User talk:Johnbod/23

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



Excellent work at Neoclassicism. I'll take your word on the RS for now and accept your revert as the thought was not fully expressed any way. I was going towards some of the terms from the movement such as "decorum", but I was taking my time on it and it could be expressed much better. Please feel free to copy edit my contributions after I finish to whatever end you feel fit and if there is anything I feel strongly about I will discuss it with you before I alter it. You seem very familiar with this subject and I am so happy someone has found this article and is taking time on it. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine Arts Star.png The Barnstar of Fine Arts
For excellent work in a collabrative spirit on Neoclassicism. Thank you. Amadscientist (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I seem to be getting properly stuck in & may well edit in bursts for a week or two now, or even more; there's a lot that needs adding. The moral/social side certainly needs dealing with too. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I only had time to do a very small amount to change the direction it was going which at the time I stepped in was a bit confusing. All I got around to was the overview and even that needed improvement.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to take a look at MOS on images to better make use of media like images on the Neoclassicism page and some other art pages. I have been doing some recent research into what is actually allowed for the formatting of pages and there is more allowed then what average pages do. Perhaps we can work together on the one article (Neoclassicsim) and the template for the infobox (maybe add an image allowance and/or other fields to use individualy in each page etc. Working with local consensus and the broader consensus of the community where needed and agreed on prhaps we can improve the article and then other similar articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
What sort of things do you have in mind? I'm just following my usual style, which is pretty much what you get on art FAs these days. I find people don't mind lots of images where they are clearly needed to explain the subject. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry i haven't gotten back to you sooner. I was thinking that we could look over MOS and see where we can be a little more creative and still be withing guidelines for images. I would love to present the images in a way to improve the article and use existing and new gudelines to present the art in a manner that allows the reader to see thw work in both context to the article and subject, but in a manner that is perhaps a little more visualy interesting.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

PMA wants a Wikipedian[edit]

The Philadelphia Museum of Art is interested in finding a Wikipdian with whom they can work to improve coverage of the art content related to the PMA. Would you be interested, or could you recommend someone who is? The criteria are: (1) an experienced editor (2) with an interest in the arts (3) who preferably lives in the Philadelphia area. (This is not a Wikipedian in Resident position - yet. They are still exploring that possibility) Raul654 (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm based in London, but am happy to advise & work remotely, by Skype etc. Or there is the Wikipedia:GLAM/US, with User:Smallbones the local rep. Or some combination. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


...for your input. Very best, as always, JNW (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder GA nomination[edit]

I've (at long last) got round to nominating Cyrus Cylinder for GA status - it's been on my to-do list for ages but somehow I never seemed to get round to it. Do you know anyone who might be willing to carry out the review? Prioryman (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha! I never do them, as I have no idea of what GA standards are supposed to be, after observing a number of reviews. Are you supposed to ask people? I would suggest Malleus, whose semi-retirement seems to be reducing. Or User:Brianboulton. But I don't really know the group who do them other than those also doing FACs. Is the article stable now? Didn't you get BM curator comments at some point? It might be worth pointing to them. Good luck anyway. For an article like that, a peer review first might be an idea, if you're not in a rush. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

New CfD[edit]

Since you participated in earlier CfDs about related categories, I want to make sure you know about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#Category:Church buildings in the United States by state. --Orlady (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


Jonbo, I don't like to be indelicate, but your wonderful and most useful list of Climate Change is 100% without references. Is it possible? Amandajm (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid so, but all the linked articles are referenced. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


I saw you've commented at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murasaki Shikibu/archive1. Now I found the lead image was inappropriate, but Truthkeeper does not agree with me. It would be grateful if you could post your comment at Talk:Murasaki Shikibu#Wrong picture. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I was told this was canvassing. I posted RFC at WT:FAC#RFC on Murasaki Shikibu. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi! I need help for again a troll reverting Teramo to his very poor, badly formatted and often semilliterate version of Teramo. Can you? Ciao and thanks. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Transit of Venus 1639[edit]

Hi John, Thanks for the correction to the painting of Horrocks, I was wondering how make it clear which was the title of the painting and what was the desciption. The semi-colon is certainly better than my 'from'. Richerman (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WP Visual Arts in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Visual Arts for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

San Vincenzo[edit]

Hi! Perhaps you'd be interested in Basilica di San Vincenzo, Cantù... Thanks! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

WWI editathon[edit]

Hi John,

I don't know if you've decided yet whether or not you'll be attending the World War I editathon, but if you're still interested, there are definitely places available.

Just to let you know we've finalised the list of academics who'll be attending the editathon next month, along with their areas of specialisation. If any of these are topics you'd be particularly interested in collaborating on, or you want to suggest articles in those fields that need work, please do make a note on the page - it'd be great if we could have some suggested topics ready in advance.

Any questions, do let me know... Andrew Gray (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Monteux[edit]

I rather incurred your displeasure for failing to provide a section on "Reputation" in the article on Sir Jaws, but another editor and I have Monteux up for PR, and we have included just such a section. If, perchance, you have time and inclination to look in at the PR page and comment ad lib on the article it will be most welcome. Tim riley (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not for a while as I'm between 2 trips - I also have a lot less Monteux on the shelf than Solti - like most I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

War artists[edit]

Hi Johnbod, Thanks for your response to my comment about war and art for the WWI Edit-a Thon. I have added some more to the discussion on my talk page. Can you have a look and say what you think about the suggested direction? Cheers, (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Sharpe[edit]

Thanks for your contribution to this article in helping it to achieve FA status. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, & congrats! One day I will add a little more on the interestingly "unofficial" persistence of Sharpe's terms. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Core Contest[edit]

Wiki bronze medal.png Core Contest Equal Third Prize
I hereby award this Antique Metal Wikitrophy to Johnbod for work on improving the Romanticism article in the March 2012 incarnation of the Core Contest! Wikimedia UK will be in touch shortly with details on the £30 voucher... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Congrats! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Kudos Johnbod!..Modernist (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations! Guettarda (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks all! And congratulations to the other winners! I think a most useful contest, which should be repeated sooner than another 4 years! Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations from me as well! Kafka Liz (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Right, now to discuss how to proceed from here...figgered you might wanna add a word or two. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Taxatio Ecclesiastica[edit]

Thought you might want to expand Taxatio Ecclesiastica.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

More Ealdgyth - Talk's area? I really only do MS with pretty pictures. It would be useful to locate some of the manuscripts.

Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks (Talk:Aesop)[edit]

Your edit summary "(rvt vandalism; remove your own comment by all means - don't mess with mine" is a blatant and outrageous personal attack. From what you said on that page, it's already apparent that you're not very familiar with the rules, which is bizarre, considering you boast about being "one of the 400 most active Wikipedians". My contribution to the talk page was certainly not vandalism and to accuse me of such is a flat out lie. I have never ever vandalised any page on Wikipedia. Even without the false accusation of vandalism, an edit summary is supposed to describe what you did to the article; it's not a platform for talking directly to other editors. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC))

You removed the comments of 2 editors, one of whom you are in an edit war with. I suggest you ask at ANI & see what happens. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I missed that edit. Incredible, talk about 'rules', you don't delete other people's good faith edits like that. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
You set up your poll in a way to make it look like anyone commenting was participating in your sham. I didn't want to give legitimacy to your stupid games and I couldn't think of any other way to prevent you or Mzilikazi claiming my comment as a vote. After all, Mzklaizi has already been misrepresenting what Dougweller said the whole time, so he wouldn't need much opportunity to start with me. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC))
Oh, please. You're just proving yourself extraordinarily tendentious over something that adds up to bugger-all. Stop impugning the motives of everyone who disagrees with you. Obviously, Johnbod set up the poll before you left your comment. Look at the editing history. Sheesh. Haploidavey (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I've added (over the existing comments on the subject) a section for "Complaints about the poll process", which should solve that. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that's a good idea. I'm only a new editor so I'm not familiar with the different formatting options available. Haploidavey, no one disputed the order of the edits; the issue was that the headings for the poll were above the space for subsequent comments.(WP Editor 2011 (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC))
Haploidavey is currently too riven by finagles to offer a sensible reply. When healed of his wound, he'll respond on the appropriate talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR for Oxford alumni[edit]

No I hadn't - particularly brilliant timing on your part because at the very same minute as you left your message, I was leaving this one asking for some JSTOR articles! I've pinged the alumni office for my number so look forward to using it. Many thanks for thinking of me, BencherliteTalk 09:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Just show it sometimes pays off to look at the junk mail! Johnbod (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
And the link [1]. NB All, I think I also have a free 1 yr sub to the London Review of Books to give away to any UK person. Johnbod (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for spotting this! It reminded me that Durham give alumni access as well - digging around, it looks like there's a lot more than I realised. Aberdeen, Durham, Exeter, London, Liverpool, Manchester, Oxford... Andrew Gray (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Though in fact Oxford isn't on that list - not the main JSTOR list; I think they may be just setting it up. Johnbod (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I wonder how many more are in the pipeline - it's a long way off universal access, but it could be a great help if we can get people aware of it. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The University of London access costs £177.96 p.a. I don't know whether any of the others are cheaper? Jheald (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


...has been closed. Obviously feel free to implement the split. - jc37 20:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, someone had started it, but I think I've finished the rearrangement. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Isaac Oliver[edit]

I think you will find this "previously unknown" reworking of Elizabeth and the Three Goddesses of interest - check out the "lot notes". - PKM (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Very nice - lots 44 and 47 also of interest. Btw, I have been adding at Neoclassicism#Neoclassicism_and_fashion from a disparate collection of sources, not all referenced up yet. Is there a single good book? It needs integrating into the main "by period" series, and again highlights how unfortunate the break at 1795 is. Humph! I'm going to Wikimania this year, I don't suppose you are? All the best. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Not going to Wikimania, no. I'll take a loot at Neoclassicism. I am not aware of a single best reference on the look, though I have some chapters here and there.
Thinking about an article on Elizabeth and the Three Goddesses in all its variants. I haven't been writing much - busy in the real world - but this could be fun to get started on. Adding the Oliver to Commons tonight. - PKM (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you want me to grab any of the other drawings? - PKM (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually those two might be nice, but they're only "circle of" so don't worry if you're pressed. The "Contento" is the more useful one. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
i'l grab them. - PKM (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Sorry for the speed bumb![edit]

Thanks for leaving a not at the talk page of Neoclassicism and Greek love. This article requires a great deal of work and i am not entirely sure that merging all the content is the best rout...but it was the route another editor wanted to try and I agreed to help. I see no reason to return anything from that merge you object to back to the Neoclassicism article. Thanks for adding to the discussion and helping form consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Reply to questions by Fæ. If you wish to comment please take note of the guidelines at the top of the page and either the same page or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop may be suitable. Thanks -- (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC) (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Elsheimer drawings[edit]

These are now in Commons: Il Contento and The Lupercalian Festival in Rome. - PKM (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

many thanks Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins Pages[edit]

Hi Johnbod, thank you for your kind message! I am actually working with the Wikipedian-in-residance at MNAC this week to improve The Consecration of Saint Augustine's page, and that of the artist if I have the time. A group of us are doing this as part of a project for a two week seminar in Barcelona with Johns Hopkins University. We are all new to Wikipedia, so I really appreciate your help. And I agree, the painting is very beautiful. Neochichiri11 (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will let them know. Neochichiri11 (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, I'm a Museum Studies JHU Student and I'm working on a page about a painting by Ramon Casas. I wonder if you'd be willing to take a look and make any suggestions or edits. Here's a link to the page: Thank you! (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Alanaquinn1

Hi Johnbod, I am part of the Johns Hopkins Wikipedia Seminar Program and very new to Wikipedia. If you have a moment or two, I would greatly appreciate your insight or any edits you may have. Thank you much in advance, Vking_jhu --Vking jhu (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, looked at those two - nice & not much needed doing, but at Ramon_Casas_and_Pere_Romeu_on_a_tandem I started to change the ref style to one that doesn't repeat the whole book every time, which is better. Ideally include ISBNs. I didn't mess with the web cites on the other (I hate those, but they are liked by many), but the same thing applies. Best to avoid "currently exhibited" as displays change, though admittedly none of these are likely to come off, unless for exhibitions or restoration. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


