User talk:Robert.Allen

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Robert.Allen!

Filnik 00:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Now the images are ok. Bye, --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 14:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Contents

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Robert.Allen!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Maude_Fay_as_Elisabeth_-_Fay_Family_website.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Maude_Fay_as_Elisabeth_-_Fay_Family_website.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

category:Maude Fay[edit]

Are you serious about the "unknown photographer"? The name of that unknown photographer is written on most of this images. The photographer is not "unknown", its just difficult too read because of the small size of the scan, but bad scanning or information not available online does not make something unknown. --Martin H. (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Unknown to me is all I meant. Perhaps I should have said "could not be identified" --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Its a common problem on this project that the description of an 'unknown' author is done only on personal research or subjective impression and not because an external source describes the author objectively unknown. So its not only your mistake. For the other images:
  • Gräfin/Figaro image is from someone called Baumann, thats regretably not much information but it is a start to ask someone who may know it before the author is described as unresearchable as required by {{PD-EU-anonymous}}.
  • Elisabeth 2 image has the inscription Paul Böhm, Böhm (Böhm, Paul [Joseph?]afaik) was a publisher and a photographer, so maybe he's the photographer, and regretably I dont know his lifedata.
  • Margarethe image is also published and/or taken by Böhm according to the inscription.
  • Judging by the style of writing at the top possibly Gutrune image is also from Böhm.
  • I cant read the Senta image but it is for sure not anonymous but contains the typical inscription "Phot. [F/H] XYZ" with Phot. meaning de:Fotograf (written Photograph before the German orthography reform).
Thats all I know and I play the ball over to you. From my point of view all images are not public domain unless Bauman is identified, the lifedata of Böhm becomes known and (that can apply to all files) a better scan of the postcards was made to check the complete inscription. Maybe also booksearch can help, e.g. Paul Böhms Elisabeth photo is described in Google Books (search term: "Maude Fay" OR "Maud Fay" photographie). --Martin H. (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

From my current understanding, I think it would be better to upload all of them to the English Wikipedia site and delete them, and the category (since it will be empty), from Commons. Do you think this would solve the problems? --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploading to en.wp will be a sollution. Use en:Template:Do not move to Commons. If known you can use the templates expiry parameter {{Do not move to Commons|expiry=2020}}, the expiry year for e.g. Grainer (died 1948) is 2018 so that the warning will disappear on January 1 2019. --Martin H. (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Théâtre de la Gaîté[edit]

Hello and thank you for your message.
I had in fact been wanting to take a photo of the Théâtre de la Gaîté but it was covered in tarpaulins during all or most of 2010. I have only just now found out (from en:Théâtre de la Gaîté !) that it was re-opened in December. Let's hope the façade hasn't been completely re-designed (no FOP in France). In any case I'll certainly go and take a look as soon as the sun starts peeping out again. And, yes, I too am willing to bet that the photos you pointed out are all copyrighted.
As regards the Palais Royal, it happens to be one of the places I like most in Paris, and though I am by no means a connoisseur in matters of architecture or photography, I do intend to return there as soon as the sun... etc.
Please feel free to make any other suggestions or requests. If I don't feel up to the task, I should be able to pass them on to others who are.
Mu (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is what it looked like a bit earlier today: Category:Théâtre de la Gaîté. The light wasn't too great, but as I happened to be in the area I thought I might as well make a start :-) Mu (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
FOP is a pain in the butt (see here for a more technical explanation) but in this case it fortunately didn't apply. I don't know which photo to choose. I was rather hoping you would select one for the English article, so that I could then do the same for the French article, but that may be a bit cheeky of me. The fact is, all of them are rather bland. I was thinking of making a second attempt, maybe in March or April, before the leaves grow back on the trees and when the light is hopefully better. Or perhaps at night, when the shows start up again, reportedly some time in March. In the meanwhile, many thanks for your encouragements and feedback. – Mu (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Just what I needed... again, many thanks! Thus emboldened, I have illustrated the French article, also adding a photo of the statue on the left of the façade: "Comedy" by Amédée Doublemard. I have failed so far to ascertain the exact name and dates of the sculptor of the second statue, "Drama", but that may come later. – Mu (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Théâtre de Nicolet

I fully agree with the change you suggest, i.e. redirecting to Category:Théâtre de la Gaîté (boulevard du Temple). Regarding the new article and the new images on WP, congratulations! (One minor point: "M. Sartines" can be linked to en:Antoine de Sartine.) Now that the French version has been made obsolete, I or somebody else will soon be putting your work to good use. All best, Mu (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Source for the 1609 Quesnel map of Paris[edit]

The link which you provided as the source of File:Plan de Paris en 1609.jpg appears to be incorrect. Is it possible to correct it? (I realize it has been over a year since you uploaded it, but I thought you might still have the correct link somewhere or know where to find it.) Thanks for help. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour, j'ai modifié la source, bonne journée. --Thesupermat (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Title page of Orfeo ed Euridice[edit]

Hello, Robert. Both Commons articles "File:Gluck's Orphée - title page illustration (lightened and cropped).jpg" (which you have edited yourself), and "File:Orfeo ed Euridice.jpg" bear the same description, “From the title page of the 1774 Paris score of Gluck's opera Orphée” , and state 1774 as the date of publication. When I edited the Italian Wikipedia article Orfeo ed Euridice (Gluck), I ascertained (I now wonder how and if my statement is right!) that it is in fact the front page of the original 1762 Vienna score that was first published in Paris in 1764. I own a festival performance programme (VII Festival Internazionale di Marlia, 1984) where the whole image is reproduced, and it bears at its foot the wording in Italian, “Euridice amor ti rende (atto II, Sc. II)”, which might seem rather unlikely as the front page of the French version. In any case, the source, Austria-Forum, indicated in your said article states “The picture shows the title-page of the Paris print of 1764”, which seems to corroborate my assertion in the Italian Wikipedia.
I wonder if you would be so kind as to check your sources and possibly help me clarify the question (however minor it may be). Thank you very much in advance. --Jeanambr (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you must be correct. I don't remember now what I was thinking at the time, but I may have erroneously concluded that the date on the web page Austria-Forum was just a typo, thinking that it must be the cover of a score of the French version first performed in 1774, since it was published in Paris. (If so, I should have documented that more carefully.) From your description it sounds like the Italian text was part of the original cover. Are you planning to upload a scan of the version with the Italian text? Do we have information corroborating that the Italian version was published in Paris in 1764? In any case, thanks very much for pointing out this inconsistency. --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I checked Patricia Howard's book, and on p. 6 she documents that the Italian score was indeed published in Paris by Duchesne in 1764. I will edit the errors here and at the English Wikipedia. Thanks again! --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
And I will edit them at the other Wikipedias. Thank you very much again. --Jeanambr (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Images of a French singer[edit]

Hi, Robert: as I have met you here, I would like to avail myself of this opportunity, in the hope I am not bothering you too much. I have found in the online site cesar.org.uk some nice images of the singer Étienne Lainez in costume (as Dardanus and Rodrigue) which would fit very well for the articles w:en:Dardanus (Sacchini) (and its corresponding Italian one) and w:it:Chimène (which I will shortly try to translate into English, too). I wonder if it is possible and lawful to upload those images ([1] and [2] onto the Commons, but, even if it is, I fear I may not be able to do that myself. If you could take a look at the question, when you have some spare time (and provided you feel like it), I’d be very much obliged to you. Cheers. --Jeanambr (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

These are public domain, so it is no problem to upload them. In my opinion the pics could be modified to improve their look, but some people prefer to leave them untouched. In any case the untouched images can be uploaded, and a retouched one can either be loaded up to the same page, or under a different file name. If you have never uploaded, you might wish to try in order to learn, or if you prefer, I can do it for you. I usually use this form for uploading. Start with the "Choose file" button and work your way through the form. The url goes in "Source"; for date I would probably use the year of first performance (since these were typically created at the time of the premier). For the "Licensing" drop-down you should probably select "Author died more than 100 years ago". (If I have not covered something, feel free to ask more questions.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I've tried, somehow! Thank you again. --Jeanambr (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I see it worked for you, and you documented it nicely. Congratulations! --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

About your request for suppression of the image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Disque_perso-Kalioujny_par_Gestalder.jpg[edit]

