Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography

A society and a societies of photography

The article Society of International Nature and Wildlife Photographers tells us that:

The Society of International Nature and Wildlife Photographers (SINWP) is a professional photographic organization formed in October 2008.

The association encourages development and discussion relating to photography and promotes the interests of photographers via seminars, workshops, roadshows and industry recognised qualifications. The group provides lists of recognised and qualified professional photographers throughout the world, all of them meeting strict standards of conduct as laid down in the group's rules.

When I first read that, it had a certain ring to it. . . .

Got it! There's a certain similarity to Draft:Societies of Photographers, which tells us that:

The Societies of Photographers is long-established Professional Photographers Association based in the UK for full-time and aspiring photographers all around the world. 'The Societies' is one of the UK’s leading qualifying bodies for photographers.

The association encourages development and discussion relating to photography and promotes the interests of photographers via seminars, workshops, roadshows., webinars and industry recognised qualifications. The group provides lists of recognised and qualified professional photographers throughout the world, all of them meeting strict standards of conduct as laid down in the group's rules.

And yes, I too am surprised to see "Societies" taken as syntactically singular. Grammar and prose-cloning aside, the (unsourced) first version and the (sourced) second version seem to claim that the photography trade association does what I'd anyway assume a photography trade association would do. Any comments on notability? (And are "qualifying bodies" important for photographers in Britain? I'd have guessed that the combination of connections, experience of working as a dogsbody for a known photographer, and an impressive portfolio were what would matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC) edited Hoary (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The Photo Ark

I wrote a page for The Photo Ark and keep it updated with new info, including a section "Progress," which captures the large milestones of the project. (I also note this on each of the milestone-animal's articles)

Along comes an editor who decides without discussion that the Progress info "is relative trivia and indiscrimnate info. Wikipedia is not a vessel to promote everything Nat Geo posts, no matter how neat the content." and takes it upon themselves to delete the entire section.

This was done a while ago, but I noticed it just recently. I restored the section, and even updated it. Please add this page to your watchlists and chime in if this becomes a battle, whichever way you think it should go. Rp2006 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rp2006: Hi. I'm sorry you feel the other editor's actions are undue but I would have done the same myself. There is a principle here, WP:BEBOLD; and if you don't like what someone has done then you have the option to revert their change and/or discuss it. I haven't yet read all the prose of the article but I can tell it is WP:TOOMUCH. The Progress section is a case in point, with arbitrary points of progress and all sources from Nat Geo apart from one not being an indicator of notability. This article in general needs to be less detailed and less skewed toward Nat Geo sources. I suggest we remove this section. What do you think? -Lopifalko (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the Progress section is WP:TOOMUCH for the reasons stated above, and should be deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. I seem to be in the minority on this. What about a very condensed version? See the article Talk page for my suggestion. Rp2006 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Seeking Guidance

Hi all,

If someone would be so kind as to what reading/research I'd need to do to qualify for assisting with this project, it would help. Thank you. Cryptohydrate (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Requesting Feedback for Article on Provoke (magazine)

Hello all. I have recently made some edits to the wiki article for Provoke (magazine). Seeing as that article falls under WikiProject Photography, I was wondering if people would like to provide some feedback on the article. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or comments in my user talk page, or in the Provoke article talk page. Thank you. - Andrew34jack (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)