I have achieved liberation now and will only look at Wikipedia every few days. This message is in case you were assuming that I may still be watching pages such the the vandalism magnet of St. George. So I would like to leave that page and the obvious Christian art pages in your hands. Take care, and thank you having been a real gentleman in the past few years, on every occasion. History2007 (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha-ha, that's what they all say! Listen out for the bloodhounds & good luck! I'll miss you if you really are going, & let you know if anything significant has brewed up for your return visits. All the best, & thanks for all your excellent work. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The difference between me and all is that I do what I say. Believe me, had you known me in real life you would have believed it. Anyway, one thing I forgot to mention was that the "depictions of Jesus" page is the one that needs real help. And there is a page Race and appearance of Jesus that relates to it and after a brouhaha it just calmed down, after I rewrote it a few months ago. So if you watch that it will be great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor barnstar
Your kicking bot-butt fixing those sculpture categories. thank you! Sarah (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's only about half done! Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fellows v. Blacksmith/archive2[edit]

I'm thinking of initiating a third FA run for Fellows v. Blacksmith, or perhaps just a peer review first. Since you were the only commenter at the last nomination, I wanted to see whether you feel any of your comments remain unresolved first. Savidan 01:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not much at FAC, & won't be reviewing it, if that answers your question. Third time lucky! Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Clock towers[edit]

I have already asked the deleting administrator to be more careful next time; so that he doesn't leave articles stranded in redlinked categories, he needs to do one of three things if a category already has articles in it: (a) leave it alone, regardless of who created it, (b) nominate it for CFD instead of deleting it arbitrarily, or (c) depopulate it himself before deleting. But once the categorization project suddenly had to deal with two dozen populated redlinked categories I had only two choices — either to recreate them or to depopulate them — because they couldn't just be left the way they were. My apologies if that undid some of your recent work, but the other administrator did kind of leave me having to make a judgement call about which type of workload I was prepared to take on. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Where was the debate? Was his mischief around "Individual clocks" undone? Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know whether there was an actual debate or not; administrators are technically allowed to immediately undo or speedy delete anything determined to have been created by a sockpuppet of a banned user without needing to take it to debate first. For what it's worth, I certainly take a narrower view than some people, in that if a category was populated and seemed potentially valid I'd at least take it to CFD for discussion first, even though I'm not strictly obligated to do so — but some other administrators just do a blanket round of "kill everything on sight". And I don't know about "individual clocks"; all I did so far was to review each category in the banned user's edit history to see if it still had articles in it or not, so anything I haven't undone or fixed either wasn't deleted or wasn't category-related. (I do know, for example, that two state-level US clock tower subcategories do still exist, because someone else originally created them.)
For what it's worth, I'd be willing to help recreate the U.S. state categories if you do feel they're useful — I just wasn't prepared to arbitrarily recreate them on my own, which is why I opted for the depopulate option instead. But I won't be able to start helping until later this evening, as I have to head out shortly for a prior commitment. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Annya Sand[edit]

Resolved: Deleted at 12:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC) -- Trevj (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annya Sand.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Late response to Islam WikiProject message[edit]

I'm guessing the Islam project is kinda moribund right now, but there might be someone elsewhere who speaks Persian who could help with getting a message to the foreign language arts editor. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrea Schiavone[edit]

I see you mass-reverted the new user. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luciano di Martino and if you agree with me, indicate that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

A bit too soon to say. There are many Italian nationalists! I see the request has been declined. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
No doubt there are many, but I recall only a handful of people who are experienced enough to 'bootstrap' a new Wikipedia account like that - Brunodam and Luciano. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


Erica McAteer (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Art History, Birkbeck Aurora tinker (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and hello![edit]

Hi John, just noticed you seemed to be patrolling some prehistoric art articles recently! Much appreciated - sorry I've been too busy to do anything on WP in the last little while. Hope all's well with you, Best PatHadley (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Objet d'art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Miniature painting and Cigarette box
Ivory carving (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Basque
Monastery of Santa María de Sigena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Castile
Rock art of the Iberian Mediterranean Basin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pantaloon
Three-Piece Reclining Figure No. 2: Bridge Prop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Listener
Two-Piece Reclining Figure No. 9 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pasadena

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Odd isbn[edit]

Hi John, I was wondering where 03333220374 came from, was it a typo? Thanks (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just 333. But I think a read of WP:CITE is in order, re undiscussed changes in style. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


In architectural histories, French Abbeys, like English Parish churches, are known by their name, "La Madeleine, Vezelay", "St Foy, Conques", "St Etienne, Caen", "St Front, Perigueux". I n many cases the possession of the relics was of great importance to the Abbey.

They don't follow the same convention as English abbeys which are just known as Tewkesbury Abbey and Malmesbury Abbey. Note that St Chad's, Birmingham is known as St Chad's, rather than Birmingham R.C. Cathedral.

Just double checked, everyone from Banister Fletcher in 1896 through to Moffat, Fazio and Wodehouse in 2003 uses the method that I have employed. With or without the word Abbey or Cathedral. Don't be misled by the manner in which UNESCO writes about Christian heritage sites. It is the usual cringe. They don't use the saint's name if it can possibly be simply described by location and function.

I am not suggesting that we stick the designation into every cathedral name, such as Chartres Cathedral and Reims Cathedral, where the church is plainly known in that way. But there are a few other instances where churches have been raised to cathedral more recently, and they need to retain their saint's name for ID purposes. Cathedrals all over the world are generally just known by their city name, unless there are two. Two is the normal situation in Australia. So in Sydney, we have St Andrews Cathedral and St Marys Cathedral, in Melbourne we have St Pauls and St Patricks, in Hobart we have St Davids and St Marys and so on. And that is how they are always known.

