User talk:Johnbod/18 to Dec 2010

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

Liudhard medalet

I think it's pretty much complete, but I'm sure I'm wrong. Any chance you could look it over and tear it to bits? I'm thinking it's turned out pretty nice for a little bit of shiny yellow metal. Thinking FAC even... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look later. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks muchly. It'll be a big help, I'm sure. It'll probably be a bit before I get too far into it, but... it's much appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something completely different....

File:Winchestercathedralshaftesburybowl.jpg. I was especially struck by the "only complete piece of late Saxon glass in England"... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thks, they needed a pic at Anglo-Saxon glass. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dyk q(&a)

  • 1,500 characters? Surely that means 1,500 words, right? I ask 'cause you are the DYK god, or at least the only one I know... Tks. • 
    Ling.Nut 02:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No, characters (including spaces, but not lists, captions headers etc). Word will do a count for you. How's things? Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. But no publications, dammit. Also wanna do a DYK of
Ling.Nut 03:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Illuminated manuscripts

While I appreciate the note, I don't really agree. The gallery is a collection of random images, precisely what the policy seeks to avoid. As for "read[ing] the policy again", you will recall that I drafted it with you. I am not sure that being patronizing is a good idea. In any event, I left a note on the talk page and can hopefully work this out with the other editor. THese are good images, so there is likely some way in which the gallery can be improved. Regards. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Terra sigillata

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of Caesar

Ciao John. I'd like to receive your opinion about a recent edit war started at talk:Temple of Caesar. There's this new editor who's added a new version of the article, full of detailed informations but written in a very wikiamateur way (just as an example, writing words here and there in italics without reason, using "magazine style", overlong titles etc.). I wikified as possible his contain and so. However, now he continues to insist that tuff and tufa are the same thing, citing the sources he uses, despite Wikipedia article clearly states that this is a common mistake even in the most famous sources (especially if not geological ones). Let me know and thanks in advance. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for White Boar

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Temple of Caesar

Ciao! Notice that the Temple of Caesar guy is now, perhaps, using a sockpuppet account, user:Menuet111 for his revertions of his horrendous article. Let me know! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Brooches

Your brooches looks great. If I remember my hoard article never made it to a decent size, but I'll dust it off and see it there is something there. If you are impatient then feel free to "steal" it. Pleased to see Rosetta on mainpage today too. Victuallers (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've nicked this as you kindly suggested - now at Penrith Hoard, with credit. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and I've nommed it with hook at DYK! As usual change, delete and/or improve. Victuallers (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I can see why you abandoned it! The BM info is very confusing. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic art

Thank you for a welcome link illustrating Celtic Voices and Hale Bopp, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but if he thinks "Celtic art refers to a definite style of decoration", he's dead wrong! Johnbod (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will tell him. Saying things in half a line is too simple in most cases, with a tendency to be wrong. - As you are "on", would you mind looking at my DYK nom for Sep 19, Bach cantata 161, as I am on travel and not able to answer questions much later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borremose Bodies

Hello Johnbod, I am just wondering why you removed two categories from the

Borremose Bodies
page. They are considered mummies and archaeological human remains... so why did you remove those catogories? --
chat
14:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

See
WP:OCAT - articles should normally only be in the most specific category appropriate. Both the others are parents of "bog bodies). There are of course other categories (local etc) that should be added. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, thanks. --
chat 19:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Tapestry of Creation

DYK for Lycurgus cup

— Rlevse • Talk

• 00:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Celtic brooch

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod: your article on penannular brooches looks great. :) AgTigress (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! Wonderful stuff (I didn't even know we had good photos of the Tara brooch - time to pay attention, Kate!) - PKM (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's your photo! Thanks for that. - PKM (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artefacts

Nice Pic

DYK statistics

Done it - you just add it, but it's a bit fiddly. We did use the German vase picture, didn't we? Thanks for the comment above! Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Johnbod! Yes, that pic is in the TS article. I still think that if some of the other articles to which I have made a major contribution (e.g. Ancient Roman pottery) are classed as 'B', the TS one should be graded higher, because it is pretty comprehensive and fully illustrated and referenced now. But 'A' doesn't seem to be used much, and I don't understand, really, how it differs from the GA classification. Never mind! AgTigress (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Celtic brooch

