Jump to content

Talk:List of photographers/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Notability criteria

I thought it might be an idea to outline some criteria for notability. A notable photographer is one:

  • whose work has appeared in exhibitions
  • whose work has been published in books
  • whose work is included in collections
  • who was significant historically (e.g. the first to photograph X, etc.)
  • who, though a photographer, is better known for other contributions to photography (e.g. Walter Woodbury, principally known as an innovator of photographic equipment and processes)
  • who, though a photographer, is well-known for reasons unrelated to photography (e.g. Che Guevara, et al)

Please modify and add to the criteria as necessary. Pinkville 15:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree and would like to note that these standards essentially mirror the Wiki guidelines for notability of people — "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." SteveHopson 16:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Prince Albert

Prince Albert was a photographer ? Give some references please ?

Could really use some more help on putting biographies together here
Indeed! Will do soon... I'll export my text straight from essays that I've written, and tart them up. Yep, we'll get this section better.
Albert and Victoria certtainly collected photography and patronised photographers, and I daresay the dynamic Albert had a go at the craft himself. Any good modern biography (book) should give you the details.

Che Guevara

Che Guevara, this is not a joke : see : http://www.mkg-hamburg.de/english/ausstell/03_che/fotograf.htm

Alphabetical?

The setup of this entry is nice, except that the list is not alphabetized by the photographer's last name. Is there an easy way to format this so that the list is alphabetical and easier to navigate?

Huh??? --MarkSweep 02:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right, it is pretty alphabetized by last name. However, there are a few instances when it is not. I guess I'll go through it and fix it. — Aurora (Say hi!)[[]] 14:06, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief description of the type of photography of each artist may be helpful. for example:

Berenice Abbott: Architectural photographer

or similar. The only reason I say this is because I've found it's actually more difficult than one would think to find a photographer of a specific genre.

3rd Jan 05 - I have instituted a better and more flexible way of identifying photographers by their type of work.

Scope of List

Following up from the revision of 20:32, 5 November 2005 by 195.92.168.169, I thought I'd start some discussion about broadening/clarifying the scope of this list. 195.92.168.169's 5 November change reverted this change I'd made in the heading to the list:

"This is a list of notable photographers in such traditions as art, documentary and fashion photography."

back to this:

"This is a list of notable photographers in the art, documentary and fashion traditions."

But the list is already broader than just "art, documentary and fashion", and I can't think of a rationale to limit a list of photographers to just three genres anyway. In fact, I'm not comfortable with photographers being "summed up" by such labels, since categories like "art" and "documentary" are hard to define in themselves and relative to each other. What do you think? Pinkville 15:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well someone is trying to narrow the list even further as at 09:52, 18 December 2005 195.92.168.176 (removed "video commericals" cat) and "added" the word still to the heading. Many primarily still photographers went into doing commercials for television in the 1960s for sheer survival.
Should that be a separate list? or should that be an added category here? Should we not, in fact, add categories as needed. Perhaps "ed" for an "editorial photographer" etc. Doc 17:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we should aim to be inclusive - which is why I have a problem with the heading as it stands. Rather than trying to include all possible genres in the descriptive heading I think it would be easier and more accurate just to say: "This is a list of notable photographers in such traditions as art, documentary and fashion photography." That allows for infinite expansion of the scope of the list while acknowledging its original parameters (which it never strictly adhered to anyway). Does anyone agree?/have any further thoughts? Pinkville 02:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I do agree as in my comments above when my effort to expand was reverted. It was not worth giving more time to when folks revert without discussion. The list title is List of photographers and as such should in my opinion be inclusive of all notable photogrphers including if they migrated over to commercials for TV as stated above. Doc 02:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. To me the list is simply a handy reference for finding photographers' names. There's no reason to limit it to photographers who operated in such and such a manner, etc. It already includes people like Che Guevera (not really known for his photography!) and undoubtedly more than a few vanity links whose "worthiness" can't be easily verified. Shall I change the heading to my suggestion, then? "This is a list of notable photographers in such traditions as art, documentary and fashion photography." People can add genre abbreviations as they like (I don't find them very helpful, myself, but what the hell). Pinkville 04:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Photographic studio

Please don't remove entries on this list for photographers described as "photographic studios". The term refers to a corporate photographic entity - not the physical space - and so many photographs are credited to photographic studios. For example, the Pun Lun photographic studio was the creator of many images in 19th century Hong Kong. Thanks. Pinkville 14:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Gabby Lang

Twice now an annonymous user has listed this name with a link to a commercial webpage. That is not the purpose of this list. Write an article on this photographer if your feel that they are sufficiently noteworthy and then place the webpage as an external link on the article page. The following is the entry which I rv and don't believe belongs here:

Does anyone view this differently? Doc 01:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Entries of this kind are not suitable for this list, in my opinion, even if honestly-intended (and not just vanity, etc.). Pinkville 19:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Photographers without articles

This list should be for photographers of note worthy of an article on Wikipedia by the usual standards. While I have felt in the past that there was a place to put a name here before the article to flag a known photographer that needs an article, it does seem to be getting out of hand. Perhaps we need to rethink this and delete any name that on Google and other searches does not come up with enough to create a stub.

Any other thoughts on this? Doc 02:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I had started a project of checking names from this list on the Union List of Artist Names, which is one of the authoritative sources for photographers' and other artists' names (with short bios), as well as on the Library of Congress Authorities, which does the much same thing. Then I created stub articles as appropriate. Of course, I got bogged down after getting halfway through "C", but I'd welcome anyone else to join in on the project with me. As for deleting names that don't turn up any of these sources, I'd wait a while, some obscure photographers that are nevertheless worthy of an article don't show up on internet sources... Pinkville 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
We seem to be getting a lot of self promotion of late...when there is an article, such as Mike Schennum it is almost no content and the only contribution by the person. Any thoughts? Doc 23:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's tricky. Some of these entries seem to be in earnest, but without an understanding of the notability criterion, and others are clearly base self-promotion. I'm not sure what to do, except to expand the description of the list to be more emphatic, and to keep on reverting, etc. As you see, i didn't get too far in my little project (somewhere in the "Cs"), but I think that's worth working on through the list until all or most of the unrecognised names have been researched and either verified and kept or not-found and removed (and rarely, kept anyway, just in case). Got any ideas? Pinkville 06:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to work on some as well, but I'm also very busy outside of Wikipedia at present. Perhaps I'll start with the letter "S" and work from there as I can. Doc 20:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That would certainly be very helpful. Pinkville 01:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I've done "P". I wish I could promise to do more, but this work is slow and depressing. Among the blue links, Scarlet Page looks a bit dubious (having put out no books and having had no exhibitions, or possibly one exhibition), but I know there'd be shrieks of "It's verifiable!" if I acted on my gut feelings. Plus her dad is really, really famous, and I've recently come to think that WP is the world's largest-ever soap opera guide, in which the relatives, bedmates, drug intakes and even (for Elvis Presley) bowel movements of whoever the masses are obsessed with are accorded reverent treatment. -- Hoary 08:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it is slow. Scarlet Page is a borderline case, but maybe not so far from Anton Corbijn, and other rock photographers who might legitimately be listed. As for revered bowel movements, etc., some folks take "God is in the details" very literally. Pinkville 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Nick Albertson

Two attempts have been made to insert Nick Albertson, each time linking to his site.

Read about Albertson for yourself. Note that he hasn't published any books, and hasn't had any solo shows. Hardly surprising, as he has only just graduated from university.

I wish him well in his career. If/when others take note of him, he can get his place in this list. Until then, he can't. -- Hoary 04:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We could start a list of non-notable photographers... Pinkville 11:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, now that would be a place for me at last. -- Hoary 14:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
.......and so, so many more of us ! Velela 14:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. Albertson has been quite persistent in trying to link this list to his site -- I've removed the link several times. Gabby Lang is associated with Albertson in that their sites link to each other and the same users have made several attempts to link both of them to the list.

Perhaps we should more stictly enforce removal of names without Wikipedia articles. The downside, of course, would be that this would cut out a lot of notable photographers who do not yet have articles. Perhaps we could keep a running list of persons who we plan to write articles about. 

SteveHopson 16:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

proposal to control for non-notable photographers

Let's try this: Remove all redlinked names from the List and put them here (or on a sub-page?), then, as each redlinked name has an article created for it, remove the name from the sub-list and add it to the List. A sub-list (or draft-list) would make the annotations {such as "William Gruber (inventor of View-Master)"}less distracting and, in fact, encourage such inclusions as preliminary background for future articles. What do y'all think? Pinkville 17:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, we can add a comment to the main page to the effect that only entries with Wiki articles are acceptable, but that they can add their names to this list as a request for review. SteveHopson 17:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Pinkville 17:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
A stunningly obviously wonderful stroke of genius there, Pink. I'm kicking myself for not having thought of it myself. (I'll send you the medical bill later.) No, really, it's very good. And I promise to do some of the donkeywork within the next 24 hours: not right now, as I haven't yet ingested the first coffee of the day. -- Hoary 22:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you like it. I believe the only question for the moment is: sub-list here on the talk page or on a subpage? Though I read the page on subpages, I'm still not clear as to whether it would be acceptable in these circumstances or not... Once that issue is resolved, I'll also start making changes! Pinkville 00:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and no medical bills here in Canada... yet. ;~)Pinkville 00:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Excellent idea...I have become more and more troubled with the number of non notable additions and the difficulty with giving a fair chance to check the names without articles. Doc 02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Preparing the sub-list of photographers

For the time being, I'm going to shift the redlinked photographers here. If we later decide that a subpage is more appropriate, they'll all be in one place anyway. Now that I've donethe shifting, if anyone wants to tidy the layout here or the proviso on the article page itself... Pinkville 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Good job, the pages look much better -- this must have been alot of work. The comments are helpful. I plan on starting articles on many of these redlined photogs and the info gives a place to start. SteveHopson 14:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Although famous for reasons other than his photography . . .

Do we really need this comment on Che Guevara and others? I would think that the article would make this point clear. Now that this list is cleaned up, I was wondering what y'all would think about removing these annotations. SteveHopson 14:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that we could leave the annotated version here on the talk page, but list the name alone on the article page. That way, if anyone questions the inclusion of someone like Che Guevara, the explanation is only a click away. Pinkville 15:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that leaving the information here is helpful. Doc 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert Voltaire

Robert Voltaire, a new addition, somehow looks dodgy to me. Comments? -- Hoary 07:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked for him in various references and found nothing. On Google I was rewarded with links to his MySpace and PhotoSharing accounts, though it does seem he has photographed models for the German GQ. I'd say he's a borderline case, and his WP article is wretched: "He has brown hair and eyes, is 6'1" tall." Rivetting stuff. I detect a faint odour of vanity article. Here's some more biographical info, but more damning (n.b. "Experience 1-3" - years?) than supporting, as far as I'm concerned. Pinkville 13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Are any of these photographers important, really?

And of those who are important, are there any good articles? Me, I'd immediately name A, B, C (and want to dampen enthusiasm for those frauds X, Y and Z). You'd have other ideas. But there mightn't be much point in doing so here. However, there could be some point to doing so in a "WikiProject". Take a look here to see the kind of opportunity that might arise.

