Talk:Elsa Schiaparelli/Archive 1

Archive 1

Refused? Failed to successfully adapt to? "changes"

I feel that the term "refused" in the header is inappropriate, and borders on a personal attack on the subject. My suggestion for rephrasing, which is "She failed to successfully adapt to..." is, I feel, much less of a personal attack on the subject. It makes the same point that Schiap did not succeed after the war, without implying that this was due to her being difficult and/or inflexible (which is not fair). This is more or less what is stated in Palmer White and in Dilys E. Blum, although neither of these sources is online, and I don't think citing these will be accepted. I'm not interested in a fight, I just would like the word "refused" to be replaced with something that reads as less negative towards the subject. Mabalu (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war alert? Maybe it's time to review WP:OWN. I disagree with you though. 'The subject' benefits from being a direct agent, rather than the subject of failure. Either way, I think they are both rather pov especially in light of how poorly sourced the article is. I've replaced it with a simple 'did not' which, I think, fulfills the necessary function and is actually neutral. Pietru (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Did not" works for me, thanks. It's not perfect now I see it in context, but it is still better than what was there before. Mabalu (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, yes, I edited after I realised I'd left the "edit war" header on, so went back and changed it as soon as I noticed. Sorry about that. Mabalu (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just realized you did, no prob. Pietru (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can think of something better I'd be interested to hear it. Though better references, more detailed sections and a few pictures are what the article really needs. Pietru (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me get out my Palmer White, Blum, Martin, etc, and I'll tackle this once I have the reference books to hand. Also have a copy of Shocking Life somewhere, but don't think it's necessary. Anyway, the thing is - once I get going on this, I will probably be revising all week, reffing and cross-reffing, knowing myself. (Big Schiap fan here, I'm afraid!) Mabalu (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I love her work, I'll enjoy watching this article develop and helping where I can. Pietru (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous Information on Willie de Kerlor

The article contains much erroneous information on Elsa's husband. He was born Willie Wendt and later adopted several aliases, one of which - de Kerlor - he legally registered as an assumed name. He had no connection with royalty, was never a Count, had no medical training, and had no degree comparable to a doctorate. He told an FBI agent he used the title "doctor" merely to add prestige to his name ("It's done all the time in Europe . . ."). He was jailed in London for telling fortunes without a license and was eventually kicked out of that country. He came to America and settled in New York City where he operated several businesses from his apartment. He was a shameless self-promoter, earning money by giving lectures and writing articles on pseudo-scientific subjects. He claimed to be a psychological investigator and actually was hired as a private detective on two murder cases. He was an astute learner and perhaps ahead of his time in recognizing the importance of documenting the crime scene and preserving evidence. However his value as an expert was diminished greatly by the naive and half-baked conclusions he drew from the "evidence" he gathered; he once testified before a Grand Jury that he could see the face of the murderer in a drop of the victim's blood! The FBI investigated both Willie and Elsa as Communist sympathizers after they were observed at a number of Bolshevek gatherings in New York. Willie was even suspected of breaking into the home of an agent to find out how much the government knew of his activities. All this is documented, if anyone wishes to edit the article. Dr. John Watson (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. Looks like this has now been pretty well-incorporated into the "Marriage" section of the article. Colin M (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Information on Wilhem de Kerlor and marriage to Schiaparelli is work in progress

I've expanded on de Kerlor and his marriage to Schiaparelli. Info in this bio as a whole as to her personal life is very abbreviated and will I continue to edit to provide a fuller bio. Betempte (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Reqphoto

A photo has been added of Schiaparelli wearing her own designs. Hyacinth (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed paragraph which lacked references/citations. Needs facts double-checking before reinstating.

