Talk:Adolfo Farsari

Serving Italy

A quick look in the not-so-reliable resource Wikipedia tells me that Farsari, born in Vicenza, was serving in the Italian armed forces while Vicenza was still Austrian. I wonder where in what-is-now-Italy he was at the time. -- Hoary 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How could we locate him in the midst of this mess? Pinkville 13:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, here! Pinkville 13:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly: and it shows that Vicenza was Austrian. My guess is that the Austrian army would have had few speakers of [any dialect of] Italian, and that somebody living in Vicenza could hardly have served in the Italian military. Had Farsari perhaps moved to somewhere within what was then Italy? -- Hoary 14:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Or did he serve in a Lombard military unit within the Austrian forces? Apparently, Lombardy had relative autonomy compared to other provinces of the Empire. &P^TM In fact, it's Farsari's early years (in Italy and then the US) that are most intriguing... I'd love to know more... and it's reasonable to think that there's more information in both Italy (civil and other records) and the US (Civil War archives/buffs). Pinkville 18:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fukiage

I would love to find and use a Farsari image of Fukiage (the Imperial Gardens (Tokyo), but though I searched far and wide, I could only find images attributed to Kusakabe or Tamamura - though these are undoubtedly actually Farsari images! If anyone can find a Fukiage photo identified as by Farsari, please add it to the article - or selected photos list. Pinkville 18:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Banta

Some notes cite "Banta". Did Banta perhaps write an accidentally unmentioned paper within "Banta and Taylor", or what else might this mean? -- MrNigglingPedant 03:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this one out! The citations should indeed be "Banta and Taylor", to which I'll now transform them. Pinkville 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

However, Banta and Taylor are described as "eds"; their book is referenced by the bibliography entries for Handy, Iwasaki, and Robinson. So again, did Banta and Taylor write an accidentally unmentioned paper within "Banta and Taylor"? If this is just the introduction, then "Banta and Taylor, introduction, 12" or some similar solution. MrNigglingPedant 05:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Success! I was having trouble sorting this one out, but I finally found the bibliographic citation for the (accidentally unmentioned) article by Banta included in the book she co-edited! Citations have been corrected and the reference added. Pinkville 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Remaining very minor oddities

I've gone through the article a couple of times; there was little to change, and while an article on some old geezer who took snaps of old buildings and stuff and wymmyn with their clothes on can hardly compete with Really Important Stuff like Final Fantasy or Dragonquest, I sense that this article is now within reach of the big FA.

Some nits:

• AF's work, we're told in the introductory paragraph, "had a major influence on the development of photography in Japan". Unless I've sleepily misunderstood something, we have to go quite some way through the article before we reach an explanation of what this influence was. Worse, before we reach this point we get the impression that (notable though it may be), it was genre-bound, even derivative. I think a little addition in the intro about what this influence was (exacting technical standards, I believe) would help: the reader would then expect to wait to reach a discussion of this.
• "Imperial Gardens (also known as Fukiage)": I deleted the parenthesis, as I thought this explanation should go in the linked article. But I have a queasy feeling that it was here for a particular reason.
• Watanabe is described as the "former chief operator". That makes him sound a bit like somebody in railways or the mafia. Could it be made a bit more precise?
• Half a ryou (pardon lack of diacritic) is described as "roughly equivalent to a month's pay for an artisan". I was about to substitute "about" for the first three words but then wondered whether bartering might have been a major factor or if there were some other reason for the fastidious wording.
• The article is scrupulously footnoted. The notes in turn point to scrupulously formed references. All of this must have been very tedious to do, but it's most commendable and I wish more articles were done in the same way. That said, it's surprising that the great majority of the notes that refer to print publications have page numbers and the references have page numbers. Why the page numbers in the latter? If the latter do need page numbers, there are odd discrepancies; I haven't gone through this rigorously, but I see that notes point to "Sharf, 10"; "Dobson, 34-35"; "Clark, 96" -- each of which is outside the page numbers given in the corresponding item in the list of references.

