Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Park and Boulton (Fanny and Stella) restored.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Park and Boulton (Fanny and Stella) restored.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2013 at 11:21:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

1869 rare photograph of female impersonators.
  •  Info created by Frederick Spalding (1869) - uploaded and digital restoration by Fæ - nominated by Fæ
  •  Support -- Fæ (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very interesting and unusual. The restoration is good, but could be better (stil many dustspots). OK, the size is obviously too small, and does not fit with the rules. But the subject, the encyclopedical and historical values are strong mitigating circumstances to me (my choice). Any chance we could get a higher resolution version ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In terms of resolution, this is probably the best there is, considering that the original was used in a book and a magazine and having my own copies of both, they appear no better than this version. I will try emailing the Essex Record Office that published the image and see if they can advise. I can take another look at my photoshop version to remove more dust, I limited myself to larger defects and decided not to crop the original, as I was cautious of not over-restoring the image as this might reduce the sense of age. I can upload a more "worked" version as a separate image, perhaps tomorrow, though I would still avoid touching what appear to be lines on the original produced by the chemical process (noticeably in the upper left) rather than later dust or scratches. --Fæ (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Essex website says "Fred Spalding" as author. You write "Spaulding". Who is right ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Spalding is right. I have corrected to "Frederick Spalding" as this is what Neil McKenna uses in his book for several illustration plates.
        • BTW, this photo which the Essex Record Office published on their blog, has been cropped down slightly from an original full scan, which I have only seen in much lower resolution (uploaded here). Most of the removed border is either very badly damaged or irrelevant (such as sticky tape on what might be a mounting card), however if we can get the full sized original this may be useful as a reference image on Commons. I'll see what is possible over the next couple of days. --Fæ (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          Email sent to the ERO asking for higher resolution images and suggesting we discuss a longer term project. Fæ (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know what ? I've found some informations about this story (i.e., the trial) in contemporary (1870) french newspapers ! Really interesting. Btw, you may use this picture in illustrating the enwp article...--Jebulon (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought it was astonishing that in newspaper illustrations of the time, they were shown as attending the trial in full drag. If only legal trials today were so exciting. --Fæ (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I have uploaded a sightly more restored version today. The changes are to remove some more dust marks per Jebulon's suggestion. I would be happy to split this out from the file history if preferred, though the changes appear too minor to my eye. --Fæ (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update—I have had an email back from the Essex Record Office, definitely a no-go. They don't understand why Wikimedia did not ask permission to use this (1869) photograph and are proposing a £50 "usage" fee, which then limits use strictly for non-commercial research, kindly supplying me with a standard form to fill in which includes a clear declaration that I accept that I would be liable for infringement of their copyright if I used it, or shared it, for any other purpose. It is unclear whether purchasing a version of the image would be any better than the one we have and if I did then share it, I would be breaking the contract terms imposed on purchase.
I will sit on the email for a few days and ponder if there is any value in replying, pointing out that their form is legally meaningless and that is why it cannot be used. (By the way, the £50 would actually be paid to Essex County Council, which is of course already funded by the public purse. If anyone has contacts in the Council, we might want to contact them to point out how their policies actively work against the public benefit.) --Fæ (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to accept a smaller image, all efforts to get a bigger one must have failed first, and there must be strong reason to believe that getting a larger copy of this, or any similar image, would be impossible in any reasonable timeframe. Neither of those criteria are met yet.
In the end, we need to be detached. I think that we can all agree that combating systemic bias means we want more historical LGBTX images, but we shouldn't settle, and thus make it look like the problem has been solved. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned above that I emailed the Essex Record Office. When I get any response then I'll leave an update. If they can provide a higher resolution scan they may still not be happy with my intention to publish it as unrestricted, or they may want a reproduction fee, which I might be able to arrange. In the meantime Fanny and Stella has been created with a selection of lower resolution scans that were released by The Guardian and uploaded yesterday. --Fæ (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Fæ, you didn't wait for the response. Your heart's in the right place, but, if the point is to add LGBT images to FP, may I point out that the decadent art movement of the late 19th century did a lot of boundaries-pushing work. It's hard to get now, but should be available. In addition, Tijuana bibles might be a possibility - published in the US without a copyright notice before - I think 1977, could be wrong - is enough to put it into Public Domain. There's plenty of possibilities that don't require special pleading. 86.161.10.101 23:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This particular IP address causes me concern, so as a precaution I will not be making any reply. --Fæ (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every time an IP comments just about anywhere and they make a valid point someone chimes in to slander them simply because they are an IP. Either the comment has merit our it doesn't. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Support -- The historical significance and drama engender the wow I value here at FPC. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose per Adam and Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 13#Trying to understand Commons FPC At 0.84 MP this would by a wide margin be the smallest historical FP I can find and far far below the typical standard. I see no mitigating factors for making an exception here. Examine the historical photographs at Commons:Featured pictures/People and Commons:Featured pictures/Historical for comparison. This is not among the finest. As Adam notes, it can be celebrated at VI. If it illustrated an article then it may succeed at WP:FP. -- Colin (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Colin : Please, remember that many of us here in "Commons" do not care about (and don't know) what happens in en:wp...
  • @ Adam: We have what we have. If, in the future, we have a larger or better version, then we should nominate it and delist this one. Don't say that it encourages the search to end, because it is not true (see my two more recent nominations (for instance) in VIC: previous photographs of my candidates existed, and I continue to search)...
