Talk:Rhodri Jones (photographer)

Linking town names
Erm, User:Lopifalko, why "Don't wikilink town / city names"? While some of the links did indeed seem superfluous to me and are perhaps (slightly) better removed, I'm puzzled by for example the delinking of "Llangollen" within "Llangollen 'Ffringe' Festival, Wales". Mightn't somebody wonder where (or what) this "Llangollen" was, and find a link handy? (Not that I can get at all worked up about the matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I edit dogmatically, I pick up what I think is a Wikipedia rule and throw it about it everywhere. I thought we didn't link place names in lists of exhibitions, only the actual premises or organisation that the exhibition was attributable to. -Lopifalko (talk)
 * I too was surpised to see all these wikilinks disappear. I have restored two of the links to a venue and a festival, with minor adjustments to clarify what these are. This does not preclude the restoration of some or all of the links to places. Unless there is a contrary indication in the Manual of Style I favour restoring all that are not repetitious. I would not link major world cities like London or New York, but general readers can't be expected to know about Mold or Ping Yao. Also, I think the 'ff' in Llangollen Ffringe Festival is spurious. This festival should be mentioned in Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod, which should then be that target of the wikilink. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. -Lopifalko (talk)
 * I was about to point out that you were wrong about "ffringe"; but I thought I'd better check, and ahem, you it seems you are right. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh, messages clashed, and I haven't yet looked at the article in its current state. So, not about this article but instead more generally: I'd certainly remove one link from "Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography, Tokyo", but I'd probably leave in the link within "Galerie Vrais Rêves, Lyon". For me it's "leave in a link that's likely to help somebody". (I do have some more precise rules of thumb, but after their application the thumb is often left at an ambiguous angle.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Exhibitions
Several exhibitions have the same title at different venues in different years. It seems likely that the same exhibition that has toured to multiple venues. I suggest we list each named exhibition only once under its earliest year, and list the showings of each exhibition together on the same line. for example: Do you agree with this proposal? Can you improve on my layout or punctuation? Verbcatcher (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2008: Land of the Living Past, Lighthouse Media Centre, Wolverhampton, England; 2009: Aberystwyth Arts Centre, Wales; Clwyd Theatr Cymru, Mold, Wales; 2010: Galleria 41ZERO30, Bomporto, Italy.
 * 2008: Go: Internal Migration in China, Side Gallery, Newcastle upon Tyne, England (during the show large posters, sponsored by the Look East festival, were shown on advertising billboards around the city); Cynon Valley Museum and Gallery, Aberdare, Wales.


 * I like the approach: it cuts flab. Well, two niggles. First, some photographers (Rob Hornstra is one) use the same title for exhibitions of markedly different scales; I don't know about Jones. Secondly, I've never been keen on sticking the year at the start of the entry (and never do this if I'm creating a list); if this is retained, then perhaps the first of your examples should instead read "2008–2010: Land of the Living Past...". -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that some exhibitions definitely do begin in one location and "tour to" other locations, which seems distinct to an exhibition that showed in one venue that then happens to show at another venue with perhaps a year's gap between. It at least seems to me worth differentiating between the two. I like the idea of not using the year at the beginning of the line, that's new to me. I wonder if we should use a period after the exhibition name, as is done with book titles, rather than a comma. I think it is more readable if the specific dates are included rather than just the year, for example:
 * Land of the Living Past. Lighthouse Media Centre, Wolverhampton, England, 1 July – 1 August 2008; Aberystwyth Arts Centre, Wales, 1 March – 1 April 2009; Clwyd Theatr Cymru, Mold, Wales, 2 September – 1 October 2009; Galleria 41ZERO30, Bomporto, Italy, 1 January – 1 February 2010. -Lopifalko (talk)


 * Did you have a source for these exact dates, or did you make them up as examples? In either event, giving exact dates is too much detail for this article. We probably don't even need to give the year at each venue, just the range when the named exhibition was shown. I now propose:
 * 2008–2010: Land of the Living Past, Lighthouse Media Centre, Wolverhampton, England; Aberystwyth Arts Centre, Wales; Clwyd Theatr Cymru, Mold, Wales; Galleria 41ZERO30, Bomporto, Italy.
 * 2008: Go: Internal Migration in China, Side Gallery, Newcastle upon Tyne, England (during the show large posters, sponsored by the Look East festival, were shown on advertising billboards around the city); Cynon Valley Museum and Gallery, Aberdare, Wales.


 * I made the dates up as an example. When I first began editing Wikipedia I considered the dates to be too exact, but have come to like the use of full dates, which I think Hoary and I use everywhere; but I also like your suggestion of leaving them out almost entirely; I'm as yet undecided. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I think what we're discussing here is how all photographer-related articles will be formatted, given that I expect Hoary and I at least will likely pay attention to what we decide here and apply it elsewhere. -Lopifalko (talk)


 * I have placed a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Responding to that note, I've suggested an edit that places the most recent exhbitions at the top, which I feel is appropriate for a living artist when giving a list. Now, given that the artist is alive, noting what is stated at the top of this page, unreferenced statements are not allowed in this article. So there are two things that need to be done here: Firstly, find references supporting the assertions made regarding his exibitions, and secondly (my suggestion), prosefying the list and explaining the relevance of noteworthy exhibitions to his vita, using reliable sources. Samsara 16:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I prefer your layout. I suspect that we may be able to restore some of the unreferenced listings by citing the existing sources. Thanks, Verbcatcher (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Most or all of the recently-removed list entries can be restored by citing Jones' webpage. I won't restore them for now in case we decide to change the layout. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just keep in mind that third-party reliable sources are preferred. Samsara 15:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, this edit. If feelings matter, I feel the exact reverse of what you feel: Wikipedia isn't producing blogs or US-style CVs but instead encyclopedia articles, within which this newest-to-oldest order is horrible. But let's put our feelings aside. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style, and Manual of Style/Lists of works makes it pretty clear that such things should be in chronological order, oldest (top) to newest (bottom). If you (Samsara or Verbcatcher) would like to change this, then please bring up the matter at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works. -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hoary: On reflection I agree with you, we should list the oldest exhibitions first. However, I like Samsara's layout of grouping all the showings of a named exhibition. We should list the showings of Made in China first, then the showings of Return / Yn Ôl, and so on. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that grouping would be fine with me. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I also think the groupings are OK, but am also waiting to see how it fairs in practice. One point about exhibition dates – I believe they can be useful to distinguish one that shows for a day, compared to one that shows for 3 months. -Lopifalko (talk)