Talk:Wildlife Photographer of the Year

Prize removal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8470962.stm

"Louise Emerson from the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition office explained that the judging panel had been "reconvened" and had concluded that it was likely that the wolf featured in the image was an animal model that could be "hired for photographic purposes"."

Don't have time to edit the main article myself, but basically the 09 winner is no more the 09 winner due using a trained animal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfang (talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Technical limitations with this page may result in the page splitting
Technical limitations with the Wikipedia software caused problems with this page. As a short-term fix, the flags in one or more tables were removed. A longer term fix may be to split out Wildlife_Photographer_of_the_Year into its own article. See Village_pump_(technical)(permalink to version of 16:02, 31 January 2020(UTC)) for the current discussion. Unfortunately, splitting out the article then transcluding it back in won't solve the problem: If it is split, people will have to visit the new page to see the full list. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  16:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: When considering splitting, please follow the guidance in Splitting. Regarding steps 1-4, which revolve around finding a consensus to split:  Because there are technical issues, "doing nothing" is not really an option:  Either the page must be split, or some other method of reducing template usage must be used.  Accepting the removal of the flag icon templates as a permanent change would count as "doing something". If the article is split, attribution must be preserved.  One way to do that is to use the templates on Template_messages/Splitting. 16:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by davidwr (talk • contribs) 16:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If I understand the competition, the use of the flags here is inappropriate per MOS:FLAG. These artists are not representing their countries in this competition but instead themselves, and they come from or made the pictures in those countries. Please correct me if I am incorrect. (Even in such a case where I am wrong, MOS:FLAG heavily leans toward general deprecation of such decorative use.) --Izno (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I support the splitting as the full list makes the article way too long. Only: Does it really make sense to have a list of over 3000 winners in different categories of a competition (INDISCRIMINATE)? Even more, it is not even clear what the sources for the list are. I would also support a complete deletion of the list. --Lynxbiru (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of them aren't even actual winners. There are 3101 people in Wildlife Photographer of the Year. Most are listed as "Highly commended" which is below "Winner", "Runner-up" and sometimes also a "Specially commended" which is listed between Winner and Runner-up. Counting by "Result" column with at least 10 people:
 * Winner: 544
 * Joint Winner: 15
 * Specially commended: 136
 * Runner-up: 328
 * Joint Runner-up: 12
 * Highly commended: 1688
 * Commended: 81
 * Finalist: 275
 * I think the table should both be split out and reduced to winners. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to keep Joint Runner-up and everything above it. If we do this then there is no need to split it out unless we want to keep a page with everyone in the current list in it.  I'm not sure keeping those lower-ranking awardees is encyclopedic, especially if the reliable sources we got them from are either stable or are archived at a stable archive site. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  15:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I would like to see citations so that I can verify who the winners and runners up are/were. And I think 'Highly Commended's should be removed. I'd also suggest collapsing the table by default if it remains so lengthy. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here you can find everyone from 2010 to 2019. Years before that are harder, I managed to find citations for a few grand prize winners in newspaper articles. The article claims that the winning entries get published in a book every year, so if one has access to a good library...
 * By the way, I think most of the other tables like Most images, The longest, The most active, The country list, ect. are dispensable. I would probably keep only the list of overall winners and the (reduced) full list. --Lynxbiru (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed now all entries that were 'Highly Commended' or below from the list. --Lynxbiru (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)