Talk:Iconographers

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (fixing broken sig (and other minor fixes) )
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
::This page is in the marketplace category, so it seems appropriate to have links to ''people'' who write and sell icons.  It might be nice to have another page (we'd need to have two similar article-titles, and perhaps link the articles under a ''see also'' section) for an encyclopedic iconographers.  Perhaps ''Famous Iconographers''? --[[User:Magda|magda]] 08:52, 17 Jun 2005 (EDT)
 
::This page is in the marketplace category, so it seems appropriate to have links to ''people'' who write and sell icons.  It might be nice to have another page (we'd need to have two similar article-titles, and perhaps link the articles under a ''see also'' section) for an encyclopedic iconographers.  Perhaps ''Famous Iconographers''? --[[User:Magda|magda]] 08:52, 17 Jun 2005 (EDT)
 +
 +
::Actually, this article is more an overview of contemporary iconographers working (mostly) in the English speaking world. There are arguably more important iconographers in the "Others" list than in the main body. It is a bit confusing to see a student of Phil Zimmerman getting a paragraph, whereas Phil himself gets a mere link. Likewise, Fr. Luke Dingman, Michael Piechocinski, and Jan Isham are at least of the stature of most of the iconwriters who have whole paragraphs. I wonder if this article shouldn't be more appropriately entitled "Contemporary Iconographers".[[User:Jerry picker|Jerry picker]] 18:20, September 14, 2006 (CDT)
  
 
==Nature of the article==
 
==Nature of the article==
  
 
I am not sure that this article will ever be encyclopedic in nature. I have continued to add iconographers. Let me know what you think. [[User:Joe Rodgers|Joe]] 20060118
 
I am not sure that this article will ever be encyclopedic in nature. I have continued to add iconographers. Let me know what you think. [[User:Joe Rodgers|Joe]] 20060118

Revision as of 16:20, September 14, 2006

I'm a little uncomfortable with the main body of this article being essentially an advertisement (probably cut and pasted, too). I have no problem with something of a web directory being listed here, but unless we're talking about persons who would normally make it into an encyclopedia (e.g., Andrei Rublev, Theophanes the Greek or Photios Kontoglou), I think perhaps no more than a link with a short explanation is really necessary. Thoughts? —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 22:22, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)

OK, I was thinking a little along these lines. I wasn't sure of the original intent of the article. I added the links I had because I saw this as more of a repository of links to buy modern icons. Anyone else? --Joe Rodgers 23:46, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
This page is in the marketplace category, so it seems appropriate to have links to people who write and sell icons. It might be nice to have another page (we'd need to have two similar article-titles, and perhaps link the articles under a see also section) for an encyclopedic iconographers. Perhaps Famous Iconographers? --magda 08:52, 17 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Actually, this article is more an overview of contemporary iconographers working (mostly) in the English speaking world. There are arguably more important iconographers in the "Others" list than in the main body. It is a bit confusing to see a student of Phil Zimmerman getting a paragraph, whereas Phil himself gets a mere link. Likewise, Fr. Luke Dingman, Michael Piechocinski, and Jan Isham are at least of the stature of most of the iconwriters who have whole paragraphs. I wonder if this article shouldn't be more appropriately entitled "Contemporary Iconographers".Jerry picker 18:20, September 14, 2006 (CDT)

Nature of the article

I am not sure that this article will ever be encyclopedic in nature. I have continued to add iconographers. Let me know what you think. Joe 20060118

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox