User talk:PKM/8 April-July 2008

Troco

On 3 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Troco, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Elizabeth I by Steven van der Meulen

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Elizabeth I Steven Van Der Meulen.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 10:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Another FP candidate

I've nominated Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Madonna and Child Book of Kells. Comments appreciated. - PKM (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

William Morris

Thanks for your appreciation. I was astonished at the number of factual errors in the article, quite apart from the odd approach. Let's hope we can both work on more improvements - textiles is my weakest area, so your knowledge will add greatly. --mervyn (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

50s,60s,70s,80s,90s fashion

Will you work on these?--Hailey 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someday. :-) - PKM (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

They NEED a lot of work--Hailey 03:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. (sigh) It's very frustrating to do fashion articles for periods where there are so few public domain images. I may do the '50s and '60s one of these days. We'll see.... - PKM (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Textile Arts

A portal with which you were recently involved has become featured. You may view eventual comments at the discussion page. Well done. Regards, Rudget 13:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 1 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anna Maria Garthwaite, 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.

--Royalbroil 00:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

pictures for quilting history

I made some pictures and put them on the quilting history page. Each picture illustrated what was made during different periods. They have now been taken down. Apparently I was supposed to do somethig to prove they were my pictures which I thought I'd done. The whole process is a maze to me. If someone could spell out each step I'd be willing to try putting them up again.

Since no one else is jumping in and adding information I will try to get past the 19th century with a couple more sections. I've been so busy I haven't even looked for a long time but it seems a shame we don't at least have some illustrations and a little more history.

Quiltpatch (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC) quiltpatch

Thanks so much. I think it all worked just fine. We will know if they stay up I guess.

Quiltpatch (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Val taps

I always intended to find some images but it was very difficult and the ones I eventually cobbled together are unsatisfactory. But they are wonderful to peer at: have you looked at the goings on on the island at Fontainebleau! And I really love the whale sketch, though it's too faint to show well as a thumb.

Are you interested in an article on Yellow starch? It's really socially interesting because it plummeted out of popularity after Anne Turner (she needs an article too) wore it (or did she?) at her execution for the Overbury murder. qp10qp (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Turner was making her living from yellow starch; but it's a gloriously interesting subject in which it's hard to get to the truth. The notoriety of "yellow bands" in the 1650s came from the belief that Anne Turner had been hanged in November 1615 in a band and cuffs dyed with yellow starch. In 1618 James Howell wrote to his father that "Mistress Turner, the first inventress of yellow starch, was executed in a Cobweb Lawn Ruff of that colour at Tyburn; and with her I believe that yellow Starch, which so much disfigured our Nation, and rendered them so ridiculous and fantastic, will receive its Funeral". And Sir Simonds d’Ewes wrote: "Mrs Turner had first brought up that vain and foolish use of yellow starch, coming herself to her trial in a yellow band and cuffs; and therefore, when she was afterwards executed at Tyburn, the hangman had his band and cuffs of the same colour, which made many after that day of either sex to forbear the use of that colored starch, till it at last grew generally to be detested and disused". But John Castle’s letter written in the month of her execution mentions nothing of yellow starch and says on the contrary that Mrs Turner used the occasion like Mary Magdalene to turn her back on her sins and denounce "painted pride, lust, powdered hair, yellow bands, and all the rest of the wardrobe of court vanities". I think this latter is nearer to the truth, because Castle was at the execution.

Apparently, yellow starch isn't mentioned in court laundry accounts after 1625. qp10qp (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Those pictures you link to are right on the money. Talking of Larkin, is his Frances Carr wearing it? Carr was the bosom chum of Turner: they both went to Simon Forman to get love potions/poisons, it seems. But Carr gets off because she is noble and Turner gets the chop. qp10qp (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I will leave it just a bit, because I am bogged down in a couple of other things; and I want to send off for a book on it. I'll let you know when I get going. It's going to be fun. qp10qp (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bunting

Hello again! I noticed Wikipedia has no article on bunting, the decoration. I don't really know where to request it, so I figured I'd ask you request it somewhere, or if you're up to it, create it yourself. Cheers! -Oreo Priest ^talk 20:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job! With a bit more, you'd be able to turn it into a DYK! On that note, congrats on the medal! -Oreo Priest ^talk 21:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Samite

Now DYK; thanks for your help, which I noticed too late to co-nom. Did you see the "new-portrait-shock-horror" at Talk:Elizabeth_I_of_England#Rare_portrait? We do need an article on E's portraits - one day. Johnbod (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you too

