User talk:Johnbod/42

Hi. The

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of painting, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kota and Chamba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Deccan painting, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that images of the widowed queen who commissioned the first major work of Indian Deccan painting were erased after her son rebelled and imprisoned her? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Deccan painting. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Deccan painting), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lotus throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This serves as a warning about edit warring and 3RR on Lotus throne. This appears to be an extension of your actions here. This was also noted at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Lotus_throne. 71.178.130.61 (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get it through your head - you are not entitled to change referencing styles to your whim without discussion - that is what

WP:CITEVAR

says. Read that ANI discussion, where several commenters (all except Evric) agreed:

• • "I wouldn't have put it quite as Johnbod did, but your edit clearly does violate
    WP:CITEVAR, in particular the instruction to avoid "adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates"." ... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "Evrik, you should not have changed an existing citation style, if only because this brings exactly no benefit to readers. Please don't do it again. .... Sandstein 20:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • "Evrik's edits didn't only violate CITEVAR. He also didn't make the conversion to sfn correctly (see this version). He left out ref=harv, which meant the short cites weren't linked to the long cites, making the conversion pointless, and as a result the Notes section contained 24 red error messages (e.g. "Harv error: link from CITEREFPal1986 doesn't point to any citation") for editors with the relevant script installed. He also wrote p= instead of pp= for multiple pages, and used hyphens instead of en dash. The errors left the article in poor shape for its day on the main page. I can see why Johnbod would have been annoyed. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • "...Evrik's edit was a violation of CITEVAR and very poor for other reasons, unfortunately in time for a main-page appearance. The original author should be allowed some leeway. To block an editor with no history of trouble and a clean block log, over 24 hours after the post and 16 hours after the complaint, seems heavy-handed. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)"[reply]

- Also the section on it above here. Your behaviour is altogether strange. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing html style over article content is the very definition of a red flag, to be avoided like the plague, editor. No offence 71.178.130.61, but go argue tiresome archinia and cat's breath on another website. Noting the AN/I report was closed several days ago. Let...it...go... Ceoil (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 71.178.132.138 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am trying to add some information compiled by User:Brianboulton in a sandbox draft that he left; I hope to add it to the existing article for the composer that he was writing about. for some reason, another editor has opened a "Miscellany for Deletion" request to stop my efforts. I am not planning to write to every editor who knew of his work, but only to long-standing editors like yourself. I see that you have been here for over ten years, and are one of the 200 most active Wikipedians. Could you please assist? You are the only editor whom I have written to at this point. I just need some input, from an experienced and knowledgeable editor.

the discussion is at the link below. I have already opened a section on the talk page for this composer, in order to add the information to the existing article. I appreciate any support. thanks.

• Link to MfD for drafts page : Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Brianboulton/drafts.
• Link to MfD for specific draft on composer: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Brianboulton/drafts/E.J._Moeran_List_of_Works
• Link to talk page where I hope to add this data: Talk:Ernest_John_Moeran#New_data_to_be_added

If you reply here, please ping me. I appreciate your help. thanks. ----Sm8900 (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at the discussions, Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mughal painting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Realism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now has the star, many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Its a bit pricey, but I highly recommend Rachel Moss's c. 400-c. 1600: Art and Architecture of Ireland . Good analysis of both terms and types, and goes into detail on many specific objects. The clarity of writing is up there with Lorne Campbell. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

link that works? - yes, I think I've seen, maybe used, some from google preview. Or maybe that was on the other big multi-volume history (A New History of Ireland, 9 vols). I wrote IA in 2007 & 2010 & have hardly revisited. I've got more books since then, mainly on the Anglo-Saxon side. It ticks along, getting 150-odd views a day, & I think is a nice length. But I should check it out. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would. Next time in waterstones etc ask them to take of the plastic. The book is very useful also on delineating object types, which is something too few people actual do here. I agree Insular art as it stands is about the right size, with good links to the sub articles. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ps, have moved almost totally away from painting in terms of visual obsessions, although I do still love paintings: the last time I was blown away in a gallery was seeing red paintings by Millais a few years back, but that was largely because of a deeply informed guided tour courtesy of

User:Iridescent. but otherwise, book purchases are all about: objects I wonder if this is an age thing, in the way men generally stop reading fiction after around 40 years. Ceoil (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Not sure it's that general - I've always been more aware of objects than most "art-lovers" for reasons I may have explained, & on wp I've always been motivated by filling gaps, which means I've done relatively little on paintings (effectively my first article was old master print, which we didn't have at all). At the moment (for the last year) I've been on a big Indian thing - mostly thin to terrible coverage when I started, and huge views compared to Western medieval art. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I've always been more aware of objects than most" - yes I know. In other news, when I first visited Mrs Ceoil in the states, I was whisked around a series of 17th century graves in New England. that is to say am besotted with Funerary art atm, and may update your and Ling's article shortly, even if the additions are very eurocentric. Ceoil (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are loads of gaps there, & many of the surrounding articles linked to are weak. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Commemorative Stone You removed the reference you perceive as extra , but there is no original reference to look at or click on for "Gallagher". if there is one, please point it out to me.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Looking at the first version of the article the reference was placed after the word "stone"[reply]

