Jump to content

User talk:Ham II/Archive 2021

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Leo 2021

Happy New Year! Yes I think you can move the work so far to the page in question. There is certainly a lot to do yet, especially a rewriting of that awful lead, but I won't be able to help significantly until I get back home in a week or so. I looked into the HTML to see if I could devise away to sort by attribution status, but to no avail. I think such an arrangement is still crucial, so I would propose an alternative; perhaps we add an additional short list of just the names under headings of attribution status; or more practically, a paragraph before the lists on "attribution" and list out the paintings status's comparatively in prose. And ugh, the Disputed works section will need a lot more research work I suspect. Aza24 (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: Happy new year to you too! Now moved to mainspace. I wonder if it would be a good idea to turn the dating footnotes into combined ones for attribution and dating? The Baptism of Christ note already does that in a way. Another big question is what to do about works on paper not already covered, of which there are so many. The Vitruvian Man gets more pageviews than any other Leonardo after the Mona Lisa, the Last Supper and the Salvator Mundi, so it would be weird to leave it out of this list. Somebody did once try to draft a dedicated list for drawings here, but seems to have been defeated by it. Ham II (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Ham, am now watching your talk so no need to ping :) I would be hesitant about combining the footnotes, since it would be weird to have both the date/attribution only next to the attribution blurb or only next to the dates – if that makes sense. The Baptism of Christ one is only because Verrochio and Leonardo worked on it at different times. I've been long thinking about trying for a drawings page akin to List of drawings by Vincent van Gogh which seems like the most appropriate way, since combining into the main works list would overwhelm it with drawings. But yes it would be weird to leave Vitruvian man out, I would think we perhaps have a drawings section with his major drawings (probably just ones with WP articles) and then a "Main article: List of drawings by Leonardo da Vinci – which would probably be split into multiple articles for size reasons). In doing this, it would almost be a reflection of the Template:Leonardo da Vinci if you will. Our best resource will likely be (if I remember correctly) Zollner 2019 which has a complete catalogue of drawings in a list with multiple different cataloguing numbers from different art historians. When I get home I can email you some images of it if you don't have access to it. The method of sorting (alphabetical vs chronological etc.) will probably depend on what the Zollner looks like. I suspect the new Bambach collection may have useful resources as well. Thinking ahead though, alphabetical seems dubious since many drawings likely have multiple names, and of course none have official ones. Aza24 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It should be possible to link to the same footnote more than once, but we'll have to see how things look. I've got a 2011 edition of Zoellner, and a 2019 edition of just the paintings volume; I don't think the catalogue numbering has changed between editions. There's also this gallery on Commons, apparently based on a 2003 edition of Zoellner. The fact that the Zoellner catalogue's been replicated on Commons gives me hope that a list of drawings could be automatically generated using Wikidata (then converted into more acceptable formatting), as I assume that the gallery was created in a similar way. If it wasn't, possibly there's a way of creating a database out of the contents of the gallery. If and when we commit to this I could ask around at d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings for help. I'm keeping track of coverage of Leonardo on Wikidata at User:Ham II/Leonardo; it's not very comprehensive for drawings at the moment (and the "14th century" date for Study for the Madonna of the Cat is a terrible glitch on Listeria). Really, everything in Zoellner should also be an item on Wikidata. The nicest way of browsing through lists of artworks on Wikidata is Crotos, although there are sadly some very dodgy Leonardo attributions in the mix there. Ham II (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Just got home. My 2019 Zollner edition has catalogue numbers for up to 663 drawings; with four other catalogue numbering systems (with varying completion); is this what yours looks like? A pretty amazing feat by both Leonardo and Zollner. Anyways, that recreation of Zollner's catalogue on Wikicommons should be extremely helpful... will look at starting a draft this weekend, if you don't beat me to it. Aza24 (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Yep, the same: 663 drawings with a concordance of Arthur E. Popham's numbering system and three others. I've also got a 1977 edition of Popham with 320 pages of illustrations, sometimes two drawings to a page but more often one. Zoellner's more comprehensive and I don't think we'd need to include the other four systems in an eventual article, but the current accession numbers should probably be there, as should the notation used at List of works by Leonardo da Vinci#Manuscripts, which is from Kemp 2007. That Manuscripts section has two images which I couldn't find in Zoellner – B.L.24v and Triv.30r – so Zoellner may not actually be complete, but is surely our best guide. I don't want you to got to the trouble of creating a list of over 600 drawings manually if there's a way of partially automating it – shall I ask Maltaper, who created the Commons gallery, how they did it? Ham II (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
If you want, my plan was to copy the html from the commons gallery and use some "search and replace" stuff to insert table functions which should be far less tedious than manually doing so. Though inserting the names, sizes, medium from wikidate (if they're there) will be trickier. I feel like we should include more than just Zollner's numbers but I'm not sure which others would be best, since the others are so scattered... Aza24 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
JavaScript Wiki Browser is great for searching and replacing – I highly recommend it if you decide to take that route. There's no data for most drawings on Wikidata, but I'm hoping that all the works in Zoellner could be added en masse if a spreadsheet exists somewhere. If so, it would then just be a matter of copying, pasting and cleaning up code from User:Ham II/Leonardo, or a similar page created using {{Wikidata list}}. I will ask Maltaper, but it'll have to be next week now as I've got a busy weekend ahead.
I don't think any of the other four numbering systems in Zoellner's concordance need to be added; two are for works in the Royal Collection only (RL and PDM), a third (K/P) is only for anatomical studies and the fourth, Popham, is less complete than Zoellner. My edition of Popham has its own concordance, with Berenson, Bodmer, Clark and the Commissione Vinciana. Except for Clark (which is the same as RL), those had all presumably been superseded by the time Zoellner compiled his catalogue, as he didn't include them (and PDM was in the process of superseding RL). Similarly, I think we can treat Zoellner as having superseded the other four catalogues in his concordance for comprehensiveness.
