Talk:Patty Larkin

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

sexual orientation

Earlier when this article was included in two new categories, "Lesbian musicians" and "LGBT people from the United States", I reverted the edit simply because it was unsourced. Although a fan of Ms. Larkin, I had missed that particular fact about her and thought that it should require a source before placing it there; after all, there is a difference between "out" and "outed".

Sources were provided, but now it simply a statement in the article, "She is openly lesbian". I have no problem with that fact, but is the statement itself germane to the article? It seems to be irrelevant to the rest of the article, and should either be elaborated upon as to its particular importance, integrated into another portion of the article to define its relevance to her music, or removed. As is, it seems like a trivia factoid.

-- Couillaud (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's sort of a hanging factoid. This is not to say it's unimportant, but any long-time fan of Larkin might not have any idea about her sexual orientation, as it doesn't seem to be a subject of her songwriting or any of her public conversation. I'm still fine with the article's categorization, but unless there's at least a second and third sentence to add about this, I don't think it's relevant. Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Then until such time as someone can come up with something specific (like it being a large influence on her art or part of her political activism), it should be treated as a "hanging factoid" (I like that term, much better than my own "trivia factoid"), and I have moved the reference to External links (it's a good review of Red=Luck) and removed the single sentence. -- Couillaud (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that was a good call. -MrFizyx (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo for article

Photomonk (talk) has twice changed this article's photograph, stating that Patty Larkin "would prefer" the one they have substituted. Photomonk has made only these two contributions, and has offered no reason to believe that the artist has a particular preference. The photo that was put up instead is a copyrighted one, one that doesn't even show her face, and the one that was replaced is not copyrighted, giving it more weight.

Unless Photomonk is actually Patty Larkin herself, then we need to see some sort of documentation that the artist truly prefers one photo over the other. -- Couillaud (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Larkin's preference is that important. This is an encyclopedia article, not a promotional page. The purpose of the main image is to illustrate the article's subject. When I originally replaced the face-covered image, I wasn't at all sure it was Larkin at all. Now looking at [1], I can see it's the photo from which the album cover was taken, but even so it might as well be of anybody. The face-covered photo is licensed, with a photo credit to Jana Leon: however,I think the Wikimedia Commons needs a confirmation of the license sent to OTRS if it is to hang on to this picture. Wikipedia:Autobiography deals with why a person shouldn't edit their own article, but also gives guidance on what to do if you have a problem with an article about yourself. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not being more informative with my earlier changes to the photo. The space for comments when changing a photo is fairly short. I am new to making changes to Wiki so am trying to get caught up on how to do it all properly. I am Patty's webmaster. I created this account to change the photo because Patty's manager contacted me to do so. The photo being used here is being picked up by promoters for shows, and it is not an image Patty would like used in that fashion. I realize this is not an official promotional environment, but if an artist does not like an image being used to represent her, why would it be such a problem to make a change? I hear the concern about not being able to see her face, and if we can locate a live shot that works better for all, we will gladly change to that. The promo photo being used has all copyright clearances needed as it is on Patty's own press materials page and is also available through her booking agency (where promoters are *supposed* to be getting shots to use in show publicity). I will contact Patty's manager about official copyright release for the Jana Leon image in order to satisfy Wiki's guidelines. Meanwhile, is it such a bad thing to honor an artist's wishes that a photo used in a public forum such as this be one that she likes?

(BTW speaking also a photographer myself, all images have copyright. One the shutter is clicked, the image is copyrighted. A photog may give permission for use by uploading him or herself, but no image like the live one that persists here is not copyrighted. Calling the Natick photo uncopyrighted is not correct.) Photomonk (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think User:Couillaud got a bit confused over terminology. The issue is whether images are properly licensed. To go on the Commons images have to be allowed by the copyright owner to be used for any purpose (including commercial uses) and to be used to create derivatives. Other images are allowed but only if the need that they fill cannot be satisfied (at least adequately) by a free image. We have a number of freely licensed images of Patty here. Two seem to be promo pictures by Jana Leon and will probably get deleted if their licenses can't be validated.

Though an artist's wishes do carry some weight and we should always try to be reasonable, this is in fact an encyclopedia. The point of the main illustration of a biographical page is to show what that person looks like (not a photoshopped fantasy of what they wish they looked like or indeed them hiding behind something). If the person is a performer it is also good to see them performing. I've changed the main image (for now) to a promo picture showing Patty's face: this hasn't been deleted yet. What do editors think about the other images (perhaps cropped) showing her performing? We could perhaps have a crop of File:PattyLarkin4Oct08A.jpg as the main picture and the face covered current promo in addition. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did misuse the terms "license" and "copyright", as use of images is one of the more confusing topics here, one of the reasons I don't edit as often as I used to.

I have no problem with the image currently being used; in fact, I have no problem with any image as long as you can get it past the WikiCops. PhotoMonk's original action seemed at first too much like many rookie editors, making wholesale changes without explanation, which happens a lot around here, and I was just (at least for that moment) trying to protect the page from what seemed an overzealous new editor. I have no problem also acceding to a subject's wishes in certain cases (formal or "official" portrait as opposed to a concert shot), though I admit that I too would rather see Patty's face unhidden, but that's just the opinion of a fan. -- Couillaud (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there an email avenue for submitting permissions? I find the Commons interface to be a bit difficult to navigate (for example, I had uploaded the photo in use now but could not figure out how to 'attach' it to Patty's Wiki entry). Patty's manager would be happy to submit whatever proof is needed for the copyrighted photos; just trying to figure out the best way to do that - what form, what info etc. Thanks for all of your assistance and understanding on this. Photomonk (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could just use the photo as is and see if the Wiki PhotoCops don't go after it. I personally find the rules regarding licensing to be more than a bit dense, labyrinthine, and perhaps deliberately unintelligible, and so no longer try to contribute images. I once posted separate photos I had shot of Jennifer Kimball and Jonatha Brooke on their respective articles, and User Martin H. deleted the former and marked the latter for deletion because I had not identified the license correctly (this was three years after I had uploaded the images, after standards had changed, and even after discussion I was unsure what I'd done wrong), and I simply chose not to try to upload them again. If you contact him, he might be willing to advise you on how to properly identify photos, or at least point you to someone who can. Good luck in any case. -- Couillaud (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I could say stuff about licensing, but what Photomonk needs is to go to this page here! --Simon Speed (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)