User talk:Johnbod/23

Excellent work at

]

		The Barnstar of Fine Arts
		For excellent work in a collabrative spirit on talk) 16:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks! I seem to be getting properly stuck in & may well edit in bursts for a week or two now, or even more; there's a lot that needs adding. The moral/social side certainly needs dealing with too. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only had time to do a very small amount to change the direction it was going which at the time I stepped in was a bit confusing. All I got around to was the overview and even that needed improvement.--

I would like to take a look at MOS on images to better make use of media like images on the Neoclassicism page and some other art pages. I have been doing some recent research into what is actually allowed for the formatting of pages and there is more allowed then what average pages do. Perhaps we can work together on the one article (

talk) 20:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

What sort of things do you have in mind? I'm just following my usual style, which is pretty much what you get on art FAs these days. I find people don't mind lots of images where they are clearly needed to explain the subject. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i haven't gotten back to you sooner. I was thinking that we could look over MOS and see where we can be a little more creative and still be withing guidelines for images. I would love to present the images in a way to improve the article and use existing and new gudelines to present the art in a manner that allows the reader to see thw work in both context to the article and subject, but in a manner that is perhaps a little more visualy interesting.--

talk) 21:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The Philadelphia Museum of Art is interested in finding a Wikipdian with whom they can work to improve coverage of the art content related to the PMA. Would you be interested, or could you recommend someone who is? The criteria are: (1) an experienced editor (2) with an interest in the arts (3) who preferably lives in the Philadelphia area. (This is not a Wikipedian in Resident position - yet. They are still exploring that possibility) Raul654 (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm based in London, but am happy to advise & work remotely, by Skype etc. Or there is the Wikipedia:GLAM/US, with User:Smallbones the local rep. Or some combination. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...for your input. Very best, as always, JNW (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've (at long last) got round to nominating Cyrus Cylinder for GA status - it's been on my to-do list for ages but somehow I never seemed to get round to it. Do you know anyone who might be willing to carry out the review? Prioryman (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I never do them, as I have no idea of what GA standards are supposed to be, after observing a number of reviews. Are you supposed to ask people? I would suggest Malleus, whose semi-retirement seems to be reducing. Or User:Brianboulton. But I don't really know the group who do them other than those also doing FACs. Is the article stable now? Didn't you get BM curator comments at some point? It might be worth pointing to them. Good luck anyway. For an article like that, a peer review first might be an idea, if you're not in a rush. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you participated in earlier CfDs about related categories, I want to make sure you know about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#Category:Church buildings in the United States by state. --Orlady (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonbo, I don't like to be indelicate, but your wonderful and most useful list of Climate Change is 100% without references. Is it possible? Amandajm (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid so, but all the linked articles are referenced. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you've commented at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murasaki Shikibu/archive1. Now I found the lead image was inappropriate, but Truthkeeper does not agree with me. It would be grateful if you could post your comment at Talk:Murasaki Shikibu#Wrong picture. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was told this was canvassing. I posted RFC at

WT:FAC#RFC on Murasaki Shikibu. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi! I need help for again a troll reverting Teramo to his very poor, badly formatted and often semilliterate version of Teramo. Can you? Ciao and thanks. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, Thanks for the correction to the painting of Horrocks, I was wondering how make it clear which was the title of the painting and what was the desciption. The semi-colon is certainly better than my 'from'. Richerman (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Visual Arts for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Perhaps you'd be interested in

I don't know if you've decided yet whether or not you'll be attending the World War I editathon, but if you're still interested, there are definitely places available.

Just to let you know we've finalised the list of academics who'll be attending the editathon next month, along with their areas of specialisation. If any of these are topics you'd be particularly interested in collaborating on, or you want to suggest articles in those fields that need work, please do make a note on the page - it'd be great if we could have some suggested topics ready in advance.

