Talk:List of photographers

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nationalities 

message: 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)
replies: text:  , , : 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)
thread_title:  Subject area tagging 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with that. It's particularly US-centric, for one.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Use of PIC

message: This was talked about a bit above. Obviously I don't support inclusion of vanity content cited to primary sources by the non-notable photographers themselves. I'm talking about people who, for instance, have short entries in The Encyclopedia of Japanese Photographers, but about whom we do not have enough to build a standalone article here at the moment. My reasoning is that, if any of the above proposals about including sourced dates, etc., pass, then one-line substubs like Gorō Hobo (which is likely to get soft-deleted in two days or so, because I !voted based on the assumption that List of Japanese photographers would be an acceptable place to incorporate the three pieces of information in the article at the moment) will be useless content-forks.
Obviously if we incorporated a line of text on all the people currently on the list, as well as all the others who are WP:NOTEWORTHY but not WP:NOTABLE, this page would be expanded massively, but that's normally dealt with by splitting articles, not blanking information that is reliably sourced and interesting but doesn't meet some arbitrary page-specific inclusion criterion.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did either of you read my comment? I'm not talking about "bypassing notability guidelines" (I explicitly cited the guideline that says notability does not apply to content within articles) or shoehorning in non-notable individuals, but allowing this list to be a merge target for articles on people who are notable but not "notable" in the sense of already having their own article. I gave a clear method of determining this (having an entry in an encyclopedic work on the topic), which would rule out random non-notable people who call themselves renowned photographers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, though you did not specify a specific inclusion criteria in that post. The Encyclopedia of Japanese Photographers was a , but thank you for clarifying that what we are talking about is including those who have an entry in an encyclopedic work on the topic. That's obviously better than just "one reliable source," as I mistakenly inferred above, but ultimately doesn't change my opinion. There's another question implied here, though: whether to include notable people who just don't have articles yet, but I don't think you're asking about that, right? It sounds like that wouldn't apply to the example you gave? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's "notable" (as in, notable enough to be included in a list) and then there's WP:NOTABLE (as in notable enough to have an article). Theoretically, the only reason we can't build an article out of sourced descriptions and commentary on Hobo's photographs is that that information would make little sense without the photos themselves, and those won't be under copyright forever. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this list include information on photographers who don't have their own articles? 

message: It bothers me that List of photographers predominantly contains male photographers, with the women split into various "List of X women photographers" articles. We potentially give the appearance of a canonical list of photographers, but which predominantly only contains men. Wikipedia policy states that "If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it may be appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles." I have followed that rule in moving women to the women's lists. Here are the women's articles (with number of entries in parenthesis):
Those articles above with few entries may be better merged into List of photographers or into List of women photographers. But why are we even separating by gender? We could instead have one list for all photographers; or a "List of male photographers" and List of women photographers; or separate by nationality—we already have the following country-specific lists (but, apart from Japan, none for the countries with the longest lists of photographers: USA, UK, Canada, Germany):
Any thoughts? -Lopifalko (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely agree. Let's get rid of the separation by gender (it's always been a sexist, male-dominated industry) but do include a separate list of women photographers for the many researchers interested. 180.150.38.239 (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that we do have categories that should work well for that: :Category:Photographers, which includes :Category:Women photographers (but no :Category:Male photographers). -Lopifalko (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: On this point, consider Lotte Meitner-Graf as just one, arbitrarily chosen example. She's in :Category:Austrian women photographers and also :Category:Austrian photographers; because the former is a "non-diffusing subcategory" of the latter. The same principle should be applicable elsewhere (though it might need advocacy and agreement beforehand in some discussion page). -- Hoary (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

text: If this list is to be chopped up, I'd much rather it were chopped up by period than by sex. How about people active –1874, 1875–1899, 1900–1924, 1925–1949, 1950–1974, 1975–1999, 2000–2024? (Of course, a lot of people would make multiple appearances.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favour of putting them all in the one list. I was originally thinking that organising by period seemed sensible, but imagined the overlap would make it untenable. However on reflection, given you seem to be taking overlap in your stride, it seems OK. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be candid and say that if I'd be taking overlap in anybody's stride, it wouldn't be my stride. Sorry, but I have no appetite for doing even a co-conspirator's share of what would probably be a lot of work. (As  points out above, my attitude to this page is deplorable.) I'm busy with very different WP work (on my hard drive), as well as "RL". -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

text: FYI I opened Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists#is_there_a_corresponding_guideline_to_DUPCAT_for_lists%3F. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we improve upon the segregation of male and female photographers?