Hello, I'm the autor of this photography that represent a sculpture realised by my father Jacques Gestalder. In Wikimedia Commons this picture is categorised as in the public domain. So could you tell me, where is the problem ? David-commons (talk)

Thanks very much for your response. It's a great picture to have here, so I hope you will follow up on this, so that the picture will not get nominated again for deletion. I may be mistaken, but I believe you need to go through a procedure to prove that you are indeed the copyright holder in the original work and give permission for the photo (a derivative work) of it to be licensed for free distribution. Please check here: Commons:OTRS. Also this discussion should probably be copied to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disque perso-Kalioujny par Gestalder.jpg, which will help delay any action until the question is resolved. (If I am wrong in making this nomination, the OTRS people will likely tell you that. I'm not experienced enough to know for sure. In any case, the nomination was made in good faith, according to my understanding of the copyright issues involved.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, thanks a lot for your explainations. I'm writting by email to OTRS members for regularisation of the situation. David-commons (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Expanded François Chereau[edit]

Thank you for the inspiration in our discussions about Jacques Cheréau. I have expanded François Chereau and have material to make an atelier page as you suggested for the rest of the family. The British Museum has a portrait of the grandson who reunited the family collection of prints, Jacques-François Chéreau, but I do not know if it is acceptable to import to Wiki Commons. If it were, it would make a lovely image for atelier page. Please make any changes in the page, citations, French accents whatever you might find that needs correction. My English suffers as I am beginning to speak French after all these nights poking around in the ancien regieme! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the acute accents may be on the wrong "e". Shouldn't it be "Chéreau"?. The image should be fine to upload. Anything where the author died more than 70 years ago and published before 1923 can be uploaded to Commons. And the museum website even says for educational non-commercial purposes there is not problem to use it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: PD-100 template[edit]

Robert, the PD-100 is not applicable for US-side because it is not the reason the image is PD in the US. The image is PD in the US because it was published before 1923, not because the author has died more than so many years ago. US-side laws are determined by publication status first; only if the image is published after 1978 in certain circumstances, after 2002 in all circumstances, or never published at all do we consider post mortem auctoris and apply such tags for the US side.

Note that the other tag is for the image's country of origin (as stated in bold in the PD-Art-two/PD-Art wrappers). That country in this case would be Italy, which has 70-year pma. If this was a Mexican piece of art whose creator died more than 100 years ago, then PD-100 would have been used. Jappalang (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert, I reiterate: the PD-Art wrapper asks for the conditions why the image is public domain in its country of origin. Under the Berne convention, the country of origin is where the work is first published. File:Final scene of Act1 of 'The Pearl Fishers' by Bizet - Gallica.jpg is first published in Italy, not Mexico, not the US, not anywhere else. Its country of origin is unequivocally Italy. We do not use a 100-year pma template because it is not accurate; Italy does not have 100-year pma, it has 70-year pma. {{PD-old}}, the original and parent of all PD-old-x templates, was designed for post mortem auctoris conditions; read the template page. That some people, on their own initiative and inaccurate interpretations, altered the original intent of the child templates into inaccurate ones is no excuse to continue propagating such errors. Unless the work concerned is in the US because of pma (unpublished, post-2002 publication, or publication during 1982–2002 under certain conditions), a separate tag for US copyright status is needed. Whether the image is PD in countries other than the country of origin (and the US) is for the re-user to determine. Jappalang (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Robert, the issue is how the templates are used. As I no longer have the urge to contribute to the WMF projects, I think it is moot for me to continue the discussion. Good luck in all your endeavours and fare thy well. Jappalang (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Gallica images[edit]

Hello! It seems that I've finally found another method to get images from gallica in high resolution. Unfortunately it's not that easy as before. To be honest it's very tricky, and I'm not able to explain how it works. So what I can offer to you is to upload Gallica images to Commons when you need them. Post your wishes on my discussion page or send me an email via Wikipedia. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks your notice. I will revert to the last version.--Paris 16 (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

System not generating thumbnails for a recently uploaded file[edit]

Plan of the Archbishop's Palace, Bourges

The system does not appear to be generating thumbnails for File:Plan du palais archiépiscopal de Bourges by Pierre Bullet - Gallica.jpg. The file itself seems to have uploaded OK, so not sure why this is so. When I tried to display one of the standard sizes on the file page, e.g., 320 x 202 pixels, I get the following error message: "Error generating thumbnail. Error creating thumbnail: convert: Insufficient memory (case 4) `/tmp/localcopy_22666eae7c5f-1.jpg' @ error/jpeg.c/EmitMessage/235. convert: missing an image filename `/tmp/transform_4fab1cfb5746-1.jpg' @ error/convert.c/ConvertImageCommand/2970." Is there a way to fix this? --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The file is saved in progressive (interlaced) mode. This means that the entire 70 megapixel image has to be loaded into memory to generate thumbnails. The server's resources are finite and shared, so this won't work with large progressive JPEGs. The solution is to use baseline (non-interlaced) mode instead. See Commons:FAQ#What resolution should the images I upload be? and Commons:Maximum file size for details. LX (talk, contribs) 15:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Church-Saint-Jacques-du-Haut-Pas (rue saint-Jacques - Paris Ve arrondissement).JPG[edit]

Hello, the original image was in reality a duplicate or scaled down version of the second picture. So I have merged historic dans deleted the first photo. see the log here. Greetings. --M0tty (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, you can compare the tow files : Old & New. There are exactly the same. I corrected the description. Greetings. --M0tty (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done File:Rue Saint-Jacques Eglise saint Jacques du haut Pas.JPG --M0tty (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Cour d'honneur[edit]

Hi Robert Allen! I am not sure, but it seems like french wikipedian prefer Cour d'honneur, not capitalized. You can ask someone who lives in Paris (Jebulon, Jastrow... ) for a better answer.--Paris 16 (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Half-toning[edit]

Hey, Robert!

One thing people often don't realise is that half-toning can actually refer to quite a number of similar processes, some of which are far easier to fix than others. Can you show me a sample of the particular one you're working with?

Cheers,

-Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear. That's the really annoying kind. The best thing is probably to put a strong blur on it, downscale a bit, then apply sharpening. There's only so much resolution you're going to get, given that's a fairly coarse half-toning. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:New Theatre[edit]

What happened to Category:New Theatre? Hamblin (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Oh -- I found it, at Category:New Theatre (Central Park West). Hamblin (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Gabrielle Krauss[edit]

Hi Robert ,

Regarding the unidentified role photo for Gabrielle Krauss , Madame Krauss is in the role of "Sapho" in Charles Gounouds opera of the same name . The photo was taken around 1884 when the opera was presented by the Paris Opéra at the Palais Garnier from 2 April to 29 December 1884 in a Revised version, conducted by Charles Gounod . I have a cabinet card of Madame Krauss (head and Shoulders) also by Benque in the same role , the details have been endorsed on the back of the photo by the original owner . Hope this is of help to you

cheers Gary

Category:Giuseppe_Canella_(1788)[edit]

Louperivois Ψ @ 11:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Abraham Louis Breguet 02.jpg[edit]

This file does not lack a source. It is merely a deadlink. --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken with description of {{No source since}}-status. The source is not just direct link to file or to page with it - the source is the source of essential information for verification of the copyright status. Deadlink can be restored with WBM. The real solution is not your deadlink-mark, but the real solution is your museum link. Alex Spade (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it should not have been nominated it for deletion, since the source information was present. In fact there was very little reason to doubt the image was PD or the source incorrect. There also seems to be an assumption of bad faith on the part of the user who uploaded it. There must be a template for asking editors to double check copyright status, which does not nominate for deletion. I think that is overdoing it. There must be a huge number of PD images on Commons where the original source link is now dead. Commons is like an archive of PD images that are no longer available at the original website, and that is one it's great virtues. It seems to me nominating these for deletion for lack of source information is incorrect, since the original source info is there. Nominating for deletion is potentially destructive to the project. I think we should seriously consider a different way of doing this. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
"there was very little reason to doubt the image was PD". Obvious or nearly obvious PD-status is unimportant in this case. Source (source of essential information for verification of the copyright status) must be always specified and must be verifiable. For example, adequate source could give us author name, which should be specified in most countries even for PD-works.
"There must be a huge number of PD images on Commons where the original source link is now dead. <...> the original source info is there" Do you read my answer? Deadlink is not problem - I have easily restored and recheked original page with WBM (missing file is not problem too, there were its html-traces), but there is no essential information for verification of the copyright status. Alex Spade (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I find your arguments and explanations opaque. How can you say there is any reasonable doubt concerning copyright status when it is most likely an oil portrait painted during the lifetime of a subject born in 1747? Apparently you yourself could have made a constructive edit, i.e., you could have added information that supported the copyright status. If not, you could ask other editors to do so. Why would you make an indirect nominations for speedy delete when there is no reason to do so. Any nomination of this file for deletion should be discussed. I don't see in this case where a nomination for speedy delete is at all justified. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Agence Meurisse[edit]

In this edit, you categorized Henri Meurisse in Agence de presse Meurisse.