Photography might well fall into one or two existing projects -- but they don't seem all that active.

Wikipedia: List of WikiProjects tells me of Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography but this is for contributing photographs to WP; a bit different from what I'm starting to think might be on the horizon (if others more energetic than I were also interested, and as long as no trolls show up). -- Hoary 09:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion makes sense. I can imagine something called Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Photography (since Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography has been taken), which is functionally divided into two main streams: Photographers and subjects in Photography. To this point, the WP articles on Photographers are still weighted toward 20th century Euroamerican photographers, neglecting the earliest, the most recent, and those who hail from other lands. Current subjects in photography seem to tend towards products and some technical articles, but leave out much of the history, theory and related issues or deal with them in a haphazard fashion. I wouldn't mind working out a preliminary outline for such a Project... Pinkville 13:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I like that title, but I'd like to sleep on it (and of course get Steve's input) before saying yes.

How about technical aspects? I think articles on such matters as wet collodion and infrared are relevant. To a lesser extent, articles on kinds of cameras are too -- but that's kinds of cameras, e.g. rollfilm TLR; not scads of recycled press releases and fancruft on the Grabasonic P300V versus the Grabasonic P400V (not a bad camera, actually; I have one) versus the Quasar Grimage X11 etc etc ad nauseam. "Processes, yes; hardware, no?" -- Hoary 14:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, processes, camera types and related topics are very worthwhile, but I bore easily re: the Grabasonic XXX-style articles, which usually read like brochures. For the Project page I can envision a list of resources (links and bibliographic citations) both as an aide for work on the Project and as a "for further reading" reference. Such a list could almost be a third stream in the project. Also must sleep - as it were. Pinkville 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Putting hardware aside for a moment, there's so much to do. I've just looked through all the blue-linked "A" people. Anthony Asael appears, how shall I put this, to have been written with love and care. A couple of the others look borderline vanity. Fratelli Alinari is a vanity article, which does a huge disservice to the illustrious history and significance of that company. There are several photographers whose names start with "A" who obviously deserve good (or even "Good") articles; I think none gets one. (No, some aren't bad. But I really don't think any is good.) I lack the stamina to look beyond "A" right now, but I start to wonder whether any well known photographer gets the article he deserves. (Counterexamples would be most welcome.) Is there any point in starting a project when there's no model one can put forward for emulation? -- Hoary 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all very humbling. But here's a start. There have been three Featured Articles on photographers: Felice Beato, El Lissitzky, and Roman Vishniac, and one Good Article: Hiroh Kikai. I'm currently in the process of adding inline citations to the Beato article to make it conform to the now obvious WP preference. These four arguably might serve as models for the more significant figures on the list. Those photographers who can less justifiably claim to "catch eyes and smiles from all over the world" will get the article they deserve in the form of a paragraph or two, I suppose. Pinkville 03:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As I use Mozilla to view Felice Beato, his panorama overlaps his ToC. That technical problem aside, the article looks good, as does that of Roman Vishniac. El Lissitzky is fine too, but of course he wasn't primarily a photographer. I hadn't known of any of these articles. And Hiroh Kikai, yes, I was vaguely aware of that one, and I think it's good in its way, but I have certain qualms about presenting it as one among a very small number of good models. ¶ Good, we have at least two good articles. For the following week, I'll be too busy to be able to put much time into any particular article, but I then hope to start work on one or other of the photographers whose names start with "A", most likely Abbott or Atget. -- Hoary 03:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC) PS I've just now fixed the ToC-crunching problem (I hope). 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the repair. I'd hate to think that many users wouldn't see the article and panorama properly. Pinkville 04:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got more material here about Abbott than about Atget, so I think I'll work on Berenice Abbott. And if nobody writes about Eugene Richards, I suppose I'll have to do him too. There'd be nothing proprietorial about either, of course: please feel very free to join me. Today's "main page" tells me: Recently featured: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith – Bangladesh – Wayne Gretzky and "IMHO", ha ha, Abbott and Richards deserve to be featured more than two of those three do. Yes, today being Cliché Day, I suggest that the history of photography needs a greater critical mass of Really Good Stuff before it reaches the tipping point needed for a successful "WikiProject". -- Hoary 03:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a Canadian I feel it's only my birthright and duty to do whatever I can to elevate The Great One to his rightful place in the Firmament of the Heavens. ...Oh, you meant Bangladesh was worthy! Ooops. Yeah, it's remarkable that so few photography articles have even had a whiff of FA or GA. Let's roll up sleaves, etc. Pinkville 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he's indeed Great: While in Edmonton, Gretzky endorsed a variety of products including denim jeans, his own line of wallpaper, pillow cases, cereal, chocolate bars, clocks, lunch box and a Mattel doll. Past and present plugs include Koho, Titan, and Easton hockey sticks, Thrifty, Peak Antifreeze, Ford-Canada, Coca-Cola, Esso, McDonald's, Campbell's Soup, the Official All-Star Café chain (with Tiger Woods, Shaquille O'Neal, Ken Griffey, Jr., Monica Seles, and Andre Agassi), Primestar TV, Upper Deck, Nike, Ultra Wheels, Hallmark Cards, Zurich Insurance, 7 Up, Tylenol and Canadian Imperial Bank, and Power Automotive Group. He and Ty did commercials for the Sharp Viewcam. (Beat that, Berenice Abbott!) Meanwhile, this Bangladesh -- does it run on the PS2 or the X-Box? ¶ I've started to clear some junk from the article on Berenice "zero endorsement deals" Abbott. Tellingly, the only sourced material is stuff on how she was lesbian, which, again tellingly, is sourced from an article in the kind of gaylesbiantransetcetera site that makes a big thing of saying that people are gaylesbianetc. Perhaps I'd better add some material (on her photography, not her private life) before I cut any more junk. -- Hoary 04:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be proud to participate in this project. I think the project approach is a really effective means of taking these photo pages to the next level. Each of us alone is overwhelmed with trying to write good articles on these subjects, but all of us together could really make a difference. I think it would be useful to express what we consider a good photo article to be. Of course, most of the standards are already expressed in other Wiki guidelines, so what I'd like to see is an extension of those guidelines. For example, I think that a good article about a photographer requires an example of his work, so that the reader can really visualize that person's work. The historical approach suggested in the title for this project further implies that each article should have some information on the subject's (person, process, or camera) role in development of modern photography. SteveHopson 01:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Glad you're interested. Your point on cooperation is key.
I have an idea that even a preliminary outline page to structure the project would be helpful at this stage. Obviously it's vital to improve the articles of the most significant photographers and subjects in photography, but parallel to that drive it might be useful to have a structured priority list. While working on Niepce, et al I wouldn't want to neglect subjects that are important but that have received much less attention than they deserve. So maybe I'm suggesting that with the most obviously important figures/subjects we also work on the most important neglected figures/subjects - in tandem. Add to that structure your suggestion of expanding the guidelines for good articles and I think there's a comprehensive yet manageable project in the works. Pinkville 02:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] -- Excellent, Steve. One problem is, "all of us together" number (excuse me while I go off and count my fingers), er, three. Can you think of any more people to drag in once this has been kicked off? ¶ Meanwhile, today's "featured article" is about Final [if only!] Fantasy X: Set in the fantasy world of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Spira, the game's story centers around a group of adventurers and their quest to defeat a rampaging force known as "Sin." Somehow I think most of the listed photographers are more interesting and significant (and are better at non-ersatz fantasy), but I'm one of those weirdos who actually reads books without moving his lips, so what would I know? -- Hoary 02:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You mean you read talking books, right? Cuz anythin else would be weird. It's all very preliminary, but I have some notes started at this page. Meanwhile, I'll continue plugging away with the non-Xbox/Hollywood/Hockey irrelevancies of some photographers' articles. Oh, and D C McJonathan might be interested. He's contributed a lot to the List. Pinkville 03:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Count me in. My time limitations fluctuate, but this is certainly one of my areas of interest and I have a fair library of books on the history of photography. I'll do what I can. Doc 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Great! Now we are four. Pinkville 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The draft looks interesting. Can we join you in working on it? -- Hoary 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Meant to say so. Please, be my guest! Pinkville 13:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nascent WikiProject - History of Photography