Amandajm (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that - most French abbey churches are now parish churches, and references to the architecture of the church naturally follow the parish church convention. That's a different thing from the name for the abbey. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, under those circumstances should we drop the word "Abbey of" and call them "Saint-Pierre, someplace"?
They ought to be called "Abbey church" but that is a bit too complex.
I am not in favour of removing the saint's name.
Thanks for your useful addition to the Romanesque domestic architecture thing. I don't know how you could possibly say you had forgotten that I had done it, after I have been most pointedly rude about the fact that you had got me to do the blanky thing and then disappeared off to write about frescos and gospel books and pictures of Muhammad with never so much as a tweak. In fact, I was so rude, I thought you would never speak to me again! whinge...whinge.... Your current edit has almost redeemed you! Take a look at Romanesque architecture, will you?
Amandajm (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, hello! You've already commented! Thank you! Amandajm (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Second pic is a sop to the Poles who complain all the time that I haven't treated Eastern Europe well enough. Actually, it's hard to get info. It seems to me that there are relatively few Romanesque buildings, but they are very conscious of what they've got. It appears to be relatively provincial in style, but with some fine carving. There doesn't appear to be anything of the refinement of Peterborough Cathedral, for example. It can be hard for people in Eastern Europe to take on board the fact that literally hundreds of churches in England were begun in this period, and that France and Italy are dotted with them to an extent that they hardly know what they have.
Although the French can be so blind that they can walk past Roman buildings every day and not recognise them, and brutally block up a 14th century doorway and cut a new door slightly left of centre, through the Gothic mouldings, not to mention letting one of the most important Romanesque houses in France fall into wrack and ruin, and likewise, the house of Nicholas Flamel, possibly the last small medieval house remaining in Paris. Some of the most important Romanesque portals in France are falling to pieces for want of simple and non-invasive conservation procedures. All they need to do to vastly improve this situation is to send someone up onto the gables and porch roofs immediately above the doorways and stop the ingress of water by filling cracks and, if necessary, giving the upper surface a thin layer of rich render, that is softer than the stone, but provides a flat surface so the rain runs off instead of collecting in cracks or running between the stones where the old mortar has decayed. You throw a bit of ochre and soot into the mix so that it looks the colour of the stonework. Because its relatively soft, it's a reversible intervention. A lot of the gables and porches would have originally had their upper surface rendered, but it doesn't last indefinitely, and once it's got cracks and weeds growing in it, it traps water. The water then travels downward and is evaporated by the carved surfaces, leaching the salts out and cracking the surfaces off.
I am currently completely rewriting the page Regional characteristics of Romanesque architecture and will move it to List of Regional characteristics of Romanesque architecture so that will tidy up some stray ends I hope and give some coverage to buildings left out of the main. It is absolutely impossible to keep everyone happy.
Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd never edited it & it wasn't on my watchlist, so I'd really forgotten it was there. I was aware I'd rather dumped you in it. I'll give it a good look sometime, but I'm just off to Wikimania in 2 1/2 hrs. But I'm never really happy writing about actual architecture. Johnbod (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It was the hardest thing I have ever written! Have fun! Amandajm (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Batlló Majesty[edit]

I know, it was a silly mistake. I thought the Catalan name was the official and most widely used name here, as "Casa Batlló"... But it wasn't. Could you please move it back to Batlló Majesty (with an acute accent), as spelled at the museum?[1]

Thanks. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 01:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, your statement isn't 100% true. We can certainly use local names when there isn't an English exonym (i.e. whenever a term or expression hasn't been adapted into English), like "Accademia della Crusca" instead of "Bran Academy" or "Academy of the Bran".


Sure, place names & some others are different. I can't move it back over a redirect unfortunately. I suggest you ask User:Anthony Appleyard who is an admin. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your advice. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 17:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)[edit]

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


Just to say what a pleasure it was meeting you. I hope you enjoyed Wikimania as much as I did--and our conversation has given me some faith in the future. I'll get on Judith when I can. Best, Drmies (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely - a great time, but not so many writers there as I'd have liked - did you say you'd talked to User:Awadewit? I think not. I'm just settling back in after a "red-eye" flight. Let me know when you get going on Judith; one day I'll do Power of Women (as a theme in Renaissance art). I'll keep an eye out for stuff on popular devotional material. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
In fact, I even had dinner with her (psst: she had canoli for dessert); I was duly impressed with her article work. Writers--I proposed a writing session ("How to write a DYK") but it was turned down. We were more concerned with governance and expansion and education and importance than with writing, it seems to me. In other news, it's as hot here in AL as it was in DC, but there's a lot less walking to do. I gotta tell you, though, it's nice to be in a big city again. Yes, please do keep me in mind for that material! Drmies (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Something for next year, though it does present difficulties, as well as opportunities, with people from all the languages around. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian Fleming FAC - help needed![edit]

Hi Johnbod. Thanks for the support on the info box discussion on Peter Sellers. We would really value your comments here as the self same discussion is taking place. This is slightly more serious as it is currently an FAC. Sorry to have to get you to repeat yourself on the same subject, but a consensus is desperately needed so we can nip this in the bud now. Hope you well! -- CassiantoTalk 07:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 07:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 13:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Fanny Imlay questions[edit]

Thanks for your comment on the talk page - would you mind looking at the recent changes I made and seeing if they seem OK (they were proposed on the talk page since May and no one commented on them)?

I also proposed adding a bit (a sentence or possible a phrase) to note that Fanny had smallpox as a child and was scarred as a result, but am not sure where to put it (as it seems like it would interrupt the current narrative flow in either the infancy or Childhood sections). One problem is that Todd's Death and the Maidens (which I read) does not say when exactly Fanny had smallpox, but I thought of adding it to this sentence: Three-year-old Fanny was unofficially adopted by her stepfather and given the name of Godwin.

so it would read Three-year-old Fanny, who had been scarred from smallpox, was unofficially adopted by her stepfather and given the name of Godwin.

Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

They look fine to me. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


is this realy out of scope with the article? Deror (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the "in Christian art" in the title is to restrict the subject to religious art, and exclude crucified Santa Claus etc, & I guess this isn't really religious art. Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Medallions by d'Angers[edit]

Hi Johnbod. We've not talked in a while, but something on Commons caught my attention (the donation by the Walters Art Museum), see Commons:Commons:Walters Art Museum. You've probably been aware of it for a while, but I've only just stumbled across that. All looks really great. I have been browsing through the categories, trying to find portraits of people, and found a few sculptures here and there (including drawings and busts of the original Walters, William Thompson Walters, and his wife and daughter - the son founded the museum - Walters Art Museum). What I was really pleased to find was Commons:Category:Medallions in the Walters Art Museum. This includes a set of medallions by David d'Angers (see also Commons:Category:Medals by Pierre Jean David. Though pretty soon I realised that most of the articles on the people in that Walters Art Museum medallions category had portraits already, I did notice that many of the articles were lacking links to the Commons category, which I've been adding here and there. What I got to wondering was whether there was scope on a list-type article on the medallions done by d'Angers, which could now be well-illustrated. I looked at the article we have on d'Angers (David d'Angers), and it does say that his busts and medallions were "much in demand", so I'm guessing there are enough sources out there to support a list-type article. Would you be able to help with pointing me in the right direction for that sort of thing? A couple of questions on nomenclature as well:

