User talk:Johnbod

IF YOU MENTION AN ARTICLE HERE - PLEASE LINK IT!!!

This user is one of the 200 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Dirty angel from the Monumental Cemetery of Staglieno in Genoa, c.1910

memo to self - arty student project pages to check through

• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California State University Sacramento/Art of the Ancient Mediterranean (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Amherst College/Women and Art in Early Modern Europe (Spring 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/College of DuPage/History of Art- Prehistory to 1300 (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Fall 2017)
• Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Spring 2017)

Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Boston_University/Venetian_Renaissance_Art_and_Architecture_(Fall)

Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Diffusing categories

Why do you object to diffusing categories such as the Etonians' ones? Rathfelder is paying his usual attention to the views of other editors: diff. Oculi (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, there could hardly be a better illustration than Rathfelder's "scheme" - Etonians who people might be looking for are hidden in small sub-cats that make up a small part of their life, as I've explained at the Cfd. By-century schemes are fine to diffuse, by not these. "Soldiers" and "landowners" would be the biggest, but pointless. Rathfelder is I'm sure making a political point rather than concerned about the size of the category. Large categories don't actually bother me - see my comments here just today - a similar case. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Rathfelder is generally very keen on 'by century' subcatting (relatively harmless): see his last 500 creations, since mid-Sept. I too see no great problem with large categories. The Oxbridge college alumni categories are similarly large, as are the Yale/Harvard ones. Rathfelder will get to them around 2028. Oculi (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, by century sub-cats are especially suitable for schools and colleges as there is only a small period that's relevant, & therefore far fewer century-spanning people than in "Foo-th-century artists" etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I could do the architects; see User:Oculi/sandbox2. I will do the tagging and nom (straightforward) and you can argue with the remorseless Rathfelder (who created about 3/4 of them). I could suggest People from Dorset educated at Eton - there are about 40 of them. I'm not sure whether there is any pair of categories that Rathfelder would not wish to intersect. Oculi (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks - let me know when it hits Cfd, in case i miss it. I don't always follow it these days. I might be more sympathetic to some architects categories - Londoners tend to do a fair amount in London (like everyone else). The trouble with the Dorset ones was that most headed out of Dorset asap & hardly returned. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It will be later this evening. Oculi (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You might have missed this one. Oculi (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Another one. Oculi (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Our prolific colleague seems to be in a spot of bother. Oculi (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Ouch - yes. Thks for the lk. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Early modern art

Hello Johnbod,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Early modern art for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Early modern art to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mary,_Queen_of_Scots

2A00:23C6:B808:7701:AD1F:35A3:62FC:80CD (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Architecture of Bengal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bishnupur.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Tibetan art

On 9 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tibetan art, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tibetan art (example pictured) has been described as "almost unbelievably conservative" over the last thousand years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tibetan art. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tibetan art), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Great job John! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,822 views (651.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Venus figurines are not pottery

Venus figurines are not pottery. They're just ceramics. Therefore, Europeans did not invent pottery. oldest pottery ref — Sean Brunnock (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The definition of pottery varies, as the lead explains, & I don't think it is appropriate to use a narrow one here. Are you one of those people obsessed by where things were invented? Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Archaeologists consistently define pottery as ceramic vessels ref. If you're going to discuss ancient pottery, then you should use their definition.

I just noticed your latest edit on pottery. The term "pottery vessel" is meaningless. Pottery is a noun, not an adjective. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

That definition is purely for the purposes of that document. The lead cites a more authoritative one. Who says this article is an archaeological one? It isn't. Your second claim is demonstrably nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

That definition is purely for the purposes of that document.

What on earth do you think the purpose of the document was?

A Standard for Pottery Analysis in Archaeology

The aims of the Standard are to...Ensure pottery assemblages from all types of archaeological project are recovered and analysed consistently, with the aim of producing the best possible levels of information to allow detailed and informed interpretations.

This project was entirely funded by Historic England. The project team comprised Derek Hall (Archaeologist and Ceramic Specialist, Project Executive), Duncan Brown (Historic England), Paul Booth (Oxford Archaeology), Jane Evans (Worcestershire Archive and Archaeology Service), David Knight (York Archaeological Trust), Alistair Barclay (Wessex Archaeology) and Imogen Wood (University of Exeter).

Can't wait for you to tell me that you know better than Historic England.

And again, the word pottery is a noun. Anyone who uses it as an adjective is misusing the word. Otherwise, the term pottery pot would be acceptable.

— Sean Brunnock (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

oddly enough, there are quite a few here. I hope you will contact the authors and tell them how wrong they all are. Johnbod (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Lot's of folks misuse the word. That doesn't give you a license to do so. I'm not going to contact them. I'm going to correct you. The word pottery is a noun. That's a demonstrable fact. The adjective for pottery is ceramic. It's a collateral adjective. You're welcome — Sean Brunnock (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I'm taking English lessons from someone who begins a post "Lot's of....". Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm man enough to admit when I make a mistake. Wish you could too. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Rhinoceros Vase

Meissen rhino

An article in today’s Guardian on the latest Heritage at Risk Register led me to start this, Rockingham Kiln. I think, if you have time, that an article on the Rhinoceros Vase would be an indispensable addition to the ‘pedia. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

p.s. Would need disambiguating from this, Rhinoceros vase snail!

