Talk:Magnum Photos

message: The "last name" first, "first name" last format of this list is unlike other Wikipedia lists, so I suggest it be changed to conform to others (like the List of photographers. Pinkville 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the list is a sortable wikitable, I propose reworking it again to surname, forename, to allow searching by surname. (Here's the list before and after, for reference.) Is there any support here for doing this? --Trevj (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Surname, forename in list

message: Diana Markosian and Matt Stuart were made Nominees on 2016.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.33.218 (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just added Diana Markosian, thank you. Matt Stuart was already listed. -14:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Diana Markosian and Matt Stuart

message: I think this link section has gotten out of hand.  The portfolios -- which are largely located on a single website, are in French, and, in many cases are broken links -- really should be located on the individual photographers' pages, not in this article.  TheMindsEye 15:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portfolios in External links 

message: I see no reason to list nominees, present or past, and suggest removing them. -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that Magnum nominees and associates can remain in the process for up to 5 years, I feel that it is necessary to list them - especially as they have an increasingly large role within the agency. Indeed, for research purposes, people ought to be able to find out who are current nominees within Magnum. Barbicanf (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Eight years on, I've got mixed feelings. For research purposes, people perhaps ought to be able to find out who previously were nominees. (For the current nominees, they can just go to Magnum's website.) Presumably the people who once were nominees but no longer have a connection with Magnum include a few who decided that Magnum was not for them; but I guess that more of them, well, failed to advance. Do we want to publicize this? This seems rather cruel, and the benefit for research may be minor. -- Hoary (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, considering that even becoming a Nominee is a fiendishly difficult process, it seems logical to me to add them. However, it is also difficult to see why we should add them if we remove them if they dont 'make it.' Including all nominees past and present though is untenable, as the list is too long and not well recorded publically. Perhaps we should break up this total mess of a list into different sections, one for full members, one for estates, etc? Barbicanf (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I'm confused on the issue myself. On balance, I tend (today) to think that we should add them, and that if a particular nominee doesn't make it then we should say something like "Nominee 2013–2016" and leave it at that; after all, there's nothing dishonorable about this. The list would never be complete; but a list that's incomplete and described as such is more helpful than no list. If sources can be found and the list balloons to the point where Bischof, Erwitt, Riboud and similar become rather lost within it, then it can be split into two. On the other hand this time tomorrow I might have changed my mind about this. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominees

message: I'm curious why there are flags in the list? It seems a little unusual and not necessarily the most useful piece of information. --Lquilter (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  flags?