User talk:Johnbod/20

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

Contents

Nice work[edit]

Very nice! Some of those images look especially useful. Doc Tropics 16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Matsys' The Ugly Duchess[edit]

I've added "She still wears the aristocratic horned headdress of her youth, now grotesquely out of fashion". Would you (and PKM) vet the accuracy of that statement?--Wetman (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, or her mother's youth! These mostly went out by 1450 I think. Hennin has a bit more. Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Military art[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre silk[edit]

It's not your period, but you might have some fun with Bizarre silk. It's been simmering on my back-burner for ages, but now I have an example, so here it is. - PKM (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

interesting - some linkage with the European arabesque, which I have been working on. The pattern looks rather wallpaper-esque to me, and perhaps would not be asymetrical on a larger scale. Mainly Indian influence I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you're right about arabesques. BTW, I have added some of the stranger surviving bizarre silk designs. - PKM (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh and also, Fashion Fashion is an exhibition catalogue and it uses this waistcoat to illustrate bizarre silks, so I am on firm ground with the attribution. :-) - PKM (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Egyptian temple/archive1[edit]

I replied to your comments here. A. Parrot (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the image for the construction section and attempted to make the description of the construction process clearer. I also obtained three books on Egyptian art (The Art of Ancient Egypt and Egyptian Painting and Relief by Gay Robins and Egyptian Art by Jaromír Málek) and looked through them for the information you asked about. I added what I could find to the article, but I can't find mention of precious metals in temple decoration or details on where the decoration usually was. I may be able to get an older edition of Smith & Simpson next Thursday, but it may not say the same things that yours does.
I've also added several links, although a lot of temples are not very distinctive and therefore not useful as examples. "Art in Ancient Egypt" is linked, as are "Ancient Egyptian religion" (after 18 months of struggling to make that article not be garbage, I can't believe I forgot to link it!) and "Heka (god)". I'm trying to think of a way to work in a link to "Amarna art" that isn't an Easter egg or a serious interruption in the flow of the text. Then there is the wavy wall, which has us both flummoxed. I don't know if that's resolvable.
In short, while your comments have undoubtedly resulted in improvements to the article, I feel that I'm reaching the limits of what I can do in an FAC time frame. I would appreciate a verdict one way or the other. A. Parrot (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Does any UK resident want a free 1 year subscription to the London Review of Books[edit]

If so, let me know here. You'll have to e-mail me your name & address, but otherwise no strings. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Reminder. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind that if it's still possible. I'll email you the details! Skinny87 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You are indeed first come, so will be first served. Enjoy. Let me know if nothing happens after a month or so - there was one last Friday, so you might get the next one Friday after next. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thx[edit]

Thank you for the good wishes, I was hoping to persuade you to have a go at the Orrery as its a brother/sibling of one of your other FAs - still do continue to have a mooch around Derby Articles. I'll see if I can have a go at these election questions but Im assuming the electorate understand that sometimes you are busy doing things. Will you be in Bristol? Cheers Victuallers (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly! Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Johnbo![edit]

Are you still there? I left you a reply re- secular Romanesque. We ought to do it. And secular Gothic.

I'm still trying to get organised. Every time I make progress, I fall sick! Shingles is the latest, so I'm sitting here with the remains of a huge outbreak on my face that looks like smallpox. Can't go anywhere! I am so sick of being cooped up!

Your Christmas/thankyou present is still at Richmond, waiting to be posted. I detailed my son off to wrap and send it....and I'm sure it hasn't happened because you would have commented... maybe you'll get it by next Christmas! Amandajm (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear! Yes we should, but not for a bit - I'm sure i have some stuff somewhere, though there's precious little left in the UK except for the odd "Jew's House" (Conway, Bury St E, etc.). My birthday's July 29 if that helps! Justin is just back from 2mths in Queensland, covered in exhaustive detail on his Facebook page, if they are friends. He had a great time of course. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You might want to look into Westminster Hall, which was built under the supervision of Ranulf Flambard. Also William de Corbeil built Rochester, and of course there's the White Tower built/begun by Gundulf of Rochester, who also did a good bit of other castle building during the time. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to get un-fortified stuff really; W Hall, like the Abbey, got a thorough Gothic make-over, & I don't think there's much visible 11th century work left, even including I think the plain bits of wall. I don't know any really decent Romanesque palaces in good condition, though there are ruins like Düsseldorf-Kaiserswerth, which I've seen. I must investigate Kaiserpfalz, though I suspect anything left by 1820 got restored to death. In some French and Italian cities you get cosy little stone terrace houses, & the V&A has a very flash section of decorated arcade from a large merchant's house. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I've just done some work on the article. I've rearranged it a bit and made a clear division between general architectural features and those specific to churches. That has paved the way for a section on domestic architecture.
I feel very tempted to group the photos as I have done on Architecture of cathedrals, basilicas and abbey churches. I'm also thinking about changing the name of that article to Architecture of cathedral, basilica and abbey churches.
If I group the pix, its a fair bit of work, but some could be replaced with pictures of castles and so on, in the general section, which would be good!
The house in Conwy, is that Aberconwy house?
What do you think? Amandajm (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-neutrality?[edit]

Could you take a look at the Christianity and atheism articles? I think there may be a neutrality issue. The atheism article highlights several rationales for being atheist but there is no such text for the Christianity article. What do you think?DataSmart (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 12#Susanne Kessler[edit]

Hi Johnbod. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanne Kessler, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 12#Susanne Kessler. Would you help new user Leda47 (talk · contribs) source Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Susanne Kessler so it may be returned to the mainspace? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

UNESCO World Heritage Site[edit]

Hi! I agree completely, and have always hated articles having two infoboxes and that scruffy looking thing lurking underneath it. Looks ugly and is really not useful At the very least I think it should be improved and other infoboxes given formal parameters to include the information without having to clutter the articles. I think its time for a discussion over it and something done about it.

Reference[edit]

FYI, I have pre-ordered this book: Anne van Buren Illuminating Fashion: Dress in the Art of Medieval France and the Netherlands, 1325-1515 ISBN 1904832903. Expected in late June. - PKM (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I want to thank you for your comments and support of Egyptian temple for FA status. I also want to thank you for FAC reviewing in general—I did it out of a sense of obligation while Egyptian temple was at FAC, and I hated it. Kudos to everybody who keeps the system working. A. Parrot (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Pottery[edit]

The article also seems to be talking about the practice of art in the modern-day, not just the ancient region which included Indus Valley Civilisation. Indian subcontinent is better than India for that reason. Lyk4 (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Great talk[edit]

Hi John, as you can tell from my enthusiastic nodding at the front, I very much agreed with your talk at the conference yesterday. WP doesn't do abstract concepts well, and it needs to in order to be a true encyclopedia. Yes, the FAC process is creating the wrong kinds of incentives. I'm not sure either what we can do about it, but I'm glad the topic has been raised and I don't mind being pointed towards anywhere these issues are being discussed on-wiki. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added my prose version, from which the slides were made at User:Johnbod/Content and coverage; where are we 10 years into the project?, which I may add to. I think we need to (re)launch a en:WP-wide review of vital/core topic articles, and then direct people's attention to these. Then widen it to the next layer of key articles. I think this process might be a more attractive one for new "expert" editors to initially join in than writing. And though such articles can certainly be improved by non-specialist editors, it's all just far easier and quicker if you actually know the subject well, and the results are almost certain to be better. I'm not sure what the next step is; I'll ponder. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Castle[edit]

Having read over you comment on talk:Castle it occurred to me that searching in a book on castles why structures with other origins are not considered castles might not be the best way to proceed. Instead I thought that looking at the sources on these similar structures might be productive. As such I've prepared a redraft below of the third paragraph with a more detailed explanation (I'm anticipating that this suggested change will not be controversial). I feel it may require more material, perhaps giving more examples than just shiro and forts in India, but wanted to get your thoughts on it at this stage. I do feel a satisfactory sentence summing up the situation, or at least closing the section neatly, is missing. If you think it's an improvement on what there currently is I'll happily post it on the talk page. I thought I'd first post my suggestion here as I can do so without worrying that someone might insist the idea for building castles originated with the crusades.

Castle has sometimes been used as a catch-all term, an alternative to fortification, and as a result has been misapplied in the technical sense. An example of this is Maiden Castle which, despite the name, is an Iron Age fortification on a scale far beyond any medieval castle and differing in origin and purpose.[1] It is generally accepted that castles are confined to Europe, where they originated, and the Middle East, where they were introduced by European Crusaders. This coherent group shared a common origin, dealt with a particular mode of warfare, and exchanged influences.[2] However, there were analogous structures elsewhere; while they may share common features of fortification, they originated in different periods and circumstances and experienced differing evolutions and influences. For example shiro in Japan, described as castles by historian Stephen Turnbull, underwent "a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature".[3] For instance, while European castles built from the late 12th and early 13th century onwards were generally stone, shiro were predominantly of timber construction into the 16th century.[4] By the time Japanese and European cultures met in the late 16th century, fortification in Europe had moved beyond castles and relied on innovations such as the Italian trace italienne and star forts.[3] Forts in India present a similar case; when they were encountered by the British in the 17th century castles in Europe had generally fallen out of use militarily. The fortifications the British encountered were dubbed forts, and the terminology is widely used today. Like shiro, the Indian forts, durga or durg in Sanskrit, shared features with castles in Europe such as acting as a domicile for a lord as well as being fortifications. They too had a different development from the structures known as castles that had their origins in Europe.[5]

The Turnbull and Nossov books are available through Google books and you should be able to preview the relevant pages (Nossov, Turnbull). Of course if you think I'm wide of the mark, do say. Nev1 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps a little agressive. How about:

Castle is sometimes used as a catch-all term for all kinds of fortifications, and as a result has been misapplied in the technical sense. An example of this is Maiden Castle which, despite the name, is an Iron Age hill fort, which had a very different origin and purpose.[6] In scholarship the castle, as defined above, is generally accepted as a coherent concept, originating in Europe and later spreading to parts of the Middle East, where they were introduced by European Crusaders. This coherent group shared a common origin, dealt with a particular mode of warfare, and exchanged influences.[7] However, there were analogous structures elsewhere; while they may share common features of fortification, they originated in different periods and circumstances and experienced differing evolutions and influences. For example shiro in Japan, described as castles by historian Stephen Turnbull, ....

I would also insert (after Maiden Castle). Although "castle" has not become, like chateau in French and schloss in German, a generic term for an English country house, many of these use the word in their name while having few if any of the architectural characteristics, usually as their owners liked to maintain a link to the feudal past; examples include Castle Howard and Lambton Castle. Others, like Windsor Castle and Belvoir Castle are greatly rebuilt, but have retained the outward appearance of a fortified castle. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the changes you suggest for the beginning of the paragraph, it shifts to focus onto scholarship. It's not a major change in terms of words altered, but importantly does change the meaning. Is the rest too beligerant? The point about Castle Howard etc sounds like something Thompson covered in Decline of the Castle, so I'll try to track that down. Unless I'm lucky though I may not be able to lay may hands on a copy until a week on Friday. Nev1 (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
No the other bits are fine. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Last Supper in Christian art[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The New Klondike[edit]

DYK check now shows the article at

Prose size (text only): 1886 characters (315 words) "readable prose size".

