User talk:Johnbod/3 to Jan 07

Etching dab

Hi,
Sorry for any inconvenience I have caused. I decided that the article did not merit primary-topic disambiguation, and required a dedicated disambig page. The misdirected links are an unfortunate but standard consequence of making dab pages. I would volunteer myself to begin fixing them, but I don't have time today. Sooner or later, someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation will come along and fix them.

That said, if you disagree with my decision, I'm willing to discuss it at Talk:Etching. --Smack (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You will see I have proposed returning to the old situation there - this really seems unecessary & problem-causing to me Johnbod 22:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I plan to cut out all of the erroneous material at Etching (chemical) (i.e. most of the article), rename it, and tag it with a stub notice. RIE and DRIE also need to be cleaned up, but it the majority of the material can stay. --Smack (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say to me (which I imagine to most readers not already knowledgeable) it is unclear how the articles relate & overlap - as they clearly partly do. Wouldn't it be better to roll them all into one - it would still be fairly short? Johnbod 11:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We need a separate article on etching in macroscale industry; it's an oversight that we don't already have one. We could combine Etching (microfab), RIE and DRIE into two articles or even one, but I don't see the point. Etching (microfab)#Plasma methods explains where RIE and DRIE fit in. As for the reverse, I plan to clean up the two specific articles.

I've placed your talk page on my watchlist, so you may reply right here, to keep the discussion all in one place. Also, could you take a look at the first entry at Etch? It needs to conform to MoS:DP. --Smack (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm done, but if you would like me to do anything else, I can come back and do that. --Smack (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

ok , thanks - I'll have a look & see what I think needs doing. Johnbod 04:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Patience

Regarding your accusation that I removed your passage, if you had looked closely, you would have seen that this was not the case. It is the second-to-last sentence, below the quote from Sirach and above the quote from Bestavros.

No, that is me adding it back again! It is not my passage at all, btw. See the history Johnbod 18:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Master of the Playing Cards

A tag has been placed on Master of the Playing Cards, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. FirefoxMan 22:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

- replied on his talk pageJohnbod 03:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:GiorgioOrsini

Unfortunately, there's nothing I can really do here. The user hasn't violated 3RR, but he has been confrontational, but that still wouldn't justify a block. Try reasoning with him; I know he's rude, but just find some common ground to discuss on. Nishkid64 23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks Johnbod 23:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Master of the PC

Coincidentally, I just took the Lehman-Haupt book home Thursday!But I may have trouble finding a usable illustration. DGG 04:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few on Commons - I put a tag on, plus a good pic (by Cherubino I think) of his largest work. Many of the others are poor quality scans, or of poor quality impressions.Johnbod 08:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Danny H

Hi John and a happy one to you too. Re DH, I can take a hint when I get one... ;-). I'll try and do something worthwhile on him.

Re officious bots, after a few weeks of intensive Wiki-ing, I have come to the conclusion that Wiki brings out the very worst in all of us: a writer of articles regards his creation as his own territory, like a dog pissing on a lamp-post, and will show his teeth (or feel like it at the very least) as soon as another dog comes sniffing around.

On the other side of the coin, as an editor, Wiki brings out the busybody and policeman in us: how incredibly gratifying it is to 'correct' other peoples' ignorance (or bad grammar).

I have marked every page or image that I have created as a 'watch page'. I now think I shall unwatch them all and leave them to their fate. As my nanny used to say: 'What the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over...' or similar nanny-like popular wisdom.

So what happened to your edit war on etching with that chap called Smack? I must have a dekko.

See you around, no doubt, so until then, all the best, Nick Michael 08:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Smack & I are still at it - but I can see his point of view & he is quite reasonable. Have a good one Johnbod 09:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Hopfer article done! I'd appreciate your opinion on this, and please of course feel free to edit it in any way you like. Now I just need to add some pics... Nick Michael 22:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick, that's great! I have linked, & added a little (I hope all true). You might say a little more on the works - typical small size (you will have a better idea than I do). How many does Hollstein give him? Or do it in the picture captions. I will nick bits for etching (la lucha continua!) and State (printmaking). You'll see I softened the harsh words on their drawing a tad. You should nominate a fact from it for "Did you know" on the main page - facts from articles less than 5 days old (they will count from today) Johnbod 22:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

John, Hopfer was definitely not a 'Little Master' - his prints are sort of, well, 'normal-sized' (you can see the sizes, which I have included in all the uploaded ones on Commons). Hollstein indexes 230, including woodcuts (just page decorations really). As for the 'Did you know...' thing, well, I don't somehow think Daniel Hopfer will get in the popularity ratings on Wiki: in fact, there have been no edits of any of my uploaded pics practically since I did them, bar one or two zealous category editors, who must have got lost somewhere in the jungle of obscure, esoteric and not-very-popular subjects! That's probably a 'good thing' actually - people will leave us alone, and we can expect not to have similar wars to those on Islam or the Bible (mind you, there has been some emotion spilled on your etching article, hasn't there?)!

