User talk:Johnbod/5 to mid-April 07

• "Headwear" sounds better to me, but "headgear" is clearly the older term, by a few hundred years according to OED, so "headgear" is fine. If you want to avoid any connotations of protection, I'd go with "headwear" though. Feel free to move it back. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-06 03:28Z
  • You misread my reply. "Headgear" has implications of protection. "Headwear" doesn't. You can edit redirects by clicking back to them after it redirects (click where it says "Redirected from X"). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-06 03:33Z

I have created a new category Category:Writers who illustrated their own writing per the discussion on Category:Writers who also draw/paint in which you participated. Please help me populate it. I'm sure there are a lot more writers who belong in it, but I can't think of them. Thanks! -- Lesnail 15:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick 'thank you' for all your work on this article. Mercury543210 20:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. You can't be serious. You plaster the place with a 1935 source which you even quoted totally contradictory and the you expect others to be not "silly". Please check your sources and check again how far it is appopriate to include speculative material in an encyclopedia. Certainly to include that weak source in that controversial article is asking for trouble & reverts. Regards Gun Powder Ma 01:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, you gave two totally contradictory viewpoints with reference to one and the same source (from 1935...):

Contra diffusion:

Pro diffusion:

That IS a contradiction, hence your second edit was correctly reverted. Gun Powder Ma 01:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

violated it himself on gutenberg -- see my note on his talk p. I am just going to warn him this time, because otherwise things will escalate. 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The manner of the salute comes from the same Frick source, but she never asserted that salute gave rise to the political implications (which were noted by another author). It's plausible they're related, but I would want a source that makes the connection before it goes in the article. I just wasn't sure if this was a connection you saw elsewhere...you know much more on the history of chaperons than I do! Calliopejen1 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not mine. When I started the Visual arts page, I just followed the formats of the other AfD listings pages. Still, it's a wiki, so you can fix it yourself. You can edit the template {{Template:Deletionlist}} at Template:Deletionlist. This will change the wording on all the lists, so you may want to discuss it on the talk page there first. Or you could change the wording on the Visual arts page alone as a trial for new wording, which could be used for the template if successful. Or maybe some other solution. Tyrenius 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts? I don't understand what isn't clear. Tyrenius 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the page it says:

adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).