Schiaparelli was an innovative woman and fashion designer. She had a lot of "firsts" in the fashion industry. Her career began with her introduction of graphic knitwear to the world of fashion with knit patterns and emblems. These led to her fanciful prints of body parts, food, and many more unusual themes. She was the first to use brightly colored zippers, appearing first on her sportswear in 1930 and again five years later on her evening dresses. Not only was she the first to use brightly colored zippers, but she was also the first to have them dyed to match the material used in her garments. She was the first to create and use fanciful buttons that looked more like brooches. They came in the shapes of peanuts, bees, and even ram’s heads. In Parisian fashion, she invented culottes, introduced Arab breeches, embroidered shirts, wrapped turbans, pompom-rimmed hats, barbaric belts, the “wedge,” a soled shoe that would trend through the 20th century and into the next, and mix-and-match sportswear, the concept of which would not be fully recognized for another forty to fifty years. While her innovations in fashion design were numerous, it was her creation of the runway show as we know it today that was most influential. Her modern idea of a fashion show included a runway with music and art, and the use of elongated, shapeless women as models. She believed that this boyish figure would best display the clothing. Many people do not realize the true sum of her impact on fashion and the fashion industry.

Mabalu (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Schiaparelli & Prada: Impossible Conversations at The Metropolitan Museum of Art

From May 10–August 19, 2012 Met's Spring 2012 Costume Institute opened the exhibition, Schiaparelli and Prada: Impossible Conversations. A brief description is added to the Legacy section as it is the most recent news exploring the 1920s fashion icon. (Dsabalvaro (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC))

Pre-empting potential accusation of copyvio

Please note that "The Little Book of Schiaparelli", by Emma Baxter Wright, has directly lifted sections of text from this Wikipedia article which were on the website well before the publication date of the book (May 2012). We have not copy-violated EBW, but rather, vice versa. Mabalu (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Skeleton Dress was made as an artwork by a contemporary artist five years prior to Mai-Thu Perret (in 2006)

