User talk:TheMindsEye/User talk:TheMindsEye/Archive/Archive 03 Apr 2007

On Bass
Since you decided to hack up the Pinky Bass article, I thought I would take the time to express how insensitive I think you are in dealing with any type of what I would call "fleshing out" or "puffing up" as you call it. If wikipedia is to be helpful the articles should connect with other articles and if the artist is chosen to be exhibited with others of similar of more importance then I feel this should be noted. I also see you decided to leave out the (Id) section of her article and to me this would be one of the most important exhibitions that she has ever been chosen for. There has to be some kind of nuancing if one is to edit other people's work unless you do it mean spirited and in that case you should not edit at all. Artsojourner 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. My intent certainly wasn't to 'hack up' the article.  I found it to be difficult to read and to be more like a resume than an encyclopedia article.  And yes, I found that the article suffered from not having a NPOV.  I can assure you that my edits were not mean-spirited, but your comments are.  TheMindsEye 05:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If you dont know the artist that you decide to edit and have nothing else to say about them, politely bow out. I am sure there are other people who can nuance art here who could and would consider the importance of various areas of an article without hacking them apart. I have looked over several of your recent edits and it feels like you are doing this as a game or am I missing something altogether. Artsojourner 04:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. My understanding is that a primary Wiki principles is 'No Original Research.'  I think any editor can edit without knowing an artist.  If my edits missed a nuance of an article, every other editor can fix that mistake.TheMindsEye 05:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree too. If an editor sees something in an article that makes sense but can be expressed more straightforwardly or concisely, he or she (let's say she) is welcome to rewrite it accordingly. If she sees something that's obscure or ambiguous and lacks the knowledge needed to put it right, she's free to bring the matter up on the talk page or perhaps in an SGML comment. If she sees excrescences that don't seem to belong to any encyclopedia article, she's free to cut them (of course noting this in the edit summary and perhaps also on the talk page). I haven't examined TME's recent edits, but am here to thank him/her for excellent work on Henri Cartier-Bresson (see below); if trimming flab from that article is a game for TME, it's a most beneficial and commendable game and I sincerely hope that TME keeps playing it. Whether or not TME's edits are a game, I trust they are a form of enjoyment; the obvious alternatives (promotional activities, etc.) are more worrying. -- Hoary 00:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for helping out with the articles on Clarence Hudson White and Anne Brigman -- I really appreciate it! I'm looking forward to working on more History of Photography pages. — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're totally welcome. I thought your work on both articles was really good, especially Clarence White.  The documentation was much better than the vast majority of wiki articles and makes further expansion much easier.  I plan to add a section on his legacy, famous photos, and, perhaps, some quotes by him on photography.  I think that will round out the article and start it towards a 'GA' classification.  TheMindsEye 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Henri
This was a sterling edit. Just the kind of thing I was thinking I should do, but of course I was too lazy. And even if I'd done it I probably wouldn't have done it as well as you did. -- Hoary 00:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I just want to do my part on the HoP project.  TheMindsEye 01:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories
Hang on a sec: what's the logic for this edit?

NB while the combination of
 * Category:Birmingham, Alabama
 * Category:Photography museums and galleries

obviously implies
 * Category:Art museums and galleries in the United States

to even a half-functioning human brain, Wikimedia categories alas can't be got to work by even a twelve-year-old's understanding of set theory. I mean, one ought to be able to search by "Category:Alabama AND Category:Photography museums and galleries", but one can't.

Normally I'd just revert your edit, but your other edits are so good and I am so sleepy that I hesitate. Please reconsider and either self-revert or point out where I'm wrong. Thanks -- Hoary 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My thought was that Category:Photography museums and galleries is a subset of Category:Art museums and galleries in the United States, so that one article doesn't need both cats. If that logic is flawed, please revert.  Thanks, TheMindsEye 03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, not quite, because Photography museums and galleries (such as this one) aren't all in the US. -- Hoary 03:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoary
Geez! Hoary some of your edits and explanations seem so callous. Southern artists are different enough to have their own category I assure you just as southern writers should have their own category. Southwestern artists are in the same boat as they, too, are quite different from the rest of the country. What does this hurt if they have their own categories?