Well done so far; don't give up now! -- Hoary 01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for the numerous edits/corrections - I can't find fault with any of your changes. To the five points you raise:

• I'll make an addition to the intro as you rightly suggest. - Done, with a thievery of your 3-word phrase.
• The Fukiage issue is increasingly perplexing to me. I can find several images attributed to Kusakabe or Tamamura that were probably acutally by Farsari (given the probable date of exposure) and I can find earlier photos of the gardens by other photographers - before Farsari's studio had exclusive access, but I can't find any image of the Gardens identified as by Farsari (on the Net, anyway). I used the roumaji "Fukiage" because the majority of these images were so inscribed (and otherwise only rarely inscribed "Imperial Gardens"), but since I'm not using an image of the Gardens I don't suppose it's necessary to include the transliteration. I see that Fukiage is indicated on this map!
• Watanabe might, I guess, be described as "a manager", but maybe "former chief operator" was meant to indicate "chief photographer"? Impossible to say. I took "former chief operator" verbatim from the source, not knowing what else to do with it. Maybe this could be changed to "senior employee" or somethin'. - Done, using an "employee" formulation...
• Fastidious quoting. "About a month's pay" is perfectly good, better, even. -Done like dinner.
• This should be the last time we run into this pagination issue together. Farsari is the last of "my CCA articles", i.e. those that were inspired by my work (in a very different form) for the CCA's catalogue and that I rewrote for Wikipedia while retaining some of the (quirky) CCA pagination standards (created for use in an arcane and ancient MINISIS database). Though the blood rushes to my eyes whenever I look at the page numbers in these notes and bibliographic sources, I'll make an effort to see through the red to rationalise them! - Done.

Thanks for the encouragement! I have half a mind to emulate Frasier Crane's example in an episode of Cheers! in which he "reads" A Tale of Two Cities to his bar friends, but in a version he has heavily embellished to maintain their interest. Thus we'd find: understanding the danger to his life if his identity were discoved, Fasari created a costume to conceal his true self, adopted the nom-de-guerre, A-shashin, and began a personal war against his enemies... evil and corruption.... Pinkville 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnote formatting

The footnotes, previously just in irritatingly small lettering, are now (when viewed via a Gecko-based browser) in irritatingly small lettering that's prettily in two columns. As each line can be scanned with fewer saccades, the doublecolumnization is to the good (+); as doublecolumnization means one may have to scroll up in order to read the entirety of a single note, it brings an extra irritation (−).

So much for the columns. Now the lettering size.

"Wikipedia is not paper" is a mantra often chanted in support of the silliest causes. But these don't detract from the fact that yes, it's not paper. It's not toilet paper either, and extra megabytes cost server space -- but decreasing the size of footnotes brings no real saving whatever.

When the standard CSS was rewritten to automate this reduction in lettering size, I vigorously opposed the end as well as the means and won some support. I'll reiterate my objections here:

1. Source footnotes are not merely a meaningless formality; they are (or an alternative is) essential.
2. Substantive footnotes (as in this article) are also interesting.
3. Ergo, footnotes should be easy to read.
4. Reducing the size of screen lettering in footnotes is likely to reduce their readability by a more than negligible degree for a more than negligible percentage of viewers. It doesn't help legibility for anyone at all.
5. Reducing the size of lettering in footnotes may be a vaguely reassuring web reminder of hard-copy conventions (where it commendably saves trees); on the web, it results in no saving whatever.
6. Ergo, footnotes should be in the default text size.

An additional benefit of rendering them in the default text size is that there'll be no need for columns and the irritating backscroll that's likely to be necessary to read one of the notes in its entirety. -- Hoary 08:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree. Pinkville 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Then render them in default text size. I think it's largely an aesthetic issue. I'll make the change so we can see how it looks in one column in the default size. Shimeru 18:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, looks better. Thanks. Pinkville 21:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer it now too, and my thanks to Shimeru for reacting so graciously to my rant above. (I've a queasy feeling that in his place I'd have thought "If you're going to pontificate about it like that, the hell with you, I'm going to dig my heels in.") -- Hoary 06:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I hadn't noticed this discussion and went ahead in reinserting the 2-column format. I'll change it back again though to be honest I think it looks silly (on my nice little Firefox) as half of the space is now taken by the list of references and one has to scroll through them. Also, for all that's worth, the two-column/ridiculously small format is the de facto standard for recent FAs. I think it's nice to have some uniformity. But hey, it's only detail... Pascal.Tesson 07:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Noticed this discussion while I was here responding to Hoary; I generally like uniformity, but it sounds like Hoary understands some of my frustration about Wiki text sizes that are hard on older eyes - for example, the new reduced TOCs on some of the University articles (University of Oklahoma) are very hard on my eyes. Maybe we need a minimum text size standard to preserve readability for other than the 20-something crowd? UofO is at FAC right now, and the author mentioned it came from other University articles, so it's catching on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gallery formatting

Originally posted on the FAC page:

• Comment The image gallery wraps off my screen - please resize. The first footnote is incomplete - please add biblio info including publisher and last access date. Also, the end of the third paragraph in the section "Farsari and Yokohama shashin" has uncited commentary which appears as opinion or original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure how to help you with the gallery size issue - it's fine in the three browsers I use on two computers and though I've looked through the relevant pages in Wikipedia on Gallery mark-up I haven't found out how to resize. Maybe someone who understands this technical issue better than I can help...? The first footnote has been expanded to include access date - it is a webpage, so there isn't any further publication data to add. The missing citation (accidentally left off at some point in the editing) has been added. Pinkville 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone help with the gallery resizing request from SandyGeorgia? Thanks. Pinkville 16:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The gallery takes the form of an HTML table of class "gallery". As an HTML table, it has a fixed division into rows each having a certain number of cells: no fiddling with monobook.css will change this.

Use of an HTML table for a purpose such as this is a bad idea. But there was a demand for a gallery, and thanks to the way MediaWiki is written, a gallery necessarily brings you an HTML table.

It needn't do so. This page explains a table-free alternative: the result looks pretty much like a WP gallery (if you care to color it that way) but it snakes: reduce the width of your browser window and the rightmost cell plops down to become the leftmost of the following row. (Thus it works just like text. You can see a simple example here.)

(SandyGeorgia, I'm assuming that your browser window is very narrow. If my assumption is mistaken, please correct me.) -- Hoary 08:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Hoary - goodness, I didn't remember my Object on the article, and I'm sorry I didn't get back to strike if concerns were met. I view four different monitors - the only small screen is my laptop. I've had problems with wrap on image galleries and math formulas on all four. Maybe it's my screen resolution settings? I don't think it's only a problem with my settings, though, because on some of the math articles, the printable versions also wrap and text is chopped. Congratulations on the FA, and if I ever leave a resolved Object again on you, pls do ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, any congratulations should go to Pinkville, not me. It's very much his article, as the page history will show you. And yours was just a "comment", not an "object".

Screen size shouldn't be an issue; browser window size might be. Your browser window might be almost as large as your screen but it might be much smaller. If you're interested I'm interested: Try maximizing your browser window on any of your computers (laptop included) and then see if the gallery still requires horizontal scrolling or is otherwise screwy. If so, what's your screen resolution and what browser are you using? -- Hoary 13:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

um, warning, I don't speak computer very well. Right now (so I'll remember), I'm on the kitchen computer, IE7, screen resolution 800 x 600. Gallery scrolls off slightly. By scroll off, I mean it's larger than the text size window. What do you want me to change? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ps - curious - do the long formulas in Monty Hall problem work for you? What happens if you print the article from the printable version? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Friends don't let friends drive Micro$oftware. No, really, MSIE7 is the new MSIE, isn't it? I heard that the new MSIE is buggy. Why not use Firefox or some other good alternative? I've just tried Monty Hall problem with Firefox on 800x600 which I crushed to a width of 500 or so: everything was fine, everything was within the browser window [laterally], no horizontal scrolling was necessary. -- Hoary 14:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So, I'm finally gonna have to bite the bullet and change browsers. I so hate having to deal with dealing with the machine that I depend on. Monty Hall is fine on my screen until I open my Favorites column on the vertical left of my screen - then it scrolls off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And Sandy, why stop there? It's 30 Jan 2007; as good a day as any other to move to an operating system where malware won't thrive: something like this. The price can't be beat! -- Hoary 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

<grrrrrr ... > It's a good thing I only commented on the problem, and didn't make it an Object :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No matter: all your base is belong to us. -- Hoary 16:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

More Adolfo Farsari Photographs

Just for information. I recently added 47 photographs to the Commons category corresponding to Adolfo Farsari which are the content of one album I photographied. There were no names explicitely written on the album, but it is daten from 1886 by a note left by one my ancestor. The styles and the photographs, including the cover looks very much like the Farsari ones anyway.esby (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, very interesting images! At first glance, most are unfamiliar to me, but I'll have a closer look and compare with previously published Farsari photos. Thanks for the note. Pinkville (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox?

Shouldn't there be an info box for something like this? Just the basic info? Yash (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be. All the basic info is necessarily in the first paragraph of the article. An infobox would add nothing except clutter. Pinkville (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded: an infobox would be pointless. -- Hoary (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Any image of Adolfo Farsari?

The article has many beautiful photographs taken by Farsari, but no image of Adolfo Farsari himself. Does any known image exist? --MChew (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a known (self-)portrait of Farsari, but it's not online and I've only seen it reproduced in a book (in a tiny format, so not very useful for us). Pinkville (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

not in italian army

the Italian Royal Army was founded only in 1861 (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storia_dell%27Esercito_Italiano), therefore it is impossible he was enroled in it before.

