User talk:Andreas Philopater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ren Zhiqiang has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

DYK for Ren Zhiqiang[edit]

—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 00:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 00:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Défi[edit]

I don't suppose you could start a formal move discussion on the page? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've opened a move discussion myself - could you comment? All best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry - didn't see this at the time (was travelling on 18 July; and dealing with other issues when I did look back in). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about reversion on Peter Wright (Jesuit)[edit]

Hi there, I saw that you recently reverted an edit I made on the page Peter Wright (Jesuit) and I'd like to understand why so that I can be a better editor in the future. I deleted the category English Roman Catholic priests because he was also in the category 17th-century English Jesuits and since "Jesuits" are a subcategory of "Roman Catholic priests" (and the text doesn't mention him belonging to any other orders), I didn't see a need for him to be in the larger category. Can you clarify? Thanks, Katya (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not all Jesuits were priests (such as Nicholas Owen (Jesuit), just to give one example), so even though "Jesuit" is currently a subcategory of "priest", not all members of the subcategory are actually members of the parent category. This is a question that I suspect has to be addressed at the level of the category tree itself. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation! Katya (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Andreas Philopater. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Andreas Philopater. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Molanus[edit]

The fact is, this is how he is usually referred to in the literature, as with Erasmus. Library catalogues and databases are actually NOT a very good determinant of the right title in this sortr of period. You should at the least have raised the matter on talk before moving it. Johnbod (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, it seemed an entirely uncontroversial move, especially as the article itself warns of potential confusion with Gerhard Wolter Molanus. Looking through the first five or six pages of hits on Google Books, I have to say that "Molanus" in a way similar to "Erasmus" appears rather less than the full name, and is largely limited to the 19th-century literature. I rather assumed its use here was a holdover from copying an out-of-copyright Britannica. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
That's not my experience in the art history literature - & they are really about the only people to take an interest in him today. Johnbod (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
While my experience of the art history literature is that for the past 20 years it has been typical to give his full name at first mention before reverting to surname alone, which is pretty much standard for any author referred to. The issue really is what current sources do. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Jews & Crypto-Jews in Antwerp[edit]

The detailed history of the Portuguese Jewish community of Antwerp appears in (Leoni, Aron di Leone. 2004. The Hebrew Portuguese nations in Antwerp and London at the time of Charles V and Henry VIII: new documents and interpretations. Jersey City, NJ: KTAV). Of course, the book is focused on Crypto-Jews, but it includes numerous documents and none mention a single Jewish given name: only the Christian ones, while if open Jews were indeed trading in Antwerp (as you suggest) it would be natural for them to trade with Crypto-Jews too. In various other studies on Jewish history in the region, not a single open Jew is recorded before the beginning of the 18th century. What is your source about Jews trading in Antwerp? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albeider (talkcontribs) 10:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is based on a seminar I was at 20-odd years ago where somebody was presenting their research on Jews in Antwerp. As I said, no objection to the changes if sourced. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

House of van de Werve[edit]

I tried to clean this article, the family is indeed important, but we present online just some awfull articles whitout sources. Can you have a look at René-Philippe van de Werve and Fernand van de Werve: they look very poor. I have done some cleaning in this house. If i start to read Charles V Augustin van de Werve, Count of Vorsselaer, i think this is NE. if i check Augustin van de Werve, children> this is wrong. They have all been created by User talk:Hvdwds, who will clean this mess, can we ask User:Paul Brussel? Etc... --Carolus (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Carolus, I have no idea. I had not previously been aware of Paul Brussel. Looking him up I see you thanked him on his talk page, though – does that mean the desired edits have been made? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
No, i ask hem the same as to you. I did already some cleaning, can all please help? --Carolus (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, i did some major cleaning, hopefully no mistakes, this family is really complicated!--Carolus (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I too have done what I could. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Molanus[edit]

Don't worry, there are plenty of other problems with your edits! In Belgian languages he may be "cited", "referenced" etc as just Molanus, but in English he is very often just CALLED that. I'm far from sure it is me who should think of WP:OWN. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about "Belgian languages". Your preference for using Dutch rather than English on en.wiki suggests you might have some expertise there. But outside scholarly referencing, when did you last come across mention of Molanus? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't speak more than a few words of Dutch. Molanus is frequently mentioned in art history, but obviously never outside it, in English anyway. As the most extreme of the Tridentine art police, he can usually be relied on for a strong opinion. As usual, I don't quite understand what your point is, other than being on intent on keeping the main/only aspect of his modern reputation out of the parts of the article you apparently now own. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a point. But I notice you seem to object to any attempt to improve the article you started. You were curiously tolerant of false information being added, even re-adding it yourself after it had been removed, but any correction or contextualisation you seem to see as some sort of provocation.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, I have left all the elements that actually are improvements, but will continue to object to the changes that are inaccurate or misleading (or introduce silly Victorian terms). It is stuff like "defended the production and use of devotional images, but with many restrictions to prevent abuses" that is grossly misleading without contextualisation, as I said in my edit summary when first removing it. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Whereas you think it sufficient simply to say his views were "severe" – in a context of widespread condemnation and destruction of images? If you don't like what I write, write something better. Reverting to something so patently useless is lazy and unhelpful. I get that you also don't like "Iconoclastic Fury", but it is (as I have shown) in common use in current English. Wikipedia follows common use, not your idea of whether or not VIctorian terms are silly. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

right council?[edit]

Hi, can you place these in the right council? i am confused i Think this is Mechelen?

