Open main menu

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Laura1822!

-- 04:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol givenEdit

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, you can now share images from Flickr using the UploadWizard, batch-upload up to 500 files with UploadWizard instead of 50, move up to 32 pages per minute instead of 8, and upload freely licensed audio files in the MP3 format. Thank you. INeverCry 22:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


Hello, first of all, thank you very much for your observation, try to do a better job on this, Greetings!

PD: hey, where are all the categories to find out which one to use?

Welcome, Dear Filemover!Edit


Hi Laura1822, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please do not tag redirects as {{Speedy}}. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Deutsch | English | 한국어 | മലയാളം | Русский | Українська | 中文(臺灣) | +/− INeverCry 20:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Almacks with Brummell.jpgEdit

Hi Laura1822. Didn't you see the error you induced? --Leyo 07:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I saw it and thought I had fixed it, but apparently had not. Fixed now. Thank you for the heads' up! Laura1822 (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I noticed it in Category:Pages using Information template with incorrect parameter. --Leyo 18:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Regency revival genre paintingsEdit

Thanks for setting up the category, but I'm not too sure about File:Soulacroix-16.jpg. It doesn't show any form of period-authentic clothing that I know of, and could just be a fantasy of antiquity. Churchh (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Images to addEdit

Before I knew about "Category:Rococo revival paintings", I added notes to the information boxes of some images, saying "later 19th century painting of Regency scene" (or similar), or added some to Category:Empire silhouette. Churchh (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we were cross-posting messages to each other here. :) I think the Soulacroix painting is probably meant to be early 19th century because of the furnishings (screen, mirror) and because he didn't really paint scenes of ancient antiquity (that I recall, anyway).
I moved or copied images from the other categories but I may have missed some. And I'm sure there are others scattered around; perhaps you can find more. I searched for every artist I know of who painted these revival scenes and added all that I found to the new category.
I also populated another category I found, Category:Neo-Classicist paintings of women, with portraits of women from the 1795-1805 period where the clear intent was to look like grecian drapery, especially the sleeveless dresses with jeweled clasps at the shoulders, and with armlets worn over the biceps, and some with shawls combined with those, perhaps with greek key designs, etc. I had hesitated to do this before because I wasn't certain of the terminology and a couple of the paintings in the category (in their own sub-categories, like Moitessier) didn't fit with the definition in my head. I don't know if the term "Neo-classicist" is the best one to use here, or if there is some other art term for this period (Directoire?); do you have a suggestion? Laura1822 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
For a few Parisian women who went all-in with the latest fashions of 1798-1799 it can be a little difficult to tell a regular portrait painting apart from a Classicizing one, but in general the category is a good one. In the mid 18th century, there were some quasi-Classicizing portraits that would not be very obvious to most people today, since the portrait subject simply wore all white clothing that was possibly slightly less corseted or panniered than usual. The result didn't look anything like an ancient Greek goddess, but the intention would have been clear to those who viewed the painting at the time (see woman on left in File:Two ladies in an interior one reading the other holding a garland of flowers.jpg, File:Dans Pygmalion (Carrogis).jpg and others that evade me now). As for Soulacroix-16.jpg, as long as you're basing it on other things than how the transparent piece of cloth clings, that's fine. Churchh (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Laura1822 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm very belated, but the painting File:Mrs.Stanhope.jpg was classicizing by 1786 standards. Churchh (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Cropping out unfree framesEdit

You might find these templates useful: {{Non-free frame}}, {{Non-free frame revdel}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. Ogre! Laura1822 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Get the 1st part[1] and correct my grammar, please :) --Shakko (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Frédéric Soulacroix An elegant maid.jpgEdit

The main problem that I see with that painting is a kind of juxtaposition of discordant class signifiers -- above, she's wearing a type of servant's cap, and has strong arms and robust broad shoulders (suitable for a hardworking servant woman), while below she has a tiny waist flanked by panniers (suitable for a languid lady of leisure). It seems as if the painter couldn't present a lower-class woman as attractive and innocently desirable without inconsistently upper-classing her. Another phase of the same syndrome is seen at File:Lenoir, Charles-Amable - The Seamstress.jpg, where it sure seems to me that mobcaps and ultra-low necklines did not go well together in actual eighteenth century attire. Churchh (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm backEdit

Hello, Happy New Year! Let's finish it, ah? --Shakko (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Yes, let's finish it! Laura1822 (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi! Just read your question on the filemover page. You can add it to the duplicate pile and substitute from there. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington:: Thanks very much! I just finished the one that was misidentified, and it turns out that it really needed to be done manually because every page used a different selection of images, so a straight one-for-one substitution wouldn't have worked. BTW when I renamed the file I realized that the new renaming process takes care of most of what commons delinker was designed for.
For others (i.e., non-name changes, just straight substitutions for better quality of the same image), can you please clarify what you mean by" the duplicate pile?" Do you mean just add it to the commons delinker requests? Sorry, I'm out of practice around here. Thanks for your help! Laura1822 (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
No, with the pile I ment the backlog of duplicates to be processed. :) Yeah, you don't need the delinker for renaming anymore. If you rename a file that has a lot of crosswiki usage, the script automatically uses the delinker to avoid crosswiki flodding. Pretty cool things can be done here. :) If you need anything, fire away. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Laura1822 (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington:I am just curious regarding why there is a backlog with delinker. Does the bot require a specific human to start and stop it? From its User Contributions page it seems to also do other tasks, so does it have to be switched among tasks? Why doesn't it just run all the time? There is quite a pile. :)
I'm not complaining about the backlog or the time it takes--my requests aren't urgent--just curious about how the bot actually works. Thanks for your time! Laura1822 (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The bot should work without human intervention. So far the theory. Sometimes it just hangs, usually when there are a lot of files to move around. If you want to know everything about the bot, just ask Siebrand or Bryan. They operate the bot and should be able to answer all questions.   --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Danke schön! Laura1822 (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Camille PissarroEdit


I see you like paintings, and like adding the template "artwork" to Camille Pissarro's paintings, right now I am working on adding the template and wikidata to his paintings. May be you would like to participate in this work. There is a lot of paintings, he had painted more than 1500, se de:Werkverzeichnis von Camille Pissarro/Erste Jahre. (I have uploaded some new see my upload list .

Take af look at en:User:Magnus Manske/listeria test2 and da:Bruger:Palnatoke/Autolister/Værker af Camille Pissarro and c:Category:Paintings by Camille Pissarro by year.

Best wishes --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Villy Fink Isaksen:: Thank you for thinking of me! I've gone through the year-by-year categories and added several images to the "Portraits by" category. (You may think that some don't really belong there; feel free to remove them.) My main interest is portraiture and I'm not really excited by the impressionists. (I don't hate them, I just like others better.) I will look through the portraits and do some work here and there (such as adding the artwork template if it is missing, or details), but I want to get back to my main project of working on Lawrence's portraits.
Also, I'm ignorant of wikidata protocols. I understand its purpose but it's too complicated for me to study when there's so much else to do that I do understand! So I can't help with wikidata.
But I had an idea when I was going through the Pissarro year-by-year categories. I wonder if it would be possible to create a navigation template that would show a little box at the top like in Category:Paintings by year or Category:Portrait paintings by year that would make it easy to step through the years without having to go back up a level. I think the year-by-year category scheme is a great idea for prolific painters and a lot of them on commons could benefit from such a scheme in their categories. Perhaps someone else may have had a similar idea as there are Category:Paintings by year by artist with a template and also Category:Paintings by artist by year and Category:Portrait paintings by year, but no artist templates to go with them. Do you know a lot about templates? I successfully created {{Navigation Males with coats in art by color}} for Category:Males with coats in art by color by copying/pasting from other similar templates, but looking at the existing "year-by-year" templates I don't quite see how to apply them to create an individual "painter by year" template. What do you think? Laura1822 (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
A navigation template is a very good idea. May be we could get some to make it, I am not able to do it. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Royal Collection portrait drawingsEdit

Hi! You've just added a few images to the Portrait drawings by Hans Holbein der Jüngere in the Royal Collection of the United Kingdom‎ category — none of them being by Holbein (and one of them is not even a drawing). I moved them to the appropriate categories. Just thought you should know. Primaler (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Primaler : Thank you! I have been creating new categories for other institutions based on the RC's category pattern, and I may have simply copied/pasted the wrong thing. I'll take a look. Laura1822 (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
later: Yes, it looks like all of those files were in the category "Drawings in the Royal Library, Windsor Castle" and I was trying to copy them to "Portrait drawings in the Royal Collection of the United Kingdom" and I simply copy/pasted the wrong thing (or clicked on the wrong "Copy" link in Cat-a-lot). Great catch! I appreciate it. Just when I thought I had achieved perfection, too. :) Laura1822 (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Court dress in the United KingdomEdit

Greetings, Laura. Looking at the recent history of a certain portrait I have noticed a degree of confusion regarding the categorisation of British court dress, and I wonder whether it is something you could give me some insight into, considering your recent activity in this area. I recall that the particular subject was not well ordered before; I encountered difficulties in finding an appropriate category specifically for court dress when I uploaded the aforementioned portrait of Prince Albert, and there may have been similar cases before. This is not a new situation, therefore, but perhaps it could now be resolved for good.

