Talk:Pierre Rossier

"Start" class

If this was "Start" at the time the rating was given, then I think WikiProject Japan should create a "Worse Than Nothing" class and apply it to a huge number of other articles, most certainly including all articles to which I was a major contributor. -- Hoary 08:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

:~) Well, it's true the article doesn't contain a key element such as an infobox... Then again, there don't seem to be any infoboxes for photography-related articles... I'm contacting Terry Bennett to see if he'll let me use a few of the Rossier images on his website (he gave me the Beato self-portrait); there are no other Internet sources of Rossier images that I can find. That might just help elevate the article from "Start class" to, say, "B class". Pinkville 01:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, the article's been reassessed. "B". I hardly know what to say. Pinkville 21:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're implying; but I thought about it and decided that this sort of article really doesn't need an infobox. Images would still be very nice, but for length, detail, and notes/references, I think it's perfectly fair that this warrant B-class. The assessment system is really so subjective anyway.... I can't imagine this should be a huge big deal. LordAmeth 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's all somewhat tongue-in-cheak... But the ratings do seem a bit... arbitrary, in addition to subjective. Have you some suggestions as to what should be added to the article to gift it a lift up the scale? I've already mentioned both the rarity of available Rossier images and that I'm, however, attempting to get some. You mention length, detail and notes/references, but I'm not sure how the article is deficient in these categories. :~) Pinkville

B -- way to go! The sky's the limit. I've been looking at Category:A-Class Japan-related articles. Among them, the Ichiro Suzuki article tells us his "Career Hits" and "Statistics in Japan". Pink, don't you have Rossier's career hits or statistics in Japan? -- Hoary 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course Rossier never had a whole season in Japan, so comparing his stats with others might be misleading... Pinkville 02:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Company names

Does Negretti and Zambra really need to be italicized? -- Hoary 06:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As the titles of publications, I think it appropriate, if not 100% necessary. LordAmeth 07:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, yes, but N&Z isn't a publication; it was a company. -- Hoary 08:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't necessary, but I prefer to italicise such eponymous corporate names to differentiate the individual people from the corporation. Negretti and Zambra went to the store vs. Negretti and Zambra produced seven zillion photographs. Pinkville 15:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see. Good point. All right then: I now would have no objection to anybody's attempt to promote this article from "Start" to "C−" [facial expression]. -- Hoary 12:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

Now there are images. But better versions will be added at a later date (probably by end of November...). Pinkville 02:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done. (And the pics look OK to me as they are.) -- Hoary 03:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If the images (particularly the stereographs) could be slightly clearer I'd be happier, but I am not displeased by their appearance now.

Dare I dream of climbing up the scale a little further? Pinkville 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Firmly Affirmative. -- Hoary 14:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography niggle

We now see:

• Bennett, Terry. 'The Search for Rossier: Early Photographer of China and Japan', in The PhotoHistorian-Journal of the Historical Group of the Royal Photographic Society, December 2004.
• Bennett, Terry. 'The Search for Rossier: Early Photographer of China and Japan'. Accessed 12 September 2006; cited above as "Bennett".

If, as I'd guess, these two are the same (or the second is a slighly corrected version of the first), then merge into one; if the differences really are noteworthy, then explain this for the second. -- Hoary 04:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Merging.... Pinkville 11:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Saga=Nabeshima

Papinot's Historical and Geographical Dictionary of Japan informs me that from 1590 till the Meiji "restoration", the clan running Saga was the Nabeshima clan. -- Hoary 13:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fabulous. Another loose end tied up. Thanks. Pinkville 13:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I love Papinot. LordAmeth 16:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh...

Am I dreaming, or is the first sentence of today's featured article a fragment?

Pierre Joseph Rossier (born July 16, 1829, died between 1883 and 1898) was a pioneering Swiss photographer whose albumen photographs, which include stereographs and cartes-de-visite, comprise portraits, cityscapes, and landscapes.

delldot talk 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Doh! Read it wrong. Never mind. delldot talk

I made the same mistake... Brutannica 00:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a long one, isn't it. :~) Pinkville 00:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the same mistake, too! O_O!! Even though it's not technically a fragment, if this many people are reading it wrong the first time, maybe it could stand to be re-worded? NoriMori (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The dates in this article have been stripped of autoformatting. Thanks for the reminder of the MoS changes. Pinkville (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FA concerns

Upon reviewing this article I am concerned that it does not meet the featured article criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• It was difficult verifying information because the references use extensive notes. Can this information be integrated into the article text? Also, upon a spot-check of sources I found some text that was not verified by the subsequent ref. I think these sources should be re-checked.
• New sources have been created since 2006 and should be consulted to update this article. I have added two such sources in the ref ideas template above, which I found on Google Scholar.
• The "Later years and legacy" contains lots of unreferenced statements, including the whole of the article's final paragraph. I have marked these with a citation needed templates.

Does anyone want to bring this article back to FA standards? Z1720 (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you didn't simply add the new information to the article instead of sending it for FAR. Other publications by Bennett were used for the article, so there would be nothing controversial about adding more info from him. As for the notes, personally, I'm a fan of the sorts of details that show up in notes and that can't be easily shoe-horned into the main body of an article. The sources cited in these notes are easily found in the list of references, so I'm not sure why there's a problem there. I can look in to any information in the text that is without citations. Pinkville (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pinkville, I was nervous about evaluating and adding information to an article which I have no expertise. The sources that I found were from a quick search, and I think other sources can be found if more databases are searched. The FAR coordinators are always willing to put an article on hold while improvements are bring made if asked at FAR. I also invite editors to ping me when improvements are complete to conduct another assessment. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As you probably know, I was the principal author of this article. At the time, the sources I cited were the only useable sources on Pierre Rossier anywhere. The subject is so obscure that even his name had only been recently discovered. Since the article was featured I’ve hardly touched it, so I’m glad you found that Bennett had published more on Rossier and I’m happy to add anything useful when I have the chance - not likely to be very soon, between work and Covid-19 (with libraries closed). Your input/criticisms are welcome, but I have to say, the FAR is unfortunate because it adds another place I’ll have to do some work, whereas I think a talk page tip-off about your concerns would have been enough. The thing is, when this article was written there were only three editors regularly adding content to a few dozen articles on Japanese photography (mostly 19th c.), and since I’m much less active I can’t say how many there are now. So it’s unlikely there’ll be any pinging... Anyway, hose are my thoughts. I’ll see what I can do about updating M Rossier. Best! Pinkville (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pinkville: I've put a note in the article's FAR that improvements are ongoing, and recommended that the FAR be put on hold so it can be improved. This will give as much time as you need to improve the article. Let me know when your improvements are done and I will reassess. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)