I can alter the template, if you think there's better wording (NB, as I've said before, I didn't write the wording in the first place). Tyrenius 22:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the template page then. It'll take ages to explain it (and I'll have to work it out first myself). It comes up at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. What at the top of that page is wrong? What should it say? Tyrenius 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it works now, please endorse on Template talk:Deletionlist. Tyrenius 02:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sort truly appalling layout; please don't leave articles like this!" Any layout problem was unintentional. My revision looked fine on my browser and monitor, which is as much as I can do. When leaving comments, please don't imply that people are intentionally trashing/leaving them in shambles when they're obviously making a contribution. It's rude. 130.49.147.97 13:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You post material which is clearly motivated by personal prejudice rather than care for Wikipedia which is kind of sad. I tried to keep the section on historical debate low-key, but you wouldn't want none of that. We'll see us in the relevant threads. Regards Gun Powder Ma 13:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the FGI is a particularly ethnocentric slogan, and my intent was to provide a dissenting view on the same page - in a restricted manner, since the matter is already discussed at length in the respective articles. However, your amateurish edits ask for further clarification, and your headstrongness perhaps for a girl-friend...Regards Gun Powder Ma 14:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article by Hyatt Mayor which runs directly contrary to your source which, given your self-serving treatment of the Hind source, makes me wonder how much else you have made up. Gun Powder Ma 00:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your tip. The text had been placed on the template page, so I removed it.[1] I will look at your Visual Arts deletion text when I can find time. Tyrenius 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment to me Andrew, please post to the IM talk page to discuss if you are planning any more nominations. is strange because I did post to the IM talk page concerning my CfD. Are you saying I need to post there BEFORE a CfD? The reason I brought up the old sub-categorization issue was a) I needed to explain the history and why removing (misc) from the title was unacceptable and b) I thought we could get some 3rd opinions on a matter that was never fully settled. You claimed my position was in the minority. It was supported by myself and at least at one point by sparkit, and your proposal was supported by yourself and Dsmdgold. Seeing as there was only a small handful of active people in the discussion, saying one position or the other is a 'minority' is a bit of a stretch. Therefore, I thought bringing it up at the CfD would get some third party opinions out there. Don't get me wrong, you have put a lot of work into this project, and your skills in editing these articles are clearly superior to mine (but do you have to bring that up all the time?) Anyway, I'm sorry if I offended you with my CfD, I'll try to be more careful next time. -Andrew c 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to have Man at hand, so you'll have to do those; Christensen is on line, so that makes it really peculiar, but I will do them. But he does have the right, tho I have ever seen it done even on the most politically or religiously charged pages, & I've worked on some of each. (Russians vs. Poles, and Messianic Jews). I do not want to do the same--even if I think he does not have the book at hand, I still do not want to ask for this--since most non-academic WPedians add based on titles or abstracts alone, half of WP would collapse if it became widespread. But what I think i will do is use some brief quotations & I will certainly ask for translations of anything in Chinese. I've generally said that they thing to do in disputes is to simply quote rather than paraphrase or explain. There is an interesting AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Chinese_inventions .DGG 03:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With this version I tried to include both requirements. Is that one misguided? It seems that without it, any scientific illuminated manuscripts or other secular works, that were created by Jews, would fit into the category. — coelacan — 20:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but not everyone knows what they are looking at when they see a category. Certainly most people don't know what you're telling me right now. =) Is the specificity a problem? If not, it can help the reader grasp what the category is about. — coelacan — 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should copy your last comment over to the CFD discussion, so other !voters can take note of it. — coelacan — 21:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Master of the Playing Cards, 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 .

--

]

Poll Misplacement

Thanks for the tip-off; I hadn't realized it. Some things I'm still trying to get the hang of. Zatchmort 03:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dukes of Burgundy

Explanation, please? Michael Sanders 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes and the dynastic templates both serve their own purpose, and I see no problem with them. I also fail to see the problem with depicting the variety of coats-of-arms used by the relevant parties. Michael Sanders 01:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminated manuscripts

I have to say I think your closing here was odd. There were seven editors posting, of whom four supported the nomination, and three supported the result you chose. The only reason for making the change was the move, agreed on the talk page, to a "flat" hierarchy, which meant that the mixed Judeo/Christian category of Illuminated biblical manuscripts was no longer under the Judeo/Christian category, which could therefore be renamed. Only three out of the seven editors supported the return to the old umbrella category, and none of them addressed (or I suspect were aware of) this problem, which was only mentioned late in thwe CfD debate. Now there will I think have to be another nomination to return the category to Judeo-Christian, as it was before (or we have to divide the biblical MS into two, which seems undesireable). If you had at the least closed the debate as no consensus, this would have been avoided. Johnbod 16:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was unanimous that the category should be renamed, and renamed to a name that includes the words Christian illuminated manuscripts. There was No consensus to add the "extra" disambiguation phrase "other" or "miscellaneous". I'll be happy to clarify that in the closure. - jc37 16:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"That doesn't really make sense. The pre-existing category name also included the words Christian illuminated manuscripts. What else, if anything, should be in the name depended on the flat vs umbrella question. You chose to endorse the minority "umbrella" view on that, and then picked a name that only makes sense on the "flat" version. I was the only editor to mention the Jewish issue, and I said that if the umbrella arrangement was preferred, the category should stay where it was. Johnbod 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There was consensus that it should be renamed", means that the "Judeo-" part of the name was to be removed. Looking over the discussion again, that's still' clear. - jc37 17:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello Johnbod, thank you for supporting

Vivat Regina!

Castles in France

To User:Angusmclellan, User:Cool Cat, User:Jamie Mercer, User:Bluap, User:Postlebury, User:LukeHoC, User:Johnbod, User:Sam Blacketer

I'm writing to you because you contributed to the discussion on Category:Castles in France, which resulted in the category being deleted, or redirected articles in that category. This decision, as I hope to show, was wrong and needs to be reversed. Please take the time to read the following and respond.