Any questions, do let me know... Andrew Gray (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rather incurred your displeasure for failing to provide a section on "Reputation" in the article on Sir Jaws, but another editor and I have Monteux up for PR, and we have included just such a section. If, perchance, you have time and inclination to look in at the PR page and comment ad lib on the article it will be most welcome. Tim riley (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not for a while as I'm between 2 trips - I also have a lot less Monteux on the shelf than Solti - like most I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, Thanks for your response to my comment about war and art for the WWI Edit-a Thon. I have added some more to the discussion on my talk page. Can you have a look and say what you think about the suggested direction? Cheers, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to this article in helping it to achieve FA status. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, & congrats! One day I will add a little more on the interestingly "unofficial" persistence of Sharpe's terms. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Core Contest Equal Third Prize
	I hereby award this Antique Metal Wikitrophy to Johnbod for work on improving the Romanticism article in the March 2012 incarnation of the Core Contest! Wikimedia UK will be in touch shortly with details on the £30 voucher... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos Johnbod!..Modernist (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Guettarda (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks all! And congratulations to the other winners! I think a most useful contest, which should be repeated sooner than another 4 years! Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me as well! Kafka Liz (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might want to expand Taxatio Ecclesiastica.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Ealdgyth - Talk's area? I really only do MS with pretty pictures. It would be useful to locate some of the manuscripts.

Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary "(rvt vandalism; remove your own comment by all means - don't mess with mine" is a blatant and outrageous personal attack. From what you said on that page, it's already apparent that you're not very familiar with the rules, which is bizarre, considering you boast about being "one of the 400 most active Wikipedians". My contribution to the talk page was certainly not vandalism and to accuse me of such is a flat out lie. I have never ever vandalised any page on Wikipedia. Even without the false accusation of vandalism, an edit summary is supposed to describe what you did to the article; it's not a platform for talking directly to other editors. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You removed the comments of 2 editors, one of whom you are in an edit war with. I suggest you ask at ANI & see what happens. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I missed that edit. Incredible, talk about 'rules', you don't delete other people's good faith edits like that.

talk) 20:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You set up your poll in a way to make it look like anyone commenting was participating in your sham. I didn't want to give legitimacy to your stupid games and I couldn't think of any other way to prevent you or Mzilikazi claiming my comment as a vote. After all, Mzklaizi has already been misrepresenting what Dougweller said the whole time, so he wouldn't need much opportunity to start with me. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, please. You're just proving yourself extraordinarily tendentious over something that adds up to bugger-all. Stop impugning the motives of everyone who disagrees with you. Obviously, Johnbod set up the poll before you left your comment. Look at the editing history. Sheesh. Haploidavey (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added (over the existing comments on the subject) a section for "Complaints about the poll process", which should solve that. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's a good idea. I'm only a new editor so I'm not familiar with the different formatting options available. Haploidavey, no one disputed the order of the edits; the issue was that the headings for the poll were above the space for subsequent comments.(WP Editor 2011 (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Haploidavey is currently too

riven by finagles to offer a sensible reply. When healed of his wound, he'll respond on the appropriate talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No I hadn't - particularly brilliant timing on your part because at the very same minute as you left your message, I was leaving this one asking for some JSTOR articles! I've pinged the alumni office for my number so look forward to using it. Many thanks for thinking of me,

Just show it sometimes pays off to look at the junk mail! Johnbod (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the link [1]. NB All, I think I also have a free 1 yr sub to the London Review of Books to give away to any UK person. Johnbod (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for spotting this! It reminded me that Durham give alumni access as well - digging around, it looks like there's a lot more than I realised. Aberdeen, Durham, Exeter, London, Liverpool, Manchester, Oxford... Andrew Gray (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though in fact Oxford isn't on that list - not the main JSTOR list; I think they may be just setting it up. Johnbod (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I wonder how many more are in the pipeline - it's a long way off universal access, but it could be a great help if we can get people aware of it. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The University of London access costs £177.96 p.a. I don't know whether any of the others are cheaper? Jheald (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Category:Depictions_of_the_Virgin_Mary

...has been closed. Obviously feel free to implement the split. - jc37 20:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, someone had started it, but I think I've finished the rearrangement. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find this "previously unknown" reworking of Elizabeth and the Three Goddesses of interest - check out the "lot notes". - PKM (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice - lots 44 and 47 also of interest. Btw, I have been adding at Neoclassicism#Neoclassicism_and_fashion from a disparate collection of sources, not all referenced up yet. Is there a single good book? It needs integrating into the main "by period" series, and again highlights how unfortunate the break at 1795 is. Humph! I'm going to Wikimania this year, I don't suppose you are? All the best. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to Wikimania, no. I'll take a loot at Neoclassicism. I am not aware of a single best reference on the look, though I have some chapters here and there.

Thinking about an article on Elizabeth and the Three Goddesses in all its variants. I haven't been writing much - busy in the real world - but this could be fun to get started on. Adding the Oliver to Commons tonight. - PKM (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to grab any of the other drawings? - PKM (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually those two might be nice, but they're only "circle of" so don't worry if you're pressed. The "Contento" is the more useful one. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i'l grab them. - PKM (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving a not at the talk page of

No problem! Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are now in Commons: Il Contento and The Lupercalian Festival in Rome. - PKM (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, thank you for your kind message! I am actually working with the Wikipedian-in-residance at MNAC this week to improve The Consecration of Saint Augustine's page, and that of the artist if I have the time. A group of us are doing this as part of a project for a two week seminar in Barcelona with Johns Hopkins University. We are all new to Wikipedia, so I really appreciate your help. And I agree, the painting is very beautiful. Neochichiri11 (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will let them know. Neochichiri11 (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I'm a Museum Studies JHU Student and I'm working on a page about a painting by Ramon Casas. I wonder if you'd be willing to take a look and make any suggestions or edits. Here's a link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramon_Casas_and_Pere_Romeu_on_a_tandem. Thank you! 81.184.17.235 (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Alanaquinn1[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I am part of the Johns Hopkins Wikipedia Seminar Program and very new to Wikipedia. If you have a moment or two, I would greatly appreciate your insight or any edits you may have. Thank you much in advance, Vking_jhu --Vking jhu (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_My_Dead_Body_(Ramon_Casas)#Modernism[reply]

Ok, looked at those two - nice & not much needed doing, but at

Ramon_Casas_and_Pere_Romeu_on_a_tandem I started to change the ref style to one that doesn't repeat the whole book every time, which is better. Ideally include ISBNs. I didn't mess with the web cites on the other (I hate those, but they are liked by many), but the same thing applies. Best to avoid "currently exhibited" as displays change, though admittedly none of these are likely to come off, unless for exhibitions or restoration. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have achieved liberation now and will only look at Wikipedia every few days. This message is in case you were assuming that I may still be watching pages such the the vandalism magnet of St. George. So I would like to leave that page and the obvious Christian art pages in your hands. Take care, and thank you having been a real gentleman in the past few years, on every occasion. History2007 (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-ha, that's what they all say! Listen out for the bloodhounds & good luck! I'll miss you if you really are going, & let you know if anything significant has brewed up for your return visits. All the best, & thanks for all your excellent work. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between me and all is that I do what I say. Believe me, had you known me in real life you would have believed it. Anyway, one thing I forgot to mention was that the "depictions of Jesus" page is the one that needs real help. And there is a page Race and appearance of Jesus that relates to it and after a brouhaha it just calmed down, after I rewrote it a few months ago. So if you watch that it will be great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	Your kicking bot-butt fixing those sculpture categories. thank you! Sarah (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks, but it's only about half done! Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of initiating a third FA run for Fellows v. Blacksmith, or perhaps just a peer review first. Since you were the only commenter at the last nomination, I wanted to see whether you feel any of your comments remain unresolved first. Savidan 01:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much at FAC, & won't be reviewing it, if that answers your question. Third time lucky! Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already asked the deleting administrator to be more careful next time; so that he doesn't leave articles stranded in redlinked categories, he needs to do one of three things if a category already has articles in it: (a) leave it alone, regardless of who created it, (b) nominate it for CFD instead of deleting it arbitrarily, or (c) depopulate it himself before deleting. But once the categorization project suddenly had to deal with two dozen populated redlinked categories I had only two choices — either to recreate them or to depopulate them — because they couldn't just be left the way they were. My apologies if that undid some of your recent work, but the other administrator did kind of leave me having to make a judgement call about which type of workload I was prepared to take on. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Where was the debate? Was his mischief around "Individual clocks" undone? Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether there was an actual debate or not; administrators are technically allowed to immediately undo or speedy delete anything determined to have been created by a sockpuppet of a banned user without needing to take it to debate first. For what it's worth, I certainly take a narrower view than some people, in that if a category was populated and seemed potentially valid I'd at least take it to CFD for discussion first, even though I'm not strictly obligated to do so — but some other administrators just do a blanket round of "kill everything on sight". And I don't know about "individual clocks"; all I did so far was to review each category in the banned user's edit history to see if it still had articles in it or not, so anything I haven't undone or fixed either wasn't deleted or wasn't category-related. (I do know, for example, that two state-level US clock tower subcategories do still exist, because someone else originally created them.)

For what it's worth, I'd be willing to help recreate the U.S. state categories if you do feel they're useful — I just wasn't prepared to arbitrarily recreate them on my own, which is why I opted for the depopulate option instead. But I won't be able to start helping until later this evening, as I have to head out shortly for a prior commitment. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Deleted at 12:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC) -- Trevj (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annya Sand.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I'm guessing the Islam project is kinda moribund right now, but there might be someone elsewhere who speaks Persian who could help with getting a message to the foreign language arts editor. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you mass-reverted the new user. Please see

A bit too soon to say. There are many Italian nationalists! I see the request has been declined. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt there are many, but I recall only a handful of people who are experienced enough to 'bootstrap' a new Wikipedia account like that - Brunodam and Luciano. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erica McAteer (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Art History, Birkbeck Aurora tinker (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, just noticed you seemed to be patrolling some prehistoric art articles recently! Much appreciated - sorry I've been too busy to do anything on WP in the last little while. Hope all's well with you, Best PatHadley (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Objet d'art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Miniature painting and Cigarette box

Ivory carving (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Basque

Monastery of Santa María de Sigena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Castile

Rock art of the Iberian Mediterranean Basin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pantaloon

Three-Piece Reclining Figure No. 2: Bridge Prop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Listener

Two-Piece Reclining Figure No. 9 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to

Pasadena

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I was wondering where 03333220374 came from, was it a typo? Thanks Fæ (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just 333. But I think a read of

WP:CITE is in order, re undiscussed changes in style. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Amandajm (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with that - most French abbey churches are now parish churches, and references to the architecture of the church naturally follow the parish church convention. That's a different thing from the name for the abbey. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, under those circumstances should we drop the word "Abbey of" and call them "Saint-Pierre, someplace"?

They ought to be called "Abbey church" but that is a bit too complex.

I am not in favour of removing the saint's name.

Suggestions?

Thanks for your useful addition to the Romanesque domestic architecture thing. I don't know how you could possibly say you had forgotten that I had done it, after I have been most pointedly rude about the fact that you had got me to do the blanky thing and then disappeared off to write about frescos and gospel books and pictures of Muhammad with never so much as a tweak. In fact, I was so rude, I thought you would never speak to me again! whinge...whinge.... Your current edit has almost redeemed you! Take a look at Romanesque architecture, will you?

Amandajm (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hello! You've already commented! Thank you! Amandajm (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second pic is a sop to the Poles who complain all the time that I haven't treated Eastern Europe well enough. Actually, it's hard to get info. It seems to me that there are relatively few Romanesque buildings, but they are very conscious of what they've got. It appears to be relatively provincial in style, but with some fine carving. There doesn't appear to be anything of the refinement of Peterborough Cathedral, for example. It can be hard for people in Eastern Europe to take on board the fact that literally hundreds of churches in England were begun in this period, and that France and Italy are dotted with them to an extent that they hardly know what they have.

Although the French can be so blind that they can walk past Roman buildings every day and not recognise them, and brutally block up a 14th century doorway and cut a new door slightly left of centre, through the Gothic mouldings, not to mention letting one of the most important Romanesque houses in France fall into wrack and ruin, and likewise, the house of

Nicholas Flamel

, possibly the last small medieval house remaining in Paris. Some of the most important Romanesque portals in France are falling to pieces for want of simple and non-invasive conservation procedures. All they need to do to vastly improve this situation is to send someone up onto the gables and porch roofs immediately above the doorways and stop the ingress of water by filling cracks and, if necessary, giving the upper surface a thin layer of rich render, that is softer than the stone, but provides a flat surface so the rain runs off instead of collecting in cracks or running between the stones where the old mortar has decayed. You throw a bit of ochre and soot into the mix so that it looks the colour of the stonework. Because its relatively soft, it's a reversible intervention. A lot of the gables and porches would have originally had their upper surface rendered, but it doesn't last indefinitely, and once it's got cracks and weeds growing in it, it traps water. The water then travels downward and is evaporated by the carved surfaces, leaching the salts out and cracking the surfaces off.

I am currently completely rewriting the page

Regional characteristics of Romanesque architecture and will move it to List of Regional characteristics of Romanesque architecture

so that will tidy up some stray ends I hope and give some coverage to buildings left out of the main. It is absolutely impossible to keep everyone happy.

Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd never edited it & it wasn't on my watchlist, so I'd really forgotten it was there. I was aware I'd rather dumped you in it. I'll give it a good look sometime, but I'm just off to Wikimania in 2 1/2 hrs. But I'm never really happy writing about actual architecture. Johnbod (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was the hardest thing I have ever written! Have fun! Amandajm (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it was a silly mistake. I thought the Catalan name was the official and most widely used name here, as "Casa Batlló"... But it wasn't. Could you please move it back to Batlló Majesty (with an acute accent), as spelled at the museum?^[1]

Thanks.

Sure, place names & some others are different. I can't move it back over a redirect unfortunately. I suggest you ask User:Anthony Appleyard who is an admin. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your advice.

xarrades) 17:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at [email protected]. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say what a pleasure it was meeting you. I hope you enjoyed Wikimania as much as I did--and our conversation has given me some faith in the future. I'll get on Judith when I can. Best, Drmies (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - a great time, but not so many writers there as I'd have liked - did you say you'd talked to

User:Awadewit? I think not. I'm just settling back in after a "red-eye" flight. Let me know when you get going on Judith; one day I'll do Power of Women (as a theme in Renaissance art). I'll keep an eye out for stuff on popular devotional material. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

In fact, I even had dinner with her (psst: she had canoli for dessert); I was duly impressed with her article work. Writers--I proposed a writing session ("How to write a DYK") but it was turned down. We were more concerned with governance and expansion and education and importance than with writing, it seems to me. In other news, it's as hot here in AL as it was in DC, but there's a lot less walking to do. I gotta tell you, though, it's nice to be in a big city again. Yes, please do keep me in mind for that material! Drmies (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something for next year, though it does present difficulties, as well as opportunities, with people from all the languages around. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod. Thanks for the support on the info box discussion on Peter Sellers. We would really value your comments here as the self same discussion is taking place. This is slightly more serious as it is currently an FAC. Sorry to have to get you to repeat yourself on the same subject, but a consensus is desperately needed so we can nip this in the bud now. Hope you well! -- Cassianto^Talk 07:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 07:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 13:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on the talk page - would you mind looking at the recent changes I made and seeing if they seem OK (they were proposed on the talk page since May and no one commented on them)?

