User talk:Johnbod/17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

From June 2010

Reverting Renaissance Humanism

Hi, Johnbod, you reverted my changes to Renaissance Humanism, including a lot of in line citations, on the grounds that the changes were too drastic and had not been adequately discussed, according to you. In point of fact, over a long period of time, I did put a lot of my objections to the article and suggestions for improvements on the discussion page, at least so I thought. No one addressed these and so I was bold, as we are enjoined to be.

In any case, I am very willing to discuss, defend, and supply in-line citations to any and all aspects of the changes I made. Is there something you have in mind particular that you find objectionable or unacceptable?Mballen (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted myself, as I won't have time to go into these, and the earlier changes you've made, in the next 2 weeks, & I accept you know more about the subject than I do. I admit some of the changes initially looked more drastic than they were in the diff, because of paragraphs appearing somewhere else. More citations would probably be a good idea. The rather inadequate edit summary did peeve me somewhat also. So please carry on for now. Sorry about that! Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Johnbod. I do still have a lot of problems with this paragraph, myself, however. I just wanted to take out or tone down the most egregious things. There is a lot of room for improvement. Sorry about the inadequate summary. I guess I was a little lazy.Mballen (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water Newton Treasure

Just out of interest, why did you remove my references and changes to Water Newton Treasure? I added some relevant information (ie replacing the vague 'due to the nature' with an actual description of why its thought they were used in a church) and two relevant sources which you then put into one external link. I see you were updating that particular link but surely a few inline citations would be useful too? The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 10:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'm puzzled as all I thought I did was update the link. I seem to have been editing the previous version without realizing it. I do plan to add to the article as promised at the meet - I have a BM exhibition catalogue with individual listings - but that won't be till the end of next week or later. I see you've readded. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_31#Category:Russian_painters_from_Saint_Petersburg

A new proposal has been made; your comments are welcome. postdlf (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Under the denominations section of Islam we are trying to get a reference percentages on the adherents of each denomination. But so far we only have sources on statistics for Shia and Sunni, not others such as Ibadi, Sufi or Ahmadiyya (which has led to edit warring). Could you add that to the list of substantial concerns in [Wikipedia:Featured article review/Islam/archive2] here please? Leave a message on my talk page please Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You kindly advised me in the past about pages relating to the BM's collections. I have made a page on the Hedwig glasses but am not very knowledgable on the subject so was wondering if you could cast your eye over it? Thanks Chasuble (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding so well! They are a fascinating topic. Chasuble (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I must admit I'd never heard of them, though they're just my kind of thing! Johnbod (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to Let You Know, I've nominated the article at Did You Know. Chasuble (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing the credit. I'm thinking I should take a camera up to the BM; only problem is I don't have one that works. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could always go Old School - are you handy with a pad and paints? Chasuble (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Realist visual arts

Hi John,

There is such thing as realist visual arts. The term is used in such sources as the following: [1], [2]. The problem with calling the article "Realism (visual arts)" is that disambiguators (ie. terms added in brackets at the end of the title) are only employed in order to distinguish the article's subject from an unrelated subject. The subject of the article currently entitled "Realist visual arts" is a subcategory of the larger artistic movement known as realism. Because it is part of the same subject and not a separate one, the disambiguator is inappropriate. If you do not believe that "Realist visual arts" is a term in sufficiently widespread usage, "Realism in visual arts" would be another acceptable option.

Neelix (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your first example uses an adjectival form of socialist realism, the second is just notes. You won't find many more. Realism in painting had different timing to the movement in other arts, & is often very different in character. Your OR view that it is the "same subject" as realism in other arts won't hold water. Can't you see that "Realism in visual arts" is ungrammatical? Please reverse this& spare me the trouble of getting it done. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John,
If realism in visual arts was not a subcategory of the larger art movement known as realism, a section about realism in visual arts would not be included on the Realism (arts) article. Realism (arts) is the parent article; calling the article specific to visual arts "Realism (visual arts)" would be like calling the Funerary art article Art (funerals). "Realism in visual arts" is not ungrammatical, but on second thought, "Realism in visual art" (without the 's') may be more appropriate. There are plenty of sources that employ this construction: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Would you object if I moved the article to Realism in visual art?
Neelix (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again that's a different subject - "realism" not "Realism". Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John,
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what it is you mean by your last comment. What's a different subjet?
Neelix (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GLAM/BM

