
This discussion has been copied to this subpage in an attempt to formalise a consensus for developing guidelines for historical image use. -- mikaul talk 22:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
According to what Wikipedia says, Zolochiv (the city where the famous fotographer Arthur Fellig alias Weegee was born) belonged to Austria in 1899 (and not to Poland). The city passed to Poland in 1918 and today is part of Ukraine. Due to this fact, maybe the name of the place Weegee was born should not be written as Złoczów, as it is the way it is written in Polish. Thank you. -- 79.155.163.148 ( talk) 22:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the artcile which you can see at Talk:Jacob Riis/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I collated from the various Request pages all the names of individual photographers and organized them onto the Biography Request page. The Biography page is a reasonable place for them, I think, because it's well organized and has clear instructions and notability warnings; I also added a link to the notability guidelines in this project. I'm less qualified to judge, but probably a significant portion of them are self-promoters or non-notable. It would be really useful if a knowledgeable editor or two would undertake to brutally sift through the list and clean out the non-notables (move them to the Non-notability section). -- Joseph Hewes ( talk) 15:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone help with Color photography? Proxima Centauri ( talk) 13:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know much about photography so I wanted the opinions of members of the WikiProject before going ahead with creation of this article.
Ann Sanfedele is a professional photographer. In this list on Amazon of her works, some are self-published, but Sign Language ( ISBN 978-0806513560) was a book of her photos from a non-vanity commercial publisher, and Letterati: An Unauthorized Look at Scrabble and the People Who Play It ( ISBN 978-1550228281) from ECW Press featured her photos. Her website at http://annsan.smugmug.com/ has more information about her work.
Based on the foregoing, she appears to me to satisfy the notability criteria for photographers. Am I right? JamesMLane t c 15:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks,
We've had a request from Greg Williams if an article could be written about him. It came in at OTRS:4338374 and is as follows:
> > Its Greg Williams, photographer from the Maurice Lacroix shoot in > > Miami. How the devil are you? > > It was a real pleasure meeting you. As discussed I would love to touch > > base with you some time this year in NY and film you talking about > > Wikipedia. > > We also talked about getting some profile of me on Wikipedia. > > As well as a bit of promotion the main point I want to get out there > > is that I have produced the worlds first moving magazine cover (for > > web). and the first printed magazine cover taken on the Red One > > digital cinema camera (a video camera). > > Since I did both these several magazines have come out claiming they > > are the first and I want to straighten it out. my real reason is that > > in 10 years from now our print media will have completely changed and > > will predominately be online so to have done the first is pretty cool. > > The first moving cover was shot for Esquire US edition June 09 see > > http://www.esquire.com/video//?click=vid_sr#v20980595001 > > we then did the first magazine cover taken on a video camera with kate > > beckinsale for Esquire's sexiest woman alive cover Nov 09 > > 2 months later Time magazine ran the end of decade cover-story shot in > > the same way and wrongly claimed it as a world first, then changed > > their tune to "first news magazine" > > In July 08 I shot the worlds first moving movie poster for Quantum of > > Solace which ran on screens around London and New York. see > > http://www.gregfoto.com/portfolio/image.php?album_id=44&album_item_id=576 > > examples of all my moving covers and movie posters can be seen at > > http://www.gregfoto.com/portfolio/index.php?album_id=44 > > To get a feel for my work please see http://www.gregwilliams.com > > I saw the potential of the Red One camera http://www.red.com back in 06 when > > they first announced their plans and seeing a still frame decided the > > files were big enough to print in magazines. > > I shot my first red footage for an italian vogue editorial published > > august 08. I believe this was the first ever red still used over a > > spread. > > I am now starting to shoot commercials and just completed my first > > proper dramatic short film last week and shoot another end of this > > month. > > It is my belief that all photographers will be director/photographers > > within 3-5 years and would love my place in that historical transition > > in the art for. FIlms will no longer have to fit traditional > > structures and may be as short as a second or as long as you like. > > Nest will be the opportunity for everyone to sell their movies online > > and effectively to become their own movie studio capable of shooting, > > editing, marketing, selling and distributing. I am hoping to establish > > the first big paying short film in february but that for another day. > > Ill keep you posted. > > I'm waffling now sorry. Please let me know if something can be written > > and if you need more substantiation of any of these facts. > > here are a few links that may help. > > see more of my filming at http://www.vimeo.com/user2761369/videos > > > http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/04/megan-fox-gets-the-red-one-treatment-for-esquire-cover.html > > http://gizmodo.com/5229743/megan-fox-esquire-cover-shot-in-video-not-stills > > http://visualjournalist.org/?p=362 > > > http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/11/another-red-one-magazine-cover-times-crying-baby.html
