Talk:Panos Pictures

List of photographers?
Is the list of photographers a good idea? I ask because I can't think of an easy way of keeping it up to date.

An alternative would be to make it a list of photographers who have at one time or another been affiliated with Panos. This could start by [gasp] copying what's now a single reference at the head of the list to the end of every entry, and then allowing the list to expand. But that doesn't promise to be attractive.

A third alternative would be to do away with any list, and use categories. Category:Photojournalists by publication uses "publication" loosely; perhaps a couple of the members could be moved to a new "Category:Photojournalists by agency", which could also include Category:Magnum photographers. But I wouldn't rush into that, either; not least because many (most?) of the current photographers potentially affected would deny that they're photojournalists: a term that is now very pejorative (thought to be related to superficiality, opportunism, cliché) and hardly compatible with signed and numbered photobooks (with multiple cover options), gallery shows, enthusiastic write-ups in The Guardian, prospects of inclusion in Parr/Badger vol 4 (none of which could possibly collocate with superficiality, cliché, etc, of course). -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of redlinks
I'm puzzled by this edit, in which User:AlexTheWhovian removed a great number of links. Removal of the piped links -- eg "Patrick Brown" -- seems particularly unfortunate, in view of the way some people unthinkingly add links to the articles of irrelevant people who just happen to share the same names. But no reason is proffered for any of the removals.

The editing guideline Red link tells us:


 * Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic [...]

Please explain, User:AlexTheWhovian. -- Hoary (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No blue links were removed. The article was tagged with Cleanup red links for the previous revision, and honestly, all I was doing was clearing out Category:Wikipedia red link cleanup. Unless you or someone else is actively making these articles, they should not exist as red links, especially in a capacity such as this. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * User:AlexTheWhovian, you say Unless you or someone else is actively making these articles, they should not exist as red links, especially in a capacity such as this. I don't know what "capacity" means in this context, but that aside, why should they not exist as red links? The guideline that I cited above suggests to me the contrary: that they should. Whether or not I or somebody else will soon create articles seems by the way; but among the newly-not-linked names are a dozen or more names that I immediately recognize: among them, I have a book by, books by several of the others are in "my" library, and the apparent absence from any Wikipedia of Carlos Spottorno amazes me in view of all the talk about his publications Pigs and Wealth Management. -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I mean "capicity" in the way that there were a hundred red links and someone obviously felt the need to tag them for removal. Months ago. They contribute nothing to the article, as there's no further information at a red link, and there's no immediate plans to create any articles that provide said further information. Red links are not here just for decoration; now, the redlinks at a page/template such as Honours Lists are useful, as I am aware that there are users actively filling in these articles. And you recognize the person in question? Good. Can you still recognize them without links? Yes. That is beside the point. Italics exist for a reason, if emphasis is needed. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can of course recognize these people's names when they're not redlinked; emphasis is not the reason for redlinking and I don't think that I have suggested otherwise. -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * See the glass of beer. -- Hoary (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)