For those who are truly interested on developing the ideas mentioned in the above discussion, here's the link to the page with the draft outline for the project. Feel free to make changes. Pinkville 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject History of photography now exists. -- Hoary 12:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Jean Baudrillard

This Great Bore of our Time is listed, but the article on him doesn't mention that he's taken any photos. Whassup? -- Hoary 01:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't agree more as to his refined abilities to enervate, but he has published (on two occasions, I believe) books of his photographs. The editors of his WP article were either uniformed, unimpressed or too drowsy to notice. Pinkville 02:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

AfDs

Whether you agree with the AfD or disagree with it, list any article undergoing AfD here. -- Hoary 12:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[snippety snip]

Suggestion: That we might copy this section to the WP:HOP talk page, and delete it here. Any comments? -- Hoary 23:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's now within Talk:WP HOP; I hope nobody minds too much. -- Hoary 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Harold Davis

Harold Davis (born 1953) is a writer and photographer with special interest in experimental digital techniques involving photograms, cross-processing, and UV/IR captures.

.......... added at 02:46, 26 October 2006 by PashaBear

This seems to be a draft for Harold Davis (photographer). If somebody wants it there, he or she can copy it, click the red link I've provided above, and paste it there. But I'd suggest that this editor explains the notability of Davis's photos (listing solo exhibitions etc.) within the article, and provides independent verification for all of this. -- Hoary 04:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I've moved Harold Davis to the Talk:List -- SteveHopson 01:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


A project taking over?

Take a look here. -- Hoary 23:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And WikiProject History of photography now exists too. -- Hoary 12:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

About removing photographers names who dont have articles

Some of these artists were probably listed because they are important but havent yet been included as an article. I for one peruse this area to get ideas about who I may want to work with. I see no problem with listing non-article artists at all. Artsojourner 16:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"Non-article" photographers are added to Talk:List of photographers (see above), which is the list that editors can consult to see whose article they might want to work on (anyone can add to this list). Please read the pertinent discussions above to understand why red-linked names are removed from the main article: List of photographers. However, I'm a little perplexed as to why you removed several names (of photographers who do have articles) from the main List, why you shifted some names around on the list so that they were no longer alphabetical, and why you changed the spelling of one of the names. The word "Wikipedia" was recently removed from the List description in keeping with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Pinkville 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this edit was strange indeed. -- Hoary 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Eleanor Parke Custis

TheMindsEye was, of course, correct in removing this name from the list. Custis was a sitter for portraits (at that, certainly painted, but not necessarily photographic), not a photographer. See Union List of Artist Names. Pinkville 20:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Alphabetical Names