In just a day of recent edits, I find that you, instead of getting to the root of a problem or situation, had rather just delete it all rather than deal with it. I feel that this is a breach of respect for the other editors on here. You tend to overreach and have said in some of your edits that you dont have the time to bother. What does this mean? This seems pointless and ill conceived for you to waste all of this time if you dont wanna bother. In fact, you seem to have this idea that you know more about editing than anyone else on here. Anyone can just delete something. Deleting something is not the same as editing since deleting doesn't need any thought. Other editors spend their time building an article and adding pertinent information to include in these articles. You dont seem to respect your work on here as many of your comments seem pointless and harsh with no feeling other than disdain for what you are doing or bothering to do. It just leaves otehr editors frustrated and aggravated.

I dont claim to be any kind of editor at all since all I do is try to include information. If you dont like what you are doing then just dont do it because wasting other people's time and energy is bad Karma and how can anything good come from bad Karma, definitely a deal breaker for me. Artsojourner 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note The above comments directed to user:Hoary were apparently left here in error by Artsojourner. I do not agree with the opinions expressed.  TheMindsEye 06:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reposted it to my own talk page and replied to the specific point that's raised, though I haven't replied to the rest. -- Hoary 07:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Isaacs

 * Keep Isaacs is my vote. This photographer is quite notable. Editor Hoary decided long ago he didn't want Isaacs' on WP for whatever reason. We both obviously see, along with others, that Isaacs work is as notable as half of the photographers on WP whether its art photography and/or commercial photography. I fleshed out alot of this article but I do understand to google Lee Isaacs is not easy  since alot of people have his first and last name as a middle name and last name. I have a book here, UPsouth, that has many examples of his work.  This is a Warhol project grant through Space One Eleven. He is in good company as far as the notoriety of the other artists here is concerned. Emma Amos and bell hooks are in the book along with Willie Cole and Marie Weaver. Cole is the only other male in this project. Maybe someone could sift through some of this. Artsojourner 05:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think Isaacs is not notable? Artsojourner 06:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Artsojourner, you didn't ask me, but I answered this question, even before I saw it, within my lengthy reasoning for my "delete" vote in the AfD page. -- Hoary 12:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

AfDs in general
Mr Eye, you say: I seem to have a bad track record of antagonizing editors with my AfD submissions. AfD submissions often antagonize editors. If you want a bit less antagonism and fewer questions, the trick is to provide within your initial nomination clear evidence for violation of policy, and not merely of guideline. WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V. -- Hoary 12:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice! TheMindsEye 16:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
On this edit: "focussing", "focussed", etc., are well established in the Youkay. I can get less and less excited about notions of "standard American [i.e. US] spelling", "standard British spelling", and all that, and note that my elderly copy of the [British-market] Concise Oxford Dictionary sensibly gives both "-s-" and "-ss-"; it could be that British spelling now tends toward the former, for all I know (or care). But NB other people hereabouts get terribly upset about what they see as spelling hegemony. Especially some Brits, who seem to regard articles that are about Britain (and even Europe as a whole) rather than the US as necessarily written up in "British spelling", and as such to be vigorously defended against encroachments by "American spelling", "Americanisms", etc.

