Talk:William Umpleby Kirk

Classification
Must the article be within the scope of the Biography project (and a stub to boot)? The most (only?) interesting thing about Kirk is the large body of original (negatives) work left in just two bulky collections. These form a rare historical record of society, people and of yachts. Kirk himself just happened to be a photographer and there at that time. Perhaps the article should be renamed. Jacksoncowes (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (I just made the section with the title.) Those markers are to point out that this article is a biography about a person. That is all. A stub is a classification about how detailed the information is. As it is short and about his notability it is either a stub or a start class. We do not have a lot of information about his role in business, his teaching, his works, examples of his work and major details about his life. Even if he was 'just a photographer' his work is important and he was recognized by royalty for his services. The purpose of those is to let other editors classify, sort and become more aware of its existence. It sets a path in which future expansion and improvement will follow. It is not a negative tagging. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks both for the heading and the attention. I do understand. 'Just happened to be a photographer' is a lot less pejorative than 'just a photographer'. In any event, apologies for any unintended slight to photographers. More seriously, I was trying to say it is not, in my respectful opinion, a biography and that those within the Biography Project might consider the distinction between a person and a person's work. Perhaps that's just a silly thought. Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds as if perhaps you are thinking the article should be "Work of Wm. U. Kirk" or something along those lines. While we do have articles of that sort, they almost exclusively occur when the main article about the person is too large. In this case, that is nowhere close to the situation. The article is properly titled at his name. The fact that his photographic work is a significant part of the article is why it also falls under the scope of the Visual Arts project. To echo Chris, these project listings are not slights upon the article - they are just reflections of the subject matter: a person's life and artistic work. Lady  of  Shalott  13:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Didn't take it as a slight - promise. If it is a biography, and of course anything can be anything depending how its defined, then it certainly was a stub. Many thanks for your care and attention.Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Drmies (talk), thank you for your comment on Lady  of  Shalott  . Fight? Surely not? Unless fight is  another of those words like bold, with a special 'inside' meaning.  I would rather sit scratching my eyesballs than cause offence, particularly to ChrisGualtieri (talk), whose civility and good intentions are obvious and warming.  The gulf between my penultimate comment and the two subsequent responses was so great that I thought, and still think, that I should withdraw from what I had earlier hoped to be a discussion.  It is always good to be reminded of a python sketch, so thanks for that and, yes, it is a nice photo, you should see some of the others.  I hope I have used your Wikipedia name, ChrisGualtieri's and LadyofShalot's names properly, i.e. in such a way that each are aware of this comment.  I am sad that the discussion (fight?) took place on two or three pages other than this one. I think it should be seen by those who come straight to Kirk as it might gives some, obviously not all and obviously not you, an indication of how the page might have been. Thank you also for you edit of this page, particularly for the absence of an exasperated "No No" Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I seen this late, when someone uses our name it doesn't auto-trigger a notice to us, only on the user-talk page, but I'm glad that the matter is over with. Many pages have lengthy discussions about content and process, so its not unusual or problematic. I've been involved in some long debates and discussions. I have over 400 responses on one talk page. The article keeps improving and that is the important thing. It looks much better then when it first came to AfC, right? The evolution of the article is a good thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)