Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography/History of Photography

Index · Statistics · Log

History of photography pages by quality
Quality
	Total
FA	8
FM	29
GA	29
B	168
C	575
Start	1,202
Stub	733
List	45
Category	209
File	2
Project	4
Redirect	54
Template	6
NA	2
Assessed	3,066
Unassessed	20
Total	3,086
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 13,270			Ω = 4.89

AfDs

These are now listed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/History of photography (transcluded below). You may wish to keep this on your watchlist.

(Old AfD mentions are here.)

Photography

Kai Paulsen

Kai Paulsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. Created in 2006 and has never had a single source. Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Photography, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete tagged for notability since 2012, there are Kai Paulsens out there, but no Norwegian journalist, photographer, and computer collector Kai Paulsens. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete this photojournalist per lack of sources since 2012. There are a number of similar names that come in Google search results but not this very subject. Narrowed the search with his photojournalism career but still not good came up for him. He fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Mekomo (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ORBIS Production

ORBIS Production (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article with multiple iterations of press releases as sources. No evidence of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Photography, Companies, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. This is one of the best combined PR, advertising and marketing campaign here. This looks like Wikipedia is their company website. All sources cited are completely unreliable and there is no need to list and Analyse them one after the other. The sources are distributed paid for articles. Mekomo (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Mekomo, sorry for the trouble! Since I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a few months now (I initially started out of curiosity without being registered) and this is one of my first pages (see, for example, the one on Mario Orfeo), could you explain better why these sources are not acceptable? I understand that some sites are business directories, but others are from independent outlets, and they don't seem to be paid articles to me. Jerabotto (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi JTtheOG and thanks for the feedback. I'm new to Wikipedia, and of course, before trying to create a page, I spent some time exploring the portal. While editing pages like Martha Production, Indiana Production e The Gunther Corporation I tried to follow the same style to make as few mistakes as possible. Could you help me understand in broad terms the differences between those pages and the one I proposed? Jerabotto (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jerabotto: Hello there. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. The only sources with significant coverage of the company are press releases. This one is even published directly onto PRnewswire.com, while exact copies are blasted onto topvideoproduction.com and Yahoo Finance. The IndieWrap article is clearly not independent either, as it uses the same kind of promotional language and ends with a link to the company's social media. Everything else are passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I think I understand now. If I were able to find third-party and more reliable sources, could that change anything, or is the decision taken at this point? Jerabotto (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources which cover the subject directly and in-depth, yes. See WP:GNG for more detail on this. And no, no decision has been made. This discussion will be open for a week but could be extended beyond that. JTtheOG (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, I've already made some corrections after your suggests. In the next days I will try to add new references if I can! Jerabotto (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Only mentions of the company name in short articles about projects. Nothing substantial that I can find. As this article has few edits beyond those of the creator it may be suitable for a move to draft, and perhaps to be taken through WP:AFC. Lamona (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Lamona, thanks for the suggestion. I’m continuing to add more sources and refine the text as much as possible. A question: is the move to a draft requested by the admins, or should I proceed with it myself? Jerabotto (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  You should allow this AfD to complete first. Then the info here might help you WP:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draftspace. (I've never done a move to draft, but if you need help, the WP:Teahouse is the go-to place.) Lamona (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

David Steinberg (journalist and photographer)

David Steinberg (journalist and photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO, sources not appropriate for a biography. Writing and speaking about sex and sexuality does not in and of itself confer notability, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Photography, and Sexuality and gender. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and also fails WP:NWRITER and WP:NARTIST possible conflict of interest too, with editor saying they "do advocacy work for indie authors and creative commons artists" Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have addressed COI in my comment below. Merely because I do advocacy work for authors on my monthly blogposts about indie authors has nothing to do with the issue. Also, would you prefer wikipedia articles about authors be written by editors without opinions about authors? Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Agree totally on fail of WP:NWRITER and WP:NARTIST (self published content and all) and also on potential of COI. Also now have Kneecap's 'Fine Art' back in my head. Sigh. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have addressed COI issues in my longer comment below. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have addressed the self-published content issue already here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: This is about the only kind of coverage I could find [1], I don't think we have enough to show notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. This is an interesting article I didn't see before. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I am the one who drafted the article. There is absolutely no COI here -- though I did email Steinberg about a few things and did encourage him to submit one of his photos to wikicommons. Also Steinberg informed me that a few years ago he had drafted a wikipedia article for himself – and he forwarded that draft to me. But I mostly ignored that. It was almost entirely unusable.

