Template talk:WikiProject Photography

Unusual nature of banner

This project banner seems kind of unusually constructed, and some people might have trouble recognizing it as a banner. As a possible variation, more in keeping with the other projects, I might propose the following:

If you wanted to set up the project banner to permit assessment parameters, I could adjust it so that you could. Just let me know. And please note that the above is only a suggestion. I have not and will not change it on my own, and really only made this comment after seeing how the banner looks kind of odd relative to the others at the Talk:Hiroh Kikai page. If you would like to change the banner, please feel free to do so. Also, if you would like to have it changed to permit assessment, please contact me and I'll get to it as soon as I've finished my current action of tagging all the CD selection articles with their banner. Thank you for your indulgence of me in this matter. Badbilltucker 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks better than the first one, so I'll replace it. The old one was a direct copy from the suggestion at the wikiproject page. If anyone wants to change it back, just say why here before you do so. Thanks, Gphoto^talk 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Which WikiProject is which

The template now tells the world:

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia.

However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography says both:

Welcome to WikiProject Photography. Our goal is the improvement of the quality and organization of Wikipedia's images.

and:

This project was nominated for renaming. The debate was closed on 2 July 2010 with a consensus to merge the content into the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media.

Thus the template tells people that an article is part of a collaborative effort to do something that the WikiProject doesn't purport to do; and anyway the content has been or will be merged into a different WikiProject.

A "collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia" is close to what the (sadly rather moribund) Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography (below, "WP:HOP") says that it's doing.

WP:HOP so named itself for various reasons, one of which was that the name "WikiProject Photography" had already been taken. The term "history" can of course encompass "contemporary history", and here it does. If "WikiProject Photography" ceased to exist, then WP:HOP could usurp its name -- but that sounds to me like a lot of work for little gain and the risk of additional confusion, so I don't recommend it.

In the short term, I recommend that

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia.

should be reworded:

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and organization of Wikipedia's images.

For the last couple of weeks, I've been gradually going through the list of pages that sport this template, and where appropriate changing it to the template of WP:HOP. This work will take more weeks. When it's completed, perhaps some kind person would automate the replacement of the remaining templates for "WikiProject Photography" with those for "Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media". -- Hoary (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Was not the proposal to merge "WikiProject Photography" into "WikiProject Images and Media" then move "HOP" to "Photography"? In which case why not move manually the few that need to go to Images and Media then start the merge and move process? --Traveler100 (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was indeed the proposal. Here's the relevant part:

After this project is renamed, WP:WikiProject History of photography should be renamed to WikiProject Photography, since it is actually the WikiProject about photography (but it's current name is also misleading, suggesting that it is only about historical topics, excluding those of current interest/activity, which in actuality it does not). No Requested Move has been filed at that page yet, since the target to which it would move is presently occupied by this page.

The proposal seems an intelligent one, but the whole business is half-baked. Has this Project been renamed? Well, no, it hasn't really. Does anyone seem able and willing to do this? I haven't noticed any offer. Am I going to do it? No I'm not (because I'm unfamiliar with the robotry required), or to badger anyone else to do it either. So it seems that this undead Project will "live" on for some time, at least in its templates. My proposal is a modest one. I can do it myself, simply by rewording the message in the template. ¶ Meanwhile, WP:HOP is moribund, but now and again I fan its embers because I live in hope that some people who are interested will arrive at some time and find it useful. ¶ As for the few templates that should be converted to Images and Media, there are actually rather a lot of these too. ¶ What I have least enthusiasm for are all the articles on individual cameras. Some of these are good or at least promising, but many are dreadful. (A number have been mindlessly scraped from Camerapedia, whose existence makes them all unnecessary here, I believe.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think I see the problem. Articles on cameras does not really belong to HOP as that is about the photographs themselves, while WPPhotography is about managing and improving the photographs. Equipment does not fit into either. As most camera articles do not belong to WPPhotography I suggest just removing the template banner from these articles. Maybe replace with WPTechnology which appears to be on some other pages (cannot see a WP Consumer Goods!). I could run a semi-automatic update through these, but I think we should see if there is any consensus first or maybe a better solution.--Traveler100 (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd never heard of WPTechnology; that's a good suggestion. -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just merge all this stuff. There are not enough active editors focused on camera technology, or photographer bios, or photographic techniques, or whatever to support separate projects. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be: Since there aren't enough active editors focused on any of these, putting them all together would sink the competence of any resulting Project even further. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Done it; well started the reorganisation. The maintenance project has been moved and started work on redefining the WikiProject Photography. I think the template and the userbox can stay as is from working. What I am not convinced is that history of photography can simply be moved as there is still need for a home for technology and sicence of photography. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the template to have task forces for different subjects on the topic of photography. Although I have edited the template, this is still a proposal. Has anyone comments on the idea, better suggestions or proposals? Also would appreciate some better images for the task forces. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:WikiProject History of photography

Template:WikiProject History of photography has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject Photography. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Qono (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)