(I am also pinging User:Mabalu, who has a self-declared interest in fashion and has added the notes to Category:Court dress in the United Kingdom and Category:Court uniforms and dress of the United Kingdom.)

In short: I am aware of the distinction between court dress and court uniform (as explained rather well here), and I am not sure this distinction is properly made in Category:Court uniforms and dress of the United Kingdom, where one sub-category refers to "female court dress" but the corresponding sub-category for men refers to "male court uniforms". Furthermore, images such as this and this, depicting Speakers of the House of Commons, are unsatisfactorily categorised under Category:Judicial dress in the United Kingdom; these people are not judges, and court dress is not judicial dress, albeit worn by advocates and judges. Perhaps such images could usefully be brought under the roof of the "Court uniforms and dress" category, but whether at large or in a sub-category I cannot say.

I am also a little puzzled about the inclusion in Category:Court uniforms and dress of the United Kingdom of the categories for the robes of chivalric orders. I realise the Garter robes are worn mostly (perhaps exclusively) in the annual service at Windsor, but does that on its own classify them as court dress? Or were they worn more often in older times? I claim no special knowledge about this, but my impression is that they were not. And although I often notice such robes in portraits, the same goes for peers' coronets, and those were seen in public only in coronations. Waltham, The Duke of 10:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Duke of Waltham: Greetings to you as well. I ran across something you had edited just the other day and considered dropping you a note about it, but now I can't recall what it was. I think we tend to work on similar things. (I wish I had come up with a similar identity under which to edit.) So it's nice to make contact.
As far as court dress goes, as you note, it was, shall we say, underdeveloped. The existing category was only for courtroom wear (of which I know even less). I wanted a category in which to place the black-and-gold uniform such as that worn by the Lord Chamberlain, as well as female categories for the prescribed dress with train, feather head-dress, lappets, etc.: something equivalent to Category:Female court uniforms and dress of Russia. So I used that as a model. To be perfectly frank, I muddled my way through and made it up as I went along. It was some time before I even realized that there were black-and-gold robes as well as the military-style uniform (and how could I not have guessed that George IV designed the latter? Of course he did! Too bad Brummell was gone by then: can you imagine what he would have said?).
I have no objection to any re-organizing you or anyone else wants to do to make it more logical or better sub-divided or however you would like to do it. I was working with more or less a blank slate, and wanted categories to fit what I was finding in various portraits. All I was trying to do was provide some sort of basic framework for others to embellish and improve as time passes. No category is ever "finished" as far as I'm concerned: there's always an improvement to make. So please, make whatever changes you think appropriate.
If you've read and thoroughly understand the article on court dress that you linked, then you know more that I do, so be bold! I only ever skimmed it to get some basic parameters.
As for Garter robes, I'm amenable to moving or removing them to other categories. I tend to be an inclusionist, my idea being to make categories findable through as many trees as logical. Wherever possible I try to structure them parallel to other similar categories. Actually, I think the Order of the Garter needs some more specialized subcategories to make them equivalent to other Orders' categories, but I didn't want to make changes until I thoroughly understood when it is proper to wear which items (for example, can the Garter itself be worn alone? if not, then it probably doesn't need a separate category). But that's another discussion.
Thank you very much for contacting me. I appreciate the courtesy. Laura1822 (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Code issues in User:Laura1822/common.cssEdit

Hi Laura1822, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:Laura1822/common.css. Glad to see you coding in css! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 4 new prettyCss issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in css writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ERROR: invalid-token: line 23 char number 34 - Evidence: ;
  2. ERROR: invalid-token: line 116 char number 1 - Evidence: /
  3. ERROR: invalid-token: line 123 char number 1 - Evidence: /
  4. ERROR: invalid-token: line 127 char number 1 - Evidence: /
  5. ERROR: invalid-token: line 130 char number 1 - Evidence: /
  6. WARNING: browser-unsupported:ie7: line 33 char number 27 - Evidence: table
  7. WARNING: browser-quirk:ie8: line 33 char number 27 - Evidence: table
  8. WARNING: invalid-value: line 59 char number 21 - Evidence: none
  9. WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 60 char number 12 - Evidence: 1px
  10. WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:pt: line 72 char number 15 - Evidence: 12pt
  11. WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 100 char number 24 - Evidence: 1px
  12. WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 156 char number 12 - Evidence: 1px
  13. WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 163 char number 13 - Evidence: 1px
  14. WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 169 char number 13 - Evidence: 1px
  15. WARNING: suggest-relative-unit:px: line 170 char number 19 - Evidence: 5px

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 14:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC).

