Talk:Boston Camera Club
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
[I am using the Edit tab of Talk's interface. I don't know whether that or the 'New section' tab should be used, but here goes:]
Dear MisfitToys: I re-inserted your reference to "vernacular photography" and was able to keep it near the top of the article (as footnote 5). It goes nicely with talk about Kodak. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimlue (talk • contribs) 10:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear MisfitToys: Thanks for your edit. However, casually equivalencing my phrase "amateur photographic" with Wikipedia's entry "vernacular photography", as far as I can see for the sole reason that it comprises the words "amateur" and "photographic", is off topic to the article, let alone putting it glaringly in the very first sentence about a major Boston institution in existence since 1881.
Wikipedia's entry on "vernacular photography" pertains to snapshots, Polaroids, pictures taken by the person on the street, and everyday life. Who knows that cell phone photos wouldn't fit that bill. Well, washing machines and Ford Fairlanes weren't around in 1881. OK, vernacular photos were taken with Kodaks as early as the 1880's, but if you read the article it says that that kind of hyper-convenient photography wasn't allowed in camera clubs for decades, if ever.
Besides, the length of entry "vernacular photography" is so suspiciously, embarrassingly short (barely more than a couple of paragraphs) that, unless and until it is seriously expanded thereby proving it to be a Wiki-deserving subject, references to it are de facto spurious. For all intents and purposes, its current state is nearly at the vanity level.
Not only does the Boston Camera Club have nothing to do with "vernacular", it strives for the very opposite, namely serious photography. (Truman Capote was once asked about Jack Kerouac's work and he said something like, "Well, I think it's more akin to typing than writing.")
Well, vernacular photography (a precious, curatorial neologism of the late 20th century) isn't the club's purlieu. Its--yes, amateur--photographers are so serious, and the photography so good, that some of them could literally be professionals if they wanted. (A few are in fact semi-professional.) Moreover, "vernacular" connotes a particular kind of photography, where the club's photographic topics are unlimited; and skill-less photography, when the club's aim is the very opposite--to acquire skill, to take *non-vernacular* photographs.
However, I think your intention of trying to get some word out about the vernacular photography entry is fine. I will try to re-insert your reference to it in a more appropriate place in the article, in case people are seeking that topic. It is after all a photographic topic. Both the serious practitioners in the club and the house-spouse who takes vernacular snapshots are both amateurs.
It's just that it shouldn't be in the very first sentence about an institution that ranks among its members past and present some of the most well-known photographic personalities in America. I mean, if Doc Edgerton ever took Polaroids of his family washing machine, he didn't bring 'em to the club. (Unless he was, say, testing out some new, unknown-to-science 1-microsecond shutter or something.)
- I'm not one of the people you're addressing, but all the same I'll say that I understand your points above about amateur photography and vernacular photography. Certainly there have been plenty of superb amateur photographers. Entire books have been written about many of them -- and I mean books by other, disinterested people. -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, this is the Talk page. Where is the *Talk*, the discussion, about this article?
Hoary & others:
Again forgive this being a multifarious submission, but it must be:
1. I continue not to understand where, in what central location, is the thread of discussion about this article. This page is called Talk:Boston Camera Club. Where is the "Talk"? Why are there no submissions except mine? Where do I go to see replies, if any, to what's written here? Or conversely, where do I go to put a comment about my edits that everyone will see? A normal, old-fashioned, thread page.
2. The tab at the top of this page is titled Discussion. If Discussion means Talk, then change this damned linguistic inconsistency and make the tab title Talk as well. Better yet, change "Talk" to "Discussion". It's more accurate.
3. Then at the top of the page is another link, My talk. Do I go *there* to talk about this article? To receive replies others have sent? What does "sent" mean? What *is* this confusion?
4. When I click on substring "talk" in the cryptic string "Hoary(user|talk)", why am I taken to a page where, aha, Hoary has left *me* a message? Why do I have to first look in the article's history to see if anyone has made an edit, look at his ID, then click on it (and everyone else's ID) to read messages they have severally left for *me*? Why aren't messages pushed to me (to use the old Web term)? Or, are they indeed pushed to me but I'm not receiving the notices?
5. Then, Hoary says to submit questions to him on *one* page, and he'll reply on another. Huh? Is everone supposed to do that? I mean, I can probably steer my car with my feet from the back seat but I'd rather not.
Anyway, much of this could be due to my ignorance, but for its o/wise fantastic functionality in organizing subject matter, the Wiki interface itself seems to be highly convoluted.
