User talk:Johnbod/13

Hi John,

Thanks for your query on the Goal List - because we're doing prizes for the people who take the most photographs off the goal list, it's been decided that the lists will only be published on 1st February, the start date of the competition. There will be different lists for the different museums, and they will be based on "themes" to stimulate people to get involved, rather than specific articles. If you or the wikiproject are able to get involved in identifying gaps on wikipedia that this project can fill, this would be most appreciated! AndrewRT(Talk) 15:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some suggestions on the talk page & the V&A sub-page. I've seen a few draft goal lists, which seem mostly unfocussed & drawn up with little consideration of what WP needs. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. To be honest, the main purpose of the goal lists is to encourage the people (esp families) who turn up at the museums and then think - what do I do now? When we do this next year one of the things we can think about is how do we encourage people to get photos that would be most useful to WP - would certainly appreciate your thoughts on this. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you ever check the number of hits, but Nativity of Jesus in Art got 19,934 hits in December, including 1200 on Christmas Eve. What a nice way to spread the blessings around! Well done! Amandajm (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You too - I don't often look as most of my articles get pretty low results, though even 700 a month adds up over the long term. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On February 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ancient Roman pottery, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niice! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Really lovely, thorough article. Thanks! Kafka Liz (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both! Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's outstanding, Johnbod! Your tide lifts all boats. --Wetman (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with the death tolls section. I've been monitoring this article for two and a half years and it seems most people who turn up there are only interested in a bit of sectarian conflict and try to turn the page into a soapbox for their views, Protestant, Catholic or atheist. It's a refreshing change to see somebody go to specialist historians of the period for information instead. Congratulations. --

]

Thanks! - you may not be aware the recent changes were an overspill from a French Wars of religion re-enactment society event at

Talk:Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church; we may yet see some talk page action. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I sort of guessed something like that must have been happening. I'm not really on expert on the area but the article was such a polemical war zone when I first came across it in 2006 that I decided to translate the French Wikipedia article (which, unlike its English counterpart, was written using sources which post-date World War II) then check some of the facts against English-language history books. I'm sure somebody who really knows the era could do a better job. Oddly enough, the French article's talk page was incredibly sedate compared to our version. Maybe because the editors thought it was better to treat the massacre as an event in French history rather than a pretext for drawing a Message For Our Time. There are at least two ways you can do neutrality: (a) go and look at what acknowledged academic experts in the field have written; or (b) try to find some common ground between the most extreme viewpoints (e.g. in this case,

Folantin (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

File:Wells with spires cutnpaste.jpg

I created a stubby article on the painter

Folantin (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Little puzzle

Do you recognise this cathedral? I'm sure you ought to, but there is something odd about it? Amandajm (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - where did they steal them from? If only the local Victorians had had more money.... Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it look just incredibly brilliant? Those great big buttresses are going somewhere. I think that the pinnacles would have been a bit more dominant than I have made them. I also think that the spire would have had some horizontal detailing like Salisbury. I tried to draw some on but the mouse doesn't go on the slight diagonal that I needed to do the sides. As for where they came from. Well, I'm sure you could work it out.

• There is no act! No two eyes see the remaining characteristic that might reveal the answer, or else 2x(2-1)=2, or doesn't it?

Amandajm (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need another clue? Amandajm (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid so! Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be a cryptic crossword fan!

Nevermind!

Start with "characteristic". Ignore the maths for the time being.

Take away everything that you are told is not part of it.

Sort out the remaining letters. Four of them will need rearranging.

The maths adds another piece of info.Amandajm (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chartres? Though I still don't follow the clues - I never do crosswords, though am sometimes useful if the clues are translated. Very cunning! But it's been fiddled a bit - what software did you use? Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right of course! I used Microsoft Picture it. I haven't got anything more sophisticated. It's very basic. I can achieve quite good cut'npastes if I fiddle around more, but I just went for the basic effect. The pinnacles on either side of the spire are cut from the central gable and enlarged a little bit. There is a strong vertical line down each face of the spire at Chartres, which I painted out. I just can't get over how stunning the building looks with spires, even spires that were never designed for it. Amandajm (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, about the puzzle:

C-H-A-R-A-C-T-E-R-I-S-T-I-C

There is no "act" so take away A-C-T

C-H-A-R-E-R-I-S-T-I-C

No "two eyes see", so take away I-I-C

C-H-A-R-E-R-S-T, this is what is "remaining" and will give you the answer.

CHARTRES

As for the sum, 2x(2-1)=2

You always do what is inside the brackets first.

So you start with two things (the spires of Chartres) and minus one of them (the exquisite fairy-floss one)

That leaves you one spire.

Multiply it by two

The answer is two identical spires, where you started out with two different ones.

My grandmother was an absolute wizards at Cryptic crosswords. She used to get the

]

Ealdred (archbishop)

Okay, time for a new FAC pre-check. What artistic and architectural things have I missed about him? As always, I greatly appreciate any help you can give. I have managed to acquire one of Dodwell's books, finally, but it's only The Pictoral Arts of the West 800-1200, so it's not very detailed. At least it's a start. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have expanded on Gloucester & Beverley, which seem to be his main things. I see by the way that some earlier refs in bishop articles to Dodwell, C.R.; Anglo-Saxon Art, A New Perspective, 1982, Manchester UP,
  ISBN 071900926X (US edn. Cornell, 1985) - have been "cite-webbed" to the US edition. I'm using the UK original of 3 years earlier & don't know if the page numbers correspond. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm still trying to lay hands on a copy of that, so hopefully we'll both be working off the same works soon. If something's inaccurate, go ahead and change it to the correct form. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And thank you again. I much prefer to run things by you so I don't run into suprises at FAC! You're the art expert. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - sorry I hadn't spotted the existing bit on Beverley. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not always easy to figure out where I stick things, so no worries. You worded yours much better, so went with your contribution. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be happy to know I finally ordered a copy of Anglo-Saxon Art, it's the 1985 Cornell edition, so hopefully I'll be able to add a bit more stuff all on my own. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy - it's a good read. Most stuff on the subject is handicapped by starting from what little remains, but he starts from the literary evidence, even if it's monkish peacockery. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead actually says in some cases it refers only to states, and in some cases to states and other entities. A dependent territory can be a country of origin too. Montemonte (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Synonyms are different words with identical or very similar meanings". I don't think all the senses of synonyms have to be identical? The text makes it clear one sense is being discussed, no? A dependent territory is a state but not a sovereign state, i think. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word state here actually means sovereign state. It is sometimes written with a capital letter S to avoid ambiguity with states that are subdivisions or components of federations. It isn't a neutral way to exclude other entities that are also frequently referred to as countries. Can you cite any source demonstrating that only sovereign states can be countries of origin? Montemonte (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that is the case! Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trouble you, but I have written an article about the Kahn Lectures, a short-lived series of lectures at Department of Art and Archaeology of Princeton (a university highly-regarded by the inhabitants of the former English colonies in North America, or so I've heard). There are quite a few red links in there that may tempt someone to add new articles. It is embarrassingly heavily dependent on one author, but that was pretty much all I could find. The Kahn Lectures could probably do with some copy-editing from a native English-speaker before they appear on the front page. I'm not sure if the article should be expanded with more F. L. Wright-related content, but I suspect that there is enough to say for an article of its own.

The article was a spin-off from Johnny Roosval, a short bio which greatly understates his importance and influence on Swedish art history. I need to be able to link to it in a couple of articles I have in the pipeline, but still want to leave something for a future 5x expansion for DYK along with a few articles on topics Roosval wrote about. (Don't bother copy-editing that, as it will probably be completely rewritten in a while.) --Hegvald (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Hegvald (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you haven't put in your two cents, oops, I mean shillings, regarding this CFD. If nothing else, I think you'll rather enjoy my comment! Cgingold (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just google for "Historism" if you don't know the meaning of this word ? A short look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Historism_architecture might broaden your horizon. To be frank, your knowledge about architecture is so poor that you should avoid to comment on these categories. Gogafax

There are a few references, but with varied meanings, and mostly nothing to do with architecture. German terms cannot just be imported into English, and the word does not appear in the

OED. Even if it were a term in English, an adjective is needed here - "Gothicism architecture" is equally nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Mediation for Criticism of the RCC

Mediation has begun for the case Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. Please place Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church on your watchlist and make a brief statement there (on the talk page) to acknowledge this. If you wish to make a very brief statement about the case itself, you may do so at the same time. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Asterius of Amasia, 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 .

Dravecky (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On February 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Franz Anton Bustelli, 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.

Gatoclass 03:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please check sources more thourorly before deleting "unsourced" content. The information you deleted was clearly sourced in the video contained on the sourced page. --Prophesy (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see the talk page, where I was asked to remove it. It was not clear to me or several other editors. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the page now, thanks for the revert. However it was only one other user and the source was within the first couple of seconds of the video. Anyway no harm done now. --Prophesy (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things have cooled off a bit here, thank God! NSW has had some good rain in the more populated regions, but there are still blazes down south. We are all in a state of shock. They ought to send the arsonists in to recover the bodies. They caught two people yesterday, but they turned out to be merely looters. (The opportunistic mentality of some bastards really makes you wonder.) Seeya. Amandajm (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it all sounds very nasty - there's been lots of coverage here, as you can imagine. Glad you're ok. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have interest as a project? Also I'm helping in a push for The Lucy poems, if you have anything to say, that would very much be appreciated. The Arnolfini Portrait will be after these, but I'm playing a slow game to get qp and you involved.

