User talk:Laura1822

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

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Laura1822!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

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

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

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 will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. 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]

Commons File mover.svg

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 | +/− INeverCry 20:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Almacks with Brummell.jpg[edit]

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 paintings[edit]

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 add[edit]

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)

Cropping out unfree frames[edit]

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.jpg[edit]

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 back[edit]

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)