I appreciate that Maximus23623 did a lot of hard work today on this list. But I prefer the names in standard order -- Richard Avedon, not Avedon, Richard. I think that it was easier to find names before and that the list was easier to read. TheMindsEye (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear... I have to agree. This is the sort of large-scale change that ought to be discussed on the Talk page before going ahead... if only to save a lot of labour... Pinkville (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, pre-Meiji names which were in the correct order are now in the incorrect order - worse, their given names now appear as their surnames. Sadly, I think this should be reverted quickly. (Before too many more additions, etc. are made) Pinkville (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Maximus23623, thanks for the hard work you did today to improve the list as you saw fit. We really appreciate the labor and your intent to make these photo pages better. Please don't be frustrated by the revert, but understand that many, many editors have spent countless hours working on this list too. Before making such big changes, its always best to bring up the idea on these talk pages to solicit others opinions. Now, we can begin the discussion. I, for one, don't honestly know what the Wiki Manual of Style says on proper alpha ordering. As I said above, I prefer Richard Avedon to Avedon, Richard. But, we are all willing to consider your reasoning and solicit the ideas of all editors on this topic. TheMindsEye (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First, to User:Maximus23623... I'm very sorry to have undone the massive amount of work you did, but, unfortunately, you changes undermined months of work by me and several other editors... Most gravely affected were the names of pre-Meiji Japanese photographers (for instance, Ueno Hikoma, whose surname is Ueno, but who appeared - after your edits - as "Hikoma, Ueno" suggesting his surname was Hikoma). Second, we can certainly discuss your changes here on the Talk Page, and if it's generally agreed that names with commas would improve the list we can restore your edits - but with careful attention to retain proper name order of Japanese and other pertinent photographers. Sound fair? Pinkville (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I side with Maximus here: in a context such as this I prefer "Avedon, Richard" to "Richard Avedon". Indeed, I thanked Maximus (then still an IP) on his talk page for his work up to D or thereabouts.

Of course some Japanese and other photographers have got their names screwed up, but I think these can be located and fixed fairly easily. As for Japanese photographers, the great majority were in the form "[[Ken Domon|Domon, Ken]]", in which nothing is screwed up and from which the silly comma is easily removed. -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not very bothered either way. I prefer the list as it is, but would accept the commas if others prefer, as long as we take the time to preserve the pertinent Japanese and other names (obviously). Pinkville (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear what we're talking about. The "U" section isn't typical, but it's conveniently short and variegated. Here's the earlier and current version: 

* [[Uchida Kuichi]]
* [[Shōji Ueda]]
* [[Jerry Uelsmann]] (art, land, port)
* [[Brian Ulrich]] (art, doc)
* [[Doris Ulmann]]
* [[Ellen von Unwerth]]
* [[Huynh Cong Ut]]
* [[Ueno Hikoma]]

Here's Maximus's version: 

* [[Ueno Hikoma|Hikoma, Ueno]]
. . . .
* [[Shōji Ueda|Ueda, Shōji]]
* [[Jerry Uelsmann|Uelsmann, Jerry]] (art, land, port)
* [[Doris Ulmann|Ulmann, Doris]]
* [[Brian Ulrich|Ulrich, Brian]] (art, doc)
* [[Ellen von Unwerth|Unwerth, Ellen von]]
* [[Huynh Cong Ut|Ut, Huynh Cong]]

(for which I've retrieved Hikoma [that's his surname!] from the "H" section). A major complication here is the Vietnamese name: people who know a lot more about Vietnamese names than I do have renamed this article Huỳnh Công Út and have written: This is a Vietnamese name; the family name is Út, but is often simplified as Ut in English-language text. According to Vietnamese custom, this person properly should be referred to by the given name Công or Nick. It's clear to me that "Ut, Huynh Cong" is wrong; to avoid a Vietnamese-specific digression, let's imagine that his article has been renamed "Nick Ut".

So our options seem to be:

(1) Using the article title (after zapping "(photographer)" or similar): 

* [[Uchida Kuichi]]
* [[Shōji Ueda]]
* [[Jerry Uelsmann]] (art, land, port)
* [[Brian Ulrich]] (art, doc)
* [[Doris Ulmann]]
* [[Ellen von Unwerth]]
* [[Nick Ut]]
* [[Ueno Hikoma]]

(2) Putting the indexable name (usually surname) first, if it isn't there already: 

* [[Shōji Ueda|Ueda, Shōji]]
* [[Jerry Uelsmann|Uelsmann, Jerry]] (art, land, port)
* [[Ueno Hikoma]]
* [[Doris Ulmann|Ulmann, Doris]]
* [[Brian Ulrich|Ulrich, Brian]] (art, doc)
* [[Ellen von Unwerth|Unwerth, Ellen von]]
* [[Nick Ut|Ut, Nick]]

(3) Same as (2) but taking this opportunity to make some changes. One I can think of would be to do away with a comma that would indicate a fictional inversion for Japanese and other names: 

* [[Shōji Ueda|Ueda Shōji]]
* [[Jerry Uelsmann|Uelsmann, Jerry]] (art, land, port)
* [[Ueno Hikoma]]
* [[Doris Ulmann|Ulmann, Doris]]
* [[Brian Ulrich|Ulrich, Brian]] (art, doc)
* [[Ellen von Unwerth|Unwerth, Ellen von]]
* [[Nick Ut|Ut, Nick]]

(note the disappearance of the comma after "Ueda").

What say? -- Hoary (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! The names are starting to swim before my eyes! Certainly it's handy that in version 3 the bulk of Japanese names (post-Meiji) can be displayed without commas (in proper Japanese manner). One benefit of the original list is that complications of indexing (as in your Vietnamese example) do not arise, since the names are listed merely by article title. Pinkville (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No problems...Of course what I mean by this is I have no problem with it being changed back. I was in a hospital waiting room for about 6 hours or so, and had NOTHING else to do but sit and stare out a window (thank god they had computers). But, if we can sort out the problem with the names, could we do this list like we had it? With some names being exceptions, if I read the above correctly...and if people agree to the idea of having it like that. Anyway, I was already signed up when I first started editing the list, just didn't log in because I wasn't sure about signing in on a public computer, but anyway...yeah... Maximus23623 (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has a problem with your edits as an anonymous editor (it was clear that the same person did all that work). My main "complaint" with your changes (let's call them, "suggestions") is that I find the names with commas harder to read (knowing that we can correct names that are exceptional in whatever way...). But maybe others find them easier to read? Pinkville (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean with the anonymous editor part, but, and this is just my opinion, so not saying your way of doing it is wrong, when I look up a name, I find it easier to look for the last name, because there will usually be fewer people with the same last name, therefore it would seem to me to be easier to read the last names first. From now on though I'll ask in the discussion page first, unless I'm stuck in a hospital again...But then I'll ask, and go ahead and start to edit, but not actually save changes until I get a response. BTW, its saying something about archiving the page...I'm sure ya'll have seen it...Just curious about it though. Maximus23623 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Gender questions: Is this a list of Male Photographers?