More to do. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because I'm a completest...[edit]

Can you double check that Richard Barre wasn't a patron of the arts? I haven't run across any indications that he was, but he's likely to go up at FAC soon, and I'd hate to have missed an aspect of him. Same for William de Chesney, Theobald of Bec, and Gerard (archbishop of York)? I really haven't found any indications, but better to be safe than sorry. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt Barre really had the budget, unlike the archbishops. I'll see if anything comes up for them, but it may take a while. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't turned anything up artistic on any of them. The most likely would be Theobald or Gerard, but Gerard seems to have been more the scholar than a patron. Take your time, and I appreciate it as always. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Again[edit]

There we go again Ascension of Jesus in Christian art. I will DYK it for Feast of the Ascension (June 2nd). History2007 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok - unfortunately Schiller's volume 3, which covers it, never got translated into English, but I should be able to add some. Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Look on the positive side, here is your chance to improve your German. History2007 (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, could you Ok the DYK before editing it, so it gets set for June 2nd? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Not sure I should do that, if I know I'm going to edit it. But there's loads of time. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It has 5 days to be reviewed, else passes the deadline. But someone will review anyway. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It has 5 days to be submitted; there's no deadline on reviews as such. But now submitters have to review, these happen quickly. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok. No worries, it will probably ascend to the top of the list. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you did well to add that Munich relief, etc. I organized the gallery. Overall looks good to go. Time to move on to the next one: you guessed it: Transfiguration. Feast day: August 6th. I am trying to get the major items done and DYKed on the feast day, then after a year they are all there. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln FAN[edit]

I noticed a procedural misstep you pointed out on the Lincoln FAN page and thought you could best help with a question. I am making most of the changes requested on the FAN. At this point we have a lot of fixes, some with responding resolve strikes, and then some without. These are fairly straight forward items and it would help if we could move them off the page. I am not up on the procedure here. Any suggestion? Thanks. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's much too early for someone else to clear them, & you may have to allow for Easter holidays. I'd leave it a while yet. The FAC seems to be going ok to me. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah! Did I speak too soon? Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. (So if I'm okay with people slamming me for using hyphens instead of ndashes, why would I get stressed over scrolling up and down the FAC page forty miles a day?) Carmarg4 (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Albrecht Dürer[edit]

To many pictures maybe, but this is, as far as I can see, the only portrait on Wikipedia that is not a self portrait. So, this image shows him as others saw him, whereas the self portraits show him as he would have liked to be seen. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like a much later copy of one of his inserted self-portraits, the one here. It is certainly not contemporary; it looks like it's from Rubens' own period. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The likeness between the two portraits is, I think, far-fetched, and I am not specialist enough to say whether this painting is from Dürers or Rubens' time, but the fact that it stays in the Rubens House today does not mean it was painted by his contemporaries. (eod). Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Caravaggio[edit]

Can you help me to date the pic on Am Abend aber desselbigen Sabbats, BWV 42? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done; we also have a very full list. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't think that far, just saw uploading dates ... - Completely different question: a piano trio is based on a painting "Nacht" by Kandinsky, do you happen to know more on the painting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
No, sorry. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Tancred[edit]

I'm sure you can find innumerable articles to go into that category. Mind you, have you seen The Eiger Sanction? Paul B (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've always thought Clint could give AG-D & Waldie J a run for their money. I think all are linked now. Strange The Loo Sanction never got made! Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, odd that, isn't it? Paul B (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I bet he had the Nazis quaking when he organised this in 1942: "Dr. Tancred Borenius will give a lecture on "Canaletto's Warsaw" at the Dorchester on Thursday, February 26, at 6 p.m., in aid of the Polish Relief Fund. The lecture will be illustrated by lantern slides of eighteenth century Warsaw." Paul B (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Franz Johann Joseph Bock[edit]

Hey, thanks for all the improvement to Cloth of St Gereon. I have just writtten up a related article on Franz Johann Joseph Bock you might want to look at sometime. I'm sure I made some errors there also and you are a much better editor than I am.--Doug Coldwell talk 16:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Great catch on that hatnote. I thought of it a couple of days ago, however by the time I got around to entering the new article I had forgotten. That's why another pair of eyes is needed.--Doug Coldwell talk 17:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Johnbod. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

House or Villa?[edit]

I'm really troubled by what seems to me to be the "House or Villa" confusion in the Chiswick House article. WTF is it, a house or a villa? Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, or Villa or villa. I guess he should decide, but then be consistent. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to hold back on doing very much more until someone decides. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, decisions are needed on capitalization - lots of "Library" , "Bedchamber" etc, & "sweet Chestnut", which I just changed. I'm mainly linking. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ciborium (architecture)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 17:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your help! Drmies (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I just saw Circumcision of Jesus. Great article which has FA written all over it. And you got it on the front page on the very day! I'm going to pull this up in class next time I teach SGGK. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I think "Thunderbird One" has to go to DYK, no? Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

van der Weyden[edit]

Hi Johnbod. I'm probably going to nom The Magdalen Reading shortly. As you did a lot of the work, I would appreciate if it could be a co-nom. It needs a bit of touching up yet, but in terms of coverage and sources, I've not found much new in months, I think all the aspects covered by existing scolarship are there now. Ta. Ceoil 17:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, delighted. Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Grand so. TK is messing around with the structure in her sandbox, so a week or two or so, and you'll be cupible. Ceoil 22:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Its done[1]. Thanks for all your help on this, vast improvements, as usual. My main worry is that its too technical, or art historical, but well see how it goes. I finally got Campbell's big catl. For €40, compared to the amazon prices, which are ten times that. Ceoil 20:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a deal - where was that? I'm in the middle of this, but it can't go on for ever. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I dont why you bother trying to reason with these people, to be honest. You can't, its only agony. I'd comment on your behalf, but on that notice board, youd prob be indeffed by association. But have fun anyway. Got catl from a local Cork book seller. A friend of mine with a phd in early modernist poetry, and is published himself, but earns a crust selling harry potter books to commuters. I'm not sure of the source before that, I assume it was pawned by some unfortunate. Ceoil 21:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to check email - I've sent Ward. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it - many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted you know that I enjoyed working with you on The Magdalen Reading. It came along nicely during the FAC and is a much better page now in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's often the way! It's been fun. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I need to learn that. I try to bring them to FAC in as perfect condition as possible, but that's truly a little stressful. I haven't had a chance to read your new FAC yet, but it looks interesting.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod - continuing here from Talk:Rogier_van_der_Weyden#Subject's name. I appreciate that you are trying to ensure that I understand WP:RS. If I was ambiguous in what I first wrote there, I apologise. I had been assuming, negatively, that it would not be suspected that I could be suggesting that any WP was a RS. What I was assuming, positively, was that: where the article topic relates mainly to events occurring in or recorded in another language, a contributor to en:WP should check out what has been done in that language's WP (say, x:WP). The treatment in x:WP could then be drawn upon as a model for treatment in en:WP, including seeking out sources used in x:WP for possible, independent use in en:WP. If I haven't got that right, I've got something to learn and would be happy to do so. And I have not been planning to contribute substantively to this article - I'll leave that to you specialists. --Wikiain (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Important imagery[edit]

Important visual art is on the line here for deletion: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 3, please weigh in...Modernist (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

Ciao John... as usual, I'm here harassing you seeking for help at clopyedit my attempt at Bufalini Chapel. Hope you've time to check it... Ciao and good work from --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Raphael[edit]

Great copy editing on the Raphael paintings! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Offer[edit]

I can't think why the statement at Medieval art is so contentious or unbelievable, but anyway thought I'd let you know I have access to JSTOR and maybe you or Modernist can find a source there. I've tried a quick look, but haven't much time right now and am not really sure what to use for search terms. If you find anything that would help let me know here, or via email, and I'll send it your way. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks! I have a source (Hugh Thomas) I'll add soon, but could do with a more specialized one. I thought it a very commonly accepted fact, though looking for a source I find it easy to ref the greater scale of trade & size of cities, as well as the wealth of the rulers, but not a direct per capita GDP etc - hisorians of the medieval Islamic world seem a lot less happy generalizing & guesstimating than ones of Europe, and there is generally less data. GPM spends a lot of his time trying to remove positive references to all non-European medieval cultures. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

You edit-war at Medieval art and you know so. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, this is silly gaming by Gun Powder Ma, who is in dispute with all she comes across, as a matter of habit. Ceoil 10:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a she?? I'm pretty sure not. But yes. He/she opended an RFC there btw - only about 5 screens to read over what is now 2 words! Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure your wise and old enough by now to know that this is the way it goes with cranks. 2 words? All they need. I assumed the she because the user name is not Gun Powder Da, but it takes all types on the internet. Dont worry yourself about this rubbish. Nice to see Liz back, no? Ceoil 12:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Stop the edit-warring, Johnbod. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
and please stop being a WP:TROLL! Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see here Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Pots[edit]

I see you are on to why I was skulking around Roman pottery. It was my next intention to drop a note saying my remarks were in part prompted by the olla, for which I had plentiful cultural material, and insufficient archaeological resources. The reverse of the other situation. Thanks for your addition. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Medieval art[edit]

I thought this [2] was addressed to me, until you recommended re-reading Brett more carefully. I've not yet read Brett at all, so I trust you were talking to Gun Powder Ma? Kafka Liz (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Phipson[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Medieval art[edit]

Do I get it correctly that you tried to summarize the discussion? I don't remember anybody questioning the existence of the "influences of Islamic art" section in the RfC (I only questioned the quality of that section). Could you please attribute questions to the user who raised questions? --Anneyh (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm sorry, I thought you had written the whole section Material and arguments contra the claim of a "generally wealthier Islamic world", but it is GPM ([3]). My question was if anybody during the RfC actually asked whether "we need a whole section on the influence of Islamic art, particularly in view of the existing Islamic influences on Christian art", I do not remember on anybody making such a claim during in the RfC discussion. Maybe I need to read that back. --Anneyh (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I wondered if it might be that. GPM did try to remove almost all the section last year, and Stuart questioned the need for the section this time. I agree it can do with reshaping, but during the current bombing raid is not the moment. I'd like to see where we get with the "influence" article, & then look at the section in Medieval art again in a while. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I need some time on the influence article... Not sure how much I can achieve in May, but I read a lot already (my books and some preparatory works are on User:Anneyh/Art). --Anneyh (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Stuart never claimed that, he said "seem to occupy a disproportionate (and expanding) amount of space which could simply be replaced with a short paragraph and a link to the separate article". --Anneyh (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok. In fact I don't think it currently links to the other article, just because it was so questionable, & mostly about architecture. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

William Rogers (engraver)[edit]

Can you add anything to William Rogers (engraver)? - PKM (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's wonderful, thanks!!! - PKM (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hind is also rather rude about his portrait style - I can add some of that if you like. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Btw, I think he is "Anglus et Civis Lond" - or civis - only because he is a master of the Goldsmith's Guild. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Go for it. I'm scouring the web for more images. - PKM (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
this is the place for that - 32 Rogers. But don't use quotes on the search, & tick "production information" - it's a very fiddly database. They have far more prints online than they used to. Boston MFA is also very good. You don't pick these up from google. See also the short bio here. See this in particular - only 2 impressions known according to them. Also the BM have a "rosa electa" (since 1924). Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
So now the Family of Henry VIII is attributed to Lucas de Heere again? Ha, need to make changes in a couple of places re: that. Thanks for the links. Much to do. - 216.178.108.232 (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
[That was me, not logged in. Actually we have it as de Heere most places. Brain rot. - PKM (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)]

Proposal for current Request for Comment on Medieval art[edit]

Would you agree that I move the Request for Comment to "Art, architecture, literature, and media" instead of "History and geography" and that somebody else than GPM and yourself draws the conclusions of the request? --Anneyh (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me - good luck to them. Anyone doing a conclusion should actually look at the sources. Are conclusions usually drawn? Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Nathaniel Whittock, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Please note: WP:BEFORE #6 explicitly states "If the article is not already tagged to note an existing problem, consider applying a tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't be a jerk. You have launched an AFD which will resolve notability one way or the other - that tag is therefore superfluous. Many good references have been added, and the article is now rather heavily referenced. You are misreading WP:BEFORE, which does indeed refer to what to do BEFORE an AFD is begun. I would also draw your attention to #4 "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist"! Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
So simply obeying WP:BEFORE is 'being a jerk'? Pardon me if I don't take your views too seriously. Most of the sourcing remain primary/affiliated -- so your "many good references" is simply a waste of bandwidth. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
??? Are you capable of reading? Which of these are "primary/affiliated":
1. ^ Grove Art Online, "Bird’s-eye view", accessed 16 May, 2011 (not dates of prints),[Full citation needed] Sanders of Oxford[unreliable source?]
2. ^ About faces: physiognomy in nineteenth-century Britain, Sharrona Pearl, p. 96
3. ^ Hugh Murray, Nathaniel Whittock's bird's-eye view of the City of York in the 1850s, Friends of York City Art Gallery, 1988
4. ^ The decorative painters' and glaziers' guide, by Nathaniel Whittock, online text
5. ^ Joanna Banham, Sally MacDonald, Julia Porter. Victorian interior style, 1995, Studio Editions, ISBN 1858912458, 9781858912455
6. ^ It is described as "influential" in both: Parissien, Steven. Interiors: The Home Since 1700, p. 140 (quoted) - 141, 2008, Laurence King Publishing, and Encyclopedia of interior design: M-Z., Volume 2, Editors Joanna Banham, Leanda Shrimpton, Fitzroy Dearborn, p. 785, 1997, ISBN 1884964192, 9781884964190. "Important":Painted wood: history and conservation, p. 245, 1998, Symposium Proceedings, Getty Conservatiomn Institute, Eds, Valérie Dorge, F. Carey Howlett, ISBN 0892365013, 9780892365012
7. ^ The Ashmolean, Issues 15-27, Ashmolean Museum, 1989