This press agency were created by another Meurisse, Louis Meurisse. --Dereckson (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey! You even misattributed a photo with your idea to guess who is the author of this Agence meurisse fund.
I fixed that here and here.
If you made other guesses like that, please check them carefully. --Dereckson (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe they are likely one and the same. Check here. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Compare this photo (attributed to Henri-Louis Meurisse) and this photo (attributed to Agence Meurisse). Same subject, same clothing, same background, and likely taken during the same photo session. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Also note that in the second year after the death of Henri-Louis Meurisse, the Agence Meurisse (likely consisting of a substantial collection of copyrighted negatives and prints) was merged into (sold to?) another agency. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Biography in the BNF Gallica blog and fr:Agence de presse Meurisse says Louis Meurisse, you said Henri Meurisse in title. So the confusion.
There is an Henri Meurisse entry in the Getty Research Institute authority file (the Union List of Artist Names), which you linked in your Creator template through VIAF, with an alternative form of « Meurisse, Henri Louis‏ ».
We need more proof to know the exact name, there are very few stuff, except this authority notice. But yes, it seems it could be him. For example, in this book, they states he comes to Paris in 1890 with already a solid background in photography, that's coherent with someone born in 1872. --Dereckson (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Picquet map of Paris 1814 - U of Chicago.jpg[edit]

Hi Robert Allen! I just join the left and right halves. And I don't known how to download a zoomable image. Do you have a tool to download a picture on Gallica?--Paris 16 (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

institution:Deutsches Historisches Museum ‎ [edit]

thank you--Oursana (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem, happy to be able to help out! --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Maps from Traité de la police[edit]

OK! Thank Robert Allen!--Paris 16 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hachette Livre[edit]

Hi Robert.Allen! Do you think the name "Hachette" (not include (firm), (publisher) or Livre) is better?--Paris 16 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I see only 3 peoples named Hachette and not famous, so I think the name "Hachette" is the best choice.--Paris 16 (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Louvre[edit]

Hi Robert.Allen. I dont known who is P. Philibert and when he died. Google don't help much. The alternative is very nice. Thank you!--Paris 16 (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Occupations[edit]

Aloha! I added hairdresser|barber|coiffeur=hairdresser to the ocupation list. That should do it. :-) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

re: Portrait of a Lute Player by Annibale Carracci[edit]

Salve Robert, mi scuso innazitutto se rispondo in italiano, ma il mio inglese è davvero troppo rudimentale. Se per te è un problema cercherò di tradurre (come posso). Se non ho capito male mi chiedi di precisare la fonte della foto: mi spiace ma dato il tempo passato (luglio 2014) non sono proprio in grado di ricordarlo. Se però ritieni che la foto non vada bene e che le versioni precedenti fossero migliori sostituiscila pure. Mi scuso ancora per non aver risposto in inglese e sono a tua disposizione. Un saluto--Never covered (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Outside stairs[edit]

Hi Robert.Allen! Is there something like "street stairs"? I want to create a subcategory of Outside stairs in Paris but I am not sure about the name. Thanks!--Paris 16 (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Paris 16, I see you did it already, and I think that name is fine. Best regards, --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert.Allen! Can you help me translate this table. Thank you very much!--Paris 16 (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi User:Paris 16, these would be my choices (of course, I don't really know what is being described):

--Robert.Allen (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank Robert.Allen! It the legend of a map of Paris. Thank again!--Paris 16 (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Robert.Allen! In English, what we call the doors like this one?--Paris 16 (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank Robert.Allen. But there are many kinds of gates in the Category:Security gates. Maybe the name "Barred doors" is better in this case?--Paris 16 (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hôtel de Monaco[edit]

Hi, take care there are TWO " Hôtel de Monaco " on the same site (before - destroyed - and after 1838). Sincerely. --6PO 20:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:6PO, It seems better the way you have it organized now. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Robert.Allen, thank you very much. --6PO 13:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hughes/Hugues Taraval[edit]

Hello Robert Allen, it seems you changed category Hughes Taraval to category Hugues Taraval . But the real name is Hughes not Hugues. Please check if you are ok with me and if so, correct your changes. Faithfully yours.--Faqscl (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Faqscl: According to the The Dictionary of Art, his name is Hugues. Also, please check the authority control files BnF and ULAN. "Hughes" is an alternative spelling of his name and not the preferred spelling. I also checked the Benezit Dictionary of Artists, which gives "TARAVAL, Hugues or Jean Hugues".--Robert.Allen (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick answer. So I think you are right (... but french wiki is not !!!). Faithfully yours.--Faqscl (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear User:Faqscl: "Right" and "Wrong" is not entirely clear. In those days people did not always spell names consistently, so he may have sometimes used the spelling "Hughes". However, "Hugues" is the commonly accepted modern spelling, so it has probably won out. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
So, Hugues Taraval is now on French wiki instead of Hughes ! Thank you. --Faqscl (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Entrance to old Louvre courtyard, Paris July 2014.jpg[edit]

Hi Paris 16, This should be a featured picture. Would you be willing to nominate it? I don't know how. (Perhaps it was uploaded too long ago? I don't know the rules.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Salut Robert.Allen! The quality of this picture is not good (noise, blown areas). There is no chance. Sorry!--Paris 16 (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I see, technical issues will outweigh what it shows. Perhaps someday someone will take a better shot of the same unique view. (Although I think this is a very difficult shot to make perfect, i.e., focus and exposure.) Do you know what causes the noise? Anyway, thanks User:Paris 16 for the advice! --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Robert ,you can read Image noise to known about the causes of the noise.--Paris 16 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Plans of the Palais du Louvre[edit]

Hi Robert

I had created some plans of the Louvre. But it's difficult to make the names and the descriptions. Can you help me?--Paris 16 (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to give new names to the files and descriptions to the file pages? It would appear you plan to replace the maps I already made with your new images. Naturally I prefer my own maps, so why should I want to help you? --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Your maps is very good, it give me the informations and inspirations to create the new one. But SVG is better than JPG, and I had created totally 12 maps. And this is Commons, where we work together.
Yes, but the advantages of SVG are minimal these days, from my point of view. I prefer to use Photoshop which I already have and know how to use (which is why I decided to use it). You decided to use SVG on your own, without any discussion, so I'm not inclined to help. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, thank you! But why you said "without any discussion". What I am doing here?--Paris 16 (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wings of the Palais du Louvre[edit]

Hi! Most of categories of the Louvre is in French. So I think the Denon Wing, Richelieu Wing and Rohan Wing should be in French too. What do you think?--Paris 16 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Paris 16: Commons policy "Category names" says to use English except for names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language (an example of this might be "Cour Carrée") or when there is no evidence of usage of an English-language version. I checked the Louvre article in the Michelin Green Guide, which uses "Richelieu wing", "Sully wing", etc. Perhaps "Wing" should not be capitalized. Along the same line, I think we should consider renaming Category:Louvre médiéval to something like Category:Medieval Louvre Exhibit, and Category:Château du Louvre to Category:Medieval Louvre (because in my experience, I have never seen "Château du Louvre" used to refer to the Medieval Louvre, except at Commons). Also, since the term Renaissance Louvre is used to refer to the Louvre as it existed from about 1528 to 1624 (that is from the time of Lescot's modifications until Louis XIII began the expansion of the Cour Carrée), we might consider creating Category:Renaissance Louvre as a related history category. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:Paris 16.