Serious question, as I do not completely understand the difference between List of women photographers and this page: if they are listed there, are they not listed here? There's currently a definite male bias to the photogs listed on this page; for example Australia has 31 entries but only one is a woman.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Qono. And while you are working on this perhaps you could also merge in List of women photographers. I see no reason to split by gender identity. Aoziwe (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Time to pull back on the large amount of BOLD changes to this list?

For some reason I have this page on my watchlist. A recent bold change (as described in the section just preceding this one) led me to the fact that Jessica Eaton had been removed. I added her back. I think there are many subjective changes to the page in general, as evidenced by the edit history of the change. For example, the list of Canadian photogs has been reduced by about ten or more photographers. This seems to me like one editor (efforts appreciated in general!) is having a huge influence on the page, as opposed to several editors contributing different points of view on who belongs. Accordingly, I'm going to add back the Canadians who have been deleted unless there is consensual objection to that. I am also not sure what purpose the chronological order serves: no one thinks about finding a photographer by birth date, they think about the name first, if anything ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the list a second time, it appears the instances of women photographers has been about halved, from 16 to 8.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
And seriously now (!), in the latest revision of this page, Eadweard Muybridge has been tagged as "reliable sources needed" to establish the importance of the photographer. In summary, there are huge problems with the recent bold revisions! I suggest that we go back to a prior version of about 24 hours ago, where Muybridge was notable without question.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Loss of valuable information is of grave concern. A reminder also of this edit as pointed out much further above by WikiPedant. Agreed regarding not looking for photographers chronoligically but alphabeticcally — this is not "History of photography". -Lopifalko (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted to the last version before the BOLD changes, per WP:BRD, so that we can discuss these massive changes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I initiated discussion here before these changes and there were no major objections. Changes within the country sections are because the photographers' nationality was incorrect. I corrected this information and added citations for each correction. No photographers were to be removed, only reorganized. Please let me know specific Wikipedia policies I have violated that justify your revert of my ongoing significant improvements to this article so that we can discuss and I can continue my contributions. Thank you.Qono (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Then why were fourteen photographers removed from just the Canada list? WP:BRD is the applicable policy. You were bold, I object, now we discuss.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Those photographers were removed because their nationality was not listed as Canadian in reliable sources. As I continued to make my edits, they would have been added back into the article—I was planning on wrapping up this round of edits today, and hadn't gotten to the U.S. section, where most of these temporarily missing photographers would have likely ended up. I was purposefully not removing any photographers, just correcting their nationality based on reliable sources, adding their birth and death dates, and ordering chronologically by birth date, and tagging photographers which needed citations.
I think this is mostly a misunderstanding. You would rightly be concerned if I was outright deleting a bunch of entries, but that is not the case, and I was being careful not to delete anyone. If we can restore my version, I will finish these updates and you will see that no entry has been deleted.Qono (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Take care with the names, for example the second list above has issues compared to the first: Richard Maynard / Richard Maynard (photographer); George Davison / George Davison (photographer); Leonard Frank / Leonard Frank (photographer). -Lopifalko (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, @Lopifalko: Admittedly, my edits were not perfect and I planned on cleaning things up once had gone through the list. Qono (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