the erased reference is Gallagher, The Reverend John A. (1936) http://www.umanitoba.ca/colleges/st_pauls/ccha/Back%20Issues/CCHA1935-36/Gallagher.html The Irish Emigration of 1847 and Its Canadian Consequences CCHA Report, University of Manitoba Web site. Retrieved February 07, 2011.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

here, dude, but I've made it clearer. This is how refs are supposed to look. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it went to line 23--Mark v1.0 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! I have relocated to Colchester. It would be good to see you! Amandajm (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - do you still have family near me? If so, let me know if you are around, & have time. Or in town. I don't go down the A12 as often as I used to, but I might at some point. Would be very nice to meet. Email me. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Baburnama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Zafarnama

Razmnamah (British Library, Or. 12076) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bhadravati

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manson_(priest)

I am meeting this priest today, and I have to point out how influential his role is within the Diocese; he was equivalent to a 'Second in Command' of the diocese, if you will. His position has advisory to the bishop, and he was given his title 'Monsignor' by the Pope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manson_(priest)

'By extension, it refers to "inferior" or "lesser prelates", that is priests who have the title and dress of prelates as a personal honorific, i. e. Papal chaplains, prelates of honor (formerly "domestic prelates"), and honorary protonotaries apostolic. All these enjoy the title of "monsignor", which also is used in some nations for bishops and archbishops.'

• I still don't think he is notable, & he is unlikely to survive without other references. Just being a 'Monsignor' won't be enough, I think. Nor would these normally be called "prelate", though that may be technically correct. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and please add correct, precise categories - not like St. Francis of Assisi, Halstead. This is how you keep appearing on people's watchlists, which you probably don't want to do. 15:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, your contribution to my article is unsubstantiated. It largely doubles informations described in detail in the article. The Votive Panel of Jan Očko of Vlašim was certainly not executed by Theodoric. I have studied Czech gothic art systematicaly in the past several years and the original article in Czech Wikipedia was reviewed by art historian, employed in National Gallery Prague.--NoJin (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. Please pay attention to the points in the article my edits have corrected. The new title is not I think the usual one in English, & I am minded to launch a

WP:RM to discuss, which you should have done. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Was this useful? If so, how? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A warning/reminder that that page (and sometime this one) is subject to recurrent attacks. It saves me having to redo the research every time. It isn'rt complete by any means. So yes. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useful to you, perhaps, but it serves no purpose in improving the page, which is really the purpose of article talk pages. I'm going to remove it. You can keep such information within your own userspace if you feel the need. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useful to other editors who may be watching the page, or come across it. Given its history, there may be a number of those. But if you want to be a jerk, I can't stop you. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think WikiDan61 is bang out of order here, to the point of randomly picking something to complain about, but isnt this what page protection is for? Ceoil (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bishandas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daulat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraged by the collaboration at Sic Bar, I have been thinking how great it would be if a few of us got together and knocked out a new FA as big collaboration. Might you be interested? Giano (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I thought I'd let you know that I have now finished the review of Biblioteca Marciana and it has passed. You had a lot of good input into the review process and seem to have helped and provided guidance for our friend Venicescapes quite a bit, so I figured you may want to know that it's GA now, as well. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind - thanks! A very thorough review too. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I was beginning to feel under-appreciated.......

Amandajm (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be involved in an edit war: I’ve raised the matter

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barbotine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Auteuil and Greenware (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Parel Relief, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 3-metre-high (9.8 ft), 6th-century Parel Relief, with seven figures of Shiva, was found in Mumbai during road building in 1931, and is now worshipped at a local temple? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Parel Relief. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Parel Relief), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How are you?

What bad news about having to confine ourselves for a lengthy period!

The High Street is empty! If a herd of wild buffalo rampaged down it, no-one would notice.

Woe to those of us who do not have a garden! The sun comes into my bedroom at 10.00 am and into the bathroom at 4.30.

I hope that you have stocked up on baked beans and salted kippers.

It's times like these that I crave Arnott's Chocolate Montes.

But I am not yet despairing. I have half a bottle of Drambuie under the kitchen sink.... If only I can get the cork out!

Keep Calm and Carry On!

Amandajm (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you! I've got a garden, as you know, & have a lot to do there. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was given a present today! Two lovely rolls of toilet paper!

Amandajm (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pay you 50 cash for each of those rolls. 20:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Should the -s also be removed in Category:Visual arts and in its immediate subcategories like Category:Visual arts by subject? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. "Business of visual arts‎" might be better as "of the visual arts" but I think the rest are ok. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia but not new to researching by any means. I had plans to work on Raphael's The School of Athens page by first adding an image map that links to subjects in the painting of whom art historians are fairly confident. However, as I look through this page, its sources and its talk page, I have some serious concerns, this page is kind of a mess and I'm not really sure what to do about it. You seemed like an experienced and still active art contributor so I thought I'd ask for you help.

