I've arrogantly stolen and substantially altered Pinkville's list. I hope that he doesn't (you don't) mind.
One major change is removal of the "Che Guevara" criterion. Eudora Welty and Claude Simon are hugely better known as writers than as photographers. But there are books of their photos, so they're in. It's widely believed that the British Queen Liz II takes photos; as long as these are not seen by the rest of the world, she's no more notable a photographer than I am. (I'm not knocking her: I'm willing to believe that she's better than me.) -- Hoary 12:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Would American combat photographers whos work was in many newpapers and which captured many memorable moments of a war (WWII in the case i'm discussing) be appropriate? I would assume yes - or do i need to provide samples for approval? The other steve jobs 17:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[comment moved from the project page:] All the articles listed above have now had the template added. But there are more to come! Pinkville 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The template needs to be splattered on a lot of article talk pages. When you've checked that all of a list or category of articles has been splattered, please list it below. If you add an article to the project page, please make sure that you've added a template to the talk page of the article itself.
In the section above titled "Hello", Badbilltucker discreetly recommends adoption of the 1.0 assessment system: Doing so is both useful for your project and wikipedia as a whole, in that it helps you and others help determine which are the best articles, and which ones are closest to Wikipedia:Featured article and Wikipedia:Good article status. Having quickly reread what's written about the assessment system, I strongly agree. Does anyone disagree? -- Hoary 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Following a perfunctory discussion below, it's already set up and running. -- Hoary 05:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
(In the sense of "lists of subjects that probably deserve articles")
It would be useful to have lists of photographers (etc) covered by such works as the Oxford Companion to the Photograph. I'm not sure about the legality of copying in lists that have been composed for copyright books; I suspect that these are copyright. While I'm confused, I'll just say that the editor 20th Century (Zenhan) Art, who unfortunately hasn't been active here for some months, has created a list of the 328 photographers in 日本写真家事典 (an excellent dictionary of Japanese photographers). Its legality aside, it should be used with some care as although the names are in the Wikipedia-approved but dreadful Hepburn romanization it skips macrons. Also, the list doesn't put the names of people born after the Meiji "restoration" back to front, to accord with sclerotic prejudices and a daft WP rule. Thus for example NAITO Tadayuki ("209. NAITO Tadayuki, b. 1941 (内藤忠行, ないとう ただゆき)") should be " Tadayuki Naitō". And User:20th Century (Zenhan) Art presents other, shorter hotlists on his user page. -- Hoary 00:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just now gone through much of Henri Cartier-Bresson, and I hope to continue. It has the makings of a "Good Article", but there's a lot to be done. Some I can easily change, e.g. the chummy way in which it describes the photographer as "Henri". Others I can't, notably sourcing of all the quotations. Those of you with books about HCB, please pitch in. -- Hoary 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
In the period of over one month since those three were selected, progress on each has been massively underwhelming. Suggestion: we demote any two of them to "Later" and concentrate on just the one. Any nomination for which one of the three should stay in [what's labeled as] the express lane? -- Hoary 06:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I could not agree more... we should just focus on one for now and see if that gets us anywhere. I prefer both Cartier-Bresson and Photojournalism to Link (they seem more important, generally speaking), but I don't particularly care which of the two! — DustinGC ( talk | contribs) 09:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Since work has already been undertaken on the Cartier-Bresson article, and since biographies are usually easier to tackle than more general and theoretical articles like Photojournalism, let's deal with him first. Pinkville 13:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Please add any name after considering the critical reputation, or at least fame, of the photographer, or the quality (or ease of improvement) of the existing article, and please explain it on the discussion page. Let's not forget the earliest, the most recent, those whose work is published primarily or exclusively with texts in languages other than English. And let's keep the number of FA/GA-wannabes well under fifty, so that this list is inspiring rather than dispiriting.