Qono, I really appreciate your volunteer efforts! However I think there are several major changes that I think need to be discussed first. They are quite bold, as you say, and WP:BRD is meant for that:
  • use of PIC as a source over 500 times to establish notability, per my concerns above. Notability is already established by the existence of an article; you do not need to replace the work of the hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of editors who have already established it. If you think the photog is non-notable, go to AFD,
  • the removal of photographers (it seems many have been removed (e.g. Jessica Eaton as mentioned above),
  • tagging of literally hundreds of photogs as non-notable. If you really think that Eadweard Muybridge is not notable, or requires more sources, or are generally unfamiliar with the history of photography, I respectfully submit that you should read his article page before tagging. (The argument you made on your talk page that BLPSOURCES does not apply to him, by the way), and
  • making the list chronological rather than alphabetical.
If you can stop doing the above things, I would welcome your changes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: Thanks. I appreciate your watchfulness to ensure important parts of Wikipedia aren't deleted!
  • As discussed above, it is appropriate to cite sources for nationality and birth and death, which is what I'm using PIC for. I'm not using it to establish notability.
  • It is not my intention to remove any photographers as part of my updates.
  • My tags weren't saying that the entry was non-notable, but only that there was currently no source supporting notability and supporting that the entry is appropriate for this list. See WP:LISTVERIFY
  • I disagree about the ordering. If this were "Index of photographers" then alpha order would be appropriate, but Wikipedia's guidelines say that lists should provide context and useful structure and ordering by chronology is one way of doing that. If someone knows the name that they're looking for, they're not going to consult this Wikipedia list and "look them up" by finding the right place in the alphabet, they're going to type it in the search box. I'm happy to continue this discussion, but would like to move ahead with my edits in chronological order so that my remaining edits are consistent with my previous edits. If consensus develops that this should indeed be in alpha order, I will be happy to change it back. Qono (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You are getting ahead of yourself in wanting to continue; other editors need to discuss and agree first. There have been concerns by other noted above with the chronological order, and with the use of the PIC database. As well, all you provide above are explanations for what you are doing and no modification. There is no rush here. I would like to hear from other editors about what they think of your removal of Jessica Eaton, George Barker, Madame Gagné, Clara Gutsche, Jo-Anne McArthur, Julie Moos, Helen McCall, Freeman Patterson, Raphael Mazzucco, Michael Ernest Sweet, John Hryniuk, R. Ian Lloyd, Mia Matthes, Hannah Maynard and so on? I only went part way through the list of Canadians on your most recent edit, and clearly you are making subjective edits to remove certain photographers. A lot of them are women, which is also distressing. Also please note LISTVERIFY is only for statements likely to be challenged or contentious. If the DOB is in the actual article, it is unlikely to be either challenged or contentious. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
As I have explained repeatedly now, the removal of any entries was temporary as I had yet to relocate them under the proper subheading based on how reliable sources describe the photographer's nationality. My intention was not to remove any entries and so I am not making any subjective judgement calls. This and the tagging was your stated reasoning for the revert, and I have fully addressed both of these concerns in my bullets above, citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have further addressed the concerns about using PIC.
In your latest statement, you are merely reiterating your initial concerns with no regard to my explanation for them. You have provided no counterargument for alpha sorting nor for why I should not be using reliable sources to cite my contributions. You are the editor who reverted my edits, and so, unless others chime in, the dispute is between you and I. Please provide valid counterarguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines so that we can have a productive discussion and move forward. Qono (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts but I think they are largely counterproductive here. You're turning a good list into a jumbled art history list, with many deletions in the current version as described above. I'll post an RFC below, then others can comment.ThatMontrealIP (talk)
RFC is below, so please wait until the results of that are in. I did not put "should artists be deleted from the list", which you say you are only doing temporarily, as you have agreed that they will be restored.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Major cleanup

I've added continents to this list to provide some hierarchy and I'm planning some further cleanup on this list. I will be bold in my edits, but I welcome any feedback on these coming improvements. Qono (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Nationalities

Many of the nationalities listed for these photographers are incorrect. I plan on correcting this information using sources like PIC, ULAN, and other authorities.

Depends on what you mean by nationality? Where they were born, where they grew up, where they plied their trade which could be multiple countries? Can you describe the internationality of the coverage that will be provided by each of the authorities you plan to use? Aoziwe (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed that there were no Armenian photographers, so I copied in the content of Category:Armenian photographers. Their years of birth and death, where known, seemed helpful, so I added them. (Feel free to delete them if you don't like this innovation.) But their Armenianness? Ida Kar: "Her parents were Armenian", but there doesn't seem to be any other Armenian connection. Ohannes Kurkdjian (the Armenian form of whose name is different): born in the Ottoman empire, more specifically perhaps in what is now Armenia (but I didn't check), worked in what is now Armenia for part of his career. Gabriel Lekegian: claimed as Armenian; born in the Ottoman empire; active in what is now Egypt. Pascal Sébah: "born in Constantinople, then the capital of the Ottoman Empire, to a Syrian Catholic father and an Armenian mother"; active in what are now Egypt and Turkey. Jean Pascal Sébah: "son of Syriac-Armenian photographer Pascal Sébah" (and some unspecified lady); presumably born in either what is now Egypt or what is now Turkey; active in Constantinople. Samvel Sevada (incidentally, a highly problematic article): "born in Gyumri, Armenia" (which would actually have been the Armenian SSR at the time), active in Armenia. Of these six, Sevada is the only one with Armenian nationality. Now, I've no particular objection to use of "Armenian" to cover people who, regardless of nationality or domicile, consider(ed) themselves Armenian; but if we do that, then why not Basque, Catalan, Kurdish photographers? -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Subject area tagging

The various attributes tagged to photographers ("abstract", "advertising", "aerial") can be used to start new lists such as "List of abstract photographers", etc.

Within this list, I will incorporate the tags into readable prose, formatting entries as something like:

  • Aida Muluneh (born 1974), documentary and ethnographic photography

This will make for a more useful list and will allow editing individual entries to say why the photographer is notable.

Agreed. Aoziwe (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The new BOLD vesion, now reverted, lost all this information, so I would oppose that old new version. Aoziwe (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Aoziwe, Lopifalko, Hoary: I've added a section about this subject area tagging to the RfC below. I encourage you to provide feedback on this matter there. Qono (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Stricter notability criteria

With this new formatting, this list will exceed the 50kB "readable prose" size guideline given for article sizes. To mitigate this, I would like to come up with some kind of quantifiable criteria for inclusion.

For this primary list, I suggest a high bar like "photographers with works in the collection of four or more museums with more than one million visitors annually." Using the NYPL Photographers' Identities Catalog as a reliable source, this might be around 1000 photographers total, which should keep us around 50kb.

