User talk:Laura1822

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


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Laura1822!

-- 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)

Thanks![edit]

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 | Українська | +/− 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)

errors[edit]

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)

Substitution[edit]

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. Face-smile.svg --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Danke schön! Laura1822 (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Camille Pissarro[edit]

Hey,

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 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Villy_Fink_Isaksen .

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)

Government Art Collection[edit]

Hello! If not difficult, please download these images in high resolution. Thank you in advance.--IgorSokol (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Charles XII (1682-1718) King of Sweden http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=21483

William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley (1520/1-1598) Lord High Treasurer http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=19897

Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales (1594-1612) eldest son of King James VI & I http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=14727

James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=29146

King George I (1660-1727) http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=27650

King George I (1660-1727) as Prince George Louis, Elector of Hanover http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=17095

King George II (1683-1760) http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=16473

King George III (1738-1820 http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=13548

King James II and VII (1633-1701) Reigned 1685-8, when Duke of York http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=13312

Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet (1788-1850) Prime Minister http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=21162

Henry Pelham (1694-1754) Prime Minister http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=12828

Spencer Perceval (1762-1812) Prime Minister http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=29191

Robert Walpole (1676-1745) http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/work.aspx?obj=23433


@IgorSokol: Hello! Are those images a priority for a particular reason? Such as to use in a wikipedia article?
Not all of the works on the GAC website are available in high resolution. The ones that do not have a high-res image available generally do have a larger jpg. (Some objects don't have an image at all, and a few have black and white photographs.) Laura1822 (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a history teacher. Portraits of rulers in Europe is my hobby. Images are only interested in high quality. Those images, which I have, has the function of Zoom. Unfortunately, I am not able to download those photos. I see that you are able to do so. Therefore requested. In addition, it will enrich Wiki high quality images on a topic that is interesting to me and many other users.--IgorSokol (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@IgorSokol: I agree with you on all those points, except that I am not a history teacher.  :)
You can download Zoomed images using Dezoomify, but it can be tricky to figure out the URL. In this case it was hard. I can explain how I did it if you want.
But in this case, I have already downloaded all of the high-res color portraits I could find from that website. I have been working on replacing the images which are already on Commons with the new ones from the website. I have finished the high-res ones now and have to do only the ones with no zoom image. When I am finished with them (and updating descriptions), I will upload the ones you requested. Feel free to help me with the files I am still updating! You can copy/paste from one I've already done that has all of templates. (Most of them are old and very small, so even the non-zoomable images are a big improvement.) Laura1822 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! This file is declared as a large and downloading the file small. Why is that?--IgorSokol (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spencer_PercevalCE.jpg P.S. With this program, download the images I could not. http://ophir.alwaysdata.net/dezoomify/dezoomify.html

@IgorSokol: Hi, Igor! It might be because of the image cache in your browser. Reload the page and/or try emptying the browser cache. I promise the big image is there.  :)
With Dezoomify, it is not always possible to just copy the page's URL. The GAC website uses "object numbers" in their URLs which are different from the GAC (accession) numbers. These hide the real URL for the tiled images that Dezoomify can stitch together. If Dezoomify cannot find the location of the tiles, if returns an error. So you have to do some work:
    • look at the page's HTML source and search for "zoom."
    • find a partial URL: "zoomifyer/0-024" (the GAC accession number for the painting is 0/24).
    • put that together with the site's main URL, and you get:
      • "http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/zoomifyer/0-024" :
    • copy that URL into Dezoomify and it will work.
With other GAC numbers that do not have a slash (/), add leading zeros (0) if necessary to make the number five digits. (It took me a while to figure this all out.) So for example the Byron portrait's URL to copy to Dezoomify is "http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/zoomifyer/01976" .
Also, Dezoomify only works with Firefox. (It works sometimes with Chrome or Opera, but not always: sometimes it will load the image but not allow you to save or copy it.)
Most websites are much easier than this and you can just copy the page's URL to Dezoomify.
I tried to explain this in simple English and I hope you can understand it. Please ask me again if you do not understand. Laura1822 (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Royal Collection portrait drawings[edit]

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 Kingdom[edit]

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.css[edit]

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' catrgories[edit]

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)