Firstly, I should say that I did not take part in the discussion because I did not know it was taking place. (I was actually in France following the presidential election campaign and, ironically, taking photos of French castles!)

My reasons for questioning the decision are:

1. As far as I can discover, the debate was not advertised on the Wikipedia:WikiProject France page, so that editors with a declared interest in topics related to France could be aware of it.

2. Similarly, no mention was made on the

Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles

page.

It would have been sensible to at least mention the proposal in these projects and to seek advice.

3. The problem identified is very real. The French word château does not translate easily into English. It can mean a castle (in the usual English understanding of the word - a medieval, military defensive structure). It can mean palace/stately home/ mansion (and in fact, English speakers will frequently use the word château with that meaning). It can mean a vineyard, with or without a castle or palace attached. And, even more confusingly, the thousands of water towers in France are named château d'eau.

4. Even the French sometimes need clarification. In recent years, French language guide books have often described castles as châteaux-forts to distinguish them from the palaces.

5. Some months ago I came across a page in Wikipedia called List of castles in France (see original). This made the mistake of including article links solely because of the word château in the title; in fact only about half of the list were real castles - the rest were palaces etc and even some vineyards. I set about revising the list and along with other editors we managed to get the page as it appears now. We have gone on to add dozens more articles, particularly by translating pages from the French Wikipedia. All of these articles were categorised as Castles in France; any then categorised under Châteaux in France were moved over to Castles in France. The Châteaux in France category was left to be just for French palaces etc (i.e. what we as English speakers would call châteaux).

6. The Category:Castles by country lists 56 sub-categories and many of these are further divided (e.g. Castles in the United Kingdom is divided into Castles in England, Castles in Scotland, etc). The only country without a category concentrating on castles is France and this is a serious oversight. Anyone looking for details of castles in France now has to wade through a category that is not dedicated to castles!

7. The problems you identified with the original Category:Châteaux in France are real and need to be sorted, but this has been made worse by now lumping in all of the castle articles. Château de Puivert, for example, does not belong in the same category as Palace of Versailles, any more than Conisbrough Castle belongs with Buckingham Palace.

I would be interested in your comments, particularly on how to give French castles the same category status as castles in Denmark, Spain, England and other countries. I have to say, the only way I can see that happening is to reinsate the Castles in France category as it was and for some work to be done on where the real problem lies - in the Châteaux in France category. Emeraude 10:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I think your suggestion would not work. Everyone in the English-speaking world knows what a castle is. "Fortified French chateaux" is so obscure as to be meaningless. As I said before, every other country has a category of "Castles in XXXX" so for consistency it must be the same for France. The ambiguities are more apparent than real: we all know what makes a castle (to be dumbingly stereotypical: battlements, keeps, arrow slits, drawbridge, gatehouse) and we all know that French Renaissance châteaux are not castles, even though some may have been converted from castles. The problem is actually with the châteaux category: it needs to be made more like the Palaces categories for other countries. Emeraude 13:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your DRV nomination

Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts was never deleted. Did you mean to nominate another category? -Amarkov moo! 02:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just revert yourself please - I'm still wriring it. Johnbod 02:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Johnbod 03:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. Responding there. - jc37 06:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1776 fashion

Re: Lady Worsley's regimental riding habit: A most excellent catch, thank you very much. - PKM 04:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for the heads-up on the history of painting page. Now I'm signing off, but I will look at it when I have a chance; alas, lately I find it easier to flag vandalism than to add substance. Best wishes, JNW 03:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Company style

On 30 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Company style, 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 .

--

chat} 06:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

1. ISBN 0-486-20952-0
2. ^ Master E.S., Alan Shestack, Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1967
3. ^ An Introduction to a History of Woodcut, Arthur M. Hind, Houghton Mifflin Co. 1935 (in USA), reprinted Dover Publications, 1963 ISBN: 0-486-20952-0