I also proposed adding a bit (a sentence or possible a phrase) to note that Fanny had smallpox as a child and was scarred as a result, but am not sure where to put it (as it seems like it would interrupt the current narrative flow in either the infancy or Childhood sections). One problem is that Todd's Death and the Maidens (which I read) does not say when exactly Fanny had smallpox, but I thought of adding it to this sentence: Three-year-old Fanny was unofficially adopted by her stepfather and given the name of Godwin.

so it would read Three-year-old Fanny, who had been scarred from smallpox, was unofficially adopted by her stepfather and given the name of Godwin.

Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They look fine to me. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is this realy out of scope with the article? Deror (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the "in Christian art" in the title is to restrict the subject to religious art, and exclude crucified Santa Claus etc, & I guess this isn't really religious art. Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod. We've not talked in a while, but something on Commons caught my attention (the donation by the Walters Art Museum), see Commons:Commons:Walters Art Museum. You've probably been aware of it for a while, but I've only just stumbled across that. All looks really great. I have been browsing through the categories, trying to find portraits of people, and found a few sculptures here and there (including drawings and busts of the original Walters, William Thompson Walters, and his wife and daughter - the son founded the museum - Walters Art Museum). What I was really pleased to find was Commons:Category:Medallions in the Walters Art Museum. This includes a set of medallions by David d'Angers (see also Commons:Category:Medals by Pierre Jean David. Though pretty soon I realised that most of the articles on the people in that Walters Art Museum medallions category had portraits already, I did notice that many of the articles were lacking links to the Commons category, which I've been adding here and there. What I got to wondering was whether there was scope on a list-type article on the medallions done by d'Angers, which could now be well-illustrated. I looked at the article we have on d'Angers (David d'Angers), and it does say that his busts and medallions were "much in demand", so I'm guessing there are enough sources out there to support a list-type article. Would you be able to help with pointing me in the right direction for that sort of thing? A couple of questions on nomenclature as well:

• (i) The Commons category for d'Angers calls them 'medals'. I'm guessing medallions is the more correct term, is that right? And would medals be reserved for actual military decorations, or are the terms interchangeable?
• (ii) Some of the French names are given differently. See
  Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres - which is correct, Antoine, Auguste, or both? A similar example is at File:Pierre-Jean David d'Angers - George Weimer - Walters 54839.jpg - the category and file name use 'Mademoiselle George', while the en-Wikipedia article uses Marguerite Georges
  (with the picture caption there saying 'Mademoiselle Georges'). Would you know whether George or Georges or both are correct?

Anyway, I was particularly pleased to find the medallion for Georges Couthon (see the inscription) and the medallion for the son of Narcisse Virgilio Díaz. The main thing I'm trying to find out, as I said above, is whether these medallions by d'Angers are part of a vast output, and whether there is a catalogue anywhere listing them all, or whether that donation by the Walters Art Museum is a significant part of the total (reading the article on d'Angers again, I see that "His medallions number over 500", so 30 or so is not that many). And whether an article on the medallions (or maybe a listing of his works, if that doesn't already exist) would be possible? I suppose working on the d'Angers article itself (a bit of a jumble) might be a good place to start, spinning stuff off as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil/artistic

WP:NOT, but that's no reason not to have listrs that are clear about their limitations. Or you could do David d'Angers medals at the Walters Art Museum, an approach that has hardly ever been used, but is valid I think. Don't know about the variant names. Hope that helps. The Walters stuff is fantastic; I've done a lot of categorizing, & a fair bit of placing in articles - I added one to Romanticism last night. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the advice. I think the two best sources for d'Angers' medallions are: Les Médaillons de David d'Angers (1867), which is available online at the French National Library here. It would be possible to do a list (maybe initially in my userspace) and to then supplement this with sourced commentary from the Reinis catalogue of 1999: The Portrait Medallions of David D'Angers: An Illustrated Catalogue of David's Contemporary and Retrospective Portraits in Bronze (J. G. Reinis, Polymath Press, 1999, 493pp). By the way, is it more usually to refer to David d'Angers as 'David' rather than 'd'Angers'? The reason I want to do such a list is that I want to browse the articles we have on the medallion subjects (almost certainly most of them will have articles, though a few don't, such as that artist's son who died that I mentioned above). So more an index than a list or catalogue raisonné.