I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field of writing about sexuality. Also, I have a background in indie publishing and have written a few author profiles for Wikipedia over the decades.

Here is my personal opinion about why this living person meet the criteria for notability.

1. He made an invaluable contribution to the pro-feminist men's movement in the 1980s and possibly 1990s. In the 1980s pornography was a hot political topic in the USA. Conservatives were arguing about it. Feminists were arguing for it and against it. In the meantime some pro-feminist men were having conferences, publishing books and anthologies. Steinberg was one of the pioneers of this movement.

2. Steinberg's photography book/anthology Erotic by Nature was groundbreaking in the 1980s -- and it is still in print today. It received widespread distribution through Bookpeople and the book itself sold the concept of erotic photography as a legitimate form of fine arts photography. The book was an attempt to put into practice the ideas and aesthetic of the men's movement who were confronting the issue of pornography -- offering this as an alternative.

3. He has been writing about sexuality, sexual politics and new forms of sexual expression for decades. Most of his articles were for (now defunct) weeklies, but some appeared in national magazines like Playboy. Many of these articles were open to new kinds of sexuality. He has also written a lot about hot-button topics like sex trafficking, transgender rights, mostly from the perspective of a "liberated male."

4. He has devoted the latter part of his life taking erotic photographs and showing them at various exhibits and erotic festivals. Unlike many fine arts photographers, Steinberg has taken photographs of nontraditional subjects, like older people, gays, disabled people, transgender. I have listed some critics who have reviewed/interpreted his aesthetic sensibility.

Now, let me put on my wiki hat for a bit.

That first point (pro-feminist men’s movement) is extremely hard to document and source. (Believe me, I tried). The only thing I could find was several anthologies on the subject which he contributed to and/or edited. https://www.nearbycafe.com/loveandlust/steinberg/erotic/about/index.html Ultimately I ended up not mentioning this part for the article. Steinberg mentions a few of the conferences he participated in some of his writings, but I can find next to nothing from secondary sources.

One problem is that unlike feminists (who often were academics and organized many events through their universities) many of these men's conferences were looser and definitely not-academic. They didn't think too much about recording these things for the historical record. Wiki has some articles about men's movements, Men's Rights Movement and Men in Feminism, but really very little about men's response to porn or how to reconcile porn with feminism from a man's point of view. (See the article on sex-positive feminism; it mentions a lot of female names but almost no one who is male!)Ironically, Steinberg is probably a leading figure for the men's pro-feminist movement and sex-positivity. How do I know this? On that page alone, I count at least 15 names of thinkers/activists/intellectuals (all of which have received wikipedia articles) who have explicitly praised Steinberg's writings! (Joanie Blank, mentioned in the article, was in fact the person who financed Erotic by Nature. One of the writers pictured in the article, Tristan Taormino, even invited Steinberg on a recent podcast).

I should ask: is there a double standard here? Why does Wikipedia have so many articles on feminist response to porn and female authors who have written about sex-positive feminism but almost no males?

Finally, longevity counts for something in publishing. Publications come and go; that is especially true for alternative newspapers and especially true for sex-oriented publications. Should wikipedia discount publications from the pre-digital era simply because they are unavailable? Steinberg is one of the few writers/columnists on sexual issues who has digitized many of his writings on sexuality from the 1980s and 1990s and put them online. Wikipedia readers should have the ability to know that people like this actually existed -- and that his archive of writings from that time period exist and remain accessible.

