User talk:Johnbod/4 to Mar 07

Hi Johnbod - Thanks for your comment! I am fairly new as a Wikipedia contributor so am particularly appreciative of any input. I understand your hesitation about adding Etchers as a category to those artists who are already categorized by "Nationality etcher." Ultimately, my rational for adding more individuals to the 'Etchers' category was an attempt to emulate the List of photographers. Also, I think that it is a good idea to be able to look up etchers generally as a group and not just by nationality. However, after having read your remarks at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Printmaking_Categorization, it does seem that Printmakers might be a superior catch-all category. I have several suggestions:

1. Perhaps we could create a "List of printmakers" page (emulating the "List of photographers") and, instead of following the "List of photographers" categorizations by 'type of photography' (e.g. doc, fash, etc.) we could put etch, eng, lith, mezz, etc. for type of printmaking?

2. We could simultaneously switch all nationality categorizations to "Nationality printmaker" instead of the current "Nationality etcher" or "Nationality engraver"

3. Once 1 and 2 were accomplished, we could then make the "Etchers" and "Engravers" category pages automatically redirect to "List of Printmakers" or "Printmakers" in case anybody decides to branch out under those sub-headings again.

4. I know that you are also keen to categorize by period and I think that is a good idea too. I definitely thinks that it makes sense to allow people to cross reference and categorize in many ways. My suggestion would be to do a period code on the "List of printmakers" page (like the eng, etch, lith, etc. but for period: goth, bar, ren, etc.) or perhaps we could just do a sub categories under the Printmakers category, in a separate section from, but in addition to, nationality sub headings? The only concern I have with the latter is how we then integrate with pages like Gothic art?

I hope that my description and ideas are comprehensibly put - if not, please bear with this newcomer! If it is, it would be fantastic to hear your thoughts!

Merteuil 02:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am going to copy this to the VA project page, and respond there, as I'd like to generate as wide a debate as possible - although no-one seems to use the page at the moment. It's good to have someone else interested. I may not respond until tomorrow. Cheers Johnbod 04:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- Thanks for your note. I've ordered both Bognetti & Weitzmann through the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek; the problem is that they store most of their books off-site, so I probably won't be able to pick them up until the middle of next week. I'll let you know what I find out. Best, --Javits2000 10:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic - many thanks! Johnbod 12:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for asking. This evening my cerebral cortex is soft and mushy from having taught all day (only good right now for reverting vandalism), but a quick scan of your ideas results in a very positive response re: an overarching category for Printmakers, then subcategories for time periods. Whether or not I formulate any specific suggestions, consider me supportive. Best wishes, JNW 02:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was just thinking of dropping you a line. I was looking at the Albrecht Altdorfer article and wondering why there were just paintings and no prints amongst the images. I was always a big Dürer fan and my exposure to Altdorfer is primarily in the context of virtuosic printmaking.

Anyway, I don't want to lose momentum on a good discussion. At the same time, I'm wary to break up the actually chronology of the talk topics.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to "revive" the topic on the main page and include a link back to the archived discussion. Is that just too much contrivance to avoid breaking up the order? I think I could get over my compulsion for chronology, if it makes the most sense to just cut-and-paste that conversation back to the main talk page. That said, it has been more than two months since anyone has contributed to that particular discussion, so reviving the topic anew might make the most sense. Planetneutral 03:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - that would be a good idea (revive & link). It's not a discussion I got much involved with, but it is an important one for sorting out the categories. User:Renice (very much a print person) has not been around the VA area much since about then, which is a great pity. But I hope she will return - she's said she will.

On Altdorfer, as very often, I could not find a decent print image - there is one clear print image for every hundred good ones of paintings on Commons, as I'm sure you know. Not all of his would work well small - the woodcut Christ & St Christopher would be ideal, but I could not find a decent one online. Cheers Johnbod 04:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is Simple P list about? If it is a list of printmakers, call it that. Names should not be abbreveated unless the abbreviation is the common name. ex. UNICEF Mr.Z-mantalk 22:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See new edit - was sposed to be in sandbox - now transferred, sp plrease speedy - But thanks for asking! Johnbod 22:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently requested that something you created be speedily deleted. If you ever create something by mistake, you can nominate it for speedy deletion by using the template {{db-author}}. Happy editing! J Milburn 22:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Johnbod 22:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod,

Thanks for participating in my recent RfA. Even though it was ultimately successful (at 54-13-11), I value all of the feedback and have already benefited from the community's suggestions. Hope to see you around. - Gilliam 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I moved your comment from

]

Wrong idea.

Please see my reply at

]

I don't even support the move; I was just trying to raise the question. Please try not to jump to conclusions. If I wanted to move the article, I could do it myself, with my admin buttons. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Ok, replied at WP:RM Johnbod 02:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I overreacted. I was trying to clean up someone else's mess, and was surprised at suddenly being told I was trying to "displace" something. I got the impression you thought I was trying to do something devious, which wasn't remotely true. I apologize if I came across as less than civil; it's been a long day. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you removed the reference to Angel Zarraga on the page for Academic art.

I'm not sure how much you're aware of it but his early work was considered in the academic style and were made using academic methods.

The best example I could find to illustrate this unfortunately I can only find in a very bad image on the web, the painting on the right, San Sebastien: http://www.suafyl.filos.unam.mx/html/Mirada-libro/Guzm2.html

Here are some more works in a similar style: http://www.museoblaisten.com/spanish.asp?myURL=%2F02asp%2Fspanish%2FpaintingSpanish%2Easp&myVars=numID%3D346

Of course they weren't exactly the same as Bouguereau, but all academic art wasn't alike, he produced them as academic art was already being challenged and its range being broadened and expanded, and Mexican culture is different; but its rightly considered academic. Zarraga continued from other Mexican artists who were strictly following french academic teachings. He then experimented and eventually abandoned the academic style.

There's in fact a book on Mexican academism I once read, relating to an exhibition in Mexico, which included Zarraga

Brianshapiro

Don't worry I won't hold not being like Bouguereau against him! He was new to me, but I Googled him & saw some websites & saw nothing you could call academic at all. Obviously many Impressionists & Moderns were trained in an academic style, but you have to go with their mature style I think. I don't think I'd really call even those works (different to what I had seen) really academic in style, & he seems to have abandonded that style by his mid-20s from what the sites say. But clearly he should have his own article where all this can be explained.

Why don't you start a stub at least. You can put him back into academic art with a suitable qualification (early style to c.1910 seems about right) by all means. Johnbod 04:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that

]

Manuscripts

The art and literature stubs were rather full of stubs to sort between and illuminated manuscripts were placed in art history, but that did not seem quite right. Now they have a perm category under literature: manuscripts. Goldenrowley 20:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art history is exactly right for the vast majority of illuminated manuscripts, and literature wrong, for the reasons I just explained - how many illuminated manuscripts have literary significance? I am minded to propose this category for deletion, unless you can come up with a useful justification for its existence. Johnbod 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am sorry I did not know you or anyone of the Wikiproject Art group would want to review art stubs in advance, and now want an explanation, and you would express such lack of interest in having a manuscript-stub category. But please do not go petitioning to delete my new stub. I am not finished yet maybe you'll see the usefulness when I have finished identifying more manuscripts. The manuscripts are still under art history stubs, go to art history stubs, then notice how easy it is to find all the manuscripts because they are all in one place categoruized as manuscripts, under art history. Honestly, like paintings, They are works of art, not really about art history. I am interested in this genre enough to group them as a set. AND The art stubbing area was and still is very large and broad category. Inventing subcategories stubs help people find what they are looking for easily and quickly under art. Lastly, if you are an active art project member, I may suggest the art project should send people into stub sorting to watch proposals on a regular basis, 3 art proposals passed this week (only 1 was mine, and on the others I voiced my thoughts loudly, since I am on both projects)Goldenrowley 01:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of stubbing them, and there are so many more than I ever imagined, that we can probably propose one just for "illuminated manuscripts" (60 is the threshhold, and we have over 60) Goldenrowley 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I am reasonable person what I think is missing is the "art" manuscripts were going to get jumbled in with all sorts of manuscripts over time. I just proposed the following at proposals (*that we do one just for illuminated manuscripts*) When stubs are proposed, the meeting is open for 5 days and you and the art team are all welcome to come: [1] Goldenrowley 05:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Have you seen the discussion on this at [[2]] ? Not many have I suppose; your views would be very welcome. Cheers Johnbod 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John!

What you've proposed sounds fine to me. thanks for taking it on. I read through some of the discussion. The etchers and engravers categories could easily be added to the printmakers category - it's either an oversight that they are not, or someone has removed them from it (seems to me they were subcats of printmaking at one time).

I guess I didn't read that "Obverse and reverse" article well enough when I categorized it. A "Visual arts terms" category would be useful, there are articles spread all over that would fit into it.

>>sparkit|TALK<< 17:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - yes, there was a discussion at the VA category talk which petered out (actually much of that was you, I see!) - I think they could do with a smaller number of main sub-cats, and generally simplfying, with some additions. An Art terms category would scoop up lots of odd articles. On the printmakers, I really want to clear-out all the engravers & etchers to printmakers, as it is an artificial distinction most users find (I'm sure) very confusing. You don't get much participation at these debates unfortunately. Cheers Johnbod 17:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of what you mentioned, and left a note for Ma. DGG 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod, thanks for your message. I believe that a parent category should apply to all articles in a given category. May I suggest creating

]

It's futile splitting a category for the sake of one or two that aren't illustrated. Psalters are very relevant and important to illuminated manuscripts, so the category applies to the article. It's like saying Durer should not be categorised as a German engraver because he painted as well! Splitting would be category cruft. Cheers Johnbod 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, Johnbod/4 to Mar 07 for your Support! Thank you for your support in WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude.

...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you'll kid of other serious users by reverting suddenly to a version of your own, which has been largely discarded by the community, you'll be marked as disruptor, the next pace being the ban from edit here. Good work. --Attilios 00:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The clear concensus of the visual arts editors, including the three of us who have actually worked constuctively on the article, was to split the articles - check the talk page. This included at least two of the editors you canvassed to vote. I will address this further on the talk page, but the concensus is clearly with me. Johnbod 00:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "consensus" version does not exist. From what I see, you simply used the trick to let some time pass to try to catch people distract to impose your version. So, you have done 2 reverts... the third, and you'll be denounced for violation of 3reverts rule. Bye and please try to work with community. --Attilios 01:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have only reverted each article one. Your concensus to keep the articles together is a fantasy I'm afraid - please re-read the debate. If you repeat your edits tonight to the articles, I will just take it to RfA, and perhaps also raise the civility issues. Johnbod 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your vote to keep on the article on their children, but they have put this one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada) on AfD as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm getting very annoyed of you accusing me of "abusing" and "canvassing". I seem I've so far behaved deep within WP policies, a thing that you clearly prevented to do, despite all your feeble excuses... in fact, you were kidding me, and all other users who voted against your brave moves, ando also offending them by saying the could be my puppets or that their opinion is less important than that of others, simply because they did not contribute much to the article. Is it the article yours? Is any Wikipedia article property of somebody simply because he wrote 10,000 bytes there? Where did you read such arguments in Wikipedia official policy pages? It's clear for me that you're desperately climbing on mirrors with Castelseprio. You're also using other users opinions by saying they were favourable to split, and that's true, however - and then you're trying to be annoyingly, and childly, smart - without specifying that all they (apart one) pointed out different ways of splitting than yours. Compliments. In conclusion, you are having a very poor Wikipedian behaviour here. And you're continuously offending, joking and unjustly accusing other serious users. Bye. --Attilios 13:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I've applied for mediation. If you don't think your behaviour can be described as abuse and canvassing, I suggest you spend some time with an English dictionary. Johnbod 15:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your comments on that AfD. I'm not sure I entirely understand either your comment or the edit you made on that entry, which referred to the web-link being "same window with no return." I've never seen an external link on Wikipedia that didn't open in the same window and take you away from the site. Isn't that what's implied by "external link"? Is there a policy somewhere that suggests it should be done otherwise? I don't see anything like that in Wikipedia:External links. In fact, it looks like the link is done exactly as specified.

Doesn't matter in this case, as I suspect this article will be deleted. Can't imagine that the simple fact of exhibiting your work constitutes notability for an artist. That would open the door way too widely, IMHO. Planetneutral 18:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From that link you (or I anyway) could not get back to WP, which is part of their site programming. I sure it will be deleted, but exhibiting definitely can be a big part of notability for a living artist. If he had had a one man exhibition at MoMA etc, we would not be arguing about deleting him. But he hasn't - although some of his stuff seems to have been exhibited by by museums not just his commercial galleries Johnbod 19:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my obvious obtuseness, but is there some way that you would get back to WP from an external link other than the Back button? I ask, because the Back button works for me in both Firefox and IE on that site. Again, I just want to understand what you're talking about.

It didn't work for me - I had to close the window. Different software no doubt.

Also, I know what you mean and agree about the MoMA exhibition comparison, but in that case, there'd be exactly the type of published sources referring to the artist and his exhibitions that we'd need to demonstrate notability (as per

WP:BIO). Here, with the apparently minor venues in question, we'd have a hard time even confirming that these exhibitions actually took place without relying on the artist's word, for lack of better sources. Planetneutral 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not an issue but presumably the gallery/museum sites would confirm. i'm not suggesting we should check - see my previous comment on the page Johnbod 21:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened your mediation request for Castelseprio. I am just begining to look over the edit histories to get a sense of the conflict, but I would appreciate any additional information you can give me. --Selket ^Talk 00:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I've just this second added 2 diffs (from many) at the case page showing big A's style. I expect you have plenty to look at but let me know if you need anything specific, or whatever. Thanks Johnbod 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, sections 16 & 18 above are also relevant, also section 33 in my archive 3. Johnbod 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also this, which I suppose counts as mumbling into your beard! [3] Johnbod 00:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would also encourage you to look over my comments on Talk:Castelseprio. --Selket ^Talk 01:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skillfull, Johnbod. --Attilios 01:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I too have volunteered to view your mediation request. I know nothing of the subject of the article, or about the dispute itself, I will be completely impartial. Before I begin I would prefer that all parties involved approve of me, personally, as a mediator (I suggest a quick review of my contribs and logs). Selket has said that some issues may have been solved, but the both of us want to be sure that the outcome (at least partly) pleases all. Also, please let me know if this dispute has been resolved. (Please answer me here, I will be watching this page) - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 00:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, best of luck! Looked at yr stuff a bit. Btw, you might (seeing the interesting Dixon article) look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_28#Category:Slaveholders Johnbod 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I e-mail you? Can't see e-mail this user box Johnbod 18:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On my user page, left column, half-way down, in the toolbox click E-mail this user. Or click this link. Selket ^Talk 19:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Johnbod 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my

]

Edit conflict

So sorry--I am done for now. Carry on! Thanks, JNW 01:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a very good point. The reason that this comes up a lot is because of ongoing standardization efforts by a lot of people. There are a number of lists that should be cats, cats that should be series boxes, etc. The key is that information shouldn't be lost, but should be organized. A relevant criterion for cats is how much overlap there would be between the cat and related cats - for instance, grouping by profession or country or century is not going to produce (much) overlap because every person was born in a single century, and generally has a single nationality. Grouping people by what they did within their profession is less useful for a cat, because people tend to do lots of things within their profession (Category:Painters who have depicted Mary doesn't sound particularly practical). OTOH, an argument for lists is that they can contain more information than a cat (which is basically only an alphabetic singleton list). If your list of printmakers was just alphabetic singletons, I'd say it isn't necessary - but instead it groups by century, region, and technique. If you want a suggestion on that, by the way, I'd say you could use a sortable table, with columns for (1) name, (2) century, (3) region, (4) En, (5) Et, (6) Wo etc. That way, people can sort the list by whatever they want, which they may find useful. Anyway, thanks for your comment! >Radiant< 14:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hercules Seghers, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

--Carabinieri 07:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your nice edit about me of Feb 15 at user:CARAVAGGISTI talk page. I easily give barnstars to volunteering, open-minded and reasoning users here, and I've also received many so far. If you haven't still received anyone a reason must be: perhaps, one could be that you kid other users in other users' talk pages. An advice: maybe you should try to look at something else that history of art books. I'm not offending, but my experience is that they come from a very self-referencing class, and often (voluntarily?) hardly understandable for lay people, of scholars. I repeat: ain't offending at all. Bye and good work. --Attilios 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps I should take a leaf from his book? [4],[5] Johnbod 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply on the article talk page. -- Pastordavid 21:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been trying to clear out this cluttered category, in particular moving stuff to "Christian iconography". Ithink there should be a new sub-cat called something like "Christian art in modern media" for the likes of the

. I think there might be resistance though. Any thoughts? Cheers Johnbod 22:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how Christian art is a giagantic field some sort of breakdown is categories seems needed. I like the idea of an iconography category. As to the modern stuff like flannelgraph and Minnesota Cuke... hmmmmmm... The Cuke seems like it belongs in a "Christian films" category (or "Children's Christian films" - there's probably a gazillion of them). Flannelgraph is a medium, in the sense of communication. But in any case, "Christian art in modern media", or "Modern Christian art", or anything along those lines. In what manner do you expect resistance?

Well let's hope not - I'll give it a go anyway. The Christian iconography cat has been there all along, i just found out, but much under-used. I've added an overall Iconography cat above, though at the moment everything there is Christian too!

After not having done much categorizing in almost a year, today I'm scratching my head about having countries/nationalities art articles in two different categories -- Arts by country and Art by nationality. I would expect they'd all be in one or the other. It's almost like they started to move from nationalities to country then stopped about half-way through. (I remember some discussions about it long ago.) [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 23:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the by country one comes under "Arts", whilst by nationality comes under "Visual arts". Isn't that the sort of thing they decide a policy on at some elevated level? You might ask Provelt or GTBacchus. The nationalities one seems very incomplete - no French, Belgian, Dutch, British, English, UK, Scottish, Irish. Actually the other one is missing loads too. I'm still getting used to category-tinkering & this would defeat me I must say. Best of luck! Johnbod 01:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered what you meant by "...this could defeat me." :) I understand after looking at the illuminated manuscript stuff. More on that after another cup of coffee. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 16:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- thanks for your note. You're right, this article is a bit of a mess. My first inclination is to get rid of all the stuff about religious images and to go into Warburg, Panofsky, etc. instead. Is that what you had in mind? I've been chipping away at historiography lately, so it might be the right time to tackle this ; actually my greatest worry is art history which I've been ever-so-slowly trying to bring around. --Javits2000 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I did not understand your comment to me, maybe it is meant for someone else, since I never wrote a single manuscript article...so I won't know what libraries they come from or anything.Goldenrowley 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, though I disagree with your recent change to the Chrismon article, I would not revert it without discussing things with you first. Iconography is "image writing". Chrismons on the other hand are not necessarily images but are very often letters and other letter-like pictographs. These are not icons, but belong under the more general heading of Christian art. Also, while icons have a codified form and new one cannot be created at the whim of the iconographer, this is not so with chrismons. Lastly, to say a chrismon is "a Christian symbol" gives the impression that it it is "a" particular symbol. It is not "a" symbol but artwork based upon "many symbols" since, as I have pointed out its lack of restrictions in creation, there is no restriction in artistic creativity. I'd like to know your thoughts on why you change the page and my views listed above. Thanks. Chrismon 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conrary to what the article on it says (after the first sentence), the primary meaning of iconography is the subject and content of images, and the study thereof. I therefore felt it was an appropriate category to add it to - and still do. See the rest of the category. it is unfortunate that at the moment most of that article has been hijacked by a very secondary meaning - the painting of icons. This will change - shortly I hope. "A form of artwork" conveys little. The article says the symbol varies, but did not suggest to me that it did so enough to become a "range of symbols" perhaps - but I don't have have strong views on that. But you should expand the article on how it varies - it is pretty vague on that. But artwork is the wrong word - symbol, image, pictograph are all better. An artwork is a physical object. Johnbod 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. 29 August 29 2006 someone created the category "New Testament manuscripts" but included some Codices that had Old Testament sections. I thought the category was too specific (and inaccurate in a few cases) so I proposed CfD and created Category:Biblical manuscripts. Once that went through, I went through Category:Manuscripts and moved all of the biblical ones out. While doing this, I also removed the cat "Christian texts" from a lot of these articles, because that article is not for individual manuscripts, but for specific texts. While doing this, I found a number of Gospel Books, so I created that category as well. I saw today, that you had created Category:Illuminated Bibles and I was about to thank you for doing that because Category:Illuminated manuscripts is getting pretty long (and seeing how my work back in September ignored the question of Illuminated vs. regular manuscript for the most part).

I saw the intro text you wrote for "Illuminated Bibles" and thought "why couldn't we just move the category "Gospel Books" into a subcategory of "Illuminated Bibles". But for whatever reason you opposed. Then we have the issue of "Psalters". I figured, we had 3 categories having to do with Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts, it seemed odd to have those subcats interspersed between "Mesoamerican codices" and the stubs and images categories, so I grouped the like ones together into "Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts". I hope what I have done makes sense.

On to "psalters", are there any psalters that are not illuminated? I was confused because "psalters" was a subcat in "illuminated manuscrtips", although now that I look, that moved was only done today by you. If there are any psalter articles that are not illuminated manuscripts, we'll have to change something (after I finish typing this, I'll go and research that myself).

But now that I've been thinking "Illuminated Bibles" seems a little arbitrary. If a manuscript is incomplete, is it considered a "bible"? What if it is so incomplete we don't know if it had originally contained all the books of the bible or not? Well at least now that we have the "judeo-christian illuminated manuscript" category, we have a place to put the few manuscripts that don't exactly fit into the "psalter" "gospel book" or "bible" category (and we can put manuscripts of the church fathers, and other religious manuscripts, if illuminated, in that cat as well.) I'll dig through "Illuminated manuscripts" and see if there are any articles that can be moved up a subcat. -Andrew c 02:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just written out my view, I will quote that - and also move both comments (slightly edited) to the Illuminated Manuscripts talk page, where the discussion should continue. I said:

Hi, As the main category has become so crowded, I have spent the last couple of evenings moving all the relevant Ms into Cat Gospel Books, cat Illuminated Bibles & Cat Meso-american ill MS. All as sub-cats from the main IM category. I have just finished this when User:Andrew c comes along & sweeps them all (not the Aztecs naturally) into a main sub cat Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts. I feel this is a very bad idea because:

• 1) most of the remainder in the main category are of course J-C as well, so it is very misleading. Unless he is going to move all them which I doubt, as he set up the Gospel Books cat in September, and then did very little with it.

• 2) it gives another stage for the user to have to click through

• 3) he has also populated the Psalters category, which the creator of that will not like, as he is largely interested in the few printed examples - now categorised as illuminated.

• 4) currently only about 2 I think of the whole JC sub-cat are Hebrew Bibles, the rest are all Christian MS.

I have asked him to discuss it, but he just ploughs on. I have reverted him on I think two of them, which he just re-reverted. I'd be very interested in your views. Johnbod 02:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-On your specific points,

• 1) yes some of the Psalters are printed (a look at the category would have made that fairly clear I think). The creator of that category is likely to object, which is why I did not populate it.

• 2) You can't be very familiar with the topic if you think there are only a "few manuscripts" left in the main category that are Judeo-Christian. In fact the great majority of them are: prayer-books, books of hours, missals, Hagganaghs, Pericopes, Bedes etc etc. That is one of my main objections to your recategorisation.

I'll move these to the talk page now, but thanks for finally responding. Johnbod 02:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: :On another point you raise, it is usually possible to know fairly certainly if a fragment was intended to be part of a complete Bible or a Gospel Book. In the couple of uncertain cases, I have put them in both categories, and a couple of others are in a sub-cat & still in the main IM cat for similar reasons.

Please stop removing categories now - this should be discussed!! Johnbod 02:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I've not looked in depth, at the current category situation, and to be honest, will not have time to until Monday at the earliest. However I have thought a great deal about cataloging illuminated manuscripts. I can make a few brief comments.

• I think that a clear distinction should be made between text and manuscript. The Psalters are a clear example. The printed editions of the Psalter are a fundementally different type of thing than the manuscripts, which, for the most part, are copies of the same basic text (ignoring things like scribal errors), the Vulgate Psalter. However each of the illuminated Psalters is a unique Art Historical monument in its own right. I don't think that things like Bay Psalm Book and the Cathach of St. Columba should be in the same category.

• I also think that a clear division between illuminated manuscripts and non-illuminated manuscripts should be kept. For example The
  Stonyhurst Gospel
  does not have any decoration. It is clearly an Anglo-Saxon manuscript, but is not an illuminated manuscript in any sense of the term. I don't think that it should be included in any category that is sub-category of illuminated manuscripts.

• I think that the Judeo-Christian manuscript category is a bad idea. To begin with it excludes manuscripts such as the
  Romance of the Rose
  ? This doesn't even begin to touch on the problem of Islamic manuscripts, which I see as another branch on the same tree as the Medieval manuscripts. (The Meso-American manuscripts are a different tree altogether)

• I think that a fully devolped category system for manuscripts will feature several branches, including categorization by century, by style, by country of origin, by current location, by text type (and perhaps text), by script, by current location, by creator, and perhaps other categories. I have worked on something of this sort at Commons, and hope to soem day see something of the sort on wikipedia.

These comments have not been as brief as I intended, but I hope you can see where I stand. Sadly, my time for playing with the Wikis is seriously limited these days (and will for at least the next six months), so I can not be a leader on any of these changes, or do much maintenance, but will lend my voice and opinions when I can. Dsmdgold 03:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that made me laugh! Do you know where the wiki-gizmo for showing trees/hierarchies lives, or where there's an example I can copy? Johnbod 16:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) No, I don't know where that is at. I've seen it, but I was looking for it yesterday and didn't find it. Let me know if you do. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 17:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a complicated but smart looking one at

Medici - too complicated for me! Johnbod 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The one I was thinking of was Category Tree browser at the Toolserver; javascript category browser, but it's been rolled into wikipedia. For discussion, I just do something simple like this...

• Illuminated manuscripts

• Biblical manuscripts

• Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts

• Gospel Books
• Illuminated Bibles
• Psalters

• Illuminated manuscripts

• Illuminated manuscript images
• Illuminated manuscript stubs

• Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts

• Gospel Books
• Illuminated Bibles
• Psalters

• Mesoamerican codices

• Borgia Group

Hope this helps. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 18:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - i will Johnbod 18:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in general agreement with the scheme listed above, but with a few quibbles. It is probally incorrect to think of most of the Psalters as biblical manuscripts, they were devotional and service books. Monks chanted the entire Book of Psalms in regular order. (If I remember correctly it took a week to get through it). The Psalter was also used a private devotional book. Most Psalters from later periods had things other than the Psalms in them, including canticles taken from other parts of the Bible, and extra-biblical prayers, as well as devotional aids such as calendars. The Book of Hours is really an evolution of the Psalter, many of the texts included are Psalms. (There are also transitional books that contain both a "Psalter" and a "Book of Hours". As service books, Psalters also were made with musical notation for the chants, these evolved into some of the later service books, such as the Antiphoners.

The Gospel Books also have some of the same tendancies even early books such as Durrow contain a good amount of extra-biblical material. (Canon Tables, letters of Jerome, the Breves Causae, and the Argumentae). Later the text itsef was reorganized into a "Gospel Lectionary". That is the text were broken up into readings and then arranged in order that they were read through the Church year. (which was not in the order they appeared in the Bible.) Many of the Carolingian Gospel Books are actually "Gospel Lectionaries". In short they are less biblical manuscripts and more litugical manuscripts.

All of that said, until we such time as we have articles sufficiently developed to explain these fine differentiations, and enough manuscript articles to populate a more expansive scheme, then this will work well.

On a different note, I don't think that there are many classical author portaits surviving. The Romans tended to use papyrus scrolls, which just don't survive for centuries, unless you bury them someplace very dry. So far as I know, the Roman Virgil, the Vatican Virgil, and the Ambrosian Iliad are the only surviving illustrated manuscripts from late antiquity of classical literature. the Naples Dioscurides may have author portrais, but I have not seen a copy. (It is later the Vienna Dioscurides anyway.) Some of the later (mostly Carolingian) copies of Terence have author portraits. I saw a later copy recently on the web but cannot remember where. (It was either at the British Library, Oxford, or St. Gall. Links can be found from one of my subpages, look under manuscript tools.) Psalters often had portrais of David, if that helps. (see Paris Psalter for example.) Dsmdgold 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious doubts regarding the category's usefulness. You need to realize that "illuminated" manuscripts are (typically) medieval manuscripts with ornamental artwork. This isn't the same as "illustrations", and late medieval and early modern illustrated manuscripts are something quite different: there, the illustrations are part of the actual content. Thus Flos Duellatorm wouldn't usually be considered "illuminated". It's an illustrated manuscript. There are many other cases like that where your categorization is awkward. Your categorization becomes patently useless with

]

for both WP and normal Library/scholarly purposes any manuscript with illustration or decoration is illuminated [...] thanks for the tip, but I don't think I need lessonss from you on the subject. Johnbod 15:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, but it appears you do. Your claim that "illumination" can be applied to illustrations regardless of whether they are purely ornamental is just that, a claim. Let me cite the OED at you:

"illumination (6a) The embellishment or decoration of a letter or writing with bright or luminous colours, the use of gold and silver, the addition of elaborate tracery or miniature illustrations, etc.; with pl. The designs, miniatures, and the like, employed in such decoration." "illuminate (8): To decorate (an initial letter, word, or text, in a manuscript) with gold, silver, and brilliant colours, or with elaborate tracery and miniature designs, executed in colours; to adorn (a manuscript, inscription, text, etc.) with such decorative letters and miniatures. "

>thus, by definition, "illuminations" are decorative. If the illustration is not decorative, but part of the content (let alone, the only content), it is not "illumination" but simple illustration. I am looking forward to your citation of a differring opinion, but you will recognize that your usage of the term is at best less than universal.

dab (𒁳) 15:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

accusing me of borderline vandalism is not helpful. All I am pointing out is that an "illuminated manuscript" is not the same as an "

]

Sorry, but several of your changes are vandalistic - eg to the List of Hiberno-Saxon manuscripts. Please raise your eccentric POV at the talk page. Finding stray academic references to "illustrated manuscripts" does not build a case. Johnbod 18:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with everything you said, and I take it to fully back up my position. You seem to be caught up in some basic misunderstanding of the point I am trying to make. I have no objection of you calling the Book of Kells "illuminated". Everyone would agree with you on that. My disagreement stems from your attempts to label things like the Codex Wallerstein as "illuminated manuscript". This is silly. I will make my point perfectly obvious for you:

• an illuminated ms page
  an illuminated ms page
• 
  an illuminated ms page
• 
  an illustration from an illuminated ms
• 
  an illustrated ms page, not an illuminated ms

I agree the Hiberno-Saxon mss should be considered "illuminated", but I dare you to find one reference that calls the 15th c. Wallerstein or Leckuchner mss "illuminated". The text is simple unadorned chancellary script, and the illustrations are "figures", clarifying content. I grant you that the concepts overlap, alright? I grant you that "illuminated ms" is the more notable term than "illustrated ms" (google hits ca. 200k to 32k, or 9 to 1). The term is still valid, and deserves separate treatment. You would do well to try and accommodate that point in good faith instead of getting your panties in a knot because I dared to touch 'your' categorization scheme.

]

DYK

On 25 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Evangelist portrait, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

--Carabinieri 16:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, thanks for adding the {{LVD}} template for Crown of Immortality (AfD discussion). Next time, it would be better if you added it to the AFD page instead of the article. [6] —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:42Z

? Added to both, as per instructions? Johnbod 12:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I think you may have read the instructions wrong. The intent is to put the tag near the top of the AFD page only, either between the heading/metadata and the nomination statement, or at whatever point in the discussion you inserted the tag; and not on the article itself. I've clarified the instructions at Template:LVD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 04:17Z

Good idea - i did find it confusing Johnbod 04:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you were in editing in the article, thanks. Please add a keep into the merge discussion so that it won't the merged with Circle of stars article . It seems to some interests to get rid of this article. I have had numerous struggle in keeping it. Support, as an art lover, would be appreciated. --Roberth Edberg 13:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, thanks for your message. I think the CFD is the roundabout way of achieving the same thing I had proposed above, but as long as the end result is the same, I am happy. Appleseed (Talk) 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course - I see it all now! Johnbod 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you inserted the 'The Crowning with thorns, woodcut to design by Titian. 32,7 x 22,1 cm'. May I ask you how this picture is related to Meldola's work and life???

Please, make your comment in the headline of changes civil! --Giorgio Orsini 15:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The woodcut is by Meldolla - in fact he "designed" the woodcut, but based on a painting by Titian (Louvre). See the picture description on the file (in German). I have changed the caption to clarify this, Johnbod 15:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully the German text below this picture. Meldolla's autorship of this woodcut is not certain - it is just a claim made by Francis L. Richardson - who is an art historian. Also, Meldolla has a number of apprentices and many times he used not to sign something what was done by them - if he did not have much involvement in the same work. --Giorgio Orsini 03:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richardson's attribution is generally accepted - as they say, this is the only one with the monogram. This print is accepted as by Meldolla by Rostand, Muraro, Karpinski, and by David Landau (the big expert on Venetian woodcut) in: Jane Martineau (ed), The Genius of Venice, 1500-1600, 1983, Royal Academy of Arts, London, where it was number P49.

I am glad to see you are turning your attention to artistic matters! Johnbod 04:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like your cinism (especially after asking you for some civilty) in the last sentence - but I accepted your explanation related to this Titian/Meldolla's work--Giorgio Orsini 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found images for Houppelande on the Polish wikipedia, but I don't know the actual sources and dates to complete the entries in the commons. I'm betting you will know them off the top of your head - can you help fill in the missing info at Image:Houppelande meski.jpg and Image:415px-Houppelande damski.jpg? Thanks much! - PKM 01:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew her & have added the details; he is from about 1400-15 & probably by the Limbourg brothers, very likely in one of the duc be Berry's MS, but that's as much as I can say now. If I find any more I will add it & let you know. Johnbod 02:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and so it proved [7] she is in the same exhibition at #22, with a different title. Johnbod 03:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to lower case "p" per MOS naming convention. Well done for dividing by period etc. All artist lists should have something of that nature; otherwise they're unusable. Tyrenius 03:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted

]

"illustrate"

how about to "make clear, elucidate, clear up, explain." (OED on illustrate), as in, the Codex Wallerstein "explains" the techniques described in the text with "illustrations"? Jesus, John, I appreciate the etymology of "illustrate". I appreciate the point I was making is comparatively minor in your greater world of "illuminations". It's not all that difficult. I have long "backpedalled" to the position that "illumination" and "illustration" are not synonymous. I appreciate the overlap. I appreciate virtually all you said, which makes it rather pointless for you to keep repeating it at me. I happened to be interested in a certain minor topic, the emergence of pragmatic illustrations, which happened to impinge marginally on your Wiki-empire of "illuminated manuscripts". Instead of just granting that that's valid although (to you) marginal and uninteresting, you keep splitting hairs at me, an implying that I somehow lack understanding of terms like "illustrate", "decorate" or "pragmatic". I take it you are not very used to have discussions that leads to a mutual understanding? If you had respected my approach for what it is, we could have come to an understanding in twenty minutes. Instead, you never even get down from your high horse, and drag this ridiculous "dispute" around, congratulations for bringing it up in the "indigenous Aryans" RfC staged by the clueless and malicious, it makes you look brilliant.

]

I suppose I meant to ask what the Codex Vindobonensis B 11093 was illustrating. Well I would be delighted to bring the matter to an end, and don't really have any interest in whether your understanding of the terms is correct or not. As I see it, you have not changed your position (as opposed to some of the claims in the illustrated manuscript article) at all. If you have been following the discussion on categorisation at the illuminated manuscripts talk page, you will see that the concensus there is to give fightbooks their own sub-category, and to include, perhaps in their own sub-category, the Swiss Chronicles with the other chronicles in a sub-category of illuminated MS. If you no longer object to that, we have no problem (other than someone having to expand the main illuminated MS article to include bits of the illustrated ms article). Perhaps you could make your position now clear on these points.

As to high horses, splitting hairs, and working for a mutual understanding, I think our respective talk pages, and those of and about the articles we work on, make the position pretty clear there. Johnbod 13:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

creation of a "fightbook" category is a good idea; it is however completely unrelated to the discussion we've been having, since, as I've tried to impress on you before, the term refers to the genre, not the medium, and "fightbooks" include anything from tattered notebooks (

3227a) to luxurious prints (Salvator Fabris

).

as for the illumination vs. illustration debate, I am also losing interest. Pragmatic categorization is one thing, and I have told you I would have no problem with having "illustrated" as a subcat of "illuminated" even though that's not strictly accurate. Continued ignoratio elenchi is another thing, but I am also losing interest in repeating myself. I fully appreciate that the history of 'pragmatic' (

dab (𒁳) 12:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Good. The fightbook category was in fact where we came in, but never mind. I have proposed - I forget what, but it has either illuminated or manuscript in the title, to distinguish them from printed ones. Johnbod 12:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

um, that's pointless. if you're going to categorize fightbooks, you should obviously do a

dab (𒁳) 12:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You set up Category:Fechtbücher; the sub-cat let's say Category:manuscript combat treatises would be a sub of that and of illuminated manuscripts. I take there are no text-only ones; none in the present articles I'm sure. Johnbod 12:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

text-only Fechtbücher:

dab (𒁳) 13:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Chaperon

I have now commented on the GA/R page. :-)

Fred-Chess 09:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at

]

Poor Man's Bible

Emile Male. I didn't use this book as a reference. Did you? The reference list is books referred to, not Recommended reading. Also, the book list is in alphabetical order. If you referred to it, can you please put it in the right place in the list. --Amandajm 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I put it at the top because, despite its age, it is the classic book on every aspect of the subject, and very readable and easy to obtain. I would be surprised if the other books on the list don't all reference it considerably in whatever style they use. If you don't know it, you would certainly enjoy it. I'm a bit reluctant to lose it in quite a long list, but maybe will add a comment or something.

Two other things, whilst I'm writing - I recently saw we didn't have a Category:Iconography, which I've now started. The sub-cat Christian Iconography was already there, but many appropriate articles weren't placed in it. If you can think of/come across any that should be added to either, please tag 'em.

Also, are you planning to return to Labours of the Months? It could usefully be expanded with sample lists etc. Did you see I found we had a stub on the vratislav gospels all the time? Hope you had a good trip, Johnbod 15:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for all of your contributions to the 1300-1400 in fashion article--Tabun1015 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply ]

Would you be interested in helping get a Medieval book wikiproject started? If so, I have written up a beginning that defines a scope for the project and possible activities (plus my rationale for the scope). It is here. Dsmdgold 04:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some history of Burgundy and Italy as fashion sources to

]

Women writers

You recently commented on this CFD on Women Writers. The debate is now up on deletion review. Please comment. >Radiant< 10:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)You recently commented on this CFD on Women Writers. The debate is now up on deletion review. Please comment. >Radiant< 10:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you what you've done is pretty good (I made one small copy edit.) I don't know that much about alchemy, so I can't add much. I think that eventually we might need an article on the text, and separate articles on the manuscripts, but his will do for now. I've also made sure that all of the references to the album point there.

I saw your note on commons, but haven't followed up yet. Thanks for the heads-up and the work. Dsmdgold 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment invited on the colour choice for this template. Tyrenius 05:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously you stated support at

]

Hi John -- I'm not an expert on how the term illumination is used in art scholarship, but I do know quite a bit about the Rossi Codex -- I'm trying to figure out what folio you find an illumination on? I don't know of one initial which is not made in the course of copying with the inks of the main manuscript. Thanks. --Myke Cuthbert 05:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the page. The top right button should say "unwatch". If it says "watch", click it. The last change on the page was:

(cur) (last) 02:36, 18 March 2007 Tyrenius (Talk | contribs | block) (Remove Justin Michael Jenkins - keep. Help needed with editing the article now.) [rollback]

This will only show you changes on the page, e.g. AfDs added and removed. If you want to see changes on individual AfDs, you have to mark each one individually to watch it. To do this you will have to open each one individually. The easiest way is a right click on the [edit] button (for each individual AfD, not the [edit] button for the whole page).

Tyrenius 01:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I think maybe at the start we had a continuous stream of them so it stayed live, then dropped off when there was a lull. Johnbod 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two attacks on the consensus again from opposite sides. I replied on the g. talk page to one, and on Ma's talk page to the other. DGG 08:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I think you're mistaken about the "Image of Edessa" ever being at Sainte-Chapelle, or in France at all. "This relic, or one believed to be the same..." is not very good, as many painted icons derive from the supposed prototype, which is what one specifically means by "the image of Edessa". Some references would clear up the facts for doubting people like me. --Wetman 02:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My alter ego has been busy because I was checking old CFD log pages, to make sure that nothing had been missed, and found Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 27#Category:Psalters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A two minute job to reverse it, so let me know if I need to do that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A three-minute job, but still, no big deal. Everything's back the way it was. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contributions, however that artilce is not about appearnce, but the symbols. I'll leave more comments on the talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... Thanks for writing a new article on

]

Not at all - I saw that when I did what links here at the end. I was doing my new Cesar Picton & looking around for the right categories to use

Johnbod 18:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only suggestion I'd make about these otherwise strong articles is that they need their sources cited in accordance with the policies set out in

WP:VER, otherwise someone will eventually come along and tag them {{Unreferenced}}. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Excellent work on Cesar Picton. Give yourself a pat on the back. Nunquam Dormio 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I will Johnbod 19:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't noticed it yet. Thanks. --Coppertwig 23:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Good insight, my friend! --Rednblu 03:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm an expert... a specialist, maybe... anyways, I sent Lee Wykes and his book off to AFD as hoaxes. Thanks! Bit odd - the editor who created the articles looks legit otherwise. Maybe his evil twin was using the account? Brianyoumans 05:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the heads-up. I really appreciate it.

No. No one had brought the CfD to my attention. Nor had the nominator placed the tag that show a category has been nominated for deletion. I added categories to 26 articles, while this debate has been taking place.

I tried to engage the nominator in dialog. I believe I remained civil. All his responses were abusive. He must have initiated the CfD after my last plea to him to make a greater effort to be civil.

Without regard to whether I am completely wrong about creating those categories, or whether they are all compliant with policy, his abusive language is inappropriate.

Thanks again for the heads-up.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 05:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the heads-up, particularly since you (currently I hope) think the categories should be listified.

There are close to 500 articles in

User:Geo Swan/working/total official names as of May 15

. It is incomplete. It took dozens of hours to get it to the current state. It got too large to edit. It is 399K. If I understand what you were suggesting, the result would be a table that was either 500 rows long by several dozen columns, or several dozen rows, by 500 columns. Either way would result in a totally unreadable table, if it wasn't too large for the render engine to render.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 09:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, unfortunately I am not familiar with those works, sorry. Appleseed (Talk) 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, you may be interested in Category:Missals, which I have just created and populated. I believe you've edited some of the articles in that category. Appleseed (Talk) 20:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that they are there. I'm not going to inline cite them. First I think that that format doesn't work well with art articles. And second, both articles are essentially rewrites of the BL catalog info, each has only one reference listed, the BL catalog entry. Putting footnotes after each sentence or paragrah, all to the same source, is silly. (The requirement to in-line cite things is one reason I have only pushed one article (Book of Kells through the FA process. I expect it to to loose that status eventually because of the lack of inlne citations.) Dsmdgold 03:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I think I told you my view on GAs. I'm adding my hap'worth on the page. Johnbod 03:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On March 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cesar Picton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks Johnbod for your many contributions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francis Barber, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

--

]

RE:

I know, but to be honest I feel very tired and bothered with the endless discussions like this one. I don't want ot discuss obvious things like Karlovy Vary is Czech city. I don't want to see that project all over the Czech cities and institutions same as nobody wants to see our project on the other side. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]