The Walters donation is great, as you say, but I'm not clear whether this will be followed up by further donations or not. It appears that some of the pictures they have have not been donated (specifically I was looking for better ones of Henry Walters - they seem to have not donated the better ones they have of him - not sure why). The other thing is that probably only a small number will ever get used in articles (this is quite normal). That's not a reason not to have such donations, but it is worth remembering that you need either high volume of such donations, or some editorial selection, to get a large throughput to articles. What you have is a large categorising and labelling effort (which may improve on the labelling done by the Walters Art Museum, and pick up a few errors, but likely not much). Essentially, Commons is serving as a distributor that gets wider viewing than just the Walters Art Museum online pages itself (if they are online, I may have misunderstood this part). What I think would be ideal is if people browsing the rest of their collection could request images, but as I said, I'm not clear on whether the donation is the entire collection or only a part of it. I've asked on the Commons page, but not checked for any replies yet. Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is usually "David d'Angers" in initial or general mentions, to avoid confusion, then "David" once it's clear who's meant. I'm not clear the Getty list entry agrees with me there. AFAIK the Walters gave us everything, but maybe not always the best photos - I suppose manuscript pages & detail shots aren't complete. Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made a start on that possible list here. Only a very small start. Really need to find some OCR version of the 1867 work (or a list somewhere else) that can be cut and pasted and then checked against the original. The BNF may have OCR downloads (not checked yet), but failing that it may be a case of slowly typing out the names... Still, I found that first set of 36 an interesting tour through 19th-century French history. Though the same would be done by buying the 1999 work, though I suspect that is horrendously expensive, so may order it up at a suitable library somewhere in London. Also, the 1999 work will have more definitive identifications of the subjects of the medallions. Several of the subjects have articles in the French Wikipedia, but not here, so I may request translation at some point. Some just don't have articles full-stop. Two I got completely stuck on, the Anne-Marie Arago entry and the M.-A. Barthelemy entry. There are some famous Barthelemy's, but not sure if this is one of them. The other thing I noticed, while searching for the Swanton-Belloc entry, was that pictures of some of the medallions are online at other museums - see the link in the list to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. So even if Commons doesn't have pictures, it will be possible to link out from the list to archive and catalogue photographs elsewhere (either by searching or consulting the 1999 work which lists the locations). It being such a long list, I may never complete it, but I thought it was worth starting, similar to the listing you may remember at Frieze of Parnassus. That was a similar grouping of 'famous people'; not sure yet what proportion of these medallions are historical figures as opposed to contemporaries or near contemporaries of the sculptor, but it is an interesting cross-section of various people. Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there may be commissioned series in the oeuvre, but I expect much of them just show who was commissioned or who it was thought would sell, or who looked impressive. I know next to nothing about the medal market in the 19th century - not so big in Britain, but it may have been a bit like the craze here for portrait prints, at it's height around 1780-1820 I think. Don't forget that medals count as 3D works for copyright purposes. A big job. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The basic list will take about a month if I do a couple of pages a week. Making the list useful will take longer. I've put up a second batch if you want to look. It would take less time if others help out, of course, but I'd still want to check everything myself. Still not quite sure why the 1867 work gets some years so wrong. Was there something going on with the calendar at that time? I know one of the French Revolutions renamed the months, but did they change the calendar by several years as well? I'll keep in mind the bit about 3D stuff, though the 1867 pages would be OK to use. I think people on Commons have worked with the Metropolitan Museum of Art before, so may ask around over there as well, as they have a lot of image of the medals. Not sure yet which other museums have copies or originals (let alone which have online photographs) - there is a list in the 1999 book. There is also File:Plaque Humboldt Paris.jpg as an example of a use of the medals, though I'm not sure when the plaque was erected, probably much later. It is bound to be documented somewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The calendar was all back to normal under Napoleon; I expect it's a difference between dates made, sold, exhibited or something. I suppose the obvious thing is to ask on the French wp arts project. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply