Talk:Pierre Rossier

message: Does Negretti and Zambra really need to be italicized? -- Hoary 06:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the titles of publications, I think it appropriate, if not 100% necessary. LordAmeth 07:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Er, yes, but N&Z isn't a publication; it was a company. -- Hoary 08:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't necessary, but I prefer to italicise such eponymous corporate names to differentiate the individual people from the corporation. Negretti and Zambra went to the store vs. Negretti and Zambra produced seven zillion photographs. Pinkville 15:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, I see. Good point. All right then: I now would have no objection to anybody's attempt to promote this article from "Start" to "C−" [facial expression]. -- Hoary 12:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Company names

message: We now see:
:* Bennett, Terry. 'The Search for Rossier: Early Photographer of China and Japan', in The PhotoHistorian-Journal of the Historical Group of  the Royal Photographic Society, December 2004.
:* Bennett, Terry. 'The Search for Rossier: Early Photographer of China and Japan'. Accessed 12 September 2006; cited above as "Bennett".
If, as I'd guess, these two are the same (or the second is a slighly corrected version of the first), then merge into one; if the differences really are noteworthy, then explain this for the second. -- Hoary 04:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right. Merging.... Pinkville 11:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography niggle

message: Papinot's Historical and Geographical Dictionary of Japan informs me that from 1590 till the Meiji "restoration", the clan running Saga was the Nabeshima clan. -- Hoary 13:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fabulous. Another loose end tied up. Thanks. Pinkville 13:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love Papinot. LordAmeth 16:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saga=Nabeshima

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The dates in this article have been stripped of autoformatting. Thanks for the reminder of the MoS changes. Pinkville (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: Upon reviewing this article I am concerned that it does not meet the featured article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are outlined below:
*It was difficult verifying information because the references use extensive notes. Can this information be integrated into the article text? Also, upon a spot-check of sources I found some text that was not verified by the subsequent ref. I think these sources should be re-checked. 
*New sources have been created since 2006 and should be consulted to update this article. I have added two such sources in the ref ideas template above, which I found on Google Scholar. 
*The "Later years and legacy" contains lots of unreferenced statements, including the whole of the article's final paragraph. I have marked these with a citation needed templates. 
Does anyone want to bring this article back to FA standards? Z1720 (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you didn't simply add the new information to the article instead of sending it for FAR. Other publications by Bennett were used for the article, so there would be nothing controversial about adding more info from him. As for the notes, personally, I'm a fan of the sorts of details that show up in notes and that can't be easily shoe-horned into the main body of an article. The sources cited in these notes are easily found in the list of references, so I'm not sure why there's a problem there. I can look in to any information in the text that is without citations. Pinkville (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , I was nervous about evaluating and adding information to an article which I have no expertise. The sources that I found were from a quick search, and I think other sources can be found if more databases are searched. The FAR coordinators are always willing to put an article on hold while improvements are bring made if asked at FAR. I also invite editors to ping me when improvements are complete to conduct another assessment. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

text: I've put a note in the article's FAR that improvements are ongoing, and recommended that the FAR be put on hold so it can be improved. This will give as much time as you need to improve the article. Let me know when your improvements are done and I will reassess. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA concerns