User talk:Johnbod/16

A few weeks ago, you suggested it might be a good idea to write an article about photography in Denmark. Well I've made a start on it and it seems to be more interesting than I would have expected. As always I would appreciate any advice you would like to offer. And if you think it is a good candidate for DYK, please feel free to submit it. Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that was me. I don't know anything about photography, but will have a look. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was indeed you. It's still on this page under Art of Denmark. You say: "Oh certainly; the more the merrier. There is no article on the architecture to link to unfortunately. I think they are best treated separately, if only for the categories etc. But something should be said. Photography? I wouldn't know. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)". At the time I opted for an article on architecture as it seemed much richer. But photography seems to have potential too. Ipigott (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had a look, but nothying to add. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elvis Presley/archive4. I do not think that all the points you have raised have now been addressed. Onefortyone (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a quick gander at the artistic bits in here (mainly his patronage) and see if there is anything missing you think needs covered? He's not the next FAC candidate, so there is some time. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 4 February 2010 (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 .

Thank you for your comment at my DYK nomination of Europa regina. I took your comment as a motivation to write hoop crown, and alter the nomination entry respectively. I hope that the new article clarifies what I had meant to say, and that you don't mind me remove your comment from the nomination entry now the hook does not anymore mention "Carolingian crown". I would not have removed your comment if it was not for the necessity to reformat the entry for a second article, and left a note there linking to your comment for reference. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This. Absolutely true! I've never seen it said so simply before. Made me laugh out loud ... cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. I have very few sources on this, aside those useful for the Euro pre-history sect. I'm not sure where to look after than. Some general (Tashen and coffey table) books which cover Greek and Roman burial rituals, but they are not too insightful, and too broad and assuming to use. Hrmp. Hints might be appreciated. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it! I exhausted all the sources I had the first time round. This could be a problem at FAC. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will be, ye will be eaten alive. I'll try and slow Ling, though I do fancy the article, just needs - sigh - more refs. Hope all is well otherwise - dont forget you still owe me an article on shifting attitudes towards feminine beauty. Jordan vs Helen Mirren. Well, I know where I stand and it sure does not include space for a plastic surgery disaster. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently participated in a discussion about moving

Ciao! With great embarassment, if you've time, can I ask you to copyedit my last additions for Giovanni Bellini's paintings? They are:

• Four allegories (Bellini)
• Presentation at the Temple (Bellini)
• Holy Allegory (Giovanni Bellini)

Thanks sooo much and have fun... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making me laugh with this edit. I hadn't heard the term "nob-squad" before, but it's a good one. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think I invented it, some time ago. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since he has had talk page access revoked it seemed silly to keep discussing this over there, but I find myself wondering what I missed here, the diffs you provided do not look like vandalism.

Look closer, don't assume AGF, and follow the links. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right. I was just trying to help... Please assist. It was quite confusing so far, and my apologies for not checking similar categories first. Wiki-uk (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2010 (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 .

Ucucha 18:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that article called

Amandajm (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title was already there, but modern landscape sculptures are also briefly covered, as well as some ancient reliefs I think. Eastern ink painting & even watercolours are not what everybody thinks of as painting. In general I think there is far, far, too much "painting" & "painters" in WP coverage, which reinforces populist stereotypes that painting is the only art there is. I would strongly oppose splitting off drawings & prints, not that they are mentioned much. Personally I think the Italian Renaissance articles should be "art" not "painting".

When are you coming over? Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Please read WP:ENGVAR, & avoid correcting "typos" until you are able to distinguish between them and UK English. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)"

It would be helpful to me if you could be more specific, and less incisive, so that I'll know exactly what you are talking about. It is not helpful to insult my intelligence, as that does not support cooperation or peace. To avoid conflict, and encourage good cooperation, I sincerely suggest looking into non-violent communication, as I have found it very helpful in the past. Otherwise, thank you for the link, it was very useful, and I was quite unaware of that policy. I am rather aware of the variety regional variances in English spelling, and will edit only errors that fall outside those variations.Aindriahhn (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good move, the Possin was, to be fair, just decorative without context, and as you say the three line up well. Are you still on for

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide
  .

Thanks,. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. Karanacs (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the reason and implementation of this edit, removing list of animals ... and man.[2] The list of animals isn't much needed, basically anything that's workable has been used at some time, even if the result wasn't especially good. As for using humans...I'm not sure how to say this in a politically correct Wiki way. So ... I'll just say: mention of it is offensive and appeals to prurient interest without adding any special insight. No doubt the Nazis (and others) turned all sorts of human body parts into dead objects. But generally, Wiki articles aren't about manifestations of mental illness.

The distinction between animals would be encyclopedic, perhaps, with a description of the differences in texture, durability, etc. I remember finding the differences quite startling, browsing the stacks of our local U.

With Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That would certainly be useful, if it could be sourced. I get the impression that relatively few MS have actually had the species used confirmed. It used to be like that for panel paintings but museums have been checking that with specialists over the last decades. I'm not sure all the differences between ms are due to species either. Age of animal, split or unsplit skin, amount of polishing etc I think all contribute. But I'm no expert. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a latecomer to the article, I'm unclear exactly who is committed to the article and what they are committed to. I've heard a good deal from those in favor of the "myth" title, but not so much from those opposed. Eactly WHAT would be needed for a consensus title before you would be comfortable making improvements to the article? Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JohnBod, I noticed you reverted the ham-fisted undoing of my edit on the Lotus, after I wrote a bit in the talk page about it. I was going to put a missing info banner in there and try and get a discusion rather than a war, as I don't have any great investment in what the page says - I'd just like it to be complete! Do you know any history here [other than what's on the talk page] that I don't? CU Trev M (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC) PS just been to look at your amazing user page... had a chuckle about your User:Johnbod#To_do: list... as I'm in Antwerp, really enjoying the art at the moment. Trev M (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. I only edited the page to add the Bali bit. Not my subject at all. Enjoy Antwerp! Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2010 (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 .