Zoellner's captions give folio/recto/verso for pages in manuscripts, e.g. (opening a page at random) "Codex Madrid I, MS 8937, fol. 45r" for Zoellner no. 536. Following Kemp 2007, that can be abbreviated to "Madrid I.45r". For other drawings (except ones in private collections) he gives accession numbers, e.g. "RL 19017r" for Zoellner no. 319 (in the Royal Collection), or "Inv. 1895-9-15-474" for Zoellner no. 191 (in the British Museum). There should definitely be a column for these. Ham II (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Have created User:Aza24/List of drawings by Leonardo da Vinci but many of the images are not working for some reason. We can add an ascension column and codex/manuscript ones at somepoint. And yes I agree about sticking with just Zollner's numbers. Am now concerned about adding in the other data in a non-tedious way if we can't find a spreadsheet... Aza24 (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
You think there's a way to search WP for instances of people using "da Vinci" as a surname? Like searching for text on WP with [[da Vinci]] or [[Leonardo da Vinci|da Vinci]] in it? I've seen it far too often, and not really the proper way to refer to him... Aza24 (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This might be something to take to Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos; they seem to be experienced in thinking about that sort of thing over there. The various (d/D)a Vincis at List of things named after Leonardo da Vinci and Da Vinci (disambiguation) would have to remain unchanged though, as would the likes of (*shudder*) The Da Vinci Code, Da Vinci's Demons, etc. One problem could be that it might take a human pair of eyes to decide whether it's better to replace "da Vinci" with "Leonardo" or with "Leonardo da Vinci" in each context. It might be easiest in the short term to do a lot of searches for combinations of words, e.g. "preposition + da Vinci": "by da Vinci", "about da Vinci", "with da Vinci", "to da Vinci" ... Ham II (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah thats seems like a sensible approache; I may end up requesting access to AWB at some point, especially since I've already done a lot of work with templates, and it's a pain to manually insert new ones into every article (I think AWB does that faster). I saw some of Da Vinci's Demons, thought it was OK, completely fictionalized (and a lot of supernatural occurrences in fact) but it rather sadly imagines a world where all of Leonardo's inventions were put to good use in his lifetime, even though this was almost never the cast :( — Da Vinci Code I found boring and over-hyped–only saw the movie though, not the book.
With the drawings list, are there any other columns we might want to include besides a "manuscript: folios" one? Aza24 (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the shudder was meant for The Da Vinci Code – I've not seen Da Vinci's Demons. I think locations would be an essential field for the drawings list. On reading Accession number (library science), it looks as if that term encompasses the foliation (if that's the term?) for manuscripts as well as individual drawings in museums, so that'll probably be the best term to use for that column. Presumably they'd have to be the long versions in Zoellner, though, in order to be the true accession numbers – "Codex Madrid I, MS 8937, fol. 45r", not "Madrid I.45r". (The link should make it more user-friendly.) I'd still like to ask at d:WD:SOAP about getting everything onto Wikidata, and have just been waiting for a free weekend – this coming weekend looks good. It does rather look at the moment as if we'd still be inputting lots of data manually first, whether directly onto Wikipedia or into some spreadsheet. Ham II (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Any bet for how long it'll be till an admin has no choice but to protect POM? I'm thinking in maybe two/three hours...! Speaking of which, there's currently a discussion about protecting TFAs in the first place... so I guess we'll see what happens there. Am lost with our plans for the drawings list, it seems like we have to do manually, so should we do directly into the table or a spreadsheet? I don't really have a preference. Aza24 (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
At last, I'm coming back to this! Belated congratulations for TFA day! Yes, having some kind of protection in place on the day would have been better. I did ask around at d:WT:SOAP about the drawings, but unfortunately the conversation stalled after I showed where I'd got with the spreadsheet; I've now tried to re-start it. Sorry if my wanting to get all the drawings onto Wikidata seems more complicated than simply editing the table at your sandbox. The advantage, I hope, will be that we'd have the option of ordering the drawings differently from Zoellner – I want to see how they look in chronological order. When the time comes to fill in the spreadsheet, how shall we split the work between us? Any areas you'd really like to do? Ham II (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! And I agree that the Wikidata method will (hopefully) make things a lot cleaner. But regardless, I'm sure we'll do fine. At the moment I'm unable to access the spreadsheet, I think you have to go to "get link" (in the share button) > "anyone with link" > "editor". As far as who does what... perhaps you start at the beginning and I can start at the end? Aza24 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
D'oh! Here's the spreadsheet again; I unlocked it yesterday. No wonder I wasn't getting a response at d:WT:SOAP before then! I've had some feedback on it now, and I think we can press on with it.
Fields with white backgrounds are ones to be filled in with information from our print copies of Zoellner; all the catalogue numbers are done. Note the quotation marks around some strings of text; I think those are necessary. Fields with yellow backgrounds will be deleted when the spreadsheet is finished – I'll change all the names of collections to Wikidata IDs before pasting the spreadsheet into QuickStatements.
Hope this makes sense – I'm still an absolute beginner at this myself! I'm happy to work from the top down if you still want to work from the bottom up, but we can split the work however we please. I'd suggest copying the titles and the accession numbers exactly as they appear in Zoellner, but in quotation marks. Have fun! Ham II (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Ham, I can still only view the file, not edit. :) I've typed out the last 10 or so on a seperate sheet; if you give me editing access I can copy them over and start from there. Aza24 (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Oops – does it work for you now? Ham II (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, hurray! I've just now put in 656–663; I'll work from there up in the coming days. Aza24 (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