Facade categories[edit]

This is my choise.--Paris 16 (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Paris 16 sandbox 21.svg
   Cour du Carrousel
  • 1N: North facade of the Pavillon de Marsan
  • 1S: South facade of the Pavillon de Marsan
  • 1W: West facade of the Pavillon de Marsan
  • 2N: South facade of the Aile de Marsan
  • 2S: North facade of the Aile de Marsan
  • 3N: South facade of the Aile de Rohan
  • 3S: North facade of the Aile de Rohan
  • 4N: South facade of the Pavillon de Rohan
  • 4S: North facade of the Pavillon de Rohan
  • 3b: Aile en retour Turgot???
  • 17b: Aile en retour Mollien???
  • 5N: South facade of the Pavillon Lesdiguières
  • 5S: North facade of the Pavillon Lesdiguières
  • 6N: South facade of the Pavillon de La Trémoille
  • 6S: North facade of the Pavillon de La Trémoille
  • 56N: South facade of the Guichets du Louvre‎
  • 56S: North facade of the Guichets du Louvre‎
  • 7N: South facade of the Grande Galerie occidentale
  • 7S: North facade of the Grande Galerie occidentale
  • 8: Pavillon des Sessions
  • 8b: Porte des lions
  • 9N: North facade of the Aile de Flore
  • 9S: South facade of the Aile de Flore
  • 10N: North facade of the Pavillon de Flore
  • 10S: South facade of the Pavillon de Flore
  • 10W: West facade of the Pavillon de Flore
   Cour Napoléon
  • RN: North facade of the Aile Richelieu
  • RS: South facade of the Aile Richelieu
  • 1: Pavillon de la Bibliothèque
  • 3: Pavillon Turgot
  • 4: Aile Turgot
  • 5: Pavillon Richelieu
  • 6: Aile Colbert
  • 7: Pavillon Colbert
  • 8: Rotonde de Beauvais
  • 9: Aile Henri IV or West facade of the Aile Lemercier
  • 10: Pavillon Sully
  • 11: Aile Henri II of West facade of the Aile Lescot
  • SW: West facade of the Aile Sully
  • DN: North facade of the Aile Denon
  • 12: Rotonde d'Apollon
  • 13: Pavillon Daru
  • 14: Aile Daru
  • 15: Pavillon Denon
  • 16: Aile Mollien
  • 17: Pavillon Mollien
  • 18: East facade of the Petite Galerie
  • 19: South facade of the Grande Galerie orientale
  • 20???
   Cour Carrée
  • SN: North facade of the Aile Sully
  • SE: East facade of the Aile Sully
  • SS: South facade of the Aile Sully
  • CN: North facade of the Cour Carrée
  • CE: East facade of the Cour Carrée
  • CS: South facade of the Cour Carrée
  • 1: Pavillonde Beauvais
  • 3N: North facade of the Pavillon de Marengo
  • 3S: South of the Pavillon de Marengo
  • 4N: North facade of the Pavillon nord-est
  • 4E: East facade of the Pavillon nord-est
  • 6W: West facade of the Pavillon Saint-Germain l’Auxerrois
  • 6E: East facade of the Pavillon Saint-Germain l’Auxerrois
  • 7E: South facade of the Pavillon sud-est
  • 7S: East facade of the Pavillon sud-est
  • 9N: South facade of the Pavillon des Arts
  • 9S: North facade of the Pavillon des Arts
  • 11. Aile Lescot or East facade of the Aile Lescot
  • 12. Pavillon de l'Horloge
  • 13. Aile Lemercier or East facade of the Aile Lemercier
  • East facade of the Palais du Louvre: 20 + SE + 18
  • South facade of the Palais du Louvre: 10S, 7S, 19, SS
  • North facade of the Palais du Louvre: 1N, 2N, 3N, 4N, RN, SN
7S (East facade of the Pavillon sud-est): 9S, 8b, 5S, 6S, 56S

Hi User:Paris 16, You have done a lot of nice work on this very detailed map. I have some feedback on it that follows.

Splitting the Aile Lescot and the Aile Lemercier down the middle with different colors seem to imply there is a wall in the middle of the wing which divides it into two halves or two separate wings in parallel, but of course this is not the case. This could be avoided if you organized your coloring by the primary wings, rather than by the courtyards. [I suppose you could color the Rohan-Marsan wing snd the Grande Galerie occidentale differently, but the Louvre curators have included these in the Denon and Richelieu wings, so it's probably best to abide by their choice in this regard.]

I have not yet had time to look at everything on your map, but I did notice another discrepancy. The Grande Galerie orientale runs as far as the former Pavillon de la Lanterne, which was remodeled into the Pavillon Lesdiguières, and the Grande Galerie occidentale runs west from the same pavilion. Also the eastern end of the Grande Galerie does not include the south end of the Petite Galerie.

I find I am often getting confused between the three overlapping sets of numbers. Would it be better to use a single sequential numbering system, rather than three sets? Maybe start with the Pavillon de Marsan as number 1 and end up with the Pavillon de Flore as the highest number. Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you about the color of the primary wings, but it is not important. The question here is the way to categorise the facades of the Louvre. I will create a new plan after all of your advices.--Paris 16 (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Medieval Louvre[edit]

Hello,
On Commons, you replaced category:Château du Louvre (and sub categories) by category:medieval Louvre. It is an error. Château du Louvre was the castle built by Philippe Augustus. And now quite destroyed. Medieval Louvre (or in French Louvre medieval) is only a part of the modern Louvre museum with the remainings of this Chateau du Louvre. On French wikipedia, I created fr:Château du Louvre
So you replaced the categories of this former castle by a modern part of a museum. There are strange things :

  • Category:Louvre médiéval is a subcategory of Medieval Louvre.
  • Category:Plans of the medieval Louvre contains plans of the former castle. Not the plans of the Louvre médiéval of today.