By refusing to acknowledge the importance of contributions of people like David Steinberg, Wikipedia editors are removing bits of history from the public. I have done my best to draft an article on a somewhat sensitive subject in accordance with Wiki's policies. Frankly, I fail to understand why notability would even be a problem here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to step back for now. But I wanted to reiterate about COI that I have NEVER done paid editing for any wiki article subject and never received remuneration for anything I have done at Wikipedia. I expect to receive no sort of benefit (financial or otherwise) from Steinberg as a result of writing this article, and none was promised to me. My ebook publishing company (Personville Press) doesn't have any interest in publishing any of Steinberg's works although I admit I am extremely fond of his writings. My contact with the subject, as stated in my above statement, was minimal and mainly to check up on dates and verify some things. Robert J Nagle (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I just thought of one more thing -- that maybe is self-evident. The article itself mentions that Steinberg was designated as " Erotic Photographer of the Year" in 2010 by Leydig Trust (which sponsors the Sexual Freedom Awards). The Sexual Freedom Awards has its own wikipedia page; I guess that means wikipedia has already rated these awards as notable. In the article I mentioned that the Seattle Erotic Art Festival has given Steinberg the honorary title, "Master of Erotic Art" for "impactful photography (which) focuses on capturing the diversity of our human sexuality by showcasing a broad range of people. From the SEAF website itself, it says, "The Masters of Erotic Art program showcases artists who have made meaningful contributions to the history and development of erotic art." These are two separate well-known organizations in the field of the erotic arts which have recognized Steinberg's contribution to the field. [2]

These properly sourced details were mentioned in paragraph 2 of the article, so I assume that the other editors saw this already. I have provided other justifications about notability in the previous longer comment. But frankly, I don't know just those two award designations don't confer notability. Robert J Nagle (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You need sourcing to back up these claims, "because, trust me" isn't quite the level of sourcing we need. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You are making a general statement which does not apply to this article. I think everything in the article is properly sourced. Robert J Nagle (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