Thank-you for noticing, and the compliment. Creating all those red-linked articles in the lace template should keep off the streets for awhile, no? Loggie (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Scrots

Where is the picture? The discussion assumes the picture was taken specially for the book, which is extremely unlikely. It is almost certainly a library picture, and if placement in the Library catalogue does not constitute publication, the only way to find out the first publication is to ask the owning collection or picture library. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Commented there. Why does he say it is "in a UK museum"? Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point in your latest here! Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - PKM (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Where the picture is linked should we have to update the links:

Edward VI of England 1550-1600 in fashion Portal:Anglicanism/Bio Archive Portal:Anglicanism/Selected biography/6 William Scrots User talk:Qp10qp/Archive 6

English Wikipedia location: Image:Edward_VI_William_Scrots_c1550.jpg

---

I would think so. I have changed the one in my archive.

Given what has happened, it looks like it would be best for us to upload such pictures here in future. Though I confess that I can't see why the issue is different here than on Commons, I would feel more comfortable not contravening the tightening rules at Commons (although I have contended that some of those rules are superfluously conscientious, one can't deny that they are there in black and white).

I haven't lost hope that the other picture will be saved. It is clear enough that no one in the real world is effectively trying to protect images of that sort (other than by putting up warnings or reducing to thumbnails online). Most books (history books particularly) do not bother to say where the photographs have come from, and even studious catalogues often seem to list photographic credits without saying which photographs are credited to whom. This hardly smacks of a policy of seeking royalties for scans. Although the administrator rubbished my opinions about the potential difficulty of proving originality in court, I should think that the lack of cases or even warnings means that this is not a winnable battle for the photograph owners or even, apart from images like The Laughing Cavalier, worth much money. I am more than conscious of the moral issues of reproducing someone else's work without permission, which is why I am in favour of the strictness about photos of three-dimensional things, but there is another moral issue, of course, which is that since copyright has generally expired on old art, the public should, in my opinion, be allowed free access to it through literal copies or scans. qp10qp (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, re: the discission of our pic of Edward and this one of him as PoW in 1546, Hearn Dynasties discusses them both, and specifically states that there is a version of the Louvre picture by Scrots acquired for the royal collection in 1882, and says that the 1546 picture may be a companion for Elizabeth as a Princess (oak panels may be from the same tree in addition to the stylistic similarities) but doubts that the latter pair are by Scrots. So there seem to be two different paintings of Edward from 1546-47 in the royal collection. Or so I believe. - PKM (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found a specific mention of the "Hampton Court" painting in Erna Auerbach's Tudor Artists (1954). "The courtly attitude, the hang of the right arm justified by gloves held in the hand, the long curtain, the tiled floor, echo Seisenegger's Archduke Ferdinand of 1548". The painting certainly looks very similar in pose to the Louvre one, as well. Auerbach thinks it was probably painted in 1550 and points out something I hadn't noticed before, which is that Edward is aged slightly differently in each version. But we still have the mystery of the picture's untraceability now. For all Auerbach's and Strong's expertise, what if they were wrong? What if the copy of the Louvre version was done much later and if the Royal Collection was sold a pup in 1882 (since this is a talk page, pardon me for wild speculation here); that might explain why it has been discreetly placed in a royal attic. Is there any evidence in the painting itself? Well, I've always thought the legs were very badly drawn, and he seems to have two different shoes on. Also, I've been scrutinising the background: is that curtain a contemporary pattern? And the marble effect thing on the left? In particular, the tromp l'oeil piece of paper with "Edward VI" on it? Not like the Seisenegger, to my eyes. But perhaps I am getting carried away. qp10qp (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Edward VI William Scrots c1550.jpg

Heavens. Now I really wish that book I ordered on Italian silks in Northern Renaissance paintings hadn't be deferred to September by the publisher! Nevertheless, I don't see any reason to assume that the curtain fabric is not period (possibly 15th century) - it's not dissimilar to this gold artichoke/pomegranate brocade and is even more like the brocade worn by Elizabeth Woodville or especially Edward IV.

That "tromp l'oeil piece of paper" is a Lumley cartellino, which John Lord Lumley had painted onto all the portraits in his collection. (His father-in-law, the Earl of Arundel, bought Nonsuch from Mary I, which may be how he acquired this one (says Strong). (You have Dynasties; there's a discussion of the Lumley cartellino at No. 105, p. 158, 3rd column.)

The painting in question is actually extremely well-documented. It's in the Lumley inventory of 1590; was sold in the Lumley Castle sale of 1807; the Duke of Hamilton owned it in 1846; and it was sold in the Hamilton Palace sale, 17th June 1882 where it was purchased by Queen Victoria.

Strong mentions that there are a "great number of versions of the type" surviving, many by inferior hands. - PKM (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK, just getting carried away. You'll have to excuse me when I become florid. Yes, I remember about the cartellino now, of course, (hits self with haddock). qp10qp (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is more fun than wild speculation. Also of interest two portraits "after Scrots" in the Royal Collection; Strong mentions bust versions of our portrait. - PKM (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you see an IP has changed the QEI as princess at Artists of the Tudor Court from "unknown artist" to Scrots? Congratulations on the DYK medal! Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather in heaven today because I've taken delivery of a copy of Tudor and Jacobean Portraits by Strong. I've been watching the second-hand online prices for it for over a year and at last a value price came up and I pounced. Well, good news and bad news. The good news: I fully expected it to be in terrible condition, but it is mint! The joy. The bad news: I reckon it's a different version to yours (or the one you used). It is not published by R&K Paul but by Her Majesty's blasted Stationery Office, and our Scrots is in black and white, :(, not colour like yours. And I can't find any specific photo credits, just a general list. One thing, though—next to the plate (as opposed to in the catalogue volume), it says that the picture is in the Royal Collection but does not specify that it's at Hampton Court. I reckon Anthony Blunt tea-leafed it: it's probably in some Communist aesthete's loft in Moscow by now, propped up against the samovar. qp10qp (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, the color pic is from English Icon not Tudor & Jacobean Portraits (which I have fondled but do not own, alas). My personal pet theory is that HRH snagged it for one of his houses where the princes live. There is absolutely no evidence for this ... PKM (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

See, there I go not paying attention properly again. That Strong should be ashamed of himself writing so many books. qp10qp (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Who needs evidence! We should start writing articles on comedypedia, or whatever it's called. I hope it's not at Harry's pad, it'll end up getting squirted with Champagne.

So you fondle books too! I try to fight this decadent tendency by scribbling all over my books, dropping tea on them, leaving them out in the rain and other indignities, but I think I'll be a bit more Gollumish with this one, and my kids will be able to get a ridiculous price for it when I die. qp10qp (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My Icon is an ex-library copy bought back in the 80s, now missing its spine entirely... sad. - PKM (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your boy has been saved. Woohoo (dances round the room blowing basset horn)! qp10qp (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Congratulations! Here's a medal for you in appreciation of your hardwork in creating, expanding and nominating 25+ articles for DYK. Keep up the good work, PKM! -- Victuallers (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Cooyright of UK photos of works of art

In the Commons there's been a call for revision of the PD-art tag policy for UK photos of works of art. It started before our Scrots picture was slapped with a copyvio. Some readers here may be interested.

The participants are quoting UK court cases. - PKM (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Maggs does set out what I have always understood (from work) to be the correct position in current UK law, though I'm sure Qp is right that it hardly reflects reality today. Perhaps it's just as well those dreadful Yorck project image file descriptions claim everything in the world is currently located in Germany! Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting new intervention at the Commons debate! Of course, we haven't heard the riposte of the magisterial Maggs yet, but 'tis not all over yet, methinks. qp10qp (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mistitled image?

I've always thought this was a wrong'un, but I've just bought a book that has the picture, differently captioned, which gives me some ammo. I'd be grateful for your opinion on the Commons' version's discussion page, here. Your comment on the costume would be decisive, I suspect, given your skill in these matters. Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you, absolutely.

There's something funky about the identification of this one as well. It's dated 1594, but Maria de' Medici wasn't married until 1600 and her first child was born in 1601. The date could be off, but there just aren't enough jewels and symbolic accessories for this to be the Queen of France pregnant with the heir to the throne by my thinking. I've read a note questioning the identification but I can't remember where off hand. This site calls it "portrait of a noblewoman" and that's more like it. - PKM (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:1837.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:1837.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the ghosts of early uploads. Fixed. - PKM (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Picken.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Picken.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

main page redesign

Hi, I saw your comments over on main page redesign proposal and was hoping that you could take a look at my proposal and give me some feedback.--88wolfmaster (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dark Ages

Thank you :) And thanks for the support and comments/pics during the FAC! You know, the Dark Ages is tempting... Let me look it over in more detail. Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep :-D I am indeed (and having just followed a link to your website that you mentioned in the FAC, I've just realised who you are - nice website, btw, I've used it often when browsing!) Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)