Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Contribute photographs to Wikipedia. Make photographs already on Wikipedia better by editing them. Answer questions from other photographers. Take good pictures that are requested. Be actively involved in the Featured Picture candidates process.

[edit] Copyright Question

OK, I'll ask the first question. If you take a photograph and alter it significantly, let's say I use filters in Adobe Photoshop to make the photo look like a drawing, who does the image then belong to?

I have several old photos of which the ownership is unclear. I could use them for illustration if I were allowed to manipulate them.

DWR 05:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How much of the image is altered? If it is radically different that you barely can tell what the original is, then it is copyright under you, technically. Fair use of the other person's work. But I think you'll need to still give credit to the other person for the original image. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lets set some standards

I think photos are very important, so this project should be important! Anyway, we need to set some standards such as (please add more):

[edit] What is the preferred copyright for peoples' uploaded photos?

I (and most others I would guess) want to upload my own pictures with the most wiki friendly copyright, which is it? Bluemoose 10:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{GFDL}}, {{cc-by-sa}}, {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

I think we should standardise our file naming, maybe: country_place_whatitis_date.jpg e.g. UK_London_BigBen_April2005.jpg Bluemoose 10:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see several problems with this proposal.

Collisions: same subject, date, & time. Collisions are very likely for event-related articles. Ex: USA_Chicago_St_Patrick’s_Day_Parade_March_17_2005.jpg.
Portfolio: the naming convention probably won’t match a photographer’s portfolio. This would leave him or her to track two different references for a photo – his/hers, and the wiki-name. With over 100,000 images in my portfolio, I really don’t want another name to track. I’ve uploaded over 60 photos since joining Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago (gallery), and I anticipate uploading a few hundred more before summer.
Administrative hassle. Do we really want to follow behind people and fix their work or bug them to fix their work? Photos are easily searchable with simple text searches, so I see little benefit to adding this data to the file name.

Granted uploaders should include as much image metadata as possible with each image (date, place, event/subject), but they really don’t need to do that in the file name.

Sample file name: A01 6025 640x427.jpg. It’s ugly, but I know exactly where in my portfolio I can find this image, what images I took during the same shoot, and the image size. So long as the uploader adds meta data to the image's summery information, I don't really care what someone calls it. Rklawton 05:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo sizes

What is the best size for photos, after all an 8MP camera is probably going to produce files a bit to big, I suggest about 2MP (approximately 1600x1200) is optimal file size/picture quality trade off. Bluemoose 10:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think size limits should be restricted. Uploading high resolution photos is a good thing. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The guidelines say that as long as the file size is under 2mb, to upload the highest resolution image possible. I agree, and in my opinion the file size restriction should be relaxed, too. Don't forget that we should be able to use Wikipedia to create print versions (which has much higher requirements for resolution) of the encyclopedia, or in general to re-use its contents in any way. Brighterorange 15:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the best photo is a photo that was taken at the camera's full megapixel rating, and then downsampled by half. For example, 2560x1920 becomes 1280x960. Downsampling increases sharpness and reduces noise significantly. This is because you're using several pixels to create a single pixel in the downsampled image. As a general rule, I don't think anything larger than 1600x1200 should be uploaded, because even today, most people don't run their monitors higher than 1024x768, and because of that they have to either A: Use their browser's auto resize, or B: Scroll the image around to see the whole thing. Clearly, we do not want this. And unless you plan on printing out 8x10s, 1600x1200 should be fine. Perhaps an outside link to the unedited file should be included for those who need a bigger version. Anyway, just a suggestion.PiccoloNamek 05:15, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's best for Wikipedia to have the highest resolution images possible. (I disagree with the above about downsampling; depends a lot on the camera). According to the image use policy images must be less than 16 megabytes. For comparison the JPEGs that come out of my 8 megapixel Canon 350D are about 3 megabytes and compress down to 1 meg with a reasonable quality JPEG (photoshop 8 or Gimp 80). Don't scale the image down! -- Nelson 17:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea of using 2MP. Its relatively small but if anyone needs a 4R print, it has just enough pixels ( 4" x 6" x 300ppi x 300ppi = 2.16MP) to handle the job. Besides, I'd rather cut down file sizes (hence loading time) but cutting down the size of the photo, than using more compression. btw, I'm using a hi-res LCD monitor, and even that only has 1.73MP. --218.111.245.241 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old photographs?