Graph of Reply tool and full-page wikitext edit completion rates
Completion rates for comments made with the Reply tool and full-page wikitext editing. Details and limitations are in this report.

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

  • The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
  • It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

  • As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
  • There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[1]
  • The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[2] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
  • A large A/B test will start soon.[3] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool

Screenshot of version 1.0 of the New Discussion Tool prototype.

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[4] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

London Locmaps

Hi Ham - Hope you're well. Am looking for advice. I'm working this up. Having the London locmapin in the infobox is just silly. I need a larger scale. But the Kensington and Chelsea one doesn't work - the dot for Kensal Green Cemetery appears outside the infobox. Is there a locmapin that covers the necessary part of West London? Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@KJP1: Hi there! Hope all's well with you too. I'm afraid I don't know much about locmap graphics, but I'm a bit more familiar with the other way of including maps in infoboxes, which is with the mapframe parameter. Unfortunately, {{Infobox historic site}} doesn't have that, so I've taken the liberty of changing the infobox to {{Infobox building}}. The advantage of this is that you can customise the level of zoom by changing the number at mapframe-zoom = 12. If you think this looks worse, feel free to revert. Ham II (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Much better - gracias! KJP1 (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of name changes due to the George Floyd protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hackney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. Ham II (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Penarth

Have you seen this? It's quite wonderful. All the best, No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine: Lovely! No, that one was new to me. I've now added it to the list of public art in the Vale of Glamorgan, one of the Welsh lists that 14GTR so helpfully created. Ham II (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of public art in St Marylebone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Tait.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. Ham II (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Wici'r Holl Ddaear (Cymru)

Photo: User:Maverick Adventures
Photo: User:Maverick Adventures

Pa hwyl, gyfaill!