Nice work on Titian bty, I'm following from an exaperated but comfortably numb distance, thinking it must be fustrating when non art people decend on an article, full of half formed googled openions. Amanda puts it well: Bastards. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look but I don't have much on either. I pretty much exhausted my Arnolfini resources two years or so ago, when I added a lot. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the

. This section starts with "Contemporary humanism can be traced back through the Renaissance to its ancient Greek roots." and discusses the evolution of humanism from its classical origin via Renaissance humanism to it modern interpretations.

Your reversions of my restoration of the category Renaissance humanists/humanism etc. among the humanist/humanism categories with the summary "lets keep them sperate - essentially a coincidence of name" and "rev category error" does not make sense in that light (or any light really). Not finding any humanist I was familiar with under the humanists category, brought me to ask at the humanism site about its inclusiveness. The endless discussions there get constantly moved to the question if humanities should be included, but, as expected, no-one seems to doubt the relatedness of historical and modern humanism. This is also supported by the fact that the {{Humanism}} portal includes "Renaissance humanism" .

Even if the humanists of the past would have no relation with the present humanists, which is false, they should be included in the general category. They are called humanists after all, and if a word takes on an additional, unrelated meaning, this meaning doesn't hijack or usurp the entire term and make the traditional and still widely used meaning of the term verboten. It's also impractical: someone looking for, say, the

Prince of the Humanists

would be surprised (and either annoyed or amused, depending on mood) not to find him in the humanists category or any of its subcategories.

Since the relationship is there, all this is moot anyway and I don't see any reason to break these links; are present-day humanists embarrassed about their generally highly regarded predecessors? From the description, I could consider myself a humanist and I would certainly not be embarrassed about that.

The common and appropriate thing to do in these situations would be to have the category "humanists" encompass all, with hardly any people directly listed there, and subcategories by period (classic, renaissance, there-were-also-humanists-in-between (Voltaire, say), modern) and country. However, this undoubtedly is too much to ask at the time, so I settle for just letting Renaissance humanists take their rightful place among their like-minded human beings.

This got a bit long. I'll copy it to the Renaissance humanists category discussion site and you can answer there and delete it here, if you wish, Afasmit (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just doing new page patrol, and came across your article. (It's about to roll off the end of the patrol window, so I dared assess something out of my historical area!) As I suspected, when examining the images, the original photos are much higher resolution. Is there any rule against making some, say 50 pixels wider, so that the images on the pottery can be discerned without the need for clicking to magnify them? Congradulations on your article! Piano non troppo (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've done some - what size is set on your preferences? Fixing at much over 300px is discouraged - it's in the images guideline somewhere. Personally I think the default size should be larger. I'm moving this to talk there. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geez. I just went to preferences and upped the thumbnail size from 150px to 250px. The pictures in the article body look remarkably good, now! Lol. (However the Gallery photos did not change, and still have the basic issue of being minuscule.) I'm going to defend myself by noting that, inserting photos of book covers -- whatever browser settings, whatever HTML formatting I was using -- and even though the titles were barely legible -- I was receiving flak from editors that my photos were too large. They were resized without apology. I *assumed* the situation was the same, here.

However, to cut our intellectual losses on this discussion (lol), the Gallery is still well nigh useless without clicking to enlarge images. It's at the end of the article, where it doesn't affect readability. The images are the odd 32 KB, so doubling the resolution would only make them 128 KB. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the way with galleries, you can't up the size, but you can fit more photos in. Your point was valid, as of course my preference has been at 300 for years, but unregistered users can't change theirs & many registered ones don't know they can. I saw my own user page at default recently & got a nasty shock! One forgets. Really the default should be increased, though there are some arguments against that for people using mobile phones or god knows what. Cheers Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our technology causes a schizophrenia: One is encouraged to get rid of DVDs, because Blu-Ray is better, yet one is also encouraged to watch matchbox-sized material on news and social sites. Both are seen as "progressive". (Can you say "dupes for marketing departments"?) The issue of image size plagued me as a Webmaster, because the management used old laptops. For them, large images were intrusive. Yet, I pointed out, most of our customers had larger screens. Our product photos were so small the equipment features couldn't be discerned without enlargement. Finally, our marketing department chimed in: in their mind we must get the maximum exposure, and that means the lowest common denominator. It never seemed to appeal to them that BIG BEAUTIFUL PHOTOS were liable to generate sales -- more sales, possibly, than we would loose my those frustrated by not being able to see the entire ceiling of the Sistine Chapel on their cell phone.

Did you indeed start a discussion on image size, and if so where? Piano non troppo (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I don't know if you were pinged but the mediation has begun for the RCC name issue and is progressing here [1]. I am open to whatever consensus decides but I did happen to find another yet another source to support "official" see [2]. let me know what you think. Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 16:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that it was my paragraph. I do not know all the literary references, but several that i have come across do not in fact provide a scenario that would produce the result they say. The entails that produce the hero's difficulty of providing for his daughters would almost certainly be ones created by the will of a great uncle. It is unlikely not be from the father's marriage settlement, as few fathers would entail their property so that their own daughters could not inherit it if there was no son. However adding that would be

]

I think it was a grandfather's (or older) settlement in these cases. One thing the article doesn't cover is how long they could last. See the Hamilton case in "examples" too. I think the details could vary considerably with the specific terms of the entail. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I am not an expert on icons, or Orthodox issues in general, for that matter. Byzantine history is one of my interests, but when you've been bored to death at school by inept history teachers droning on about what sort of churches there are in Mystras, and staunchly Orthodox theologians on the minutiae of liturgy, it tends to leave a negative reaction on these subjects... :P However, for what it's worth, "Riza" does not appear to me to be of Greek origin. As the article states, "Riza" is a Russian word. In Greek, AFAIK, there is no specific term, and such icons are simply referred to as επάργυρες or επίχρυσες (silver-covered and gold-covered, respectively), with the cover simply called επένδυση ("coating"). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought categories were always supposed to match the parent. The parent is Washington, has been for quite some time, and I see no reason why the categories shouldn't match. It just doesn't make sense to have a qualifier in the categories but not the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This very frequently happens - others will I expect be able to point to many examples, & I think it is also mentioned in guidelines. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Cross posted here and to Modernist's talk page) I just created The Concert Singer. I'd appreciate any help you can give me in expanding it. Raul654 (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your observation in an edit summary, I created this. I'd be grateful if you care to give it a look over, as I don't do much with categories. I've put it on the main articles listed at {{

]

I've added some to get it to a respectable size. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the original group members. Ty. Ty 13:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at this page and found myself wondering. I presumed you had been associated with it, but couldn't understand how such a garbled intro had passed your notice. Then I traced the history and discovered that the "improvements" had been made by user PeterKidd in January, resulting in a considerable loss of clarity, and also loss of material of considerable interest including the cited passage about women receiving books of hours as wedding presents.

I reverted all his edits, apart from the list, which seemed fuller. I have no doubt that some of his minor edits are pertinent. Would you mind taking a look and putting back those small changes that are warranted. Could you also look at the message that I wrote on the discussion page, before I discovered that the intro had only recently taken that form. It will explain to you why I bothered to buy into this.

Knowing a historic subject, and knowing how to write about it so that others will comprehend are two different things. Amandajm (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

]

Helen Vincent, art collector

• I'm not going to stick her back in the category, but there are references to an "important" art collection gathered by the Vincents. Without taking the time to dig up better sources, there's this blurb from the York Museums Trust. I'll leave it to the caretakers of the category consider her merits. --Dystopos (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have written it up at his article & categorized on that. Thanks for pointing it out. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I have made a motion to close the mediation for reasons described here [3]. Please come and post either your agreement or disagreement at the same link. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I want to nominate St. Bartholomew's Day massacre for featured article. How do you think?--Grimlock Askelon (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - another bloodbath is likely, I suspect. Have you seen the FACs for

Roman Catholic Church? Go for GA & peer review first, anyway. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Norwich

Hi

Yes it has some museums - the page is undergoing work to try and bring it up-to-date, but feel free to add any you can think of :¬) --Chaosdruid (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That is quite a scintillating double-page spread. I think that you should remove the very well-known pic from the intro and enlarge the double-page one to the max recommmended 300 pix because it illustrates how the more lavish books were arranged.

• My best tip for fitting in more pictures is lengthen the text. One way of doing this is to write the content of your captions as text information, and then direct the reader to a specific pic. The lengthy caption about the plainer book is important conceptual info and ought to be stated in the paragraph near it.

Seeya!

