Talk:Bob Carlos Clarke

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Carlos Clarke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106092732/http://www.thelittleblackgallery.com/download/TheObserver.pdf to http://www.thelittleblackgallery.com/download/TheObserver.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106092732/http://www.thelittleblackgallery.com/download/TheObserver.pdf to http://www.thelittleblackgallery.com/download/TheObserver.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Listing the books twice...

I thought the list of books in the lede, followed shortly by a list in the body under the heading publications, was redundant, and changed it. This was reverted, with the (excuse me for saying) uniformative remark "list the books in the lede". The narrative hook left dangling there was "why?" Is it a WP standard I'm unaware of to list all the books of an author in their lede? If so, a pointer to it would be good. Should we eliminate the publications section, since he only produced 6? This seems to destandardise something that could be sensibly standard. In short, it isn't a huge thing, but just reverting a change with actually no explanation or justification of the action is sub-optimal, and I'm interested in the reasoning. I'd think that if someone writes a notable book or series, makes a painting of particular note etc, then putting that in the lede is helpful, which of BCC's books is most definitive? Midgley (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at other photographer articles - Helmut Newton; Eve Arnold for instance, this article is the odd one out. I think one editor is defending a particular form of this article, and it isn't making it a good article. Midgley (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Triumvirate

As well as a comparison to Helmut Newton,I recall BCC being referred to as one of 3 photographers in London at the time, of whom IIRC one survived. It was a rather wild time. This probably deserves mention, links etc. Was one of them Bailey? Midgley (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(The) Worthing College of Art

I'll look up what BCC called it when I'm near to the right bookshelf, but I recall him calling it "Worthing College of Art" which is more the English idiom than prefacing it with a definite article. Currently it is probably part of Northbrook College, rather than Worthing College (definitely no definite articles there) and I suspect was previously "West Sussex College of Art and Design" before the merger. All of them are part of an educational grouping including Plumpton College (not the) and the University of Sussex, or possibly Chichester, depending on the year. I'd suggest going with what he called it, unless there is a clear reference to the College's exact names and histories elsewhere. Midgley (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

https://aosec.org.uk/sussex/northbrook-college/ Midgley (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't expect this would be controversial or require such research until I saw your comment here. It seems obvious to me, I can't recall any such colleges being prepended with "the". -Lopifalko (talk)

Your copy edit did. It caused me to wonder and to chase up the history of the College and its recombinations. Possibly someone has written a book. Midgley (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see I removed "the", not added it. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

COI and Tone warnings

I removed the COI and Tone warnings because this article is now straight forward, and does not appear to suffer from undue influence or tone. This is even more true given I just removed an additional offending article. User:Midgley reverted these changes, do you disagree Midgley? -Lopifalko (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

A definite article or another? I don't know of a WP standard, but think when an article had been labelled as proprietary it is desirable to work out who labelled it and why, and who the user with the undue interest/COI it referred to was before doing so. And that that resolution deserves documenting in the Talk page. (actually I wondered if it was you, you seem quite attached to the article. I just take photos, and am interested in where one may find those of a photographer) Midgley (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"actually I wondered if it was you, you seem quite attached to the article" -- I expect you could say the same were you to examine the edit histories of thousands of photography related articles. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"when an article had been labelled as proprietary it is desirable to work out who labelled it and why, and who the user with the undue interest/COI it referred to was before doing so" -- I do not have time for this, my process is to remove all the offending content that caused the warnings to be added, then remove the warnings. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what you removed. Hence whether it fixed whatever the fault was. Midgley (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Where his work may be seen

"His work is held in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery, London. " in the Lede. Not really true. There are 10 of his images there, donated posthumously. Most of his work, therefore, is not at the NPG. Is there a specific WP policy which inhibits the reader being told where to go to look at a permanent display of his prints? It doesn't seem entirely encyclopaedic to hide that. Midgley (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstand. This is the way work is held in collections for all biographies of artists. Linking to a gallery of his work would be in the External links section. You are welcome to add such a link, if there is one. It is not being hidden as it currently stands, he does not have a web site. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I did add one. You removed it. Sicne we agree it should be part of the article, but you make a reasonable argument it should be in a particualr place, will you please now put it there. Midgley (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

"His work is held in the collection of..." is part of the info given for why the person is considered notable in their field, which is one of the aims of the Lead section. This statement is not meant to indicate where one can go to see the subject's work, which I think is your misinterpretation. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)