User talk:Johnbod

IF YOU MENTION AN ARTICLE HERE - PLEASE LINK IT!!!

Archives

/1 to Nov 06 /2 to mid-Dec 06 /3 to Jan 07 /4 to Mar 07 /5 to mid-April 07 /6 to May 07 /7 to July 07 /8 to Sept 07 oct in fact /9 from Nov 07 /10 from April 08 /11 from July 08 /12 from October 08 /13 from Feb 09 /14 from Aug 09 /15 from Nov 09 /16 from February 2010 /17 from June 2010 /18 to Dec 2010 /19 to March 11 /20 to Oct 11 /21 to Jan 12 /22 to April 12 /23 to September 12 /24 to January 2013 /25 to April 13 /26 to July 13 /27 to November 13 /28 to January 14 /29 to August 14 /30 to May 15 /31 to November 15 /32 to February 2016 /33 to 31 July 2016 /34 to 30 November 2016 /35 to April 2017 /36 to December 2017 /37 to April 2018 /38 to October 2018 /39 to April 2019 /40 to September 2019 /41 to January 2020 /42 to June 2020 /43 to December 2020 /44 to July 2021 /45 to December 2021 /46 to July 2022 /47 to January 2023

This user is one of the 200 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Dirty angel from the Monumental Cemetery of Staglieno in Genoa

, c.1910

• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California State University Sacramento/Art of the Ancient Mediterranean (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Amherst College/Women and Art in Early Modern Europe (Spring 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/College of DuPage/History of Art- Prehistory to 1300 (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Spring 2017)

Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Boston_University/Venetian_Renaissance_Art_and_Architecture_(Fall)

Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 1 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Embriachi workshop, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that around 1400, the Embriachi workshop in northern Italy specialised in marriage caskets with carved bone plaques (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Embriachi workshop. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Embriachi workshop), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10,647 - nice to see that marriage as well as just sex gets high views. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as

On it, thanks. From a quick look now, it seems ok, but I'll do a fuller check later. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Johnbod:- further to your comment about my recent addition I followed the direction found here [[1]], and in particular 'although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead', which I take as meaning the initial summary does not require any references providing the content in the bulk does have. User name for this site (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No - if there are references, they follow the normal rules, and only what is in the reference should immediately precede it. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, your view is at odds to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User name for this site (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it isn't! Read that and other relevant policies more carefully. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that Wikipedia guideline is clear yet these supposed others are ??? User name for this site (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, for comparison, very few references in the initial part of this Anne of Brittany.

You are misreading that one for a start! Where there are refs in the lead, you have to treat them properly, & not just pile your own stuff in front of them. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting read here [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by User name for this site (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Communicating with newcomers patiently and thoroughly is integral to ensure they stay on Wikipedia and ultimately contribute in a constructive manner." That's my motto. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the hasty renaming. A question, though. Do you think it should stay as "Mosan Renaissance architecture" or should it revert to the article's original name, "Mosan Renaissance"? Klow (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think "Mosan Renaissance architecture" makes it clear what the subject is - it's not very well known in English, so this useful. I must admit i was unaware of it, & it was good to find out more. Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 21 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rock and wave, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the dollar pattern (example pictured) in Turkish Iznik pottery is a variant of the rock-and-wave border pattern adapted from Chinese porcelain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rock and wave. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rock and wave), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are these Biographical dictionaries? Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 24#Category:Compilations of biographies about artists. – Fayenatic London 23:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commented there - not imo. Thanks for the heads-up! Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, I just want to say sorry if this is not a appropiate place but I have been wondering. Wikipedia legit hosts everything from list of Intel processors to Intel Brand CPU List - Xeon Series CPU List - Whatever architecture based Xeon CPU list all in sepearte pages with legit price listings but when it comes to some sensor list. It becomes "advertisement catalogue unencyclopedic" even though it still uses "primary secondary reviews".