Bydd Cymru'n cymryd rhan yn y gystadleuaeth Wiki Loves Earth eleni, am y tro cyntaf. Os oes gen ti 'chydig o amser, tybed a wnei di ein helpu? Mae'r Wicibrosiect yma'n ddwyieithog, fel y gweli di ar y dudalen glanio yma. Unrhyw syniadau - tyrd a nhw plis! Mae llawer o sefydliadau MAWR ein cenedl ar fin cyhoeddi eu bod nhw am hyrwyddo Wici'r Holl ddaear, felly bydd angen cymaint o help a phosib!

Diolch a chofion cynnes iawn... Robin Wikimedia UK (aka Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC))

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Memorial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip Jackson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #2

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Junior contributors comment completion rate across all participating Wikipedias
When newcomers had the Reply tool and tried to post on a talk page, they were more successful at posting a comment. (Source)

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:

  • Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
  • The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

By public command…

Is the new Diana statue public art? It's evidently in the grounds of a royal palace yet appears to be publically acessible in a way the Waterloo Vase isnt! Any ideas? No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine: Tricky one, but I'm inclined to veer towards including it in the template and the list of public art for its location. If the Sunken Garden is indeed going to be open to the public (are there any sources for this?), then Diana's sculpture would be in a more public location than the Bank of England's war memorial and the BMA's, which are in the template. The Richmond list has sculptures in the grounds of Hampton Court – OK, a Historic Royal Palace not a current one, but the public parts of Kensington Palace are presumably as public as those of Hampton Court, i.e., open to paying visitors, unlike the inaccessible Waterloo Vase in the garden of Buckingham Palace. Ham II (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@No Swan So Fine: Sod's law – a week after I wrote that: Buckingham Palace gardens open to the public for first time ever. Only until September, though; I don't know whether it'll become a permanent arrangement in the future. And there's the Waterloo Vase in the second picture! Ham II (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I think 'open to the public after payment with tickets' is different from a public park or streetscape etc. St John's Lodge is an analogous property I think. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Greetings

I possess Benedict Read's Victorian Sculpture if Google Books ever lets you down! I always look forward to whatever you have in the pipeline. I created a list for London's most monumental man recently as well. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine: That's good to know! I'm planning a blitz on the London public art lists later in the year – from November, which is when my thoughts usually turn to war memorials. Thanks to your Simon Milton article I see I can add some more on – and a much nicer pic of – his statue in Southwark. And I love it when a red dot turns green on WikiShootMe, so thanks for your recent sterling work in Covent Garden in particular! Ham II (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neoclassical architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion participation

Curious if you have thoughts about the discussion started here: Talk:Statue of Thomas Jefferson (U.S. Capitol). Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Sorry it took me so long to get to this! Ham II (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
No problem! I'd still love to wrap up this project of yours, if/when you're willing to help out. Would be so nice to get some consistency here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Gosh, yes! I see that the "Statue of" style has been applied to 84 of 106 relevant pages at Category:National Statuary Hall Collection (including redirects such as Statue of Barbara Rose Johns) – good work! Shall we focus on the remaining 22? Plus three to do at Category:Formerly in the National Statuary Hall Collection – two of them, William Jennings Bryan (Evans) and John Campbell Greenway (Borglum), look like very straightforward cases of "Statue of [subject] [no disambiguation]", per WP:D2D. Ham II (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
You've been so helpful with this undertaking and I hope we can complete this project. If there are specific pages you think can be moved without a discussion, I invite you to do so. The ones left to move seem to be the "more difficult" cases in which there are copies at multiple locations, possibly other statues of subjects, etc. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