"BM-related The Disasters of War"?[7] Hundred quid each so. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've got to do one starting from now (the FAC not the article - I think). I'm certainly going to have a shot, & so should you. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I'm searching around for articles that have have a strong and easily accessable biblo. Sourcing is the hardest parts of these things: in my experience, sourcing alone usually costs far above £100. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I like the Royal Gold Cup but there's not much on it. Someone has started a little one on the Lothair Crystal, which is right up my street, but I want it all - no squabbling over shares! We'll see. Also one needs decent photos. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great - it's not my area, archaeology - outside of stones in Cork, but I'll be guided. Sorry for sounding flippant intially, I think this is a good development in general; if we can show some credibality likely there is a large resource that might become accessable which if used skillfully and respectfully is something both parties want. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well they must have some Irish plunder, which might be easier to source over there. At the moment the follow-up to the visit is mainly producing infoboxen & templates. Then there are drawings, and some prints - I only included the Disasters in the cat because of the BM album - just having a copy of a print ain't enough in my view. There's an online catalogue of Rembrandt drawings eg this, which have loads of other coverage. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting out
Knight, Death, and the Devil as a possible. I know Lith, Riggr, Yoman and Raul are interested in Dürer, so it seems like good common ground. And from an afternoon searching and looking, there are a lot of sources out there. I suggest this as the first BM collab by us for FA, though I'm very much open to suggestion. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, a good number of sources, though I'm going for a solo one first. Still not sure what - I need a camera.

KD&D was a big Nazi favourite, among other things. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you re solo effort, given your form since I've known you I'm sure it will be outstanding as usual. The Nazi thing re KD&D I had not realised - fine...more juice. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, sorry I wan't thinking. I don't think myself the KD&D should be categorized under the BM as they have only maybe 2-3 of at least several hundreds of impressions (starting price now maybe £15k). The Disasters were different because of the album, which was unique. Otherwise one might as well make Category:Prints (art) a sub-cat of the BM and several other large collections. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halkett boat

I have listed the FA status of Halkett boat as needing review.[8] Piano non troppo (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao back up, better than ever

Hi, some time ago, you reviewed St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao. I wanted to let you know that it is back up for FAC, and is greatly improved since you last saw it. If you have some time to look at it, I would appreciate your feedback. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish Rider

If we work on The Polish Rider it could be featured on the front page as a good new article, see The Polish Rider. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have time to do anything I think, sorry. It is approved for DYK already. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find out that an article has been approved? Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's where you nominated it (if it was you) - follow the link on "what links here" - later it will be set up on a page & go to a queue. Let me know if you can't find it. I added a bit as you can see. Googlebooks have a lot on it [9] Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hedwig glass

-- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]


Royal Gold Cup

That's extraordinary! Well done! I presume you're going to list this for a DYK? Would you like me to get you in touch with the curator (i.e. put yourself on the "one on one collaborations" list) and potentially go all the way to claim the first FA Prize? That would be so excellent if you did. I just went and saw that very object today for the first time and thought... "someone should write an article about that..."

Lama 13:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks! I'll add it to DYK today, & it will certainly be trying to beat the queue at FAC, perhaps after a quick Peer Review. It really needed a photo, but fortunately JMiall, who was at the BM day had already taken a couple. It really needs more of details though. I'd certainly be glad if someone could look at it, & I have some questions, though as you can see there are a number of good sources I have already. It isn't finished yet, but most of the sections are there. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you would add it to
Lama 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, thanks, I'll wait till it's more finished. They are mostly small points. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. And thanks for keeping the
Lama 15:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok. Friday should be fine - I'm intrigued. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is:
Lama 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I saw. I'll be there! Looks fun, if a bit chaotic. I don't have a laptop though (or a camera), but it's probably just as well if everybody doesn't edit at once. Will one or more copies of the big Bland & Johns catalogue on the hoard be available? That's what we need. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... lack of laptop might be tricky though - how will you contribute? We'll work something out I suppose. Not only will we have copies of the cataloge - we'll have both of the authors attending!
Lama 01:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I saw that, but for an FAC you need the page refs. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touchdown Jesus

Hey there - Have you heard what happened to Touchdown Jesus a couple of days ago? As soon as I heard the news, I thought, "OMG - I've got to leave a note for Johnbod!" :) Cgingold (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - You might be interested in a new category I created & started populating yesterday: Category:Films about artists. I can't believe nobody had ever created it before. Cgingold (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I heard, indeed saw film of the wreckage, but didn't realize it was "one of ours". Mind you, this is the true Touchdown Jesus to my mind - I see we have a disam page. I hadn't realized it was a fire hazard; if they built it so flimsily they're lucky a tornado didn't carry it off - now that would be a sight! All the best, Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - I just checked Category:Colossal statues of Jesus and it's now up to 14 articles! Cgingold (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added Caravaggio (film) & no doubt others will occur. But hadn't you better specify it is for films about historical visual artists, otherwise it will soon fill up with films about fictional rappers? Hope the recovery is proceeding ok. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for prints