Please don't bother me here again. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Then please leave off the wild accusations. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Un-/primary-/affiliated-sourced: "on drawing and other subjects, such as The decorative painters' and glaziers' guide (1828), The Construction and Design of Shop Fronts (1840), and The complete book of trades, or the parents' guide and youths' instructor (1837). The full title of the first of these was: The decorative painters' and glaziers' guide: containing the most approved methods of imitating oak, mahogany, maple, rose, cedar, coral, and every other kind of fancy wood, Verd Antique, Dove, Sienna, Porphry, white-veined and other marbles, in oil or distemper colour; designs for decorating apartments, in accordance with the various styles of architecture; with directions for stencilling, and process for destroying damp in walls; also a complete body of information on the art of staining and painting on glass; plans for the erection of apparatus for annealing it, and the method for joining figures together by leading, with examples from ancient windows. He was born to John and Sarah Whittock in the City of Westminster and was baptised on 6 March 1791 at St John's, Smith Square.[citation needed] Little is known about him until 1824-1829 when he appears as "Teacher of Drawing and Perspective, and Lithographist to the University of Oxford", and worked for the university's Ashmolean Museum and scientific community.[7] In 1830 and 1831 he was at 24 Garnault Place, Spa Fields, Islington, London and from 1848 to 1860 he worked at 34 Richard Street, Islington with his cousin Henry Hyde.
Third-party sourced: Nathaniel Whittock (b. 26 January 1791) was a noted Victorian topographical engraver, well-known for his bird's-eye views, e.g. of York (1856), Oxford (1834), Melbourne, Australia (1854), Hull (1855), and London (1845, 1849, 1859).[1] He was "a prolific writer of instruction books" "As the full title shows, the work was very comprehensive, and the preface "rails against trade secrecy" which the book was intended to dispel.[5] The work has been described as "influential" and "important" and is often cited by modern scholars of interior decoration."
You do the math. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
??? An online scan of the title page is the best source for the title of a book. There is nothing wrong with "The Ashmolean", published by a major museum. Please stop cluttering up this page. Take it to article talk. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Individual animals[edit]

As a user who participated in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 12#Individual animals, you may be interested in a discussion related to this at Category talk:Individual animals#Recent Cfd moves. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Art of the United Kingdom[edit]

Well, it means that before starting another RM it would be good to discuss this on the talk page and try to develop some consensus. Without a consensus going in, it does not appear that an additional RM will succeed. The discussion 4 months ago closed the same way and there was not discussion on the talk page to try and develop a consensus. My feeling, without being and expert in the UK/British differences, is that maybe there is some kind of a split that might allow for the renaming. But as I said, that is not something I'm well versed in. As to a fast close. No, it was not. It was less then an hour short of the full 7 days. I try to close as many as possible on the day before they enter the backlog if I believe that they can be closed. Nothing mandates that a discussion has to be open for 168 hours. In fact some discussions are closed within 24 hours of the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The debate itself showed how little interest in discussing the issues there is, though in fact last time this happened to some degree. In fact none of the opposers have ever edited the article, & its pretty clear from their comments they've never even read it, or taken any interest in the subject. I very much doubt they follow the talk page except for moves. It's a pure eccentric nationalist POV (Irish & Scottish) vs people interested in the subject, & COMMONNAME supporters. Splitting the article is a wierd suggestion frankly; we already have 4 articles for the constituent countries of the UK. If you can't make better suggestions than this, it's best to avoid comment. Johnbod (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pisa Griffin[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Jan van Eyck image[edit]

Hi Johnbod, I saw your note on the talk page at File:Jan van Eyck 091.jpg. There's a small discussion on my talk page at User_talk:Keraunoscopia#van_Eyck if you'd like to head over and take a look. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 16:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Contemptus mundi[edit]

I thought that Contemptus mundi was an unexpected and glaring lacuna. I've plugged the gap with a slender outline. You and the A-Team lurkers here may be able to strengthen it with some improved substance.--Wetman (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo[edit]

Here is the article we discussed: User:Amandajm/Leonardo da Vinci, investigation, attribution and speculation.

Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

and the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo da Vinci, investigation, attribution and speculation, which I see was not placed on the Visual arts list, which it certainly should have been. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk back[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at LoriLee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In my haste I forgot to leave a talk back. LoriLee (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Morgan[edit]

Hi Johnbod I thought you would find this interesting [4]...Modernist (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that - sounds great. Sadly I don't think I'll be seeing it. I'll tell User:PKM too. Johnbod (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Augustine of Canterbury[edit]

thanks for the edits. The bit you left wasn't in the source given so it came out too. We'll see if we have someone who's insistent on adding unsourced/trivia or not. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so - both bits are essentially correct, but all medieval saints' shrines got smashed up in the Reformation anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Magdalen Reading[edit]

Regarding this edit of yours: How can readers know what "53" means without the number being bolded? Is it the issue? The page number? I hope that you will re-revert that edit yourself. --Eisfbnore talk 15:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

How does bolding it help? It is not a convention here; what should be bolded is in the MOS & does not include these. If it is a volume, not an issue number, feel free to add "vol." etc. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the MOS; bolded numbers always imply volume. For instance, the {{cite journal}} and the {{cite book}} templates bold the number given in the |volume= parameter, and I cannot see any good reason to not bold the vol. number. I had a look at the JSTOR link, and yes, "53" was the volume number. I can of course add "vol." instead, makes no difference. --Eisfbnore talk 20:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't generally see this bolding convention in other MOS's, only in these templates... I'd find "Vol." more useful than simple bolding, personally. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dresses[edit]

Your excitement over these articles has inspired me to create another 50. First one is Black dress of Rita Hayworth, dedicated especially for you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you do some historic dresses. The category now gives the impression fashion started in about 1947. You also need to boost your dress vocab -- the articles don't give a very clear idea what the dresses looked like, especially when there are no photos. Johnbod (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Donor[edit]

Please John, notice I've also improved other aspects of the article (such as WP:Weasel words "surprisingly" etc) and added the far more famous Bentivoglio Altarpiece donors example. I am making a survey to discover what Memling painting is it and I will restore once discovered what is it. Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I did notice it, and reverted it; it is of course very remarkable that consistent scale should be disregarded so late. The image for the Bentivoglio Altarpiece is unacceptably poor, & it does not illustrate at all the point being discussed of donors getting involved in narrative scenes - It just repeats the Memling point. There are many Italian paintings shown, & there is no need to get nationalistic over this. The name and location of the Memling are of course given on the commons file. I will copy this to the talk page - please continue it there. Johnbod (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not nationalistic at all, as you can see from the fact that I've just added some articles on Memling himself! I also add many articles on Spanish or French items. I am just limited from the languages I can read. Anyway, I did not like the fact that you kept reverting my version without giving a glance to the "diff" page to keep the removal of the weasel words and the other format error. At the end, your revert gave me the impression that you were reverting my stuff by purpose, but perhaps I'm wrong. Ciao. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Bartholomeus Spranger[edit]

Hi Johnbod. Thank you for explaining why you changed “Brabantian” back to “Flemish” on the Bartholomeus Spranger page. I do not insist on the usage of “Brabantian”, because it is/was in fact quite local like you said. However, when dealing with persons or events from the 16th or 17th century ‘Flemish’ refers to the County of Flanders (consisting approximately of the present day provinces of West-Flanders and East-Flanders in Belgium + Zeelandic Flanders and French Flanders). This county was not a distinct political entity either at this date, so it is too local as well. Moreover, the city of Antwerp, where Spranger was born, was not at all located in the County of Flanders. The word “Vlaams” has only been used to refer to the present day “Flanders” since the 19th century (that is, colloquially; officially since a much later date). We should be careful not to impose relatively new cultural identities on people from history. I believe altering historical facts for the sake of simplicity to be rather risky. It seems we should avoid this in an encyclopaedia. That is why I suggest the following: either we refer to him as “South-Netherlandish” (like he is described on the Dutch Wikipedia page) or we omit the nationality completely and we just mention the cities he lived in. Does this seem acceptable? Timusuke (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure what you say is true in Dutch, but I just don't think it is in English, where from the Dutch Revolt on "Flemish" covers all the Southern Netherlands. See here or here for example - the other artist had pretty much the same thing. This search of historical uses is more mixed, but shows plenty of early ones that regarded Antwerp as being in Flanders. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the effort to prove your point, Johnbod.

Indeed, there seems to be a slight difference between the English word “Flemish” and the Dutch word “Vlaams”. An historical search [between 1500-1700] on Google Books for the exact phrase “Antwerp in Brabant” still generates 5 hits, as opposed to 0 for “Antwerp in Flanders”. If you look for books dating from 1500-1750 there are 29 hits for the former, but also 10 hits for latter so I see your point. Since the link to List of Flemish painters at the end of the page gives a clear definition of what is meant by “Flemish”, I will not insist on the deletion of the word in the Bartholomeus Spranger page. It still feels weird to me that the word links to a page about the present day political community though. In order to mention his official place of birth/death in the historical sense as well, it may be a good idea to make an ‘identity card’ like the one on the page of Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Can you accept this change? Cheers Timusuke (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added "He was born in Antwerp in the Habsburg Netherlands (strictly in the Duchy of Brabant)." I really don't like a) infoboxes in artists' articles at all, and b) these complicated ID card entries, which only make sense to those who already understand the history, which of course is very largely restricted to Dutch & Belgian readers I'm afraid. The historical sources suggest there were English writers who were aware of & observed the distinctions & others who didn't, but in modern English usage that Antwerp has long been full of "Flemish" people is pretty universal I think. So in a short article that seems enough to me; I hope you will agree. It's interesting to see that English effectively anticipated the modern concept in Dutch by a century or two, which I hadn't realized before. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the information! It's clear for people who don't know much about the historical background, as well as it is accurate now. It is indeed interesting how "Flemish" anticipated the modern concept in Dutch. Based on 18th century French-Dutch dictionaries that were called "dictionnaires français - flamand" (eventhough they were published in Utrecht or Amsterdam!), I think that both the English and the Dutch word got their modern meaning from French. The broader meaning was simply adopted a lot earlier in English than in Dutch. Timusuke (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think it was just too complicated for the English, & when they realized "Dutch" wouldn't cover everyone any more, they plumped for "Flemish" as the best-known overall term for the south. The OED quotes suggest that it was already used very generally back to the late 15th century, when "Fleming/Flemish" are first recorded. I note from 1703 that "the best sort of these are brought from Holland ... and are known as Flemish Pan-tiles"! "Netherlander/ian/ish" are all first used in English 1600-1610, but I think were slow to catch on. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks for noticing: let me ask for help[edit]

Hi I am the tissot-er. I am a volunteer focusing on some of the Brooklyn Museum's image assets. We have the whole set of Tissot's and they continue to be a popular request. I don't actually know much about the Life of Jesus but have been learning. I've tried to respect the general approach of wiki and don't want to offend. Which scenes of the Life of Christ might best be illustrated by Tissot? It is such a huge area but it's sort of atomized in it's structure. Advice? Suggestions? Thanks WilliamJustinM WilliamJustinM (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I would generally avoid the traditional scenes listed at Life of Christ, but individual miracles are often little illustrated. It would be helpful if you or someone could label the image files with the gospel references for at least the less-familiar scenes. Disciple (Christianity) could use maybe this, Joseph of Arimathaea this, Ordination this, and so on. Of course in an article on the cycle, for which you must have access to excellent materials, you could use a whole lot. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Help?[edit]

Hi! Wondering if you can help??? As part of the V&A’s website relaunch the webteam is creating pages about people who have work in the museum. The webteam is pulling in information from Wikipedia where possible, sometimes this is successful other times the message ‘undefined in Wikipedia’ is returned. Are these articles just missing an obvious piece of code or is it more complicated? Thanks as always for your help. VAwebteam (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As John seems to be offline and I have his talk page watchlisted, what did you do? Did you type the artists's names into the search window in the left hand column?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The webteam are able to find the article in Wikipedia using the search box they just can't pull it into the V&A's site using semantic web code. Thanks for your help.VAwebteam (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you give a couple of examples? Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Bess of Hardwick and James 'Athenian' Stuart, I can ask round for other examples. Thanks. VAwebteam (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Our actual title is "James Stuart (1713–1788)", with "James "Athenian" Stuart" as a WP:REDIRECT; I thought that might be an issue. But Bess of Hardwick is the actual title we use. Not sure what to say, as I'm not very techie, and I don't know what you're using to search. Can you give details of that, maybe the relevant bit of code, & I can ask an expert. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay replying I had to do a little bit of asking around. I haven't been working on these 'people pages' so am getting the info second hand. Here is a list of other people who wouldn't link up, I've had a quick look and wonder if one of the problems is that some share their name with several people

John Forster – one of many Leon Bask – not on wikipedia Owen Jones – one of many Roger Fenton Thomas Hope – one of many Walter Crane William Burges – one of two William Chambers – one of many I'll investigate further! Thanks for your help once again. VAwebteam (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes - you should probably use the exact title we do, Owen Jones (architect) etc. But William Chambers is a disam page, so that ought to work, even if it doesn't really go to the right place. Don't you mean Léon Bakst? Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
You are quite right it was Leon Bakst. I have a little more technical information now….the V&A is putting the article’s url suffix into the dbpedia metadata entry in its CMS but in some cases when the semantic web display is suppressed it doesn’t connect with the correct entry in Wikipedia. (eg. Auguste Rodin, the Wikipedia entry is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Rodin so the dbpedia entry in the the CMS metadata is Auguste_Rodin, looks like it should work but doesn’t). All starting to get a little bit too technical, content is more my thing! Thanks once again for your help and suggestions. VAwebteam (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Too technical for me - I've asked for expert help here. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


Hey Johnbod and VAwebteam. If you are trying to resolve links from the V&A site to Wikipedia, may I suggest using a search engine for it. It's an old trick I was taught many years ago. You can use Google, but their API is pretty limited - see here for details. Bing's API requires sign up these days. Or you can just fire off a query to the MediaWiki API on the Wikipedia site. You can add in things like year of birth or other simple bits of metadata and rely on the fact that there won't be too many people with the same name and the same year of birth.

Once you know the Wikipedia page name (that is, what you'd put in square bracket links, like

[[John Stuart Mill]]

, you can use that as part of Linked Data by replacing the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

part of the URL with

http://dbpedia.org/resource/

.

I'm sorry if that was rather vague, but I'm not exactly sure what the question is. Feel free to ask any further questions on my talk page. For Semantic Web/Linked Data related help, please consider asking on SemanticOverflow. If pages don't exist on Wikipedia for a particular person and they are otherwise notable, please feel free to add it to Wikipedia:Requested articles. Hope that helps. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. Am going to go back to our technical team with this extra information. VAwebteam (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

G'day, Johnbo![edit]

Gawd! I've been sick ever since I got back! Wotsmore, I made the mistake of looking at Architecture of ancient Greece (note the lower case 'a" for "ancient") and nearly flipped! It gets 17,000 hits a month, and doesn't even have a picture of the Parthenon. Well, I got distracted from Romanesque domestics immediately. It seemed more urgent. But it's progressing slowly. Maybe you would like to take a little loo at m intro and background, and make any improvements that your Classical Education deems necessary! Or should I ask my smug 13 yr old grandson? He knows nothing about architecture, but all about history. Amandajm (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look, but its not my subject at all. I expect you noticed that Greek temple looks pretty good; as usual on WP, the narrower the subject the better the article. People will ask for refs before long.... I am nearly ready to put something in for Romanesque, when I get a clear period. Hope you're better now. The British Museum has a nice temporary Australian garden at the front this summwer (last year Sth Africa). Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The Famous Paynter Steven[edit]

I noticed that the Weiss Gallery is now assigning portraits traditionally attributed to Steven van der Meulen to Steven van Herwijck (specifically the portraits of John Farnham and Baron Hunsdon at the Globe (which we don't have yet, but I am going to fix that).

Do you have access to a scholarly source that is citable other than Philip Mould to support the re-attribution? There's going to be a bunch of editing to do around this at some point. - PKM (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Added File:Steven van Herwijck Henry Carey 1st Baron Hunsdon.png. - PKM (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this, but don't the refs 1-4 at Steven van Herwijck cover it? Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. So far I haven't found a single museum that accepts the new identification. Oh well, traveling and not much time for wiki this month anyway. Maybe when I get back... :-) - PKM (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Well they like to take their time over these things, perhaps especially when its a dealer who comes up with the idea .... Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Talk:Theatrology.
Message added 20:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

We're recruiting art lovers![edit]

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!
Collections Storage Archives of American Art.jpg
Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art and quality content to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't think I'll join, as American art is rather off my beat, but I wish the project well! Johnbod (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Churches[edit]

Buildings and foundations. Aaaargh! I notice that you voted on the discussion for categorising church building to a date. Well, the end result is appalling! Every church 'building is being dated to the time of its foundation. Even if, as is so often the case, there have been three buildings on the site. It means that 11th century buildings are being re-classified as 6th century buildings etc etc etc. I don't know what you thought was going to happen when you lent your support, but in the hands of someone who is not considering the actual date of the building itself, this is a disaster! It means that St Paul's Cathedral will end up as being dated 7th century, instead of 17th! Oh Blow! I'm turning in for the night! Amandajm (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What User Cyde has done is run an automatic BOT that has transferred all the churches from two different previous categories to "Xth century church buildings'" etc etc. It means that Canterbury Cathedral, founded by Augustine in the 6th century is now categorised as a "6th century church building"! I cannot imagine that this was what you had in mind.
People come along with these great ideas for making things "tidier", and don't really think through why something has been worded in a particular way. What this requires now is that someone assesses every single church article to decide which century the building best represents. Something like Canterbury Cathedral has major parts built in several different centuries and needs to appear in every one of them. But one thing that it is definitely not is a "6th century church building", which is how it is currently categorised.
Amandajm (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Link please? I was certainly aware of that problem, as I said in the CFD, & thought the suggestion an improvement of an already bad situation. Maybe we need to treat US & Euro buildings differently. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edinburgh Wikimedia Meetup Number 2[edit]

Is the person responsible for the Edinburgh Wikimedia Meet up?

Unable to make it, but many thanks for the heads up.

I am thoroughly supportive of any and all attempts to get more scholarly Scottish content onto Wikipedia, eg. from the country's extensive archives. I am not remotely supportive of any "Yookay"-based organisations interfering in Scottish affairs, so anything under a "Wikimedia UK" (sic) banner will be getting precisely zilch support from me, and I suspect a great many other Scotland-interested Wikipedia editors. On the other hand, a Wikimedia Scotland chapter would get my full backing. --Mais oui! (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be excellent to see a Wikimedia Scotland emerge, but until then I am afraid we all have to live the consequences of James VI decision to come down to London and take up the empty throne that was available here.Leutha (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Every single one of the archive and museum/gallery organisations which the meeting agenda concerns is entirely free of London interference/control. Just a shame the same cannot be said about Wikipedia administration and content. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Mon Cher Fred, please put this in a Scottish National Archive and don't let anyone from London interfere with it
Well I must admit on my single visit to the National Archives of Scotland located in Edinburgh and enquired about anything in their holdings relating to Black British History, the archivist who handled my enquiry said that he was very sorry, but there was nothing! However, having come all the way from London,I was not to be put off so easily, and soon I was looking through the correspondence between Toussaint Louverture and General Frederick Maitland. At the time I just thought this was part of the institutional racism which unfortunately still persists in the archive world. However, I am a bit shocked at your suggestion that I might of been discriminated against because I come from London. As regards Wikipedia as a whole, I think you should look into the matter a little more deeply, and you will probably end up agreeing with me that most of the control is exercised from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean whereas interference comes from people from across the whole globe! I have to say that one of the refreshing things about the Wikipedia London Meet ups is that we always have people turning up from all over the world. In fact, even I feel quite comfortable, even though I have Scottish ancestors. I would like to invite you to pop down and "interfere" with our meet up: I am sure you'll find we can all jolly along. I have copied this exchange onto my talk page, as I feel Johnbod may already have tired of this exchange.Leutha (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As a director I can confirm that WM-UK is fully supportive of non-English involvement to the extent that we would positively discriminate to support funding for related local projects. I am amazed that any Wikimedian in the UK would shun the opportunity for innovative cultural programmes that WM-UK volunteers can help fund and organize, on the basis that they would prefer to wait with the fantasy that someone else will eventually set up a Scottish Chapter. That strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Personally I have a long and complex heritage spanning many countries, do not assume that WM-UK is a group of English people. If you would like to see WM-UK run by a few Scotsmen, please get some to run for the board and if you have a passion for it, then step forward yourself rather than complaining from the sidelines. (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unionskirche[edit]

As you may have seen on the Main page, there are 38 paintings Rubens school in the Unionskirche, Idstein. a Visitation plays a role. Questions: "Kreuzaufrichtung" seems a very important painting of Rubens, but I didn't find Elevation of the Cross, only a redirect to something else? - Is anything planned such as Visitation in Art (hint: 2 July)? (Unfortunately the Idstein one is too low resolution, but Visitation seems a good topic for paintings.) - Can you help to cats for the art part of the church article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 23, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 23, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 00:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Congratulations--what a great article. Thanks for continuing to contribute. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

York meetup[edit]

Hi. I was there but didn't make contact with anyone and no-one made contact with me. See my remarks at User_talk:Tagishsimon#York_meetup. Best. --GuillaumeTell 21:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Ironically, my Wikipedia Online Ambassador sweatshirt (actually, more of a hoodie) arrived this morning. I'd have worn it to the pub if it had arrived yesterday, and that might have worked. Maybe we'll meet some other time. --GuillaumeTell 11:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

TFA blurb - a further change[edit]

Sorry if I upset you with the changes to the blurb - that certainly wasn't my intention. I've reworded it to "and is currently part of a special exhibition of medieval religious treasures at the British Museum, which opens today", which I hope keeps everybody happy (or everybody equally unhappy, as it were...) I hope that TFA day goes well for you - at present, the only changes sticking in the article appear to be minor copy-editing alterations, proof of the high quality of the article in its pre-TFA state. With best wishes, BencherliteTalk 08:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly better, but with several people having commented at the TFA nom page, without raising this, & so me having told the BM the original version above would be appearing, it is a slight awkwardness. I don't see the harm myself - plenty of other things get one-day "promotion" of this sort. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy thorn Reliquary[edit]

Wow!

Ancient Greece: well, I'm almost done. I need to put in more about individual buildings, and I'm just considering how to do this. So in the meantime I have created another article, which is just about to hit the pages of Wiki. List of Ancient Greek temples I'm doing this specifically so I can keep track of what other people have done. No where near as difficult to write as the article, of course. I might get an FA list for it! Amandajm (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing something...[edit]

And I don't really have the sources for it ... Bosworth Psalter. It stems from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deusdedit of Canterbury/archive1 and Deusdedit of Canterbury... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have enough for a couple of paras, but I don't know when I would get round to it. Do we have a pic? My new Torrs Horns has equine interest. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Nah, no pic either. I really don't have much on this one, but it is certainly notable. Better to turn it over to the experts! Looking at the horns now.. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
980 seems the accepted date now - [5] Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

One semi-random observation[edit]

There were a number of thoughts running through my head when i read your "10 years into the project" essay, most of them head-nodding, "good observation". I started writing up a list of comments, but real life instrudes and I must get back to work. However, I will ask about one: You said:

So the more general and abstract the article subject, the worse our articles tend to be. This is the reverse of the pattern generally found in published reference works. It also means that some of our weakest work within a subject area gets the highest number of viewers.