He can be contacted at gregwilliams2mac.com; can someone please look into this? Stifle ( talk) 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'm working on an article about Tošo Dabac, a Yugoslav/Croatian photographer who was active between the 1930s and 1960s. Apparently he was notable internationally in late 1930s and some of the Croatian biographies I've found online say that his photographs won five monthly contests in the American photography magazine called Camera Craft some time in the period between 1937 and 1939. His work was also shown at several exhibitions in the United States and around Europe around the same time. I was wondering whether there are any online archives or sites with scanned copies of Camera Craft from that period, or perhaps exhibition programs which I could use as sources or for article illustration as English-language articles on him seem to be scarce. Also, any suggestions on how to improve the article would be appreciated. Thanks. Timbouctou ( talk) 01:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as your project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Demi's Birthday Suit/GA2. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 01:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Would someone be willing to look at the article titled Frank S. Matsura and rate it, comment on it and add it to this project? He is an amazing early 20th century photographer whose work rivaled or exceeded that of the Curtis brothers. His work is archived at Washington State University and he has had books and expositions done of his work. I am a complete neophyte at Wikipedia and apologize in advance for all of the conventions I am probably violating. Jason Benjamin ( talk) 06:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I've started articles on three historically important photographers of Central Africa — Joseph Makula, Herzekiah Andrew Shanu and Casimir Zagourski — and think all of them would benefit from the attention of those specializing in work on photography, and perhaps especially from illustration by those familiar with the requirements and regulations of wikipedia images (so far only Zagourski has a picture, and it's not a terribly relevant one). -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Michael Joseph (photographer) is an article that, um, has been assembled with remarkable vigor. Perhaps with more vigor than scruples. More eyeballs would be welcome. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Gah.
Anyone here up to the task of attempting to derive actual content from this stuff? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Project Icarus has been proposed to be split. 76.66.197.151 ( talk) 01:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the History of photography articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Here they are:
I started by looking through the first twenty. Harold Lloyd is of extremely low importance to photography but worthwhile all the same. Linda McCartney seems a minor photographer and I wonder about her importance. The other 18 seem OK. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
As for the remainder, Jean Baudrillard too seems of trivial concern to photography. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I've already objected to Manuel Rivera-Ortiz and recommended Ueno Hikoma. I think Josef Jindřich Šechtl, Hans Namuth, and Photography in Denmark are recommendable too. But what do others here think about the list? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if I could get some unbiased opinion on what I perceived to be some biased edits to this article. You can see the edits I'm talking about and discuss further at Talk:Guy Bourdin. Thanks, Ubcule ( talk) 21:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Felice Beato for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.. Jan 1922 ( talk) 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
During the last few days I've created and started to populate
(and in that order, if I remember right). I've also populated
rather more than before. The basic idea is that for example Category:Photography in Iran contains Category:Iranian photographers and also the names of any non-Iranian photographer who's done a significant amount of work there; plus photobooks of Iran; Iranian magazines that present a lot of photographs, photography galleries, schools. (The dull reality is that Category:Photography in Iran actually contains very little, but the others are a little better.)
I'd be happy if categories such as this were more numerous and better populated. Anyway, if you're working on the article of, say, a Dutch photographer who's put out a book of photographs of Ethiopia, then consider creating Category:Photography in Ethiopia, adding this photographer to it, and then searching Wikipedia for other suitable additions.
In order to Category:Photography in Brunei (or whatever), you may wish to follow my method: copy a category I've already made, paste it to the right place, edit it to taste, and then save.
I'd be sorry if, say, Category:Photography in the Czech Republic were to attract photographers who'd just (verifiably!) done a magazine article or two on that country. However, there's no need to be elitist or driven by aesthetic concerns. Unfortunately, the best known photographs of Iraq may be those of prisoner abuse, taken by the abusers; these are important in a disturbing episode of Iraqi history and the categorization of the photos and those who took them within "Photography in Iraq" seems appropriate to me.