It should be better to replace category:Château du Louvre by category:Louvre castle or Louvre fortress, to comply wikipedians rules.
Regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tangopaso, Did you check the comment I left on the talk page? "Château du Louvre" has been used by Louis Hautecoeur to refer to the Louvre under Louis XIV. The castle built by Philippe Augustus is called the "medieval Louvre" in the article on the Louvre in The Dictionary of Art (title: "Paris 6. Palais du Louvre. (i) Medieval"; author: Alain Erlande-Brandenburg; the first sentence begins: "The history of the medieval Louvre..."), and his article covers up up to around 1528, so this has certainly been a valid name, and in view of Hautecoeur, more so than Château du Louvre. Category:Louvre médiéval might be better renamed to Category:Medieval Louvre Exhibit or "Medieval Louvre (exhibit)" and probably should remain as a subcategory. I can also cite Yvan Christ's Le Louvre et les Tuileries (Paris, 1949), which has a chapter (pp. 9–14) entitled "Vie et Mort du Louvre médiéval (1190–1546)". Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the term "medieval" has gone out of fashion since 1996, when Erlande-Brandenburg wrote his article. Is there a source to support this? If so, I have less objection to category "Louvre castle" than to category "Louvre fortress", which seems less appropriate, since it would not really apply to the Louvre of Charles V. Perhaps I am old fashioned, but I find "medieval Louvre" a better historical category than "Louvre castle", since the term "castle" has also been applied to much more modern buildings and "Louvre castle" could perhaps be confused by some with the modern Louvre or at least cause some pause for thought. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Perhaps the words "medieval" in English and "médiéval" in French have not the same meaning. In French, it is used for a building, a quarter, a thing, an habit from the period of the Middle-Age (410-1453). In French, the word "médiéval" is not out of fashion.
OK for your references that I do not know. But I never heard "Chateau du Louvre" as a castle of Louis XIV. And at that time it was already a palace and not a castle.
I propose to transform Category:Château du Louvre into a disambiguation page :
Château du Louvre may refer to :
I propose also to replace Category:Louvre médiéval by Category:Louvre médiéval (exhibit). Please keep the expression "Louvre médiéval" in French with the accents because it is used. Like "Cour carrée" and not "Square yard".
Regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Tangopaso, As you well know, the medieval Louvre was built c. 1190–1200, but continued to exist, with some modifications, until about 1528 after which it was progressively demolished. Therefore, to call it the medieval Louvre over this time period is not incorrect. (Alain Erlande-Brandenburg [3] is a noted French medievalist, so you may rest assured that he knows whereof he writes in his article in The Dictionary of Art.) In addition, I can cite yet another English book that I own that uses Medieval Louvre: David Hanser's 2006 Architecture of France (pp. 113, 115). He has a section headed "The Medieval Louvre", followed by a section called "The Renaissance Louvre" (1546–1654) (see the Google Books limited preview here). These are architectural period style names, unlike the more vague "fortress", "castle", and "palace". The last has also been used to refer to the Louvre of Charles V ([4]). I think it is much better to name our history categories using the related architectural style names Medieval and Renaissance, especially since we mainly deal with images.
  • Re: "Château du Louvre": Jacques-François Blondel refers to the Louvre of 1754 as the "Château du Louvre" (Architecture françoise, tome 4, livre 6, chapitre 1, pp. 1–68; see his marginal notations beginning here and on the following pages). It seems rather incorrect to use this term to refer exclusively to the medieval Louvre. Also remember that Lescot's initial Renaissance design is believed to have been a typical château plan with an entrance screen on the east side. I certainly do not find your disambiguation page suggestion to be appropriate in this situation. In my opinion, we should avoid using "Château du Louvre" altogether, except perhaps as a redirect to Category:Palais du Louvre. "Château du Louvre" too non-specific.
  • Tangopaso, you might think about renaming the fr page to Château du Louvre (médiéval), which would be absolutely correct, and converting the fr page Château du Louvre to a disambig page (based on Blondel and/or Hautceoeur). (I don't think we would necessarily need to do that here on Commons however.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I dont agree. You have your books with Louvre médiéval. I have mine and my experience with Château du Louvre. I was there again this morning. For me, the unique Château du Louvre is the medieval one. Because when the château (castle) was destroyed (from circa 1560 to circa 1680), it was replaced by a palais Renaissance (renaissance palace), not a medieval or renaissance castle. A palace with large windows, large rooms and doors, high ceilings, many statues and reliefs, no defensive towers, no defensive walls. In French-language, this is the difference between the words château or forteresse (defensive ones) and palais (ornemental building). --Tangopaso (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tangopaso, Of course, you have a right to your opinion, but usually we rely on sources, not our opinions, so your response confuses me. With respect to calling the late 17th- and 18th-century Louvre a château, you are disagreeing with the French architectural historians Jacques-François Blondel and Louis Hautecoeur, not with me. And there are plenty of French Renaissance châteaux. Jean-Pierre Babelon wrote a lengthy book on them: Chateaux de France au siècle de la Renaissance (1989, 839 pages) ISBN 9782080120625. It's a very good book. I recommend it. And what about the Château de Versailles? --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Re: "Medieval Louvre exhibit": in English-language guide books it is often referred to as the Medieval Louvre section or exhibit (see this Google Books search). The English version of the Louvre website also refers to the exhibit as "Medieval Louvre" (see here in the English pdf). I have not yet found any examples in English that use the French version "Louvre médiéval". As an aside, I mention that the use of French aile for wing is rare in English. I have linked numerous examples for User:Paris 16, where wing is used in English, e.g., "Lescot wing", "Richelieu wing", "Rohan wing", etc. These are are not like, for example, the French names "Cour Carrée" and "Pavillon de l'Horloge", which are almost invariably used in English. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
PS - Ayer's book is in English. The title of his article is "Palais du Louvre", and this French name is frequently used in English, so there is no problem to use it here. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • About Château du Louvre vs Louvre médiéval, the situation is not as clear as you say : I looked in a book of Viollet-le-Duc (who was the most famous French architect in the 19th century) :
https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_raisonn%C3%A9_de_l%27architecture_fran%C3%A7aise_du_XIe_au_XVIe_si%C3%A8cle.
With the keyword Château, you can find 9 mentions of Château du Louvre and zero of Louvre médiéval. And with the keyword Paris, you have an important paragraph about Château du Louvre and none about Louvre médiéval.
Thanks for finding this. I was looking in his books yesterday but was unable to find this. I'll take a look at it later when I get back from the gym. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tangopaso, Viollet-le-Duc was of course a medievalist. Note his title: Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle (for dates, see Roman­esque and Gothic architecture). His subject is primarily French medieval architecture, so when he mentions the Louvre, by definition he means the medieval Louvre. To write "Louvre médiéval" would be redundant. Also, he indexes the Louvre under Château du Louvre [5] but that in no way limits the use of this term to the medieval Louvre. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Conrad Rudolph (in his introduction to A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe, 2006) writes: "But certainly the most brilliant figure in France at this time in medieval archaeology – as medieval art history was called by the French – was the archi­tect and scholar, Eugene-Emmanuel Viollet-Ie-Duc. Among his many influential writings are the Dictionnaire raisonné de l'architecture (1854-68) and Entretiens sur l'architecture (1863-72), two works that give full expressions of Roman­esque and Gothic structure, function, and design."
It is remarkable that Viollet-le-Duc seems to never use the word "médiéval" anywhere in his book (in the title or the text), but instead refers to the "moyen âge". I suppose some of his opponents at the École des Beaux-Arts may have used "médiéval" as a derogatory term, so maybe he avoided it for that reason. --Robert.Allen (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • For Louvre médiéval vs medieval Louvre, I went to the Louvre this monday morning and you are right : in English language, the name is medieval Louvre. I agree to rename Category:Louvre médiéval. But is Category:medieval Louvre (exhibit) the right name ? In French, the word for exhibit (exposition) is mainly for temporary exhibits. Perhaps Category:medieval Louvre (museum) should be better. What is your opinion ? --Tangopaso (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tangopaso, In English, a temporary exhibit is usually referred to as an exhibition (as in "exhibition catalog"), whereas an exhibit in a museum is usually considered permanent, not created with a termination date in mind. The category should probably be Category:Medieval Louvre (exhibit), since the first word of a category name is usually capitalized.--Robert.Allen (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Done (I did not know the difference between exhibit and exhibition). --Tangopaso (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tangopaso, I think maybe my explanation is not quite right. One can have temporary exhibits. An exhibition is a larger entity. It can have many exhibits. The OED has a definition 4b for "exhibit:" which reads "one of the objects composing an ‘exhibition’."

Construction history of the Louvre[edit]

Paris 16 sandbox 24.svg

References: 1 2 3 4

I think this is one of most important plan of the Louvre. But when I saw the plans and read the history of the Louvre, I was very confused. Can you help me again? Thank you!--Paris 16 (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Paris 16: I will send you Yvan Christ's map, when I get a chance. It's quite good. After you look at it, ask me some specific questions, by e-mail if you prefer. I will try to give short answers. Naturally, all these kinds of maps have to oversimplify things. Still, they are very attractive and interesting. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank Robert.Allen!--Paris 16 (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Paris 16: I've e-mailed you Yvan Christ's map. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank Robert.Allen! It's really great plans.--Paris 16 (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Facade categories of the Louvre[edit]

Hi Robert.Allen! This is my new proposal to categorise the facade categories of the Louvre and I want to know your opinion. You can modify directly that page to discuss. Thank you!--Paris 16 (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Will try to look at this soon. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Paris 16: Some preliminary thoughts: The east facade is so famous. I would suggest keeping "East facade of the Palais du Louvre". "North facade of the Aile Richelieu" seems fine to me, but I'm not too sure about those "en retour" names. "West facade of the Aile Richelieu" and "West facade of the Aile Denon" will probably be more widely understood and are more consistent with the other names on the map. I like dividing the Grande Galerie into east and west, but will most non-French know what "occidentale" and "orientale" mean? Are names like "South facade of the western Grande Galerie" and "South facade of the eastern Grande Galerie" a possibility? (Did you notice in the article on the chiffres in the Louvre magazine, they referred to "aile Denon, côté Seine". I don't prefer this, but just mention it, as an example of the variety of names that can be used.) I wonder about the extent of the Sully wing. According to the Atlas database, it includes the two short passages leading to the Richelieu and Denon wings. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert.Allen. There are some changes after I saw the General plan of the Louvre – Agenece d'architecture 2006 and your opinions.