1 or 2 substantive submissions follow.
As usual, should either you or your I.M. force be ... Oops, I mean, as usual, if this submission is on the wrong page, feel free to move it (but tell me where if possible).
- Yes, Wikipedia (WP) can seem mysterious.
- Wikipedia has a huge number of articles. Many of them are on subjects of interest to the US or British infotainment industries. But many (such as this one) are not. Many among the latter group never even generate any attempt at talk (or discussion). There was no discussion here because, well, nobody other than you felt like discussing anything. You posted your questions in the right place; it was your bad luck that nobody felt like looking at the talk (or discussion) page of the article, or anyway that nobody felt like answering. There's nothing unusual about that: I've posted dozens of questions that never got answered.
- Yes, the use of both "talk" and "discussion" is indeed odd. I can do nothing about this beyond ask for change, which is something that you can do too. Well, maybe I have a better idea than you of where best to ask for it. But look, let's put this aside for now.
- The link to "My talk" is not intended as a link to where you would be best advised to talk about the article (etc) on which the link appears. I can explain what "My talk" is for, but if you look at some examples (eg my talk) you'll probably get the general idea.
- When I click on substring "talk" in the cryptic string "Hoary(user|talk)", why am I taken to a page where, aha, Hoary has left *me* a message? | I've no idea. That really is strange. (But are you sure that that's what happened?)
- Why do I have to first look in the article's history to see if anyone has made an edit, look at his ID, then click on it (and everyone else's ID) to read messages they have severally left for *me*? | Take the option to "watch" the article. Thereafter, look at "My watchlist" to see if there have been any changes either to the article or to its talk page. Messages about it should normally appear (a) here or (b) on your talk page.
- the Wiki interface itself seems to be highly convoluted | I heartily disagree. While it indeed has oddities (such as the talk/discussion inconsistency), I think it's remarkably good and easy to use. Other aspects of editing -- knowing where to look up relevant rules ("policies" and "guidelines"), handling ignoramuses claiming direct access to the facts, etc -- are indeed complex and frustrating. -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hoary: After beefing up this article to its present state from the initial seed input by M2545, I had no inkling of what kind of modifications the world at large, or Wiki experts, which I assume describes you, would make. Hence I am more than pleased with the laser-sharp intelligence, and proof-reading level of technical, stylistic, and English-improvement edits you just made. Thanks again. Jimlue (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Q for Hoary
Hoary: Just a couple of issues:
1. You changed "35mm film" to "135 film". To my mind the former is the generic, descriptive term, and the latter, well I don't know much about film technically, but it smacks of industry parlance, not in the least helped by that extra '1'. The world doesn't understand "one [hundred and] thirty-five". Furthermore '135' is not a unit of measurement. (Is it?) Conversely, "35mm" is a unit of measurement and hence descriptive. Besides, I don't think many people, at least since I've been a member of the Boston CC, to my knowledge, uses the latter term. Or should I say, when most of us used film. But I'll ask around.
2. I'm *more* than impressed at your numerous changes that tightened syntax & style without deleting information. But a teensy excepsh: you changed "Standish (1919-19??)" to "Standish (b. 1919)". That tells the reader he's living. But he ain't. He's dead. Kaputtgegangen. What style conveys a known birth date but unknown death date? (He died before 2000.) What could be more elegant than my original?
- Let's look at the second first. "(1919–19??)" it is.
- And now the first. Yes, right, few people talk about "135 film". And I don't think I talked about it either; instead, I wrote (or intended to write) "35mm film" or similar. That's achieved by "[[135 film|35mm film]]", and what this does is (i) to show the linked string "35mm film" but (ii) to link to the article "135 film". So why link to the latter? Because that article is about regular perforated 35mm film stock in the standard cassette. -- Hoary (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hoary: 1 more MIT tweak.
Hoary: Your removal of my FN about MIT moving to Cambridge in 1916 was relevant, because it hadn't dawned on me it was superfluous--Boston CC moved into its own HQ in 1886. Ergo, I just removed '1916' for the same reason. Not a date relevant to the article.
I also corrected (evid. your) hanging '</ref>'--a mistake I'm sure millions make continuously. Caution: rant alert:
Are you telling me Wikipedia can't, at least, *warn* the user that there is ***markup language*** in the stupid draft you're about to go live with? I mean, come on. This is 2010. Some back-room propeller head [not a putdown--I'm one] could write an applet in his sleep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimlue (talk • contribs) 08:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)