A possibility: he was enroled in the Sardinian Royal Army (aka: Piedmont Army ). Otherwise it is possible he was enroled among the Garibaldi's militia. Some of them in 1860 left italy to fight in US army (one of them was in little big horn battle).

The users above who wonder how comes he was an austrian empire subject and an italian soldier: well, it was not common but possible. Even during the IWW many italians living in (then)austrian cities (i.e.: Trento and Trieste) get out the border and enroled with the italian army. (among my ancestors I have people serving both armies). tonii (it.WP--79.45.174.8 (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

ok, I have it! the Vicenza public library "Bertoliana" says here: [[1]] that he was enroled in the military academy in Modena. [[2]] says that in 1859 it was established under the name of Scuola Militare dell’Italia Centrale by [[3]]. Therefore our man was in the Sardinian Army, that later, in 1861, became the Regio esercito, the italian royal army. tonii --79.50.175.76 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look closely, you'll notice that it wasn't stated that Farsari was a member of the Italian Royal Army, merely a member of the Italian military - without specifying the force involved. I have new information (that I will add) about the specific army, etc. I don't recall that it was the Sardinian Army, though... Pinkville (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

you are right. and somehow you don't. :-) Italy as a "mere geographic expression" (using autrian empire words) was existing, but not as a state, since it was done in 1860. And Venetia (region, where Vicenza is) was in it only in 1866. (Rome in 1870).

Let's put it in another way: before 1776 America did exist, but it is difficult to imagine an "american military" before that time. The state that did the unification was Piedmont, that had the name "Sardinian Kingdom".

It is well possible that I misunderstood you. I just hope having been somewhat useful. tonii it.WP --79.50.175.76 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Selected photographs and other items section

Wikipedia is not a collection of images. Image collection is Wikimedia Commons.--KANESUE 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC) My English may be inappropriate, because I am Japanese. If you discover a mistake, I want you to correct it.

The gallery issue was demanded and discussed in detail during the Featured Article discussion. Pinkville (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Any particular reason it has to be one huge block? I broke it down, but along the way someone merged it together. Not that I mind that much - just think it looks too big for the lead. John Smith's (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph is an encapsulisation of the article... it is, in essence, one thought. To break it up into two pieces would be to arbitrarily break up the thought. Pinkville (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Batch of potential Farsari images

Hi all, I've been sorting some of the cracking images from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art over on Commons and there's one group of hand-coloured images of Japan - The Feldman Collection - that lack a photographer credit on the official records (Museums Online Collection). They all seem to be from one album and the set includes the cover. A bit of googling and Tineye took me to this blog post which attributes some of the images to Farsari and this ebay listing which attributes an image to Uchida Kuichi. I'm tempted to trust the blog post but have no firm leads. Any ideas? I plan to email the guys at LACMA next week. PatHadley (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adolfo Farsari. 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/20070310212217/http://www.sandersofoxford.com:80/describe?id=3833 to http://www.sandersofoxford.com/describe?id=3833
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629045724/http://www.mfa.org:80/collections/search_art.asp?coll_keywords=farsari%2C+adolfo to http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?coll_keywords=farsari%2C+adolfo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310212217/http://www.sandersofoxford.com:80/describe?id=3833 to http://www.sandersofoxford.com/describe?id=3833

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adolfo Farsari. 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/20071008200531/http://www.bibliopoly-search.com/servlets/server?_config_=bibliopoly&_action_=MainFrameFromStaticPages&_display_action_=DisplayBook&_book_id_=7868036&_price_=180.00&_currency_=GBP to http://www.bibliopoly-search.com/servlets/server?_config_=bibliopoly&_action_=MainFrameFromStaticPages&_display_action_=DisplayBook&_book_id_=7868036&_price_=180.00&_currency_=GBP
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008200531/http://www.bibliopoly-search.com/servlets/server?_config_=bibliopoly&_action_=MainFrameFromStaticPages&_display_action_=DisplayBook&_book_id_=7868036&_price_=180.00&_currency_=GBP to http://www.bibliopoly-search.com/servlets/server?_config_=bibliopoly&_action_=MainFrameFromStaticPages&_display_action_=DisplayBook&_book_id_=7868036&_price_=180.00&_currency_=GBP
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?coll_keywords=farsari%2C%20adolfo

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) 02:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adolfo Farsari. 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/20120118221428/http://www.bachmanneckenstein.com/exhibitions/past/2003/Asia_Through_the_Lens_Photography_Exhibition/artist/Farsari/index.html to http://www.bachmanneckenstein.com/exhibitions/past/2003/Asia_Through_the_Lens_Photography_Exhibition/artist/Farsari/index.html

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) 16:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)