Yes there might be a size problem. However, I do not think I would agree in any way to redefining notability. If a person meets our notability standards for them to have their own article then they can and should be listed in appropriate lists accordingly. If size becomes a problem then perhaps instead the approach to take is as per List of English writers. Aoziwe (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Aoziwe: I'm not recommending new notability guidelines for photographer entries, or even for lists of photographers, but I do think that for this high-level list, we should have stricter, objective guidelines for inclusion. Qono (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. We already have a template for this: List of Chinese photographers, List of Bangladeshi photographers, List of Greek photographers, List of Korean photographers, List of Norwegian photographers, List of Polish photographers, List of Slovenian photographers, List of Turkish photographers. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I was referring to them being split alphabetically, not by country. By country is something else again, and could/should operate in parallel. Aoziwe (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I am trigger happy and rushed ahead with splitting up by country. There are often many articles in those lists of photographers by country that were not in this list. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Lopifalko: If you're replacing the list of photographers with a link to the country's list article, it is best that you migrate the members of that list as well, including the designations that the photographers have been tagged with.
So, for example, Mohammad Rakibul Hasan was tagged "(Doc, Jour, Art)", so his entry on the List of Bangladeshi photographers should ideally include that info as "Mohammad Rakibul Hasan, documentary, journalistic, and fine-art photographer". Qono (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I did add any that were in the long list but missing from the country-specific list, but I didn't add the genres, which I've long disliked. I find them restrictive and at times pointless because people do not always fall neatly into them. I usually leave them off for photographers I have written articles on. If there's consensus in favour of them then I will copy them over. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, "Fine Art photographer" (preferably so capitalized) is unambiguous and unrestrictive. It means "I am [my client is] an Artist. Therefore these inkjet giclée prints are Fine Art, their resale value will appreciate, and your handing over a wad of moolah for them will make you feel like a Fine Art connoisseur." -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
"this list will exceed the 50kB 'readable prose' size guideline given for article sizes". Yes, and this won't matter in the slightest, because it's not prose and nobody would want to read it even if it were one quarter the length. So I don't know why anyone would want to invest a lot of time and energy in shortening it. However, if you must, then let's consider: "photographers with works in the collection of four or more museums with more than one million visitors annually". This is an amusing idea. It concentrates on those galleries to which tour groups are bussed in to take selfies in front of famous paintings and that host "blockbuster" exhibitions (the huge majority of which have nothing to do with photography). Also it would recognize photographers who had the good sense to take pix of artists and art hangers-on. Tough for such photographers as Johannes Pääsuke, whose work I first encountered at the Estonian National Museum: he's important in Estonian ethnography, but who cares about that? And Tartu (site of the museum) is some way off the bus route whereby Japanese tourists "do" the Baltic states in one week flat. -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Hoary's comments, in particular that the one million annual visitors means excluding many quality photographers and potentially pandering to the agenda of museums that can stage blockbuster-type shows. Excellent artists who show at smaller but high quality galleries (like this Berlin example) would be lost. It also ignores the fact that modes of distribution are changing in a myriad of ways that can't be precisely predicted.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The "photographers with works in the collection of four or more museums with more than one million visitors annually" guideline that I suggested is not meant to be exclusive, but a rough starting point. It is an objective way of establishing notability for inclusion in this list (I'm not talking about notability for inclusion on Wikipedia, or inclusion in other sublists of photographers). Notability can certainly be established in other ways, I'm just suggesting that an objective level of prominence would be a useful guideline. Qono (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Well then, how about WP:ARTIST, which is tougher than WP:GNG or ANYBIO? Being in several collections or having authored a significant body of work seems reasonable. That said, I am not really sure that stricter criteria are required, since as Hoary says, no one reads this as prose. There is more pressing work to be done here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: WP:ARTIST is a great place to start. WP:LISTPEOPLE is also useful here. I understand that nobody reads this as prose; "readable prose" is just a phrase used to mean article content excluding references and other code. For the list to be useful, it needs to be a reasonable size and have some sort of WP:LISTCRITERIA. It seems that we're generally in agreement that photographers listed here should be notable and follow Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for lists. Qono (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
This is sounding more reasonable, Qono, but I'm still puzzled. What's the purpose in limiting the number of photographers included? (Right now, I can only think of one possibility. If somebody produces a vanity article about themself, they can prevent it from being an orphan by linking it from here. But the corollary is that listing here can work rather well as a guide to freshly added spam.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I use it all the time as a spam radar. This could be an argument for bringing back those from the country-specific lists I so unhesitatingly moved (and more, where those lists were more thorough than this). -Lopifalko (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I am learning some good techniques in this thread!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
And for warning of new articles that will often require cleanup. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of PIC

I suggest that PIC is NOT a suitable reference for use in Wikipedia. One of its major sources IS Wikipedia, hence any such reference is circular and useless? Aoziwe (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that. It's particularly US-centric, for one.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The PIC is published by the New York Public Library, which is absolutely a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a source for the PIC, it merely points to Wikipedia articles when there is a corresponding article.Qono (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The PIC explicitly states Data from and includes Wikipedia under that title. If that does not mean source what does it mean? Aoziwe (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok but in the Canada section, for example, you use it exclusively to establish something or other (notability? that is already in the article). It is a)incomplete as did not include several people I checked), b) reliance on a single source excessively (if we are just going to use their database for every entry, why not just point there), and c) UC-Centric.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I totally agree. The source isn't perfect and it shouldn't be the only source we rely on. But it is a reliable source for nationality and birth and death information, so my using it as such to cite my sources is appropriate. It is especially important to cite when talking about living persons. It has the nice side-effect of establishing some kind of baseline notability as well, though, again, it should not be the only source used for determining notability. Qono (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Qono, "baseline notability" is described in existing guidelines. Want something stricter in order to qualify for listing here? About 36 hours before you posted the comment immediately above, I asked (on this talk page, a short way above): "What's the purpose in limiting the number of photographers included?" I'm still wondering. -- Hoary (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Qono, you say that PIC "is a reliable source for nationality and birth and death information". I thought I'd look. Up for the challenge of, uh, leaving my comfort zone, I looked at the PIC entry for Anne Geddes. An unspecified amount of the (minimal) data is described as from Wikipedia and/or Wikidata. If this is true, then no, it's not reliable. -- Hoary (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_photographers/Archive_1&oldid=1247471260"