I just want to know how come there are such giant double standards or how some random people can come and happily delete peoples hard work when it comes to "saving kilobytes of web space" or just some rules or whatever they believe and simply making fun of wall of text I wont read it or simply idc I won't respond to arguments etc. Is there really a way to fix this? 78.163.105.147 (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also sorry for my clumsiness. Here is the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_Exmor_image_sensors It got deletion nonimation less than 10 minutes after it was announced. 78.163.105.147 (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited China Room, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Molding.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work on this article! I got there because a few days ago it was what kept me from getting 'Queen Bee' in The New York Times Spelling Bee game. I'm familiar with the concept but had forgotten the word, and of course that led me to the article, which had been created long enough ago that the sourcing was out of date. It's really nice to see someone responding to a tag I left because I'm not familiar enough with a subject to try to help. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for your loss! Thanks - I had used most of those sources years ago when writing much of the text, so fortunately very little actually needed changing. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS - I'd wondered what the sudden spike in views was caused by. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hahahaha Valereee (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 13 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Otto prints, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that three of the 16th-century Florentine Otto prints show young males tied to a tree and abused by women? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Otto prints. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Otto prints), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,446 views (703.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2023 – nice work!

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

(I think I don't have to link to the article.) You called me a hardliner in the discussion, and yes I am: a hardliner for compromise. It was suggested almost 10 years ago. I am also a hardliner for respectful behavior. As I don't want to blow up the discussion:

The MoS of the English Wikipedia (different from the Italian and the German) excludes much of a person's life data from the lead, just requesting years of birth and death. The MoS seems to rely on an infobox for the details: days, months, places, age at death. Four lines, and one for why we have an article on the subject (be it by occupation, or by a list of works) is all I want in a biography, but also no less. When that compromise was installed for Beethoven (by the arb who had written the infoboxes arbcase), I hoped it would end the war conflict. How many more RfCs will we need? ... every one not only taking our time, but also deteriorating editor relationa. - I missed the last two for Mozart, intentionally so, but now hope once more it will be last one. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I agree that the age at death should be in the lead - that's normally the only thing I look at an infobox for. I think your stated expectations from a biography are very unusual, and very different from mine. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure we speak about the same thing. We have a MoS saying: omit many life data from the lead. I understand the idea is to free the first sentence from a birthplace (Salzburg) and especially its precise political entity when Mozart was born (Holy Roman Empire), and "park" these details in an infobox, which makes a lot of sense to me, lead and box complementing each other. Could I clarify that much? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marek Kopelent - that's how I write an infobox - what do you think? - In the RfC, the nominator did not ask about any specific filling of parameters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prehistoric hunt

Your favourite painter just got bluelinked! Ain't that swell? Edelseider (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never heard of him, but any friend of Deck is a friend of mine. I liked this one - more hunters should take the baby along. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact, they are defending their cave from a bear, not hunting. The English title is misleading. Benner made a whole series of prehistoric-themed paintings, according to the latest scientific discoveries of his times. I think that this sets him apart from the other Academic painters of his era. Cabanel would never paint this: File:Emmanuel Benner - Chasseurs à l'affût 02.jpg. Anyway, it also gave him great excuses to paint more nude bodies, his favourite activity! --Edelseider (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever you're going to add to Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries... last year's entry was very impressive! Ealdgyth (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm giving it some thought, but there's time to decide still. Haven't really got a shortlist yet. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo John, if you have time and lust could you please comment here? The problem is not related to Columbus only, but is general, and regards all the articles concerning people who lived in Italy (and in Germany) before the unification.Alex2006 (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have recently made edits related to discussions about

Also note that you've now reverted thrice on

WP:EW in mind. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Well it's a pity your close wasn't longer and more explicit on what info should be included. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hard to do when that was barely discussed in the RfC. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 05:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anymore comments like "Some of the infobox activists seem determined to prove correct the arguments against infoboxes in the Rfc above" and I will file at AE. No more calling other editors "infobox activists". No more of this infobox battleground BS. It stops today. Levivich (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't initiate because you are (I admit) very clever and use attack dogs eg User:Dronebogus and User:Nemov ectera, ecetra. What always kills me, is that the infobox wars are always initiated by the evangelicals in an almost crusade like manner. The hypocrisy is that on the one hand they ALWAYS heat seek on narrow ground claiming OWN, and than claim, oh i just saw the page and wondered why, as if this wasn't a mission they are preoccupied with. Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ps " It stops today" is ridiculous bombast. haha and is that a treat - are you for real? Ceoil (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phooey, coming from a leading participant! Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not true that I'm a leading participant. Name 3 infobox RFCs I've started, bet you can't.

This is just a heads up that I'm no longer going to put up with editors making me feel bad or calling me names because I think an article should have an infobox. I'm tired of it. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had the same wish but admit that "activist" always had some positive connotation for me, unlike "warrior" and (worse) "Wehrmacht". How is this: we stop today to find infoboxes contentious, edit with strict 1RR and otherwise discuss, following the greatest model I know: Brian Boulton, who wrote a Signpost essay about what to include (and what not), and had suggestions in articles he stood for such as Percy Grainger and Imogen Holst. Links on my user page, forever grateful. He had the idea of compromise in 2013, and it might be about time to follow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... or, having looked at your user page and seen the top picture: the other great model, User:RexxS/Infobox factors. Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never thought Doug understood the infoboxes issues - my own views were set out in discussions with him: :[3], [4], [5]. I still think these are correct. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no time right now to study that in detail. I love to keep things simple, and therefore Doug's last item makes a lot of sense to me, Foreign visitors: "This has led to the English Wikipedia becoming the default reference site on many topics for numerous visitors who do not have English as a first language. The infobox, located in a predictable position, with clear connections between each field label and its value is the most accessible repository of key information on a topic for anyone whose English skills are considerably less than a native speaker." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After 10+ years 'keeping things simple', it might be time to try and understand other arguments, Gerda. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my story today

Seven of those years I spent not being served "other arguments" but aspersions of running an army behind the scenes. Check out the Jenny Lind discussion, please, and tell me which argument there I failed to understand. Giuditta Pasta is on the Main page, to compare. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the talk is horribly long, the link to the discussion is Talk:Jenny Lind#Time for an Infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or, taking from the Mozart discussion, I found arguments of Voceditenore cogent. What else should I understand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for what you added to Crucifixion with the Virgin and St John! I remember that you had an article about Jesus and the wine press, in German Keltertreter, but forgot the English name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - Christ in the winepress. Have a happy Easter! Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I loved to see Marian Anderson and her story of protest against discrimination by singing on Easter Sunday 9 April 1939 on the Main page yesterday. Impressions of Easter here and music here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My story today, Messiah (Handel), was my first dip into the FA ocean, thanks to great colleagues. - a few pics added, one day missing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today is the 80th birthday of John Eliot Gardiner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Yes, the classical stations here have been giving him lots of play for a few days. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 5 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lithophane, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that porcelain lithophanes (examples pictured) are intended to be viewed when lit from behind? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lithophane. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lithophane), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 13,223 views ( 554.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2023 – nice work!

Bruxton (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... And a day earlier, this nom got the DYK rules amended. Sorry it took so long (and was so frustratingly bureaucratic) , but thanks for your work on rewriting the article, and glad to see it run on the MP. I doubt the rules change will be often utilized, but perhaps it will help some articles in the future. Who knows. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks to all who supported this! Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is already a page existing Akbari architecture on Wikipedia. Shouldn't Shah Jahan period architecture be renamed as well according to above example? Existing title is too hackneyed. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I think "Akbari architecture" should probably be renamed too, after a

WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant policy. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

What new article title you suggest? Sutyarashi (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd need to see what sources use, but