Since there isn't a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Photos) page, I would like to ask this question of some of the photo experts here. What should one do with old photographs that you are planning to upload to the Wikipedia? I've uploaded a few old photos from the Library of Congress. Unfortunately, like many of the pre-1923 public domain photos at the LOC, they were darkened and yellowed. Most of the photos I uploaded I have used "as is". For one of the photos, however, I cropped the image, and then converted the image to greyscale and lightened up the image, which I think gave a much better picture. I am wondering if there should be any sort of Wikipedia guidlines for this type of photo manipulation. BlankVerse ∅ 13:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Editing

Perhaps a list containing photos that need to be edited or enhanced should be created? It would make it much easier to have them all in one spot, and many more of them would be fixed in a smaller amount of time. I propose that there should be a section on the main page (or maybe even a link to a sub-section) for Photographs that need attention.

Edit: Here's a perfect example right here. [1] Compare the new and old versions of the same file. See how much better the new one looks? We should have a group of people to deal with this kind of thing, I say! PiccoloNamek 04:32, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

All right, check this out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Photos that need attention. I've only just created it, so there are probably a lot of things that could be fixed, but it's a start, ne?

[edit] Commons

Is this WikiProject still active? If so, should it include some discussion of Commons?

There is a brief intro to commons for WPians at Wikipedia:Commons that may be of interest. pfctdayelise 12:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask in a stronger way - is there any reason why this project shouldn't be turned into a giant redir to commons? Stan 23:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. There's precious little useful content, and the broken templates at the bottom of the page make it look very unmaintained. Algae 09:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Commons is not quite ready. I think Eloquence once suggested we have commons:Portal:Photographers but I don't think commons has the portal namespace. So we could just have commons:Commons:Photographers. or commons:Commons:WikiProject Photography, although I would also think it would include animators and illustrators. It has been on my commons "to do" list for a while, but so have a few other things, so if anyone wants to jump in and set one of those up, it would be cool. Once we get it reasonably established, people here would have less reason to complain about what they'd be losing.

Also, I read that they're aiming to implement single login across all projects by March or so. that will make life easier too. pfctdayelise 10:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This project isn't so much about managing the existing library of images (there are other projects for that), but about the contribution process. On the other hand, it's not clear that this project actually plays any useful role anyway; no recommendations, no policy, no process, no standards. (I think it could have such things, but nobody seems motivated.) Stan 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright question

Can you claim copyright on alterations made to a public domain image? Ex: Image:Wpdms nasa topo wind river range.jpg --Hetar 04:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can. Rklawton 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Notphoto

There's a discussion about the category associated with this recent (3 July 06) template for tagging images which are claimed to be photographs but "obviously" not. It's been used twice. I think that this project and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration should be given some input as to what happens. Discussion here. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] portal:photography and wikiproject photography

Hello everyone at this wikiproject! If this project is active and anyone is around, please tell me so that I will know whether or not to place this wikiproject prominently. Also, if there is no still involved with this project, I was wondering if I could give it an overhaul? Thanks, -G photo 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm actively photographing and adding images to articles. The wikiphotoproject is a great idea, but it's poorly organized. For example, is there a "Needs Photo" tag that can somehow also relate to geographic region editors can insert into their articles? If we can provide a link in this project to an automated summary of those links by geography, then we'll have a quick-hit list active photographers can reference. Those who are active in that area or plan to visit will find a quick-hit list of stuff that needs shooting. For example, if I know I'm visiting Waco, Texas, next month, it would be great to have a list of articles in that area that need illustrating I can print out an bring with me. As it stands, I'm working from the National Register of Historic Places list because it lists articles by state, county, and city. Unfortunately, most of the places on these lists lack articles. At least they'll have images once someone rights an article (... yeah, I know, and I've created a stub or two here and there). I also realize that not everything is geographyically bound, but it would make a great start. If such lists already exist, please point me to them! Rklawton 03:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work! Yeah, this project is very poorly organized, and a geographical system would be nice. I will try and see what I can do. Thanks, -G photo 12:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

I don't know if this is the place, but I'll try. I was looking for a photo of Robert F. Engle (Nobel Prize in economics, 2001) and I found this photo [2] which, since it's been made by the White House, is free for all purposes/not covered by copyright. The thing is, I would need to crop Engle out of that picture (he's the 3rd from left, white hair, next to Bush) to produce a portrait as good as possible. But I don't really know how to do that. Can someone help? AdamSmithee 13:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You actually want to put this over at Requested Pictures. As for the photo you're talking about ... it's a little too small for me to do much with. Hopefully, someone else will be able to help you. Nathan Wert 12:48PM Monday 10/30/2006