  • Jean Thadee de Grouff
  • Jean Joseph de Vreven
  • Corneel Janssens Hujoel
  • Claude Igance de Febure
  • Auguste de Steenhault
  • Remy du Laury: Procurator-General in 1716.
  • Jean Ferdinand Keyaerts: Procurator-General in 1716.
  • Jean Guillaume de Potter: Advocate-Fiscal until 1742.
  • Jean Baptiste van Slabbeeck: Advocate-Fiscal in 1744.
  • Henri Joseph de Villers: Advocate-Fiscal in 1767.
  • Claude Sotteau : Procurator-General in 1742.
  • Jean Philippe de Wapenaert : Procurator-General in 1750.
  • Charles Thomas Caimo.
  • Charles Henri Goubau.
  • Melchior Goubau d'Hovorst, son of Charles.
  • Henri Theodore Jacobs: Procurator-General in 1761.
  • Ignace Josepg Wirix: Afvocate-Fiscal in 1771.
  • Goswijn de Fierlant.
  • Joseph Wiro de Bors.
  • Jacques Joseph de Stassart.
  • Daniel Servaes.
  • Jean Louis Pouppez
  • François Alexander de Steenhault.

thank you! --Carolus (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Without sources I wouldn't know where to start. A quick look on Google Books does turn up this volume which might be some use in getting them all straight. Of course, it's perfectly possible that some people were appointed to one council and then transferred to another (like ministers moving between ministries today), so might be in more than one at different times (or even the same time). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
This suggests Great Council for at least some of them. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
ok thanks, i was not certain. lets go!--Carolus (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move you might be interested in[edit]

Hi Andreas Philopater,

There is a requested move discussion on Talk:Free City of Kraków that I thought you might be interested in.

Genealogizer (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The Decorator and Furnisher[edit]

I noticed you reverted my changes to The Decorator and Furnisher. The "The" appears to be part of the official title, based on the JSTOR link and the publication's own masthead, and thus the article and title should reflect this. See WP:THE for more background. Cheers,

--Animalparty! (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I reverted because you'd turned "Decorator" into "ecorator" and I assumed it was somebody trying out how easy Wikipedia was to edit, rather than somebody seriously attempting improvement. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Although on the topic you bring up, I should say my understanding has always been that titles of periodicals are only cited with the "The" in front if it's The Times. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Cracow Uprising[edit]

Hi Andreas Philopater,

Since you participated in the recent WP:RM on the Free City of Cracow, I thought you might be interested in this requested move. (Talk:Kraków uprising) Genealogizer (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"Belgian" categories[edit]

Please don't add "Belgian" categories to people who lived and worked prior to 1830, as this is an anachronism. While for places, monuments, ... (things which last) it is often useful to make the link with Belgian (as a 15th century building is now in Belgium), for a person or a dissolved company this is usually a bad idea as it confuses things. E.g. Willem Vorsterman was not a Belgian book publisher, he was a Flemish one and if necessary a Habsburgian one (though Flemish alone is sufficient in my opinion). Fram (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fram, I didn't create the category, or start adding it to pre-1830 individuals. For that you can thank Bearcat. I just want to make sure that whatever categories are being used are applied consistently, so if and when the category is renamed or split, the relevant articles will already be in it. As to Vorsterman, he was not Flemish – unless we're using "Flemish" either very loosely or equally anachronistically. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
When a category is incorrect, making it consistently incorrect is not any better than having it on some pages only. And Vorsterman was Flemish, just like Rubens is nearly universally described as a Flemish painter: not a Belgian one, not a Southern Dutch one, a Flemish one. For cultural people working in roughly current Flanders (and some adjoining regions in current France, Wallonia and the Netherlands) "Flemish" is the common adjective. This is not restricted to the old County of Flanders only. Fram (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
And there was me thinking that "Netherlandish" was the currently preferred term. It is hard to keep up. But I shall henceforth simply ignore categories as a distraction. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
For "Flemish Primitives", we now use "Early Netherlandish", that's true. But later on, the distinction between Dutch and Flemish gets more important, and using Netherlandish for Southern Dutch would be more confusing than anything else. Fram (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there is "Early Netherlandish" some "Renaissance Netherlandish", but no "Late Netherlandish". Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
And 1520s/1530s would be "late" in this scheme? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)