Thanks for your valuable edits: I still don't think the Hopfers were any good at drawing (but there is a certain naïve charm about their work). Anyway, I enjoyed writing the article, and it was definitely a necessary addition to Wiki. Happy New Year to you... Nick Michael 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Images

For the van der Weyden, try this: Image:Van der weyden miniature.jpg. I think the problem with the WGA image is that the scan or photo is higher res than the original. - PKM 23:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And is this of value: http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/medieval/en/a008.htm ?

The Pisanello is an issue because the Bridgeman vs Corel copyright ruling only covers reproductions of two-dimensional works of art; photos of medals are not automatically public domain in the US. - PKM 23:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats fantastic - the VdW is the Serengeti of chaperon-hunting! Many thanks Johnbod 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Portrait of Burghley

Comment on your sandbox article: Burghley died in 1598. Do you have a source for the 1620 date of the portrait? (A 1620 copy of a lost original of the 1580s-90s would make sense.) - PKM 23:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No that was just an interim guess (based on him being his son in fact). I can't find a solid date but Marcus G was born 1561, so i've now put 1590s I think. Johnbod 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. NPG has three versions and doesn't attribute an artist to any of them; they date them all "after c. 1585" (though the Henry Bone sketch of 1811 is still listed as "after John De Critz the Elder, or after Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger"). - PKM 07:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a good one

Image:RoyalFireworks.jpg|thumb|right|250px|An etching of the 'Royal Fireworks' display on the Thames in 1749. - unlinked to save space Happy New Year -- Cherubino 22:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You too - great pic! Johnbod 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Rembrandt

Very sly of me: I was thinking that if I dropped an etching into Rembrandt's bio, you might be encouraged to add a section on his prints; same with Daumier. Have a happy new year, JNW 01:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To you too! - R is on my list (literally - user page) but it's a bit daunting, & I ought to do some reading first. I tend to do people articles when I reach them at old master print, in which case there's a century to go - but I may bang down something preliminary. Daumier is out of my main period & I don't know much about them, but I'll have a look Johnbod 01:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

best-selling books

Sorry - I only reverted your change by accident- it was the other person's ones putting star wars series back I was after. Actually I wonder if the "usually sold in 3 vols" is true - for a very long time most sales in most countries were for a single-volume paperback. Johnbod 15:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There are versions in 1 volume, versions in 3 volumes, versions in 6 volumes. The average is 3. 100 million is the total, so 100:3=33 Original version is in 3 books as a series from 1954 to 1955. Split?

TfD nomination of Template:Catholic-expand

Template:Catholic-expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Stbalbach 22:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Turbans

I'm not sure that I agree with you re apparent turbans being chaperons in reality. It would be nice if we had some citations to settle the matter either way. I found very little on the history of European turbans online, but I did find pictures of seeming turbans that didn't have the characteristic "wattles" and liripipes of chaperons. I just now paged through my one costume book, the Bruhn and Tilke pictorial history of costume and I found descriptions like these, for plate 46, headdresses, Burgundy, 15th century:

• Learned man with hat made of a roll of material from which folds of cloth hang down
• Man of rank in the new-fashioned turban hat

There were also a fair number of pictures of women who seemed to be wearing turbans. Some of them seem to be peasant women; it may have just been a way of protecting the hair and keeping it out of the way.

One would have to look at surviving costumes, instead of just pictures, to be really sure, I would think.

I revised for vagueness. If you have a costume history library, or access to a good one, see if you can find some cites. I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. Zora 07:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There are loads of reference books & citations at chaperon - try the online-thesis, which is pretty exhaustive. See also the updated "review of the literature" section separately on the same sight. She is pretty scathing, convincingly I thought, on the scholarly standards of most of the general costume histories available. Of course it depends what you call a turban, but I think a loosely tied head-cloth with 1-2 layers hardly makes it. Unless you know how the various hat-styles worked, a lot of them do look like turbans, especially in a small photo of a painting etc. Hood & basic hat Chaperons were certainly worn by women, especially peasants as you say, though my article concentrates on men, though mentioning women -see the tres Riches Heures.