Amandajm (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wanted to get shot of the too well-known TRH & will do something like that. The info on the "plain" caption is already in the text in different words. But the

Cleves one still looks small at 300px.Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the Category:Miniature painting from the Spanish Forger. It seems to me that's an appropriate and useful category for the article. Ecphora (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I p[laced him in the much more appropriate sub-cat. Thatr cat is mostly for portrait miniatures anyway. Didn't you look? Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I missed that. OK. Ecphora (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo-hoo! Thanks for the heads-up. - PKM (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I know you help with the V&A liaison. It's nice to have this image with the frame. But it's not centred, and I wonder if it would be all right to upload a cropped version with an equal distance of black all around? qp10qp (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just ask User:VAwebteam, though he seems not very active at present, now their 100 treasures etc are up. PKM can crop, & logically the license should apply to that also, if the painted area is unaffected - but User:Tyrenius might know. Maybe ask her to crop it & send it to VA for his Imprimatur. Of course no special licence is actually needed under usual WP grab 'em all policy. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crops are allowed under the license, and I got User:VAwebteam's blessing to crop an image once before, so I will take care of this. - PKM (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and stored in Commons. File:Hans Holbein Jane Small.jpg. - PKM (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looks good. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thanks. Two images we could do with a good version of are: File:Anne of Cleves, miniature by Hans Holbein the Younger.jpg and File:Unidentified Man, workshop of Hans Holbein the Younger.jpg (I scanned them from Foister, but they're unsatisfactory because such small images fall prey to the print grain when expanded). Does one simply ask V&Awebteam? Cheers. Is there a list of the V&A ones somewhere? qp10qp (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This and a trimmed version of this (minus the 3d frame), could just be uploaded, but you'd get a better result if he does it I expect. I'd just ask him. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cheers. Will do. Given what Rowlands and Foister say, however, I'd be reluctant to attribute the man as a certain Holbein. qp10qp (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cotterill, an article that you have contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Esasus (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, since you are not Catholic, I was wondering if you could comment on which version of the RCC ten commandments page you prefer as per this discussion here [4]. Thanks in advance for your insights. PS, my daughter won six awards for her art at the state level, two of her pieces won the highest award, a gold key, and are in New York for a national art competition! Sorry, I just had to share that with someone :) NancyHeise ^talk 05:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod! Nice work! I answered you on my talk page. Antandrus (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. My edit appears to have wiped yours out. I'm sorry about that.

]

Thank you

For your careful analysis and helpful comments over at the Ten Commandments in RCC theology. I am going to incorporate your, Brian and Xandars new comments. NancyHeise ^talk 02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided an alternative hook at Template talk:Did you know#Land Rover engines, where the first linked article is the main link. It may be better, it may not. :-| Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Engraving

I'm afraid I reverted your changes to this as they were almost entirely inaccurate, as you would have found out (in several respects) by reading the rest of the article. Engraving on metal predates woodcut by several thousand years, & until steel-facing was introduced in the C19, engraved printing plates were only usable for some hundreds of impressions in most cases, whereas woodcut blocks could print into the thousands (as they only need low-pressure presses). And so on. Please try to restrict major edits to subjects you know something about. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed text

It originated from the technology and practices needed to make the

—for woodcuts were good for at best a few hundred pressed pages, while metal engraved printing plates were essentially indestructible by comparison.

Thanks for the heads up... That's OK, I removed my inferred sentences (above) when reinstating the important part of my change; though I doubt the case is as "solidly wrong" as you suggest, inasmuch as dark ages monks did woodcuts, but I digress, as does the further point that a technology lost is.... lost and the fact it's being reinvented two thousand years later thereafter becomes TRIVIA--albeit tech history) and so restored the original 'important change' that caused me to edit your writing shortcoming and correct the article viewpoint to cover the other meanings.

• The word has three meanings, albeit interrelated, and IMHO the page is still unbalanced —just better now, no matter how much or little I may or may not know about it. Your close knowledge is perhaps blinding you to the other meanings... such as the engravings category on the commons I was wrestling with organizing.
• Try writing English, and prick the balloonish sense of self-importance... it's unbecoming. I do think you all need to mention some relationship to woodcuts up high. // FrankB 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There has been a continuous and important history of engraving on metal, stone etc for thousands of years. Late medieval, not "
  intaglio printing process - totally different. All this is already in the relevant articles. Johnbod (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No doubt... I'm just concerned with broadening the article to cover the alternative uses of the term as the vernacular language exists, as opposed to the special tech focus of the article lead as was yesterday. My real focus was here (well REALLY more in figuring out how stuff in there needed fixed up...) and related arts categories and category schema.
• Since we've crossed paths since today from the unsaved edit I started here answering you 'oh-so-much-earlier' this morning (which was lost, alas--fell off the end of the buffer), and the changes suggested composing that (changes here: Engraving (edit talk links history)) haven't been reverted by you (so far), I don't see we have any big disagreement.
• It's all a matter of making sure all the uses of the page get some coverage. Thanks for the mergeto/mergefrom vote of support @ worksofar,etc., if not for the two edit conflicts! <BSEG> Cheers! // FrankB 17:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  

(It might amuse you to find out as it did me that in getting back to answering you today indirectly required an edit on the Indonesian wikipedia... so loosing the edit buffer with the earlier incomplete answer is a "Shit Happens" condition as usual in wikiland. Biz as usual! Wish I knew how to increase the edit que history in firefox... any ideas?)

Sorry, no idea on that. I've continued the engraving discussion at the talk page there. Johnbod (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Stewart, 9th Seigneur d'Aubigny was the 3rd cousin of Charles I, see details at talk. May I have my DYK now please? [grin]

I have no idea what the 16th century word for "G-string" is, alas... - PKM (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, did you see I found a portrait of George's nephew, the little duke who died aged 10? Another boy in skirts. - PKM (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice - not a good survival rate for males in that generation. The commonscat is growing very nicely! Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rothschild Prayerbook, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up to my ears this evening, even before your edits, in books (and jazz and good port, thankfully), trying to hunt down the exact details. The sources are so confusing, even on the sizes. Rumelin in Muller is saying "41 woodcuts by Hans Lutzelburger and Veit Specklin". Peter Parshall in Roskill says: "Holbein designed the Pictures of Death while still resident in Basel, and the earliest known impressions were printed from forty-one of the fifty-one blocks. This printing was probably done around 1525–26 once the majority had been cut. It also seems certain that the blocks were cut according to their intended sequence, save for the culminating images, which must have been made in advance in order to issue the first edition. I conclude this from the fact that the remaining ten blocks portray tradesmen and other figures from the lower classes, following a logical division of the estates". My problems in nailing this at the moment are: where are these ten images? I can't find them anywhere. They weren't published in the 1538 Les Simulacres & historiees faces de la mort, so can they rightly be counted as part of this work? I will be able to get a grip if I can find where/when they were published. We need a ref for the bit in the notes somewhere that the series was left incomplete by Lutzelburger's death and for the bit in the image description that Specklin completed them. Work in progress. (By the way, I am coming round to the idea of not primarily calling them Dance of Death anymore: recent scholars seem to be calling them "images" or "pictures" of Death, which is certainly justified by what they were called when published. What do you think?)qp10qp (talk)

The 1538 edition, and the later 1542 & 1545 had only Hans L's 41, but they had been done as prints before that (sometimes misleadingly called "proofs"). "Subsequent editions" had other ones (see weblink below). The Abbot is one of the 41. This from Bartrum,Giulia; German Renaissance Prints, 1490-1550; British Museum Press, 1995, ISBN 071412604 - # 232 a-p, (and Landau & Parshall). Her 16 exhibited go as low down the social scale as the Altman, Altweyb & Schiffman. There is more on the 1538 edn in Landau & Parshall. I thought combining the 2 notes on the matter might be better. but neither of these mention Specklin - Bartrum just says "by further woodcutters" (she talks of Specklin re the 91 decorative thingies by HH). But it seems clear Holbein did a set of 51, so the other 10 belong in the work - the 1538 preface mentions them & puffily says no other cutter was able to attempt them (Parshall 217). Both are happy using Dance of Death which I think is sufficiently well established by tradition, rightly or wrongly. How many extra? See here for a full list, or here for less handy details from the MMA. Parshall, 216 says there were 10 further Holbein designs, as mentioned in the 1538 preface, & Bartrum just says "further woodcuts, also designed by Holbein but cut by different block-cutters (H [Holstein] 99 (42-58)" - which is 16, 57 in total (H 99 (1) is the frontispiece perhaps). What Parshall has against the last 6 I don't know. 1538 edn, This and this (very odd notes) is what the book editions, with text, looked like (ie rather faint!) - the ones just with titles are I think always the single so-called "proof" impressions. Hope that helps! I will move this (slightly cut) to the talk page if that's alright, as we obviously won't get all this into the article. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

]

FYI, I've left another request there to see if you could tweak the hook a bit. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

]

Core Contest Award

		2008 Core Contest Winner Award
		Let it be known that Johnbod was awarded Fourth Place in the first Wikipedia Core Contest. This award is based on his outstanding work in improving Raphael. Thanks for your hard work in making Wikipedia's core articles better. -Earthdirt (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the note, I don't think I will participate in future contests, but I would like to help organize one. Do you like the design of the award? I thought it was funny and oddly appropriate. Earthdirt (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - very good. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Does this mean that you are now independently wealthy? Cgingold (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you take a look at my comments in this CFD? I'm hoping you can help sort things out. Cgingold (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this page become a disambig now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC) We don't normally do that when only 1 has an article. Hondius, which i added a link to, has them all. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding alt. hook to my DYK nomination!--mbz1 (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jost de Negker, 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 Victuallers (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hieronymus Andreae, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hans Lützelburger, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but it seems like adding dendrochronology to cat:Art history is a bit of a stretch. Isn't it just one of many tools used in dating things like that? Wouldn't it be something like adding the microscope to cat:Dendrochronology (or cat:Art history, for that matter)? Guettarda (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC) No, it is an important tool, and covered in the article. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just as a microscope is a critical tool for dendrochronology. It's the direction of the relationship that matters. Dendrochronology may be important in art history, but art history is rather less important to dendrochronology. Guettarda (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that is not how categories work. It is precisely because Dendrochronology is important in art history that it belongs in that category. In my view the questionable category there is "Forestry". Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As indispensible as palynology for recovering the history of a stretch of forest, which under a sensible and professional administration would always be part and parcel of forestry. --Wetman (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at the Category:Type designers CFD are bang on the nail and I'd typo'd the nomination. As I've now corrected it, you might want to look at your vote again. Sorry for the confusion; I even previewed ever page I edited several times first, because I always worry about screwing up deletion/discussion nominations. Sorry! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Northern Mannerism, 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.

∗ \ / (⁂) 01:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most beautiful articles on Wikipedia.

]

Thanks very much! User:Wetman helped too. I'm very pleased with it. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very little, actually. One of your attractive characteristics is your willingness to spread round the credit, Johnbod!--Wetman (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod - thanks for the kind wishes. My health's back to about 90% normal - I've just got to watch my diet for a while and wait for the antibiotics to do their work. I've cut back my wiki work, though (it was taking too much time anyway), just editing and steering clear of the bureaucracy as much as possible. Grutness...wha? 22:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The 100 DYK Medal
		For reaching the 100 DYK mark, I award you this medal. wear it with pride. Chris (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I also hit the 50 DYK award, but have not received mine yet. I did this last Thursday. Chris (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Chris (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod..Congratulations, Very impressive!

I'm wondering if you might be able to locate an image of Laurence of Canterbury from before the 11th century? Per discussion here: [5] Thanks...Modernist (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, we are voting at mediation on the name of the Church here [6]. Are you OK with changing the article name to Catholic Church and having a lead sentence that states "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church"? Please cast your vote so we can either find consensus or not for this suggestion. Thanks.

On March 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jacob Faber, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wierix family, 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.

Royalbroil 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand how my editing is categorized as vandalism. King Rene's tournament book should be part of the main article about King Rene, as it was commissined by him!!!! And i have left a mention in its discussion page. And instead of leaving vague statements like "you don't know what damage your editing is doing...." etc etc, please explain the sort of "damage" my editing seems to be doing to Wikipedia. "An Idle mind is the Devil's workshop" and what not...

Regards,

Nirvaan 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By redirecting an article, you effectively remove it. You should never redirect an existing article without discussing it on the talk page first as I see several editors have already pointed out to you in respect of other articles. Just because Rene commissioned the book does not mean it should be merged to his article, not did you even attempt to merge it - you just blanked the page. I repeat, you don't seem to understand what your edits are doing, and they are so negligently made that, whatever your intentions, they amount to vandalism. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means!!! You still have not specified the "Vandalism" my editing seems to be causing. I have not blanked the Article out, I have redirected it to the Section René De Anjou#René and the Arts.... Please Kindly Check it out!!!! Dear sir, the book is attributed to René of Anjou so I don't see why it should not be merged with the main article! As far as my row with other editors are concerned, its none of your business. You just seem one heck of a person coming up and trying to boss me around. Well, my agenda is not to squabble on petty issues such as this, I want to make Wikipedia a better Encyclopaedia, which is obvious by my editing. However, unfortunately, You, sir and all of your other learned friends seem to be missing the point. All I have got since I signed in here is rude trash after every effort of mine!!!! Like give me a break man!!!!

If anything of this discussion has got into your stubborn head, please kindly check out these two artcles...

Descendants of Philippe I of Orleans and Descendants of Henry IV of France. Then you may be as rude to me as the rest of them have been, Ok with you??

Regards,

Nirvaan (talk)2:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course - but I don't think I know the history or historiography well enough to be any help there. Sorry! Adam Bishop (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a

]

DYK for St. Augustine Gospels

On St. Augustine Gospels, 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 .

Shubinator (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Congratulations for your great article on the St. Augustine Gospels! Amandajm (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply ]

Cf. James G. Watt and comments about his staff. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Renegrades fan, I'll be bound! Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I readded it to Category:Memoirs since it is not a formal autobiography -- it leaves out or covers but briefly large chunks of Feith's life to focus on a particular period, just like our article on memoirs says. That said, the categories are something of a mess on that end. Ray^Talk 02:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! When adding to the military cat, I've removed articles from the over-crowded head cats. I hope "autobiographies" & "memoirs" will shortly be merged, as there seems no sustainable distinction. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thanks for the Hollar heads-up. - PKM (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Johnbod. Can you please explain to me more in detail what you meant about people categories being separate from other categories, or direct me to the WP policy on this matter? I am not familiar with that policy. Feel free to post on my talk page. Thanks. (LMBM2012 (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hey Johnbod, The Raft of the Medusa is main page on the 10th. Thanks again for all your help with it, I'm sure it will be drastically improved after its day up front. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, all browsers are a bit different, they look about half the size to me. Change it if you think it's better.

]

Biblical manuscripts by century

Hey, how are things? I don't remember if the idea of Category:Biblical manuscripts by century was discussed in the past or not. It seems like the idea is familiar, but I don't remember if there were any discussions on the topic, and where those discussions led. Is your memory any better than mine? heh. Thanks!-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Not really - it's a bit peripheral to my interests. Isn't the century of many of the most important ones uncertain? Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I could direct your attention to

. Please note the navigation bar organizes the task forces such that we could reasonably expect that every "philosophy" article in WP would be covered by at least one task force. Ideally, each article should be within at least one task force for subject area, one for major tradition, one for period. This set up had been discussed at WT:PHIL a long time ago. Since it was set up, it has proven to be a good system of organization.

The article space categories do not mirror this organizational system perfectly. In fact, articles in the philosophy department need a lot of help generally. I am now doing my part by looking at the categories. Obviously, my goal has been to put them into a category structure similar to the task force structure.

I think there has already been an enormous amount of planning, thought, and consideration by many people to make the task force structure possible. I think we can reasonably conclude that it can serve as a model for organizing the article space categories. Furthermore, the proposal was posted at WT:PHILO explicitly for half a month. If anyone had objected we would have heard something by now already either in response to the task force set up or the latest proposal consistent with it.

Please cooperate with the proposal in consideration of the project. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I'm not impressed. The fact of the matter is all this is totally out of proportion to the editorial forces available, as shown by the ludicrous "aesthetics task force" which impinges on my area of interest & has done absolutely nothing but tagcruft in over a year. Are there really "many people" involved? Mostly it just looks like you. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say listen this isn't helpful at all. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking your advice. I'm compiling items on Commons in preparation for a Wikipedia list of Holbein's drawings and an article on his drawings. I'm pretty clear in my mind about what a drawing is, but I'm going by my long-held assumptions rather than by any definitions I can find (the Wikipedia article Drawing ties itself in knots). I asssume that watercolour washes can be used in drawings, certainly in the way Holbein used them. For me, therefore, this is a drawing (even with bodycolour), as are these. Miniatures I would class as paintings, though I'd be hard put to say why–perhaps because they seek painterly solid form. (The only picture I am confused about is this, which is a Holbein drawing covered by someone else's daubs. But it raises different questions, and I'll probably list it as both a drawing and a painting.) I just thought I'd consult you before I carry on. Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's about right. Modern catalogues tend to duck overall terms, and just list the various media, but I think as long as a good number of the original lines can be seen, "drawing" is fine. The Barbers are now a painting with a Holbein underdrawing, & listing as both seems sensible. I've got the catalogue for this, btw; some of them are completely overpainted (not the ones shown). Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I was originally just going to make a list of works but then it dawned on me it would get ridiculously long for Wikipedia, hence the need to make the distinction. Fortunately it is for the most part straightforward with Holbein.

I came across some painted prints when looking into the charter images of Elizabeth I.qp10qp (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of several possibly lame ideas that have been put forward lately is the creation of various navigation templates for major subjects within Christianity, at

]

Frankly there are so many articles, and types of articles, that I think the category system is the best approach. Unfortunately it is also often true in art that the biggest subjects, which would belong on any template, have the weakest articles. I don't really fancy picking out top tens of artists, works of art, or subjects/types of work etc. Also art articles need all their "side" space for pics of works; any template would have to go at the bottom of the article. An Eastern Orthodox/Christian one would be much simpler, and practicable, but even one for say Western illuminated manuscripts would be tricky. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've already more or less agreed that any new templates would be the collapsable bottom kind. And the fact that the biggest subjects may have some of the weakest articles is exactly why we want this. Part of what I am going to try to set up is a system whereby each of the "core" articles to Christianity get an individual template, like the one proposed, in which we can link to the other articles which we think are most required for anyone to get a clear, comprehensive understanding of the subject of that core article. That may include articles on several individual works of art, or it may not. It may alternately be a list of the "subject" articles like Icon, Gothic art, or whatever, with maybe inclusion of List of notable Christian icons or something similar. Yeah, in general I know the more "core" articles tend to be the worse ones, that's one of the reasons I want to try to do this. If we can set up a system whereby the less "essential" articles in some way "feed into" the more important articles, we can better set up a sort of "outline" form of the Christian content, which given its size and scope may well be the only way to practicably go. So, in effect, maybe first a "Christian graphic art" template which includes links to, for instance, Icon, Illuminated manuscript, Nativity of Jesus in art (maybe), and whatever else. That would, in effect, also make those articles listed the "Top" importance articles in that field. Anyway, I do think that if anyone would be able to do a decent job of at least creating a draft of such a template, you would probably be the one to do it. John Carter (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles is this intended to go on? I don't think it should go on every Madonna, and anyway a low proportion of articles on "Christian art" are categorized as such. I'm also very wary indeed of "Christian artists". More reasons to start with an EO one, where these are less problematic issues. How do you want to proceed? Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the template only going on the articles referenced in it, at least to start. If others were to agree to put it in other articles later, well, we can't really stop that, but I'd prefer that if such were done there would be consensus to do so first. Regarding "Christian artists", I'd myself try to avoid that one if at all possible. If anything, a link to List of Christian artists might be included. In some extreme cases, like maybe DaVinci and Leonardo, who made extremely notable works, they might be included. Maybe.

There might be, and probably already are, different templates on various more specific subjects, like the "Madonna in art". Having said that, the same principle might apply there for that template. If, for instance, Madonna in art is a High importance article, and a template on that subject was created, the other articles linked to in that template would be those which could reasonably be assessed at one importance level lower. The same might hold, for that matter, of the likes of Leonardo and Michelangelo, if we went that far. In cases like those, though, I'd personally prefer leaving that sort of decision to the people in the Visual Arts Project.

If you think starting with the EO is best, works for me. John Carter (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this? - PKM (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I wish he'd break up the commons cats a bit though, but that's being picky. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, there is some agreement on the note for the name but it I was wondering what you thought about it here [7]. I tried to make some adjustments but my efforts are quite unappreciated and I am not sure why. I was just trying to make the note agree with the sources. Please let us know what you think, it might be better if I just watch from the sidelines for a little bit here. NancyHeise ^talk 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, it rumbles on, but seems to be coming to a fairly satisfactory conclusion. I'm so far behind I'd rather not comment while that seems to be the case. Don't let it get you down! All the best, Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, would you vet my start? And input from any of the knowledgable types who lurk at this page would be welcome, too! --Wetman (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but I'm looking forward to it. I love this period. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Neal, James, Fordyce and Down, 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 .

Gatoclass (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I had a question from your

]

See

WP:ENGVAR for the rules on this. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay I understand ENGVAR, but I am not sure how it is being applied. Is the version with "s" used elsewhere so consistency is hurt? I'm not nitpicking, just learning.MephYazata (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the question is - why did you change it? Before changing to US spelling you need to do the tedious job of checking the article history to confirm it is using the US style, or did originally. That it has a Brit spelling there is prima facie evidence it is not, unless that was added after a US style had been established. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is the question I am asking you. I did not change it. I had noticed you had changed it from the "z" to the "s" and per my above question I was wondering if you saw that elsewhere it was using the "s". I was wondering where the British style was established that you saw the need to change to "s". That's all. BTW thanks for answering back :)MephYazata (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed you were the editor I was reverting [8], in fact an anon ISP. I will revert such changes with no edit summary, or one like "correct spelling" - there are too many Americans prone to "correct" UK spellings. If in doubt - & the history here is very tangled, ENGVAR says leave it, on a non-nationally specific subject. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool. That was what I was wondering because it seemed that the "z" would have been fine since I did not see an earlier "all UK" spelling throughout the article and I know that we can't consider Catholicism as only "UK". I may have missed something in some earlier history of the article though. That was all. No biggey. I just wanted to make sure I pay attention these in my own future edits. BTW I am using "UK" because some Americans use "british" with a sneer in their voice and I don't subscribe to that stuffMephYazata (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As I said, the existence of UK spelling is prima facie evidence of a UK style, and vice versa. Of course you do get a problem if an article has acquired a mix of US/UK style, as many have. Then you are supposed (on "neutral" subjects) to get to the bottom of which came first in the history. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference your comment "Normally only the 1st occurence of a term should be linked." :I don't understand. Where are these overlinks at porcelain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Shearman, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you not add comments such as your recent one:- [[9]] A review of my edits can easily show that I have added to articles with information that is correct, accurate and supported with citations. I am at a loss to understand why you have challenged these changes. It seems that anything I do you revert out of hand. Now you appear to be attacking me. As I noted to you some days ago this is the type of reason why I have not previously joined the 'club' that is Wikipedia:- there appears interest in using it for winning arguments simply for personal satisfaction than disseminating correct information. Another recent example from yourself is over the use of 'fine ceramics'. I have demonstrated that is is applied, amongst many others, by a highly respected authority to a wholly different group of materials to that is being described. After I changed to a better description, which is actually used in Wikipedia itself, your response was to simply revert. You have not given any defintion for your interpretation of 'fine ceramics' yet you insist yours is correct. Again, again, again I note I am trying to improve Wikipedia nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I have not seen (having checked your contributions) you adding much at all. Most of your changes are small wording changes, or random tagging, to existing text; many fine, but many wrong, insensitive, or unnecessary (and often very carelessly done, with spelling or grammar errors). You only introduce references after challenges. If you can't see that changing "fine ceramics" to "pottery" is a significant shift in meaning, that is an indication of the problem. I don't accept that a specialized meaning for the term in a clearly different context forbids its use in the older meaning where confusion is most unlikely. You are very happy to edit other people's work to your own taste, but object strongly when your own contributions are edited. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a problem that you are unaware that 'fine ceramics' is a recognised standard term for products significantly different to the article, although it does show, at best limited understanding, but it is a problem when you reject, ignore and revert appropriate citations.

You may not 'accept that a specialized meaning for the term in a clearly different context forbids its use in the older meaning where confusion.' But why is its meaning any more specialized than the one you wish to use, and one which is neither defined nor referenced?

It is also clearly not a different context. Both are about a group of ceramic materials / products. Also where possible it is important to avoid any confusion in articles, and as should be very apparent, 'ceramics' is a very large group of materials & products. The use of something other than 'fine ceramics' would do this: I am not fussed about the use or otherwise of 'pottery.' It is an option, and there are others, but 'fine ceramics' describes other products & materials.

I have sometimes made some small edits without initially giving citations. But I always gave the reason/s for the changes in the edit summary or on the discussion page. When these constructive & valid changes have been reverted I then added supporting citations. And you still reverted / criticised them - including such as 'Complete crap.'

You allege 'many wrong' - I refer you to the above and your seemingly limited understanding. I too have checked some of your contributions, and I may be wrong this time, but this limited understanding is apparent.

The review also reveals that you have made edits based on what appears to be just your opinion. For example you insist on claiming that 'Saint-Porchaire ware is the earliest very high quality French pottery.' Yet you have not supported this with any reference. This superlative may be justified, but your opinion alone is insufficient.

You also allege 'insensitive' although this is not obvious. It is nevertheless surprising to read from someone who reverts changes that have been both explained & supported with citations; who needlessly bandies about the insult of 'troll' and who describes the comments of an acknowledged expert and author as 'complete crap.'

You also allege 'unnecessary'. Errors which are corrected are not unnecessary.

You also allege that I 'object strongly when your own contributions are edited.' Yet when I presented facts and references to support a change you responded quite unnecessarily with 'Do you have nothing better to do than create these silly arguments?'

I do not doubt there are subjects about which you have knowledge and information which can be of benefit to Wikipedia. This does not appear to be ceramics. I have. And it is to these articles to which I will concentrate, and I hope you will not needlessly revert, change or criticise my improvements, just as I would not do to your edits on subjects which you are knowledgeable.

I would prefer to use my time for the improvemnt of articles. This may include editing existing content, which I believe is not only accepted but encouraged. I am happt to enaage in discussions on the content of articles, the reason for any changes or any other constructive subject. I do not want to spend time on such unconstructive wrangles as this.

Finally I hope you will accept that previously, now or in the future that I have no wish for ill-feeling or antagonism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article tetraconch, 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.

Happy Easter, thanks for helping to celebrate the day. --Royalbroil 16:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Semi-dome, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod... my, that was a long scroll-down! I'm doing a fair bit off-line as intro, based on Gradel and Brent for the most part, but I'm sure it'll all fit together somehow with what you're doing. Citation might be a problem with many of the statements in the article as it stands, mostly because many are good-faith re-interpretations many times removed, which amount in some cases to mis-interpretation by "primary" sources. Gradel in particular takes a very interesting and refreshing approach to what is essentially (or rather, historically) a standard Judaeo-Christian interpretation of material pretty well incomprehensible to a Judaeo-Christian mindset. It's a stripped down but less contentious approach now than it would have been even ten years back, but still quite difficult to grasp. It would be great to work with someone else on the article. I assume the article's on your watch-list. I'll discuss any issues on its talk-page. Regards - Haploidavey (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is now, but I've only just encountered it & don't have any specialized sources, I'm afraid. This [10] might be handy for JC. I'll keep an eye out. Nobody else seems to be very active on it, though User:Wetman may drop by for a helpful "tweak". This is what brought me over there. If you're on a run, the general article Imperial cult seems free of any mention of Alexander & Middle Eastern stuff. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I'm working on that one as well... btw, it really doesn't matter if you don't have what you regard as specialised sources. Whatever your sources, please do put your citations in with the edits! I posted to

Religion in Ancient Rome, which naturally has a great deal of overlap with Imperial cult. Things are simmering away quietly but with purpose. Best! Haploidavey (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I was adding from memory I'm afraid, and have no specific references. If you have anything, please rewrite/ref as you see fit. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You've a sound and impressive memory, and compendious knowledge. I really enjoyed reading the material by yourself and Wetman (on the talk-page linked in your first reply). Sincere regards. Haploidavey (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Late Antique and medieval mosaics in Italy, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great article! I'm glad to see our interests are converging... Savidan 04:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's still work in progress & I had not realized how much it overlapped with the very long history section at mosaic. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to make sure I haven't missed any architectural or artistic bits with Gilbert Foliot before I throw it up to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to this, can you think of any pictures that would work? I've changed out two of the previous ones, as the older ones lacked source information which would be a problem at FAC. I've looked for a picture of the Bishop's Chapel at Hereford or a pic of one of his manuscripts, no luck. The article seems a bit skimpy on images, but I can't honestly think of anything else to add. (I also expanded his writings section, having finally gotten a hold of a copy of an article I was waiting on) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alabasters suggestion, those helped a bunch. I tried finding something on the Lateran Council, but no go on Commons. Ah, well. I did add a few, so hopefully it feels less skimpy now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the Martin Bucer FAC was archived. In my opinion, this was closed too early. I have renominated it; would you please vote or leave a comment on the new FAC? See Talk:Martin Bucer and click on "leave comments". Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was ridiculous because you didn't look at the article at all for any indication as to what it was about. It was ridiculous because the name Midtown was entirely suitable for Wikipedia because there are no other articles with that name currently. It was ridiculous because standardization of Wikipedia by randomly targeting articles for renaming is done only to prove a point, not for the benefit of the project. It was purely ridiculous because I took this much time to answer your comment. • Freechild'sup? 12:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your contributions to

]

Please go ahead, your contributions seem to be very knowledgeable and truely enrich the article. I've already self-nominated it today. Best regards

talk) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

And what a delightful article on a delightful subject. --Wetman (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do pop up on my watchlist in some odd places - you're not turning into a boatie now, are you?! Thanks for the improvements you made me make for JCBC, and for the support. Regards,

]

Don't worry - little chance of that! All the best. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod. I encountered your name on

]

Thanks for commenting. Iblardi (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm fine with Somerset House as well, but isn't 1604 starting to be beyond Renaissance? Where would you put the boundary?

]

Not for England, where the Renaissance is usually considered only to have got going properly about 1520, or even 1560! Actually calling Simone Martini, Van Eyck & co "Renaissance" is dubious too, & I think the article could be retitled, maybe just to "Western". At some point it could then be extended to the late 17th century, after which carpets in paintings become more routine. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we fairly say that the usage of Oriental carpets in painting is essentially a Renaissance phenomenon? We could rename to "Oriental carpets in European painting" by I am worried that the focus would be too wide...

talk) 05:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well I think it is a phenomenon, but a rather different one, in the 17th century, when they still retain some real luxury status, tailing off by the end of the century. But I don't feel strongly about the title, & I don't think we want to go beyond 1700, except maybe a line on Orientalism and John Frederick Lewis, perhaps Liotard. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John! Could you do me a favour and take a look at

? She asked me to fix her broken English, but I don't think mine is much better. I have not written anything but stubs here since I was forced to move to the Russian Wikipedia two years ago.

As an aside, Shakko is a professional art historian who has made a bunch of beautiful articles in the Russian Wikipedia such as ru:Троица (икона Рублёва), ru:Камея Гонзага, ru:Часослов Фарнезе, ru:Часослов Этьена Шевалье, ru:Портрет Минамото но Ёритомо, ru:Преображенская серия, ru:Лесбия, and many many others. It's a shame nobody would translate these. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done a bit. The articles look fascinating, but I'm doing well if I can transliterate a few prpoer names, I'm afraid. All the best. Johnbod (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking your time to look at the page ! You've been a great help, as usual. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is to notify you that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to

]

In fact he was on my to do list, but I had forgotten until just now that I have a lot on him in the Penny book. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other museums with this name? Or is your point that people might be looking for museums about ceramics in general, not just this one? Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Still, we have no other articles named "Museum of Ceramics", just as we have no other articles entitled (for one example) Court Avenue — until/unless one is written, it should stay at the current title. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Museum of Ceramics redirects there for the moment, but it is misleading for example in looking at a category to give this museum (or indeed any other) the plain title. The same is true of Court Avenue. It is not such a problem there as it is only in Ohio categories, but even so. See WP:NAME. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i saw the side of this discussion at Nyttend's talk page, but not this here, until after i started Museum of Ceramics as a disambiguation page, received a note from Johnbod, and responded in next section here. Nyttend is right that in general it is not usually helpful to create disambiguation pages if there is just one wikipedia article to disambiguate. But, for NRHP places which we know are wikipedia-notable and will get articles eventually, I and others often do start disambiguation pages when only one article has been created. (Actually, I often start the disambiguation page when there are zero articles created, but then i make it a point to create at least one stub article so that disambig police types won't Prod or AfD the disambig page). Museums are like NRHPs in that pretty much any museum is clearly wikipedia-notable. So, I would feel free (and did) to start up a disambiguation page with just one entry linking to an actual museum article. doncram (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better! There are a whole lot more in Category:Decorative arts museums. Let me know when you are done, & I will add some. I think myself it is better treated as a listy article than a disam page, but whatever. Cheers. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC) (copied from Doncram's talk page.)[reply]

By all means, feel free to develop

SIA}} instead, or the disambig page police will wreak their havoc eventually. Disambig pages are not allowed to have external links or footnotes. You might move it to "Ceramics museums", instead, too. Also, I just posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums about it, please see that too. I am done for now, myself. Cheers, doncram (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK for Monumental sculpture

On May 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Monumental sculpture, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 May, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marco Marziale, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On May 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oriental carpets in Renaissance 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.

Nice article, thank you. Paxse (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exquisite work (and I learned a lot); queued for next update of Textile Arts portal DYK section, thanks a bunch! - PKM (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both! Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, sorry I am a bit late to the conversation but I want to know what you think of my response to the discussion your participated in here [11]. NancyHeise ^talk 20:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, if you mean your proposals, I doubt there's much chance of them being formally included, but remember that the FAC admins have leeway to give objections the weight they think they deserve - see how OR was ignored at Calvin (though I agreed with his main point, if not his vague & ott way of putting it). RCC is possibly the most difficult article to get through - Islam was given rather a soft ride I thought & was a while ago. Everybody thinks they are an expert, and just about any angle can be brought in. I hope you won't give up; it has been improving to meet the better points raised, & I suspect one day it will squeeze through. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You were right to "promote" the section too. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you think so, since someone else didn't. If you don't mind, please post your agreement with my comment at

talk) 03:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Just done it! Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

relocated from User talk:JHunterJ

What are you talking about? This is purely as

WP:ENGVAR difference in spelling. You are the one doing the cut and paste moves. Please stop this silliness. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Favourite is the primary topic of "favourite", but it does not appear to be the primary topic of "favorite". Please take it up on the talk pages if you would like. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the edit history of

WP:ENGVAR, since the American spelling is not primarily used for royalty, as the U.S.A. lacks royals. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The article is not about royals in fact, and Americans have historians too, and use the term in this sense as a modern political metaphor also. You insist on removing what is the only other contender for a primary meaning, so I can't see what your argument is. If you look at the history, you will see the current

Favorite until I moved it as indeed a subject that the UK spelling was more appropriate for. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Then you may well succeed in proposing a change to the primary topic for "favorite". But it has been moved and copied and moved and copied several times in its edit history, which is an indication that there is no primary topic. I would suggest making the proposal at Talk:Favorite. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am making a proposal there. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both your and Awadewit's ALTs seem good to me, tbh. I think Maria Dostoyevsky was being a little dramatic in her description of the the occassion, so maybe I could aim the hook towards the dimensions of the painting...30.5cm x 200cm. Not sure how to make that come accross yet, though. Thanks for the look anyway. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Cross-posted to a half-dozen people's talk pages)

After a couple of days of methodical typing, I've created List of works by Thomas Eakins. It's gotten to the point where other people can step in and add to it - titles need to be linked, dates need to be added, pictures need to be found/uploaded/added to the list, notes need to be added, etc. I'd appreciate your help building it up. Raul654 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, would you be interested in bringing this forward to FAC next time? I can assist you if you need me to do so. There are some very minor additions to text made by Richard in response to the last FAC that need citations. I think there are three. Otherwise the article should be good to go. I do not feel welcome at FAC and I find the process very upsetting and NOT FUN. If you feel the need for a Sisyphus experience, please feel free to nom. I will be happy to help with sources or in other ways. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 22:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm trying to cut down my time here, & have never done a "lead" FA nom, always as co-nom. I don't really have the books or expertise for this one either. I doubt if anyone finds it fun nominating - well, maybe they do. It is rather a tricky topic too, because it leads everywhere. All the best if you go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? Should we just try to get it to Good Article and forget FAC altogether? I am OK with that. NancyHeise ^talk 03:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to tell you that my daughter was her high school's Pathfinder Award nominee for her artwork. (Palm Beach Post Pathfinder Scholarship Awards) She did not win the actual Pathfinder Award but she got a $3000 scholarship (the highest scholarship award) from an artist sponsoring group that chose her out of all 35 art nominees (one per school). She gets mentoring from some well known artists and can sell her work at their next festival in addition to the scholarship. She also was awarded a $50,000 scholarship from Barry University but decided on a state university instead. She was accepted to three public state universities including FSU (I can't say where she decided to go for her privacy). She is writing a book (with my help) that she is illustrating herself. It's a comic take on a dictionary. How can a dictionary be funny you ask? She is very creative and her illustrations are hilarious. NancyHeise ^talk 04:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod! And thank you for your message. The substance of the edit seems to me entirely consistent with what I've gleaned thus far. There's a rather long sentence midway - it might benefit from judicious splitting - but that's a minor issue. You seem to be doing admirably well. The interpretation of the tondo as cultic/iconic seems very sound - I don't doubt for a moment that it is an aspect of Imperial cult and will check my sources for statements in support - or possibly to the contrary, though that's very unlikely.

Unfortunately, I'm away for at least a week and won't have my sources to hand, but will be very happy to help where I can on my return. Best regards. Haploidavey (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A brief PS. I noticed a few indeterminates in Icon, such as "huge numbers" of pagan converts. I've a few sourcebooks which may be of help here (and possibly some pagan viewpoints for balance). I'll do the necessary as soon as I'm back. Haploidavey (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Ok! Now that that is out......

I'll jam a reference in for every blinking sentence..... well, maybe not......

I stumbled on one article that is so over-referenced that it goes something like this:

John Bloggs was born on 1 April 1066[1] at Puddleby-on-Marsh[2] the son of Tom Bloggs[3] and Mary Bloggs[4] (nee Jones[5]), a baker[6] and pastrycook.[7] Every reference was to the same paragraph of the same book. The entire article was referenced like that. No-one who had been involved in raising it to FA status had commented on this foolishness or apparently saw it as a problem.

Part and parcel of the amateur nature of wikipedia is that the guidlines are often applied as rules, and often by people with little accademic experience, and sometimes (often, I suspect) by people on the Autistic Spectrum for whom rules can be so important that it can be inconceivable that flexibility is also desirable, because there are many instances where a situation hasn't been foreseen.

As for the pics, formatting for wide screen won't effect the mobile phone situation, and might actually improve it. I'll drop a not for the other editor. Can't do anything time consuming at the minute. Just going round the traps. Thanks, John! Amandajm (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A draft of the note under mediation is up for comments here [12]. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 11:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On May 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ceramics museum, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've made a few changes based upon your comment for the FAC entry for this article. I wonder if, when you have time, you could have a look and comment upon the changes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisition in US military circles has nothing to do with "Target Acquisition" is a term related to how systems are procured in the military. The subcategories of the Acquisition page are all related to how US DoD buys its systems. Modeling and Simulation in US DoD is used in the Acquisition Cycle. I am surprised that no one sent me a talk/email to include me in the discussion be for making a decission to delete the Acquisition category.

By the way, I did see the discussion but not the details and though the Military Acquisition would be an appropriate change. I did not imagine that the category would be deleted. User:sidna (User_talk:sidna)

Thanks..i will, best of wishes.--Elmondo21st (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible you could add a little more to this? Quoting the relevant passages from Vasari and Condivi would be a start. It would be a nice DYK, having been in the news recently. Thanks, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, I forgot to thank you for the Tondo suggestion. I thought this link might be of further general interest - though perhaps you already know the work - [13]. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC) PS: if you scroll down to the next page, the Tondo is mentioned, but the preceding pages are also very interesting.[reply]

Well, thank you! You've been involved in some excellent articles - I guess I'll be using the internal search function here rather more often from now on. Sincere regards. Haploidavey (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to nominate

. Is that okay with you?

Of course! Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another topic: Given that there are not yet any other subjects by this name, I'm wondering if the (Michaelangelo) DAB is needed. Are you planning on creating articles about similar subjects soon? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is Temptation of Saint Anthony already. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This particular wording may be unique. The Met lists the Schongauer as "Saint Anthony Tormented by Demons"- unless, that is, Shestack gives it a different title? Not that either work was titled originally. I think that dropping "Michelangelo" and adding a hatnote to The Temptation of Saint Anthony might do the trick. (ie: This article is about the painting by Michelangelo. For other artworks on the same theme see The Temptation of Saint Anthony). Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shestack calls it "The Tribulatations of ..." saying "often called "The Tempatation of ...." or "St A carried aloft... " is more accurately identified as the saint's tribulations or torments". The subject is not unique, anyway, (etc) & personally I prefer the disam. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but by disam you mean the "(Michelangelo)"? Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't have strong feelings. I generally think all works with common subjects should be disamed by artist, as the Bosch Temptation should be. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for DYK yesterday: see here. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed moving the date to the 17th on the grounds that it didn't qualify earlier AND that even if the stub had been around for a long time, the expansion of the 17th would have qualified the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently reverted an edit I made on the Albrecht Dürer wikipedia page. The reason I made that edit was because I was trying to follow the

]

Personally I would say it is

WP:LEAD. The Bartrum reference below would in fact cover this. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Now I understand why you reverted my edit. I didn't know about that rule before. Thanks for the explanation.

Speak to Meabout what I have done 18:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You're welcome! Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On The Torment of Saint Anthony (Michelangelo), 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 .

Jamie^☆S93 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks hopless to me.

First it is not even in English yet. Second, if it ever becomes an English article worth looking at, it would seem to overlap

Mission (Christian). See Talk:Evangelization#Merge with Christianization

. But since it is not even English I am not sure it is worthwile to waiting until then to merge/delete it.

Please comment and/or advise. Thank you. --

talk 03:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your edits. I have re-checked the Reardon book, and she indeed spells it "Pisani", but I wouldn't rule a type out at this point. I don't have to tell you how non-Italians can be with Italian names... Savidan 06:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pisano did indeed spent a period at Pistoia around the right time, but I checked the John White & Pope-Hennessy books, which one would excpect to mention Papal tombs, and neither did - nor did they seem to have a Pisani. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more likely that they were left off the list of Pisano's works as they are non-extant. They were destroyed by Gérard du Puy, the papal governor of Perugia, in the late fourteenth century. Savidan 01:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still expect a mention - he was youngish at the time, & they must have been significant commissions. "Pisani" is of course correct as the plural for him and his father; maybe that's how it happened. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reardon does say "Giovanni Pisani" both times. I changed both to links to Pisano, but I'd feel more comfortable with it if there were some other source. Probably I will email her. Savidan 04:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. By any chance do you know of the top of your head which Vermeer was stolen by the INLA over here in the mid-1980's. I assume it was Lady writing a Letter with her Maid as it is now in the Nat Gallery in Dublin, but am unable to find a source of confirmation. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, See Sir Alfred Beit, 2nd Baronet - beit needs disaming if you're in the mood. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thats great thanks. Nice work on the Saint Anthony, bty. Ceoil (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I got my thieves mixed up. It was the always inept Martin Cahill. Need to get my head around thoes Beits before I tackle their disamb! Thanks though. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did an ALT hook for it. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to write a hook for Vermeer. He wasn't really about pulse was he. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ODNB has biographies of both John Letts and his son Thomas. The former references F. Vivian, ed., Letts keep a diary: an exhibition of the history of diary keeping in Great Britain from 16th–20th century in commemoration of 175 years of diary publishing by Letts (1987) [exhibition catalogue, Mall Galleries, London, 28 Sept – 25 Oct 1987], and W. H. Beable, "Charles Letts's diaries", Romance of great businesses, 2 (1926), 211–20. The latter has a reference to Charles Letts & Co., The romance of the business of a diary publisher (1949). --Hegvald (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll add to talk for now. The DYK guy thinks there is too much on Letts as it is! Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finally decided to resume to Wikipedia - and as a first thing I expanded Michael Sittow from stub you created to somewhat bigger article (as you probably don't remember, we discussed it here a bit). I managed to dig up some quite interesting sources. However, I don't have access to Grove Art Online article about Sittow and don't know if there is anything else that could be added or changed - so, if possible, could you check the Grove Art and compare it to the wiki-article?

I hope to get some more material about Sittow in the near future (namely Michel Sittow 1469-1525, The Artist connecting Estonia with the Southern Netherlands, Eesti Kunstimuuseum 2002,

speculates that the said picture is an auto-portrait of Sittow. That is probably not true, but it would be nice to get a color image of Portrait of a Man in a Red Hat for the article - but alas, at least my Googlemancer skills did not turn up any other results for that image. -- Sander Säde 13:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have Grove access for a while, but i did when I first wrote it, & I doubt there is much more. I have done a ce. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Hopefully after adding material from the Kunstimuuseum's source will allow us to bring the article into the GA-standard. -- Sander Säde 07:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the licence permission for this image but the large image is broken. I don't know how to replace it could you do that? Apologies for late response, am not really in Wikipedia much these days. VAwebteam (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On May 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Diary (stationery), 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.

-- PFHLai (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As part of

]

Yes, I realize you only had four edits. However, by your previous participation in the discussion at

WP:LOTM) 14:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have nominated

]

Idealisation

I've been trying to find out about the origions of the oval idealised faces of 16th and 17th C. paintings, but it does not seem to be widely discussed as far as I can find. I remember as a child thinking that that was just how people looked in the old days - odd; and its interesting how ideals of beauty change. Anyway, mentioning it only as I'm thinking you might have the knowledge to knock up a very interesting article here, at some stage. Maybe one for the long finger. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I may have something, but I don't quite know what you'd call the article. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

qp10qp might be a good person to help with this, its roughly her area, I'll give a bell. I have nothing to add myself, but would be most interest in what the two of ye can find. Its something I've often wondered but read little about. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this, idealization goes back a good deal further - it's pretty strong in the Netherlandish & Italian 15th century; angels tend to show the trends. Then all Gainsborough's women notoriously look the same, though as he pointed out to a client, no one knows the difference now. There must be books on the subject but I don't know them. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canons of feminine beauty? The article Physical attractiveness is currently attempting to cover the subject. --Wetman (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tap tap tap. Ceoil (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is needed here [14] to decide on one of three options. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 03:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod,

The DYK hook has landed in controversy, inspite of your supporting it. Is there anything to be done by to see it through?--Nvvchar (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much for the help. The DYK article appeared on the mainpage.--Nvvchar (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, we now have an option 4 to consider since no one could agree on 1,2 or 3. Can you please come vote again? [15] Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 18:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding the change in and repairing the link to his Air Force Biography. I have used that info to repair links on several other general officer pages.

ed

Ecragg (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, thanks! The article seems sure to be kept now. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know anything about the specifics, but regarding adding Category:Tamil writers to

]

It came out of this debate, where the category, now kept, was emptied against all procedure by that editor. The passage from the guideline, itself not exactly clear, has been bandied about a lot by this editor; I don't see that this categorization conflicts with it. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about the more abstract heritage question itself, because I've seen (and wish I could find again, as an example) at least 2 edit-wars over whether or not an actress was considered [nationality]-American, due to having grandparents that were [nationality]. (Everyone wants to claim the beautiful ladies came from their own country!) But I couldn't find anything related to this in the BLP/MOS pages, except that category naming page.

I have no strong views either way. (I'm mostly post-nationalist, but understand that the rest of the world mostly isn't... ;)

Thanks anyway. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "partial derivation from one or more ancestors" suggests we are imposing some

racial purity. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Question for you at spiritual theories

I have a list I am working through which I am only starting. I have a question at Category_talk:Spiritual_theories.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - answered on my talk page. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded with a formulation of the "theory of mannerism" at Category talk:Spiritual theories. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now! You have to admit, this is tightening things up! I'll find a bunch more recommendations as I go too. I posted this to the c&t page too. (No not coffee and tea).

Proposed recommendations: 

Theories:

• • Schools of thought => Philosophical theories
  • Ideologies => Philosophical theories
  • Philosophical schools and traditions => Philosophical traditions
  • Views => Philosophical theories

• • Category:Art movements => Category:Theories of aesthetics (or vice versa)
  • Category:Ethical schools and movements => Category:Ethical theories
  • Category:Political science theories => Category:Political theories
  • Category:Political ideologies => Category:Political theories

• Category:Forms of government => Category:Political systems

• • Category:Economic ideologies => Category:Economic theories

Concepts:

• • Category:Philosophical terminology => Category:Philosophical concepts

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are receiving this message because you were an original party to the mediation process regarding the Catholic Church name issue. The mediation outcome has been summarized and moved to the Catholic Church talk page here [16]. Please feel free to come join our discussion of the outcome taking place now before making the actual changes in the article. Thanks for your help and kind cooperation toward a mutually agreeable solution. NancyHeise ^talk 14:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod. Would you like to have a go at disambiguating the incoming links to Weymouth, here? --Una Smith (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the issue of

]

Established Editors

Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, thanks for your help on Bible translations in the Middle Ages. This is a little outside my usual interests. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De nada! Of course, I'm only really interested in the pictures... Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary made me laugh. Of course, you shouldn't really be making jokes during such a serious and important debate. Some of them are admins, you know. Ceoil (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kbdank has resolved the problem of me not knowing what you were talking about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll be able to offer some guidance on the Byzantine influence on Roman art, architecture, and culture during this period. It's really all Greek to me... Savidan 07:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On June 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andachtsbilder, 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.

Giants 27 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

After a very short visit on the talkpage for Humanism I have come to believe that the best way to proceed would be some kind of content dispute resolution process. Those two editors do not seem interested in cooperating at all. I don't know exactly what kinds of processes would be possible but I think we should investigate it.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[18]. Maybe a slow second cousin? Ceoil (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not my literary sock! He doesn't seem too likely to let the family name down. Did you get anywhere on the ideal faces? I'll add a bit above. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No but thanks, Johngod. The only editors I would think capable of working on an article like that are you, Wetman, and Qp. It would be far beyond me. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

BorgQueen (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a remark on the central detail in the illustration at Finding in the Temple: "The gesture usually made by Jesus, pointing to his upraised thumb (illustration), is the conventional rhetorical gesture expressing the act of expounding text." I'm pretty sure of this, but it's just the kind of statement that our confident editors like to challenge and delete. I don't have a reference here: Erwin Panofsky? Can you give it a supportive citation, without troubling much?--Wetman (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is a standard gesture - this one appears in one of the Durers, but I can't see it in other examples. It looks almost like one of the Buddhist

traditio legis, which mutated into the "blessing" gesture in Christ in Majesty. We need an article on "Rhetorical gestures through the Ages" or something - the Tibetan debating ones are very vivid. Maybe this is a late medieval one. I see Quintilian (p.226 at link) also reccommended the Vitarka mudrā. List of gestures

doesn't seem to help.

Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

]

So now youve sorted it out .... are you happy that I propose it to DYK? Good work! Victuallers (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see there was confusion in fact, but I've added the whole lot of them, as you can see. Certainly go for DYK. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few unlinked refs (with and without "van" etc) to them in articles, which it would be nice to link. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done most of these. there was some confusion over who did the Hortus Floridus. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thanks all! I'll do some more cleanup in the Commons. - PKM (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your link to the plan of St Gell, reread what the article said and fixed it, after about four tries. Its getting late here and we spent all night last night working on my son's wretched history assignment on the rights of Australian women..... I'm finding it hard to focus. Seeya! Amandajm (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's a "WDM" piece of work, as the teachers here say ("Well done Mum"). All the best. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a research project. He did masses of research, founds heaps of useful stuff, (dates, quotations, legislation) but bringing it down to 500 words was an impossibility. Not only for him, but also for me. 500 words is too short for a research project. He had just done the rights of Australian Aboriginal people, also supposed to be 500 words, but closer to 2000. What makes it worse is that he is dyslexic so the process involved is quite overwhelming. My grandson is quite the opposite- he was born with a sticker on his forehead saying "this model comes complete with bonus extras: 1. Map of the London Underground 2. Shorter Oxford Dictionary 3. Trigonometric calculator 5. Touch Typing." .... I've been looking at my photos of London, and really missing my family. My eldest son rang me ever so sweetly to tell me about the job at Wookey Hole. "Just find your passport and get on your broomstick" he said. Amandajm (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damm! I was going for that too - they're accepting applications from male witches too. The money seems generous. One of the first 18th century paid hermits was near us at

Painshill Park, which our article does little justice to. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Bet you're not as well qualified as I am! Does your nose touch your chin? Do you keep a large-footed myotis in a cage next to your computer? Do you wear red satin knickers and a black patent leather corset? ...... (You don't have to answer the last one.) Amandajm (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a review of this article which has a large number of issues which need attention. I have delisted it. The reassessment is at Talk:Canaletto/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see all I have ever done is revert vandalism & maybe add a category. Why tell me? Have you told the VA project? (ok, you have) Anyone with a basic reference work could add the required refs etc in 15 minutes, but I'm afraid I just ignore GA in all contexts. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the question of whether or not Cornwall should be described as part of England, it is certainly entirely possible and even probable that a café on Fistral Beach would serve such tea [20]. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is more of it about than there used to be, though I see it still costs about £60 per pound - less than it used to I think. And that's for a blend, in unspecified proportions, with imported teas. I don't think the article really needs to include it anyway. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that the article doesn't need to mention it - just wasn't sure if you had heard of Cornish-grown tea. DuncanHill (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had, but only as a good deal more expensive than that - not beach cafe prices, even posh ones. But I wonder what % they use in the blends now. The website is most uninformative .... Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be in Cornwall next week - shall keep an eye out to see if I see it served in any cafés. It would be interesting to know what percentage they use in the blend. DuncanHill (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have a long list of stockists on the website. The pack wording shown suggests Cornish leaves are in the minority (Classic Tea - Our unique blend is a consistent and satisfying tea of the finest quality Assam and China-type leaf with exclusive Tregothnan leaves. Afternoon Tea - A light and exotic blend of the finest Darjeeling tea and the exclusive hand-plucked leaves from our Estate in Cornwall. Green Tea - A delicate and refreshing blend of fine Chinese Green tea and exclusive Tregothnan Green tea.) I've never had it. In theory it should be good; mountain tea, from similar climates, is usually the best. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I undid your edit as, whilst one list has been merged in, the second hasn't. You may wish to comment on the proposal at

]

Talk:Freeze_(exhibition)#Hirst_photo

Your statement is being read for the removal of the Hirst image. I read it as for the retention of the image. You might like to clarify. Ty 00:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, done. You know me too well! Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant question. I think I was going on the basis of Baked beans. The singular term does exist, but I've never yet seen a structure that has just one putlog hole. I suppose that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but nonetheless... --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was the singular that was on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist of Art & Architecture/P. I'd compare brick. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely fair point. Nice one. --Dweller (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the name from a the original placement of the article and from the first line in the article itself. I don't object to changing it but isn't cathedral just as good in modern parlance? Philly jawn (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! As usual I write long and intricate stuff, but ain't sure of the result as English is not my motherlanguage. Let me know if for you (and of course if have time to check)

]

DYK for Van de Passe family

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

{{User0|Candlewicke 11:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sadeler family

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

]