Hi, I now have, but have not read: Françoise Piponnier and Perrine Mane; Dress in the Middle Ages; Yale UP, 1997 - which irritatingly has no index. Are there any particular mysteries to look out for when I do get round to reading it?
Saw Eglinton Tournament - nicely covered & I have added a pic. Johnbod 21:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not just yet. There are two statements in the "General trends" section that I tagged as possible OR (for the use of what I feel should be in WP:WTA: "seems to" and "arguably". Knowing you and the other editors involved with this article, this is probably just stuff from your sources that needs a proper cite.
Sorry I haven't gotten back to you about copyediting the 15th century article. My brain got very fashion-burned out after three months of doing intensive work on the project, so now I'm working on WP:NRHP for the summer (lots of local photos to shoot and create articles for). But I'll get to it eventually, I know. And if you can fix this one up, I'll copyedit it and list it at GA. It's almost ready, I think. Daniel Case 04:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. If you could get a cite in for that last thing about the Visconti court setting Italian trends, that would be great. I do want to give it a full copyedit and nominate it for GA. Daniel Case 22:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On12 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1100-1200 in fashion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Wizardman 19:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for asking about this matter here, but as the topic is of a rather obscure nature, I expect it is more likely to be answered here than on the talk page of the image itself, where it might pass unseen through a number of quickly-moving watchlists. While the person to the right in Image:Norfolk Jackets.jpg is certainly wearing a Norfolk jacket, the jacket of the person on the left isn't as clear. It does not appear to be pleated or have a belt, and the cut doesn't seem like that of most Norfolk jackets I have seen. Might I ask where the drawing is from? It could be I am quite mistaken about the matter, but would like to make sure that the drawing is correctly labelled. --William Ager 04:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On28 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article zibellino, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Peta 06:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for adding the picture to the above article, which I was sure would never be read by anyone! Actually, I have grave doubts about that picture, which looks nothing like the Clouet picture of Villeroy. As a costume expert, what do you think about his collar? To me that is seventeenth century. Since Villeroy had a son also called Nicolas in the 1590s, I wonder if that's who it is. The picture looks distinctly un-sixteenth-century to me.
While I'm here, I wonder if I could pick your brains about this here Clouet of Catherine de' Medici. I absolutely love this miniature, and I love her. But what is that in her hand? After her husband Henry II of France died from a lance wound, her emblem for the rest of her life was a broken lance. I wonder if that's what it is. Does it ring any bells with you? I would love to mention what it is in the picture caption.qp10qp 04:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On5 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article aiguillette (ornament), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Allen3 talk 23:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should definitely have an article on those. Unfortunately, they must have been hidden away when I visited the Uffizi. You start it off, and I will chime in with what I have in my books. We would need some good pictures, though, if you know where to bag some.qp10qp 04:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Btw, did you notice the link on her article to this [1] site on E Vigee-Lebrun, which seems to have everything she ever painted - v. handy for costume, I would think. I'd meant to ask you to look it (s-p) over when I'd got further with it. At the moment I'm short of C18 men, a) looking like ordinary gents, or b) at it in front of an easel. Also of course contemporaryish stuff because of copyright. Johnbod 01:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look later. I was going to add his portrait to SP, & also have been meaning to mention Elizabeth I's very firm views on chiaroscuro there. Btw the Orpen SP of 1910 is interesting clothes-wise. Is he a masher I wonder? Thanks for your adds, & for the format, which I've obviously borrowed from the fashion articles - it's the only way to handle lots of pics. Johnbod 03:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Did you know? was updated. On 10 September, 2007, a fact from the article Valois Tapestries, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Carabinieri 04:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
OnSeptember 14, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicholas Hilliard, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
WEll done you have the pictured slot.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this today & thought of you! A feast of black silk & lace, neither of which reproduce very well. I have the catalogue, which has quite a lot on costume, so will no doubt dribble in the odd thing to the articles in the future. I'm very pleased with how Hillard turned out. Johnbod 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I do think "breeching", or rather boys dress pre-breeching, deserves an article. What do you think? Johnbod 23:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference done. Yes for Hilliard, although I lose interest if they get very pernickety I'm afraid. Someone made Chaperon (headgear) a GA, and then someone else put it on review a month later, & all sorts of nonsense came up. But lets give it a go by all means. There are almost no Visual arts GA's - they don't like pictures there I think. Johnbod 19:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod 15:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for breeching ads. This (just below you in breeching section) came in from Amanda, & is more up your street, I think. It rang no bells with me: Johnbod 11:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On28 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rancho Los Encinos, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Mallorn Journal.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More to come, I've been on a rather depressing detour getting Judenhut, yellow badge and Judensau straight before returning - now for the courtesans! Johnbod 16:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This picure claims to be Elizabeth I at three ages, but it certainly is not. So who are these girls? - PKM 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, those Victorian dealers! You have to hand it to them! No idea, but they do look English to me. (nb other post below) Johnbod 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just the pic I was thinking of, and a much better new scan! I'm not sure "caricaturing" is right - it's more in the nature of "public service advertising" I think. Already (I think) a royal license was needed for everything printed in France. Can you read the text? Johnbod 18:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have a much blurrier version at Abraham Bosse and the period article also I think. The text reads (very approximately): The Courtier " It will be good not to have clinking from below, and besides I must obey the king. Luxury inconveniences me, so I stongly approve these orders. Besides I will be " a la mode" wearing these new clthes" The Lacky:"On my faith this frippery will no longer deform ?something. Since it's not needed, I can get money for it". I know the excellent BnF site. Johnbod 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
I am hanging out in 1930-1945 in fashion. PKM 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have translated the article history of silk from French, though I am not an expert in textile terms, so I tried to give my best guess where possible. I would appreciate it if you could go over the article and replace the red links, where possible, with the appropriate term/article, if they exist. This may not be helpful, but the original French language article is here, and the English one is more or less a direct translation. If you need any help, just let me know.
I'd also like to share this link with you. It's a Google search through a multilingual textile terms dictionary, you will probably find it useful.
Thanks a million! -Oreo Priest 09:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
On24 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1930-1945 in fashion , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Allen3 talk 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PKM,
I am a new user on Wikipedia. I have been searching for users who can contribute content to my article. I see that you are quite knowledgeable about fashion. I was wondering if you had any knowledge regarding the seam types and the production industry. I would appreciate whatever feedback you have to offer about my article. The title is “Seam types”.
Thank you, Snap pea 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Snap_peaSnap pea 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
The DYK Medal | |
Awarded by this editor for a Did You Know contribution that appeared on the main page, a hook that was well written, referenced, and displayed irony, a fact related to a distinguishing characteristic of the subject of the article, or other notable property. AwardBot 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] |
Hello PKM,
I appreciate your feedback on the content of my article. How do I make my article the basic article for seam types? Also, do you know how to merge the seam allowance article with seam types?
I have wanted to put illustrations for each of these seam types, however, they are very simple and once I draw them they will be very similar to what is in the book I referenced, I’m afraid I will be violating copyright laws. Do you know much about this topic? My back-up option is to use photos, like you suggested. I’m waiting to hear back about the copyrighting.
Thank you again for your help. Please let me know if you have more to add!
Snap pea 01:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Snap_PeaSnap pea 01:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book that is my source was published in 1995. I think that I will illustrate them myself and scan them in. Would you recommend citing the book when I post the illustrations? I would really appreciate your help moving and merging articles. Feel free to do what you think would be best! Snap pea 21:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Snap_PeaSnap pea 21:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image is currently up for featured picture, and commenters have expressed a desire for a higher resolution. Would you be willing to rescan it? See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Edward VI of the United Kingdom. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]