User talk:Stomme

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

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello Stomme, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing!--Alf melmac 16:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Frans Snyders[edit]

Did you do a proper move on the page, or just cut and paste? Also you will see there are some double redirects, which it is your responsibility to fix. Johnbod 19:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have been clearer above - I think the best thing to do now is to put things as they were just now & ask an admin to check it out. It's better to use the Move button than cut & paste, but I forget exactly why. It's about keeping the history in one place I think. Please remember the Frans version is now more up to date than the Franz - I made a number of changes.

You might also be able to add to my new Guild of Romanists. Johnbod 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm learning all of this a bit too late now, aren't I? Thanks for the additions, I'm making sure they don't get lost in the mess I've created here. --Stomme 22:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

New articles[edit]

Excellent work there! I don't think you've put them up to Template_talk:Did_you_know for WP DYK on the main page, for which the longer ones would certainly qualify. A lot of people look at it & it gets them publicised a bit. I've only looked at them quickly; I'll have a long look later. I've redirected painter's guild to the St Luke article - there are LOADS of uses of thee words that could be linked (search on "painters guild")Johnbod 18:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We've been needing the St. Luke page for a while, and it has been on my mind since I started editing. I finally decided to just sit down and get some information posted. I'm going to step away from it for a while (unless I see something just calling out at me) and see how other minds can shape it a bit. I will start looking for possible links, and all of the "Lukasgild" and similar things. I'll also look into the Did you know info. I'm not familiar with it. --Stomme 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I can do the DYK nominations for you - let me know if you want that. Johnbod 22:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to do so. It's a part of the Wiki I haven't gotten around to figuring out yet, and I don't think I'll have time to do anything about it in the next couple days. --Stomme 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Done [1] Johnbod 23:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Early Renaissance painting[edit]

Hi Stomme! About that page... I just loooked for Renaissance painting and to my surprise, it redirected to the above! In other words, there is no general article on Renaissance painting, which is a far more necessary thing than this article specifically on Early Renaissance. Perceiving a need, and seeing that there are articles on Northern renaissance painting, I have begun Italian Renaissance painting.

My suggestion is that we return Early Renaissance to Renaissance painting and use it to make a very broad and general description of the simultaneous burgeonig of painting in Italy and Northern Europe, the identifiable periods of booth schools and reference, in text, to the major artists. I don't think lots of bitty article help.

I've just reorganised (with a little help from my friends...) Renaissance architecture, Leonardo da Vinci, Fra Angelico, Giotto. I wrote Cathedral architecture of Western Europe and Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. It's going to take a little while to get this Italian Renaissance painting organised. --Amandajm 09:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look. You're right, all of the Renaissance painting links go to Early Renaissance Painting. Very strange that such a major topic got lost in the details. The categories and time periods for Italy look good, and I think it will help manage some of the clutter. -Stomme 10:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 23 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Otto van Veen, 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.

--Smee 17:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 24 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guild of Saint Luke, 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.

--Smee 08:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Pier Maria Pennacchi[edit]

Thanks for edits. I agree that the references I use are out of date. With regards to Pennacchi, confusion seems to about between this painter and Girolamo da Trevigi; I am not certain if they are one and the same. Feel free to sort that out.

Flemish Baroque painting[edit]

Well done - I've put it up for DYK. Does Vlieghe have a general ref for the definition of cabinet painting? I've had susrprising difficulty finding one. Johnbod 13:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - just anything that can ref the general definition. I have lots of refs, but none that I can really use for the definition. Loads of red-links in the FB article - although some EB 1911 efforts may be lurking under slightly different versions of the names, based on past experience. Tell the class well done on Marie de M! Johnbod 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 11 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Flemish Baroque painting, 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.

Wknight94 (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Cornelis Ketel[edit]

Perhaps you could kindly cast an eye over this shortish newbie. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look. The last edit I saw was yours for Cornelis van der Voort. He was born in Antwerp and died in Amsterdam if I'm correct. In modern Dutch one will often see "Van Der Voort" in Flanders while the Dutch will write "van der Voort". Either would probably be okay for him, I think, but your edit is more in line with English usage so it wins out. It's good to see so much info added about such artists. --Stomme (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - a stay in England, if not very productive at the time, was certainly the right career move in terms of being memorialised in Wikipedia :) Johnbod (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Two things[edit]

You may see from your watchlist I have a proposal for merges in the Illusionistic painting/Sotto in su/Trompe-l'œil/Quadratura hall of mirrors.