Mai-Thu Perret copied the Schiaparelli "Squeletton" artwork that BillyBoy* did as a relevent hommage to Schiaparelli and his association, in 2006, and photographed on Andy Warhol Superstar Holly Woodlawn at Le Palace, Lausanne. He also wore it at their opening at the Musée de l'Elysée in 2006 and wore a transparent white version of it at the "Sinners and Saints" Anne Shelton Aaron Ball in Geneva, Switzerland (which was photographed on BillyBoy* by Sylvie Fleury). Mai Thu Perret actually came to all these exhibitions and events and knows BillyBoy*. The BillyBoy* & Lala artwork Mademoiselle Mdvanii wore this the dress for the Mudac and Elysée exhibitions in 2006 too. She flagrantly copied the work in 2011 after asking BillyBoy* all about his artwork. http://www.fondationtanagra.com/en/article/frocking-life-en/page/frocking-life-titre-en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanderàmort (talk • contribs) 11:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Then why did you not say so in the first place instead of deleting without explanation? However I do not see any reference to it in the link you have provided though. In fact, what you are saying here suggests that you have insider knowledge and looking at your edit history, there might be a conflict of interest, which is cause for concern. What makes Mai-Thu Perret's artwork any less of a copy than BillyBoy's "homage"? They are both copies of the same dress. I think its inclusion is relevant to the article because it shows how Schiaparelli's designs continue to inspire artists today. 12:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not inside information, and there is no conflict of interest (I am interested in Swiss made art), just read about it on line or in the published material by the museums, its common knowledge in the art world especially in Switzerland. Its commonly known she literally stole his artwork, as it was shown publicly in many museums since it's creation in 2006. She was not lauded when she did it in the art world, she was criticized severely at the time. Her's is no less of a copy though, it just implies she did NOT DO something innovative in the art world by redoing it five years later. There is a catalogue, with an ISBN number published by InFolio Editions which has the BillyBoy* art work in it and explains it completely. She stole the idea, and she's getting credit here for it as if it was something "original" in concept, if anyone should be cited, it's BillyBoy*, considering his life long association with the house of Schiaparelli and his career which endlessly pays homage and acknowledges Schiaparelli,...Perret is considered an arrivist in the situation. If any one should be credited it's BillyBoy*, not Perret. For exactly the reason you mention. I mean, you don't think it's a coincidence that she did it common public knowledge knowing he did it in 2006, them knowing each other personally in Switzerland (common knowledge, they have often been photographed together as on the site I've shown you) and her doing it 5 years later!? I haven't edited on wiki for a while, I'm rusty and forgot some procedure. Its reason for concern that you insist she be cited and seems also like conflict of interest. 188.61.84.44 (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Blanderàmort188.61.84.44 (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: Its on page one, in english, and french on that site. Scroll down to bottom of page.188.61.84.44 (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Blanderàmort188.61.84.44 (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"So BillyBoy also copied the dress, but heaven forbid anyone else copy his copy?)" - what does that even mean? This is not a personal discussion about these artists between you and I, the point is to put the facts clearly on the article about Schiaparelli, and this article, I'm not even sure needs a mention of contemporary artists, why just her? Especially if it's not even an original idea of hers? It sems you have a conflict of interest here to me. ....BillyBoy* simply did the artwork five years prior to Perret, whom knows him and SAW the exhibitions (there are many public known images of them together - try reading the article I included above, scroll down on the first page) .... I follow the Swiss art world very closely and read about it all the time, she did not do something else, of her own interpretation based on the Schiaparelli original, she simply copied BillyBoy*'s artwork. Its not the same thing. If you want to make a point about contemporary art and Schiaparelli, (and I don't know if it's pertinent in this article) and if so, in that placement in the article, since BillyBoy* did it first, to much public recognition and it was shown in a number of museum shows, just cite him somewhere in the Schiaparelli wiki article or in that place in the article as he was the one who did it first, highly acknowledged for it and is the only contemporary artist so closely linked to Schiaparelli since the mid 1970s! There are thousands of press articles to support this, look at just a few of the most interesting on that site (page two),...Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, NY Times, London Sunday Times etc, etc, etc. Why should she get credit for doing it when she did not do it first nor is it even relevant in her own work, it sticks out like a sore thumb. BillyBoy* on the other hand, is the first contemporary artist to associate so closely with Schiaparelli. He was asked to be artistic director of the still active house in the 70s and early 80s.Blanderàmort (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)BlanderàmortBlanderàmort (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The facts, as you appear to have spelled out, are that BillyBoy copied Schiaparelli's design too. I saw criticism of Perret for copying Schiaprelli's dress, which I agree with personally, but by that same reasoning, BillyBoy should be criticised too for copying Schiaparelli's designs and taking credit for them as his own work. By this reasoning one copyist would be just as bad as another, regardless of how much a fan or an admirer of their subject's work they are. Because Schiaparelli worked closely with so many contemporary artists, it is interesting to note (in passing) that an artist copied one of her best-known artist collaborations for their own installation for a recent major show, and there is a reference for this. I will look at the Billyboy references, thank you for pointing out where they are located as the webpage is very badly designed and difficult to navigate.

I also see where you accused me of having a conflict of interest. Please do explain this accusation, I am incredibly interested to know where that came from as it seems very out of the blue. Mabalu (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean to offend you, don't take it that way,....but it just struck me as odd that you defend Mai Thu Perret when she clearly copied a fellow artists work five years later - if anyone should be cited it's BillyBoy* because he really did do a major series of Schaiaprelli inspired artworks for decades before Mai Thu Perret.....no offense, and on my side, I have no conflict of interest, I just think facts should be clear and said when necessary.Blanderàmort (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)BlanderàmortBlanderàmort (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I haven't the faintest idea who Mai-Thu Perret is other than that she knocked off the Skeleton Dress for her installation. Please can you help me find the articles on the site as you obviously know it better than I do - I have looked at a few random articles on the site, trying to find references to the Skeleton Dress but with little success. Mabalu (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