I'm not so happy by the way in which "Photography in [nation]" makes photographers of other nations more conspicuous than photographers of that nation (who are one further click away), and I've brought this up here but as yet I haven't managed to interest anybody else in it. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 07:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
We now have a mixture of article titles, "Freedonian photography" and "Photography in Freedonia". Though I prefer the sound of the former, I am proposing that we change all examples of the former pattern to the latter pattern. Please see my reasoning and comment for or against here. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello to all! I'd like to know if anyone has information regarding a photographer, who was probably French, called Paul Gavelle, who worked in the early 20th century in France. He took pictures of Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil during her exile in France and I'd like to know at least when he was born or died, so that i could upload the pictures. Thank you very much! -- Lecen ( talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
There has been a long outstanding request to redefine WikiProject Photography from what is an internal maintenance project to a project about photography. I decided to take the step of starting to reorganise this, but would like some input from other before going to far. Currently have move the original project to a sub-project of WikiProject Images and Media and redefined the WikiProject Photography page. I have also edited the {{ WikiProject Photography}} template with a suggestion for task forces of the project. Do others think these task force subjects would be useful? What do participants of WikiProject History of photography think to moving articles to these task forces or should this project be left as is? -- Traveler100 ( talk) 09:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
[Leftward]
Your suggestion and my comment:
Right then, weeks have gone by; time to get back to work.
I think that it would be exceedingly hard to draw a line between these. And if the line were drawn, it would be hard to get the distinction across to people adding the templates. I think it would be better to throw them together (as "WikiProject Photography/Photographic principles and technology", perhaps). Let's call this (A). Later, some bunch of people may or may not care to volunteer itself as a "Film photography workgroup" or whatever.
I've rephrased that a little intoto wording that's compact and I think gets the message across (which is not to say that it can't be bettered). Let's call this (B).
(A) is likely to interest hugely more editors than (B), which would correspond to much of this Project (which is of course pretty much moribund). But let the editors in (A) develop their own enthusiasms and, if it seems sensible, spin these off into independent workgroups.
Quite separate from these two halves of "WikiProject Photography", of course, would be (or rather is) Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Photography (the old "WikiProject Photography"). -- Hoary ( talk) 07:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Photography and finding articles in sub-categories that are not to do with Photography but with films and computer games. Some were due to bad categorisation, which I have fixed (reduced the list from 90000 to 14000 with that), but others are not so clear cut. For example Category:Stereoscopy is a photographic topic but some of the sub-categories are not, but do use stereoscopy methods. Any ideas how to fix this?
A recent edit to this page added Luminous Lint to our list of resources for verifying the notability of photographer biographies. I'd be curious to hear some discussion of that site as a verifiable resource as it is now listed as one of only four accepted resources. The other three resources - Union List of Artist Names, George Eastman House Catalog, Library of Congress Authorities - have long-standing acclaim as good quality resources. As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Luminous Lint operates on a much looser basis than the other three resources. LL seems to be an open resource, in some ways similar to Wikipedia, that accepts entries from public editors. Please add your thoughts below on the adequacy and verifiability of LL for our purposes. Thanks, TheMindsEye ( talk) 21:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Pigeon photography, an article in the scope of this project, is currently a featured article candidate. Members of this project might be able to help double check some facts. In particular: Is it plausible that a camera developed in 1933 and patented in 1937 was one of the first that used a clockwork mechanism (for film transport and shutter control)? Hans Adler 08:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Someone is adding an external link to all the german photographer pages, see: Special:Contributions/Solo_Zone the site in question lists their names but doesn't seem to have any relevant content on the people, do people agree it is spam? I don't know how to revert the edits in bulk though. Samatarou ( talk) 22:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
As the new Wikipedia-in-Residence fostering institutional cooperation at the the Museum of Modern Art, I'd love to invite WikiProject History of Photography folks to come participate! In particular, we are also looking for anyone to be a History of Photography Ambassador to WikiProject MoMA (see Wikipedia:GLAM/MoMA/Members).-- Pharos ( talk) 15:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Felice Beato for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 20:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
People here might be interested in WP:GLAM/TNA#Free_a_Photographer_Challenge - an effort to provide copyright-cleared images from 19th- and early-20th-century photographs taken by commercial photographers and registered for copyright at Stationer's Hall. Dsp13 ( talk) 15:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
On the linked page are some ideas on restructuring and revitalizing WikiProject History. It may be easier to keep discussion in one place, perhaps here. DCI talk 16:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Do we have a list of websites and online databases that contain large numbers of free-use images? Bms4880 ( talk) 21:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ought someone follow the procedure here? I'm going on a trip and won't have time in the next week or three. Jim.henderson ( talk) 15:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Step 2 is to modify the banner. Do we mention the task force in the modified banner, or just use the Wikiproject Photography banner? Bms4880 ( talk) 15:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I believe that for the very simplest conversion (one without any "task group" or "subproject" stuff or similar), you'd have to get some bot to convert every instance of {{WikiProject History of photography to {{WikiProject Photography (NB my avoidance of a closing }} is deliberate, in order to account for quality classes).