More for the long term, is there any chance of you starting the process of getting iconography up to a proper article (on that subject)? Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually, I was indeed thinking of making an Illusionistic ceiling painting just for the Renaissance to Rococo stuff and then doing exactly what you suggest with the Illusionistic painting (it went through my mind earlier today while I was feeding my brain with coffee). I think that would be really helpful. Next, I'm scared to death of that iconography article. I follow it, but it would definitely be a project, wouldn't it? I'll think about what to do, and try to find a few good printed sources that could really argue the art history meaning rather than the "icon" meaning that seems to overwhelm it. --Stomme (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thinking more, and having read your proposal. I think Sotto in su (primarily Renaissance) and Quadratura (primarily Baroque) together form a single tradition of Illusionistic ceiling painting (which is the current focus of Illusionistic painting). Di sotto in sù is not necessarily trompe l'oeil, but it is "illusionistic" ceiling painting with the focus on foreshortening. Quadratura, on the other hand, does play more with the deceptive qualities (artificial space, etc.). I still see trompe l'oeil as one of best known types of Illusionism (art). The latter could have the examples I added to Illusionist painting, as well as things like Abstract Illusionism and such since it technically encompasses all of these variations (even as a simple disamb page)? But you are right, something needs to be done. I still to think the best solution might be to merge Di sotto in sù, Quadratura and the current Illusionistic painting as Illusionist ceiling painting and go from there. --Stomme (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll comment on the merge there. On Iconography, I think most of the current stuff can & should be moved out, probably along the lines I suggest here, & I can do that when we have more there. It then needs a general introduction, which I don't feel able to do properly, as I don't have the sort of theoretical books needed, or their textbook redactions - Panofsky is too individual here I think. After that, brief sections, with lots of links, as portals to various traditions or subject areas, which I can do several of. I think the thing to do is to get it started, even with a little material, just to gain traction. Once the article has been set on the right lines, it may well attract new editors. I tried to interest User:Javits2000, who did Vienna School of Art History & is doing an art history doctorate; if we get it going he may join in. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I added a couple brief historiographical paragraphs to Iconography. they aren't much, but they might give people the incentive to take the article in that direction. Now, I'm too tired to think about it more. --Stomme (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No that's a great start. Now we just keep adding stones to the pile! Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Over to you, if you want to add. I'm signing off. Happy Easter! Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 25 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article valet de chambre, 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.

--Victuallers (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was surprised how far it went! Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Great photo! Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had it on my computer (I have others on some hard drive somewhere that I took that same night), and couldn't resist uploading it when the topic came up.--Stomme (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! You are now the author of the lead pic on Kitsch - a subject we seem to have difficulty illustrating. Got any more? Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pieter de Ring[edit]

Hello Stomme, have you ever been in Holland or Flanders, did you mention your alias? But you seem to me an expert in Baroque painters. Do you have some information on Pieter de Ring, a 17th century Flemish painter from Ypres who died in Leiden? He lived around (1615-1660). May be we can cooperate again.Taksen (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know too much about Pieter de Ring. At the moment I don't have time to write any articles, but I would be happy to work on it in the future. That said, he painted pronk still-lifes very much in the manner of, and sometimes confused with, those by Cornelis de Heem. He's certainly an artist worthy of a short article in any case. --Stomme (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Had a good vacation, I hope. I recently added to Tronie, I hope acceptably. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm all over the place. Thanks for working on that shell of an article, for which I think there's still a lot of potential. It's one of those great topics that's always discussed but very inconsistently described in the literature. Unfortunately, I'm busy enough right now that I don't have time to do the big stuff. Keep up the good work. --Stomme (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Northern Mannerism[edit]

Hi, I started this just now - I must admit I had forgotten about your draft until this second when typing your name in the search box. I'm glad to see we have the same section headings! Work continues - I have more on Fontainebleau, Rudolf, and I have Slive in the Yale history for the Haarlem etc gangs. Also Shearman & Craig Smith or whatever. But please take a look, & I hope you will return to the draft of the main article. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It looks good! I've been a bit busy (and off the 'net, in fact, for a short while). The Mannerism article is definitely something I'd like to work on at some point. Keep up the good work. --Stomme (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dutch Golden Age painting[edit]

I'm giving this a revamp, as it was hugely outclassed by your Flemish Baroque painting. Please give it a quick checkover when you can. With so many of the artists having crappy EB etc bios, these overviews are important I think - I've also done Medieval art, romanesque art & Gothic art if you're feeling keen. Are you planning another class effort here? All the best, Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Great work! Much, much better! I'll take a closer look when I've got some time. --Stomme (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)