I've been using your name in vain again :-)

Lama 12:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Edmund Evans

I want to thank you for your help with him. It's been most valuable. I think I should be nominate while still in possession of the books - in your opinion, is the article ready?

talk) 21:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I think probably, but I can never tell. It's certainly come on tremendously. Usually captions include at least most of the links again. Maybe a really basic explanation of relief printing early on - people get very confused by talk of printing techniques & this assumes a certain amoiunt of knowledge. I'd ask Awadewit, who said on the talk "let me know if you want a line-by-line review before FAC" - she's very thorough & it's a good offer. Well done anyway! Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell either. I'll ping Awadewit, but I think she's in semi-retirement (or busy), but she did make time to drop by, so maybe she will again. Good suggestion re basic explanation of printing. Thanks for looking it over.
talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
She's always busy, but as she said she would I expect she will. I'll keep an eye on it. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which five?

  • Ling.Nut 02:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If you mean the £££prizes$$$ - all the books you can eat - I'm going with Royal Gold Cup, which is currently listening to Vivaldi down the line at Peer Review. There's plenty of choice, but you need something with sources you can access. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crap! I misunderstood! I thought you had to get five FAs to win! You mean, each FA wins? crap! • 
Ling.Nut 02:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yup, the first 5 past the post - but in any language. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Tara

Hi, I'm not convinced your change is an improvement. The article Salihundam already references the statue itself (as it was found there) and well as up to the more general goddess article, whereas the disambiguation page you now have the link pointing to has nothing directly relevant. Fæ (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu and Buddhist art are full of statues, and still more scuptures, of Tara [10]; the BM example has no claim to primacy. Given there are two articles I think it has to go to the disam page. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point I'd overlooked. Cheers Fæ (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lost edit and offer to participate on Hoxne Hoard

Thanks for letting me know about my lost edit. May I presume then, that the reason I could not get back to Funerary Art was because of your intervention at the article? That coincidence is not likely to happen often. I was afraid that with the new program, there had been a wholesale change so that one could never get back to an edit following checking links while in a preview status of that edit. That would be problematic and would need addressing if true.

Funerary Art is such a good article. I'll go back and rework it for a polish as I have time. I suspect, however, that I shall begin to copy my edits to my computer before chasing links again!

Yes, I am interested in the project, Hoxne Hoard, and will sign up. May not be able to lend a hand consistently, given other obligations this week, but will make some contributions as possible. I may need some help understanding the project process. Thanks. ----83d40m (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not me, honest guv, I wasn't editing it at the time - I just saw your "lost" edit summary. And it's not part of the new trial - reviewed changes & all that. I must say I lost edits by doing the same thing early on in my WP career, so never picked up the habit. Then later doing it by mistake it sometimes did seem to be ok, but I still don't do it deliberately. I've no idea why it does or doesn't work, but no doubt a more techie editor would. Sorry about that. Glad you like it - it is er patchy, but I like it. There was not a single source we ever found that addressed the subject on the same worldwide, all-time basis. After a while you realize why, but I think it's a valiant effort. Excellent to have you aboard on Hoxne. If you look at the talk page you'll see there is no real project process planned, except a) onsite team mob with distinguished authors for four hours; b) onsite team go to pub & let Americans tidy it up; c) er.... All the best Johnbod (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{British-Museum-db}}

WRT your recent problem, there is a warning about this on the template documentation. If there are square brackets around the template the wiki parser will not necessary interpret these in the expected order. If you had an extra space or stop at the end of the template then it should display correctly. Fæ (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks - I hadn't added it in fact. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The templates {{Bracket}} and {{Brackets}} may help. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Royal Gold Cup

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Parable of the Prodigal Son

As an art expert, could you cast your eye over Parable of the Prodigal Son when you have time?