My first impression was to challenge the statement that our general articles get more views, but I did some very unscientific checking and it seems to be true, or true enough. This is troubling, although I'm not yet sure what, if anything should be done. However, this may simply be a result of my own impressions and beliefs, namely that Wikipedia is at its best in narrower subjects, partly because there are so many non-Wikipedia resources for the broader subjects. However, I'll think a bit more on this.--SPhilbrickT 15:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it's true in most areas (perhaps not some science ones) - I now look at page-hits much more than I used to. Certainly currently "Wikipedia is at its best in narrower subjects", I suppose the question is whether it ought to be? I think we risk putting people off by high-volume but low-quality articles. They are certainly harder to write well, even with, as you say, more abundant sources available, which is I think the main reason for the way things are. In theory the number of articles of this sort is relatively small compared to our overall total. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
You said, "I think we risk putting people off by high-volume but low-quality articles". You struck a chord - I've been mulling over writing an essay, narrowly on the subject of sparse articles, more broadly on "founding principle and guidelines that stand the test of time versus rules that used to make sense but now should be changed". You implicitly referred to this in your essay, when you said, "When I joined there was a general feeling that making a quick stab at a subject would leave something that others would, within some reasonable time-frame, come along and improve". In short, I think that advice used to be good, but is no longer good advice.
I want to illustrate with a good example, I also use "Jupiter" when i think about this subject, but it doesn't illustrate the point, so I'll do it generically. There was a time when WP didn't have an article on X. Then one day an editor added a two line, unsourced stub on X, and it was a step forward. Over time, others added to it, and it is now an FA. So today, shouldn't we encourage someone to write a two line stub about an obscure antiques collector who might be just barely notable? No, because while it is obvious that subject X will get developed, it isn't obvious that the two line stub about the antiques collector will ever get expanded. "Where's the harm, the contributing editor might whine, isn't a two line stub better than nothing?" And I answer no, one two fronts. In 2002, finding a two line stub in the new project called Wikipedia was a decent find. But more for the potential than the result itself. Today, Wikipedia is well-known, and has managed to raise expectations. Finding a two line stub about some person, when you can find the entire history of a Pokemon character. is almost certainly going to result in disappointment, not joy. Second, and related, a two line stub is not clearly better than nothing. If you are looking for something, and see that Wikipedia has an entry, you have to take the time to click on it, and read it. Admittedly, that takes seconds, but what have we delivered? Not much more than confirmation that the person existed, and the searcher probably already knew that. I contend that finding a poorly cited stub does not just deliver low value, it actually delivers negative value. The searcher would literally have been better off not finding this article, as the search probably generated other, higher value links.
If I got to make the rules, I would not prohibit such creation, but I would wall it off in a user subpage, or an incubation holding area until such time as it passed a hurdle for inclusion in main space. I would support a low hurdle, not pushing for a GA before it can be viewed, but someone a little more rigorous than is required today.--SPhilbrickT 21:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree, though I'm not sure I'd actually want to ban such articles (I'm pretty sure that no such proposal is passable), but I would like editors to rethink where they put their efforts, which I have done myself somewhat. If there was a real shift in effort, a lot of the poor & high volume ones could be significantly improved over a year or so. But while people are still thinking "oh no, 1500 Congressional Medal of Honour winners with no biography" this won't happen. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for the Newstead Helmet picture and all the other improved shield and helmet pictures that you have added to articles recently -- cheers! BabelStone (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks! Newstead was not my best photo alas. I was in Edinburgh on chapter business the week before last & still have some to upload - all for Commons Category:Museum_of_Scotland. Lots of articles needed there! So far I've done Torrs Pony-cap and Horns. I need to e-mail you also. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation[edit]

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Torrs Pony-cap and Horns[edit]

Calmer Waters 08:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Identification of a portrait[edit]

See Talk:Joseph Henry Green. Not "just another DNB doctor", he's closely connected to Coleridge, and in fact taught Keats also. Anyway the Royal College of Surgeons have a portrait, here, and somewhat annoyingly don't identify it accurately enough for me to want to upload it to Commons on the vague assumption that it is by Thomas Phillips. Is there a routine way to be more sure it is? There is a reference here suggesting the RCS still has it. Something short of an actual visit would be good. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of a standard work that would cover it. The catalogue has images, or an enquiry to the RCS library e-mail (bottom of the bio) citing the catalogue number the other links gives it should cover it. Or whoever handles their picture rights - perhaps them or one of the big libraries. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
That's it. "Joseph Henry Green, by Thomas Phillips RA (1770–1845),. Professor of Painting at the Royal Academy (1825–32). Oil on canvas; unsigned and undated." Google the string "Figure 1 Joseph Henry Green, by Thomas Phillips RA (1770–1845)" and click the Google view icon to see the page with the image and caption in the Journal of Medical Biography. - PKM (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Johnbo![edit]

......how come you get a beer, and I get a cup cake?

I am about to do something radical. I've decided Romanesque architecture has grown too big and needs to e three articles. Romanesque architecture, Romanesque church architecture and Romanesque secular and domestic architecture. Secular and domestic because then I include monastic buildings in the domestic. Yeah!

I'll give it a try, see how it looks, and if it don't work, it can all go back!

Amandajm (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Just thinking about this again:
My observation is that the order of the words makes a big difference to the number of users that find the page. Romanesque architecture of churches and Romanesque architecture of secular and domestic buildings will get more hits.
Amandajm (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Question[edit]

John, any idea how I might go about tracking down a colour reproduction of this fresco. Found it on p 160 here. Google is not returning any results so I assume Im now faced with archives, but which ones, and how do I narrow the search. Attilios thinks the cited church -Santa Maria del Carmine, Naples is incorrect. While I'm here, Torrs Pony-cap and Horns is great work, the lead image very crisp and striking. Ceoil 15:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's here, and certainly in that church (aka Santa Maria del Carmine Maggiore), but not a fresco. It's the Vergine Bruna (Brown Virgin - see Black Virgin) & is a panel painting with a much later riza with the angels etc. The shrine is over the high altar, & it seems a famous image locally. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about making one of my poor horses play model... it should be possible this week ... Real Life has been a bear ... but the art festival we went to this weekend was quite renumerative for the first day, hoping the second is as good for selling our photographic prints! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
That would be great, though I suspect the measurements (p. 337 here) would have to be scaled up. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks John. Ceoil 02:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Early Middle Ages[edit]

Hey Jon, I just reverted some changes to this article that would change its scope fundamentally, possibly with repercussions for other related articles. It seems to me that we've been over this discussion before in various places. If you get a chance, I'd appreciate your input.--Cúchullain t/c 20:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Tipu's Tiger[edit]

Hi John,

Just trying to be an online contributor from India for the V&A Wikilounge :) - couldn't contribute yesterday due to prior commitments. Surprisingly, I got no edit conflicts and was quite involved with reference search. I finally noticed you had made an edit or two but did not realise we were clashing. Please continue. I'm signing off for now. AshLin (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I won't be too long. Johnbod (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, Will put up the proposal for a Wiki-lounge for Tipu's Tiger for Marathi Wikipedia to Pune community. Should happen sometime in August. AshLin (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
That would be great, thanks. Do let me know the date. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
FYI the articles fails DYK Expansion with DYK check javascript addin. It was 3622 prior to/& on 16 July, will need to be minimum 18110. Its currently 15396. Remember, quotes, images, templates, references, bulleted points etc. do not get asdded. AshLin (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
As there is scope in the criteria for "judgement", perhaps the DYK should be filed on the basis of the international collaboration and institutional interest as well as being very close to a 5x expansion. I have no doubt this is a great addition to the main page as a DYK and this can be discussed in the submission. (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps Fae could add this request as a comment to the DYK giving the international collaboration justification. In the meantime, we could look for more material. AshLin (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
My calculation made it 2718 before and 13311 over 24 hours ago - its a good deal bigger now. There is a big fat quote (Wellesley) which was embedded in text then & is not now - are you allowing for that? Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
That's not how it works. Page size is calculated by using a specific tool for the purpose. Please see relevant rule2 of DYK Criteria and Additional article length rules for more info. AshLin (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I know the rules - this will be my 170th DYK. I suggest you check your figures, especially that big quote. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I'm not familiar with your work, this being the first time I am coming across you in Wikipedia - meant no disrespect, had no idea you were a DYK veteran many times over. Well, I just use DYKCheck & pagesize scripts - they gave me the figures that I mentioned earlier. The scripts exclude quotes in templates. As per this moment, they show me the article has 16859 bytes. If what you say is right then we should be safe from DYK point of view. Otherwise, I'm trying to find more stuff to add. It will only do the article a whole lot of good, if we can find genuine stuff (duly referenced) to bring it to the magic figure as dictated by DYKCheck. AshLin (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries. But the long quote certainly should always have been a blockquote etc per MOS, & I'm sure it is correct to treat it as if it was, i.e. exclude it. I usually just copy the text into Word, trim to text by hand & use the wordcount, as it allows treatment of anomalies like this. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Success, finally my DYK Check says -
  • Prose size (text only): 18332 characters (3088 words) "readable prose size"
  • Article created by 166.122.98.179 on February 28, 2005
  • Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 210 edits ago on July 16, 2011
Looks like we are safe for DYK now but I seem to be wringing search dry for suitable sources. AshLin (talk)

Charles Steuart, or Stewart[edit]

Sorry, I hadn't seen that note when I made my edit. Nevertheless, if the correct spelling is 'Steuart', shouldn't the Wikipedia page for Charles Stewart be amended as well? The fact that the first reference to him on the Somersett's Case page spells his name with a 'w' was what lead to me making the edit. Dubmill (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Attempts to determine a "correct" spelling in the 18th century are usually hopeless, all you can do is give the most common alternatives. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Prints again[edit]

Hi Johnbod, since you helped me with Edmund Evans, I have new project I might need help with. I'm working on Murasaki Shikibu and want to load with as many prints as I can, showing a variety of artists and eras. I know prints exist of Murasaki Shikibu, but am having trouble finding them on the net. Do you have any suggestions of sites to search? I'm thinking I'd like to have a gallery, and I still have text to add - not sure how long the page will be - but long enough for more than I have. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The MFA Boston gives good results. Searching the British Museum is a nightmare, but they do have a lot. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I have the link from Boston, but thanks. I'll trawl through the British Museum. I remember from last summer that it's a nightmare, but it did yield good results. Thanks for the suggestion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Some excellent images at the BM. Thanks again for the suggestion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Question: what to do when two museums have different descriptions of the same print, this from Boston, and this from the BM? The BM seems to think it's the author. Don't know what to make of the Boston description. But if the image isn't of the author I need to fix because I'm using it as the lead image. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the descriptions as contradictory, but in a museum-ish way Boston concentrate on translating the inscriptions, which don't mention the lady. This is apparently the same print, more clearly explained. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much more clear. Boston worried me for a moment, but I think it's okay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo[edit]

Hi Johnbod, as the article is about the Sutton Hoo site and its finds, a detailed summary of the events and historical figures surrounding one of the candidates for the grave under Mound 1 is not needed IMO, but it may be necessary to restore some information if too much has been edited out. I'll look at it again. --Hel-hama (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand the logic of your "as"; the sentence would make just much sense if the "not" was removed! The sources such as Carver devote a great deal of space to these matters, which are certainly of interest to readers. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean: I think a the article needs a summary of the history of the Kingdom of the East Angles around the period that the burial ground was used as a royal cemetery, which would then certainly include relevant details about Rædwald, but also about some of his lesser known ancestors/descendants. Do you think so too? Also, I've looked at the extensive bibliography, hope you've no objection if I work through the citations to give them a consistent style, (like R.T. Farrell, Beowulf, Swedes and Geats (London 1972).). I can't consult User:Dr Steven Plunkett, the other main contributor.--Hel-hama (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I do, as there is a feeling (which I don't entirely share) that the article is too long. I think you may find there was originally more on this, by Plunkett, which was cut by Silk Torc in his rather unhelpful work on the article. I wouldn't mind seeing that return. To go into the subject properly Person in the Sutton Hoo ship burial or something would be needed, which could be a good article. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the article is too long now. Your suggestion for a new article, Person in the Sutton Hoo ship burial or something, is ia great idea. --Hel-hama (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Spanish art[edit]

Hi Johnbod. I've been slowly moving back through time in this page. You've suggested that you will work on Spanish art up to the Golden Age. Do you still intend too? I am happy to keep working on this page, but might do other things if you will be working on it. Cheers, Mozzy66 (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've been keeping an eye on your good work there. I would do it eventually, but not I think for a couple of months & maybe longer, so by all means go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You deserve a barnstar -and you just got one![edit]

GLAM barnstar.png The GLAM Logo Barnstar
For your awesome contributions to Tipu's Tiger as part of a GLAM event. AshLin (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! First of those I've had. Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Johnbod. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AshLin (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Stonyhurst Gospel[edit]