(Here's an earlier comment of mine; see how effective it was by the colors of the links in question. Yes, some people see (i) Luxembourg in the orbit of British English [huh?]; (ii) organization as an alien Americanism [nonsense]; (iii) the matter as sufficiently important to require renaming a category, with all the tedium that that requires [if they've nothing better to do....].) -- Hoary 02:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with not changing American and English spelling back and forth, and try to be sensitive to not make these changes. Of course, I'm not that familiar with GB forms and must have made the change to word for which I didn't know the difference. One question I have is about the double l in travelled - is that the preferred British spelling?
 * Frankly, I haven't been that good about spelling in the past because its so hard to see in Wiki edit windows and its so much trouble to cut and past back and forth between my word processor. But, today I uploaded Firefox 2 and got a spell checker, so I was trying to make amends for my past laxness.  TheMindsEye 02:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, travelled, traveller, travelling are indeed standard in Blighty, as are bussing, kidnapping, licence, pretence, defence etc. There are certain patterns to these. There are also some jokers: while practice is the noun, practise is the verb. Here ya go. -- Hoary 05:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. I've actually wondered about snigger and titbit, so this helps a lot.  TheMindsEye 05:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Adolfo Farsari
Great edits to the article, which is now certainly much better. Some of your changes I further changed or changed back (hope you don't mind) but the majority were clearly improvements. Pinkville 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

List of films with similar themes and release dates AfD
Hi, you've expressed an opinion in the deletion discussion of this article. I've recently suggested a compromise in hopes of improving the article while keeping both sides happy, and would appreciate if you could revisit the issue. Thanks. --Wafulz 18:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

copyedit Contour section for readability and relative weight in article
What is this? I have never seen this fancy wording or editing used in the past. Seems you dont want to give credit where credit is due. If you had wanted only to shorten these articles on Colvin and Scruggs then please be consistent as I see you left out wiki people. Also in following up on some of your edits and then Hoarys edits they could be rightfully be considered from the same person. Maybe even one in the same. We'll see.

Also, funny how most of the articles here on WP are not shortened just for the sake of shortening them. Artsojourner 06:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Artsojourner, I try to carefully explain my edits to 'your' articles because you have gotten so upset with my edits in the past (see your comments to me about the Pinky Bass at the top of this page where you said I "hacked up" the article, for example). When I edited Virginia Scruggs on Jan. 5, I separated each edit to a definable point so you could clearly see the purpose of the edit.  I addressed the short-comings of the 'Contour' section in this [|edit].  Despite my efforts, you reverted this edit back.  I find this version to be dense, difficult to read, and not conforming the the Wikipedia Manual of Style.  Moreover, you put so many other names in this list, that it outweighed the other parts of the article.  The point of the biography is supposed to be about Scruggs, not about this single, group  exhibit.
 * As far as your other accusations they are false. May I suggest that you read this two Wikipedia policies -- Civility, Assume good faith -- before continuing this discussion? TheMindsEye 15:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How in good faith can I trust that you are working from a fair vantage point when there is no consistency whatsoever. WP is supposed to be civil but I feel like I am continually picked at over and over and over again when I make an edit that I fell strongly about. I would like for a couple of days for you to just leave my edits along. you already know that I am not a fraud and you already know I am not a vandal. I am not a child either and STOP treating me like one. You too should take your own advice as you said above suggesting that you read these two Wikipedia policies -- Civility, Assume good faith assume I am using my time here in good faith. thats what I am actually asking of you. Making peace with yourself would go a long ways in making peace with many others on here that you have, in my opinion, offended. Artsojourner 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Any editor may attempt to improve any other editor's work, regardless of how strongly the earlier editor feels about his or her own work. Such an attempt does not imply that the earlier editor is a fraud, vandal or child. The earlier editor may disagree about the changes and is welcome to do so in the article's talk page or of course (as here) on the talk page of the newer editor. The earlier editor may also judiciously revert some or all of the would-be improvements -- but because they are not improvements, not because the article his in some sense his or her own. Similarly, arguing politely for the benefits of one's own would-be improvements (or against the other editor's would-be improvements) does not imply that the other editor is a fraud, vandal or child. &para; It's sad but true that WP articles, even stable ones, show little consistency; inability to raise the level of all of them is no reason not to attempt to raise the level of some of them. &para; I have not noticed any incivility by TheMindsEye. Of course this doesn't mean that there hasn't been any. If there's something in particular that offends you, perhaps you should supply diffs. As for the notion that TME is somehow "wikistalking" [not your term, I know] you, it seems to me that both you and he/she are interested in a number of US photographers (in addition, perhaps, to entirely different subjects; I haven't examined the contributions list of either of you); there's nothing worrisome in this. -- Hoary 23:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello and not vandalism!!
The edits made to Kevin Carter and co. were not vandalism but made for clarification purposes as I did not feel offended by particular imagry so some people might not feel offended by imagry THANKS FOR VIEWING/READING VIEWPOINT EXPRESSIONS. Buyable 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Kenna
i didn't underestand what's the logic for [this edit]? why did you earsed many sentences on it like : Kenna's view of landscapes is unusual in many ways.