[please don't add individual products or brands]
[History of photography in various countries]
I've started to look through Category:Photographs. Seeing Kiss (photograph) listed among them, I immediately thought of two or three likely choices. It turned out to be none of these, and instead something that strikes me as entirely forgettable. No claim is made for its quality, rather, it's said to be very popular. Is there anything to this? -- Hoary 04:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I just went ahead and created The Pond-Moonlight because I happened to have a high-quality JPEG on my hard disk and noticed it was on our list of notable photographs (scroll up on this talk page). I don't actually know much about the photo, though, so it's just a stub until someone wants to write something! — DustinGC ( talk | contribs) 05:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think there is value in bringing up articles on influential photobooks. Wiki only has a few articles on these books, which I find to be appropriate. I'm not suggesting that we create a lot more of these, but I do think we should capture some information on the really critical books that influenced future photographers. I've added a new section above and listed the top two books that came to mind: The Americans and The Family of Man. TheMindsEye 17:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
In splattering templates on the articles listed in this category, three main issues came to mind: 1) at least half the articles were apparently written under a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term photographic process (to wit: " procedures by which light-sensitive materials are made to produce an image" ~ The Getty), 2) at least half the articles have been substantially or entirely lifted from other sources, and 3) many of those articles that aren't mere copy/paste jobbies (actually, also many that are) are very poorly written. Another issue that may be worth considering is that of how to deal with proprietary photographic processes when different brand names essentially duplicate the properties of each other but have been given separate articles... Pinkville 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
In a related but separate note, I don't believe it's necessary to add templates to the articles on photographic chemicals since they really are more concerned with issues in chemistry than photography. Pinkville 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. In fact, the Getty definition I linked above includes a useful definition of photographic techniques that could be placed in the latter Category page. I'll do that myself. Pinkville 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The Adolfo Farsari article is about ready for re nomination to FA (thanks almost exclusively to Pinkville). Before it's renominated, others here are warmly invited to give it a once-over. -- Hoary 05:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Would you guys be willing to take a look at Collodion process? There's been some odd stuff going on recently, in which the entire article was replaced with a different, largely how-to one. I've cleaned up as best I could, but there seem to be some unresolved issues about the distinction between wet and dry plates. I'd be grateful for an expert eye; thanks. Chick Bowen 05:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I created Photoclinometry a while ago. It was recently nominated a photography-related stub. I was thinking of adding a picture example..which I do not personally have. Could anyone also look at the page to see if anything is missing or how to make the article better? Icez 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I serve as webmaster for the George Eastman House, and I believe we can help contribute content for this project, as we have similar internal efforts with wiki stuff in the field of photographic conservation.
We're in the final stages of putting an educational resource online, known as Discovery Kits. We're still working a few bugs out, however, there is a wealth of content on a wide range of subjects involving photography and in particular, photographs as objects of cultural heritage and significance. If anyone has some ideas as to how we can more directly contribute, I'd be happy to try and make that happen. Rpd9803 09:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There are several well known photographers who specialized in pano photos, dating back to the mid 1800's. Techniques included balloons, kites, and very tall poles (I remember seeing one vintage photo of a famous pano photographer standing on top of a wooden pole about 30 feet in the air by his farm house!) Would a stub or section on tis be appropriate? ie: http://www.bigshotz.co.nz/images/vaniman1.jpg melvin vaniman -- Rickdrew 05:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have created and am working on the page for "Melvin Vaniman" - comments and suggestions welcomed.
I have recently created Henri Le Secq article and needed some opinion on it as I am not an expert on photography history. STTW (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, Pinkville. Le Secq used salt negative process some call it wax negative process, it is one and the same thing? STTW (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I am (with help of John Titchener) now trying to expand stub on Josef Jindřich Šechtl into full sized article. Part of motivation is need to write biography on the planned exhibition of his Leica photography works. Opinions are very welcome. -- Honza 15:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope to be mostly done with putting together the most important facts. I don't feel competent to judge quality of the work, so I've just quoted small comment from Pavel Scheufler's biography on portrait work of Josef Jindřich Šechtl. How the article reads and what are the main problems?