Anyway, I was particularly pleased to find the medallion for Georges Couthon (see the inscription) and the medallion for the son of Narcisse Virgilio Díaz. The main thing I'm trying to find out, as I said above, is whether these medallions by d'Angers are part of a vast output, and whether there is a catalogue anywhere listing them all, or whether that donation by the Walters Art Museum is a significant part of the total (reading the article on d'Angers again, I see that "His medallions number over 500", so 30 or so is not that many). And whether an article on the medallions (or maybe a listing of his works, if that doesn't already exist) would be possible? I suppose working on the d'Angers article itself (a bit of a jumble) might be a good place to start, spinning stuff off as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Civil/artistic medals (in fact the correct, or more usual, term, except for classical stuff) are a pretty neglected area here! There will surely be a catalogue raisonné in French, which the BL or National Art Library (at the V&A) will have. In general I'm dubious of WP list articles of this type which pretend to completeness, if only by ommission of a disclaimer, but you could certainly do one. As far as I'm concerned, being a catalogue raisonné comes under WP:NOT, but that's no reason not to have listrs that are clear about their limitations. Or you could do David d'Angers medals at the Walters Art Museum, an approach that has hardly ever been used, but is valid I think. Don't know about the variant names. Hope that helps. The Walters stuff is fantastic; I've done a lot of categorizing, & a fair bit of placing in articles - I added one to Romanticism last night. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I think the two best sources for d'Angers' medallions are: Les Médaillons de David d'Angers (1867), which is available online at the French National Library here. It would be possible to do a list (maybe initially in my userspace) and to then supplement this with sourced commentary from the Reinis catalogue of 1999: The Portrait Medallions of David D'Angers: An Illustrated Catalogue of David's Contemporary and Retrospective Portraits in Bronze (J. G. Reinis, Polymath Press, 1999, 493pp). By the way, is it more usually to refer to David d'Angers as 'David' rather than 'd'Angers'? The reason I want to do such a list is that I want to browse the articles we have on the medallion subjects (almost certainly most of them will have articles, though a few don't, such as that artist's son who died that I mentioned above). So more an index than a list or catalogue raisonné.

The Walters donation is great, as you say, but I'm not clear whether this will be followed up by further donations or not. It appears that some of the pictures they have have not been donated (specifically I was looking for better ones of Henry Walters - they seem to have not donated the better ones they have of him - not sure why). The other thing is that probably only a small number will ever get used in articles (this is quite normal). That's not a reason not to have such donations, but it is worth remembering that you need either high volume of such donations, or some editorial selection, to get a large throughput to articles. What you have is a large categorising and labelling effort (which may improve on the labelling done by the Walters Art Museum, and pick up a few errors, but likely not much). Essentially, Commons is serving as a distributor that gets wider viewing than just the Walters Art Museum online pages itself (if they are online, I may have misunderstood this part). What I think would be ideal is if people browsing the rest of their collection could request images, but as I said, I'm not clear on whether the donation is the entire collection or only a part of it. I've asked on the Commons page, but not checked for any replies yet. Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think he is usually "David d'Angers" in initial or general mentions, to avoid confusion, then "David" once it's clear who's meant. I'm not clear the Getty list entry agrees with me there. AFAIK the Walters gave us everything, but maybe not always the best photos - I suppose manuscript pages & detail shots aren't complete. Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made a start on that possible list here. Only a very small start. Really need to find some OCR version of the 1867 work (or a list somewhere else) that can be cut and pasted and then checked against the original. The BNF may have OCR downloads (not checked yet), but failing that it may be a case of slowly typing out the names... Still, I found that first set of 36 an interesting tour through 19th-century French history. Though the same would be done by buying the 1999 work, though I suspect that is horrendously expensive, so may order it up at a suitable library somewhere in London. Also, the 1999 work will have more definitive identifications of the subjects of the medallions. Several of the subjects have articles in the French Wikipedia, but not here, so I may request translation at some point. Some just don't have articles full-stop. Two I got completely stuck on, the Anne-Marie Arago entry and the M.-A. Barthelemy entry. There are some famous Barthelemy's, but not sure if this is one of them. The other thing I noticed, while searching for the Swanton-Belloc entry, was that pictures of some of the medallions are online at other museums - see the link in the list to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. So even if Commons doesn't have pictures, it will be possible to link out from the list to archive and catalogue photographs elsewhere (either by searching or consulting the 1999 work which lists the locations). It being such a long list, I may never complete it, but I thought it was worth starting, similar to the listing you may remember at Frieze of Parnassus. That was a similar grouping of 'famous people'; not sure yet what proportion of these medallions are historical figures as opposed to contemporaries or near contemporaries of the sculptor, but it is an interesting cross-section of various people. Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there may be commissioned series in the oeuvre, but I expect much of them just show who was commissioned or who it was thought would sell, or who looked impressive. I know next to nothing about the medal market in the 19th century - not so big in Britain, but it may have been a bit like the craze here for portrait prints, at it's height around 1780-1820 I think. Don't forget that medals count as 3D works for copyright purposes. A big job. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The basic list will take about a month if I do a couple of pages a week. Making the list useful will take longer. I've put up a second batch if you want to look. It would take less time if others help out, of course, but I'd still want to check everything myself. Still not quite sure why the 1867 work gets some years so wrong. Was there something going on with the calendar at that time? I know one of the French Revolutions renamed the months, but did they change the calendar by several years as well? I'll keep in mind the bit about 3D stuff, though the 1867 pages would be OK to use. I think people on Commons have worked with the Metropolitan Museum of Art before, so may ask around over there as well, as they have a lot of image of the medals. Not sure yet which other museums have copies or originals (let alone which have online photographs) - there is a list in the 1999 book. There is also File:Plaque Humboldt Paris.jpg as an example of a use of the medals, though I'm not sure when the plaque was erected, probably much later. It is bound to be documented somewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The calendar was all back to normal under Napoleon; I expect it's a difference between dates made, sold, exhibited or something. I suppose the obvious thing is to ask on the French wp arts project. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Kanō school[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for a fascinating article. I admit my favourite parts were the images, but the text was a really good read about topic of which I've known next to nothing until now. Heimstern Läufer (talk)
Many thanks! I'm working on the "other side" Yamato-e now - a way to go, & it won't I thnk be on DYK. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


