Talk:Photoblog

Photoblogging and Photoblog should be the same article. As the Photoblogging article is still a stub, it can be merged into the Photoblog article. Daedalus80 23:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * While it may be weak - there is already a precedence with blog and blogging. Considering the definition of photoblogging can't really be seen to anything substantive I suggest that Photoblogging is directed to Photoblog. --Seriocomic 09:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To include example links?
How about adding photos.vfxy.com? The ONLY visual resource to photoblogging with more than 6000 photoblogs in database. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.196.80 (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Too few have chimed in to say that the majority doesn't want the links. Infact, more people have added links than took part in this rediculous disscution. I WILL keep adding the links. You are not the wiki boss, so get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdominic (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, but discussion is the only method we have for establishing consensus, whether you think it's ridiculous or not. Drive-by IPs adding vanity links don't establish consensus; consensus is established on the talkpage. This page. Hint: Indeed I'm not the wiki boss, but I'll block you for edit warring if you keep adding the same material in the teeth of the opinion on this page. Hint 2: Please don't speak to other editors like that. Please read civility and no personal attacks to get an idea of what kind of tone is acceptable on talk pages. They are central policies on this site. Hint 3: you can sign your edits on talk pages automagically by typing four tildes. Best wishes, Bishonen | ノート 20:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC).

About including examples of photoblogs in the photoblog article - Do you think it might violate the principle of neutrality? Since only a few can be listed? What do you think? Daedalus80 20:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

How many links are we going to include? How do you decide which sites belong and which don't? I don't think we should link to any specific photoblogs. Photoblogs.org is good because it represents the whole community. Daedalus80 05:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Being that this is a site that anyone can add to, as long as it's relivent, people can add there sites if they like. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.2.120.20 (talk &bull; contribs) 20:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone can edit, but not everything can be posted. Let's look at related articles for guidance.  The blog article doesn't link to specific blogs, but instead to several blog search sites.  Unless you link to all photoblogs (impossible), you're creating a biased article. Daedalus80 02:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not biased if anyone can put there link up. There are actors pages, but we don't link to EVERY actor. People click on the links, so they must provide a wanted service. Who cares how long the list is? There are more important things to worry about in the world. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.2.120.20 (talk &bull; contribs) 03:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * None of these are more than peripherally relevant. The only link in the examples section that even conceivably benefits the article more than the target site is Chromasia's, with an Alexa rank of 19370.  The others are at a half million plus, when they're ranked at all.  I say we just remove them all, leaving photoblogs.org (photoblog.be seems to be a blog, not an index), and possibly the software links, which I haven't looked at.  Otherwise, the article's just going to dissolve into a vehicle for self-serving pagerank boosting. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and removed them, including the links to software. Folderblog is still linked from its individual article at Folderblog.  If Pixelpost merits an article, it should be linked from there; if not, it shouldn't be linked from here either. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with this stance. Looks like User:Mdominic doesn't.  I'll let somebody else fight this fight. Ralmer Rufus 23:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Mdominic has yet again reinserted the random list of photoblogs, after I also removed it, with the comment "It's not up to you to decide what goes here or not". Mdominic, it's not up to me or you to decide what goes on the page, it's up to consensus as established on the talk page. There is now consensus for removing the links, so please stop reinserting them. You'll be in trouble if you keep it up, as that would amount to edit warring. Also please read the rule WP:3RR carefully. Also, are you the same person as User:69.2.120.20? Bishonen | ノート 07:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC).
 * User:69.2.120.20 is edit warring to keep the links in the article, and seems from the edit summaries to have limited awareness of Wikipedia's aims and policies. I have posted an explanatory note to their user talkpage. Bishonen | ノート 17:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC).
 * Personally I am against it becoming a linkpool and full of fancruft, but there are notable photobloggers that have either had or continue to have a signicant influence on the photoblogging scene. I am referring to Noah Grey (early photoblogger who also created photoblogging scripts), and David Nightingale (who continues to be, at least from a popularity measure, the most watched photoblogger). I think that as long as there is some verifiable weight to the reason for their inclusion then the list should be short and manageable. --Seriocomic 05:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have just removed a link to http://www.eyefetch.com/. The reason being that it is more of a gallery set-up the has just started offering a photoblogging service. It was listed under core-purpose - which it certainly isn't, hence the removal. Until EyeFetch establishes a NOTABLE existance as a photoblogging system or service it will continue to be deleted as a link. --Seriocomic 04:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The following has been removed for the following reason (posted for editors info only):
 * The first known continuous photoblog was "Wearable Wireless Webcam" which ran 24 hours a day from 1994 to 1996, transmitting live pictures, wirelessly annotated in realtime, as well as video, to a website with dated entries, in chronological order, as a personal diary that others could also contribute to by way of a bidirectional link to eyeglass-based visual reality-modifying hardware.

- This was removed because it is definately more of a webcam reference rather than a photoblog. While a connection could be made, it is tenuous at best, and thus not significant enough for inclusion here - possibly for inclusion in the webcam page, but not here...
 * Another early photoblog (around the time of the origin of photoblogs) was Joi Ito's moblog.
 * See also moblog.

- While Joi Ito is a web personality to a certain degree, merely being that and an early photoblogger alone doesn't warrant noteable inclusion.--Seriocomic 11:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ladies, Gentlemen and Trolls, this is getting ridiculous. Some of the links in the article clearly do not belong there. For example, photoblog.com - its way too new to be of any significance, and photoblog.net is not even a photoblog site, its a domain snatcher's place with a bunch of useless crap on it. Can we please, please clean this mess up?

sharks link
I removed sharks.devgirl.ca from the external links on the Photoblog article because the link only had 6 photos on there and thought it NN. They sent me this email: From: "y control" Date: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:12 AM To: xxx Attachments: (none) HTML | Plain Text | Header | Raw Content hey, thanks for being an ass and deleting my link off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoblog

The link has been added back, but I don't believe it should be there untill it is a noticeable blog. What say the others here. Please refer to Notability (websites)

Also please don't send me obscene emails to my personal email, but rather talk to me on my user talk page. JohnRussell 18:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted revisions
This article was accidentally deleted in January; I've spoken to the administrator who did it, and, as he couldn't remember or figure out why he did it either, he restored the history. This is the last revision prior to deletion; it has a fair bit of information that could stand to be merged into the current version. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the best thing to do would be to rewrite the whole article incorporating material from the old article and maybe also from the photoblogging article. The proposed merge could be accomplished at this time.  I'm too lazy to do all this though - anybody else interested? Ralmer Rufus 00:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Progress
Now that the warring seems to be over with, who's in favor of a merge / rewrite? Who has the motivation to accomplish this? Ralmer Rufus 06:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It definately needs a rewrite - there is no structure at all at the moment. I wouldn't mind contributing - at least in the formation of article structure and some base material. --Seriocomic 09:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, well I just went ahead and changed/added a whole lot. It will need a tidy-up - especially with grammer and heading titles... --Seriocomic 05:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)