— Rlevse • Talk

• 12:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

DYK for Penrith Hoard

— Rlevse • Talk

• 12:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Rossetti

I'll have a look, but he's right out of my period. I see you've asked Paul Barlow, who of course is a pro specialist.
talk) 22:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Vera Baird

Guilds in the Netherlands

Well, I'll have to look at my references, but as I recall them these were new. You of course don't reference to anything! I must say, at a period when Florence had no artists' guild, it is hard to see why Gouda - not now & certainly not then a "larger city" on any normal definition - should have had one. For artistic painters to have their own guild, not bundled up with housepainters, apothecaries, saddlemakers etc, is very much a new thing. I'm also dubious about talk of "secularization" - obviously all medieval life and institutions were mixed up with the church, but guilds were secular bodies not church ones, controlled by the councils not the bishop etc. The article is closely referenced & significant alterations without referencing won't do. Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I see your point. Of course I can't speak for Florence, since I know nothing about that. I'm also not sure that the Florence situation is relevant at all, since the Dutch were of course most influenced by their own specific form of government. The sources I have are all in Dutch, and I do reference whereever possible. In this case I was correcting the term "new guilds", because Haarlem, Utrecht, Delft, and Gouda did not start new guilds between 1568 and 1620, as the sentence states. Also, there were never any guilds anywhere exclusively for painters. Even the first "painting academies" were also used to train smiths and sculptors. All Dutch guilds were for more than one specific trade. In Haarlem the Brewer's guild was the most powerful, which is reflected in the fact that their chapel in the church was the largest, and their hofje still exists today. In Leiden, the clothmakers guild was the largest and most powerful, etc. As for your comment about secularization, the guilds were religious entities up until the Reformation. Before that they met formally at church, which was also their sales outlet. The church was the direct recipient and keeper of the dues, which were paid at church. The city councils only gained formal control of the guilds after the Reformation, not before. In Holland the concept of "Vroedschap" or council was basically the same as the guild regents. So these were all the same people who rotated their yearly assignments, in actual fact. I wasn't making a significant alteration, merely a small correction to a mistake.Jane (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if so that is very different from the rest of Europe. I'll have to dig up Prak again. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll leave you to it then. I can assure you though that the Dutch DO have a very strange form of self-government that is nothing like the rest of Europe!! They call it the polder model, and I suppose it all goes back to their struggles with floods. The governance in the guilds was based on something called co-optation. True democracy was only in the Water Boards. Jane (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing democratic about medieval councils! Far from it. But they were not run by the church. I'll try to look at it all this week. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks; I was basically "supportive" but I could see it was changing a fair deal, so I thought I'd wait. I agree major repairs are best avoided during the race. Hope your eye trouble is improved. Johnbod (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Masters

Well, don't worry - it is a very common mistake (imo) & some would say a matter of personal style. Unless the subject is really different I try to avoid sections of less than say 4 lines, but some might say my sections are too long.
Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User is the dating agency for mentors & mentees & User:Moni3 is a very high-class editor indeed, who is offering a spot. Also User:OhanaUnited is a name I recognise. Good luck! Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Anglo-Saxons

Re: Sutton Hoo

Israel - Establishment

I meant the article talk, not mine! All three remained "countries", even when not states; Israel did not. In any case those "establishments" are vague & excessive.
WP:TFAR

Camus Cross

Misunderstanding

Re: Sutton Hoo

FAC

Sorry, lost sight of it. I'll take a look. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks for your input on the FAC as it certainly helped improve the article. I have Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot) at GAN now, and only five more conspirators to go. Percy may well appear at FAC, I'm not certain there's enough on the Wrights or Wintours to get past GA. Keyes, certainly not. Parrot of Doom 18:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High Crosses

The term is not a technical one, but normally they should be freestanding. But we're also using it to embrace Anglo-Saxon crosses, which are certainly from the same tradition, but (depending on location) not usually referred to by the term. I'll have a look. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... I'm also puzzled by the inclusion of the likes of the Dupplin Cross in Template:European megaliths. It looks a little out of place there, although I'm by no means expert enough to make a judgement. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've taken that out. I think the main articles on Pictish stones & high cross (under Ireland) are ok, as no period is specified, but that's enough. Are there other individual ones? If so, they could go too. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also took the liberty of removing Clach a' Charridh, but the rest seem fine. I've also removed the template from the relevant articles Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You'll see I've added a bit to high cross, without excludsing them completely. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorant?

oh I see your post on the CFD, puts that in better light. So your saying that it's my POV as a Catholic to think that? I assure you I meant no mischief by it, truly... Outback the koala (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was just joking on the bear theme really. But whoever else might get confused, Eastern Catholics themselves are not just going to call themselves "Orthodox" without qualification, though EOs very often do. Looking at the people in the category, they were all what you would expect - Russians, Greek, & some converts. No doubt there is an Eastern Catholic category somewhere, I didn't look. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thiasus

Nonetheless it shows the thiasos actually in Dionysic action, not just trooping along decoratively, and powerfully so. It's pity you can't take pics of those sides, but they are all accessible via links except maybe one. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thought about sources

Yes, sadly it is much used by some - it should be banned, & is not an RS in the mid 19th century versions usually cited. I doubt it was updated too much, & 1920 is still too old to be ideal. But I don't know about 20th century editions. Actually "Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers" only gets 20 hits on here, which is fewer than I'd have thought. At the least, basic details should be checked against the Getty Union List of Artist Names Online if no other source is used. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, there may be nearly 500 hits for "Bryan, Michael"+Dictionary here. I'll think some more - biographies being my thing currently. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next question: is the Dictionary of Samuel Redgrave any better? Just British, though. That one already has a project at Wikisource. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've come across that used as a source here, nor does it pop up on google searches, unlike Bryan. It's that bit later, includes some first hand knowledge, & has a good brisk style. Later sources use it a fair bit I think, but the basic problem is the same. I forget who it was that we had an article for based on Bryan, when modern sources decided about 50 years ago the artist didn't in fact exist, but was actually another known artist recorded as a variant name (or something). It's no different with Vasari. Most people in the UK can get the DNB and Grove, now Oxford Art Online, at home via their library, & between the Tate, NPG, NMM and others there is usually a brief modern biog online somewhere, especially for British artists. I see we have Redgrave used as a ref, but not wholesale in the way Bryan is. His judgements are often very quotable, which is fine if it is "according to Redgrave" etc. Hope this helps. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I'm just dipping my toe in the water here. My main current interest being useful applications of old DNB text, I have created a few articles today including Samuel Redgrave and spent time linking them in, within your general area. William Young Ottley being one, it turns out that what the old DNB gives is probably only half the story (how he got hold of his art collection probably being of more interest now than his writings). Charles Matthews (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's raining thanks spam!Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (
    admin
    yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • 
    Ling.Nut (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • DYK for Easby Cross

    Orlady (talk

    ) 06:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

    DYK discussion

    Don't worry - I don't remember them as being so, & won't go back to look. I wish there were more people in the discussion though; it's just the same few going round in circles today, so I'll leave it a while. Johnbod (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks John. And re more people in the discussion: that may just be thread fatigue. It's hard to tell sometimes which thread is going to be the one that "counts." 28bytes (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Leo

    Well I generally downrate rather than uprate. But it seemed pretty comprehensive. Change it by all means if you no like. I won't pretend I read it all through. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A red link in Ivory carving...

    And File:Hermitagetiepolotriumpdentatus.jpg ... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    William Cragh

    Yes, I think he is a real case of 15 minutes of fame - or 15 days worth of surviving records, & I doubt much more can be got from him. I only know the tv programme Bartlett made about him. You might move some or all of note 2 into the text. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection I agree. I think that the bit about saints supporting hanged men's feet probably ought to be in the article body. Thanks.
    Fatuorum 02:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    DYK for Jacques Bellange