I value your aesthetic judgement. As I'm expanding List of blue plaques, what do you think should be blue linked? The persons notable work, their occupation? Their notable road? The area? I am wary of it being too blue. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's mostly fine - I've made a few changes you're welcome to revert. Some are defined as Irish (Yeats) or French, but Melville & Pound are not "American". I think less central places like Surbiton or Barnet can be linked, but best not to with the central areas. Bloomsbury is (at least largely) in the London Borough of Camden (which has been rather misnamed imo), but is not in Camden itself, so I cut that. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm changing the addresses so they match the English Heritage website, I like your suggestion, I'll also link streets where poss. Amazed to see a few biographies missing as well. I've been meaning to ask you, I like the List of most expensive paintings, how would name a list of non-painting artworks? Am thinking List of most expensive objet d'art for everything else? I just saw the Badminton cabinet and various historic photograph sales and got intrigued. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Just "works of art" I think, & explain you are excluding paintings, or are you going to do "most expensive" by type? Sculpture could have its own list. "Most expensive" can be a referencing nightmare I think, like List of best-selling books. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


Is this Gothic art is it, I might use there.-- (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Royal chariot parade design, with a gold glazed background, from the 14th century.
You could call it Gothic, sure, but Gothic art is also crowded already. What is it exactly, & where does it come from? Did you take it yourself, or copy a file? The most useful pictures are those with good details, and maybe a link to a museum page etc. It looks like it shows a religious procession & might be very useful on an article on these. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Seven feet under[edit]

Sometimes you've got to laugh!

Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

May Constitution[edit]


Regarding this edit, I recommend choosing your words carefully. The question of whether the May constitution was indeed the second constitution in world history, and if so, what precisely we mean by "constitution" in this context, has been a matter of quite a bit of contention on this and several related articles going back to at least 2005. See, for example, previous discussions archived here, here, here, and here. Gabbe (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the now-archived FAC, and the note I added to the Davies quote? I'm really not too bothered, but adding "written" is clearly a step in the right direction. The claim is attributed to numerous historians, which is appropriate here, but no doubt the passge could be further improved - or the disagreement itself amplified lower down. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Osiris myth FAC[edit]

Not to nag, but you looked at Osiris myth a few weeks ago, made one comment, and said you would add more. This candidacy is moving toward the bottom of the FAC page, so I'd like some more input soon. (I know the review processes are in the doldrums at the moment, so I'm pitching in and doing some peer reviews.) A. Parrot (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, holiday time! I did forget but saw it again recently, & should return. Johnbod (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


Export hell seidel steiner.png Many thanks for the FAC review of Olmec colossal heads, adding that extra stuff and for your support. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
And thank you for a very interesting article on a subject I didn't know much about! We now need something on the very classy jades to add to the colossal heads and pottery figurines. Johnbod (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR for Oxford alumni, Part Deux[edit]

<smirk> Yes. </smirk> I'll check my email at work tomorrow to see what it took to get it and let you know. I seem to recall that the process didn't take long so perhaps a reminder email would do the trick. BencherliteTalk 22:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Caspar David Friedrich and HA Schult[edit]

May I ask you to have a further look at Talk:Caspar David Friedrich. My short reference to the influence of Friedrich's painting on the early work of HA Schult has now been removed from the Friedrich article. I do not understand why, as Schult is an internationally recognized German artist who has clearly been influenced by Friedrich. See, for instance, these works by Schult: [2] [3] [4]. Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod - At the talk page I explained at length why this is not a good idea; - the performance artist in question has no business being included in the article, a minor figure at best, by the way check out this link too: Dreams (1990 film)...Modernist (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Depiction of women artists in art history (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Alfred Knopf
Sculpture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Greenstone
Throne of Maximian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pola

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


I have added the following to Talk:GLAM_(industry_sector)#WMUK_GLAM-WIKI_2012:

I am very disappointed by this addition on 1 April 2012 to the GLAM (industry sector) article, which is advertising for a WMUK event. It is inappropriate to add "planned" events per WP:CRYSTAL, especially if you don't use reliable sources that are independent, _especially_ when you have a conflict of interest (user:Johnbodwas announced as a WMUK trustee nominee four days after that edit, and became a WMUK trustee a month later). I checked and couldn't find any online newspaper articles for "GLAM-WIKI 2012" or "GLAM-WIKI 2013", so I have removed this.

I have no problems with people editing when they have a conflict of interest, but they should be extra careful to be compliant with community expectations. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Just drop by to say hello! I am an art lover! :D  RexRowan  Talk  12:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Fine Arts Star.png The Barnstar of Fine Arts
For your generous contribution in night in paintings  RexRowan  Talk  09:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fashion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Branding and Yves Saint-Laurent
Classical sculpture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Neoclassical

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Night in paintings (Eastern art)[edit]

Hi John, thanks so much for the great directional comments for Night in paintings (Western art) - do you mind taking a look at Talk:Night in paintings (Eastern art) next steps section? That would be really helpful! I took a stab at comments about approach, but your input would be extremely helpful! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Modern sculpture[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Modern sculpture. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Sculpture#Modernism. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Sculpture#Modernism - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. JetBlast (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Err... perhaps you missed that Johnbod's been reworking the Sculpture article and is quite probably aware that there is a section for Modernism... my guess is he spun that information out of the main Sculpture article. There is quite enough information available on modern sculpture to fill an entire article on its own... is this notice a joke??? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - see Talk at Sculpture - I'm trimming down the section there, & copied it in all it's repetitious glory to the new article, which could usefully be expanded. Strangely, contemporary sculpture seems to be an entirely American affair .... Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


Wouldn't have a clue! There must have been something about him on TV. Obviously sensational. Leonardo's Personal life got 600 hits on 1 August, as against the usual 300-400 and peaked again a week or so back. The Leonardo da Vinci article went from its usual midweek high of 11,000 to 13,400 on 1st August. Amandajm (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It took me a while to work out why Salai got 100,00 hits on 1st August. He is a masochist and it was his birthday. Amandajm (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sopra Miverva[edit]

I simplified your description about Murphy-O'Connor. Although he retired from active duty in the UK, he remains cardinal-priest of Santa Maria sopra Minerva until his death as well as Archbishop (Emeritus) of Westminster. I was not aware "emeritus" was not used in the UK in academic or religious institutions. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC):

Art of Ancient Egypt[edit]

After, the way you edit, you seem a jerk as well, and yes the painting does show symmetry maybe not reflection, however, if you look at the center of the painting and not the rest of the details.--GoShow (...............) 04:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

However, I can delete it and use it for another perpective of art--GoShow (...............) 04:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Broad symmetry yes, pardon about the reflection, it seems more some gold, wood, and ink , maybe--GoShow (...............) 04:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

African art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Dogon and Makonde
Ancient Greek sculpture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Macedonia
Country (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Provencal
Gothic art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to James Snyder
Santa Maria sopra Minerva (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Assumption

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

GLAM: Philadelphia Museum of Art update[edit]

Hi GLAM PMA folks! I wanted to update you about some recent events related to our fantastic Museum. I met Jessica Milby, PMA Collections Information Project Manager, at Wikimania in July. Jessica was looking for ways to improve articles on Wikipedia about the Museum and its artists/collections. We followed up a few weeks later at the Perelman Building in downtown Philadelphia where we discussed ways to increase participation in the GLAM/PMA project.

  • The first idea is to do some outreach to the GLAM:PMA project members, including mass messages updating you all about plans and, seeking feedback about new ideas, and hearing your thoughts about what's in the works.
  • The next step is a drive to improve the main Philadelphia Museum of Art article. The article is currently 'B-Class', but Jessica was confident that with the abundance of high quality sources about the Museum that it could be improved even further. Jessica recommended this extensive source from the Museum's website.
  • Another idea that came out of the meeting was a project within the Museum to assess which PMA-related topics are missing articles on Wikipedia.
  • One of Jessica's ideas is to have the knowledgeable curators of the Museum provide recommended reading lists for PMA-related articles. That should be a great first step to guiding editors towards the information they need to expand and improve that content.
  • Also raised for discussion were some ideas about how to engage the broader community. There is interest in setting up a tour/edit-a-thon, but this remains in the preliminary stage. Would you be interested in participating in such an event?
  • We have new stats! These 24 articles are all under the PMA project. I compiled the last 90-day page views and then annualized the results. PMA-related articles get almost 800,000 view per year!
See the stats!
Article Importance Class View last 90 days Views annualized
Philadelphia Museum of Art Top B 22,790 91,160
The Concert Singer High B 783 3,132
Crucifixion Diptych (van der Weyden) High C 1,500 6,000
Perelman Building High C 986 3,944
The Gross Clinic High C 12,897 51,588
William Rush and His Model High C 1,038 4,152
Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 High Start 26,892 107,568
Rodin Museum High Start 5,323 21,292
Soft Construction with Boiled Beans (Premonition of Civil War) High Start 11,026 44,104
The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even High Start 13,639 54,556
Wedding dress of Grace Kelly High Start 5,810 23,240
Étant donnés High Stub 7,464 29,856
Bird in Space High Unassessed 10,365 41,460
Diana (Saint-Gaudens) High Unassessed 1,450 5,800
Interior (Degas) High Unassessed 2,434 9,736
The Bathers (Cézanne) High Unassessed 7,166 28,664
Three Musicians High Unassessed 9,421 37,684
The Fairman Rogers Four-in-Hand Mid C 736 2,944
Anne d'Harnoncourt Mid Stub 1,266 5,064
Lansdowne House Mid Stub 3,763 15,052
Portrait of Leslie W. Miller Mid Unassessed 362 1,448
Yellow Odalisque Mid Unassessed 817 3,268
Rocky Steps Low Start 41,341 165,364
Samuel S. Fleisher Art Memorial Low Start 304 1,216
Total 189,573 758,292
views per quarter views per year

It's exciting to have a partner in Jessica Milby and there should be a lot of good work coming out the collaboration within the next 3-6 months. Please stop by the GLAM/PMA project page and leave your thoughts. What ideas do you have? How can we move forward on the above projects? I Hope you're all well. Cheers! Ocaasi 19:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Staging the World[edit]

Oh, thanks very much! Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Adventus vs. triumphus[edit]

I just noticed you were the one who made this edit to Ara Pacis. I know you like careful distinctions, so see my explanation at Talk:Ara Pacis#triumphal/triumphant. A triumphus is a formal honor that has to be granted, and is not just a celebratory or "triumphant" return, which is all Augustus had (if that). A celebratory return, however, might be an adventus, a subject also found as the subject of art. Under Augustus, the triumph was undergoing a transformation along with other institutions of the Republic; for instance, the last person outside the Imperial family allowed to celebrate a triumphus (in 19 BC, under Augustus) was the remarkable Cornelius Balbus, who was also the first person not born a Roman citizen to be granted a triumph.

At any rate, in 13 BC Augustus did indeed return to Rome "triumphantly" (though I deleted the word as potentially confusing), because he had just thoroughly reshaped the face of a massive portion of Rome's territorial holdings, but he did not celebrate a triumphus. The return of Augustus as commemorated on the Altar of Peace is considered an adventus by Torelli (as here also), who refers however to the real-life return as a mere reditus; Fishwick emphasizes that Augustus made a relatively quiet return, and that even adventus is too strong a word. Augustus refused triumphal honors after his triple triumph in 29 BC (Torelli, p. 28), and it was an ideological point that his res gestae in Hispania and Gaul were marked not by a triumph, but by a monument to peace. Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks; I was approaching it as a correction to what seemed to a an edit based on "triumphal" not being a word, though I might be wrong there; "triumpal" had been there before. I had no knowledge of the specific moment. I've just been doing Blacas Cameo, & set up Category:Augustus in Ancient Roman sculpture, & may yet do Augustus in art or something - I have a small BM exhibition book on the subject - all very reminiscent of North Korea. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know—not meant as a criticism. Just offered in case you were working on these kinds of representations of imperial or royal processions in art, and came upon other such things. And of course there are also mythological triumphs to muddle matters. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Well we could do with more on the Adventus in art, but I don't think I'll be doing it. I did Royal entry with Wetman years ago, mainly on the medieval and Renaissance ones. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blacas Cameo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Anthony (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"Isabella" not Pre-Raphaelite?[edit]

The removal of the category "Pre-Raphaelite Paintings" makes me curious. --DL5MDA (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It is in Category:Paintings by John Everett Millais, which is in its entirety already part of Category:Pre-Raphaelite paintings. (I assume that this was the reason for the removal; Johnbod will object if I'm wrong.) --Hegvald (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely right, thanks. I think WP:OCAT is the relevant policy. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to Usefulness (or the lack thereof)[edit]

Thanks so much for your input on what is and is not useful. Also thank you for pointing out the conflict of interest. We would very much enjoy connecting our digital content with relevant Wikipedia entries, and it would be great if you (or someone else) might be willing to work with us on future edits. I have looked over the VAwebteam profile and it looks like they're trying to do something similar to us. Please let me know what we need to do in order to work out some sort of arrangement. Thanks in advance for your assistance. WilliamDigiCol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 16:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready[edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at and, second, email along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

DEFRA category[edit]

You objected to it being speedied, so I opened a full discussion at CfD September 19.

Look fwd to your contribution there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

La Coupole[edit]

I've added some further information to La Coupole regarding the museum. Any chance you could take a look and update your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1? Prioryman (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but I haven't read the article fully & I'm not sure when I'll be able to now. Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Bayeux Tapestry[edit]

Hi Johnbod. You may like to note that I've queried your removal of the [Category:Anglo-Saxon documents] from Bayeux Tapestry on the article's Talk page: I thought it was worth a discussion. If you have strong feelings on the subject you may want to weigh in. GrindtXX (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Blacas Cameo[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Martyrium (architecture) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Constantine
Roman funerals and burial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Constantine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Parent Categories, etc.[edit]

I think I need a little education on this, and wading through the Help Pages (where info can be scattered across many different pages) is a pain. I am referring to my edit on Medals about how "Orders, decorations, and medals" has a notice that it is a conatiner category that should only contain other subcategories. There is another type of notice, that says "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable", such as Category:Concepts, Which seems to me to be more reasonable. What is the difference? Why does someone tag a category as "only put subcategories here"? Your comments would be appreciated--Nyctc7 (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow - your link above to "Orders, decorations, and medals" redirected to Decorations and medals of the Netherlands!! Now goes to the category. I don't know the answer exactly, or if there is one. The notice was added about 2 years ago by Xdamr, of the project. Generally a strongish notice discouraging people from dumping specific things in the head-cat seems a good idea, but equally leaving the 3 main very general articles there seems sensible too. The situation has been stable AFAIK for a good while, though the "history" of a category's contents needs an admin to see, which I'm not. Ignore some notices some of the time I suppose. Does that help? Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: That silly redirect. It was created by the person who created the page and was never fixed. You can see I recently did exactly what you did to correct it, then undid my edit because I wasn't sure about what to do (wasn't sure that it was proper to redirect a page to a category), then...forgot about it. I'm glad you fixed it! Yes, what you wrote helps. Thanks! Cheers, --Nyctc7 (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes I was surprized I was able to redirect to a category - it seems best here, but may yet be "corrected". Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

New essay on Gibraltarpedia[edit]

You might be interested in an essay that I've written on the issue of Gibraltarpedia's supposed ability to produce commercial benefits for Gibraltar; see User:Prioryman/Gibraltarpedia, monetisation and myths. By the way, if you're not already aware, Gibraltarpedia itself is currently up for deletion; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA‎. Prioryman (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod, I have replied on Jimbo's talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I spoke to one person last night & have emailed 2 others. It is pretty clear no MOU has been or will be signed; I am trying to establish if anyone at WMUK has had the draft Roger refers too. Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to copy your reply over to Jimbo's talk page to keep the discussion in one place. I hope that's ok with you. I will reply there. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I will reply there when I have something to say. I don't think a holding reply like this should be there. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo's page is archived quite aggressively and I do not wish for the discussion to be automatically archived before you have a chance to reply. I have added some more information there that you may find helpful. If you could address the question of availability of the documents, it would save me from typing it out again. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
As I suspect you know, threads with recent contributions are not archived. No, the Monmouth information was not useful, as that MOU was well-known. I have tracked down a draft of the Gib MOU but not all the information necessary to answer your questions (and confirm or qualify my earlier statements) fully. In particular Stevie Benton does not return from holiday until Thursday, & then will have a certain amount of catching up to do, to put it mildly. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
And threads with no recent contributions are archived, which I prevented by posting your comment and my reply. Again, if you could make your replies on Jimbo's talk page, it would keep this discussion together (and dispell any impression that you are simply ignoring the questions). I have summarized our conversation as a comment on the recent Signpost article about WMUK. I believe it is accurate, but please look it over. You may wish to comment there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the delay. I was incorrect to say (the section is now archived here) that no MOU was being negotiated with Gibraltar, and have located what I believe is the latest draft. This was mentioned, and approved in principle, at the September 8th Board Meeting, where I was present, but the text was not discussed to any degree, and it was not in the printed Board papers, although it was emailed to the Board list on September 1st. The draft I have is a Google document that has a number of comments on it and was most recently commented on on September 4th. It is not available on the public WMUK wiki, and is a draft in progress, which to my eyes needs work. It seems to have been overtaken by events, & I can't get a clear view as to whether it will be proceeded with in the future. The parties are WMUK & a representative of a department of the Gibraltar government (not Tourism), and the text covers "management arrangements" for what it says is not a partnership. As to the Monmouth questions you added on October 2nd, I am not going to start on those because the signing on May 19 this year was exactly a week after I was elected a Trustee, and I was not involved in discussions of the document. All these matters are going to be within the scope of the expert being appointed to do the WMUK governance review, & I think they are now best left for that review. I've replied on the Gibraltar points because I intervened in that discussion, not very accurately I'm afraid, & needed to correct my earlier comment. I'm sorry it took so long, and for my less than total recall. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your reply, John. I was really hoping that we could conclude the discussion in one place. Jimbo's talk page having been archived, I have taken the liberty of quoting your reply on the Signpost talk page. You were, as you say, responding to my comment there, so it seems like a good place to finish this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
      • The best place to raise these detailed matters is at the WMUK Water Cooler, which archives very slowly. But as I say above, with the expert review happening I think we should now wait for that. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Your statement on the Signpost talk page implies that if I ask my questions here, you will reply. So, the most recent request for information was:

          John, I understand that you were a very new Trustee when the Monmouthpedia MOU was signed, but I am not asking about the history. What is the status of that MOU, how is Roger described in that MOU, and is it available to the public or to WMUK members? Those are very simple questions and I would appreciate an answer. Whether or not this will be covered by the independent investigation does not seem relevant.

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

All I know is that there is a draft on the office wiki, which is a PDF of an unsigned document, described as not approved by the board. The draft lists the signatories as: a Monmouth County Council person, the then WMUK chair, and finally Roger Bamkin as "Wikimedia UK Trustee and Steering Group representative"; no individuals are mentioned in the text. It was uploaded May 30th 2012. Presumably it is not on the public wiki; we don't have anything that WMUK members can see and the public not. I'm not going to do further investigation in light of the expert report. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)