-- Honza 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The web domain name livingtreasures.kxx.com is no longer valid. Please now use sflivingtreasures.org Thank you. Sflivingtreasures 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Does every notable photographer belong as part of the HOP project? That is, is the criterion for biographical notability all that is needed to be part of the history project, or should they be more historically relevant for that? Dicklyon 18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, historians of photography. I recently filed a request for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sheldon Dick/archive1, on an article I've recently written, Sheldon Dick. I haven't gotten any responses (not atypical), and I was wondering whether anyone here would be interested in commenting. Dick was a Farm Security Administration photographer. You can ignore the questions if you like; any feedback would be helpful. Thanks! Chick Bowen 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've been expanding the article André Kertész significantly (please try not to alter it too much, it's a work in progress - see the talk page...) and after the only picture in the article was removed due to copyright violations, the article looks rather bare. I'd appreciate any photographs to do with Andre Kertesz - it would help a lot & I'm sure there'd be a barn star at the end of the road since he's a difficult subject. On another note, since some of his work was created ages ago, am I allowed to include them in the article or are they bound by some sort of copyright? I know older pictures are allowed, but would these count? Any info & pictures that are legal would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Spawn Man 09:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Another editor -- not me -- has proposed that Konica and Minolta should be merged within Konica Minolta. I can't find any argument for this proposal. (My own comment is on Talk:Konica.) -- Hoary 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just come across this list for the first time. I noticed a very few spelling mistakes, and there are problems about diacritics and alternative romanizations, but it looks useful. I wonder about copyright issues, though. If it's OK to do so, I'd like to copy it into a subpage here, and, with the help of others, eventually link (mostly in red) to the photographers. -- Hoary 11:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion began on my talk page, so I've moved it here since it might be of interest to everyone involved in the project. I've left out the parts of the discussion that relate to other matters. Pinkville 01:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
...I think that WP Photography is probably wrongly named, because that project is really a Wikipedia maintenance project (expanding articles with photos), whereas a WikiProject bearing that name should be about editing the articles covering the subject of photography - which I presume is why HoP was created. Ideally, I think you HoP guys should be allowed to take that name, while the Photography project should be renamed something like WP Article Photography or WP Wiki Photography - or perhaps even consider merging with WP Illustration, which functions to maintain all images within the wiki and is still a very active project. Not certain what your thoughts are on the matter, but I hope that we are somewhat of the same mind, since it's irksome that you guys at HoP were forced to chose a name that's slightly too specific. Anyway, best of luck and hope to talk soon! Girolamo Savonarola 17:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Reviving - I'd just like to point out things like what's recently happened in Talk:Raw image format - where the WikiProject tag was changed to WP Photography before being reverted by me - as an example of why the project name is not a frivolous issue, and how the confusion not only has the potential, but is actively hurting this project due to good faith edits detagging its articles. I am not a project member, but I feel the need to reassert that this seems grievously in error. Girolamo Savonarola 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the only real problem here is that there aren't enough active contributors to the WP Photography project to fulfill the scope that the all-embracing title suggests. If this were the case I believe the "name" issue would be resolved, as all photography-related wiki-activity could be covered and coordinated from the one project. As I noted on the WP:PHOTO talk page, earlier discussions on this issue came down to four main points of consensus (see the discussion for details) proposing that:
It seems to me the HoP name sugegests a too-narrow scope and it's this which causes the majority of confusion with category tags etc. Where HoP-scope articles are often over-technical or otherwise non-historical, it might suggest the need for another sub-project rather than a problem with the name of the main project; as it's a really diverse topic/activity, the ideal here IMO is a centralised project team contracted out, so to speak, to the various aspects of wiki photo-activity. In any event, the most workable solution is always the one that creates the least work, so any re-naming of existing activities probably a non-starter. -- mikaul talk 17:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Another question raised above is, if we move WP HoP to WP Photography, where should the content currently on WP Photography move to? Some suggestions above:
Personally, I think I'd favor images, since Wikipedia ____ may imply only photographs of Wikipedia or something equally confusing to some readers. (And it avoids self-reference.) Although "images" technically may apply to illustrations, animations, and maps. On the other hand, there's no reason why images couldn't incorporate all of these projects together as a single project with task forces for each of these particular types of image - in fact, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea, since it would allow for more cross-participation and awareness. However, that obviously will need discussion with those projects, although it doesn't prevent a putative WP Images from covering only photos for the meantime. Girolamo Savonarola 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Please remove mention of an article from which the PROD template is removed, or which is deleted.
Really.
If you look at this list, you'll see them. Every article marked "BGSS" is a bot-generated substub (or was when last examined). True, there aren't many of them. But most of the blue links marked "NC" are also bot-generated substubs. Moreover, most of the red links marked "NC" too have macronless equivalents that are bot-generated substubs: thus redlinked Shimamura Hōkō probably means that there's a substub titled Shimamura Hoko that ought to be retitled Shimamura Hōkō.
I don't know what to do about these.
There's also an issue over naming. Aside from the occasional slip, the names are all the right way around. However, our beloved en:WP has a Manual of Style that dictates that Japanese people born after 1867 must have their names the wrong way around. (Intercoursing stupid, if you ask me, and in contravention of scholarly western practice, let alone Japanese practice.) I've raised this matter over at WP Japan. If you have a comment on the naming, better do so there; if you have a comment other than on the naming, feel free to make it there, here, or both. Thank you! -- Hoary 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm newly appointed coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject History. I was coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject Military History before. My scope is to improve the cooperation among the different history projects andf use the synergy of a common infrastructure to improve article quality. One idea would be to merge small project into a larger wikiproject history with a common infrastructure and the small projects continuing independently as task forces of this project. What are your suggestions? Greetings Wandalstouring 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The stub Naitō Tadayuki has been put up for deletion. I've tried an emergency rewrite, but it doesn't really camouflage my own ignorance of photography. Can somebody with knowledge come and take a look at it? Paularblaster ( talk) 00:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
My watchlist shows me the recent addition to some talk pages of minor variations on the following:
(my emphasis), adding the page to Category:Biography articles without infoboxes.
I imagine that there are various opinions on biographical "infoboxes". My own can easily be expressed in terms whose primary meanings relate to the lower reaches of the alimentary canal; I wonder how unusual they are hereabouts.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes tells us that:
"Scientist articles" would seem to come under Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia. Not so surprisingly, there's no Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Photography. I wouldn't be surprised if Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment said that photography is an Art and stuck Template:Infobox Artist or Template:Infobox Person or some new Template:Photographer on it. The last could have some jolly super fields such as "brand of camera" and "URL of blog". Would this be an excellent idea, or what?
I have my own answers to that question. But you have a go first, please. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Would articles on photographers benefit from biographical infoboxes?
Yes
No
I'm surprised to discover there's no Helmut Gernsheim article, he's of equal importance to Beaumont Newhall in documenting the history of photography, and some would argue more so, since his History was more comprehensive and became the standard reference work that (at least according to Gernsheim!) everyone else copied instead of doing their own research. I see he's mentioned in several bio articles due to having written books on the person in question (Julia Margaret Cameron for instance), he was also the person who discovered Lewis Carroll's photographs and Niépce's first ever photograph (ie the first ever photograph!). I could create a stub, but the only info I have personally is a 20 page interview with him, this gives a good account of his life but is not going to be entirely objective and I don't know when he died. Samatarou ( talk) 01:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, all. I created the article for Kay Lahusen today, and thought she would be appropriate under the scope of your project as she is considered the first photojournalist of the gay rights movement, and has taken thousands of photographs in her lifetime documenting LGBT rights before Stonewall. You can see two notable photos taken by her in the Barbara Gittings article. The New York Public Library owns most of her photos now and they're currently organizing them for display and possible book format (I hope). -- Moni3 ( talk) 23:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've arrogantly stolen and substantially altered Pinkville's list. I hope that he doesn't (you don't) mind.