I put it in just in time. It's unfortunately not the best time for Wales, but at least we're not totally ignoring the day. Ucucha 00:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant - thanks very much! In time for Chubut Province anyway. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on an excellent (and well timed!) article. I've taken the liberty of adding a very quickly edited version of the article into both the articles on

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the more appropriate category of American book and manuscript collectors to several entries, instead of the bibliophile cat. Much better cat for folks like L. Brooks Leavitt. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is the correct name, hence my doing! There should be an accent above the e! LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

What!? LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I am new to submitting articles. Can you tell me what you mean that my subject might be "PROD as Non-notable COI art BLP"? I am unfamiliar with the terms COI and BLP. Thanks for you help. Huma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huma irani (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok,

WP:CREATIVE is the relevant policy on notability for artists. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Ho hum! I missed that FAC, which I think would have succeeded if you had persevered. Maybe not. A pity! There are sources like Ganson at JR (much online at google books), which cover the topic, or the whole subject of the reductions. From my point of view, I'm only getting to grips with the subject. Ideally, I think the "big article" on the whole topic should be at JR, and the Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos covering just those, with an emphasis on the remaining buildings. That would remove much of the basis for the objections. There certainly is an issue - see Ganson 79 for example - that needs to be in both articles. That is confirmed in the very detailed but partisan and old Catholic Encyclopedia article, btw (ref at JR), which has much useful detail too, though it's not ideal for citing. To be honest, I don't want to deal a lot of heavy lifting work on it, but am happy to help out, check English etc. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the truly helpful reply. I'll have a look at the sources you mention and improve the article step by step taking as a guide the failed FA candidacy. It will take a while since I don't have much time for wikipedia at the moment. Of course all the details should go into the JR article but some info should be present in the Jesuit Missions article as well. bamse (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a starting point for improvements, I went through the failed candidacy and checked for outstanding issues which are collected here. Feel free to edit that page. bamse (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Savidan's views on citing (nearly) every sentence are not that widely shared I think. His first points would have less force stuff on the general history & organization of reductions were moved to "JR", and this article concentrated on those specific missions & their remains - which would then need expanding. There is a good deal of starting material, and details of further sources, in the ICOS & German "restoration" PDFs. Tony's prose points can be tackled - I can certainly help there. Does this help? Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I will need some time to get into the subject again. Any help is of course welcome, so if you tackle Tony's points I'd be very happy. However,

Truthkeeper88 is currently copy-editing the whole article, so you might want to wait or contact him first. Not being a native writer, I'll focus on the content. I'd like to move stuff out to JR as you suggest, however I am not sure (in all instances) what information relates to all Jesuit reductions and which is specific to the Chiquitos missions. bamse (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I can see that would be a problem, though I think they were run centrally, no? So probably the approach was mostly the same in broad terms. The sources I've seen don't make much distinction between places, or dates very much, though perhaps things varied quite a bit in actuality. Compared to some of the ones with great stone churches these were I suppose much smaller, or perhaps there was no local building stone? Let's get a text sorted then polish the prose. Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Good plan. bamse (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod! Unfortunately I don't have time to do anything about the article and need to postpone my contribution to the (distant) future. Maybe we can join forces when I got more time. (Of course, if you make it featured all by yourself, I'd be very happy as well ;-) ). bamse (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - me too, probably. Cheers Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to mention that I already know about the FAR, so you do not have to feel bothered with informing me, although I know it's customary policy.UBER ^(talk) 17:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know you're interested in coming along. I hope that you might be interested in helping out with some of the project (whatever I end up doing there!) too. I'll be putting the "Backstage Pass Tour" together on the WikimediaUK Wiki and listing it far and wide when I've got the precise details. 03:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure - let me know if I can help. User:Tyrenius is also, I'm pretty sure, a Londoner. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought. I'm not available, but I hope it goes well. As for nationality/ies and place(s) of residence, I neither confirm nor deny... Ty 13:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your input is humbly requested
  Ling.Nut 05:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You commented on the recent sweeping changes to the Catholic Church article. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked at Talk:Catholic_Church#Recent_Major_and_Substantive_Changes_to_this_Article Xandar 13:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at

I'll move this to BM talk, as others may have comments. I'm afraid I'm useless at templates also, but there are experts around. There already is a BM template of course, but it currently only lists, for example, 9/95 odd of the object articles. If it had all of them, and the people, it would be too long. I suspect if a field was added to the Museums project tag, for example, for "Museum = ", that would be enough for a bot to assemble a table from. That would I presume have the advantage that similar excercises for other museums could be done later much more easily. Of course all the BM article tags might have to be changed by hand. Or it may be possible to do this by bot using the category structure, or indeed to compile the table just using the category structure, which would be simplest of all. I'd ask at the Village pump technical page. If using categories, or generally, one issue to be aware of is that the Natural History Museum was originally a departmentment of the BM, & remained so in legal terms until 1963, despite having its own building since 1881-83. And of course the British Library was de-merged even more recently. Currently Category:Natural History Museum is a sub-cat of the BM cat, though the BL cat is not. Also large numbers of Category:People associated with the British Museum (67 odd articles) are 19th century botanists, librarians etc. This does not count the 51 Category:People associated with the Natural History Museum, which is supposed to have the pre-split natural historians too. It might be best to remove, either permanently, or just while the table is being run, the NHM category from the BM one. One thing you might ponder is how to arrange these categories. New sub-cats for Category:People associated with the British Museum (Natural History) and "(Library)" for pre-split folk, would perhaps be the best way. Do you double-classify for those working through the splits? And so on. If we don't currently have a routine that can assemble an assessment table from a category tree, this would I think be a very handy tool with wide application, so a bot-fiend might well think it worth creating one - possibly this is very simple. Some articles are in more than 1 cat in the tree, which may be a problem. I hope this helps. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've replied over at Talk:British_Museum. 14:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I signed on here too - [3]...Modernist (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! Thanks for that! Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing those. When I get Real Life^TM under control, I just might put English embroidery up for GA. - PKM (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored

Tikiwont (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

.