I'm unsure of some statements, a citation or two may be needed, and the section is VERY short given the masses of art on the parable. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan/Spanish medieval masterworks

Ciao! Lately I am devoting in adding articles on Catalan/Aragonese religious buildings, such as:

which were unexplicably forgotten here (it seems few Spaniards actually contribute, at least in art - perhaps their only interest is soccer!!!! GRRRR!!!), while a host of Anglosaxon useless edifices have tons of pages filled with nothing. Joking. Let me know if you've time to help, since as usual my English and my architectural terms could be questionable. Thanks and good work!!!

barnstar

The
British Museum
barnstar
More than anyone, you deserve this.
Lama 23:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks! Not more than you, of course! It's been a great experience, & I hope will continue to develop. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And congratulations on winning the first BM FA prize! I'm delighted for you. Do email me (mcock AT britishmuseum.org) Matthewcock (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Gold cup pics

Hi John, I have a number of pics like commons:File:Royal gold cup 1.JPG - I think the colour comes out a bit better than in your shots of the Cup so will upload a few more! The Land (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great; if possible crop close to the cup. Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably simplest right now if I upload the decent images I've got - my brain is a bit fried! If you can pick out the 4 best images from different aspects, I'll happily crop those and play with colour balance etc. The Land (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks - a busy day I'll bet! Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Have uploaded 7 images to the commons cat, let me know if you want any cropped etc, also if you can add more descriptive text that would be helpful. The Land (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've just been looking at them, thanks! Can I confirm tomorrow, but I think certainly #s 2& 5 with just the slice showing the underside scene, like the one already done - File:British Museum Royal Gold Cup Detail.jpg. And #5 just cropped to the 2 added cylinders. I look at them again tomorrow, cheers Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Priory

Many thanks for supporting my nomination at FAC; it's been promoted today.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 17:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Anna Wintour

Thanks for your support of its first FAC; you seem to have gotten it a little better than the other reviewers. I suppose when you rely on magazine articles for so much sourcing, you will unconsciously start emulating their style.

Nevertheless, the review did identify legitimate issues which I am addressing, and I do intend to take it back in a couple of weeks or so when I have fully done so. Hope to see you then. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll keep an eye out. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hoxne Hoard

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Indenting

Hi -- I don't know if you care about wiki markup, and I hope you're not offended by me explaining something to a veteran such as yourself, but I noticed you were using the indent markup in a way that suggested you didn't know exactly how it works. Geometry Guy explained it to me some time ago; I'd been making mistakes in it for years. The rule is actually quite simple: to indent, you take whatever the markup was on the previous line, and add to that. So to indent after "**" you put either "**:" if you don't want a bullet, or "***" if you do want a bullet. If you do anything else at all, the system assumes you're starting a new paragraph and won't necessarilyi give you what you expect. Hope that's useful, and I hope I'm not driving you crazy with nitpicking the article -- it's a really terrific achievement and I am sure I'll be supporting it soon. Mike Christie (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind at all - I never understand the * indents; I know where I am with just the colons. I'll try to remember. Do adjust anything that looks untidy. The article has had so many cooks it really needs a thorough pick-through, so it's very welcome. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken footnote to Potter

The footnote you added to the Potter book was cut off - the page number and closing </ref> tag were missing. I've reformatted to {{

harvnb}} - could you drop in the proper page number or ping it to me and I'll add it? Thanks heaps. - PKM (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Done, sorry Johnbod (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for article

Thank you - I've put in some changes to address your recommendations and now hope the copyedit wizards can work their magic. - Wallanon (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There we go again

At least this time, you know before hand:

Resurrection of Jesus in art. History2007 (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks - the move just now seems a bit pointless frankly; it won't figure much in Hindu art, after all. I'll get my Schiller out later. NB I think
Three Marys (West) should probably be merged; I have at least cross-linked the 2 now. Johnbod (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I only did the move after I remembered the "Crucifixion of the arts" joke about Manga and whatever it was. And I agree about the Myrrhbearers. But I do have a rather freightning thought now: what if Manga ever meets Hindu art? The world may not survive it... History2007 (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like RG Veda? -Andrew c [talk] 14:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are all doomed, we are all doomed! Let us all drive up right now to the bunker (really, really) that Seymour Cray had prepared for such a day and just hide there. Wink. History2007 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Gold Cup

Well done, and congradulations. I hope you are considering Marine art for the same punishment. Ceoil (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Ceoil said (except I would spell "congratulations" correctly). ;-) • 
Ling.Nut 10:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Well done...Modernist (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's my first solo FAC without either the VA posse or Ling Nut. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Terrific article. I am delighted to see a "minor arts" FA. - PKM (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, and on the front page already!! Whoo-hoo! - PKM (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Belated congrats on your FA - it's a great article, even more impressive given the time in which you took it from a blank page to FA, and quite the prettiest I've seen too! Chasuble (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both! Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medals