There is also a lot of literature on the use of actual turbans in religious scenes at the period to distinguish Jews (or non-Christian Jews to be precise) from Christians in various subjects, especially Passion scenes. This is all purely about iconography & not what people (Jews or Christians) actually wore; but it reinforces that the turban was specifically seen as a non-European headgear.

The most famous supposed portrait with a turban at the period is the NG Van Eyck (see chaperon Gallery). The NG catalogue (Campbell) emphasizes this is an evolved chaperon not a turban. Essentially I use their terminology - Reed uses rather different ones.

Slightly surprised you are the one criticise me for vagueness & lack of citations, if you don't mind me saying so! I'll have to go along & take a look. I think I will copy this to the chaperon talk-page, btw. Please continue it there if needed.

Johnbod 09:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Chaperon (headgear), was selected for DYK!

On January 3, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chaperon (headgear), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 17:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systematic bias

If you are not a member of this WikiProject, why are you acting as if you were? Your interventions in the discussion page are most confusing as you are always promoting ideas opposed to the project intentions. --Sugaar 09:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware you needed to be a formal member to contribute - in fact I'm fairly sure you don't. You seem fixated by the idea that only the "right" people (ie those who agree with you) contribute to any page. You might consider the implications of that in terms of systemic bias. I find the page interesting, not least because there so clearly is a complete lack of agreement among those who I suppose are members on what the "project intentions" are, the moment you get down to anything specific. That is why it is such a gamble to appeal for help there, as you found out with Guernica. I did not find the page, they found me - see "Proposal for countering.." , an at times comical example of what I mean. Glad you agree with me over the CE (and other non-Basque issues) anyway. 10:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw, isn't it time to act on the fairly clear consensus for merging Al-Andalus and Islam in Spain. The only trouble is that once again you did not put a tag on I in S, but I would go ahead anyway. But please remember to use the tags. Johnbod 12:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no written rule, I believe, just common sense. If you're acting as apparent member you should sign up (what is, I understand, a gesture that you are interested in the project). If you're acting from outside the project, it should be clear. You are confusing people, because you are not member of the project, you clearly have strong opinions opposed to the ideals of that project (Anglocentric, not globalist) but you are replying to users making inquiries as if you were a member and you shared the ideals of the project. It's outmost confuse and there's clearly something wrong with it.

Really I think that WikiProjects, like user-pages, should be mostly edited by its members, who have an idea of what they are doing there (at least normally). I would invite you to join but really I think you are not for that project, so maybe you should start a different project of your own or find another space to publicize/promote your pro-Anglocentric-bias ideas.

Not sure what you mean by we agreeing in "CE". What is "CE"?

Re. Al-Andalus and Islam in Spain, I did put tags in both pages, but guess somebody has removed one. In what regards to me, please go ahead and merge. --Sugaar 12:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

CE is Catholic Encyclopedia. I really don't know what to say without ceasing to be civil. You just can't invent world views for people when you have not seen how they act in a variety of contexts. Like most people who get involved in a number of areas in WP, I have already been accused of having a number of completely contradictory agendas/biases, including pushing an East Asian one (and of course the opposite). Your views, which at least you clearly articulate, are pretty clearly well beyond those of most members of WCSB who express views, and directly opposed to those of many members, who have joined to combat specific local biases in favour of a consistent world view. See Wikimachine's contributions for example. I'm rather in the middle. I notice the great majority of your contributions are on Basque-related pages. If you got around a bit more I think you would achieve a wider perspective - as I've said before you & I seem to mostly vote the same way on non-Basque matters. I won't merge the Al-andalus/I in S pages, as I have never edited them significantly. 12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I got in Basque theme, because, as I used Wikipedia, I noticed there was a need there. Just that. I've also got in other matters but I admit that the national theme can be a little absorbing. Really I'd like to dedicate more time to prehistory and genetics for instance and to review Ethnic articles and other stuff. Right now I'm absorbed with the Basque WikiProject and related stuff and also losing quickly interest for Wikipedia as I realize the many problems this project has.

One possitive thing is that when editing on Basque theme I got normally into less discussions and more productive cooperation than when I get involved in other areas.

I really know few people from the WikiProject CSB and I have already found some surprising attitudes. But whatever the case, I think that people playing an active role in any project should be members. I would not go and meddle in WP:Ireland (let's say) unless: (a) there's an specific discussion I am brought to or (b) I have the commitment and the interest in joining that project.

I don't say you have an agenda or anything, just that some of your actuations seem at least odd.

Other people's views often seem odd. i've seen much odder ones than anything on guernica Johnbod 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Master of the Playing Cards

I'll add it again when I do the article, which will not be till February--it will be easier than arguing now. The title may sound absurd to the ignorant. I'll watch for our guy on s-d. i look there once in a while. The function is obviously being overused, & I'm planning to comment on it generally on some of the deletion project pages. DGG 17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry - it was up again after ten minutes " the Master ... was a HIGHLY NOTABLE..." - seemed to do the trick! Since toned down. He seems to have calmed down now - there was a new tool he had just been given - Christmas come early. When you see some stubs it's very clear things have not always been this way! Johnbod 18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion with some people on speedy patrol about the requirement for the magic word. I think it can get changed to something like no indication of notability rather than no assertion. I'm getting involved not just forthis, but because I have been rescuing a number of sci-tech stuff from overactive deletionists who don't recognize the names.DGG 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's right. Otherwise everyone will be forced to sail close to the wind on WP:PEACOCK which would be terrible. It does attract some editors who seem to see WP as a form of computer game. Johnbod 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Knight

I removed one of the images you added to the Knight page, and moved another. I wanted to explain why.

The one removed illustrated what seems to be a Russian horseman, rather than a European knight. Russian nobility did not derive from the European tradition of knighthood, so that image is probably more appropriate in a page discussing the Russian boyars.

The other image was of 15th century knights yet was placed in the origins of medieval knighthood section, which is about knights in the 9th-10th centuries. I moved it somewhere else, as it's a nice image. I had to then resize it as it's very tall. Please feel free to fool with its size or put it somewhere else in the article -- only reason for moving it was to prevent creating the impression that 9th C. knights looked that way. An image from the Psalter of St. Gall would be perfect for the "origins" section, if you have one. Come to think of it, I think I have some -- I'll try to add one this weekend. Cheers, Larry Dunn 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation - The Slav one was not mine & I'm happy to see it go. Generally there are still too many Victorian images for my taste, when good medieval ones are on Commons. 2 good "dubbing" ones for example, instead of the Warner Bros Leighton. Johnbod 14:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, pentimento, was selected for DYK!

On January 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article pentimento, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 15:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

movable you-know what

I've copied the unique material from here onto the H of TEA article, with the intent of summarizing the EA part on the HT p. In the process I notice citations are missing for the first two sections of MT.DGG 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What I contributed went first onto Woodblock printing, & then is summarized from there to other articles as seems appropriate. The fullest lot of refs will be at woodblock printing. But I think someone else has been adding/changing dates, possibly correctly. This for example, is new to me: "By the 8th century entire books were being printed with carved blocks of wood or stone in China"

I will check all versions & add what cites I can (maybe later today).

You may remember I queried the imprinting bit above, which I think came from User:Arbo (& ? Ma), who said he had, but would not cite, refs.

Johnbod 15:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

DGG, I've put in all the cites I have, & replaced the section tag with individual ones for "used from 5thC" & "books by 8thC". These don't seem unreasonable, but i donn't have refs. They were put in by James Arboghast (=Arbo I presume) in the first nov 6 version - edit summ: "Add content broken out from early History of typography". No refs when there either. See if you can extract refs from him! Johnbod 20:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Rajasthani turbans

Rajasthani turbans are also very large. Check out the picture from the movie Paheli; that's a big turban. I'm not sure that it would OK to use it in the turban article, however. I'm having trouble finding usable turban pictures. Zora 05:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did look at Commons cat Turbans after I wrote it - the biggest is a Sikh (Akali dal type) one. Have you checked there - they have quite a few. I should maybe say the Turks had "some of the biggest", but equally i couldn't find an Ottoman pic of the largest size - they built them round "cages" so they got pretty huge. I think it's Chinese/Turkestan (as used to be) one's you're short of, also Malay. I also looked on Commons for a male Euro one, but no luck so far. Johnbod 13:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi John - poking my nose into other peoples' biz (a trait not normally mine, but Wiki just tends to encourage it...). I have no idea what the subject is really (I haven't looked at anything other than the writing above), but I'd just point out that there are two or three delightful turbans in Uccello's Battle of San Romano. These look very much as if they are wound round frames: a friend claims that one of the depictions is a bare frame, but I don't think so. If I'm picking up fag-ends, please forgive.

I see you are interested in the Valois Dukes of Burgundy, a pet subject of mine [1]. I've been messing around with the Battle of Grandson and the Burgundian Wars articles. Living so near the sites, I was bound to get interested... Cheers Nick Michael 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Tolentino/Uccello ones are definitely hats - see the patterns on the fabric. Whether he had a helmet underneath is an interesting question. I never thought medieval headgear would become an interest, but now see chaperon (headgear)! There's a lot of loose talk about medieval turbans in Europe - see the chaperon talk page for my view. I'm interested in Burgundy mainly through the art, & don't know a lot about the military, let alone the feudal-international law (?!) aspects that there's a lot about on the Charles the bold talk page. But it is a fascinating period. Grandson was at least a victory for conservation - there's hardly any comparable tapestry left oop North. I did a lot on Giovanni Arnolfini & his portrait too -from the excellent big NG catalogue. I have to update GA soon as I just found out my prophesy there in fact came true in 2002. Have you read the B Tuchman book on the middle ages - Barbara Tuchman;A Distant Mirror, 1978, Alfred A Knopf Ltd. There's a very comic account of a previous lot of feudal hooray-henries who came a cropper mixing it with the Swiss. Nice stuff you're doing on the music side. Johnbod 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agnes

In response to your allegations of my allterations to the 'crusades' article being very 'point of view' rather than factual, then I ask you to revise 'your previous knowledge about crusader history, taking into account fact and legend, and accounts from both sides, and avoiding bias, and then it will dawn to you that what I have done is not 'POV' but rather an elimination of the bias, drama, fiction and innaccuracies, and inserting solid facts that have been unjustly missed out to make out that the crusaders were angellic saviours, and hiding their grim legacy. And as for the 'spelling mistakes' I am sure you wil find that they are typing errors (which i found in the previous version-which you seem to favour, perhaps not in the same abundance, but still there) and you could have simply just corrected them as you read. And be open minded, just because you dont like what you read, it doesnt mean that it isnt true: after all, it was the crusadors who were the agressors.

Icon

I didn't mean to appear contradictory or disagreeable there, but do you see the point that I've returned to the text? I'm sure you'll agree, if it's correctly stated. Does it need a note directly quoting Christian denigrations of "man-made" pagan images? Someone like Arnobius? --Wetman 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"naturally and especially because of the reluctance to accept mere human productions as embodying anything of the divine, a commonplace of Christian deprecation of man-made "idols"."

The trouble is that this implies that the acheiropoieta were seen as "embodying" the divine in some way other icons did not, which I don't think is correct, or the way in which it is correct would be complicated to express - "embodying" obviously comes near to very muddy theological ground. They were certainly seen as demonstrating divine approval of icons, but the formal iconophile position seems to have been very careful to avoid attributing any power to the icon as such, although the popular view no doubt went well beyond that. It would equally have been anxious to avoid the suggestion that they operated, as existing icons, differently from man-made icons; the whole point was that they endorsed other, man-made, icons. Their importance was a) demonstrating divine approval for images, & b) giving authoritative models of the historical human appearance of Christ & the Virgin for other artists to follow - as they did in huge numbers. They were regarded as the product & a record of a miracle, but not divine in themselves, although often divinely protected. "Embodying" is a large part of my problem with the passage, although not all of it. The Iconophiles, although always referring and deferring to patristic anti-pagan writings, had in fact moved well beyond any real reluctance about images mentally - for example from 695 all gold coins had a full-face Christ on the front, the final straw that led the Caliph to invent Islamic conventions for his coins, and perhaps was the last straw for the iconoclasts too.

Does this make sense? Johnbod 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Incunabulum

Hi Johnbod, I noticed you reverted me on incunabulum. I don't understand your edit summary, which says that the Almanach doesn't qualify. From the content of the paragraph I assume that it doesn't qualify as a famous incunabulum. If that's the case, I have to disagree. The Almanach certainly is famous, and it's significant because it's the first Polish print. It is also older than all the other incunabula mentioned in the paragraph other than the Gutenberg Bible. And the fact that only a single copy survives makes it more famous, not less. Appleseed (Talk) 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Famous in Poland, I'm sure, but I had never heard of it. The list only mentions three titles (although there are some others that could be added). I take it you don't dispute that the Gutenberg Bible & Nuremberg Chronicle are in a completely different order of celebrity? The Perigrinatio was, like the Chronicle, a best seller of the day, produced in many different editions in four languages before 1500. Surely you can see this just doesn't compare? I have heard of dozens of incunabula, but not this. You have to be strict on such short selective lists, or before you know it half of the 20,000 incunabulum titles will be there. What were the first Dutch, Italian, Hungarian ..... ones. Not even the first English one is on. Be reasonable! Johnbod 18:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me, but unless you are an incunabulum expert I don't think the fact that you have or have not heard of a certain incunabulum is the appropriate standard for celebrity and inclusion in the article. I wasn't suggesting we list first prints from every country; I added the title because it's an important early print, one of the first outside of Germany. Besides, I don't expect the list to grow to 20 000 anytime soon--there are only eight articles in Category:Incunabula (only six of which are incunabula). Appleseed (Talk) 19:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Very famous among experts" would be different, but that's not what the article says (not that I accept that this one is especially famous among experts). Apart from being the first in Poland (presumably even that is not certain - if only one copy survives, how can one know?) what is it famous for? What are you suggesting - that we only list items from Poland and Germany? Spread of printing is the article that covers this area. Incidentally I would be interested on your view on some talk page issues there, re naming. Please have a look. Johnbod 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we are speaking past each other. Anyway, since you feel so strongly about this, I won't press the issue. I'll take a look at Spread of printing, and I invite you to take a look at the Almanach article and make any improvements. Appleseed (Talk) 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