Technically the wrong place to post a request, but I'll see what I can do! —

Pumpkin Editor, at Large! 20:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the feed-back! I looked around, but didn't notice Requested Pictures. I know that it is low res, but... they say a low quality free photo is better than a high quality copyrighted/fair use photo. Pumpkin Editor, I'd really appreciate any help! AdamSmithee 09:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reviving and broadening the scope of this project

Would anyone be interested in reviving and broadening the scope of this project? Right now the project appears to be dead, but I feel that the project can be breathed new life on it, if it concentrates on Photography articles. Right now there are many photography articles that could use a lot of work. PPGMD 15:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, if you can get people interested in working on photography articles that would be great. You might want to try and contact some of the current members of the wikiproject before doing anything major. But working on photography articles would be great. If you get anything going, please alert me on my talk page. I can put something about it on the photography portal (which I run). Oh, by the way, photography is up for voting on a WP:AID, so voting on that might get more people interested in working on photography articles in general (though I might be biased because I put the article up for nomination). Regards, -Gphoto ^talk 16:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm here because of this seemingly bizarre edit.

WikiProject Photography is a project to better articles by contributing and improving photographs to the Wikipedia. It has six numbered goals, of which it's obvious that all but the fourth (to which I'll return) are purely practical. As such, it's an admirable project about which I've known for some time, and I wish it all the best, though I haven't bothered to contribute to it myself. The fourth goal is to "Provide a focus point for photographers, photo editors and digital artists." In a different context, this could conceivably be taken to include articles about photographers, photography, etc.; but it doesn't seem to apply here.

But then we get to the template, which says that WikiProject Photography is "an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on photography on Wikipedia." It is? Then why is nothing relevant mentioned anywhere above?

To me it looks as if a project dedicated to improving the level of prose in Wikipedia (another commendable idea) announced as an afterthought and with no evidence whatever that it was trying to build a guide to articles on literature.

I wrote all the above "offline" and then arrived at this talk page where I discover that yes, the notion of articles about photography is indeed an afterthought, or anyway a recent thought. Although it's a recent thought here, it has been thought about elsewhere. In particular, I'd like to draw your attention to List of photographers (a list that no doubt contains links to some dubious articles but that is defended against spamming and self-promotion much more vigorously than are similar lists on different subjects), to its talk page, and to the embryonic WikiProject History of Photography. The last of these hasn't advanced recently for several reasons, but I still think it's sound. -- Hoary 23:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hoary, I'm glad you are working on photography stuff. I have added to the template banner to reflect everything that this wikiproject is trying to do. We are really just starting to think about bettering the articles on photography, so not much has happened yet. If you know of anyone that needs help from this wikiproject please direct them this way. If you need anything or would like assistance with photography items, please contact me anytime. Thanks for the links; I have added the history of photography WP to the photography portal list of things to do. Regards, -Gphoto ^talk 01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, though actually that embryonic project was mostly Pinkville's work (as you no doubt guessed). Since you anyway linked to it, I took it live: Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography. To put it crudely, it's now competing with part of what you propose to do. I don't have any feelings of ownership about it and I very much doubt that Pinkville or anyone else has; I don't care how good articles are made as long as they are made. So if there really is a competition, I'd be happy if WikiProject Photography results in good pages of the kind that interest me and if the "history" project dies in infancy. That said, I do think there's a good reason for a general (though not complete!) separation of photographs and photographers from cameras, the photography biz, etc.; and that reason is the enormous risk of puffery. Anybody can call himself a photographer, many do, and we've seen plenty of unsuitable contenders and have taken them off to AfD. Mix a photographer portal with all the buzz of Photokina (is it called?), Photoshop, etc., and I think the number of self-described photographers may skyrocket. Meanwhile, cameras themselves are done increasingly well over at Camerapedia. -- Hoary 12:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that there is much of a chance that there will be any competition, at least in the near future. So far no one is signed up for WP:PHOTO to work on articles, and I really don't know if anything is happening on the old stuff. I really would like to see this project active and growing, and that is what I am working towards, but nothing is happening right now. I, too, think that there is a problem with people writing articles about themselves as photographers. This might be a problem that we can address with this wikiproject if you don't think it would overlap yours too much. Regards, Gphoto ^talk 14:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the project page, the scope of this project is:

to contribute and better photographs on the Wikipedia. This project seeks to be a central focus point for photographers, photo editors, and digital artists so that requests to improve articles for photographs and to improve photographs can be dealt with in a timely manner. It is in the hope that this project helps to drive contributions of photographs much like the Collaboration of the Week, and act as a Noticeboard for photographers.