Something else left over from the British Museum, and the visit at the beginning of June. The head of Medals told me that when he'd looked, medal went straight into the military type, ignoring the Renaissance background almost entirely. And he's right about that. I looked around a little for the early history - maybe back to the 1390s even, and commemorative medals based on Roman coins like the sestertius. But it occurred to me that this is more up your street. Just some few paragraphs would make quite a difference. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well sort of; the lead pic is at least a Pisanello, which I added. I put in this [11] in late 2006, which has ended up in the miltary section - maybe better in the lead. I think I had it in a general "history" section. I'll see what I can add, though I don't have too much material & the military may be likely to move anything added down to the "medal as art" section, now added low down. Keep it watchlisted & give me a few days. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done a new "History" section. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Indigenous Australian art

Dear Johnbod, I have been working on the above article, on and off, for some months now. On the one hand, I'm taking a less active role at WP these days, but on the other, this is one of a group of articles I'd like to ultimately see through GA and FA. I'm looking for some input on what the article is missing: what would you want to see in this if it were to be comprehensive? I mostly do biographies, so a broad subject like this is not something i'm necessarily great at putting together from the ground up. As the joint creator of the fabulous Funerary art, I'd be grateful if you'd take a moment to leave some comments on the article talk page if you have time. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iconoclasm

generalise "christianity" to "abrahamic religions" since they all derive motivation from the ten commandments and there are examples from all three in the "major instances" section below

rvt - not the case in Islam

Don't get it. Islam doesn't take the 10c as "canon", but it certainly respects and is inspired from them; what am I missing? 82.6.108.62 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic iconoclasm derives from the Qu'ran & the actions of the Prophet, not the 10C, which few muslims have much idea about. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chasse (casket) Article

Well done on the new article - excellent stuff. I have a few observations and suggestions but no criticisms (apologies for the formatting of what follows - haven't really mastered the mark-up yet):

1) You mention hinged lids and bases but a higher proportion of Limoges chests have a hinged 'door' occupying one or other of the gabled end (it's always amused me that a number of these have an iconic standing figure of St Peter holding his keys and in several cases the keys are adjacent to the lock - a nice visual pun).

2) Although you're right about the normal chests having plaques nailed to a wooden core, from the mid-13th Century some were also produced just using thick metal plates held together with mitres and pegs. I may be wrong but I think there is mention of the latter in; W. F. Stohlman, 'Quantity Production of Limoges Champlevé Enamels', in Art Bulletin, 17(3), 1935, pp. 390-94.

3) I think perhaps you overplay the cheapness of Champleve enamelled chests - they would still have been luxury products beyond the reach of most. The massively greater survival of champleve enamels over cloisonne is mainly down to two factors - firstly champleve uses relatively thick rigid sheets of copper that are more resistant to the torsional stresses which cause enamel to flake off, secondly (more importantly) a high proportion of Cloisonne enamelled objects were subsequently melted down for their gold content - less of a problem with the copper/bronze plaques used for champleve. In terms of difficulty there isn't a great deal of difference between the two techniques.

4) The pitched-roof/gabled ended design has never been fully explained but my own view is that it relates to a tradition of tomb design dating back to those Etruscan sarcophagi that resembled simple houses. The earliest example I am aware of regarding the use of this shape for a reliquary chest is the Merovingian 'Châsse de Mumma' in St-Benoit-sur-Loire (7th century).

5) Regarding the extraordinary profusion of chasses featuring the Magi, I feel it is unlikely that Archbishop Rainald of Cologne would have started giving away core bodily relics of the Magi so soon. An alternative explanation put forward by Marie Madeleine Gauthier is that they were made to distribute fragments of the old shrine of the Magi from St Eustorgio in Milan, sanctified by long contact with the Magi (see M.-M. Gauthier and G. François, Émaux méridionaux: Catalogue international de l'oeuvre de Limoges - Tome I: Epoque romane, Paris 1987, p.101).

6) Although enamel production in the Limousin was in decline by the end of the 13th century, what really killed off the industry there (and much else besides) was the sacking of Limoges by Edward the Black Prince in 1370.

7) As well as the book by Gauthier and François mentioned above (the first vol of what was to have been a comprehensive corpus of medieval enamels), some useful further references are Ernest Rupin‟s massive 1890 study l’Oeuvre de Limoges and, more practically, J. P. O'Neill and T. Egan, eds., Enamels of Limoges, 1100-1350 (Metropolitan Museum of Art), Yale 1996 (one of my top five most useful exhibition catalogues on any topic!)