michael kenna is a master, and there are many sentences like this on other articles in wikipedia .... Photoart77 12:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge Mr. Kenna's abilities -- that's why I took the time to improve the article. As stated in the edit summary, I edited the article for readability, NPOV, and verifiability.  A statement that his view of landscapes is unusual tells the reader nothing -- in what way is it unusual?  My edit explains the unusual qualities -- Kenna's photography focuses on unusual landscapes with ethereal light achieved by photographing at dawn or at night with exposures of up to 10 hours.  In some cases your additions were unsupported (Writers have described his photographs as romantic, surreal, haunting, and jewel-like. -- what writers? In what ways is a photo be jewel like?).  In other cases, your additions suffered from a lack of neutral point of view -- a photo-series by talented Iranian photographer Mohammadreza Mirzaei .  Why not just include the information and let the reader decide if the photographer  is talented or not?  TheMindsEye 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are two photographers working today who are considered masters, certainly Kenna will be named as one of them. He is held in very high regard. He, like Paul Caponigro, has a very distinct way of looking through a lens and framing a photograph. Artsojourner 06:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the article needs to maintain a NPOV. I firmly believe that the mastery of any individual can be revealed through accomplishments and referenced material from independent sources without the article having unsourced claims.  Indeed, I believe that a well-written neutral article is more of a compliment to an individual that a sloppily written article full of boasts.  TheMindsEye 14:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Software Company
Hi, I've been following the Rysin Online site which you had edited for some time now, all the content on that page is accurate. I realise and appreciate how hard it is to tell if all this is accurate, so I have added an image of the second article described on the page which was created. I also read over the "Blip Technology" section on Anaglyph Imaging, and it is also accurate, which is why i removed the tag you added. It's been added again, but it is accurate information. I'll continue to update the Rysin Online article to try and expand it.

Thanks :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DasPlan100 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC).


 * The image is interesting, but lacks authenticating information. What is the date of the publication.  Also, since you assert the right to reproduce copyrighted information, I am curious as to your relationship to the publication.  Finally, I have looked at the publication's website, but can find no information relating to the article.  Can you provide a source URL for the article?  TheMindsEye 16:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The two publications websites only seem to mostly publish front page, and sports information onto their site. But the Troon Times was published on 16th January 2007, and then following this the Ayrshire Post was article was published on 24th January 2007. I scanned one of the the images, but I have no relation to the publisher. I'm looking at the article I scanned and the Ayrshire Post one is page 5, the Troon Times one was Page 3. Appart from the actual scannings, there isn't really any reference to the story that I know of.
 * I asked about your relationship to the publication, because you might be running afoul of their copyright. TheMindsEye 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning the types of cameras a photographer uses...
Hi TheMindsEye - Thank you for your help on the Thomas Barbèy page. One question though - I am not clear as to why you feel it necessary to delete the types of cameras that he uses to create his works? I think that this is relevant information to learning more about his work. You mentioned that there was a discussion of this issue on your Talk page explaining your POV but I browsed through and wasn't able to find it. Of course the moment that I hit the 'Save Page' button, I will probably find it staring me in the face but if you are able to offer a bit more explanation of your rationale, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Merteuil 18:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right its on the article's talk page -- click here TheMindsEye 19:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Unquestionable articles
Sorry about my laziness in photographic stuff, but during my limited time hereabouts I've been caught up in here (as has somebody else you know).

