Talk:Ueno Hikoma

Overlinking?

We read:

he studied chemistry under the Belgian-born Dutch naval medical officer, Johannes L. C. Pompe van Meerdervoort (1829–1908)

I can't imagine anyone reading this and thinking, "Yes, Chemistry? Just what does that mean?" and clicking the link. Same for some other ingredients. I'd write instead:

he studied chemistry under the Belgian-born Dutch naval medical officer Johannes L. C. Pompe van Meerdervoort (1829–1908).

(I might skip "Belgian-born" too, but this is by the way.) But perhaps I've misunderstood something. -- Hoary 14:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely overlinking! I believe I was still trying to find the optimal degree of linking when I wrote this article - and unduly swayed by the example of some editors who link every date and every noun in an article... I'll follow your suggestion here and delink the unnecessaries. (And "Belgian-born" I'll save for the article on Pompe himself). Pinkville 14:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Macrons

Hoary, In response to your queries regarding Shunnojō and Genzō, I'm sure you're right that the versions with macrons are correct, but (I believe) the sources I had did not use them. Whichever method of rendering these names most correctly (and with consistency in the article) should certainly be the one employed. Pinkville 03:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. Incidentally, I noticed that the page links to an article on "Sakamoto Ryoma", but "Ryoma" seems particularly odd in the context of all these other names with macrons: it really looks as if his name were りょま. That's why I macronnified this name too (while of course preserving the direct link). -- Hoary 05:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ga Status

Sorry, but im afraid this article fails on account of not complying with the Manual of Style, (More precisely, WP:LEAD) either the entire article is one big introduction or its just not organized. Somebody will need to separate it all into sections, making sure the introduction adequatly summarizes the content. The references seem plentiful though, just thought i'd point it out, maybe try to find a couple pages for a few inline citations if you can. Homestarmy 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

More precisely, WP:LEAD) either the entire article is one big introduction or its just not organized. Somebody will need to separate it all into sections, making sure the introduction adequatly summarizes the content. I thought that it was already excellently organized: for example, the first paragraph was an obvious introduction (something that's arguably a bit less obvious while it lacked a header and perhaps a ToC immediately below). The rest, too, lent itself to simple insertion of relevant subheaders, something that I've just done.

I'd have thought that this would prompt a "hold" rather than a "fail".

The references seem plentiful though, just thought i'd point it out, maybe try to find a couple pages for a few inline citations if you can. Do you mean that particular facts should be linked to specific references? (I think this is a good idea.) Or something else? -- Hoary 05:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Was the above the only comment offered on the article apart from your own? I haven't had access for a few days to the internet... It seems that, thanks to your efforts, the only objections to the article receiving GA status have been addressed (apart from inline citations) ^. Maybe this would have done better as a Featured Article Candidate! Pinkville 02:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

^ I certainly have no problem with inline citations, but they seem to have become a fetish... Nevertheless, I've been going back to the Felice Beato article and adding them when I have time. Pinkville 02:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I had meant at the time that because there were no sections, it therefore wasn't very organized looking and there wasn't much way to figure out what was intended to be the intro and what wasn't. And yes, on the references, I had meant that if it was possible, be more specific as to the location in the references of the facts being cited. You can re-nominate the article at any time though and I wouldn't see any reason for somebody to fail it this time :/. Homestarmy 03:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pics by Ueno

What does seem a pity is that this article about a photographer is not illustrated by a single photograph by him -- although he died so long ago that his works should be out of reach of even the Sonny and Cher Mickey Mouse Millennium Act or whatever it's called. I do have access to the odd book that has photos by Ueno, but I suppose it could be claimed that if I scanned them I'd be scanning not an ancient, PD photo but instead a not-at-all-ancient, copyright photogravure rendition of that photo. Photo reproduction in old books can be excellent (I have an excellent photo book of romanesque architecture published in 1910); I wonder if Pinkville (or anyone else) has an old book with photos by Ueno. -- Hoary 04:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Although the photograph of Ueno is probably by Ueno (it's actually a detail of a family portrait), I heartily agree. I have been trying to find some useable online images, but so far most are too small or unremarkable (or are merely "attributed" to him) to bother with. However, I have one or two candidates that I will soon try to upload to the Commons and slip into this article. Obviously, books are another possible source, and I have several possiblilities there, though the technical considerations, for various reasons, are vexing. Pinkville 13:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course I don't want to urge anyone to open a large, heavy, old, fragile book to 180° and fling it upsided down on a scanner. Meanwhile, I've tentatively called it a self-portrait (taking my cue from the Monster Red Book); feel free to correct or qualify this. -- Hoary 14:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia about pops

Ueno Toshinojō was thought until recently to have been the first person to take a daguerreotype in Japan, in 1841. I stuck this in a note as it didn't seem to merit anything better; however, it does seem to me so unimportant in an article about Ueno fils that I really wonder whether I misread something. -- Hoary 14:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I included the information as a corrective. Most of the pre-1990s sources unproblematically declare Ueno the Father to be the first person to take a photo in Japan, but the recent scholarship has corrected that error, thus the daguerreotype camera importation info. It's nevertheless interesting to see that Hikoma was close to important figures in the earliest days of Japanese photography - apart from his own career, of course. I think the Toshinojō info is good as a note. Pinkville 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Um . . . OK then. (All I have here is Tucker's book.) -- Hoary 14:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Satsuma rebellion photo sponsor

Canon? Nikon? No, a government. Kinoshita says it was the Nagasaki prefectural government. Incidentally, he also says that Ueno was using dry plates from 1881 (still very early), not 1877. Comments? -- Hoary 06:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm tracking down my reference for the 1877 date - I believe it's Bennett, but I haven't had a chance to confirm. Pinkville 02:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

'The Complete History of Japanese Photography'

Just noticed this one, re: 'The Complete History of Japanese Photography'. The edition I have access to has English titles and names, but I can make out enough of the Japanese text for photographers' names (and can slowly translate other content). Pinkville 02:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ueno Hikoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311134041/http://www.museeniepce.com/book3.php?folder_code=63 to http://www.museeniepce.com/book3.php?folder_code=63

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)