Hi Johnbod - it's Richard here (from the British Library). I see you've been editing the Stonyhurst Gospel article. Does this artefact have any potential in terms of being the subject of a featured article? I'd really like to see the quality of this page ramped up - perhaps an event focussing on this Gospel? What do you think? Helical gear (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We could give it a go! I actually spoke to one of the press people to see if the colour pics, and maybe excerpts of the video, could be released under a license by which we can use them (the usual problem - they think they are pretty freely released, but the license doesn't match what we need). They suggested I emailed Ben Sanderson (is it), which I haven't yet done. It would be great if you could sound them out. I think better pics would be a prerequisite for an FA. We could do an event, although I don't know if a single manuscript with a relatively limited number of sources is the best subject. Or just get some help & oversight from curators. Is there a time-limit or planned duration of the appeal? Let's pursue it anyway. It should certainly be possible to get it to Good Article, & probably FA. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm meeting one of the curators about this next week so I will keep you informed. It certainly needs better pics. One significant edit the curator has just told me they would like to see is the main heading changed from Stonyhurst Gospel to St Cuthbert Gospel - is this request best done through the article's discussion page? Helical gear (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. There are several redirects, and the article in fact leads the google search for "St Cuthbert Gospel". But most print sources pre-date the rename, so there is an argument that is currently the "common name" though this would not be the case for ever, as new stuff is published. Not sure how I feel. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Definitely a worthy goal... I'm intrigued because it ties in indirectly with Ranulf Flambard who was bishop at Durham at the time (although in exile). Let me know if you want me to dig in my ecclesiastical stuff for any background. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
If taken to FA, the very complicated story of Cuthbert's well-travelled remains and relics would certainly take up quite a bit of the article. Our current section doesn't give the half of it. There's a good account on google books somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I've spoken to the curator and from my discussions with her, there are a large number of areas specifically relating to the Gospel that can be added. One area of interest is the one which you identify above. But there is a lot more. The account of the opening of Cuthbert's tomb is extremely detailed. I'm inclined to think a day spent on this book with some Wikipedians at the Library would be interesting and productive. I have some images which I intend to upload. I've put my arguments for changing the main header of the article on the discussion page. Do you know how we can get this article's priority status increased to high priority? Helical gear (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's continue by e-mail. Can you let me let me have your email (see left - just email me). Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I've bumped it, plus Codex Sinaiticus & Lindisfarne Gospels, up to Top importance for the BL project, not that these ratings have any effect on anything much. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comments at Main Page features RfC[edit]

As one of the "muggers who hang around the next days main page", I would like to ask whether you consider Wikipedia's profile to be enhanced by poor grammar, unsourced comments and violations of MoS. If persuasion of an admin, who have a principle of assumption in favour of the article referenced, is necessary, in what way are such attempts to improve the Main Page "with little supervision"? In what way do you believe that "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" needs supervision? Kevin McE (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, there have been a number of complaints - especially around FACs - about this last minute editing by a pretty small number of editors. Consensus should be our guiding principle here, and can hardly be said to apply in these circumstances, especially as only admins are by then able to edit the articles. In the case of FAs coming via the TFA nominations page this is unnecessary, as the blurb has usually been available for three weeks or so, on a much better watched page with numerous highly experienced editors around. Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, the evidence is that editors there are rather remiss on occasion in their watching of what gets through. Kevin McE (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that is the place to raise issues, and the recent discusswions have raised awareness of blurb-checking. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Bgwhite's talk page.
Message added 21:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bgwhite (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tipu's Tiger[edit]

Another contribution to the DYK project, thanks Victuallers (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Van der Weyden 2[edit]

Hi Johnbod - continuing here from Talk:Rogier_van_der_Weyden#Subject's name. I appreciate that you are trying to ensure that I understand WP:RS. If I was ambiguous in what I first wrote there, I apologise. I had been assuming, negatively, that it would not be suspected that I could be suggesting that any WP was a RS. What I was assuming, positively, was that: where the article topic relates mainly to events occurring in or recorded in another language, a contributor to en:WP should check out what has been done in that language's WP (say, x:WP). The treatment in x:WP could then be drawn upon as a model for treatment in en:WP, including seeking out sources used in x:WP for possible, independent use in en:WP. If I haven't got that right, I've got something to learn and would be happy to do so. And I have not been planning to contribute substantively to this article - I'll leave that to you specialists. --Wikiain (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I only use other WPs when doing a very quick job or short of sources - it's normally best to use fresh sources & fortunately these are normaly available in English (I have a recent monograph on Rogier in fact). Are not the great majority of documents relating to Rogier's life are in French in any case (Et pour les Flamands, la meme)? The article, like far too many, is a patched-up 1911 EB text that needs a complete overhaul and rewrite, not a job I can do at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
We seem to be in better sync than Belgium: thank you. Please take my previous post out of what is now "Van der Weyden (1)" if you wish. --Wikiain (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

email[edit]

Asking for advice[edit]

Johnbod, I have just started getting back into a little Wikipedia editing; the last few months have been difficult for me, and I'm still a novice editor, anyway. I want to start a biographical article on a living person, not British (a Catalan musician/writer), and looking at some of the guidelines for biographical articles has scared me. I don't want to do a basic article (which would be based pretty closely on the one on Catalan Wikipedia), only to have it deleted because the subject is not thought important enough to warrant an English-language article. But how do I tell whether a subject is important enough? Have a look at the Wiki page on Sopa de Cabra, which I have recently been expanding from a stub: the individual I want to do a separate article on is Gerard Quintana, whom you will find on both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia pages. I don't even know how to find and use the biography template/infobox. Your informed advice would be very, very welcome.  :-) AgTigress (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The inclusionists, so far as I know, have won the culture war at XfD. If you have even two or three refs from any even semi-decent source, the article will not be deleted. Moreover, you can make a case that deletion is systemic bias etc. Has he won any awards? Can you find newspaper articles about him, saying he has bestselling records, or was in concert with someone else famous, or whatever?  – Ling.Nut (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
That's broadly true. The worst that could happen is a call to merge him into the group article, but he seems to have done enough by himself to warrant an individual article. Just be sure to state his claims to notability in the lead. If it came to an AFD, which I doubt, a note on the Catalan project here, or Catalan WP, would I'm sure produce a swarm of supporters! This is very nice but unexpected - I was just saying last week to an ex-colleague (Ben R) that I still have hopes of seeing Ancient Roman jewellery one day! I'm away on holiday 5-19 Aug, but will look in - let me know when you start the page & I'll watchlist it. Does GQ have a Spanish article btw? It's not linked from the Catalan one, or the Spanish one on the group. Don't worry too much about the infobox, or just copy & adapt from another comparable article. He is a WP:BLP, good referencing is needed, maybe more than the Catalan bio has. All the best, Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Johnbod and Ling.Nut. I think that sometimes when one looks at the rules and guidelines, they seem more frightening than they are in practice. I really felt it would be insulting to the subject if I started a page on him, and then it got deleted because he was deemed not to be of sufficient interest to the English-speaking world. He ought to be better known in the English-speaking world, anyway. If you both think I am on fairly safe ground, I'll start a page fairly soon, and I imagine that basing it on the Catalan one will be okay. Any references are going to be in Catalan in any case. My other project at the moment is learning Catalan, as you might have guessed! I thought GQ had a Spanish Wikipedia page too, but I may be confused because there is one for Sopa de Cabra. - - I haven't forgotten about doing a Roman Jewellery page, Johnbod, but it would be a long, multi-page and multi-image job, and I just don't feel quite up to it yet. My non-archaeological interests provide better relaxation activities. Have a good holiday! :-) AgTigress (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm: I have just realised that the Catalan Wikipedia page on Quintana does not actually have very good references. The only conventionally printed source I can cite, Pep Blay's account of Sopa de Cabra, actually does cover GQ's career as a musician from 1986-2001 (along with those of the other members of the group), so I can give that (though I haven't finished reading it yet, owing to the fact that I read Catalan pathetically slowly), but I'm a bit lost about finding anything Wiki-acceptable for the subsequent years, when he has become active in many more 'cultural' activities than the average former rock-star, as well as continuing his musical career as a solo artist. He is also politically active in certain ways, e.g. as one of the Catalan public figures who supported the campaign to ban bullfighting in Catalonia. Anyway, I'll let you know when I draft something. AgTigress (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Johnbod, I know you are about to go on hols, but could you have a quick look at the start of the Quintana article on my sandbox page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AgTigress/sandbox. I haven't written the main bit yet, and I really, really want to get a picture into the infobox thingy. The one that is on the Catalan Wiki site is possibly the most unflattering pic of a very good-looking man that one can imagine (okay, I am a besotted old rock-chick, but it takes all sorts...). There is another, rather better, pic on Wikimedia commons, but I don't understand the copyright classification -- it looks as though it might be restricted. And quantities of excellent pictures, including some taken in performances, on Flickr, which are probably copyright restricted.
User Victualler made some helpful comments on the Sopa de Cabra talk page. Should I pester him as well, while you are away?  :-) AgTigress (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I added the photo from commons - the notices there are in English. He seems to be performing & looks very cool so I'm sure its ok. It's when they're in the bath there's a problem. Just a couple of tweaks, & I lined up some categories - just remove the first colons when you go live. I'm sure Victuallers will help; I'm not sure what access I'll have when away. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bless you, Johnbod! I hope you have a super holiday.  :-D AgTigress (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Umm, what 'first colons'? And how do I transfer this from my sandbox when I have written the middle bit? I know, I'm pathetic... AgTigress (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The ones before the C in "Category" (visible only in "edit" mode) - they keep it from appearing in the actual categories yet. To move it go to the right of the star in the top "Read | Edit|... " menu bar. "Move" will appear - just hit that & the rest is easy. Put "move from sandbox" as reason. I can do it if it's ready tomorrow, but it's straightforward. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It'll be fit to go live by tomorrow, I think. I just need to add a couple of references to interviews with him, but I think it will be okay as a start very soon. I am HUGELY grateful to you. AgTigress (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
De nada, if that's what they say in Catalan! Probably not. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's 'de res' in Catalan. Now I am just showing off! I think the first version is ready to go, Johnbod. Could you check it and put it out into the world for me? :-) AgTigress (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the main heading needs to be just 'Gerard Quintana', as in the red link from the Sopa de Cabra article. The full name, with that Spanish thing of including the mother's maiden name (in this case 'Rodeja') is not used in everyday references. I don't know about giving pronunciation details, but 'Gerard' is pronounced almost exactly like French (they do have the 'kw' sound in Catalan, but then it is written 'qü'. Huh! I have been teaching myself Catalan for no more than about 2 months, so I am really no authority! AgTigress (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Now live! Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I'll let you go on holiday now... Don't know what happened to my comment above, about pronunciation -- I was trying to say that the surname is pronounced 'Kintana'. Anyway, I hope this will be okay as a start, and I hope I can fill it out a bit more as my grasp of the language improves. You are realy a very kind friend and mentor, Johnbod. AgTigress (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. How do I delete the heading from my sandbox page? AgTigress (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

OH, HELP!!!!!! I SEEM TO HAVE DELETED IT FROM THE LIVE PAGE. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?? AgTigress (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Whew! I got it back. Now I need a holiday. I assumed one would remove it from the sandbox page, but obviously I was wrong.AgTigress (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, when you move a page it automatically redirects the old title - User:AgTigress/sandbox - to the new one. You can tell you've been redirected from a small note at top left of the screen, under the article title, with a link to the redirect page - see it on User:AgTigress/sandbox. At the moment there are recent talk messages using the old name so it might be best to leave it for now, but you can "reclaim" your page just by blanking the redirect, which you should be able to see here: [6]. Or set up User:AgTigress/sandbox2 and so on (it's best to note new sandboxes on your user page so you remember them). You were redirected to the "real" article & blanked that. But as you found, you can always get it back from the history. Hope that explains it ok! Johnbod (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I understand some of it! Main thing was that I remembered that one can get back to a previous edit, and reinstate it!  :-) AgTigress (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There we go again[edit]

Transfiguration of Jesus in Christian art got started, just before the feast. History2007 (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, about to go away. I can't see me doing much for a while. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Another beer for you. I see that Broighter Gold now has a pic and has mysteriously improved. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Move of Seascape[edit]

What is your objection? Would a split address your concerns? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just commented at the page. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Not far...[edit]

Ciao! I have good and bad news for you... First, I'm not in Turin as usual. The bad: I'm not in Rome, but not so far. I'm in my sea house at Gaeta, a splendid place with also a large historical milieu. Are you far from here (hope you're residing on the southern side of Rome instead than the northern one)? If not, write me here and we'll find a way to contact each other. It'd be nice to meet eating a night pizza here in the (just nearly, according to my Neapolitan friends...) true Neapolitan fashion. Aside from thise, if you've time, can you check why the painting infobox is not displaying correctly at my latest additions? They are: Aix Annunciation, St. Jerome in His Study (Jan van Eyck), St. Jerome in His Study (Ghirlandaio). Thanks and see you soon!! '''Attilios''' (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you email me? I never use infoboxes; without them you get a bigger image & none of these complications. Johnbod (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Tipu's Tiger/GA1[edit]