I'm not so happy about this. I think that some people are fine, but of course we don't have any procedure to remove them from the list. So I thought I might nudge you, as the nominator, to reconsider Kim Kirkpatrick, Clay Enos, and Bill Owens (photographer). -- Hoary 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Point well taken. I think the list served a purpose and established the notability of the listings that were unclear.  As such, I've removed the articles that I nominated whose notability has been established.  I also removed the articles that were deleted through the PROD or AfD processes regardless of who made the nomination.  TheMindsEye 19:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Point perhaps overly well taken! The redlinks of zapped articles are interesting: one never knows when they might change color.... Hoary 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleteing Links?
Noticed that you went to the Damamsch Mental Hospital And Greystone Psychiatric Hospital and removed the following external links: http://www.pbase.com/shelka04/dammash http://www.pbase.com/shelka04/gray_stone_mental_hospital

The link you left for Unquiet Tomb doesn't go to an active web site

is it because of a vendetta or you think the photos are not the actual locations? john kloepper
 * No vendetta, I removed links that didn't conform to [Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked|Wiki policy] on links. If you disagree, I'm willing to discuss.  May I suggest that you post your thoughts on the articles' talk pages so that the articles' editors can comment.
 * btw, are you Shelka04 and the editor who placed the links, 71.213.162.222 the same person? TheMindsEye 15:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to find the dicussion page you spoke of, here's just fine. As noted, you removed two external links that depicted with out bias the locations described. Not sure which of the external link definitions you think applied but I read that section and question your logic. Also I don't understand why you left the other links when their is no difference ''........ added at 03:51, 18 February 2007 by 71.213.162.222''
 * Discussion page for "Dammasch State Hospital", discussion page for "Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital". -- Hoary 05:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Saw the links to the Talk areas related to those two listings, thanks that's great. HOWEVER the problem lies here, as this is the route of the deletion of the links. The people on those talk pages don't know the history here and sadly enough aren't qualified at this point to comment on what's basicly turned out to be censorship ''......... 06:03, 18 February 2007 71.213.162.222''
 * Then you can start a discussion there, point out that some discussion has already taken place here (to which you can link), and give them enough information so that they will be qualified to comment on what you claim is censorship. Incidentally, when you write on any talk page (including either of those two, or this one), please sign your comments (by hitting the "~" key four times in a row). Thank you. -- Hoary 06:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Shelka04/John Kloepper/71.213.162.222: The short answer is that Wikipedia policies oppose autobiographies and self-links.  If you feel that the links to your Pbase site are a worthwhile addition to the articles, I would encourage you to post a notice on the links supplied by Hoary above and ask the opinions of the editors of the pages.  TheMindsEye 03:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You may have reverted this, but it's not vandalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Warhol&diff=111152387&oldid=111146820