Can you take a look at the gallery at the end of this page; I'm wondering if I've choosen the best examples, or if I am labouring the point.

bty, did you hear anything from the free password crowd? Ceoil (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No - I can get all or most via my library, & pulled out. You should work in a reference to the contentious term hennin. The earlier high divided "Queen of Hearts" head-dresses are rather less relevant, but I don't think excessive. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hennin, yes, thanks - that is a gorgeous article. Thinking of swapping Isabella for that one to the right. Ceoil (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good idea - Isabella is a late copy anyway, & not too sexy. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm running into difficulty with the article title - see Ham's cmts here. Would you have a view or recommendation? Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funerary art is nommed. Be there or be oblong. • 

eek - no refs to last section I see! Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod,

Sarek and I have asserted that silence can be construed as assent and that therefore there is a defacto consensus for moving forward from UberCryxic's version, flaws and all. Please make your position explicit here.

Please note that this is not meant to be an RFC on the IAR process that UberCryxic used to terminate the straw poll and plant his version over the previous one. I have my doubts about that. What I'm looking for is to determine whether there is a substantial sentiment against using Uber's version as the basis for future edits. (Well, in truth, Uber's version has long been superceded due to edits that have been made by multiple editors so we're not so much concerned with Uber's version as the current version of the article.)

--Richard S (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've fixed most of the issues you mentioned, and I've asked a question, at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/St._Michael's_Cathedral,_Qingdao/archive1. If you have a moment, please take a look, and when you're ready, please Support or Oppose the FAC. So far a lot of people have commented, and I've fixed a lot of issues, but nobody's come back to support or oppose. Thanks for looking at this. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you want to comment: Talk:Damien_Hirst#Richest_artist. Ty 14:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made a comment on the Catholic Church talk page to the effect that if an RFC results in replacing the old version that I would point to that as a consensus in favor of not changing it. To eliminate this misconception I have proposed wording for the RFC on Sunray's talk page.[4] He has agreed to help me write a neutral introductory note for the RFC. Do you agree that this note is neutral and does it properly quell your concerns about future activity on the page if it is reverted? NancyHeise ^talk 00:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I would like something added to the effect that "there is a clear understanding that both versions have serious flaws, and whichever version is proceeded with as the basis for improvement, nothing in that version should be regarded as established "by consensus""." In effect we need to reset the "established by consensus" clock to zero, painful though it may be. That is the only way your RFC can poossibly suceeed, & even then I think it is very long shot. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to improve that article. Your comments and additions would be welcome. USA has no references and there is little else about the movement outside the UK. The UK itself still has gaps.

Unfortunately the little knowledge I have about the subject relates to the UK, but I'll have a look. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for additions.

talk) 17:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I have some references for the US and Canada, but little time to work on this right now. I'll try to add some citations as time permits. - PKM (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general I disagree with Sarek that addition is easier than subtraction of material

I'm not sure I understand your disagreement. The fact is, on Wikipedia, when we have serious problems with an article, we remove the disputed content first, and then add what we can agree upon. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - but we don't just get someone who has next to no interest in, of knowledge of, the subject, to remove most of the text, and then use that as a basis. Certainly not in a highly summarized and compressed article on a huge subject. Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I can see where you are coming from, but this isn't rocket science now, is it? I mean, are we really dealing with a technical subject? I don't think so. Here's an important point that many overlook: If we are writing from a NPOV on a popular subject, then the sources we are using are generally accessible to everyone. The more obscure the source, the more likely we've got POV issues to deal with, although not necessarily. I think this entire dispute can be solved within minutes, but the players have more invested in pushing their POV than in writing a good article. The only way to solve this problem is by asking those responsible to stand down and sit on the sidelines. I don't see another solution. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought, and said, that it would indeed be easier with, a la Brecht, a different crew. But the recent recruits seem to making things worse not better. I can see what you mean about sources, and in theory this should work, but look at the unbelievable fuss over just the name - I don't really think most involved had POV over the issue, it was just difficult to establish the real position - the harder you looked the more complicated it became. On a subject like this batteries of RSs can be found to support a variety of positions. But you certainly need to be motivated to stick around, which in most cases means POV. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's very true. I'm surprised we don't find more people from the RCC project helping out. Any idea why not? Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty derelict. And you need to have, or think you have, a good deal of knowledge, or certainty, to contribute even to the talk page. It's clear most effort on the page & the talk page is just wasted, and most people don't just want to be cannon-fodder. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Interestingly, I think the "wild west" anarchism of early Wikipedia was responsible for its success. Right now, we seem to have less and less people interested in building an encyclopedia and more and more obsessive types focusing on policy fetishism and game playing. Look at all the inactive administrators; That in itself is good evidence that the wrong type of person is chosen to administer the site. We need responsible, mature people who are devoted content wonks, but we end up with children running around with scissors in their hands. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm unlikely to find it here. I'm sure people like Nancy and Xandar have a lot to offer and could be more effective if there were more editors willing to work with them. Unfortunately, we're mostly dealing with precocious, sleep-deprived teenagers hopped up on energy drinks and hormones. They just don't have the patience or the desire to hold hands with editors who need help. Viriditas (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As we get better, useful contributors need to be better too. Content improvement has slowed enormously since I joined in 2006, but does continue. Gradually silver-surfers will take over I expect. In fact the current crop at CC are I think nearly all middle-aged, except for Uber, who says he is a grad student. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no useful mechanism, process, or procedure in place to help contributors improve, at whatever level they are at. In late 2009,

Wikipedia:Tutorial, this is a good start. I think one solution to the problem is to have "smart" notifications recommend these types of tutorials in the header when new users login (with the option to shut them off). This could be supplemented by a bot that runs in the background, once a day or depending on the frequency of contributions. So, for example, for every 50 contribs, something like "SuggestBot" would scan the latest edits, look for any matches (user edited seven articles about Frogs, recommend joining WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles?) and make recommendations, etc. We need to develop active relationships between editors and the interface, such that they look forward to logging in and learning something new about how to use the site every day. The possibilities are endless, but the goal is the same: Increase and augment the editorial skillset based on the input; The more you put into it, the more you get out of it. Part of the problem here, is that you have editors making thousands of edits to a single topic, but never learning how to apply all of the policies and guidelines. The entire dispute on the CC article could have been avoided if these editors had a "mother" interface holding their hand and guiding them along the way. The "Intelligence in Wikipedia" project[5] developed similar tools, but we already have everything we need to make this work. Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not so optimistic; there is certainly a lot of strong POV around there, including far more "intra-Catholic" differences than Nancy is prepared to recognise. New editors should really start on quiet pages - God help them if they start with CC, but inevitably many do. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial by fire is much more effective that editing on a quiet page. You really learn a lot in such a situation, and the mind becomes very sharp. It's really the ultimate learning environment; Something to do with the way we encode memory and access it. I believe this statement is also supported by several studies. Perhaps this could also be simulated in a tutorial? Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Do you know the opening sequences of Enemy at the Gates? Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen Fashion and Fancy shrink-wrapped, so I've been reluctant to buy a copy. But if you think it's good, with your knowledge of the period, I'll probably order it. Are there lots of pictures?  :-)

Watch for email from me. - PKM (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod. As it happens I agree with your comments about the Knights Templar and the issues with the section about the Crusades. I've been through the history in the article and can't find a version without that information, but assure you I haven't added it. Thanks.

I've moved the MOS structure discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Structure.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on this

Johnbod, I wonder if I could ask for your views on two aspects of the Catholic Church RfC, just to make sure we're being fair. In addition to notifying the various wikiprojects and other related pages, we also notified the top 40 contributors to the article and talk pages, as you suggested. Do you feel that's enough, or is more needed? Also, do you feel it would be fair to close it two weeks after its opening, which would be April 9, or does it need longer? Your feedback would be much appreciated, either on my talk page or on the RfC talk page. The notification issue is being discussed here, and when to close here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, it's past 7 days since you nominated the page for moving and there hasn't been a consensus. Is it possible to relist the nom as a move to

No, an admin will be along to close it, I imagine as no consensus. Then we can think about the rematch. Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe withdraw it. There doesn't have to be a formal nomination to make such moves, and it would be easier to just work it out between editors first. I've added to the discussion at

Talk:National_Gallery_(London)#Towards_resolution. Ty 12:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Good idea. Thanks, both.

Ham 12:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• There's
  Ling.Nut 12:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It's an Indian word for hardstone inlays, a la

pietre dura

; but the Turks mostly used painted tiles, as in that pic.

OK. Do you think that pic would help the article? I'm on a fence, but leaning "a little too ugly." But could go either way. • 

Ling.Nut 12:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I think, although the technique is in practice most often seen on tombs, like the Taj Mahal, it's not in itself funerary, so I think not. Also the Lahore Gardens aren't part of a tomb, & that pic is a bit bare. We may have to do something about the pics - I'm not dead set against the multiple image template. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A gallery at the bottom of the page? How droll. And mind-numbing.• 

Ling.Nut 12:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Well I prefer several at intervals in the middle. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) What, a line of five images every other section? • 

Yes maybe three at intervals - Asian, Christian, Islam perhaps. Also, do we need 2 Irish dolmens? Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am and always have been against the idea of giving in to reviewers when they make bad suggestions. I currently see this as a bad one. Do you see it as a good one? What's wrong with the current layout, btw? But yeah, we can lose one of the dolmen. There are about eight (not kidding) different versions of

Ling.Nut 12:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Removing unsourced material is a form of improving, is it not? I'll give you the smaller one I nuked, but I challenge you to tell me how that big table I wiped out is not OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Cite-tagging it might be. It isn't OR if it is verifiable, and neither of us know if it is or is not. In any case it should not be removed during the FAR process like that, in case someone is able to reference it. Nor is it synthesis, even if each language is referenced separately. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to comment on this exchange. You also endorsed NancyHeise's view but not Xandar's. Is your reasoning the same as Marauder40's? thanx. --Richard S (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is pretty unhelpful when you revert without giving reasons in your edit summary. I have reestablished half of the section to meet your concerns, but you do not even seem to notice. I revert you to give you that opportunity. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read

WP:Own. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Read

WP:TROLL Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. I added a landscape by William Morris Hunt that you deleted soon after with the remark 'No thanks.' So I'm curious. What is your yardstick for inclusion? The gallery contains all the usual suspects. If you're not Phillipe de Montebello or Rusty Powell or John Wilmerding, what exactly are your qualifications to judge what merits inclusion? The Hunt landscape is in the Met's permanent collection, which doesn't guarantee that it's a masterpiece, but it seems rather a nice 19th century landscape. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will have noticed it started a new row, was rather out of chronology, and there are already a large number of images, including a Church just to the right. "Rather nice" doesn't really cut it, and the image seemed to illustrate no particular point in the text. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lee? Never touched it! You are a fine one to speak! Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content now? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I note that Gun Powder Ma reverted at Medieval art eight times on 7 April to suppress text covering the influence of Islamic art, as " unrelated to the development of medieval art" [sic]. --Wetman (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I just wanted to drop by to say I have been considering your comment about the references for all this stuff. Strangely enough, I can't seem to locate much in English, and I am frankly surprised that the book was never translated. I have been toying with the idea of just uploading the whole damn thing to Wikisource and translating it. What do you think? Is this even possible? It really is a great read, and it sure would be good if you could search it easily and link it all up. The DBNL does its best, but it's still pretty difficult to cross-reference the way they have set it up. Jane (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has it never been translated at all? I don't know about Wikisource, but a full translation would be a huge job. Van Mander is only available in English in a very expensive edition, though all the Dutch text is online. But for WP H still counts as a

WP:SYNTHESIS unless supported by other published sources. But there must be some of these. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I know! I almost bought that Van Mander edition for 250 euro's on sale, but even at THAT price it is still a lot of money. As far as I can tell, H has NEVER been translated. I wasn't offering to translate the WHOLE thing myself, I was sort of hoping if I uploaded the thing, that interested parties would help out, if only for the artist they personally care about, because it would be great to link it up to the actual pictures, just like the expensive Van Mander has done. A book is a nice to have, but personally I just LOVE the way you can click from the pic to the artist and vice versa on Wikipedia.Jane (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be a worthwhile project - best of luck! Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, US and UK (european law) requires that all reasonable means are made to allow those with disabilities to access services. This is not just ramps in shops but also applies to web sites. W3C have spent a great deal of time adding things like alt-text to the XML standards. I can see how this may (and actually is) like instruction creep but I'm not trying to read wikipedia using a text to speech device. If I was then I suspect I'd feel very strongly for it. Oh and can I thank you for your DYK contributions. Cheer Victuallers (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC) This was the first link I found after I entered "Accessibility we page" into google. If you are interested then you can find the evidence. Did you relly mean to imply that blind people didn't need to know what pictures were of if they were just a painting of marine art because that picture tells you nothing? I think that needs some more thought with some empathy added. I don't feel strongly about whether you add alt text or not. But it appears that I'm not the only person who would not add an inaccessible content to the main page. My last example - Image you came across your 200DYK award .... would it be useful to know the picture had "200" on the medal if you couldn't read it? Victuallers (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know I'm not an expert on Gaspard de Coligny, but POV is POV, wherever it derives from -- e.g. "austerely disciplined"; "weak, easily manipulated king". I don't want to engage in edit warring, but could you explain why such POV should remain. Thanks. [email protected] (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why did you remove my Barbara Diefendorf reflink? It is directly relevant and impeccably sourced. [email protected] (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that; you could reinsert it, although "With Coligny dead, the Catholics then proceeded to carry out the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in which thousands of Protestant Huguenots were slaughtered." is also wrong & pov - he was killed in the massacre itself, and things were more complicated than that. Most historians regard the king as "weak, easily manipulated" - he was still in his teens for one thing. These old EB texts have problems, but adding cite tags is not the way forward. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused. "[W]ith Coligny dead, the Catholics then proceeded to carry out the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in which thousands of Protestant Huguenots were slaughtered" is not part of the Diefendorf quotation and I am not the one who inserted it. The Diefendorf quotation merely followed it sequentially. [email protected] (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

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 .

NW (Talk) 04:23, 12 April 2010 (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 .

Materialscientist (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just saw that you sent me a final warming, I was not connected on my account but with another one. I had several discussions with Modernist. I am here because I have a lot of material on several artists that are for the most of them really not well known, I just wanna add information on them. I have edited catalogues and I have a website and images, I own the copyrights of all of this. Modernist suggested that I can put the link to the biographies I have on my website on 'External Links', that I can add images and that I can add text and make a reference to the catalogues, that are on googlebooks... Does that seem okay ? Mariecisa (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2010 (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 .

Materialscientist (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where you bin?..Modernist (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 days now... I assume JB is traveling...? Anyhow, Johnbod, do you have any sources on Japanese woodcuts? Any additions to Uki-e would be welcome. I think its a little late for DYK but it would be nice to flesh it out a little more. Thanks, Lithoderm 13:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let the man go on holidays in peace! Ceoil (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope I am not too disruptive there at the feature issue - I think it should be for european/mediterranean in the title it would be a much better handle on things. I could try if you like to gather together a range of articles/links that could support my idea about why the other regions/continents could possibly be better served by separate articles - but my edit style is very random and chaotic at the best of times - and it would take time to collate :( I hope in time to upload to commons the graveyards that I photographed and visited last year - my favourites were Valparaiso, Chile, Central in Vienna, Austria, and Taj Mahal in India - but even Dosteoevski's in St Petersburg is different again - so I do hope you see I am supportive of the idea of the article per se - i just think its potential narrowed scope would help it

No that's ok. I know what you mean, and the article is intended to rely largely on links to other articles, which we don't seem to have for many areas here - of course as new articles hopefully get written they should be linked to. The article clearly does favour the big religious/cultural traditions with strong emphasis on tomb-building where generalizations can be made about forms of memorial across large periods and areas, while more diverse areas cannot be treated in the same way. But I don't myself believe this invalidates the whole idea, though I can see others might not share this view. Who are the Indonesian people who put effigies in holes in a cliff? I was looking for them all over. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is the nub - the good aspect of the article is it european coverage (I do not like the separation of the christian section versus european history - but I would need to re-read a few times to see why and how that separation occurred) - Tana Toraja - in Sulawesi - but if you put it in I would very very strongly oppose using it as a grab piece - if you do that you have at least 18 other similar groups/societies on the planet that have related issues - and to mention one is making a mess of undue. No one has adequately covered death in indonesia on wp en - and it is not something that I would want to do even with my lengthy relationship with a javanese royal graveyard... there are many holes in the wikiproject death coverage - and I do not think the article is supported by playing with phenomena from outside europe (sorry Ia m repeating myself a bit arent I)

Suro 15:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

would you have another look to see if your comments are addressed? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ...temporarily at
  Ling.Nut 08:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • it's in
    Ling.Nut 17:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Hi Johnbod--I've enjoyed getting this rolling, and any help would be much appreciated. Hope you are well. Cheers, JNW (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:

Please take a look! Amandajm (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John! Did you really mean to say "fortunately" with regard to the motorway? Isn't that just a teensy bit POV?Amandajm (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More

WP:OR surely! Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

OK! I'll buy "fortunately" with regard to the images of the Park, but not to the everpresent noise from the motorway, regardless of how easy it makes the access. Can't you put an "un" in front of it? Like the descriptions of the absentee hermit and the visitors! Amandajm (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! It's 3 am! Goodnight! Amandajm (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think it loud? I thought not - but I can remove it. I've given your pic top slot at

Landscape garden btw. That needs work! Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

No, it was entirely my stupidity that made that comment!I didn't notice any noise at all, but on the other hand, I am accustomed to the steel works, and previously lived on the Great Western Line and then right in front of the runway at Mascot airport. When I moved to Bathurst and there was no sound except the possums galumphing over the roof and the wind howling down the chimney, it was hard to sleep. Amandajm (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, my friend Colin said it wasn't possums and it wasn't the wind. It was the Knock-knocks and the ghost of a governess. He wouldn't sleep in the house unless the bull-terrier was in bed with him. Amandajm (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still stuffing around here. Howabout you put this up for a DYK? I'll leave it to you. Amandajm (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to increase the characters x5 - so far we haven't doubled them (5350 to 2942). It needs to be 3 times longer, which is a lot of work - 5 days odd to go. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that x5 is a possibility. Never mind! I think we can pat ourselves on the back! Your additions have made the way for an extra photo. Now, some of those florid descriptions would be really good! I've got a couple of books here that I can look through, but no time till this evening. Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my new bit on the ébéniste Guillaume Beneman I hazarded the statement "It is a characteristic of court arts generally speaking, that design and craftsmanship are collaborative in nature." It is sure to be pounced upon by Randy in Boise. Can you tie this familiar observation to a citation, or even a ftnotable quote?--Wetman (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I'll keep an eye out. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, not sure what you mean by this, since I actually do reference almost everything, preferably with the actual on-line source. Maybe if you give me a specific example I can help. Jane (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks for the heads up. Just let me know if you miss anything. I still have some work; I totally forgot that articles were needed for the sub-genre's. These pages are needed: "jachtstuk", "bloemstuk", "regentenstuk" (funnily enough I was hacking away today on "schutterstuk"), and "ontbijtje". The easiest one to do at a quick whack would be the "batalje", since those have been uploaded all over the place to illustrate old battles. Something else I forgot about was the word "Italianate". That word links now to Italianate architechture, which is something else entirely. "Italianate landscape" is needed.

You got the FA - good on you! Looks good, (even if I still think the christian part should be separate :) ) - keep it up - it sure helps the death project to have good FA's up there!

Thanks, & thanks for your comments at the FAC, which were appreciated even if we disagreed on some things. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies I think I could have helped a lot more rather than what I said or did - I now have - after watching the process - a very much better understanding of the issues about working on getting FAs up - I dont think at the moment that I have the attention span or edit style to get there ( I have quite a few I'd like to see get up) - so will have to work on that one :( -- the good thing is the Death project exists - this time last year there were so many uncategorised articles related to the subject -= when I had finished visiting graveyards in eastern europe and the middle east at the end of last year - to get home and seeing the project existed was beyond my wildest. Keep up the good work, and on behalf the death project - thanks!

Suro 15:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: Hôtel de Bourbon-Condé. I hope the compromise wording in the lead is OK. BTW, do you know whether Wikipedia has a policy regarding whether it should be "rue" or "Rue". I've never really known what to do about this. Some people seem to prefer the lower case and others upper. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it better before, but whatever. I've no view on rue or Rue. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you noticed, but I had jumped to the wrong conclusion when I said Monsieur-le-Prince was a new name for the street. That street, which had previously been linked in the article, turned out to be incorrect. When I found the article by Parker it became clear (he had a 1796 map of the area of paris with the site), that it is on a different street called simply rue Monsieur (which still exists). Discovering these mistakes is one of the things that makes working on the Wikipedia so interesting! Anyway, I'm happy your edit helped in sorting this out. And, btw, I now totally agree that it's much better to have the address in the lead. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I helped the process, if only by accident! Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao is back up as a FAC. It has had quite a bit of work since the last nomination. I'd appreciate any feedback you have at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/St._Michael's_Cathedral,_Qingdao/archive2. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my editing is generating some frustration. I understand that the term "carpet page" has its origin as a description of a particular type of page in Insular illuminated manuscripts. But both calligraphers and scholars quickly expanded the term to include much more, as can be seen here [6]. The page that is described there is from the first illuminated bible produced in many years, and it contains decorative pattern and lettering that is integrated in a decorative way.

The use of the term carpet page seems to be rather recent and a Google book search, that allows only books in the public domain, comes up with nothing. It would be interesting to know who first used the term. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing this at the article talk. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have lately been involved in discussions about infoboxes. Are you familiar with the guidelines and policies concerning this issue and previous discussions? I am thinking mainly about infoboxes for biographies, but there are some others that I find to be of questionable usefulness (those for works of art, buildings, and for human institutions in general).

I recall seeing some guideline or policy somewhere (not sure where, but it's a jungle out there), where it was pointed out that the practice of using infoboxes was disputed, that they shouldn't be added against the wishes of the major contributors to an article, that some projects were in general opposed to them, and so on. But I can't find this anywhere now. Is it possible that it has been edited out of wherever I saw it? I have seen Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes, but that is only tagged as an essay. I seem to remember seeing this somewhere in a page of a more elevated status (policy or guideline). I also get the impression that whenever the issue is debated, there is considerable opposition to infoboxes (like here, for instance), but this does not appear to be reflected in the guidelines, where they are mostly taken for granted.

I don't want to start some public discussion over this issue right now (I need to spend whatever time I have today on an article I started a few days ago and nominate it for DYK before it gets to late), but I will ask Wetman, as he is prominently quoted at Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes. At the moment, I would just like to get better informed about the background. --Hegvald (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The unwritten uderstanding (at the moment) is that if the primary/major/principle editors of a page do not want an info-box, then such an abomination is forced upon them - or at least not without a great deal of debate on the talk page. Speaking of my own subject, architecture, where I have frequently seen the terms "design team," "client" and "style" forced upon a building designed by architects (seperated by centuries) for multiple dynasties in various style - they serve only to confuse and mis-inform the reader who only wants a quick glance - better to have a full, but brief synopsis of the page in the lead. Similarly, if a person is worthy of a biography, it's doubtful that their life can be accuratly summed up in the contents of an info-box. Perhaps there is a place for them on mathematical of scientific pages (I don't know I don't edit there and would not presume to know), but in the arts and most biographies they serve only to uninform and detract in an almost decpetive fashion.

 Giano  08:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess that may be the unwritten understanding (and, for some reason, it was my understanding that it was, probably because I had encountered people stating this in article talk pages). But when I look at pages intended to instruct (like the

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) and Help:Infobox

), what I find is that infoboxes seem to be taken for granted. As I wrote above, I recall the disagreement about the boxes to be more explicit in places like those. I also remember having stumbled upon individual discussions where opposition against them was quite clear and strong from several parties. (I haven't noted the page links and the only one I could recall was the one above, but see below for more).

Why isn't there a "Wikipedia:WikiProject Infobox removal"?

While looking about I found another discussion at Talk:Jane Austen, and yet another one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC.

I get the impression that those article authors who dislike infoboxes and oppose them in many individual discussions are simply being ignored by another group of users who like them and go about adding them to articles they never edited before and fix the manuals of style to conform to their view. Or maybe the dislike of the boxes is really a tiny minority view and my previous impression was skewed because of the discussions I had happened upon until now. --Hegvald (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Johnbod: I asked here because I had looked at your recent contributions and saw the issue of infoboxes coming up, then saw this edit this morning by a user who had done nothing else. If you'd rather have the discussion moved elsewhere, please say so. --Hegvald (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind!

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (visual arts)

says:

There are dedicated infoboxes and some templates for Visual arts articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts#Templates, in addition to the standard biography infoboxes and national/cultural templates. There may be a conflict for space between the need to illustrate visual arts articles and the use of infoboxes. This is decided on a case-by-case basis.

Templates at the bottom of the page are usually preferable to those at the side, where they may make it difficult to incorporate proper illustration of a VA article. If so, they are likely to be removed.

Information in an infobox contains basic introductory facts from the article. If something is not substantiated in the article, or would involve over-simplification, it should not be included in the infobox. An alternative to an infobox is to use a normal picture with caption."

Infoboxes have been kept out of a number of articles, though see Talk:Raphael recently. I thought the opera or classical music MOS said something similar.

My current campaign is to keep, but make useful, the World Heritage Site infobox, which currently has completely the wrong information. See Template_talk:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site#Gives_altogether_the_wrong_information. I don't mind having infoboxes as standard for some sorts of articles, like taxonomic ones (species of plants & animals), asteroids & even most films or baseball players. But some of them have very badly chosen fields. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A typically intrusive disinfoxbox designed for modern bridges, formerly pushed at Ponte Vecchio, was bitterly discussed at Talk:Ponte Vecchio in a manner confirming my observation "Editors with content contribute content." The quite excellent solution was a hide/display feature on the article labelled "Quick Reference" with a "Hide" default position. Whatever disinformation that feature may currently contain, I figure is no more than a just punishment for readers' laziness and marginal literacy. I have taken the liberty of adding the Disinfobox Disinfobox to this discussion: it should be added to all discussions of disinfoboxes at Wikipedia.--Wetman (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess those of you have been involved in these debates again and again are already getting tired of the issue.

Yes, the "nobsquad" boxes are I suppose ok for some German prince who never did anything much but breed, but they are a menace for significant historical figures. I would certainly support getting some cautionary note on the need or desirability of boxes into the MOS. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working this article into shape, and since you were so helpful working out the continental politics on Gunpowder Plot I wondered if you wouldn't mind looking at the "soldier" section and checking it's ok? I'm not sure how "Catholic Spain", "Protestant Dutch rebels", "Spanish Netherlands", "Low Countries" should be linked, or if the terminology is correct. I'd also like to write a couple of sentences regarding the background to the war but don't know where to begin. Parrot of Doom 09:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some - I'll copy this to talk there with some other points. Johnbod (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Parrot of Doom 14:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary of Modena/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As per your reccomendations, John, I sought the counsel of an experienced FA contributor, User:Jackyd101. Having already made substantial alterations to the prose in line with your comments, I was apprised of a specific list of problems by the said user. I have since corrected them. Thanks, -- Jack1755 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I infer from your protracted silence, Johnbod, that you wholeheartedly approve of the counsel I have sought and the ensuing alterations. Thus, I will maintain that you supported Mary of Modena for FA forevermore--UNLESS you contradict me on the FAC page the next time you sign in. Eight days and counting, -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No don't do that, and don't hassle people. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been ignoring me for 8 days, yes? -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, grow up! Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least my 'hassle' invoked the long-coveted reaction! Ha. Fine, I apologise, on one condition: you tell me why, exactly, you didn't reply.-- Jack1755 (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while, but there is a possibility the V&A will return to their work on Wikipedia. In the meantime we are busy rebuilding our website and would like to know if it's possible to generate a list of links from Wikipedia to the V&A. Our urls will be changing with the new site and am guessing it will be frustrating for Wikipedia users to be sent off to broken links. We are hoping we could find all our links and replace them with working urls. Does this make sense? Any advice appreciated. VAwebteam (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent news! While you've been gone,

This talk page section covers a similar request from another website about museums, & may be helpful. Let me, or the GLAM page, know if you have problems. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

What are you doing with that dirty angel at the top of your page? Don't you ever watch Doctor Who? Just don't turn your back on it. Amandajm (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing one's own AfD as keep is standard, is it not? I'm quite happy to revert it if necessary, but it seems somewhat pointless. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I was just coming to mention. Essentially, Black Kite's closure was withdrawing their nomination for deletion so the article was kept. If you want to discuss the copyright issues of the images on the page, that is something that would be discussed on the talkpage of the article or on the individual image talkpages... AFD is not the venue for that. Syrthiss (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a withdrawal, but a Keep with conditions. In fact the nom was a pointy one never intended to result in a deletion, as is clear from the discussion in the image clubroom. If you were just withdrawing it you should close it as "Withdrawn by nominator", so it can't be quoted as a precedent. To Syrthiss, obviously AFD would be exactly the venue for discussion if the AFD had been continued. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a Keep with conditions, though; if all I wanted to do was remove the non-free images I could have done that as a normal editing action (which I now have). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you to change your closure to the usual plain "Withdrawn as Keep", or I will take the matter to AN/I. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! I've just finishing (I hope!) writing Nuragic civilization. Do you know anything about that argument, or know somebody here who could intervene? Let me know and thanks! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm relatively new, not to editing but I'm not familiar with all possible policies and guidelines and such. I was wondering which person is really supposed to "take it to the talk page" first (assuming neither one can be arsed to). If you make an edit with a summary that only says "better" and I revert it with a vague but explanatory edit summary, aren't you supposed to take it to the talk page and explain your edit, since you really didn't explain in the first place? ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 14:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replied at Talk:Europhile. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a section. Yes, I know it was long already, but some nice Student wanted more quotations. I had a look and decided that the article needed a bit of basic simplicity. Amandajm (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! I couldn't see anything to add in the absence of a proper article on

tomb monument, but I don't think you saw where Navicella went! I added a bit to the fungus, but an article is needed. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there, Johnbod! Would you mind telling me which 'points' I haven't addressed correctly? Thanks so much! -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again John. I finally got my hands on that new release by Rose Mary Sheldon, Rome's Wars in Parthia: Blood in the Sand (2010). Needless to say, it has aided my efforts in addressing your concern about Rome's motivations for war against the Parthian Empire. I've mentioned all of this on the FAC page. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, nice meeting you over the Pentecost DYK you were so kind to approve. Did you notice that the page Thomanerchor was moved and changed (due to the talk about the hook), a step back in my opinion that should have been discussed before. Therefore I introduced ALT6. ALT 5 is not acceptable. The previous ones would confuse at the moment. If you have the time for a lengthy discussion please look here, 3 topics and perhaps get involved, bottom line: These names are used worldwide, known worldwide - and get unrecognizable in translation. If not please tick ALT6 only. The Thomanerchor appeared on DYK twice in April. Thanks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything in the company's web site about the company or any company named Voestalpine being owned by Siemens. The Siemens web site was no help either. Where did you get your information?

I was told about a translation service online, although that gave me what looked like tech support from India. So the German articles don't make sense either.

Sorry if it appeared not to be a policy discussion, but I needed guidance on where to go for advice. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here for example Search google on "Siemens VAI acquisition". VAI=Voestalpine Industrie. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I went to a library and they pretty much gave up, but maybe this will help. I'm at home and don't go to unfamiliar sites here, so I'll look it up later.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this was very helpful. I used the information here to make some major improvements to

Siemens VAI redirects to that article and not Voestalpine. I still haven't figured out the exact connection between the two companies.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, I never determined Siemens VAI is actually part of VA Tech Wabag, but there's more information about Siemens VAI there than anywhere else. Let me put it that way.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? It is all pretty confusing. You could just e-mail them asking them to clarify what the relationship is, if any. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's probably a good idea. I was avoiding using the companies' own web sites where I could, but that's exactly what I should be doing. And, yes, I suppose it's best to contact the company if we want accurate information. Neverheless, none of this is going to reopen that factory and that ugly building is just sitting there, though I heard some positive news from a librarian who knows someone who can't say anything yet..Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the company history on the web site is the same thing I saw on another site I tried. I guess the other site just copied Wabag. Anyway, I sure would like to see details that ought to be easier to find.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The (it had) phrase is a rather clumsy way of introducing the fraud of the goldsmith. According to Vitruvius, the king had heard reports of a fraud, and asked Archimedes to investigate.[7] It would be putting the cart before the scientific horse to assume that Archimedes already knew the answer before the experiment. The text from Vitruvius does not support the claim that the king was certain of the fraud before asking Archimedes, so he asked Archimedes to confirm the matter by devising an experiment. After all, why would the king need to ask Archimedes when he already knew, or could torture a confession from the goldsmith? This is why the wording was changed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my issue (i'm pretty puzzled how you could think it was). You have now reinserted the incorrect sequence that A ran around shouting Eureka after doing the test, when Vitruvius is clear this was after he realized how he could do the test. English comprehension does not seem to be a strong area for you, and I would leave it alone. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]