Akbar period architecture, which I agree is a bit clunky, or Mughal architecture in the reign of Akbar (then mabe SJ too). Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Banqueting house, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Talman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is this edit sourced? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seriously? These are two well-known historic events; they are certainly not "OR". Tag it cn if you really must, or do something useful & ref it yourself, but DON'T just remove it. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seriously. How is you restoring the information without a source or a cn tag any more useful? If you're not going to find a source that makes this connection itself, it's OR regardless of how well-known these historic events are. I reviewed the edit at pending changes; I don't care about the subject matter. Wikipedia editors are not required to be

onus to demonstrate verifiability is on you, not on me. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Hi Johnbod, the problem is not that "Gothique classique" is a french word. The problem is that the French phasing distinguishes four phases, whereas the terms Early-, High- and Late Gothic divide the style in three phases only. Also the criteria used by French scholars differ from the criteria used by scholars from abroad. Therefore attempts to translate the french terms into Early-, High- or Late Gothic create chaos.--Ulamm (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really - what creates chaos is writing articles on distinctively French concepts as though they cover all of Europe, without explaining that they are only used in and for one country. The actual architecture is not all that variable, at least between England and France, and few of the phase transitions are as sudden as these schemes often pretend. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Johnbod, I agree entirely with what you say above. This war over the periods is getting a bit tiresome. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, I think we should give priority to the most common English terms for the periods, with approximate dates. We could also mention the French periods that correspond to them, with those dates. A bit long and redundant but it might settle the edit war. What do you think? SiefkinDR (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's what we do, mostly. But various Contintental terms, like Sondergotik, justify a separate article. But these need to make it very clear at the start that they are not part of the main terminology in English. That's why I said I would prefer Classic Gothic to use the French name. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

don’t you think High Gothic would make more sense than Classique? it’s the standard term used in English language textbooks. Or do you think there should be separate articles on Classique and High Gothic?SiefkinDR (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, there are, and the terms don't exactly match, Classic Gothic asserts, probably correctly. I don't create or edit these articles, but I'd be reluctant to support merging or deletion. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Johnbod, I probably jumped the gun here, but I created a short article on "

Gothique Classique" to describe the French sub-style. That article is now blocked, I presume for being repetitive. I've asked them to un-block it. Could you take a look? Many thanks, SiefkinDR (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Dear Johnbod, Ulamm has once again rampaged through he article on High Gothic, deleting new sourced text and adding personal insults. Isn't there something that can be done to rein him in? It's hard to edit when he takes out everything I put in. Many thanks, SiefkinDR (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On

2 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nanni di Bartolo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a wall tomb in Verona (pictured) has a ten-figure Resurrection scene in marble by Nanni di Bartolo and paintings by Pisanello? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nanni di Bartolo. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nanni di Bartolo), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page

.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On

10 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jean Mignon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that most figures in 16th-century etchings by Jean Mignon have open mouths? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jean Mignon. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jean Mignon), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page

.

Aoidh (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]

my story today

I liked that one, thank you! - I had a good story on coronation day: the Te Deum we sang that day. And the following day we sang it for the composer ;)