BillyBoy* did not "copy" the Schiaparelli design just like that, it's part of his discourse about Schiaparelli and contemporary art. He used it in performance, and on his Mdvanii creations, and has been using her as a direct reference based onhis discourse for 35 years....its totally relevant to his history and story, he was asked to be art director at Schiaparelli and he knew her (Schiaparelli) as a child. Its very relative to him. Its not just a copy for copy sake, and his contemporary art relevance and discourse is very pertinent, whereas Mai Thu Perret just copied HIM. Besides, I really don't want to go into a lengthy discussion with you about contemporary art., Its my expertise and field, I have no idea who you are and I'm not about to go into technical reasons and explain the difference between the two artists works. All I can say is she copied HIM, not Schiaparelli. He has a long, long history related to Schiaparelli and she just discovered her through HIM. This is a very known fact,she had never heard of her really prior to her meeting BillyBoy*, this was written about in European magazines and newspapers. Its very known in the art world and the art community. I have no idea if you know that community but its a pretty established fact. BillyBoy* HAS the real dress and he based his "copy" on it line for line for line with a former Schiaparelli tailor, she just approximated it as well. His work has been shown in many, many contemporary art museums, books and all over the press for many years, she just did this one thing based on his work...so if you really want to cite, as you say; Because Schiaparelli worked closely with so many contemporary artists, it is interesting to note (in passing) that an artist copied one of her best-known artist collaborations for their own installation for a recent major show, and there is a reference for this." One should cite the most pertinent artist which clearly is BillyBoy*. It was announced in the press recently a major USA publisher bought his memoirs in a two book deal. The article you saw on that site is about that book, which is exclsuively about his artistic relationship to the House of Schiaparelli. A relationship of over 50 years since his family worked with Schiaparelli and he knew her as a child etc, etc, etc. Though the details of how they copied the famous dress is just technical stuff which is not really relevant here, the point is, if ONE contemporary artist should be cited in the article its clearly BillyBoy* and NOT Mai Thu Perret, who is known as a dilittante and arrivist: By the way, the website is hardly "badly designed" ...you just have to scroll down and read it. Its pretty straight forward,...it seemed bizarre to me your defense of Perret and it seemed that you clearly really have no idea about contemporary art world at least in Switzerland, (maybe I'm wrong, no offense but for all intents and purposes you don't know this story which is very well known) and to think Mai Thu Perret should be cited at all, this to me seemed odd, even if you say its relevant and why I thought you have a conflict of interest because to use her is weird to a real contemporary Swiss art connoisseur, which I am . It seems like you are singling her out for personal reasons, because on the merit of this work, it cannot be justified in my opinion. She's (Perret) known for nothing in particular, she's considered a small fish in a small pond,her claim to fame being the lover of John Armeleder in Switzerland. You'd have to read the whole article on that website, and read each caption when you OPEN the photos by clicking on them.Blanderàmort (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)BlanderàmortBlanderàmort (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