Review has begun.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary political status[edit]

Hello, Johnbod. Could you please cite a Wikipedia policy or a relevant discussion in a Wikipedia article where it says something like "changing place of birth or place of death to reflect contemporary political status is to be avoided because it is too complicated for an infobox; we don't do this!" If you cannot cite such a policy or a discussion, I'm afraid that the "rationale" you give when you revert me is downright irrational. On the contrary, the consensus on Wikipedia seems to be that we always indicate the contemporary political status along with the present-day one. Including only the latter is often simplistic, trivial, and unscholarly; in some cases, it is also deeply confusing. Your edit summaries were written as if your opinion is based on consensus, while in fact it isn't. I can cite literally hundreds of long-standing Wikipedia articles (about artists, scientists, philosophers) I have never edited that indicate "we do this"; the one about Da Vinci was just the first that came to my mind. It is true that in some cases the practice of cluttering all this information in an infobox is avoided (mostly when ethnic disputes are involved; see Mozart, Shopenhauer), but at least one can find the relevant information in the body of these articles. Regards. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there doesn't seem to be an overall policy on this, though there may be national ones. Please note that this cuts both ways. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Country_of_birth.2C_for_historic_bios, though the biography projerct is not the only one involved. Your complaints about being "simplistic, trivial, and unscholarly" are unimpressive, coming from someone who thinks "present-day Italy" is a valid way to locate Rome. Johnbod (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance (2)[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on August 22, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 22, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK hits[edit]

Hi John, thanks for your help on the Wright Challenge. You did a lot of gnomish work on General Johnson Saving a Wounded French Officer from the Tomahawk of a North American Indian recently. I thought you might be intrigued to find that it had 53,000 hits .... in Russian! Two Derby Museum articles have had more hits in Russian than their web site got last year in English! DYK seems to be 3,4 or 5 times more popular there. Victuallers (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edward Solly[edit]

Would you have a look and see if you can flesh out my start?--Wetman (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Treloar (museum administrator)/archive1[edit]

This was just promoted ... I see you guys were still discussing general principles of Further reading ... feel free to continue the conversation on my talk page or at WT:MIL if you like, so we can get a clearer idea of how to handle these. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Should it be removed from the 6 other articles he added it to? Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jonhbo![edit]

"Man and Child Mounted on Horse, 18th-19th century. Oil painting," according to the Brooklyn Museum

That pic of Mary and Jesus that you removed. I agree that the source wasn't at all clear. However, I want to point out that the baby has that spiky thing on its head which indicates that it is Little baby Buddha rather than Little Baby Jesus.

I feel wrecked! MJD finished his major work for Design Technology rather late on Sunday by drilling two holes into it for the fittings to put it on a strap. It is an electric guitar with an Art Nouveau inspired body and a Tasmanian Blackwood top, which turned out to be rather brittle and not too easy for a fairly inexperience woodworker. However, it looks beautiful and the assessment from experienced guitarists range from "sounds better than my Fender" to "very nice!" The latter grand compliment was the spontaneous comment of a meticulous man who had tested every possible function first. MJD was delighted, but then had to work all night to get his portfolio complete. Mummy Darling finished printing it out while he was under the shower, about 45 minutes before the markers were due to arrive from Sydney. So now we just have the examinations to get through. I have decided that we are going to out to dinner tonight. Amandajm (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As teachers here put in their notes, WDM! (Well done Mum). Sounds impressive. I suspect the image is meant to be the Virgin & Child, but in what context who knows. The Brooklyn Museum image donation to Commons includes under "Islamic art" a very clear 18-19th century Persian icon on cloth of St George that is unrecognised as such, despite the Hand of God at top left etc. If you're an Islamic specialist with an Islamic background you wouldn't recognize it I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I have been known to write them rather rude letters about their mislabelling of such artworks and on occasions blatant misrepresentation of facts. Do you know anything about that Mother and Child picture apart from the website that it was taken from. Is it in Boston? The question is, is it really Persian? Jesus is not represented with that whatever on his head, and Buddha nearly always is. Would an artist be likely to muddle them up? Moreover the flames around the figure suggest that it is Buddha, not Jesus. Amandajm (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know anything else, but the flaming halo is right for Persia - the halo article has an Islamic Jesus with one. It clearly draws on European Renaissance models, no doubt prints etc & I don't know how many Buddhists would have been around in the area then. Mind you the technique on the tree (black background) looks Indian to me, so perhaps Buddhism is a possibility. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I just took a look at that image. The face of Mary is painted in a very similar way to the pic of Muhammed leading Jesus and Moses and so in in prayer. So I might have to take back my suggestion. Unless of course, our Islamic illustrator was out to include Buddha as among the followers of Islam, along with Jesus. (Having read the Quran and dipped into the Hadith, I am afraid that the notion of Muhammed leading Jesus in prayer is extraordinarily objectionable to me.) Amandajm (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The second idea is most unlikely, indeed impossible. I still suspect the image is Christian, whether Persian or Indian. There are some Mughal miniatures which copy wholly Christian scenes (as Hindu ones) with apparently more pure artistic than religious intent, but I don't think its one of these. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Parmigianino[edit]

Ciao! For sure I'll improve the article gradually, as I add new separate painting articles. Did you give a glance to them? I'm always afraid that my English is questionable! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't yet but I'll put them on my list - I'm a bit busy just now. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wolverine pendant of Les Eyzies[edit]

John, I made a start on this. What is the position on BM images as their website appears to say that they are OK to use for non-commercial purposes? Thanks, Philafrenzy (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't use their photos of 3D objects, though in theory we could, with fair-use rationales, for objects not on display. But you'll see I took an ok one of the wolverine, as of most of the objects on that list - I need to update the Ice Age project page to make that clear. Thanks for the start - not much action from the class yet! Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll have a go at the Mammoth spear thrower. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Heyo...[edit]

Know anything about Geoffrey (archbishop of York) being a patron of the arts? I haven't seen anything that shows this, but before I start serious copyediting I'd like to make sure I've mined out all possible sources... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

added the little I know; I won't have any time to research for a while. pics here. Ha, famous last word.... Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the additions and very much thanks for the info - I've tweaked as usual, but it's much appreciated, and the illustrations are a wonderful addition Ealdgyth - Talk 20:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem; i'll give it its own article some time. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for answering a silly medievalists art history questions, and putting up with my ignorance at times! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

OOh thanks! Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Response requested[edit]

Please see here Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 06:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Tosa Mitsuoki 001.jpg The Genji Award
Thanks for your review of Murasaki Shikibu, (although it was unfinished). Your comments gave me the insight I needed to restructure and improve the page. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Bot[edit]

Re [7] your talking to one of the most annoying and prolific, 300 pointless edits per minutes, thick headed and often justly blocked bots from your worst nightmare. I dont bother arguing with it anymore, I just auto revert without thought and take a deep breath. Ceoil (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Gowns, dresses robes etc[edit]

Ugh, this has been going on for months. Various IP addresses, though I think it's the same person. There are a couple of us who have been changing them back. I don't see what we can do beyond requesting semi-protection for every fashion article (every reference to "evening gown" has been changed to "evening dress" over time, as well - including links to the article "evening gown"). "Dress" is certainly incorrect in historical periods, more debatable from the late 19th century, and some costume references do use "dress" so one can point to sources where this is the usage, thus the change may be being made in good faith. Really tiresome and frustrating. Can a bot be made to revert these? - PKM (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. I can't remember noticing it before. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Your reversions have been changed to "kirtle". - PKM (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
(S)he seems to be reverting back to gown. Maybe my edit comment about vandalism got through..? Or the multiplicity of reverts by several editors. - PKM (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
All very puzzling! Like most men, I can just about summon up a view on what womens' clothing looks like, but what the various bits are called is beyond me. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Media about art[edit]

Category:Media about art, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Cris Baczek[edit]

I was going to post this at User talk:Cris Baczek but it's not really relevant to them, and they have enough messages to wade through. I just wanted to say thanks for re-adding the links that you thought were useful. My next step should have been to come and ask someone more familiar with these kinds of articles for help in evaluating which links should be kept. I actually intended to link the GLAM help page but couldn't remember what it was called, so thanks for that too. --BelovedFreak 20:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem! If you can remember WP:GLAM you'll find it again, or eventually via say the British Museum talk page banners. I only looked at about 5 or 6 of his edits, before re-adding 2, but guessed that the Old Master names I recognised were not likely to be best represented in Utah. Modernist, if you watching, do you fancy looking at some more? Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I've re-added a few links that seemed relevant...Modernist (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking for an expert in Medieval Art![edit]

Hello!


My name is Gabriel, and I represent a startup company called Planeto (http://planeto.com).

We are currently developing a new type of community we call the Planeto Knowledge Network.


We all have knowledge and interests in various forms, of different topics and areas. We might even be experts at something. Our Knowledge Network is an attempt to gather and connect people who have a passion, and would love to share that passion by communicating their insights and knowledge with other people with similar interests.


I found you here at Wikipedia, and thought you would be a nice candidate to join the invite-only beta and manage a domain of knowledge regarding Medieval Art, which you seem very proficient in!

Sounds interesting? Send me a mail to gabriel@planeto.com and I'll invite you to our closed beta!


Have a nice day :)

Zedekiel (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Scottish and Southern Energy[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you just made a rv on Agility Trains, changing an English reference back to a UK one, in my view quite correctly. I appreciate that you may have had very specific reasons for that edit but wonder if you might also be interested in the above article of a major FTSE100 company, where Mais oui! has also today changed a UK reference to a constituent country one, in my view incorrectly but am barred from any more reverts there.

Multiple references can be found describing SSE as British rather than merely Scottish([8], [9], [10], [11]), which is unsurprising considering it is listed on the LSE, was formed by a merger with Southern Electic and has more activities in England than Scotland. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

American Art (journal)‎‎[edit]

Hi, "art journals" is a subcat of "arts journals", so American Art need not be in both. If its more general than "art" it should be in "arts", not both, I think. --Crusio (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it is mainly about art, so should be in both. People can often be expected to look in sub-cats, but not in parent cats. Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not what WP:CAT says. Having said that, the difference between "arts journals" and "art journals" is contrived at best (and the articles on art/arts don't really help), so I'd be all in favor of merging the two and be rid of the problem. --Crusio (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Not really - the several theatre and dance journals should not be chucked in with art. I rather think it is what OCAT says, though I can't be bothered to go through it all. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:OC#MISC seems to me to say clearly that if a journal covers both art and other arts, it should be in the "arts journal" cat, not both "arts journals" and "art journals". And as far as "chucking" theatre and dance with art, it is my understanding that all those things are already chucked together as "arts". --Crusio (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

Hi John, hope all is well with you and yours. I've finally been shamed into creating User:WereSpielChequers/Recall (Pedro named me in his, so I realised I really ought to have one myself). Would you be willing to be on the list? If so just edit it and move your name out of the hidden bit. ϢereSpielChequers 20:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Honoured! Be good. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this correct?[edit]

Is this edit correct: [12]? Should it go in one of the subcategories? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, "religious sisters" = nuns. I've moved some around; don't know what to do about Category:American Roman Catholic Religious Sisters - we have American RC nuns for bios, but apparently nothing for nunneries etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks—I know little about the terminology in that area, so I knew I needed to check. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
There an entire scheme being developing around this (see Category:Roman Catholic Religious Sisters by nationality). Mainly because the parent categories are sketchy, I'm not clear on what the intended difference is between Roman Catholic Religious Sisters and Roman Catholic nuns, unless it's the subtle distinction you mentioned on my page. ... I've followed your lead and made them subcategories of the RC nuns categories. Perhaps they should be upmerged? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd say so yes, 99% of catholics could not tell you the difference I'm sure. How to we treat the male equivalent "brothers" eg Christian Brothers or some of them? There its much clearer because they are or are not priests, and are adressed as "brother" not "father", whereas nuns can't be priests & are called sister in all orders, unless they are the Mother Superior. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hi Johnbod. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Royal Chicano Airforce[edit]

Hi John, I was wondering if you could help us out at User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah#Royal_Chicano_Air_Force. I tried one of my US contacts but they seem to have gone quiet. I don't know if its your type of art, but I figure you'd be likely to know how to get an answer. ϢereSpielChequers 15:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Oriental carpet[edit]

Laura Pisani by Gabriele Cappellini, aka Calzolaretto.jpg

Here's another for your collection. - PKM (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte[edit]

As a frequent commentator on arts-related articles, I thought you might like to weigh in on the current discussion about infoboxes at this page. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Musical structure? composition?[edit]

I took your concerns to Classical music, as again they relate to more than one article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong stuff[edit]

You might find this amusing. The English Icon Unlock'd, or what happens when my car is in the shop. - PKM (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

On Mary I by Mor, the file here is not (contrary to what commons said, thanks to This idiot) the Prado portrait but the Boston one - I've now uploaded a better version. The Prado one was in Yuste with Charles V, then in Madrid by 1600 the Prado catalogue says. The Boston one is + workshop. Don't know about an Escorial one. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh thank you; they couldn't both be in the Prado. Strong says there are three versions.
I've been adding placeholders for missing images - there are many to unearth, but I have found some in the process. - PKM (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

100001[edit]

It was my 100 001th edit on en-wiki. Thank you very much. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Books on art[edit]

Hi Johnbod. Can we merge your Category:Books on art into Category:Books about visual art? best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Johnbod (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Books on art[edit]

Category:Books on art, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Art[edit]

Then you and your friends must be some of those people who go to, say, the National Gallery of Art and are surprised they don't put plays and concerts on. However, you are not numerous. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Headbomb).