I heard pleasant music today - did you know a string quartet with two cellos (and no article yet in English? - I nominated Soňa Červená for GA just to give her a bit more exposure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, no. My knowledge of chamber music is limited to the usual suspects, I'm afraid! Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nor did I, and was pleasantly surprised. The answer to "did you know?" is expected to be "no", or it's boring ;) - One violin stands out even more on the backdrop of the dark sonorities. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Johnbod: I recently saw that you edited the Hindu nationalism article. Where you re-added the "Discrimination" and "Islamophobia" templates in the main body of the article. I have a request for you: please check Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. This organization follows Hindutva and Hindu nationalist ideologies. Do you think that "Discrimination" and "Islamophobia" templates can be added for this article also because the article is properly sourced and the organization's exclusionary and Hindu majoritarianism are properly highlighted? Thanks 2405:201:800B:6079:AC03:EEFE:49D1:F1F1 (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johnbod: Any update on this matter bro. Thanks--2405:201:800B:6079:D10A:6414:C6FF:AF04 (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you revert my edit about the mortuary chests? There are actually 8 of them, which is hardly a "large number"? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aah, not so subjective then! Arguably that is a good number given their age. If you know that, why not add it, ideally with a reference? Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically because I don't have reference to hand, I've physically counted them many times, but that's original research. A quick check of the latest copy of the official guide-book doesn't mention the exact number. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John. Regarding my mention of Judaism & Hebrew in this article, there's an image in this article that is literally a page of Hebrew text. I don't see why a reference is required when there is literally an image of Hebrew text. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunhuang_manuscripts David Merrill (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look under the section "Other textual genres" David Merrill (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to add the reference there to the one in the lead, but don't just insert stuff into a sentence with one ref, when it isn't in that. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John, I am sorry, it is a lot, but I happen to see that you already done a whole bunch of work on Donatello and I began to read it, and then.... It is a lot that I mention here, but you are busy with it, so I just interrupt from the sidelines. I can only hope these are valuable suggestions for you. I will help with anything you might consider to add, refs e.g.

• It was really the Early Renaissance yet
• "In 1409–1411 he executed the colossal seated figure of Saint John the Evangelist" You don't have to take the definition for 'colossal statue' by the wiki lemma (3x life-size?) to see that a 2.1 meter statue is not colossal, even if seated. I admit, I am quiet sensible with exaggerations, since all is super, mega, hyper now. But what name you have for Michelangelo's David then, the terracotta Joshua or these 10 or 20 meter monsters you see on the wiki page? The Saint John is just a bit above life-size, that is it. I think you have to (or should) experience something of an awe to say something is 'colossal'.
• "Since 2015 the museum's new displays show this and other statues for the cathedral at the intended original heights." - Although this is true for the figures of the fassade, that was reconstructed in the museum, the statues from the campanile were originally installed at a height of about 20 meters, so if you think about it, that can't be right for them. File:Museo dell'Opera del Duomo (Florence) - 48199144807.jpg
• "Donatello was responsible for six of the eight campanile figures" - If you count the ones you named then there are five, and it is the accurate number. I don't recall a il Populano just now, but def. with a Jeremiah. There are six if you count a Joshua by Ciuffagni, that Donatello and il Rosso had to rework into a John the Baptist (without his insignia). Maybe il Populano is one of the two il Rosso made on his own, the Poggio Bracciolini (1419–20) and the Obadiah (1422).
• Zuccone translates as 'pighead' or 'bullhead', while 'pumpkin head' is the common translation in this case. He is commonly known as Habbakuk, certainly not Jeremiah which is a separate statue (see above).
• "In 1415 the cathedral authorities decided to revive and complete medieval projects" I don't think, they thought about it as 'medival', or in any other period.
• "All the figures for the campanile series were replaced by replicas in 1940." Did they really make replicas shortly before wartime? Janson only says they "were removed from their niches for safekeeping. They have been in the Museo dell'Opera since their return to Florence ten years ago" (Janson 1957, 36).
• "Michelangelo's David was intended for such a place, but proved too heavy to raise and support." I never read that they tried. For some Michelangelo never had the intention to have the statue raised there, and that he simply wanted to try the block. But it was discussed in the commission that had to determine, where to put it. Botticelli and a craftsman were the only ones who wanted the David at the Cathedral or in front of it.
• "clay or terracotta" where is the difference? The clay has to be baked anyway, terracotta is baked clay.
• That Brunelleschi was actually involved derives from the commission from 1415/16 that went to both of them to find a solution for the problem. You write as if it was not just Brunelleschi's idea but that he made it. I even read that there was another one in terracotta that della Quercia made maybe under Donatello's supervision (before he mistreated the block that became Michelangelo's David). And the problem was, that the Joshua didn't stand a chance to last. Shortly after its erection he had to be repaired (therefore the commission). "some time after 1415, and remained until the 18th century" sounds just like 'good work'.
• "Another large-scale sculptural project in the city was the completion of the statues for the niches around the outside of the rectangular Orsanmichele... There were 14 niches around the outside..." - (Might there a be a misconception for the reader about "large-scale" when they read about the Joshua before?) - The niches didn't exist before, they were built alongside the statues. Brunelleschi designed the one for Donatello's St. Peter, the first ever tabernacle in Renaissance style by Donatello himself for his St. Louis of Toulouse, and the one for the St. George was designed without any decoration inside it (the missing depth maybe was responsible)
• "according to a story in Vasari, Donatello had trouble with his first statue for Orsanmichele, a marble
  St. Mark
  " - According to Vasari Donatello had no problem, the guild members did. And he fooled them. That is the lesson from that anecdote. His statues are designed for a specific site, and the guild members didn't realize it, until it was installed at its designated place.
• With the first bronze statues you forgot the tomb figure of pope John XXIII. from 1421–1427 and the John the Baptist for Orvieto (1423–24)
• "the Marzocco for the entrance to a new apartment at Santa Maria Novella build for a rare visit by the pope" Actually he lived there quiet a long time, therefore the effort. They were solving the Schisma at a convent. - The dependance of D.s sculptures on the beholder's standpoint is relevant here, too. we don't know on what column the Marzocco stood, but it is sure, that today's bases both for the original and the copy the base is way to big and to low. His toes cramp over the plinth, so it had to be originally a slim column. And he is not imposing if you don't see his claws. But he isn't really imposing either.