List of largest photographs

List of largest photographs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTPROMO. Absolutiva (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, the page is very well sourced and meets WP:GNG, the topic is established and valid (see its External links), and the page is well presented and offers links to some of the most extraordinary photographs. It fails nothing. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. A lot of this article comes across as original research. Most of the individual photographs are not notable on their own either. Ajf773 (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The article is sourced, well-structured and I wouldn’t call this ’cruft’, given the sources provided. Meets the requirements for notability of lists. Large photographs are a very notable topic as a set: https://resources.culturalheritage.org/pmgtopics/2009-volume-thirteen/13_12_Freeman.html Also see Taylor, L. (2020). The Materiality of Exhibition Photography in the Modernist Era: Form, Content, Consequence. Taylor & Francis. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  In what way does a practical guide for the exhibition of large physical photographs count toward notability of the article in question? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Because it's one element that shows the topic of this list is notable as a set. And that is the requirement for the notability of lists. Mushy Yank (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  It most definitely is not. This is a practical guide for the exhibition of large physical photographs. It does not discuss the set of such things, or attempt to classify them in any way. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. While there might be something to say about the topic of large photographs generally, that doesn't extend to the wanton listing of the minutiae of random large photographs. Most of this material is clearly promotional (complete with inline external links), and there's no way to verify any sort of ranking of these, other than that they're "large", generally measured only in pixels (except for the one actual large pinhole camera-generated one). The claims above of good sourcing already in the article are simply not right. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  How is this promotional? The EL? Feel free to remove them. As for the rest, the list is far from being indiscriminate (nom's rationale; which is echoed in your !vote by "random"/"wanton") or not verifiable. What sources do you consider unreliable and which entries seem to lack sources, according to you? Mushy Yank (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note that the essay 'cruft' has nothing to do with policy or guidelines nor is a valid reason to delete. As to nomination language, articles do not 'fail' an essay. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note that a topic being "established" also has nothing to do with policy or guidelines and is not a valid reason to keep something. Nor is having a lot of links to pretty pictures. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the fact that a topic is established (as notable) has a lot to do with notability guidelines. Did anyone mention pretty pictures but you? (And on top of that, in an article about photographs access to quality images might even be considered a valid argument in favour of the existence of a list (as opposed to a category)). ("Well presented" is more about structure, content and prose than image, imv). Mushy Yank (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  In case it wasn't clear, my "note" above was a direct retort to Randy Kryn's utterly bafflingly nonsensical "note" immediately preceding it, in which he seems to try to argue against a poor rationale in the nomination (ignoring other parts of it). My retort was to call him out for making an even worse "keep" statement. And no, being "an established topic" doesn't even mean anything. You stealthily added "(as notable)" parenthetically, but it could just as well be established (as non-notable). And it's also not established as notable; that's what we're here to argue about. And nowhere has anyone (including you) presented even a whiff of evidence that this meets NLIST. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're not exactly what I would call friendly in your mention of other users' opinions, you're aware of that, aren't you? So, you're not satisfied with the sources presented nor with those on the page, nor with the book reference above. OK. One last try. You obviously have coverage for this in the Guinness Book (just check please); please also see Panoramic and Immersive Media Studies Yearbook (2024), De Gruyter (pp 299-300); or see lists like this https://www.pcmag.com/news/10-jaw-dropping-gigapixel-photos A lead section with context and more history of the records and milestones would not hurt, though. (PS- "stealthily", really? when I'm just making the obvious, explicit; but I'll assume good faith and consider you're not playing with words.) Mushy Yank (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  From WP:RSP: "There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage.". I have no access to the book you mention, so can't assess that one. And the PCmag article is just a listicle. Listicles are low-quality churn meant to drive clicks for ad revenue and do nothing to establish notability of a topic. The simple fact is that stuff surrounding this is inherently promotional. The most common site used (Gigapan) is a commercial site for selling merchandise and thus not independent of its subject. We also have no way of knowing if these things are truly the largest, if any comparably large ones are not listed here, etc etc. This stuff falls squarely within WP:NOT territory. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  The Guinness was more for verification that the topic (not the entries) was notable (I always understood the mention of Guinness at RSP as regarding individual entities but let’s simply discard it). There are quite a number of independent sources for each item I verified (I’ve added a couple) and the numbers are verifiable. Various EL can be removed. Yes, lists are sometimes not great journalism but again they seem to be an easy way to show a given topic has attracted attention as a set. Thanks, anyway. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Other languages. Examples (I deliberately avoided Gigapan-related results; articles including approach of the topic as a set). French: https://gate.first-id.fr/?redirectHost=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lesnumeriques.com%2Ffirst-id&redirectUri=%2Fappareil-photo-numerique%2F365-gigapixels-taille-nouvelle-plus-grande-photo-terrestre-n42425.html (2015) https://www.yonder.fr/news/culture/la-plus-grande-photo-du-monde-365-gigapixels-represente-le-mont-blanc#:~:text=70%20000%20%3A%20le%20nombre%20de,%3A%20l'altitude%20du%20shooting. (2015) https://www.20minutes.fr/insolite/1615771-20150526-plus-grande-photo-monde-panorama-mont-blanc (2015) Spanish https://www.xatakafoto.com/actualidad/el-top10-de-las-fotografias-mas-grandes (a list; 2019) Sources for (recent or less recent) individual items are easy to find. Mushy Yank (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm a bit at loss regarding what is meant to be captured in this article... Looking through sources provided in the article and this discussion, most of them seem to discuss digital photography, in particular mosaic or composite images, and very rarely as a set (outside of some "top 10" lists). At best, some articles discuss technical challenges of large-scale photography as a whole (i.e. physical constraints to capture, display and preserve non-digital artwork; processing, 'stitching', storage and other technical constraints related to the production and display of digital artwork), but I don't see much depth in discussion of "largest photographs" as a whole, in particular high-quality, authoritative sources regarding the evolution of "largest photographs" by type, nature or category. Are there articles that argue or at least consider if satellite-captured digital images (over several months or years) should be compared to digital images of artwork? Are building wraps or edited photographs included alongside non-edited images, and if so what is the limit between compositing and editing?... What sources or definitions should be used as a basis for this article? Shazback (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories

Images

Templates

Proposed deletion

• Pixillion Image Converter (via WP:PROD on 10 September 2023)

Merging two 19th c categories

I have noticed that Photographic processes dating from the 19th century is the most commonly used one, but there is one Photographic techniques dating from the 19th century. It's creating a false division between them as they are both partially cataloged.

Improving Film speed

Hi there, I just wanted to get my suggestion sped up a little by pointing it out here: Talk:Film speed#ASA: 1943 vs. 1960. --2003:DA:CF39:B861:60FA:97C4:BA2C:67AC (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Dani Brubaker nominated for deletion

A new biography of commercial photographer Dani Brubaker is nominated for deletion if anyone cares to participate in the deletion discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Sydney Smith

Is anyone around who could take a look at Draft:Sydney Smith (photographer) and assess notability against this project's guidelines? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)