I don't even disagree with your revert, but you reverting it with the description (rvv) underneath is an instance of you assuming bad faith. The user was likely trying to help the article, not damage it. If the user had typed, "sofdghsohgsogosdodhg" or "YOUR MOTHER!!!!!1111", now that would be vandalism. --h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In that thread, there were several instances of vandalism that were only partially reverted. I was doing a clean revert to go back to the last good version.  I agree that my edit summary didn't fully capture that and in retrospect seems to be saying that the IP address edit immediately in front of my edit was vandalism -- it wasn't.  TheMindsEye 14:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is TheMindsEye?
Historicly i've been taking great offence to what may have mistakenly been considered a vendetta. For the fact that I prejudged I must admit I am and or was wrong. To err is human....etc etc. I realised as i was cutting the grass that I had no idea who I characterising as my adversary. There isn't even a name to go along with the handle let alone any sort of CV or a gallery of photos. If you posted some background info on yourself perhaps people might be less likely to question your actions. Also, I just don't have the time any more generate let alone manage any sort of write up about myself. I have no peers as I buck the system by typicaly working for free and donating my work annonymously. However I have exibited, I have an article coming out in Popular Photography, and have just negociated the release of some of my images to a major music magazine. As I said i don't have time to write it up, nor do I have the time to master the Wiki syntax, so i'll post links here to my various citations with the hope that someone will interceed on my behalf. actually posted at 09:11, 9 March 2007 by 71.213.162.222 (contributions)
 * Shelka04/John Kloepper/
 * Thanks for the thoughts and congratulations on your successes. I'm glad you see my edits for their value and that you now realize that there was no vendetta - only an effort to improve the encyclopedia. My preference is to not reveal my identity at this time.  TheMindsEye 18:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cindy sherman
In the wikipedia article about the genious grant, it specifically says "$500,000" per 5 years, also this is reflected in the grant FAQ. Nothing indicates that the grant amount has changed over the years and I assumed that since she recieved it in 1995, that it would probably have been more than $100,000 for 5 years, translating to a mere pittance of $20,000 per year. Does this satisfy? 128.138.82.195 15:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the $100,000 figure was in the article for some time and that your change was not based on any documentation. Yes the MacArthur site lists $500k as the current award, but we don't know how much was the award 12 years ago when they awarded it to Sherman.  I would caution against making changes on hunches and would encourage you to leave information in place unless you have specific documentation to the contrary.  TheMindsEye 18:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hendro soetrisno
Mate, I couldn't delete this because it seems like the author asserts notability. However, there exists a vanity/conflict of interest problem, and it might well be that the subject doesn't warrant inclusion anyway. Would you consider sending it to AfD? - Richard Cavell 00:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Joe Cornish (Photographer)
Thanks for taking an interest in the Joe Cornish (Photographer) article. Whilst I can understand your concern that Wikipedia articles have a clearly apparent 'importance', I think that the article as it now stands does justify it's own existence (bibliographic information has been added by another user, and I have tried to clarify his importance to the National Trust). It is however hard to quantify the level of importance of a living artist of any medium. All I can say is that within the UK he is easily one of the most famous living landscape photographers, but this is not easy to 'prove' unless one include references to all his appearences in magazines, and all of the prints people have hanging in their homes (and the number of times he is cited as an inspiration/hero by other photographers). Suffice to say that, aside from not having had an image of his included in a major Operating System, his importance must be at least as valid as that of Charles O'Rear bindybandy 13:41, 27 March 2007 (BST)
 * OK, I agree he is a talented, notable photography worthy of an article. I've removed the template. TheMindsEye 01:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. And sorry for having put this at the wrong end of your talk page! I'm still learning. :-) bindybandy 14:57, 30 March 2007 (BST)

Joni Mitchell Concert
I did see her at Palmer in 1975

It's possible that someof my memories from that period of time were "clouded" ;-) TigerPaw2154 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I know the feeling TheMindsEye 17:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD nomination for List of fashion photographers
I was actually about to leave a message here so you could contribute to the AFD discussion. Since it was a contested deletion, I thought an AFD discussion would be the best way to see the community input about whether it was best suited for a category, list, or both, and figured you could put in your two cents on the AFD page. My basic framework here (as one of very few editors on WP interested in fashion) is that since almost no users are maintaining the fashion articles, it's bad to have incomplete category that lists aren't being (and won't be) updated to match the category. If the list were less an index and more a guide to photographers and what they've contributed to fashion photography, my opinion would be different--but until that article gets written, I think there's no need to have this one. Calliopejen 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the explanation. TheMindsEye 18:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)