One major change is removal of the "Che Guevara" criterion. Eudora Welty and Claude Simon are hugely better known as writers than as photographers. But there are books of their photos, so they're in. It's widely believed that the British Queen Liz II takes photos; as long as these are not seen by the rest of the world, she's no more notable a photographer than I am. (I'm not knocking her: I'm willing to believe that she's better than me.) -- Hoary 12:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Would American combat photographers whos work was in many newpapers and which captured many memorable moments of a war (WWII in the case i'm discussing) be appropriate? I would assume yes - or do i need to provide samples for approval? The other steve jobs 17:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[comment moved from the project page:] All the articles listed above have now had the template added. But there are more to come! Pinkville 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The template needs to be splattered on a lot of article talk pages. When you've checked that all of a list or category of articles has been splattered, please list it below. If you add an article to the project page, please make sure that you've added a template to the talk page of the article itself.
In the section above titled "Hello", Badbilltucker discreetly recommends adoption of the 1.0 assessment system: Doing so is both useful for your project and wikipedia as a whole, in that it helps you and others help determine which are the best articles, and which ones are closest to Wikipedia:Featured article and Wikipedia:Good article status. Having quickly reread what's written about the assessment system, I strongly agree. Does anyone disagree? -- Hoary 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Following a perfunctory discussion below, it's already set up and running. -- Hoary 05:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
(In the sense of "lists of subjects that probably deserve articles")
It would be useful to have lists of photographers (etc) covered by such works as the Oxford Companion to the Photograph. I'm not sure about the legality of copying in lists that have been composed for copyright books; I suspect that these are copyright. While I'm confused, I'll just say that the editor 20th Century (Zenhan) Art, who unfortunately hasn't been active here for some months, has created a list of the 328 photographers in 日本写真家事典 (an excellent dictionary of Japanese photographers). Its legality aside, it should be used with some care as although the names are in the Wikipedia-approved but dreadful Hepburn romanization it skips macrons. Also, the list doesn't put the names of people born after the Meiji "restoration" back to front, to accord with sclerotic prejudices and a daft WP rule. Thus for example NAITO Tadayuki ("209. NAITO Tadayuki, b. 1941 (内藤忠行, ないとう ただゆき)") should be " Tadayuki Naitō". And User:20th Century (Zenhan) Art presents other, shorter hotlists on his user page. -- Hoary 00:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just now gone through much of Henri Cartier-Bresson, and I hope to continue. It has the makings of a "Good Article", but there's a lot to be done. Some I can easily change, e.g. the chummy way in which it describes the photographer as "Henri". Others I can't, notably sourcing of all the quotations. Those of you with books about HCB, please pitch in. -- Hoary 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
In the period of over one month since those three were selected, progress on each has been massively underwhelming. Suggestion: we demote any two of them to "Later" and concentrate on just the one. Any nomination for which one of the three should stay in [what's labeled as] the express lane? -- Hoary 06:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I could not agree more... we should just focus on one for now and see if that gets us anywhere. I prefer both Cartier-Bresson and Photojournalism to Link (they seem more important, generally speaking), but I don't particularly care which of the two! — DustinGC ( talk | contribs) 09:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Since work has already been undertaken on the Cartier-Bresson article, and since biographies are usually easier to tackle than more general and theoretical articles like Photojournalism, let's deal with him first. Pinkville 13:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Please add any name after considering the critical reputation, or at least fame, of the photographer, or the quality (or ease of improvement) of the existing article, and please explain it on the discussion page. Let's not forget the earliest, the most recent, those whose work is published primarily or exclusively with texts in languages other than English. And let's keep the number of FA/GA-wannabes well under fifty, so that this list is inspiring rather than dispiriting.
[please don't add individual products or brands]
[History of photography in various countries]
I've started to look through Category:Photographs. Seeing Kiss (photograph) listed among them, I immediately thought of two or three likely choices. It turned out to be none of these, and instead something that strikes me as entirely forgettable. No claim is made for its quality, rather, it's said to be very popular. Is there anything to this? -- Hoary 04:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I just went ahead and created The Pond-Moonlight because I happened to have a high-quality JPEG on my hard disk and noticed it was on our list of notable photographs (scroll up on this talk page). I don't actually know much about the photo, though, so it's just a stub until someone wants to write something! — DustinGC ( talk | contribs) 05:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think there is value in bringing up articles on influential photobooks. Wiki only has a few articles on these books, which I find to be appropriate. I'm not suggesting that we create a lot more of these, but I do think we should capture some information on the really critical books that influenced future photographers. I've added a new section above and listed the top two books that came to mind: The Americans and The Family of Man. TheMindsEye 17:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
In splattering templates on the articles listed in this category, three main issues came to mind: 1) at least half the articles were apparently written under a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term photographic process (to wit: " procedures by which light-sensitive materials are made to produce an image" ~ The Getty), 2) at least half the articles have been substantially or entirely lifted from other sources, and 3) many of those articles that aren't mere copy/paste jobbies (actually, also many that are) are very poorly written. Another issue that may be worth considering is that of how to deal with proprietary photographic processes when different brand names essentially duplicate the properties of each other but have been given separate articles... Pinkville 16:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
In a related but separate note, I don't believe it's necessary to add templates to the articles on photographic chemicals since they really are more concerned with issues in chemistry than photography. Pinkville 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. In fact, the Getty definition I linked above includes a useful definition of photographic techniques that could be placed in the latter Category page. I'll do that myself. Pinkville 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The Adolfo Farsari article is about ready for re nomination to FA (thanks almost exclusively to Pinkville). Before it's renominated, others here are warmly invited to give it a once-over. -- Hoary 05:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Would you guys be willing to take a look at Collodion process? There's been some odd stuff going on recently, in which the entire article was replaced with a different, largely how-to one. I've cleaned up as best I could, but there seem to be some unresolved issues about the distinction between wet and dry plates. I'd be grateful for an expert eye; thanks. Chick Bowen 05:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I created Photoclinometry a while ago. It was recently nominated a photography-related stub. I was thinking of adding a picture example..which I do not personally have. Could anyone also look at the page to see if anything is missing or how to make the article better? Icez 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I serve as webmaster for the George Eastman House, and I believe we can help contribute content for this project, as we have similar internal efforts with wiki stuff in the field of photographic conservation.
We're in the final stages of putting an educational resource online, known as Discovery Kits. We're still working a few bugs out, however, there is a wealth of content on a wide range of subjects involving photography and in particular, photographs as objects of cultural heritage and significance. If anyone has some ideas as to how we can more directly contribute, I'd be happy to try and make that happen. Rpd9803 09:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There are several well known photographers who specialized in pano photos, dating back to the mid 1800's. Techniques included balloons, kites, and very tall poles (I remember seeing one vintage photo of a famous pano photographer standing on top of a wooden pole about 30 feet in the air by his farm house!) Would a stub or section on tis be appropriate? ie: http://www.bigshotz.co.nz/images/vaniman1.jpg melvin vaniman -- Rickdrew 05:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have created and am working on the page for "Melvin Vaniman" - comments and suggestions welcomed.
I have recently created Henri Le Secq article and needed some opinion on it as I am not an expert on photography history. STTW (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, Pinkville. Le Secq used salt negative process some call it wax negative process, it is one and the same thing? STTW (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I am (with help of John Titchener) now trying to expand stub on Josef Jindřich Šechtl into full sized article. Part of motivation is need to write biography on the planned exhibition of his Leica photography works. Opinions are very welcome. -- Honza 15:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope to be mostly done with putting together the most important facts. I don't feel competent to judge quality of the work, so I've just quoted small comment from Pavel Scheufler's biography on portrait work of Josef Jindřich Šechtl. How the article reads and what are the main problems?
-- Honza 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The web domain name livingtreasures.kxx.com is no longer valid. Please now use sflivingtreasures.org Thank you. Sflivingtreasures 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Does every notable photographer belong as part of the HOP project? That is, is the criterion for biographical notability all that is needed to be part of the history project, or should they be more historically relevant for that? Dicklyon 18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, historians of photography. I recently filed a request for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sheldon Dick/archive1, on an article I've recently written, Sheldon Dick. I haven't gotten any responses (not atypical), and I was wondering whether anyone here would be interested in commenting. Dick was a Farm Security Administration photographer. You can ignore the questions if you like; any feedback would be helpful. Thanks! Chick Bowen 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've been expanding the article André Kertész significantly (please try not to alter it too much, it's a work in progress - see the talk page...) and after the only picture in the article was removed due to copyright violations, the article looks rather bare. I'd appreciate any photographs to do with Andre Kertesz - it would help a lot & I'm sure there'd be a barn star at the end of the road since he's a difficult subject. On another note, since some of his work was created ages ago, am I allowed to include them in the article or are they bound by some sort of copyright? I know older pictures are allowed, but would these count? Any info & pictures that are legal would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Spawn Man 09:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Another editor -- not me -- has proposed that Konica and Minolta should be merged within Konica Minolta. I can't find any argument for this proposal. (My own comment is on Talk:Konica.) -- Hoary 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just come across this list for the first time. I noticed a very few spelling mistakes, and there are problems about diacritics and alternative romanizations, but it looks useful. I wonder about copyright issues, though. If it's OK to do so, I'd like to copy it into a subpage here, and, with the help of others, eventually link (mostly in red) to the photographers. -- Hoary 11:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion began on my talk page, so I've moved it here since it might be of interest to everyone involved in the project. I've left out the parts of the discussion that relate to other matters. Pinkville 01:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
...I think that WP Photography is probably wrongly named, because that project is really a Wikipedia maintenance project (expanding articles with photos), whereas a WikiProject bearing that name should be about editing the articles covering the subject of photography - which I presume is why HoP was created. Ideally, I think you HoP guys should be allowed to take that name, while the Photography project should be renamed something like WP Article Photography or WP Wiki Photography - or perhaps even consider merging with WP Illustration, which functions to maintain all images within the wiki and is still a very active project. Not certain what your thoughts are on the matter, but I hope that we are somewhat of the same mind, since it's irksome that you guys at HoP were forced to chose a name that's slightly too specific. Anyway, best of luck and hope to talk soon! Girolamo Savonarola 17:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Reviving - I'd just like to point out things like what's recently happened in Talk:Raw image format - where the WikiProject tag was changed to WP Photography before being reverted by me - as an example of why the project name is not a frivolous issue, and how the confusion not only has the potential, but is actively hurting this project due to good faith edits detagging its articles. I am not a project member, but I feel the need to reassert that this seems grievously in error. Girolamo Savonarola 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the only real problem here is that there aren't enough active contributors to the WP Photography project to fulfill the scope that the all-embracing title suggests. If this were the case I believe the "name" issue would be resolved, as all photography-related wiki-activity could be covered and coordinated from the one project. As I noted on the WP:PHOTO talk page, earlier discussions on this issue came down to four main points of consensus (see the discussion for details) proposing that:
It seems to me the HoP name sugegests a too-narrow scope and it's this which causes the majority of confusion with category tags etc. Where HoP-scope articles are often over-technical or otherwise non-historical, it might suggest the need for another sub-project rather than a problem with the name of the main project; as it's a really diverse topic/activity, the ideal here IMO is a centralised project team contracted out, so to speak, to the various aspects of wiki photo-activity. In any event, the most workable solution is always the one that creates the least work, so any re-naming of existing activities probably a non-starter. -- mikaul talk 17:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Another question raised above is, if we move WP HoP to WP Photography, where should the content currently on WP Photography move to? Some suggestions above:
Personally, I think I'd favor images, since Wikipedia ____ may imply only photographs of Wikipedia or something equally confusing to some readers. (And it avoids self-reference.) Although "images" technically may apply to illustrations, animations, and maps. On the other hand, there's no reason why images couldn't incorporate all of these projects together as a single project with task forces for each of these particular types of image - in fact, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea, since it would allow for more cross-participation and awareness. However, that obviously will need discussion with those projects, although it doesn't prevent a putative WP Images from covering only photos for the meantime. Girolamo Savonarola 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Please remove mention of an article from which the PROD template is removed, or which is deleted.
Really.
If you look at this list, you'll see them. Every article marked "BGSS" is a bot-generated substub (or was when last examined). True, there aren't many of them. But most of the blue links marked "NC" are also bot-generated substubs. Moreover, most of the red links marked "NC" too have macronless equivalents that are bot-generated substubs: thus redlinked Shimamura Hōkō probably means that there's a substub titled Shimamura Hoko that ought to be retitled Shimamura Hōkō.
I don't know what to do about these.
There's also an issue over naming. Aside from the occasional slip, the names are all the right way around. However, our beloved en:WP has a Manual of Style that dictates that Japanese people born after 1867 must have their names the wrong way around. (Intercoursing stupid, if you ask me, and in contravention of scholarly western practice, let alone Japanese practice.) I've raised this matter over at WP Japan. If you have a comment on the naming, better do so there; if you have a comment other than on the naming, feel free to make it there, here, or both. Thank you! -- Hoary 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm newly appointed coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject History. I was coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject Military History before. My scope is to improve the cooperation among the different history projects andf use the synergy of a common infrastructure to improve article quality. One idea would be to merge small project into a larger wikiproject history with a common infrastructure and the small projects continuing independently as task forces of this project. What are your suggestions? Greetings Wandalstouring 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The stub Naitō Tadayuki has been put up for deletion. I've tried an emergency rewrite, but it doesn't really camouflage my own ignorance of photography. Can somebody with knowledge come and take a look at it? Paularblaster ( talk) 00:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
My watchlist shows me the recent addition to some talk pages of minor variations on the following:
(my emphasis), adding the page to Category:Biography articles without infoboxes.
I imagine that there are various opinions on biographical "infoboxes". My own can easily be expressed in terms whose primary meanings relate to the lower reaches of the alimentary canal; I wonder how unusual they are hereabouts.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes tells us that:
"Scientist articles" would seem to come under Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia. Not so surprisingly, there's no Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Photography. I wouldn't be surprised if Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment said that photography is an Art and stuck Template:Infobox Artist or Template:Infobox Person or some new Template:Photographer on it. The last could have some jolly super fields such as "brand of camera" and "URL of blog". Would this be an excellent idea, or what?
I have my own answers to that question. But you have a go first, please. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Would articles on photographers benefit from biographical infoboxes?
Yes
No
I'm surprised to discover there's no Helmut Gernsheim article, he's of equal importance to Beaumont Newhall in documenting the history of photography, and some would argue more so, since his History was more comprehensive and became the standard reference work that (at least according to Gernsheim!) everyone else copied instead of doing their own research. I see he's mentioned in several bio articles due to having written books on the person in question (Julia Margaret Cameron for instance), he was also the person who discovered Lewis Carroll's photographs and Niépce's first ever photograph (ie the first ever photograph!). I could create a stub, but the only info I have personally is a 20 page interview with him, this gives a good account of his life but is not going to be entirely objective and I don't know when he died. Samatarou ( talk) 01:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, all. I created the article for Kay Lahusen today, and thought she would be appropriate under the scope of your project as she is considered the first photojournalist of the gay rights movement, and has taken thousands of photographs in her lifetime documenting LGBT rights before Stonewall. You can see two notable photos taken by her in the Barbara Gittings article. The New York Public Library owns most of her photos now and they're currently organizing them for display and possible book format (I hope). -- Moni3 ( talk) 23:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)