OK, that could do with some editing, but the focus is clearly on contributing better photographs, not writing articles on photography. I think the two should be kept separate, as they are quite unrelated. One problem, at present, it that there's no easy way for an editor who wants a photo for an article to request it eg by simply adding a tag to the page. There is a little-known page where requests can be made, of course, but it's poorly used and is stuffed with requests for pictures of famous people which most photographers won't be able to help with. It would also be good to enhance the photo-volunteers list to indicate what type of photos or subjects volunteers are able to contribute. --MichaelMaggs 16:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point Michael. I wonder if we should create an entirely new wikiproject that deals with photography articles while letting this one deal entirely with pictures. What do you think the exact scope of this wikiproject should be? Do you think the template should have something about getting pictures for a certain article? It seems like the template should be used by those who need a picture, instead of the wikiproject members tagging pages. Regards, Gphoto ^talk 17:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly Michael exaggerates slightly when he says that contributing better photographs [and] writing articles on photography . . are quite unrelated. In practice, I'd guess that there's a significant correlation between (a) happily carrying around and using a camera to help illustrate articles and (b) being interested in the photography of others. But there's also a correlation between being interested in soccer and being interested in scantily/not-clad young ladies. Facetiousness aside, all in all I agree with Michael.

Gphoto: I wonder if we should create an entirely new wikiproject that deals with photography articles. Well [cough] there is something called Wikiproject:History of photography. This doesn't attempt to cover all of photography, carefully avoiding the matter of hardware, but I think that it may go some way toward meeting the requirements. (I'd be happy if somebody else created a third, complementary project for cameras, etc. -- though as I've said, I think Camerapedia already does this well, and I am also a bit wary of any formal or personal project to add an article for every commercial product: the result can easily end up sounding like a collection of poorly written press releases.)

As to It seems like the template should be used by those who need a picture, instead of the wikiproject members tagging pages, couldn't this project have two clearly different templates, one for each of these two very different purposes? Or perhaps instead a single template, with variables that both put the talk page into either of two categories ("done" versus "to-do") and make the template look very different.

Back to the start of this discussion. There's some despondence hereabouts because Wikiproject Photography seems to be dormant; what should be done about that? I don't have any particular suggestions right now, other than the dual template. -- Hoary 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What I said about making a completely new wikiproject was mostly pointless, but what Wikiproject:History of photography covers does not include the basic parts of photography like cameras, hardware, various techniques, types of photography, and some photographers. These subects all are in need of some wikipedians that know about them. Sometime soon I will think of something but right now all I can think of is maybe creating a parent Wikiproject:Photography to cover all the little wikiprojects that cover different areas of photography. The main problem that I can see with all this is getting people involved and actively working on all of it.

I think that two different templates is a very good idea and is along the same line as some sort of branching system for the different areas of photography. Thanks for all the advice on this stuff. Regards, -- Gphoto ^talk 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:HoP (let's call it) aims to cover any photographer who's worth covering by WP, as well as certain techniques and types of photography. Personally I'd be happy for it to cover cameras and other hardware as well, but only if it did so in a balanced and dispassionate way. (Thus coverage of SLRs would say roughly what they are and what impact they've had on photography, but it would not get into brand wars, lens mounts, limited editions, etc etc.) Experience tells me that such coverage of any kind of consumer good of interest to teenage boys (of all ages, and perhaps including the ladies) is not possible, and intuition tells me that once articles on the Canonosonic DX2000, DX3000, DX3000P, DX4000PX etc etc are added to a project, their keen users will then be tempted to add articles on themselves, their best buddies, etc etc ... so no thanks. -- Hoary 02:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ..... slightly reworded 02:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I myself understand this as I am in this category, and I see the uselessness of covering the camera market. It would be great if WP:HoP covered photography articles, because then the current WP:Photo could cover what it was originally intended to cover and WP:HoP could cover articles. Regards, Gphoto ^talk 02:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're pretty much describing WP:HoP as Pinkville, I and perhaps others see it. And of course there's nothing sacrosanct about our "vision": you're welcome to nudge it as you want. (Course, we may nudge back! Well, persuade us.) NB "history" most certainly includes the present, but the point of using the word is to remind people that this is an encyclopedia of what's in some way significant, not a compendium of whatever is rightly or wrongly generating a buzz during this or that fifteen-minute period. -- Hoary 02:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I like how you realize that there is more to this encyclopedia than whatever fills the mind at that certain moment. The encyclopedia needs more people that want to create and maintain articles about history and things that happened in the past and are important now. Whatever you think WP:HoP should write about is fine with me, because you guys are working on photography articles. I guess I can now go back to figuring out how to organize the task of taking the photographs here at wikipedia. Regards, Gphoto ^talk 03:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to revitalise this project

To allow editors to focus on what's of most interest to them, I do think we ought to maintain two separate projects: this one, aimed at adding better pictures, and Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography, aimed at improving photography-related articles. I may even join both.

Can I suggest we restate the aims of this project along the following lines:

To improve the quality of photographic images on Wikepedia and to add new high-quality images; to act as a focal point for photographers and photographic-image editors who are able to offer their skills to the Wiki community; and to act as a point of contact for article editors requiring photographic images or photographic advice and assistance.

[edit] New photograph required (article template)

It would be good to have an easy-to-use template that article editors could use to request a photo. One template already exists, namely Template:Reqphoto, which puts an entry into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs. But this doesn't actually allow requests to be categorised in any sensible way, nor can a photographer quickly review the list without going to each article, one by one, to see what type of photo is needed. So, it's not that useful for Project members to work from.

To enable other project members easily to keep an eye on requests of interest to them, the template should ideally allow editors to specify:

subject category (e.g. nature, portrait, landscape, buildings, food etc)

place (e.g. London, New York) where applicable

any special equipment required (close-up/micro lens, telescope, microscope) where applicable

any other requirements (free text field for comments)

Also already existing is the page Wikipedia:Requested pictures but, as mentioned above, this is not well-used, and again doesn't allow photographers easily to watch whether requests have been made in their areas of interest. It also overlaps in function with the template, and is confusing for editors. See also Commons:Picture requests, which does much the same thing.

A template of this type would make it easy for me to see, for example, which articles are in need of closeup/macro shots of household items, and to provide them, as well as making it easy for an editor who needs such an image to found out that I'm here and ready to help.

[edit] Photograph requiring cleanup or improvement (article template and/or image tag)

This template should allow article editors to request help from Project members to get an existing image cleaned up or otherwise improved (via Photoshop or some similar program).

An image tag Template:Cleanup-image already exists, which adds problem images to Category:Images for cleanup. This could could perhaps be improved. It would also be useful to have an article template as well, given that many editors don't seem to like to get involved in image issues and would be more likely to add a template to the talk page than to go into an image and edit there. Members may also be more likely to work on a problem image that's associated with an important article, rather than simply picking images without much context.

The unused pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Photos that need attention and Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Project collaboration simply duplicate the above, and could be removed.

I've no idea how to create the required templates, but would be happy to help with the specifications if someone could do the coding.

We should also maintain a page where members can indicate their interests and areas in which they can help - something like a combination of Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers and the participants list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but with at least this information:

Name

Subjects of special interest

Location

Uses SLR?

Special equipment available

Will supply new photos?

Will undertake photo editing?

Will provide advice?

What do others think? Is there enough interest to move this forward? MichaelMaggs 13:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This looks very good! Could you actually create the templates so that they can be put on the appropriate subpages? I think that it will help the life of this project very, very, much if images start to get tagged because people will actually have something to work on. Regards, Gphoto ^talk 20:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

um I've no idea how to create the required templates, but would be happy to help with the specifications if someone could do the coding. See above! --MichaelMaggs 22:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs: I do think we ought to maintain two separate projects: this one, aimed at adding better pictures, and Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography, aimed at improving photography-related articles. You may also be interested to see the start of a draft WikiProject Cameras. -- Hoary 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if there is not actually that much interest in this. A shame. --MichaelMaggs 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Photo Matching Service

Have you seen an article on wikipedia that needs a photograph but you can't travel a thousand miles to take it? Do you love taking pictures for the wiki but aren't sure what our needs are? I've created Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service to solve both problems by matching photographers with articles that need photos. To a certain extent it duplicates Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers, but its a bit more useful for finding someone to take a photo because its sorted by location. Additionally, the page also includes a list of needed photos for any given location so anybody can see what photos we need and take them for us even if that person doesn't want to list themselves as a photographer. Anyway, the page is pretty bare-bones at the moment and I would appreciate any comments that people have. GabrielF 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29"

If this works out, it will be the death of our dear, dear, slightly inactive project. --Gphoto ^talk 18:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commons Picture of the Year competition

Voting is now open at Commons to choose the finalists for Picture of the Year 2006. The voting page is at Commons:Picture of the Year/2006. All editors having at least 100 edits either here or on any Wikimedia Wiki are welcome to participate. --MichaelMaggs 07:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar discussion

Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals is considering a new Barnstar to be given to people who make great combined contributions to Wikipedia articles and the Commons free-use image collection. Please come by and state your views. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 16:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Photography_23fd.html"

Categories: To do | To do, priority undefined