Talk:Photography in New Zealand

Untitled
from VfD:

New Zealand Photographers
non-notable, see Votes for deletion/Howard M Scott. --fvw* 02:28, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC) ping 08:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I am sure we have more than one photographer in NZ. Meanwhile delete.
 * Delete. If anything, this should be called List of ....  However, the same net effect could be achieved as the intersection of a category of New Zealanders (if such a category exists) and Category:Photographers. --MarkSweep 09:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Change that to weak delete, considering the recent edits by Drstuey. I'm still opposed to the kind of fragmentation this article is indicative of.  A person's profession and their country of origin/residence are basically orthogonal categories.  How is an NZ photographer essentially different from a Brazilian photographer, aside from the obvious fact that they are affiliated with different countries?  It would suffice to simply add an NZ photographer to categories "Photographers" and "New Zealanders".  The nice thing about categories (as opposed to list articles) is that they intersect, i.e., one can query all articles that belong to two or more categories.  Drstuey's changes are a vast improvement over the previous version, but now the article is more about photography in NZ. --MarkSweep 13:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no article here. jni 09:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Comments in the Votes for deletion/Howard M Scott section indicate this was a new user misunderstanding. Average Earthman 17:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Has been revised since my initial vote, but I'm not convinced that the current article establishes that there is a clear New Zealand based style/trend/scene/school (not in the physical sense) in photography. But it's more of a weak delete now than originally. Average Earthman 18:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm torn between meanwhile delete and good articles often start with a stub - there should be an article here - a proper article, not a bloody list - obviously this is not it, but ... - Drstuey 11:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I have edited the article, removed the Howard M Scott content, which as pointed out here was a mistake, and added some proper content. Have I done enough for this to be a keep? Will you change you votes? Anyways, I vote Keep. - Drstuey 11:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * A commendable effort, but I'm afraid there's still not much concrete information there, just some names of photographers and the fact that new zealand has a lot of nature. Unless there's something fundamental that differentiates New Zealand Photographers from Photographers (living in New Zealand doesn't count) I'm afraid this isn't going to get my keep vote. --fvw* 12:23, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Notability
I think an article on photography in NZ is certainly notable as a topic. What I don't like is the use of this annoying Oceania template with red links to every tiny island, as if we need articles on photography in all of these countries. Richard001 (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Photography in New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150911063213/http://www.thearts.co.nz/artist_page.php%26aid%3D1 to https://www.thearts.co.nz/artist_page.php%26aid%3D1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151005165836/http://citygallery.org.nz/exhibitions/yvonne-todd-creamy-psychology to http://citygallery.org.nz/exhibitions/yvonne-todd-creamy-psychology

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)