  • I don't support this picture because of an assumed need of LGBT pictures in FP list (we have already at least designs by Niabot in japanese style, for instance). I support this picture because it is nice and interesting, and historicaly very valuable and rare, per Saffron Blaze. The point cannot be "to add LGBT images to FP", because this should be using "Commons" in an activist (and therefore non neutral) way.
  • For the record, I don't care about the sexual life of anybody, here and anywhere.--Jebulon (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I merely mention WP:FP to indicate that are more ways of celebrating valuable content that just COM:FP, lest anyone think this is the only forum that counts. I don't think "we have what we have" is a valid argument for FP -- there are lots of categories of image where what we have isn't even good never mind excellent. Should we promote the multitude of tiny 640x480 Geograph images of buildings pending something better? The "best of this particular subject" is more a VI thing. Our purpose at FP is to feature the finest images on Commons, and among the category of historical images, this one is a long way below the standard of its peers. But I respect your different opinion. Colin (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy to support something if it's genuinely impossible to get better. However, that requires the research to have already been done on getting better. As it is, there just isn't sufficient reason, and, frankly, this is why Valued images exists: to celebrate images not quite good enough for FP, but valuable nonetheless. Given we have Valued Images, I don't think this is near enough the resolution expected to make an exception, nor has the possibility of getting a larger version been exhausted. I have many images I've restored but would never think of suggesting for FPC of around this size. It's painful, sometimes, to know something that's good in everything but reproduction quality just isn't good enough in that to reasonably be an FP. But, sometimes, it's true. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • From what you have written here, I'm wondering if you missed my update about emailing the ERO above. --Fæ (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • When the ERO replies, then you may be able to make an argument. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Er, they did reply, see #ERO1. --Fæ (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Try getting Wikimedia UK to contact them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • LOL, I'm probably one of the best negotiators with GLAMs that WMUK ever had, and as a past Chairman of the organization and being part of the team that created the charity, I know how this works. The question really is whether the ERO is the best use of our limited resources when the starting position is not them coming to us trying to release material for the public benefit (plenty are, the bottleneck is a shortage of unpaid volunteers who have the time and skills to work with them); it would probably need me to follow up with their main archivist or go via Essex County Council in order to get policy changed. Either way this is not as simple as asking again at the same level, as the front line people are just going to follow legal policy and any GLAM that has to ask their legal department for advice is going to take a long time (like a year) to make any changes and this does not always mean a useful free licence for the highest resolution media, based on our past experiences. --Fæ (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination Having had a couple of days to think about it, I am increasingly unhappy with the nature of discussion on this page and personal comments about my motivation elsewhere. When nominating this rare photograph from 1869, which I originally uploaded in July without any thought of Featured pictures, I had presumed that "Above all, be polite" would extend to not making slurs against the nominator. Comments of particular concern are:
    • "special pleading" — I am not on trial for a crime, I do not feel the need to plead a case.
    • The point cannot be "to add LGBT images to FP", because this should be using "Commons" in an activist (and therefore non neutral) way. — I proposed this image due to its historic and cultural value, yes this may help address a lack of LGBT cultural images in FP, I did not expect my viewpoint or any that appear later with LGBT subject material, to be marginalized as gay activism. If the LGBT community at some point nominate a heap of FP quality images, I expect this to be welcomed and encouraged rather treated with scepticism.
Thanks to reviewers supporting this photograph, but I would rather it pass based on a mellow discussion about its merits rather than on a review spotted with pointed jibes on the record at my expense. Not worth it. Fæ (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've done nothing but make unjustified slurs against the reviewers here. Good riddance I say. Colin (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently this nomination has 7 supports, 2 oppose so on the edge of being featured. I've no problem with pointy nominations and withdrawing on half way; but withdrawing a nomination having enough supports can be considered as an act of disrespect to the reviewers. The one oppose is from Adam Cuerden, who is considered as the best restorer here; so it can be considered as a great advice for a starter. If I behave like this way, I have no wonder, if people start neglecting my nominations without any comments/reviews. JKadavoor Jee 03:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spend a large amount of time volunteering for Commons for the public benefit. I do not do this so that the images can be used as a means to make bad faith allegations, or to be marginalised as a gay activist just because a tiny proportion of my interests relate to the LGBT community. My experience over the last week has convinced me that FPC has problems with being effectively a closed club, remaining unwelcoming to newcomers and fails to implement its behavioural guideline to be polite, something I don't see happening here or elsewhere when it comes to anyone that dares to question the way the club works. Jkadavoor, thanks for encouraging this rare photograph to get nominated, however I really wish I had not bothered. Let's close this nomination with Colin's comment which right now feels like it epitomizes the daily breathtakingly bad faith allegations I have had since trying to take part, and will indelibly colour how I see this process, "good riddance". --Fæ (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, any way I'm closing this respecting your decision to withdraw. JKadavoor Jee 06:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • For those interested in the Fanny & Stella story, it is worth getting Neil McKenna's book from the library, my husband happened to have a copy in his collection. I am sure there are both featured pictures and articles that could come from this material, however I'm going to put this aside myself so I can forget how unpleasant this experience has been. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Park_and_Boulton_(Fanny_and_Stella)_restored.jpg&oldid=109388884"