PS, this is an OLD story,(as you just said, you don't know who Mai Thu Perret is, well, in the Swiss contemporary art scene, you'd have known as well as knowing this story, which pretty much outraged alot of people for her flagrant theft of the idea which was an approbation art work thought up exclusively byBillyBoy* years and years before) and this story is not written about at length on the site I showed you because it has been over written about in the press over the years, its in the captions on the site, scroll down to the bottom of page ONE, you'll see in a photo MAI THU PERRET, JOHN ARMELEDER AND BILLYBOY* at an opening, you'll see BillyBoy* showing the dress ON HIMSELF, and the dolls and various museum installations ...and the references etc, you have to click open the photos to see the captions, which tell the story.Blanderàmort (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)BlanderàmortBlanderàmort (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I mean that the information on the page is not clearly laid out. There are loads of scanned and linked articles on there which aren't fully described or summarised. There is too much data to trawl through, and what there is is not clearly signposted. I simply asked for assistance with singling out the relevant articles (how about direct links to the articles that would most help here?). If you would rather take the time to write overlong, rambling responses defending BillyBoy, that is up to you, but it doesn't help much. I am not interested in a "lengthy discussion", I am just asking for help to single out the most relevant articles from the info overload that is the page. Mabalu (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, the info I linked you here to is easy to read, you scroll and open photos, the text is about the subject of Schiaparelli, the photos pop up to captions which add furhter info. What is it you want more than that? Read the article if you are interested, don't read it if you are not. I have already shown you and proved to you the info about the dress, and about the work of the two artists and which came first and which was the relevant one. The rest is up to you if you want to read it or not, if you are interested in this subject, that site has alot of info and photos. My "rambling responses" ? This is not about you or me, so please keep your snide remarks to yourself. I'm defending the information about the dress in question and it's application in contemporary art. point. I'm not particularly interested in defending BillyBoy*, but the facts are the facts about this. The page I showed you is just documentation for the article on that site. The point about the dress has already been discussed and made. Simply, BillyBoy* did the dress first and with a great deal of relevance,(I guess you are not informed about appropriation in contemporary art - a subject you can discover by YOURSELF on the net and in books, its not for me to explain it to you)... Perret did not do it with relevance nor was she the first. So, if one MUST cite something in contemporary art in this article (though I question it), its BillyBoy* not Perret, end of story. I don't even think it's appropriate in that section of the article anyway. I.E: Patrick Kelly reproduced Schlumberger Ostrich pins, exactly like the originals (directly from Schlumberger and with his permission) .... we could document endless reproductions in fashion and contemporary art of things relative to Schiaparelli. I don't think it's relevant to this article ...we could cite many people who do appropriation art relative to Schiaparelli too but its a whole other story about appropriation in art and fashion, and I'm not sure its appropriate for this article, its too big a subject.You have a computer, you can do the research too you know. I know the story of this subject, appropriation in art and fashion by heart, so I'm really unable to transmit it to you in a few lines here, you can look it up yourself.I'll try to show you some info when I get a chance, but right now, this article should not have info about contemporary art.Blanderàmort (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)BlanderàmortBlanderàmort (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. All I asked for was a few direct links to the articles scanned on that page, from the dozens on there, to help outline and support the case for the Wikipedia article. You clearly don't want to help improve the article, just push your personal agenda, so I don't see any value in carrying this conversation on. How long did it take you to ramble on like this instead of just pointing out a couple of relevant links to outline BillyBoy's contribution that could be added to the article? What a waste of both our time over a silly little throwaway reference that I only saw referenced in comments on reviews of the Met exhibition, thought was interesting (if ethically dubious) and found a source for, so thought was interesting enough to mention here in passing. Shrug. Mabalu (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There are NO articles on that site discussing the copying of the BillyBoy* work, they are articles which show the work of BillyBoy* in general with Schiaparelli. "Wow"...you have issues about about cooling out about this and have a personal agenda of passive aggressivity. Get over yourself. The article on that site, called "Frocking Life" IS the article...because within it there is ALL the info I have been trying to explain to you and also prove to you. You have the two artists together in a photo from a magazine, you have other images backing up all which I have pointed out, and you have the dates and exhibitions also backing up what I said. I have told you about the book, by In Folio, which is easy to look up, its called BillyBoy* & Lala and came out a few years ago, written by two museums and published by In Folio Editeurs. What more are you looking for? I am trying to improve this article and you seem to add as you said "a silly little throwaway reference " which historically and factually you have completely overlooked and don't seem to realize it's significant aspects. I don't think in general its good to add "a silly little throwaway reference" to a wikipedia article in anycase, its far from academic. I don't have agendas and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop your snide remarks and passive aggressive nonsense. I have no personal agenda, I am just explaining to you simple facts about this subject and about contemporary art which very obviously is NOT your forte, I've clarified something which is common knowledge in the art community in Switzerland. Appropriation art is not "ethically dubious"...that is such a futile and pedestrian thing to say, so just knock it off okay? Keep your "silly little throwaway references" out of the article since its not your vocation or expertise. Its tiresome to be shrugged off by someone who is not even an amateur in a subject. You seem clueless actually. Do some reading about Appropriation art before writing it off as "ethically dubious", that is really ignorant and snide to say that, really juvenile. The subject of Appropriation art is a very important part of contemporary art history, and has been debated by the very best of the best experts and historians and cognoscenti of the art world, and I don't think you are qualified to judge it with a smug shrug. Blanderàmort (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)BlanderàmortBlanderàmort (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally have no strong feelings either way as to whether the Mai-Thu Perret reference should stay or not. My rationale for its inclusion was that it was interesting to see that a replica of the dress had been incorporated into a contemporary installation in a major show. I had no clue that there was so much contention and controversy beyond the basic "she copied another designer's work" element of it (which I personally disapprove of, but personal opinion should not colour relevancy arguments). I think it is interesting to observe how Schiaparelli's artist collaborations was knocked off by an artist (who is not, as far as I know, a fashion/jewellery designer, where such copying might be expected), 80 years after their creation. Certainly not worth going into in depth, but seemed nice to mention in passing to show the enduring notability of the individual dress, and that the design was still being recognized as Schiaparelli. As it got bogged down in the earlier discussion (which is a shame, because there is obviously some very interesting and relevant stuff buried), I am just summarizing my view here to explain my take on it. Mabalu (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that is clearer for me to understand your point of view. But, my only interest is to make this article accurate. Yes, in theory it could be nice to make a reference to contemporary art, but if onemust do that....it should be BillyBoy* because he has developed this idea of appropriation for the last 36 years or so in a very vital and relevant work he has been doing. Okay, so you were not aware of it. That's understandable. The BillyBoy* piece was shown in many major museum shows, on television and in the press.That piece is still shown as far as I know,...and his relevancy vis-à-vis to Schiaparelli is huge. I am just not sure its the place on the Wiki article to point this out since it's a big subject and it'd be inappropriate to bog up the article with all that info. In the press it's been said his book ...which was 35 or so years of research... is coming out in the autumn. Clearly at that time, the book can be cited. If people want more info on Schiaparelli, maybe a link to that site would be appropraite in EXTERNAL LINKS. I looked all over the net and that a rticle by far is the MOST complete and most documented on the net. I think we both have the intention to improve the article,and i think we have to be careful with this parallel subject of Schiaparelli's influence in contemporary art and fashion since that is a huge subject. Mai Thu Perret is hardly the one example to be cited when there are much better ones out there, notably BillyBpy*'s life long reasearch, and amazing collection ... I think we just have to pause and reflect on what element would be appropriate. The EXTERNAL LINK seems to be the best start. What do you think? Blanderàmort (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)BlanderàmortBlanderàmort (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: BillyBoy* is not just a fashion and jewelery designer, he's a contemporary artist with many many museums shows throughout the world since three decades.Its not expected of him to do appropriation art just because he's a fashione expert. YOu cannot sum his work up by saying he's a fashion designer. Blanderàmort (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)BlanderàmortBlanderàmort (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

And indeed, I wouldn't dream of calling BillyBoy "just" a fashion/jewellery designer (although that, along with the fashion doll, is the context in which I understood him to be). I look forward to his book with great interest and having been slightly aware of his work (not as much as I should be), it sounds fascinating. Is the site not already linked from External Links? I thought it was... Mabalu (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I read recently that its all about his life and Schiaparelli and all the people who worked with her he has known, and its written apparently as a history telling his stories in chronological order to her career, it should be good. That site is not on EXTERNAL LINKS, maybe it should be. Blanderàmort (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)BlanderàmortBlanderàmort (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

IPA

The pronunciation should be given of the word "Schiaparelli". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.152.78 (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolved Mabalu (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elsa Schiaparelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529134356/http://www.philamuseum.org/micro_sites/exhibitions/schiaparelli/kids/schiap-pack.pdf to http://www.philamuseum.org/micro_sites/exhibitions/schiaparelli/kids/schiap-pack.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=%2Farts%2F2003%2F10%2F24%2Fbaschiap20.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529134356/http://www.philamuseum.org/micro_sites/exhibitions/schiaparelli/kids/schiap-pack.pdf to http://www.philamuseum.org/micro_sites/exhibitions/schiaparelli/kids/schiap-pack.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)