However, this would require some clearing up (deletion of duplicate templates, etc). And it would lose any distinction among kinds of article, so that for example Yasuhiro Ishimoto (a photographer, from "History of photography") would be thrown together with TIFF/EP (a file format, from "Photography").
You suggest above: [merging] this project with the "Photographic Work" task force on the Photography project [. . . to] include the history of photography, biographies of notable photographers, and notable photography publications.
But as I think about it, I can't see how anything can be "photography" but not the "history of photography". (TIFF/EP, for example, doesn't seem historical now, but soon enough it will seem so.) And for this reason (as well perhaps as others), I can't see how anything can be "photography" but not "photographic work".
And so Ishimoto and TIFF/EP are tossed together. But photographers account for a lot of articles, and whether they're 19th or 21st century, and whether they use(d) glass plates or cellphones, they have something in common.
Let's get back to the descriptions on the WikiProject Photography page:
At first glance, this looks pretty good. But the longer I look at it the screwier it gets. The separation between the second and third is unclear: How are "principles" (2) independent of "science" (3)? What's the difference between "techniques and methods" (2) and "processes" (3)? And even if these terms could be defined clearly and sensibly to avoid confusion, wouldn't people then blithely ignore the definitions, resulting in wrongly assigned articles and (yawn!) arguments about reassignment and redefinition?
So how about avoiding those problems by merging the second and third of the three above, to produce (A) "Photographic work" and (B) "Photographic principles and technology"? If this were done, then much (not all) of what's now "History of photography" could become the task group or subproject "Photographic work" of "Photography". -- Hoary ( talk) 00:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's refine the pseudocode for what we want. (And with apologies for my amateurishness.) It's a four-stage operation.
I. For every member of the following list, and every member of every subcategory of the following list:
do the rest of this section I:
A. If there is already a talk page, go to B. There is no talk page: (i) create the talk page, (ii) add a template for WikiProject Photography, Task force Photographic work (below, "WPP TFPW", (iii) end.
B. There is a talk page. If it has a template for WikiProject Photography (below, "WP P"), go to C. If there is no template for WikiProject History of photography (below, "WP HoP"), (i) create a template for WPP TFPW, (ii) end.
There's a template for WP HoP. (i) Convert it to one for WPP TFPW, (ii) end.
C. There is a template for WP P. If there is no template for WP HoP, (i) convert the template for WP P to one for WPP TFPW, (ii) end.
There are already two templates. Now things get complicated, and I skip the detail. (i) Find the quality class, if any (and if there is disagreement, choose the lower), (ii) delete the WP HoP template, (iii) convert the WP P template to a WPP TFPW template, with quality if applicable, (iv) end
(We've now gone through that list of categories above.)
II. For every member of Category:Photography and every member of its subcategories (excepting the subcategories listed above), do the rest of this section II:
D. If there is already a talk page, go to E. There is no talk page: (i) create the talk page, (ii) add a template for WP P, (iii) end.
E. There is a talk page. If it has a template for WP P and no template for WP HoP, (i) end.
If there is no template for WP P, (i) Convert the template from WP HoP to WP P, (ii) end.
There are already two templates. (i) Find the quality class, if any (and if there is disagreement, choose the lower), (ii) delete the WP HoP template, (iii) add quality to the WP P template if applicable, (iv) end.
We've now gone through the whole of Category:Photography. We turn to the stragglers.
III. Category:WikiProject History of photography articles and all its subcategories should contain very few talk pages. But nevertheless ... for every such talk page, do the rest of this section III:
F. If there is no template for WP P, (i) Convert the template from WP HoP to WP P, (ii) end.
There are already two templates. (i) Find the quality class, if any (and if there is disagreement, choose the lower), (ii) delete the WP HoP template, (iii) add quality to the WP P template if applicable, (iv) end.
Whew. And finally:
IV. Every subcategory of Category:WikiProject History of photography articles will now be empty. Delete the lot (and delete the top category too).
(Actually stage IV is easy: a human can do it. Indeed, I'll do it.)
Again, apologies for my terrible pseudocode. But its spaghettiishness aside, do I get it right? -- Hoary ( talk) 02:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Photography#Camera_timeline_templates_missing.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
May I propose an article start for the word trichromy? Edouard Albert ( talk) 18:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)