Right, once a week. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sigh, where are they now?[edit]

Just in case you miss the history lesson amid the politics [13]. Giacomo Returned 12:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - Miami for many of them I expect. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, apart from Drouais' Pompadour, now in the National Gallery and a rather nice painting I discovered per chance in the Ashmolean last year. It still irritates me that James Gallagham's government paid almost as much for the Drouais as they could have paid for the entire house and collection because that horrible woman Baroness Birk said "a collection assmebled by a German Jew is not part of the nation's heritage" nasty piece of work she was. - I can't remember how to spell her name, but she has a wiki article somewhere; I must edit it sometime. Giacomo Returned 16:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Link corrected - I see she was "Chairman of Redbridge Jewish Youth Centre between 1970 and 1996 and on the Executive of the Council of Christians and Jews between 1971 and 1977"? Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Gesta Herewardi[edit]

IP hopper originally posting from University of Sheffield address adding OR to this article, whenever warned/reverted they just change IPs. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Watching Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Franks article[edit]

Looking at what is coming up at Augustus Wollaston Franks (BTW, the ODNB thinks Augustus is optional), it is possible that it would make a good-looking FA in time. Now low-hanging stuff in the way of DNB additions is more my cup of tea, spread over wide areas (to make the best use of a PD resource and generate new growth points). No rush, but it would be useful to do some advance planning. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of stuff. I can get at David Wilson's history of the BM which would be a necessary source. Not something I can spend much time on this year though. Nice additions so far anyway. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Portrait of John Bray, 2nd Lord Bray[edit]

John Bray, 2nd Lord Braye.jpg

Christie's sold this painting as by "follower of George Gower" in 2006, but unless it's a copy, it's 20 years too early for a follower of Gower. Compare this (copy? restored?) version. Any idea who this is by? - PKM (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

None, but I expect it is a copy - most old country house portraits are, knowledge one tends to be spared reading art history books, which cut them out. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh I know about the country-house copies. I spend hours trolling through auction catalogues looking for good pictures of clothes. ;-) - PKM (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

St Nicholas[edit]

Thanks for comments.

  • I've changed to votive, good idea. I can't get the long link to work in either Chrome or Firefox, what exactly am I looking for, just any modern example?
  • I'd obviously seen Knott's page, but given its idiosyncratic style, I was wary of using it, I'll add the angel bit later today if you're happy it's RS
  • Re the feather tights, I could see if I can get photos next time I go past, but my trips to Norfolk are infrequent.
  • I thought I'd highlighted the distinctive features in the lead section?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made these changes. I'm not sure why the new quote about the quality of the glass isn't highlighted in red. I might be going past Blakeney on Sunday, but not sure yet, if not could be weeks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I've written a stub for feather tights. I went to St Nicks and took some pics. I'm a bit busy this week, but I'll see if any are usable at the weekend (they are right at the top of the window, so awkward angle Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello Johnbod/20! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Feather tights[edit]

Feather tights are completely outside my ken. Good stuff. - PKM (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Psalter illustration...[edit]

On Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geoffrey (archbishop of York)/archive1, Nikkimaria's pointed out the source link for the psalter is timing out, any chance you can fix this? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't create the file. I've spent a good while looking around their website, which even by Dutch and library standards is very badly designed, & all I can find is this version. I'm sure the main one is there somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fidelity (art and symbolism)[edit]

I just saved this from a PROD with the motivation "This is an essay on fidelity in art" (not sure how it is an essay or how its subject makes it unsuitable, or whatever the prodder's point was). It looks like the kind of iconographical subject that you (or perhaps the erudite Wetman) could do something about. --Hegvald (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You were right to save it. I've added a bit & will mention to Wetman. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wealth etc.[edit]

Hi Johnbod, thanks for linking the wealth discussion on Sandy's talkpage - I'd unwatched it and couldn't be bothered to find it. Last week I was reading The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe and noticed this in an image caption: "The cities of the Islamic world were far richer and more ornate than those of the ninth-century Christian west." - on page 59 of the edition I'm using, probably the US edition. I don't know if this will help - can't be bothered to read the entire conversation, but it seemed like a good succinct statement from a good source. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that. It all seems to have gone quiet there, & there are now about 8 refs, but that might be worth adding. That was my biggest battle for a long time, for a very minor point, but I was b*****ed if I was going to have it removed for POV reasons. I thought at one point I'd do Medieval Islamic Economy - there seems to be so little info it might not be that hard - but I doubt it now. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The book is being returned to the library tomorrow and I really couldn't remember where the conversation was, so am happy that it's been noted before the book is out of my hands. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving from Sandy's page[edit]

Hi,

Probably best to move the discussion here off Sandy's page. I just looked at your page User:Johnbod/Content and coverage; where are we 10 years into the project?. I think I've seen it before. You say "There was a key decision made in the very early days to avoid expert mediation or control of the content. This was clearly a crucial and correct decision, as the fate of Citizendium etc has shown. It is at the core of Wikipedia." You are right that this was the decision made, the question is whether it was correct. That Citizendium failed may not have been for the reason you imply. On areas of general weakness, philosophy is terribly weak - you will find all of the specialist editors, of whom there are a handful, agree on that. See e.g. my post here.

Of the FAs on 'philosophy' articles, many of these are not philosophy articles at all.

"Our “top level” topic articles are generally weak, especially on abstract concepts." agree absolutely. "the more general and abstract the article subject, the worse our articles tend to be. This is the reverse of the pattern generally found in published reference works. It also means that some of our weakest work within a subject area gets the highest number of viewers. This is not good." Agree again.

"Analysis of editor decline concentrates on editor numbers, edit counts and new articles. It is much harder to assess quantitative, let alone qualitative, trends in the addition of article text. As we know, by no means all editors do much of this, which is fine in itself, but makes assessing the picture here much harder." Agree. I keep an eye on articles whose subject I understand, and watch for degradation. Sometimes I publish the mistakes on my blog, and often these get corrected as a result of my readers making the corrections. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

On your point about FA 'defining' content. Well, by 'content' I mean 'quality' content, and 'quality' is hard to define. E.g. if I write 'poop' I have added text, but that is not quality. It's a difficult and subjective question, but we could make a try at using FAs as a proxy. These are what Wikipedia accepts as good quality content. There was the Minnesota study, but that defined 'persistence' as the measure of quality. The problem here is that the growth in List of My Little Pony characters is persistent, but not necessarily good quality. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. One that's for sure is that our own article assessments, which are supposed to be the main way of assessing quality, are extremely variable and inconsistent. Have you got a publisher lined up? They've gone right off Wikipedia as a subject, I hear. Do you know User:Charles Matthews? Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I have just finished work on a more serious topic, which is a translation and commentary on one of Duns Scotus's early works, now submitted to CUA press. By the way, the article on Scotus there could do with some serious improvement. That took about 4 years. The book on Wikipedia will be light relief. Where did you hear that publishers have gone off Wikipedia? This book will be slightly different (e.g. in comparison to Lih and Reagle, for example. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't remember - I was doing a lot of research on the state of WP a couple of months ago. I don't think the rash of works in the last years sold very well, & it's yesterday's news in the view of publishers. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Lih's book sold a lot, I believe. 86.169.112.237 (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe. As for Duns Scotus, you're obviously just the man to do it. Then you can sit back & see how much your work gets buggered about (not too much I'd guess). Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

New category[edit]

Its revealing but a pity that Bosch has 43 articles and Brueghel 18, but van Eyck has only 11. Christus and Campin have a meager two each, while Memling has 6. Ceoil (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Bosch is one of those people someone's done a whole lot of one-liner stubs for. Also Breugel. The most complete "works by ..." category we have must be Category:Vincent van Gogh paintings - 111! By quality it's very different, largely thanks to you. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Shucks but I'm watching and learning by example. My big problem is that the sources are expensive; I have scraps of Davies and scaps of Friedlander, but not the full story from either. Campbell echoes a lot of that primary work, and I would love to get my hands on it, in its entirety. Also the VvG articles are ridden with copyvio; attempts at raising the main bio were drowned by this fact. Ceoil (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's probably a hopeless case - too prone to teen improvement anyway. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I do feel guilty though about being preoccupied with relatively small subject matter; specific works rather than artists or periods. At this stage I could prob write Bacon or Campin's or van der weyden's bios easily enough, but am far more interested in the work than the men. Ceoil (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
You've done a lot on RvdW's bio, which is better than most - but doesn't List of works by Rogier van der Weyden need some updated links? Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you really think anybody reads those list pages? Ceoil (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
No need to guess about 15 a day. The bio gets 200-odd I think. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The three paintings from the period that are of Las Meninas like importance are Rogier's Descent, the Arnolfini Portrait and the Ghent Altarpiece. The last two need a sissors before anything else, and to be rewritten from top to bottom. The Descent has the least amount of tacked on annoyance, but the Ghent picutres are the most attractive. I have a lot of sources for it, not sure if there is an incumanbt editor. Ceoil (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Pretty sure not. I do more van Eyck than anyone else recently, but you're very welcome to take Ghent on. A bit of a nightmare with a huge literature perhaps. I have the simpler Hubert van Eyck on my to-do list. I've added a lot to Arnolfini, but I don't have the Panofshy that causesc much of the trouble - it is fairly up to date, if messy. I have Harbison, Craig, Jan van Eyck, The Play of Realism, Reaktion Books, London, 1981, ISBN 0948462183 & some other stuff. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
If you have the cash, about €60, "Van Eych to Dürer ". Till-Holger Borchert. London: Thames & Hudson, 2011. ISBN 978-0-500-23883 has around 8 pages on the altarpiece, and its very lucid and clear, no jargon, mostly perceptive description and background. The book is v stong on Dürer, whom it ends with, but most espically covers works by Northern artist you might not have heard of, that are only known for one or two paintings or manuscripts; Otto of Passau, Hermen Rode, The Master of Hannover (?), Master of the Female Half-Lengths, etc. But the pages on the Ghent pictures are outstanding, very much par with the education level we write for here (bright teenagers), though he seems preoccupied with Sibyls he covers a lot of relics at the same time. Ceoil (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I need help with the word tempera on the Bouts FAC by the way, if u have time. Its a surprising difficulty to be honest, I had though it was clear. Sorry man, I hate to ask, but need help. Ceoil (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It is confusing - have you seen Talk:Distemper (paint)? That about exhausts my knowledge. Nb that Norton Simon call theirs distemper. I can't see any good online refs. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
TK explained in in v small words on the FAC, and even the most basic explinations on €5 NG catalogs are clear; pigments crushed in and applied to the surface with glue adhesive of a linen cloth which was then bound to its frame by glue. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Butting in: I think what I explained in the FAC needs to be in the article. Maybe a sentence added to the linen section that it was treated w/ glue to prevent the pigments from seeping through and allowed thin brushstrokes, thus explaining the linen that's now visible. And in the section about the pigments add a sentence that the pigments were bound with glue which is non-reflective. Something like that? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
sounds right to me. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
me too, in simpliest terms. Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)