  • East facade of the Aile Richelieu or East facade of the Aile de l'Oratoire: I think East facade of the Aile Richelieu is better.
  • South facade of the Petite Galerie or Pavillon Charles-IX: I prefer the name Pavillon Charles-IX. There are already the category Balcon de Charles IX.
  • For the east facade, I think we should chance "East facade of the Palais du Louvre" -> Perrault's Colonnade. So the east facade of the Palais du Louvre = East facade of the Aile Richelieu (or Aile de l'Oratoire) + Perrault's Colonnade + East facade of the Petite Galerie.
  • I am not sur about the "West facade of the Aile Richelieu" and "West facade of the Aile Denon", but "en retour" names are not good too.
  • "South facade of the western Grande Galerie" and "South facade of the eastern Grande Galerie": OK.
  • And about the extent of the Sully wing, I hope you will find the final answer.

Thank you!--Paris 16 (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Paris 16: Regarding your points, here are my thoughts:

  • East facade of the Aile Richelieu or East facade of the Aile de l'Oratoire: I think East facade of the Aile Richelieu is better.
I agree with this.
  • South facade of the Petite Galerie or Pavillon Charles-IX: I prefer the name Pavillon Charles-IX. There are already the category Balcon de Charles IX.
Although it resembles a pavilion on the south facade, it is not really, because on the interior it is the end of a long gallery rather than a pavilion, so I don't favor calling it a paviion. @Paris 16: Also, the east facade doesn't show any articulation of a pavilion on the south end (see File:Paris - Palais du Louvre - PA00085992 - 679.jpg).
  • For the east facade, I think we should change "East facade of the Palais du Louvre" -> Perrault's Colonnade. So the east facade of the Palais du Louvre = East facade of the Aile Richelieu (or Aile de l'Oratoire) + Perrault's Colonnade + East facade of the Petite Galerie.
I see your point, however, Perrault's sole authorship of the Colonnade is (after more than three centuries!) still disputed. I think "East facade of the Sully Wing" or "Colonnade of the Palais du Louvre" would both be better. Actually, Colonnade is a metonym and really only refers to a part of the facade.
@Paris 16: Another possibility might be to create a category "East facades of the Palais du Louvre", which would include East facade of the Petite Galerie and East facade of the Richelieu Wing. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Paris 16: Other possibilities: "East facade of the Colonnade Wing (Louvre)", or "East facade of the Aile de la Colonnade (Louvre)". --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not sure about the "West facade of the Aile Richelieu" and "West facade of the Aile Denon", but "en retour" names are not good too.
Since you use "East facade of the Aile Richelieu" and "South facade of the Aile Richelieu", I think "West facade of the Aile Richelieu" is fine. Or are you thinking that the west facade of the Pavillon de Marsan is part of this? I don't usually, but strictly speaking, that might be correct. I doubt most people would think to include it, however. In this vein, is "North facade of the Aile Richelieu" better than, for example, "North facade of the Aile de Rivoli" (since strictly speaking, the Aile Richelieu includes the Rohan/Marsan wings). We could have "South facade of the Aile Denon" include "South facade of the Petite Galerie", "South facade of the eastern Grande Galerie" and "South facade of the western Grande Galerie". After c. 1861 the latter also includes "South facade of the Aile de Flore", "South facade of the Pavillon des Sessions" and "South facade of the Grands Guichets du Louvre". But, so far, only for the last do we have enough pics to create a separate category.
  • "South facade of the western Grande Galerie" and "South facade of the eastern Grande Galerie": OK.
  • And about the extent of the Sully wing, I hope you will find the final answer.
Check Atlas Database: By room / Sully wing / 1st Floor / Show map. It includes "Decorative Arts / Room 33 / Mazarin" (which connects to the Richelieu wing) and "Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Antiquities / Room 34 / Antique glassware room" (which connects to the Denon wing). [I also note that in English they use "wing" not "aile". For now, for cats, can we leave Denon, Sully, and Richelieu as wings? Like you say, these names are for tourists, who are more likely to know "wing". Also, it's so much work to change all of these! :-)] --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I regret now I created these "wing" names, but at the time we only had the cats "Aile Lescot" and "Aile Lemercier", and I had forgotten about them until I came across them later. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The extent of the Sully wing:
  • Sully wing / rez-de-chaussée: Yes (south) and No (north)
  • Sully wing / 1st Floor: Yes
  • Sully wing / 2nd Floor: No (north) and ? (south)
  • Richelieu wing / rez-de-chaussée: No
  • Richelieu wing / 1st Floor: Yes
  • Richelieu wing / 2nd Floor: No
  • Denon wing / rez-de-chaussée: Yes
  • Denon wing / 1st Floor: Yes

I think there are not an exact definition of the Sully wing.--Paris 16 (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Guess I should have looked at more! [Maybe this happened because different departments were responsible for creating the signs to label these rooms.] What a nuisance! So what do we do? Actually "Sully wing / 2nd Floor: No" isn't really a "no" (on the south), since I don't think there is a picture gallery in that location. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe just change the color in the middle of the passage between the two wings, since the Louvre people can't seem to make up their minds. (Of course, that might imply a wall, or something. Oh well, life isn't perfect. :-) --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Robert.Allen. I think we should not change until we are sure. Life isn't perfect, so the Louvre plan isn't perfect too.--Paris 16 (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It is perfect now?--Paris 16 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Paris 16: Seems fine. (You could probably leave out "and South facade of the Guichets de Rohan".) Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Galerie Napoléon and Tuileries[edit]

Hi Robert.Allen! Should we keep the "Galerie Napoléon"? It includes only 2 wings and 2 pavilions. This name is not usual. And I don't think the Tuileries is a wing of the Louvre. It is a other palace.--Paris 16 (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Paris 16: We will need a category for the historical images of the Galerie Napoléon, before Lefuel's addition of the Marsan wing in 1875. (I have some I can add later. The Aisle de Marsan did not really exist before then.) Regarding the Tuileries, after the Palais des Tuileries and the Château du Louvre were joined at the north and south ends under Napoleon III, they became one building, and it is shown on the historical plans by both Louis Hautecoeur and Yvan Christ. That's why I included it. Although they were one building for only a short time, I don't think it hurts to keep it there. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@Paris 16: It occurs to me that some people might object to calling this wing after Napoleon. We could rename it the politically more neutral Galerie Nord. Is this something we need to be concerned about? --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Louvre details plan
Hi Robert.Allen!That means my plan is still good?--Paris 16 (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Paris 16: Your map looks very nice. Good job! --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Rousseau cour Napoleon Louvre.jpg[edit]

Hi Robert, I simply forgot to add the correct PD tag. Thanks for adding it. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Grande Galerie : room vs wing[edit]

@Paris 16: I think we may have another problem with the naming of the Grande Galerie. We should probably categorize the wing and the room on the first floor of the wing separately. Andrew Ayers (in The Architecture of Paris, 2004, in his article "Palais du Louvre", see here) uses the names "Aile de la Grande Galerie" and "Aile de la Petite Galerie". Maybe we should adopt this nomenclature for our categories for these wings, and reserve "Category:Grande Galerie (Louvre)" for the room. An alternative might be to create a category like "Grande Galerie (Louvre room)". What are your thoughts on this? --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we reserve "Category:Grande Galerie (Louvre)" for the room (because the tourists knowns only the room :D) and "Aile de la Grande Galerie" for the wing. But should we keep the name "western Grande Galerie" and "eastern Grande Galerie" or we use the French names "Grande Galerie orientale" and "Grande Galerie occidentale"?--Paris 16 (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Paris 16: I think you can use the short French names (e.g., "Grande Galerie orientale") on your map, but for the categories maybe the longer "Aile de la Grande Galerie orientale" and "Aile de la Grande Galerie occidentale". That should make you happy: completely French names, and you don't have to revise your map! :-) --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi! "Aile de la Grande Galerie orientale" and "Aile de la Grande Galerie occidentale" are too long and I am not sure about those names (Google say no too). I prefer the short names "Grande Galerie orientale" and "Grande Galerie occidentale".--Paris 16 (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Paris 16: OK, no problem. I only found those names in Ayer's book, not really anywhere else, and I agree, they may not be the best solution. We could possibly create a category like "Grande Galerie (Louvre room)" or "Grande Galerie (Louvre, picture gallery)". We could always change it later, if we come up with a better idea (or we can leave it like it is for now). --Robert.Allen (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank Robert.Allen! I will edit my page User:Paris 16/Template and after that, I will attack the categories of the Louvre.--Paris 16 (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Paris 16: Why did you omit "(Louvre)" from Category:Grande Galerie occidentale, etc? This seems very inconsistent with the other Louvre categories. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! It is OK now?--Paris 16 (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Paris 16: Perhaps we should discuss your changes a bit more before you continue. I thought you did not want to use the name "Category:Aile de la Grande Galerie (Louvre)", but now I see you have created it, so I am confused. It is my understanding that the room called "Grande Galerie" is where the Italian paintings of rooms 5, 8, and 12 are displayed, i.e., the long picture gallery on the premier étage of the Grande Galerie wing which extends between room 3 (the Salon Carré) at its east end and room 13 (on the first floor of the Pavillon des Sessions) at its west end. I suggest we create Category:Grande Galerie (Louvre room) for this room. I also suggest to change "(Louvre)" to "(Louvre wing)" for all categories referring to the wing: for example, Category:Historical images of the Grande Galerie (Louvre) should be changed to Category:Historical images of the Grande Galerie (Louvre wing), so that we can also create Category:Historical images of the Grande Galerie (Louvre room) as a separate category. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I might be able to accept keeping Category:Aile de la Grande Galerie (Louvre) and, for your other wing categories, just (Louvre) [without the addition of "Aile de la" or "(Louvre wing)"], but in that case we really need to use Category:Grande Galerie (Louvre room) for the long picture gallery and, if needed, Category:Historical images of the Grande Galerie (Louvre room). --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert.Allen! I think we should use "Grande Galerie (Louvre wing)" for the wing and "Grande Galerie (Louvre room)" for the room. That is the best solution.--Paris 16 (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Paris 16: OK, no problem. I started adding "Aile de la", since you had already created it, but it's easy to change those again to the new name. I'll be away a for a holiday, but if you don't have the time or inclination to do it, I'll work on it when I return. Thanks for the reply. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Aile Nord[edit]

Hi Robert.Allen! The Aile Nord don't exist today. So I think Aile de Marsan, Aile de Rohan, Pavillon de Marsan and Pavillon de Rohan should be subcategories of the Richelieu Wing, and the category Aile Nord is only for the historical images.--Paris 16 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Paris 16: Are you certain? On what source do you base that statement? It surely still exists. The north facade is very much the same as when it was built by Percier and Fontaine, except for the statues, which were added in the 1920s. Yvan Christ calls it the Aile Nord in 1949, after Lefuel's modifications and after the addition of the statues, and the facade is relatively unchanged since then. The names Aile de Marsan and Aile de Rohan appear to be relatively new inventions. What is the earliest source for these names? Also, they seem to be applied inconsistently. The web page about the statues refers to the north facade as the Rohan wing as far as the Aumale statue, but that statue is in the niche immediately east of the entrance hall of the Musée des Arts Décoratifs, which is in the third bay west of the beginning of the Aile de Marsan. At minimum, the Aumale, Lamorcière, Damrémont, and Bugeaud statues are on the north facade of the Marsan wing, while the Duroc and Lasalle statues appear to straddle the wall between the Rohan and Marsan wings. By the way, Yves Bottineau-Fuchs, who wrote the article on the Louvre in The Dictionary of Art (1996), calls it the Galerie Napoléon. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I mean the name " Aile Nord" don't exist today, or not much source use this name. Aile de Marsan → Aile Nord → Aile Richelieu, it's complicate!--Paris 16 (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Robert.Allen! The Aile Nord is the north part from Pavillon de Rohan to Pavillon de Marsan?--Paris 16 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Paris 16: Yes. It's marked "Aile Napoléon ou Aile Nord" on Christ's map that I sent you. For Fig. 80 he has "amorce de l'aile nord"; for Fig. 103, "la galerie Nord (aile Napoléon)"; but for Figs. 104 ("État actuel"), 105 ("État actuel"), 131, 132, and 133, he uses "la galerie Nord". I think Aile is better than Galerie, and possibly "Nord" is too generic. On p. 85 he writes: "la galerie septentrionale issue du pavillon de Marsan (l'aile Napoléon, come on disait alors)", so this is definitely the historical name. If we're going to treat it as a historical category, it's probably better to call it Category:Aile Napoléon (Louvre). Whatever we call it, I would like to keep it in Category:Richelieu Wing (Louvre), but we should also put the modern names Category:Aile de Rohan (Louvre) and Category:Aile de Marsan (Louvre) there as well. Regarding the north wing of the Richelieu building, I have seen "Rivoli wing", but it wasn't clear whether this also included the Rohan and Marsan wings. Do you know where the Aile de la Bibliothèque is? Is that the wing than runs from the Pavillon de la Bibliothèque to the Pavillon Richelieu, or is it the Richelieu's Rivoli wing? Btw, a good name for the Mona Lisa wing is Aile du Manège. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert! Can you add notes all of wings and pavilions you known on this plan?--Paris 16 (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Paris 16: Not sure what you mean. Do you want me to add notes to the description field? --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I mean you can use ImageAnnotator to add the location of the "Aile Nord", "Aile de la Bibliothèque"... I want to create a plan with the name all of wings, gates, pavilions... Thank you!--Paris 16 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@Paris 16: OK, I added three. The Bibliothèque impériale was destroyed in 1871 and not rebuilt, so this is probably just a historical name. Aile du Manège is still used occasionally per a Google search. Regarding the Aile Nord, it is called aile Napoléon Ier in the French article Palais du Louvre. Since architecturally the north facade of this wing makes no distinction between the Marsan and Rohan wings, it may be better to categorize these images in Category:North facade of the Aile Nord (Louvre) or alternatively, if we decide to rename the parent Category:Aile Napoléon I (Louvre), in Category:North facade of the Aile Napoléon I (Louvre). Check these Google searches: Percier "Aile Nord" and Percier "Aile Napoléon". --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank Robert.Allen! There are another Aile Nord (of the Cour Carrée). Aile Napoléon (Louvre) is not bad name.--Paris 16 (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, maybe Aile Napoléon is better. For example, this website uses it (search the page with "Aile Napoleon", see Figure 13). He is interested in the paired composite pilasters. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Rotonde d'Apollon[edit]

Hi! Should we create 2 categories for exterior and interior of the Rotonde d'Apollon?--Paris 16 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Paris 16: This is another case of metonymy. The Rotonde d'Apollon is the name of the room on the first floor. The pavillion has been named after the room. I would suggest creating Category:Rotonde d'Apollon (Louvre room) and Category:Rotonde d'Apollon (Louvre pavilion). Do we have pics of the exterior of the pavillion? BTW, at least one source (Archives de l'Agence d'architecture..., 2006) gives the pavilion the name Rotonde de Mars, the name of the room on the ground floor. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This is so straightforward I went ahead and did it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Pavillon nord-est and Pavillon sud-est[edit]

Hi Robert.Allen! In the plan of The Louvre in Agence d'architecture du Louvre et des Tuileries, there are the names "Pavillon Assyrian" and "Pavillon Égyptien". Should we use this names?--Paris 16 (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Paris 16:. Apologies for not responding sooner. I was thinking about this, but I did not have an answer. Then it slipped from my mind. I noticed your question again today. Still don't know what to say. --Robert.Allen (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Louvre[edit]

I will go again to the Louvre in a few days (I hope...). Is there a photo that I can took for you. I dont promise to take it, but I promise to try. Regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tangopaso: Oui! As part of my work on en:Jean Marot (architect), I recently added en:Hôtel de Chevreuse (also called Hôtel de Luynes). The boiserie and fireplace designed by fr:Pierre-Louis Moreau-Desproux, from one of the rooms of this former hôtel, was refurbished and reinstalled in 2012 in one of the rooms at the Louvre. (I don't know where.) Here are links to video. (I had difficulty playing the one at vimeo on my computer, and Wikipedia blocks the YouTube link, so I had to edit it.) It looks quite beautiful. I suppose lots of pictures could be taken. The video may give you some ideas. The details are also very nice.

--Robert.Allen (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. It seems that it is in Decoratives arts, room 55. There are no photos at all (neither category) in Commons. I know where it is, I will see. It will change my mind from the antiquities ;-) --Tangopaso (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Tangopaso: Thanks! I know this is a rather big request, but it looks worthwhile. Thanks for offering! Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I went to the Louvre yesterday monday. I saw the bedroom of the hotel de Chevreuse. It is effectively room 55. To say the truth, I am a little bit disappointed, because the main color of the room is pink. But not bright pink : fade pink. I dont know if this color is from the origin (in French, we name it vieux rose=old pink). Or if it is time and light which fade the color. I prefer the salle Marie-Antoinette (room 65) with blue color. However I took some photos. But I need some time to upload them (I will inform you). And if you give me your mail adress, I can e-mail to you photos of 2 information sheets about the furniture (photo, name, date, artist of every furniture of the room). There is the name of Pierre-Louis Moreau-Desproux for the boiseries. But nothing about the fireplace. In other rooms there are nice screens for fireplace (to prevent from burst of burned wood).
I will use these sheet to write descriptions in French and English. But I will not upload them onto Commons (photos of the furniture are probably copyrighted). Best regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tangopaso:: Sorry to hear you were disappointed in the actual room, but thank you very much for taking photos and getting so much information. I also prefer blue (my favorite color) over pink, and maybe it is not completely surprising Marie Antoinette's room is better. To e-mail me, click the link "Email this user" under "Tools" in the left-hand sidebar of the Wikipedia window. Merci :-) PS- I will also try to e-mail you the same way. (You may need to check your spam folder, if you have spam filtering enabled.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
With the mail included in Commons, I think that I can send only photos uploaded onto Commons. And I dont wish to upload the photos because they are not free of rights. I propose you email me simple message with this mean. I will see your mail adress and will send you the photo via my mail. What do you think of that ? --Tangopaso (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I've now sent you a message with my e-mail address via Wikipedia. Please look for it. Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I uploaded photos into Category:Decorative arts in the Louvre - Room 55. I did not received your message on my mail. Regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tangopaso: Thanks for the very nice set of pics. I will add them to the English article on the Hôtel de Chevreuse. I don't understand why you did not receive my e-mail. Have you received other e-mail notices from Commons? I sent another message to you just now, and already received a copy of the message. If this does not work, and you are not receiving other e-mails from Commons, you might try re-entering your e-mail address on your Commons preferences page. Otherwise, I suppose you might consider reporting it as a problem. (I seem to remember I was able to send a message to Paris 16 previously, the only other time I may have tried this feature.) Best regards, --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Oops ! this is my error... I have several mail adresses and I didnt look in the right one. I send you photos of 2 information sheets at once. --Tangopaso (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Perhaps, I will go again to the Louvre wednesday (I am lucky). Is there some photos that I can took for you. I dont promise to take them, but I promise to try. Regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tangopaso: I received the pics of the info sheets. Thanks! Most of the items, although of the period, are not actually from the room at the Hôtel de Chevreuse, but still very interesting. These rooms allow the curators to be very creative. I like them. Regarding pics, do we have any of the staircase in the southeast pavilion? The northeast and southeast staircases were both designed by Fontaine and are probably similar. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I fear I dont understand. I did not see any staircases in the Decorative arts department (for the part I saw). However, I will give a glance. Or do you mean the staircases of the museum (of the palace). There are huge stone stairs in the north and in the south of the colonnade du Louvre. I saw the stairs of northeast pavilion. --Tangopaso (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I mean the stone staircase in the south pavilion of the Colonnade wing. Thanks to you, we now have a pic of the one at the north end, File:Escalier Nord-Est de l'aile Sully du Louvre.jpg. It might be nice to also have a picture of the south one. It's probably not not a high priority, but if you are photographing antiquities, you might be in that vicinity. Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, no problem, I will do. --Tangopaso (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I had a problem and did not go to the Louvre last wednesday. I will take a photo of the stairs next time. --Tangopaso (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tangopaso: Thanks for the update. No problem, there's no rush. I hope it was nothing serious. Best regards, --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

small news[edit]

I sent you by mail 2 .jpg files about the chambre de l'hotel de Chevreuse. From the review of the Association des amis du Louvre.
I made photos of your stairs. It is named Escalier du Midi. I made also photos of 2 other stairs (not in Commons) : escalier Colbert and escalier du Ministre. But I need some days to upload them. Best regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Map names[edit]

Hi Robert.Allen! Can you check the names of my Louvre plans? Thank you very much!--Paris 16 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Paris 16: I took a look. You have a lot of maps! Can you narrow it down to one or two? --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are a lots of maps of Louvre, and I want to check its again before upload. So can you check spelling those names (captions under each map). Thank you!--Paris 16 (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Paris 16: OK, just the captions, not so much work. To me there are a few, possibly questionable ones: "Plan of the Carrousel du Louvre‎ and the Palais du Louvre‎" – the Carrousel was an event; maybe "Cour du Carrousel" is better? Instead of "Plan of the medieval Louvre as constructed by Adolphe Berty", maybe, since it is not just a plan of the medieval Louvre, and only part of the total, it is better to say "Location of the medieval Louvre as shown by Adolphe Berty". Use "Plan of the Louvre" or possibly "Louvre plan" (in which case, 'the' can be omitted) ; similarly, instead of "Plan of Louvre and Tuileries", "Plan of the Louvre and Tuileries" seems better to me. These are minor points. Nobody would misunderstand the captions as you have written them. Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert! Carrousel du Louvre is an underground shopping mall, not an event. --Paris 16 (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Paris 16: Oh right! Sorry for my error. I forgot about it, since it was built after I last visited Paris, so I've never been there. (Of course, it was also an event, after which everything was named.) Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Louvre plans[edit]

Hi Robert.Allen! I use my new plans of Louvre for some categories and articles. Please tell me if there are problems or something wrongs. Thank you very much!--Paris 16 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Paris 16: The map you added to en:Louvre Palace based on the one in Yvan Christ's book that I sent you is beautifully done. Nice work! (So are the others, of course, but that one I especially like.) Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

A gift for you[edit]

And however, shutters were not more open than usual...
I still work on the stairs of the Louvre. I will send you a message when it will be over. --Tangopaso (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Stairs of the Louvre[edit]

I finished to upload photos and categorize stairs of the Louvre. Your stairs is named Escalier du Midi. Midi in French means 12 o'clock but it is also the poetic name for south. And of course, this stairs is in the south of the colonnade. I found several other stairs : Escalier colbert, escalier Mollien, escalier du ministre... All of them are gathered in Category:Stairs of the Palais du Louvre.
When I see how beautiful is escalier du ministre, I understand why Edouard Balladur, French minister of economy, did not want to leave the Palais du Louvre for the new offices of the ministry in Bercy in the 80's. Happily this transfer was done later, and now in the Louvre, on Richelieu Wing, we have a part of the museum and no more the offices of a ministry.
I will not be available next week. --Tangopaso (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tangopaso: Thanks for the notice. Very nice work! You are really quite good at photographing these stairs, which I am sure is not so easy. The Lefuel staircase is also very interesting. Congratulations! (Hope everything goes well for you next week.) Best regards, --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your care. No problem. I am in Burgundy : good cheese (incredible number of different cheese) and good wine. I will go again to the Louvre in perhaps 2 weeks. If you wish some photos, I will try. Your request about the stairs maked I discovered most of them. --Tangopaso (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Reorganization of the pavillon de l'Horloge[edit]

Hello,
The pavillon de l'Horloge has been restructured. This is the centre d'interprétation du pavillon de l'Horloge. In the floors, paintings and artworks on the topics about exhibitions in the museums. But the main reorganization is in the medieval Louvre. The models have been removed and replaced by (fine) videos. The salle Saint-Louis is enlighted and used to exhibit objects found during the excavations of the Louvre.
I uploaded several photos in Category:Medieval Louvre (exhibit) and subcategories. I created Category:Centre d'interprétation du Pavillon de l'Horloge (Louvre). And I also created fr:File:Hôtel de Longueville (Louvre). Best regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)