By my count, there are only 11 more entries in Category:National Statuary Hall Collection (+1 in the subcategory) potentially requiring a move. We're so close! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Yep – going to tackle them on the weekend! Ham II (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Another Believer: I've got them down to 6 works (in Category:National Statuary Hall Collection), and laid out my current thinking for those remaining ones at User:Ham II/Sandpit G. I'll come back and finish next weekend. Thanks for cleaning up after my page moves! Ham II (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Another Believer: I've now WP:BOLDLY moved all the pages I can in the main category, and set up requested moves for Samuel Adams (Whitney) and Father Damien (Escobar). Fingers crossed! I'll tackle the three remaining non-NSHC works in the Capitol which need attention another time. Ham II (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Are we finally done with this project?! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Yep, all works in the NSHC are done now! Thank you for spurring me on when I'd got tied up in knots and practically given up on the project, and for those periodic RMs which brought the numbers down to something manageable so that I could contemplate coming back to it. The breakthrough for me was realising that disambiguation was only needed from other statues of the subjects with articles, not any other statues of them that may exist. If not for that I don't think this would ever have been finished. Sorry for leaving many of these works in the lurch for so long! It's wonderful to finish a project; thanks again. Ham II (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
All good, glad we were able to wrap this up! Thanks so much ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of public art in Kensington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen's Tower.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, @Ham II: how are you? hope you are well Can you create an article about this person He is a writer, journalist, Middle East correspondent for a well-known Turkish online newspaper Ensonhaber and translator I think he is notable if you have the time of course

Sources

Turkish Sources

Arabic Sources

 Comment: above account is locked globally as long term abuser (LTA), for more please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/علي أبو عمر/Archive. --Alaa :)..! 09:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Checking in

Thanks for your wonderful copyedit of La Scapigliata and happy holidays!! I regret that I had forgotten about our venture into Leonardo's drawings on the google sheets. Perhaps these coming weeks I might be able to gets some more entries in... I may have underestimated the massive amount! Aza24 (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Compliments of the season to you too, Aza24!! Have no fear about the Leonardo drawings; I was going to get in touch with you shortly as a New Year's resolution. I'm away from my copy of Zoellner at the moment but would definitely like to finish that project in early 2022. Looking forward to working with you again!
And I've got another idea, too... File:Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) - The Last Supper (1495-1498).jpg is a featured picture on the Arabic, Persian and Spanish Wikipedias – although File:The Last Supper - Leonardo Da Vinci - High Resolution 32x16.jpg has a higher resolution. I'd like to nominate one of those two at en:WP:FPC and, if it's successful, have it as Picture of the Day on 14 April, which is both Maundy Thursday and one of the possible dates of birth for Leonardo (in some sources, anyway – our article seems to have switched from giving it as 14/15 April to 15 April). Ideally it would have an imagemap when it's on the Main Page. Ham II (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The drawings plan sounds good! The FP for the Last Supper is a great idea; I was the one who made the original image map, so if it needs adjusting on a new picture, I could help out there. I don't know if you noticed, but I had reached out to someone who did a lot of picture stuff on WP and they created a really good version for File:Leonardo da Vinci - Portrait of a Musician - Pinacoteca Ambrosiana.jpg. He said he wasn't going to nominate it, but wouldn't mind if I did, what do you think?
Also, I may make some central hub page where we can keep track of Leonardo articles, similar to User:Ichthyovenator/Eurypterid overview and your User:Ham II/Leonardo. I'll ping you when I do so. Best! Aza24 (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: We could always start a WikiProject Leonardo da Vinci; those tend to work well as central hub pages... My User:Ham II/Leonardo is automatically generated from Wikidata and should come into its own after we've finished the spreadsheet; User:Ham II/Sandpit B is where I keep my assorted ideas and bibliography. I hadn't noticed the improved resolution at File:Leonardo da Vinci - Portrait of a Musician - Pinacoteca Ambrosiana.jpg, I'm sorry to say – yep, worth nominating, I'd say. File:Leonardo da Vinci, Salvator Mundi, c.1500, oil on walnut, 45.4 × 65.6 cm.jpg (an FP on Commons) and File:Leonardo da Vinci - Adorazione dei Magi - Google Art Project.jpg are other possibilities, I think. Ham II (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salvator Mundi (Leonardo), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chantilly.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ham_II/Archive_2021&oldid=1192989611"