PS Google search (english language only) for "Almanach Cracoviense" gives only 80 results, most of which are Wikipedia or mirror sites, or one encyclopedia, or actually in Polish. "Nuremberg Chronicle" gives 261,000. Johnbod 20:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

George de {l|L}a Tour

Do you maybe want to drift over to Georges de La Tour and tweak the capitalisation of la/La? — you're clearly more sure-footed than I.

Nat 22:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, although it's possible his parents went as la and he as La. I didn't write that bit Johnbod 23:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Medieval costume

Johnbod, I would suggest that Category:Medieval costume should be changed to Category:History of clothing (Medieval Europe) and made a subcat of the existing Category:History of clothing (Europe) for consistency. A redirect from Medieval costume would be good. I can make the changes but wanted to be sure you're okay with it before I do. - PKM 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask Stbalbach, who "does" the medieval history side - I think at the moment this is a history sub-cat, but i'm not good on categories. Obviously i think it ashould be in both fields. I'm now working on Byzantine dress - that seems rather uunder-categorised too. I'll copy these to his page. Johnbod 18:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Arnolfini Portrait

Thanks for your message - I've finished what I was doing, but would happily have stopped on receiving your message. I think a lot of the original wording was clumsy; in most cases I have tried to improve the wording without changing the meaning, probably with some success and some places where my wording is worse, or I have changed the meaning. Thanks for sorting out the carpet reference - it did read oddly to modern eyes, maybe a couple of words about the normality of putting carpets on tables would be in order? I leave it to you.

I'm quite happy to make bold edits (as Wikipedia recommends!) as they're easily corrected. Even when edits of mine to other articles are not accepted as they are, they've often led to improvements (you can find an earlier Arnolfini Portrait edit session of mine much of which was initially reverted but eventually led to improvements).

Best wishes, Pol098 00:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I have left many/most of your wording changes, but as you will have seen from the talk page, AP is the approved title after much debate & that should stay. Btw changing the title of an "Image" just means it won't pick up, but I expect you know that & it was just a mistake. In fact I saw someone else had been altering the title in places last night too. Its easy to change a whole edit - the worst is a detailed & largely right edit, where you either have to revert a whole chunk or work through it all again, and one doesn't always have the patience. I might try to spell out the carpet bit some more later - it's still normal in many Dutch cafes etc. Think of Vermeer & his contemoporaries. All the best

I'll make a some minor comments here, rather than in the discussion page for the Portrait:

It wasn't me who changed "Portrait" to "Wedding".

"The furs may be the especially expensive sable" and "it may be intended to be silk velvet"

I'd submit that these two clauses mean very little; the furs may be rabbit, the tabard sackcloth (I exaggerate). These attributions need at least some justification - e.g., that the pictured furs look like sable, are considered by experts to be probably sable, etc.

"clothes befitting their merchant status"

My thinking was that HE was a merchant, she was not. But I suppose on reflection that the rules of the time defined a merchant class of which she would also have been a member. In some places and times in history rules were very strict on who could wear what; I don't know if that applies here.

On some other points I have minor disagreements of wording, but that is trivial. Pol098 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

See first reply above. I did long reply on 2nd message but have now lost it twice - connection problems - & can't face doing it again I'm afraid. Johnbod 03:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Bastards!

Hi John - may I pick your brains please?

I have just written an article on Antoine, bastard of Burgundy. I added the pic of a chap with an arrow by van der Weyden. But I have a feeling I have seen this portrait with no attribution as to its sitter. Have you any idea if there is any evidence that it is the great bastard?

If there is doubt, there are two more pics. [[2]] and [[3]]. Do you know how authentic is the attribution to either of these? Have you any thoughts on the matter?

Thanks for any help

All the best

Nick Nick Michael 16:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick, i'm having big connection problems at the moment, so I hope this goes through. 1) is solid - was identified in 1972 in L. Campbell, 'Rogier van der Weyden's portrait of a knight of the Golden Fleece: the identity of the sitter', Bulletin des Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts 21 - by Lorne Campbell who wrote the NG early netherlandish catalogue. Accepted by everyone I've seen, including the NGA Washington catalogue (they have a Memling man with arrow) & Kemperdinck.

2) I'd never seen, 3) from the thumbnail looks like a weakish copy of 1, which is very normal for such portraits. But I'm sure the Campbell article will discuss or mention all other portraits with a claim, if you can access it. I haven't looked at the article yet, because of the connection. I have some detail on the arrow if that helps.

Nick and John - notes on a copy of your second image here, attributed to Memling, including reason for identification. - PKM 22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - following their usual practice, that will be nicked from somewhere reputable, probably a Dresden gallery guide Johnbod 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you. Both the van der Weyden and the Memling are such superb paintings, I am left only with the embarras du choix! John, thanks for picking up that silly mistake in the article of putting John the Good instead of Philip. Maybe I was thinking of you...! Nick Michael 09:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi John - many thanks for your additions to the bastard (you're having fun with this, aren't you?). I would have put "Grand Bastard" rather than "Great Bastard", but since I can't find any contemporary reference using either of these terms, I left it out. In fact, Vaughan writes: His supposed title or appellation of le grand bastard seems to be yet another fabrication derived from de Commynes. The most common terms in contemporary documents are "Monsignor le bastard de Bourgogne" or simply "Monsignor le bastard - My Lord the bastard". Perfectly polite, it seems, no offence taken by anyone. I am interested in what happened to Philip's some 18 other bastard children however - but can find little or nothing about them. Antoine being the eldest son obviously had a special place in his father's heart. Terrible how far we have sunk in our puritanism - imaging this happening now, in the British royal family for instance - the mind boggles, doesn't it?

Cheers, Nick Nick Michael 20:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right - if it can't be ref-ed maybe it should come out. Mind you I think that your guy may be being unfair to Commynes, who was contemporary. Just because it wasn't an official title to be used in documents doesn't mean it wasn't used. One other one was (of course) a bishop - I can add him. Johnbod 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I might have been thinking of the Great Bustard of course - Grand would be better. I'm trying to remember where I saw the Bishop, cheers John Johnbod 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be that the bishop I was thinking of was John of B, Bish of Cambrai, who I have added (to his father's article), but who was a bastard half-brother of Philip not son. But I think there was another ref I haven't found in the obvious indexes - it may turn up. I found another one of Philip's, who I've added. from Campbell's NG catalogue. Another book has loads of index refs to Antoine, which i will look through for anything interesting to add. Johnbod 02:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Catholic-link

A deletion discussion in which you voted, that of Template:Catholic-link, is up for deletion review, where the template may be deleted or retained depending upon the review discussion. You are welcome to comment and/or vote at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Catholic-link. The key point of this discussion is whether the "default keep by no consensus" result was correct; discussion of the template itself is secondary (but may still be important). — coelacan talk — 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Printmaking

Hi Johnbod I appreciate the confidence in me to talk about printmaking, an art-form and skill I admire although I am not an expert just an art lover in this category. We all share in Wikpidia equally so your opinion is just as valid as mine what to do with printmaking categories. I like the division by style.period the best. I'd Look at art movements to see what the styles are called in C15, C18, C19 perhaps. Goldenrowley 04:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Castelseprio, was selected for DYK!

On January 24, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Castelseprio, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-American philosophy needs to be updated. Support is unclear. If you wouldn't mind changing it to Keep or Delete that would help clarify your position. Thank you! -- Kesh 03:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Like all the others, it is perfectly clear. What is unclear is when half the people say Delete & half say Support & so on. But if I see most people are changing I will do so too. Johnbod 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Castelseprio

Ciao! Please follow the standard format for Castelseprio. I think, if you check any encyclopedia article devoted to any city, do you find it begins with its art without first giving any information about the entry itself. It is an article on Castelseprio, not Castelseprio frescoes (check WP:Style, where it is clearly stated that first it must be well explained the subject of entry). The "fresco" sections begin at the middle of first page, so why do you care so much of it? Also, such giant images are not so good for people having not high-speed connection. Let me know and good work. --Attilios 08:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• I absolutely disagree. Castelseprio is not by any stretch of the imagination a city - it has a population of 1,267, most of whom probably work in the archaeological zone or are dependents of those who do. Compare Paestum, a comparable case with a larger population. If you look at "what links here" you will see that all the references, apart from ones from neighbouring communes, relate to the frescoes not the village. The village itself is frankly non-notable without the frescoes; it only has an article at all by a quirk of local administrative boundaries. If the articles were split, which I think is quite unnecessary, the frescoes should get "Castelseprio" and the village "Castelseprio (village)". The infobox pushes pictures of the frescoes below the top screen. There are only two photos and the page loads far faster than most city articles (my connection is quite slow). Why do you care so much about the info-box? There are thousands of bot-generated Italian articles with nothing else on them; but the moment one is improved this sort of nonsense comes. Johnbod 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • All Italian comuni (municipalities) have articles sorted as Castelseprio in Wikipedia. Why this one should make exception? I think you're getting too stuck to these giant images of frescoes. Your work to add infos about the infoboxes is appreciable, but why do you think it is dimished if the frescoes infos are shown some lines below? Don't you appreciate an encyclopedia when it has some standard, rationale structure that everybody, and every page, follow? Let me know... if you won't agree again, I'll ask for an arbitrate to other users. Bye and good work. --Attilios 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't keep telling me good work, when you are trying to mess it up. The infobox contains a small amount of information of secondary importance about the village; by far the most significant thing about the place is the frescoes, and the current design reflects that. It is not a large city or town that people might want to read about for all sorts of reasons - apart from the frescoes the place is really not notable at all. Why are you so obsessed with having the infobox at the top - you refuse to explain that at all? Your design pushed the frescoes right off the front page, and many users might assume they were not covered - as was the case until I expanded the article. Can't you see that the frescoes are just more significant than the village, and the ordering of the article should reflect this? Johnbod 00:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your informative addition to the caption on the photo of young Tibetan monks woodblock printing , as well as spacing them more aesthetically. They look great now! John Hill 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all - they're a nice addition. I hope some sort of "rubbing" motion was evident when (if) you took them? Johnbod 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

a clarification

Are you talking about Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics in general? Or just this proposal by JASpencer to do the "hostage-taking" but centralized from that location instead of by dispersed templates? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coelacan (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Just the new "redux" post. Seems to be similar but by categories. If you've seen the size of the blue/red list, I wonder who is going have the time to check that "all appropriate content has been used " or whatever he says, & whether it will be machine-gunned everywhere again. Of course a category is less objectionable than a tag, & it will be on the talk-page now. I think if objections are to be made, it should be done now. Perhaps someone who doesn't "dislike" him should ask for more details? I sent Stbalbach the same as I sent you. Johnbod 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my thoughts on the three parts of that proposal... 1) Whatever. Not every entry in the CE will satisfy WP:N requirements here. The ones that do, well, okay. 2) He can demand all he wants, over on that wikiproject, but if the editors of any given article don't feel the CE external link is appropriate, then that's that, too bad. 3) Category:Articles that could be expanded from the Catholic Encyclopedia has most of the same problems as the old template. It's added from the {{Project Catholicism}} template with a "link" argument, and it functions the same way. I'm willing to go through a CFD, although this one may be harder to get rid of. Let's not jump to WP:CFD immediately, either, I'd like to get some other input. — coelacan talk — 01:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

right - he said last time that it was floated on the template page & no one objected etc, so As I said I think the thing is to express concern there now, since he asks for objections. I would like some more clarification myself - not his strong point. Johnbod 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What would you think about a renaming to Category:Subjects also covered in the Catholic Encyclopedia or something similar? — coelacan talk — 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea; don't know if JAS would see it that way. I wouldn't mind what he suggests so much if I really thought that someone had actually looked at each article & decided it really could usefully be so expanded - even if they weren't always right. Johnbod

Well, I asked over at that page. We'll see. — coelacan talk — 03:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw - Thanks Johnbod 03:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

?

What do you like to live, where ? Nasz 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry?? Johnbod 16:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK no problem, Have a happy, good day :) Nasz 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC) All days !

TfD nomination of Template:HistSource

Template:HistSource has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.. This is related to the recent Catholic-link TfD. --Stbalbach 23:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

1,2,3

No big thing, but since you are asking: The same passage can be found almost verbatim in Woodblock printing, History of EA typography and Japanese woodblock printing. Regards Gun Powder Ma 04:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I added it to the first two. But I think that's fair enough - it's relevant to all of them, and only a short passage. There are one or two other bits also repeated, especially between the woodblock ones. I think the third was already "press"-less. If you saw the photos of monks someone just added to woodblock printing, it seems that no woodblock press has reached Tibet so far, at any rate! Sorry if my edit summaries were a bit crusty - I'm also doing (now done) my tax return today. Johnbod 04:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)