Hosta

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Mabalu!

File source is not properly indicated: File:Chanel_hat_from_Les_Modes_1912.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Chanel_hat_from_Les_Modes_1912.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Martin H. (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Dealt with. Looked up original periodical in National Art Library and updated with fuller details/info. Hope this is sufficient. Mabalu (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, I already saw it. Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Images nominated for deletion

I understand the issues you have brought up. The image of the Chanel wear (1917) was not the best quality. I have a large library of books on art and fashion, and this was a photo I took from one of the illustrations. It was my understanding that images over seventy years old are in the public domain. My belief is that there are no copyright issues with such media. Also, if the original image is cropped, or otherwise manipulated---my understanding is that it is no longer considered the "original work,"---am I wrong about this? This was my rationale for attributing it as "my own work." I'm sorry to see so many of the images I donated marked for deletion. I would appreciate it if someone would work with me to retain the images in question. I'm concerned that I may not have the time to research these issues on Wiki and resolve them on my own. I would hate for the pages to loose these visuals. I feel that they enhance the text, bolstering the information. Betempte, July 23, 2012

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 08:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Worthdress thumb.jpg‎

Dear Mabalu, I have missed all of the discussion leading up to these changes as I was too busy in real life but can I ask at this late stage why images of costume have been moved from Category:Clothing designed by the House of Worth to Category:Clothing designed by Jean Philippe Worth when in fact these said costumes were designed by Charles Frederick Worth. Thanks Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 05:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Because Charles Frederick Worth died in 1895 and was succeeded by his son. Mabalu (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, to clarify: File:Worthdress thumb.jpg is a very beautiful Edwardian dress from the early 1900s - created after Charles Frederick had died, and is definitely by his son, Jean-Philippe. Mabalu (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Pinging Edmund Patrick)

Try as I might I can find no reference to this design being done by his son and was going to undo the move you made, but you have used the words clarify and definitely so before I do so can you show me the references please, that way I can also change the article. Thanks look forward to reading the references.Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 05:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Edmund Patrick), I encourage you to contact any museum with a fashion history collection to ask them what date the dress is. They will tell you it is from the early 20th century. Worth died in March 1895. Here is a Met Museum page on Worth which states that Worth's sons succeeded him in the business.

Here are Worth dresses (attributed both to Charles and Jean) from the early 1890s: note the silhouettes, the sleeves, the line of the skirts, etc, and also that the descriptons clarify that Jean-Philippe succeeded his father as head designer in 1895: [1] [2] [3].
Here are more Worth dresses from the late 1890s and early 1900s after Worth's death: note the silhouettes again, and that the skirts are still very full and firm and flared. [4], [5]
Finally, here is a Worth dress from 1905 - this is closest in silhouette to your image uploads. Note the flowing lines and elegance of the skirt, which are reflected in your dress. Your dress is not a Victorian dress. It is a stunning example of Edwardian fashion. Jean-Philippe was just as talented and highly regarded a couturier as his father.

I realise that you probably are not a costume/fashion historian and that all these old frocks probably look the same to you, but it is impossible that Charles Frederick could have been designing clothing over 5 years after he died. Mabalu (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

If you looked at my page you would see I am a museum professional, who, woo and behold, care for a collection of Worth dresses. He began Haute Couture, he set up one of the first houses of fashion, he moved women's fashion forward by leaps and bounds so why could he have not designed, at least primarily sketched something that appeared five years later. Where are your references or is this a case of original research. Prove it by acceptable references and the images will be removed from the article concerning Charles Frederick Worth and await one about his son. Thanks Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 05:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for the tone of my previous response. However, I do not believe this dress is by Charles Frederick Worth for all the reasons outlined above. The image is appropriate to the Charles Frederick Worth article as an example of his son's ongoing work for the House of Worth, an example of the legacy laid down by CF Worth. I am simply using over 20 years of ongoing research and knowledge to identify a very obviously Edwardian dress with all the trademarks of 1900s high style as Edwardian, and as CF Worth died 6 years before Queen Victoria did, I do not find it credible that this dress could have been designed by him - particularly as Jean Philippe, according to Elizabeth Ann Coleman and others, had pretty much taken on most design duties by the 1890s due to CF becoming increasingly poorly and unwell. So to be undoubtedly CF it would need to be 1880s and I don't think anyone would claim this was that early. At least we can be pretty sure this is a Worth by Worth, as it's an evening dress/ceremonial gown which was Jean-Philippe's favourite thing to design - the daywear was mostly farmed out to junior designers (including Paul Poiret, briefly, in around 1901-1902).

Incidentally, I wonder whether Moyse's Hall have any provenance for this gown? As it is a Court presentation gown it seems probable that the original wearer would be known, particularly as in these regional/local museums, most exhibits typically have a local connection. Ceremonial clothing such as this often retains its provenance. If you can prove that this is a Charles Frederick Worth dress designed before his death in March 1895, please do so. Mabalu (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

apologies for the delay - real life intervened! I will of course check out any SIFs (social information) on the artefact along with speaking to the now retired curator. It will be worth the research to actually place the design and costume in its' proper context. The House of Worth cat is a brilliant idea, congratulations. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 07:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Hatpin René Lalique in Calouste Gulbenkian Museum.jpg

Hello! Your recent upload, File:Hatpin René Lalique in Calouste Gulbenkian Museum.jpg is a great image, but the title is misleading. This is not a hatpin. It is a diadem, with an attached comb. See this scan from a book identifying it as a diadem Please can you consider requesting a rename and removing the "Hatpins" category as this is misleading - the other image of this piece is also misleadingly titled and I will request a rename. Best wishes, Mabalu (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. When I take pictures in museums, I usually take the label describing the piece but I didn't do it this time ! I probably named the file from the same pictures that were already uploaded on Commons. I trust you for renaming the file and removing the categories. Thanks for your vigilance. --Yelkrokoyade (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

PS : this picture has not been considered as a good picture [6] because of the too shallow depth of file. I couldn't do better with my camera (low speed, high ISO and Diaphragm closed at the maximum). I had to make a choice to take a picture with maximum details in the main part of the piece. Have a nice day. --Yelkrokoyade (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Historical Hoopskirts.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Historical Hoopskirts.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand this. When I tried putting copyright tag templates in it the page formatting got screwed up so after looking at how other collages were dealt with I based my template edits on that one as it seemed to be accepted. I'm guessing this is an automated bot alert. Mabalu (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Vionnet evening gown, embroidered silk net, 1931.jpg

File:Vionnet evening gown, embroidered silk net, 1931.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!

85.171.93.209 09:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)