What is a "portrait painting"Edit

Hello, Laura1822, I see from your user page that you love portrait paintings, so do I, but I think you have extended the term a bit too far, when you change the category from "painting" to "portrait painting" as soon as there is a face in the painting. I see you have done this to some of Bjørn Krogstad's paintings (and others). From the English WP article "Portrait": "A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant. The intent is to display the likeness, personality, and even the mood of the person. For this reason, in photography a portrait is generally not a snapshot, but a composed image of a person in a still position. A portrait often shows a person looking directly at the painter or photographer, in order to most successfully engage the subject with the viewer."

I think you ought to reconsider the use of "portrait painting" for several of the files. A face, of a non-existing "person"/figure, is not a portrait, - in my opinion at least. :) Kjersti L. 08:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kjersti Lie:, thank you for your note, and I fully agree with you, and was thinking of putting some definitions in the appropriate categories, because I found so many images that I don't believe qualify as portraits already in the photo portrait categories (some in the painting categories too), but I was focused on other tasks and so didn't pursue recategorizing them. But I think such a task is much needed. Feel free to recategorize any images you think belong elsewhere.
If I got sloppy putting some images into portrait categories that didn't belong there, I do apologize, but it was in a good cause, at least in the paintings categories. I have recently created all of the missing portrait painting by year categories and then was making an effort to get images into them so that they would not be deleted.
Some of the 20th- and 21st-century portraits that I moved into their portrait-painting-by-year categories were not, IMO, paintings, but drawings (excluding pastels, which I think qualify as both paintings and drawings). However, those images were already in the the painting-by-year category, and there is no corresponding drawing-by-year or portrait-drawing-by-year category. So if it was a non-painted portrait that was already in a painting category, I just moved it into the corresponding portrait painting sub-category, thinking they could be recategorized later when the appropriate drawing categories are created (by someone else). If you disagree with my judgement there, then by all means move them somewhere you think more appropriate.
I've done some work in photographs too, but as for the paintings, going through the 20th century paintings looking for portraits was somewhat of a challenge. The line between portrait and non-portrait was, IMO, quite blurred during the 20th century, though I think the distinction seems to be making a comeback today, at least in painting. If I had my druthers, I would rigorously exclude anything not formally posed of a contemporaneous person. If we had genre scene painting categories for the 20th century, it might be easier to categorize some of them there, but I am not up for creating that category set. I'm still trying to get missing categories by view created. Again, if you disagree with my judgement on any images, then by all means move them somewhere you think more appropriate, though I would ask that you please not leave any portrait-painting-by-year categories empty, since they might be deleted.
Similarly, for the portrait photograph categories, if I put images there that don't belong there, it's because (a) I was focused on larger tasks, and (b) I thought that since so many non-portrait images were already there, the distinction seemed a lost cause in the 21st century. I don't think I'm up for doing a major overhaul of 21st-century and late 20th century portrait photo categories (which are far outside my sphere of interest, and I was only working on tangentially to make them complete and parallel to paintings), which might require some re-thinking beyond the standardized categories we have for portraits in other centuries. But I agree that there is great value in restricting portraits to the traditional definition.
For what it's worth, I'm done working with the by-year categories in the 20th and 21st centuries. I went through the paintings-by-year from 2016 back to 1920. There are still plenty of unambiguously real portraits in the paintings-by-year categories going back in time from there, if you'd like to take on that task. Laura1822 (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your – extensive – answer/explanation. It seems we agree, then. I don't think I'1l move any of the files now. Maybe later. Right now I have other projects. All the best. Kjersti L. 13:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding parents' catrgoriesEdit

Hello! Why are you adding the cateogies of people's parents to their pages? Wouldn't it be awful if we did that to another hundred thousand category pages or so? See Commons:Overcat. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I added them because they're useful. It's very frustrating to go to, say, Princess Patricia of Connaught's category and not see who her parents were at a glance. Likewise, it is useful, when looking at the first Duke of Connaught's category to see his wife and children as subcategories. Prince Arthur's son was Prince Arthur too, but he predeceased his father so was not Duke of Connaught. This makes it easy to see the relationships. Looking in a catch-all category like "House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is pretty useless for seeing how who is connected to whom.
I'm not suggesting a big project to add family links to every person with their own category, but for people where the lineage is arguably the very thing that makes them important, I don't see how it hurts to add them ad-hoc, overcat opinions notwithstanding. YMMV. Cheers. Laura1822 (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Paintings by genre by yearEdit

Hello You can create a category 'Paintings by genre by year' (or Year paintings by genre) placing the template {{Paintingbygenrecat|190|0}} in 'Category: 1900 paintings by genre' then enter to the link created and paste the template format of 'portrait paintings' which is beneath and replace all 'portrait paintings' by 'paintings by genre', 'Portraitpaintingcat' by 'Paintingbygenrecat' and 'Portrait paintings by year' by 'Paintings by genre by year'.

{| style = "float: right; clear: right; border: 1px solid #aaa; background-color: # f9f9f9; font-size: 95%;" ! colspan = "0" | <Div class = "NavFrame" style = "border: none;"> <div class = "NavHead" style = "background-color: # eee9bf; text-align: center;"> [[: Category: {{{1 }}} 0s portrait paintings | {{{1}}} 0s portrait paintings]] & nbsp; </ div> <div class = "NavContent" style = "background-color: transparent; text-align: left; display: none ; font-weight:normal">{{Portraitpaintingcat/Languages|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}}}[{{fullurl:Template:Portraitpaintingcat/Languages|action=edit}} + Language] </ div> </ div> | - | [[: Category: {{# expr: {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} - 1}} 9 portrait paintings | & larr;]] [[: Category: {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 0 portrait paintings | {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 0]] [[: Category: {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude> }}} 1 portrait paintings | {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 1]] [[: Category: {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 2 portrait paintings | {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 2]] [[: Category: {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 3 portrait paintings | {{{1 < noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 3]] [[: Category: {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 4 portrait paintings | {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 4]] [[: Category: {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 5 portrait paintings | {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 5 ]] [[: Category: {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 6 portrait paintings | {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 6]] [[: Category : {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 7 portrait paintings | {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 7]] [[: Category: {{{1 < noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 8 portrait paintings | {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 8]] [[: Category: {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 9 portrait paintings | {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude>}}} 9]] [[: Category: {{# expr: {{{1 <noinclude> | 0 </ noinclude >}}}}} 0 + 1 portrait paintings | & rarr;]] |} <br /> clear="left" <Includeonly> {{{category | <-! Insert the page into "category: <year>" or "category: <year> by topic" -> <! - ->}}} [[Category: {{{1}}} 0s portrait paintings | {{{1}}} {{{2}}}]] </ Includeonly> [[:Category: {{{1}}} {{{2}}} paintings | * Portrait paintings]] [[:Category: Portrait Paintings by year | {{{1}}} {{{2}}}]]

Ecummenic (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ecummenic: Hello, Ecummenic! Happy Easter! It has been many months but I finally tried to follow your instructions and it doesn't look right and I don't yet have enough experience to identify what is wrong. Please will you fix it for me, then I can compare the edits to see what I did wrong. I really do want to learn how to make these kinds of templates because there are so many categories that can use them! Thank you for your help! Laura1822 (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


That's fine. I'm sure the book I scanned it in from said "1810", but it was likely not authoritative. I scanned it in 1999, and so didn't note down the name of the book... Churchh (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Laura1822 (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


That contains some interesting sidelights on clothing styles, but is not a "fashion plate" as such. Churchh (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there's been some non-plate creep. I'm thinking about creating another category for the non-plate items. Right now, for example, portrait paintings don't belong in fashion categories (they are down the tree). Some paintings may be genre rather than portraits. Anyway, I'm thinking about it. Suggestions welcome. Laura1822 (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your name change of this fileEdit