The main issue is the "figures" section. This section has an (ugly) graphic with identifications for more than 20 figures. After reading sources online from places like other encyclopedias, Khan Academy, the museum where this painting is, as well as books by art historians, there are truly only around 10 figures that can be identified with certainty. This page is reflecting minority guesses and opinions towards whom some of the figures are and not reflecting the identities of figures of whom is widely accepted by art historians. I am considering splitting the section into two, one with people who are widely accepted identified, and one with people who are guessed.

Another issue is the sources, a lot of which are not reliable, especially the one for a lot the subject's identities are cited from an amataur website that is by no means a reliable source: Here.

I'm really at a loss for what I should do, especially since the edit box has a warning that one should not edit the identifications of the people in the painting without consulting the talk page, a process which seems like it would take forever to go through confirming the figures who are widely accepted. There are plenty of other issues with the page but I have no idea where to start. I hope this message doesn't come off as too aggressive (although the page is frustrating) or confusing and I apologize for its length!

Thanks, Aza24 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sure you are right. Do you have quality sources? If, so, post a version of this on the talk page, & start editing. You might also look at earlier versions via the page history. Pages like this can be quite good, then regress over the years as more internet crap is added. There might be a better version from an earlier period. I vaguely remember doing some pruning years ago, but I can't say I keep an eye on the page. The scare notice is intended to stop more crap being added. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod - Good to see you and hope you’re keeping well in these challenging times. You may find the query I raised on the Talk:William Etty page of interest. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6snzF-i5Sw

Amandajm (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've resized the Person image as a proportion of users' thumb sizes (rather than a specific px count, which you rightly changed), to stop it dominating the pictures of the actual participants in the "School". I hope that's OK. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - very, very few people set a personal preference, so for the vast majority of readers this will be 220 x .7, which is just too small. Personally I use 400px as default, & the article looks fine, even with that. "upright" fixes below 1 should only be used for really extreme shapes of images. But thanks for asking. Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the {{multiple image}} template has to have a specified px count (in this case it's 600px for the four principle images, or 150px for each). For most users using the default thumb size, "Persons" at .7 comes out at the same size (actually 154) so it's well in proportion; not a peripheral image upstaging the principal players.

AFAICR the reason for not specifying px sizes is for the benefit of users reading articles on their phones, but I don't have a smartphone so I can't report on this. I believe the {{multiple image}} template then presents as a vertical image, down the page.

Should this conversation go on the article talk page? I only started it here because I was tweaking your edit.

--217.155.32.221 (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you like - though there aren't many watchers. That 154 size is just too small for a normal image. There's no justification. Personally I wouldn't have done the multiple image at the top at all, but I haven't messed with that. The reason for not specifying px sizes is nothing to do with reading articles on phones - in fact I'm not sure settings aren't just ignored in mobile view. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! That happened just as I was editting a gallery, having spent so long tracking down the pics. My computer connection is lumbering along and drops out completely at regular intervals. Everything I do takes hours.

While I am on the matter of galleries- The ditressing thing to me is that the enthusiast now working on English Gothic appears to have no eye or understanding, even having read the detailed descriptions. Unfortunately, every single one of the pictures is wrong, except those that I have prompred.

Durham shows the whole building, not just the relevant vault, Salisbury does not show the EE part, Lichfield does not show the EE part. Hereford does not show the EE part. They are all shwing Norman or Decorated or Perpy Gothic. I suggested some suitable images on the talk page, but this has been deleted. I don't know how to do this politely. I encouraged him/her to work on French Gothic, but that didn't happen. I don't want to discourage enthusiasm. I am, first and foremost, an Educator.

How do I do this without being horrible rude! 

Amandajm (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just have to be fairly rude, but make specific arguments first. Or perhaps wait until he moves on, which he will. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done it. Do you mind having a look, please? Amandajm (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sistine Chapel! Aaaargh! All these people with time on their hands. It is turning into a mish-mash of bits lifted from various book, with all the dates muddled and no coherence. And the problem of misplaced emphasis on all sorts of other issues, like the details of Julius' tomb, and the history of how God was represented more than a century earlier.

It will have to have its GA status removed.

This could all get worse in the next few months. We are really going to have to watch Leonardo because it will also be a target. Amandajm (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm staying away from the ceiling. What's a globe-trotter's take on Swiss cheese? Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, I work at Canadian Centre for Architecture and been reading closely on your great contribution to the Thomas J. Watson library project. At the CCA, we are looking to start few projects and was wondering if you would be open to hear about them and share your Wikipedia/Glam knowledge advices with us. I created few short term projects that I could tell you about and share with you what comes to my mind for the next ones. I know Art is one of your favorite topic contribution but maybe also Architecture in it's broader version. Hope to hear from you. Best --Sadebag (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod, could you take a look at Physiognotrace. Perhaps you can add and clarify something or improve my English. I used the German Wikipedia, the French one is also interesting. Regards Taksen (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re your legalistic point that

Well the admins will know, so let's leave it to them. I see none have mentioned it yet. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reply. However, your comment at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is quite authoritative in tone, and may convince editors who are not admins that you are correct. Please, can you update your comment to indicate that you have no evidence that your assertion is true? NedFausa (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, struck. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you like to help in improving

I've found your comments with regards to how we call Jerome excellent and measured and well reasoned. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Emma Bridgewater, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you agree edit wars are unproductive, so I hope we can discuss Swiss cheese. I've laid out my objections to your changes in my series of edit summaries, but I'll lay them out here again, roughly in order of least to most important, in case you want to reply.

1. Ice cap as a noun is never spelled with a hyphen. I used ice cap in accordance with our article, but icecap is also acceptable.

Fine, done that - this wasn't me. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was you, but glad that's resolved. Station1 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. The scientific or Latin name of plants is normally italicized throughout WP, including on dab pages.

Fine, also done. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Since there is no separate article about Emmental cheese without holes (if such a thing exists), it's not necessary to say "(with holes)" for disambiguation purposes.

??? All Emmental cheese has holes, and saying so will be helpful to some readers. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's like saying Elephant (with a trunk). I don't see how it helps anyone, but not a big deal I suppose. Station1 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. If Gruyere and Raclette are already included in List of Swiss cheeses, there's no reason to break them out separately, unlike Emmental, which readers may be searching for as "Swiss cheese". And if you break out those two, why not 3 or 4 or 5 or more, until the list is duplicated.

I suggest you look again at the views comparison in the RM debate; these 3 are way, way, way, above all other actual Swiss cheeses, and comparable or higher than Swiss cheese (North America) (which I've removed again from the Swiss category, btw, as I said I would). Your version included only Emmental cheese, when in fact Raclette has over twice the views of that. Why? Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone looking for Gruyere or Raclette would be searching for those words and would not expect to find them by searching for "Swiss cheese". That's probably also true of Emmental, but at least there's a small possibility someone is searching for that article under "Swiss cheese" since in much of the world they are synonymous. But again, not that big a deal. Station1 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Swiss cheese model (cosmology) is a redlink and is not explained in the linked article, so provides a false lead to anyone looking for that topic (not that they're likely looking under "Swiss cheese" anyway). These are discouraged by
   MOS:DABRL
   .

I think it should be there somewhere, but I don't understand the subject, & am not that bothered. Leave as a redlink/no link perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, probably not many people searching for this under "Swiss cheese", but why mislead anyone? Station1 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per
   MOS:DAB
   , topics that actually are, or could be, titled "Swiss cheese" are usually put in the main body of a dab page, while related terms, if listed at all, are placed in a "See also" section.

That's not entirely the case, nor frankly usually followed; I find your version confusing to me, let alone someone who hasn't been looking at these for a couple of weeks. In particular by putting the maths in with the cheese. If you want to move the SC Union, fine. How are you sure none of those you put in "SA" can be refered to just as "SC"? The order you put them in is wierd too. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the guideline is not always followed, but it does make sense. I have no problem separating the math from the cheese. I'll move the Union eventually; thanks. I'm reasonably sure the SA entries are not usually referred to as SC based on sources in their articles; that they may be occasionally is the justification for including them on the dab page. I placed them in no particular order, and have no objection to any order. Station1 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Most importantly, regarding Swiss cheese (North America), to say that it is "a number of types of cheese, similar to Emmental, made outside Switzerland" implies that Emmental cannot be identical to Swiss cheese, that Swiss cheese can be something other than a minor variation of Emmental, and that Swiss cheese is made only outside Switzerland, all of which is false. The description could be eliminated altogether.Station1 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the most important. You are failing to accept the verdict of the community here. Indeed Emmental cheese cannot be identical to Swiss cheese (North America), and Swiss cheese (North America) is made only outside Switzerland. You seem to want Swiss cheese (North America) to cover Emmental cheese, but it can't, won't and shouldn't. Swiss cheese (North America) makes it perfectly clear that there are a number of types, with different characteristics, including the existence or size of holes - so yes, it may be "something other than a minor variation of Emmental" - a minor variation of Gruyere for example. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The verdict was with regard to the article title. However, you are mistaken regarding Swiss cheese. The fact is that in the U.S. and Canada (at least) Swiss cheese is identical to Emmental cheese. It is not Gruyere, which is always Gruyere and not labeled Swiss cheese. There are variations regarding aging, which accounts for different hole sizes, even in Switzerland. Some Swiss cheese is made with pasteurized milk, even in Switzerland. Some Swiss cheese is made with skim milk. These are variations, not a fundamentally different type of cheese. And Swiss cheese made in Switzerland very definitely is available in the U.S. (at least) - not just traditional Emmental but cheese labeled "Swiss cheese" made from pasteurized milk. Station1 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of which demonstrates we have the right disambiguator.... Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod

Thanks for your comments on this issue. I have just found that the Salvador Dali article had featured article status on 5 September 2006 and was almost exclusively in U.S. English then. In the absence of any consensus otherwise I therefore propose to progressively revise the article into U.S. English. My apologies for the confusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salvador_Dal%C3%AD&oldid=73914881

Thanks for your earlier comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemilius Adolphin (talk • contribs) 00:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See talk there. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, hope you are well. There's a nonexistent template (template:RKDimages) in use in the above article. Hoping you know what it's supposed to be; I can't figure it out. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fixed. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Auguste Delaherche, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that French potter Auguste Delaherche was said to have used clay dug from his garden, and only fired his kiln once a year? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Auguste Delaherche. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Auguste Delaherche), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remember writing that, and I knew what I meant when I did it, but when I re-read it today my internal editor read it in Michael Winner's voice and I started cringing. I'm going to use this as a learning experience; I really hope that it hasn't hurt Amandajm, but I accept that was poor judgement on my part. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 21:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, I think. I'm not sure if she's watching at the moment, but I hope she'll be back soon. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your good sense in your comments on the various Gothic articles, and would like your opinion. I was thinking of starting a new article, Gothic cathedrals and churches, which would focus almost entirely on the history rather than the details of the architecture. It would be designed to complement, not to replace, the existing article on Gothic Architecture. DIt would draw upon the articles on Gothic architecture in France and England, as well as some from the Gothic Architecture article. It would be written not for specialists for general readers who just want to know basics of the style and the best examples. It would also tell you which are the oldest, tallest, biggest, etc. Do you think this a good idea? If so, any suggestions for what else might it should or shouldn't contain? might contain? Many thanks for your opinion. Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "would focus almost entirely on the history rather than the details of the architecture" means exactly. I can see there is probably too much detail on churches at present in GA. I'm looking around at the wider context: we have Church (building) - rather short, history and architecture; Church architecture - long, rather good I think, not much changed for years, 300 views pd, but a very short section on "Medieval West"; Architecture of cathedrals and great churches - mostly by Amandajm, 280 views pd, short sections on styles. I'm not sure we need another long article. Like you, I think if you take the church architecture out of GA there isn't that much left, so either you duplicate a lot or damade that article. Also, much of the stuff on floor-plans, and even the broad sweep of elevations is much the same for Romanesque. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some questions that go unanswered and that neither fit the scope of

Green man? And that's without even going into the role of cathedral churches in the middle ages in general. At the moment the coverage suggests mediaeval Europe spent centuries stacking up stones in a vacuum, to look nice in the history books, untouched by the world. GPinkerton (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, I don't see why this should be restricted to Gothic, most would apply equally to Romanesque and indeed other earlier and later styles. It sounds more like Medieval church buildings to me. Where does this leave monastic buildings, incidentally? If you cover all that properly, you'll be up at 180 kb before you know it. That could be done at one of the other articles, perhaps Church (building), which is fairly short at 26 kb, & gets 600 views pd. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic is technically and artistically very different to Romanesque and required wholly new technology in terms of scaffolding, glazing, engineering, brickwork, masonry, and so on. Gothic churches were built often centuries after most Romanesque ones were and were put up sometimes by wholly different societies, states, and religious institutions.

Gothic cathedrals) but that's for another day. My concern would be to hive off the detailed examination of churches per se from Gothic architecture to make room for proper historical context of Gothic - with the questions I referred to examined either at one or the other, as appropriate. Gothic architecture could then bring in some wider consideration of non-church buildings and Gothic "regional" styles, since its mainly dwells on canonical art-historical examples in France, England, and western Germany with hardly a word on Gothic buildings in Scandinavia, the Netherlands, the Baltic, Iberia, Italy, Bohemia, Sicily, and the Crusader states - whether sacred or profane. As for monastic buildings, I'd propose that the non-liturgical buildings go mainly into Gothic secular/domestic/vernacular architecture but get some treatment at "Gothic architecture" as a major component of the output of mediaeval Gothic builders. As I say, the actual Gothic church buildings of abbeys and so on should get treatment at Gothic churches since their architecture and basic function - performance of late mediaeval liturgy - is the same as for cathedral churches, parish churches, collegiate churches, and so. GPinkerton (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nevers faience, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sconce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fulham Pottery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Fulham Pottery in London operated for more than 300 years from around 1672? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fulham Pottery. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fulham Pottery), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You once did me the favor of assessing multiple Venezuelan articles. Might I trouble you to have a look at Venezuela Aid Live ? Thenk you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- I have never done GA, but that could be a possibility here, since the article is essentially complete, but not FA material. I think I have to work in a couple of articles I found that analyzed one year later where things stood ... Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might, or might not, find the process bad for you blood pressure. With only one reviewer, it's a complete lottery, & you might have to wait ages for a review. Hope you & yours are well! Best, Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. And my blood pressure needs no additional factors at this point! We are well, hunkered down, flat curve surrounding us for now. I hope you are doing well-- see it's rough over there. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On

Daulat"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daulat (Mughal painter). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Daulat (Mughal painter)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page

.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, what a lot of pageviews! Congratulations, Yoninah (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 38,839 - I nearly fell out of my chair. I suppose the hook quote did it. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

]

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

and today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great news! Can we get rid of the others now? KJP1 (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - your turn this time! I'm more sympathetic to the by city one, & the counties are a nice discrete nom to start with. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rouen faience, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Venus and Adonis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Max Laeuger, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Max Laeuger was a German potter, artist, and architect who won an Olympic medal? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Max Laeuger. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Max Laeuger), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning (my time). We seem to have some disagreement about language on this page. While I appreciate that you are an editor of much greater experience than myself, perhaps we could find some compromise for adjective placement in this article?

I'm no great fan of the movement myself, which I view as a saccharine distraction for the talents of artists whose oevre produced some great works (Ingres, Delacroix, Bonington, &c). But I believe that an encyclopedic entry should allow readers to bring their own viewpoint to the paintings. Sicklemoon (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a movement, & if readers already have "their own viewpoint" they may not need a WP article. The point you persist in missing is that the statement was a factual one, namely that the name given to the genre was pejorative from the start, like L'art pompier. It is wholly encyclopaedic to tell readers this. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken re: movement, though... I think this is where the difficulties/complexities come in. In painting, I could go with calling it genre (and from my English-native-speaker perspective, a minor one), but, as you obviously know, it's more than that when it comes to the broader cultural picture, which is what this article is discussing. Is this your issue?

Perhaps the painting aspect of this topic needs to be split off into its own space.

As a young editor on WP, my learning curve has progressed in fits and starts. I am still working on understanding the copyright policy, largely because it is more complex than it superficially appears, and the gap between the RW USA "fair use" and WP's can be inconsistent. But as a researcher, I can recognize citations with a purpose. Quoting an 1875 source to describe a genre that had its most dedicated following in the early half of the French 19th c is something that I would personally either move to the History section of the piece or the "Reaction" section of the piece.

I do apologise for my crack re: English v. French. Looking back, I must have been imagining you were an American who wouldn't understand the potential for insult.

A concern I have as a younger editor is figuring out the edges of the entrenched fiefdoms. Corrections, I can accept. Articles that are restricted to editing so they can't be violated, I understand. Rudeness and condescension are both things that I find quite easy to recognise.

I regret your feelings that I have infringed upon your space. Respectfully, I will take some time before making further modifications to your Troubadour style page. I arrived at it by way of Bonington (who, alas, dedicated way too much of his short brilliant energy to the style) and is not a topic that it seems necessary to correct in bile or speed. Sicklemoon (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning (my time).

In case I have not caused sufficient irritation for your day, I wanted to ask you about Welsh 19th c pottery.

I was touching in at the Arts and Crafts movement page and trying to sort out its British Isles section, and the Wales bit of it was in disarray. Whoever first wrote the page hadn't given that area a great deal of organized attention. I found the citations vs. text and images needed work. My best guess is that whoever wrote that page wasn't focussing on the political component of the movement in a place like Wales, or had not teased it out.

Insofar as the Welsh Arts and Crafts movement is concerned, it is notable at least on the level that it continues to be a thing. Would it be possible for you to turn your attention to it and give it some fleshing in? This is a case where my copyright/images lack of experience meant I really could not do a good job with my rewrite. Those turn of the century Welsh wassail bowls are crazy!

All best, Sicklemoon (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC) (and if you are not in fact British Isles based and do not have the access/copyright experience I am envisioning here, my bad for the assumptions)[reply]

I had noticed the additions you made. As it happens, I did most of Welsh art & recently did Art pottery from scratch (the American stuff already had an article), but I've done nothing on the intersection, & know next to nothing about it. We have loads of good images on Commons (from American museums especially) that are not properly categorized - I see the Commons category is a sad sight. Before writing almost anything I spend va long time gathering the Commons images into categories. It's a lot easier using images already on Commons, or uploading your own there, than getting other images usable in copyright terms. Please add a section on A&C to Welsh art. I think btw that American art pottery, which I've hardly touched, could do with some expansion - the new MET Ellison collection source is mostly online & very good. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will take a look over your suggestions and see what I can do. And point taken re: Commons images and categories. I've been hesitant to try to sort things over there, not least since I find it confusing. It's not that I can't figure these things out. But trying to get up to speed and hold it all in my head from my start point--that's the challenge. Thank you for walking me through some of the bits. It's all helpful. Sicklemoon (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to mow down the lawn that is the confusion of pottery, ceramics, and whatever else over on Wikimedia and thought... I wanted to ask you some questions. Firstly--definitions. I see two categories that I would "naturally" characterize together, one as the subset of the other. But the way things stand, I'm pulling against what you have written on Wikipedia. To me, the "Arts and Crafts Movement" is something specific that happened circa 1880-1930lee (the "Arts and Crafts Style" would be people copying elements of that movement). "Arts and Crafts Pottery," is also something specific (it's made out of clay and a historical thing.

"Art Pottery," on the other hand, is, to me, exactly how you (? I think it was you) describe it in the WP article, "a term for pottery with artistic aspirations." But... while it can be applied to pottery of the period 1870 and 1930, and, probably, emerged as a concept at that time, it's a term that's in ongoing use. I can still buy freshly-made Art Pottery at a local craft show. So--I think Art pottery should be a subset of "Pottery by style," and.... maybe Arts and Crafts pottery should be a subcategory of it.

Can you give me some help/guidance here? One thing I'd like to fix is... the modern potters who have been put in the category of "Arts and Crafts" potters. Unless they were working in the 1920s (and a few of them who were active in the 1930s would also still fit) they aren't "Arts and Crafts" potters.

All these terms are used for marketing purposes up to the modern day, which muddies the waters considerably. I'd agree re the

Doulton & Co. By about WW1 it was being replaced by either studio pottery, or design-led factory pottery - "contemporary pottery" after WW2. By about WW2 at the latest "art pottery" was pretty much dead, and what wasn't one of those two is best perhaps described as "craft pottery". If you look at the refs used in Art pottery you'll see they end it within this period: Coysh, Arthur Wilfred, British Art Pottery, 1870–1940; Haslam, Malcolm, English art pottery, 1865–1915. No one would call Bernard Leach "art pottery", & the Ruskin Pottery, which closed in 1935, was one of the last British makers of art pottery. Again American dates are later. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, thank you for the time and thoughts. No active questions, for the moment. Sicklemoon (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the

Hi John, I noticed that in this edit you inserted a cite to "Impey" but I don't think a source was ever added for which Impey book this was. Do you still have that information? Thanks in advance for any help and hope you're staying well, MartinPoulter (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added - it was used in the main article of course. Japanese art is a terrible mess, sadly, Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pierre-Adrien Dalpayrat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Art Nouveau ceramicist Pierre-Adrien Dalpayrat invented a red glaze known as "Rouge Dalpayrat" (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pierre-Adrien Dalpayrat. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pierre-Adrien Dalpayrat), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted your additions of the Category:Operas set in Pakistan to historically set operas as its both anachronistic/retrospective and not mentioned in the plays. It would be better to add the category to contemporary modern operas set in Pakistan which I can't find; and have CSD'd the cat thus. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous - I have reverted you of course. Take it to talk. You obviously don't know much about categories - emptying a category and then nominating it for speedy deletion is a GROSS violation of procedure. Someone has been in big trouble with arbcom for just that recently, which given your record I think you can do without. Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: I didn't realize that the cat had already been CFD's, so sorry for that. Anyway that does not address the fact the cat is anachronistic and retrospective. And what do you mean "my record", I think I have fairly tried to steer clear from any major disputes/controversies. Gotitbro (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now that you were referring to removing cats and then CFDing them being a violation and being "my record". I did not realize that and apologize for it. The discussion is already at Talk:Poro (opera) talk page and the cat is still anachronistic for the opera pages you added them to. I noticed this after following a disruptive IPs POVPUSH edits and have addressed this at the Talk page there. Gotitbro (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Art pottery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the pursuit of new ceramic glaze effects led to some pieces of art pottery still being slightly radioactive today, nearly a century later? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Art pottery. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Art pottery), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the British Museum has added another 300K images to their CC collection. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and changed the style of the database - the search seems better, but I'm not sure all the old info is there. But they all still have non-commercial licenses, so no good for Commons. Have you seen the discussions on the UK mailing list? Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not on that mailing list so I'll take a look. I saw a mention on Twitter. Shame about the licence but so it goes... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Japanese art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Boardman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod - hope you are keeping well. I'm adding more sources to Gothic Revival architecture and am increasingly finding the Gallery a bit obtrusive. I've started a discussion , here and your thoughts would be appreciated. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I've not forgotten I need to pick up Architects from Dorset.

On 6 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Ault, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Ault Pottery is best known for making designs by Christopher Dresser (example pictured), some using second-hand moulds? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Ault. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, William Ault), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for your many articles such as William Ault which have improved our project! Keep up the good job! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thankyou for your hard work here over the years. Know that you are much appreciated John! † Encyclopædius 09:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On

Louis XIV? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nevers faience. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nevers faience), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page

.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ogilvy (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ogilvie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I wanted to thank you for standing up for me against the person who was threatening to get me blocked for trying to keep BC/AD on some articles that had always been that way, if they try to do so I will contact you. It is good to have someone who understands that this is a collaborative community, and that we should work together to make it better rather than fighting and threatening each other. NDV135 (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)NDV135[reply]

They're very strict in Lascaux 2: no individual flashlights allowed! Next time we have a beer I'll show you my Lascaux tattoo. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Underglaze, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yuan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rouen porcelain, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that only nine pieces (example pictured) produced by the earliest French porcelain factory, which operated in Rouen around 1673 to 1696, are thought to survive? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rouen porcelain. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rouen porcelain), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green sauce. I certainly agree with you that the article needs expansion. There seem to be basically three subfamilies:

• The original medieval recipe: chopped herbs with vinegar (and perhaps sugar). British mint sauce (usually served with meat) and French persillade (when used as a sauce) are in this subfamily.
• Versions with additional flavorings. In Italy, anchovy and garlic are common, for example. Green chimichurri belongs here.
• Versions with mayonnaise or cream, like French sauce verte and German Grüne Soße.

Further afield (see also) are things like Greek λαδολέμονο, the usual accompaniment to grilled fish, consisting of chopped parsley, oil, and lemon juice; and pesto. The Mexican salsa verde should probably be a disambiguation hatnote, not a see-also, because only the name is the same. --Macrakis (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I agree. English mint sauce is normally only and always served with lamb (or mutton) - to do anything else is very eccentric indeed (on the other hand "mustard with mutton is the sign of a glutton" as nannies used to teach). I don't know how old it is, or whether it developed from sauces using a more varied bunch of herbs. According to our article, basil only became a key ingredient in pesto in the 19th century. Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johnbod, I appreciate your judgement on editing matters, and would like your advice about galleries. I gather you don't like the packed galleries. I've been using them mainly because they're simple, they can easily be made larger or smaller, and they expand and contract as needed on different screens, and the image fills the whole space of the gallery, without white space. I don't like the vertical galleries because they greatly limit the number of images, you can't mix vertical and horizontal images (for example, an image of a whole cathedral and a tower), and, depending upon the screen, they often run into the following section. I also don't like the galleries where the images are very small in the middle of a frame, so they're barely visible without enlarging. They also don't let you have a very long caption.

My feeling is that a lot of readers (Like me) look at the pictures before they read the article (if they read the article at all) and the captions should give as much information as possible, particularly the date and a link.

Can you give me any suggestions how I can improve my galleries, so that they can meet the criteria above? I'm currently working on the article on Rayonnant, adding citations and images that go with the text, and I'm having trouble with the galleries there. Your thoughts and advice on this would be greatly appreciated. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree about vertical galleries, and the need for basic information & links - generally I like to arrange galleries chronologically. I still don't like packed galleries - you may have seen the big discussion a year or two back, using a bright French painter as an example. The packed version ran all the images together, to confusing effect. They can be better where there is "background" space around the subjects (eg people, and some architecture), and the images have similar shapes - otherwise the vertical ones tend to look tiny. I've been doing a lot of pottery articles, where the subjects are often very vertical or horizontal, and have started having different rows for each, with different settings. If you do the rows back to back they look like a single gallery. Even with vertical images, I don't like fixing below the default - and someone is bound to defix them before too long. My default setting is 400px btw, so I don't like the uplift style at all. Hope that helps! Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is very helpful. Right now I'm doing Rayonnant with packed galleries; I need at least three or four images per section. When I get the right pictures together, then I can experiment with your suggested format. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make sure that you are okay and that all is well.Venicescapes (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oh, yes, fine thanks & very busy in the garden. l'll look at your PR when I get a moment. Hope you are well!, Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I'm glad that the weather is cooperating and that you can get out in the garden. Flowers, herbs, or vegetables? When you have a moment, there are a few questions for you on my talk page. I'd like your opinion. Best.Venicescapes (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers, shrubs, and some trees need hacking about. Lots to do! Cheers. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rouen faience, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after 250 years of production, the Rouen faience industry (example pictured) was greatly reduced in the 1790s by competition from English creamware? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rouen faience. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rouen faience), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rouen faience, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lambrequin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod. Knowing that you are an art expert and since you reviewed the article of Palmyra back in 2015 and added info to that article's art section, I would like to ask for your help in reviewing a new article I nominated at FAC: Portraits of Odaenathus. It seems that reviewers do not think its an interesting read as the article is about busts and portraits and therefore it was archived in the first nomination because a month passed with only one review. Now its been almost a month since I nominated it for a second time, but so far, only one review. So, if you have time and desire, I will appreciate it much, but do not feel any pressure. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. You said I should give you a nudge when I got round to making progress with Leeds Town Hall following the last FAC. After making changes to the article, I have started a peer review, so here is the chance to drill down into all that's holding it back. Cheers, Rcsprinter123 (parlez) 23:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off with the ad hominem crap. Kevin McE (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now now Kevin. You are mixing Saxon with Latinate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vitreous enamel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mycenaean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John, You seem to be the only regular watcher there. Please help in implementing my proposed changes, e.g. go ahead create the separate article and do your magical refinements, add short summary to main Architecture of India article, etc. Please take a look. I leave in your capable hands to ensure my edits do not get lost or even if they are lost then at least they are replqced with a better centralised article or section which documents the influence of Indian architcture on other nations (see also Indianisation). Thanks in advance. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested: Louise-Adéone Drölling. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did not create that article, because I am really tired for now of creating articles on here that go almost nowhere. But since you are working on stained glass right now, I can tell you that I twice started to procrastinate on an article about Joseph Ehrismann, one of the great masters of that trade in the first half of the 20th century. Don't take my word for it, you can see some of his work here (of course), and then also here, and finally a bit more here. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see I'm getting sucked in to glass, most reluctantly.... Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I finally did it: Joseph Ehrismann. Brevity is the essence of wit, at least for the start. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]