Feel free to use any of that or ignore it as you wish. As luck would have it, I included a chapter on Limoges enamel reliquary chests in my PhD thesis and since my viva is this Friday, so I have the references close at hand!

Cheers, Stuart

StuartLondon (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much; I'll copy this to the talk on the article if that's ok. I couldn't pin down to a really specific ref what seems to be the case, that in English the term is used based on shape, and partly size (small), and in French mainly on size (large) - does that seem right? Needless to say the OED was no use - see their "Cloisonné". I'll work these useful points in. I've been working through such enamel articles as we have, now collected in Category:Vitreous enamel & any help is most welcome. The NGA catalogue (online) has an alternative explanation on the popularity of the Magi, based on Plantaganet play-acting. Good luck with the viva! Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid even specialist art-historical dictionaries and encyclopedias tend to be pretty useless for medieval art. For Chasse, Oxford Art Online (what used to be the Grove Encyclopedia of Art) simply gives "Term for a container used to hold the relics of a saint" while the Oxford Companion to Western Art just has "a box or casket, often with a gabled roof, usually containing relics of a saint or holy person. see reliquary." Often this kind of vagueness is because historians are picking up on equally vague usage of such words in medieval accounts or late-medieval inventories. In France I've occasionally seen the term used for ornamented secular boxes, probably because some pompous 19th century curator thought it sounded better than 'boite'. I think it makes better sense here to restrict its meaning to the reliquary context. StuartLondon (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copied to the talk page there. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Artworks in metal

renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Wizard191 (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for the heads-up, but you'll see I have opposed. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category for Isabella Brant (drawing)

Hi Johnbod, I've corresponded with the prints and drawings department curator at the BM and she considers the portrait a drawing not a painting as the object does not contain any paint. If there is no separate category for drawings, can it remain uncategorised for now please? Thanks. Noelypole (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All these painting-centric categories should be renamed "works", but in the meantime are usually treated as though that is what they are. The main thing is to group Ruben's works together, surely? Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that "works" covers a wider range of media. I'm sure under "works" category, when it gets created, can be sub-categorised. Will look into it and get back to you on that one. Noelypole (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are unlikely ever to be enough articles on drawings to justify by artist sub-cats. But whatever. Your article will just be much easier to overlook now. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess the creation of more articles on drawings will re-address the issue. It really doesn't matter that the article is much easier to overlook since being de-catergorised. It is certainly not a competition to see how many hits this page gets. I'm just making sure that the information disseminated to the public is sound. Noelypole (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've found categories can't really be treated in too purist a way. You could always add a note with a link to the categories page. Other "paintings by" categories have the odd non-painting article included, and I would oppose the removal of these. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

The footnote to the quote I messed with says "translation from Dalton". I'm not sure whether this means that Dalton printed his translation and you quoted or that Dalton quoted in the original and you translated it. Which is it?

Peter Isotalo 19:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quoting his translation; otherwise it would say "translated from Dalton". Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Right.
Peter Isotalo 19:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main page

The lopsided cups of good hope Visual Arts Barnstar
John, congratulations on main page, and its always a pleasure to look at and read your articles. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)|}[reply]

Repeat

So now I'm the ref formating guy? Cheers. Anyway, without wanting to repeat myself, I very much think you should do to Marine art art what you did to the cup; the sea page is such a strong article and so attractively laid out; go on. Eh. eh? I know you lurve it. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be in Bristol next weekend - if you know the city are there good pictures to see. Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's some PRB stuff at the City Museum - Millais' Bride of Lammermoor (nothing to get excited about imo), some Burne-Jones and a few associated artists. Yomanganitalk 23:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, not very sexy so. I think most Millais is cheese. Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been to the Museum I'm afraid, or inside St Mary Radcliffe, the spectacular Gothic church. A lot of the centre is very nice Georgian, but I guess you get that in Dublin. I don't think I'll do Marine art - it's one of those ones like funerary art, where you could expand it indefinitely, & people will always ask why this n'that aren't mentioned. Better leave it small as it is I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fair enough, I take your point. I'll take in Saint Mary's while I'm there. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindow Man dates

You suggested letting the British Museum know about conflicting information with Joy and Buckland. A good idea, but how would I go about doing that? Is there a particular e-mail address?

Nev1 (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

jjoyATbritishmuseum.org - from Liam's link on the LM talkpage. I only notified mine last Friday & they've changed them by today. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. Thanks,
Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

DYK for Chasse (casket)