My rough estimated 1795 date for this file was based on the fact that the young women are wearing high-waisted gowns, but there's no real discernible influence of the strongly Neoclassical or "high Grecian" styles of the late 1790s (none of them seem to be wearing white, etc). Also, some of what the older women are wearing might be considered semi-ridiculously out-of-step with current styles by 1800 (at least in cities — not sure about distant rural regions). Churchh (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Churchh: 1795 is a good estimate, but I think that they are a bit later. I would actually place them 1797-1802, which makes ca. 1800 a good mid-range estimate. I made this estimate after being immersed in period fashion plates for several weeks. The dresses remind me of the ones in the Gallery of Fashion, which IIRC was printed 1797-1802, or Phillips's Fashions of London and Paris, which was a little later. I suspect that the date of "1790" might have been misread for 1799, given what I've seen of plate caption printing styles of that time. As always, if you disagree strenuously (or even not-so-strenuously!) with anything I do, you're welcome to make filename or category changes: I won't take offense. As far as I'm concerned, it's all one big work in progress. (BTW sorry for the formatting problems on my talk page: I hope they weren't confusing, and that I'll get them fixed soon.) Laura1822 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, but I still think it would be a little odd for 1800 if none of them are wearing white. Churchh (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Just a talk page stalker passing by - I'll just leave this here. Mabalu (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, good catch, @Mabalu:! Thank you! @Churchh: Laura1822 (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem going with 1798, but if you look at the "Inscription Content" field, it seems they had difficulty reading the year digit also. Churchh (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories / single picturesEdit

Hallo Laura! If there is a fashion catalogue of a year with an own category, why do you not catalogue the whole category instead of the images? I think, this would be easier and clearer too? Nice weekend, -- Kürschner (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kürschner: You are right, of course! Ich bin ein Dumkopf! I was trying to quickly add some files to those new categories before they got deleted for being empty. I guess I am not awake yet this morning! Laura1822 (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
No, no, all ok. Let us do the work together as best we can. -- Kürschner (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Fashion plates?Edit

I am really confused - why have you been adding photographs of clothing to the "fashion plates" categories? They are not plates by any definition - a fashion plate could be a drawn piece reproduced by printing (plate, as in printing-plate). Even then, a lot of prints (as in modern magazines) aren't really technically fashion plates because they are an integrated part of magazine spreads, rather than printed on special paper or separate pages like many true fashion plates were. Quite simply, photographs are not fashion plates.

I also don't think that original drawings/paintings can really be considered fashion plates, unless they are reproduced as commercial prints, as above - so a designer's original sketches, such as the Yannis Tseklenis one you added to 1970s fashion plates, aren't really plates either. Mabalu (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to quickly add some more appropriate files to those categories, if they can be found. Mabalu (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Another note: from the 1960s onwards, "proper" plates are very hard to find, especially with copyright clearances. I've added a few things to 1970s-80s that I doubt are really plates (they are probably scanned in drawings) but they have the "look" so they will have to do to make sure the cats aren't deleted as empty. There seem to be absolutely no fashion prints from the 1990s or 21st century - just photographs and the odd drawing/original artwork, and if anything was uploaded, it would probably be in violation of the artist's copyright (unless they did so themselves). Mabalu (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, yes, I tried to respond earlier but we had an edit conflict. :) Short answer is, I was trying to get something into the categories so that they wouldn't be deleted as empty. Thanks for noticing and for trying to find better images! Laura1822 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Met imagesEdit

The images in Category:Images from Metropolitan Museum of Art (Paris project) (formerly called Category:Images from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, though they were almost all French) were largely uploaded by User:Paris 16 as part of a individual project from the Met website to get images of the city of Paris. We're working to reconcile the new uploads from the recent museum release (which include sculptures under CC0, for example) with older, less centralized uploading efforts.--Pharos (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

15th-century portraits of women with veilsEdit

You have beeen putting several paintings in the category 15th-century portraits of women with veils, although they are not 15th-century portraits at all. Could you please go over that?

@Jan Arkesteijn: Good catch! It looks like I simply hit the wrong link in Cat-a-lot. Fixed! Thank you very much! Laura1822 (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

My answer to your questionEdit

Hello! This was my question to you, but now this topic is no longer relevant. Therefore, I deleted this section. I hope this did not give you any problem. Sincerely--IgorSokol (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

File:S.M. Re Vittorio Amedeo III di Savoia.pngEdit

HI dear Laura1822 ,

I would like to ask you if you can present this list of files to the commond undeletion request, it is a list of portraits and paintings of the era, dating back to 200 years since the death of the various artists, I unfortunately can not apply directly, because it would deleted at the moment, can I ask you please ????

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Margoth Mattiew (talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
While I am mildly curious about the policies involved here, and in the images themselves, I must decline to become involved. I do not have the time or the energy. Laura1822 (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Laura1822".