No pope had visited Florence for 150 years apparently. "Rare" does not mean "short". Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ("in the event he did not finish it in time." there is missing the 'what then'.)
• The wooden cruzifix is def. earlier, mostly dated from 1407-8, it is very gothic yet beside the realism. And look at his face! There is a long way to go for al'antico. (You may mention that he had movable arms, he was used in processions (I guess maybe for reenacting the whole Passion))
• Stiacciato: "where all parts of the relief are low" - not only low, part of the background can (nearly) just be scratched into the background.
• "on the base of his Saint George for Orsanmichele." Technically speaking, it's not the base, it is the predella of the tabernacle.
• And I would argue it is THE "milestone", inventing a new technique.
• "By 1423 Ghiberti had not even started work, and one relief, The Feast of Herod was given to Donatello instead" - I had to look this one up: Ghiberti probably designed the whole fountain but he was just commissioned to do two of the six reliefs. One of the two de Quercia giot to make went to Donatello, and Krautheimer assumes that the Sienese were annoyed "obviously" about all the Florentine sculptors, not only Ghiberti, Donatello, too (and why did he get the commission orig. for de Quercia?; so all three, while the father and son had worked their asses off for their home town). (1956, 140)
• a small Virgin and Child (perhaps 1426, probably by his workshop) The V&A cat says now it might be a 19th ct pastiche. You might want to switch it with the Madonna of the Clouds in Boston, if you don't want to name them +/-all (esp. the Padua Altarpiece, the stucco tondi in the Old Sacristy)
• "Michelozzo wanted to extract himself from an arrangement with Ghiberti" needs a Ref., I can't recall such an assumption.
• For the Pope's tomb you might want to mention the baldachin. - ("A donkey was purchased to help with transport" That's funny.)
• Prato: "they are not believed to have actually carved by him." Ref? I hear that for the first time. Anyway "are not believed" is a heavy term, maybe 'by some', and probably by Coonin or Seymour.
• I don't know if Donatello would have differentiated between putti, cherubs and spiritelli. 'Putti' we all know from Raffael and the Baroque, so it is the term usually used for these post-angels (w or w/o wings) everywhere. 'Cherub' would be a term from antiquity and maybe came in later. 'Spiritelli' is the term I first read in recent Donatello literature. Anyway I think Donatello only had one term for them (w or w/o wings and anything else). And I also presume, every scholar has his term and sticks to it. Or is there REALLY a difference that makes sense?
• Concerning the Cantoria you might want to add the exemplary experience with these two. Luca's series isolated relief plates work is marvelous to look at short range and looses his brillance at distance. Donatello's rather crude work in contrast works the other way around. I don't know if it was Vasari who told it. I could look it up.
• "he executed the [high relief! of the] Annunciation for the Cavalcanti altar in Santa Croce"
• You are not finished with the Old Sacristy I suppose. It is the most comprehensive work and the only one preserved as a whole. Beside the break-up with Brunelleschi it is hugely important.
• The bronze David was commissioned for the Medici's old palazzo for a room with a cycle of painted portraits by ... on the walls, and later moved to the courtyard of their new palazzo.
• "Madonna with Child" I always thought in English one says 'and Child' so noone would assume she is pregnant.
• "only one reached Siena." Only the John was send from Florence to Siena. He lived there for a year or so, and the commissions didn't came true
• Gallery - the 'deeper' meaning of the exact structure as it was was to be able to sort the columns, therefore e.g. city first, then exact location, then..., or statue, then equestrian. (In my German version I also have named all images of the Virgin and Child the same followed by its name if there is one.) The years were mostly taken from Caglioti 2022, the catalogue from the major Donatello exhition in Florence, so the dates are debatable.
• ("Giotto's Campanile" is a brand name at best, I don't like it. It is not his, at least only in part)

MenkinAlRire 00:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for these comments. Some seem to deal with the remaining parts of the original text, others are language issues. In general I'm using modern terminology per sources, rather than worrying out what period people in 1420 thought they were in. If you don't mind, I'll look in detail when I've finished my rewrite. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, there is one thing you may be able to help with. I have "The technical quality of his work can vary, especially in bronze pieces, where casting faults may occur; even the bronze David has a hole under his chin" - I read about the hole in one of my sources recently, but can't remember where. Does Janson or anyone say this? Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hi, John, sorry for the delay. I looked it up, and it seems to be a slight misunderstanding or a misjunction between a sentence: "The cast shows numerous faults and holes," and the close-ups of his head where a hole of about 2 cm can be seen on the neck just under his jaw. But the hole is so crude, it can't derive from casting. Like the scratches on his leg, everything can happen in the cours of 500 years. Of course nothing of this kind you can see today on his "perfect" body. And the sentence above, naturally it has a context. But read for yourself: https://archive.org/details/sculptureofdonat00jans/page/80 (Get an account, if you don't have one (or the book,). You can 'borrow' it then. It's Janson's but an ed. with less (of the marvelous) images. David's head: 35b on p. 296). I didn't read further, but I don't expect, that he mentions the hole later on. MenkinAlRire 22:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thanks. My source, what ever it was, seemed definitely to blame D's workmanship. Hmmm. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But you have read the context? So Donatello is not really out of it. Maybe it really didn't interest him as much as the idea and its concept that was already accomplished in the model. It is said that D didn't cast the bronzes himself, he commisioned bellfounders for them. And the lack of finish, the chasing and polishing, has got him avantgarde status in the eyes of today (like Michelangelo, who criticized D for it and is also famous for his late non-finito works). But again, ironically it is not (as) true for the David. MenkinAlRire 21:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

At Donatello you wrote There may have been mutual influence, and Donatello seems to have returned from Rome with an interest in a modular system of human proportions. The bronze David uses proportions very close to those Alberti recommends.[Seymour, 90; Coonin, 130-133] When you have finished the edithon, maybe Artistic canons of body proportions could be expanded with info about Alberti. I'd do it but I don't have the sources.

Just parking this outside your house until you have time to consider it. No need to reply. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, maybe - Seymour has a bit. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hey , there are a lot of problems in the Mughal Empire article, specially in the demographics section which is citing 1978 report despite us having a modern day estimate of the historical population. Same way there is a mispresentation of the facts in the GDP part. Hope you can remove the semi protected thing and let me fix the problems. 103.81.215.217 (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:German chronicles has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]