Not sure there would be much to add. Frankly I'd be more tempted by this fine fellow, and I think there is a Sevres one too. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Life of Buddha in art

On 13 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Life of Buddha in art, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Japanese parodies of scenes from the life of Buddha in art include arrangements of vegetables? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Life of Buddha in art. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Life of Buddha in art), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Amaravati Stupa

You don't appear to be short of pics. Was there anything specifically you wanted?©Geni (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

©Geni, there are actually few good photos of the main types of sculpture; most are taken in gloomy Indian museums, often blurry & at funny angles. I would use good ones of the round medallions with scenes, and of the thin coping stone relief on the BM back wall, also the garland frieze above that. One of their rectangular drum-slabs is carved on both sides - pics of each would be great. We only have 11 photos of the Amaravati Marbles from London (in this commons cat), one a crop of another. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

For your information

Émile Zipelius: Brutus

Hello Johnbod, hello also @Jane023: Musée des Beaux-Arts de Mulhouse has now been created at long last. It is just a stub, but it will grow over time. That museum is not even better than its reputation, because it has no reputation at all. Which is not only a pity, but also a mistake. As a display of "second rate" (I purposefully use scares quotes here) French art, it is as good as any big American museum. If one accepts that artists like Henner were able to produce genuine masterworks, then the collection has a lot to show for. All the best, Edelseider (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Nice work, thanks Edelseider! Considering the size of Mulhouse I can imagine it has many hidden gems. Jane (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jane023: As a matter of fact, the museum owns about 1,000 paintings, but it cannot display more than 100 at the same time, due to the lack of space. It's the place where you can still discover very talented painters who should not have been forgotten. Take Émile Zipelius, who died at 25 (!) in 1865. His 1862 painting Brutus is as good as anything Gérôme, Cabanel or Bouguereau ever painted. --Edelseider (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Nice! Feel free to add that painting to his Wikipedia page - he has a page on French Wikipedia. Jane (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod and pagewatchers...

Here's one you may like and can come up with more entries. Created Category:Mirrors in art after having a look at the long-named Dali painting. Filled it a bit, but I know there are many more. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Last one

Here. Oculi (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Short description

WP:HOWTOSD:

Editors should bear in mind that short descriptions are not intended to define the subject of the article, but rather to distinguish it from other similarly named articles in search results. Short descriptions provide a very brief indication of the field that is covered, a short descriptive annotation, and a disambiguation in searches (especially to distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields).

Jay D. Easy (t) 11:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Van Gogh may not be the best example, but we have hundreds of articles on Dutch artists. You can be sure that for every editor going round removing dates from articles, there is another going around adding them. Both are wasting their time, imo. Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with a short description's intended use? Jay D. Easy (t) 18:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jay. I agree with Johnbod here, and I think your misunderstanding the intent of short descr's, which the guideline you quote says should be "a very brief indication of the field covered by the article" and "a short descriptive annotation". Not including the lifespan / era leaves this goal short. Ceoil (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I've never liked dates on short descriptors, although I've never seen one in person (never have looked at the internet on a phone, too easy to take the addiction on the road on a daily basis). In the case of van Gogh's: "Dutch painter (1853–1890)" descriptor, what does that even mean? It reads like this van Gogh fellow painted from 1853-1890, a nice 37-year long career, and I'd bet a dollar to a donut that he probably created lots of good stuff in that time. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I see constant to-and-fro on my watchlist - for every adder there is a remover. It clearly doesn't mean he painted in the 15th or 17th century, which for many Dutch artists is a useful clarification. Arguably, for Anglophones, all "van..." names are "similarly named". Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"Dutch Post-Impressionist painter"? Ceoil (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

That might well not last long, & what it conveys to the average 16-yr old in Kansas I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thats not the point. See busy work. Ceoil (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, Johnbod! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Talk:Maria Advocata (Madonna del Rosario)#carbon dating

Do you have an opinion on this? You said recently at Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus#Discussion that the most recent scientific analysis didn't commit to any date. If you've got a source for that, I'd like to include it in the article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
Have a great Christmas, and may 2023 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Another year gone

		Best wishes for the holidays
		Wishing you and yours the best over the holiday season, and here's hoping 2023 won't bring as much global trauma as 2020, the worse 2021 & fecking 2022! Ceoil (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Dear Johnbod! Happy holidays, season's greetings, and best wishes for 2023 to you as well. Thanks for the lovely card! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Johnbod. Thanks for Christmas greetings. Hope all is well with you and yours and best wishes for the holidays. Adoration of the Magi (Signorelli) is nice! Happy to see it going to the main page for the day. Victoria (tk) 02:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec22}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

ϢereSpielChequers 09:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is safe, festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2023 will be safe, healthy, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, Johnbod! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Adoration of the Magi (Signorelli)

On 25 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Adoration of the Magi (Signorelli), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the horses in Signorelli's Adoration of the Magi (pictured) have been said to be "badly-drawn ... with curious mannerisms of too closely-placed nostrils, and human eyebrows"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adoration of the Magi (Signorelli). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Adoration of the Magi (Signorelli)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

December songs

happy new year

Thank you for that Christmas beauty! - We sang Charpentier's delightful Messe de minuit pour Noël today, which was on DYK yesterday, - a first for me, pictured, - thank you for the good wishes, and enjoy the season! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited San Giovanni Battista Decollato, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francesco Salviati.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Kalends of January

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Johnbod!

Happy New Year!

Johnbod,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Johnbod: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Chola dynasty

Seriously. Do you think the update timeline doest valid.?

That too with citation and ref. and

This user Kautilya and his/her contributions seems like a contribution from the North india outfit group.

Reference for Sangam Literature has been provided to estimate approx timeline about 4400 years yet you supported for the reverting back the article by pointing out Bad English.!

Really mate.?

Namooru (talk)

Yes, really. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

They've been told the reasons their sources are useless. Looking at all the warnings of their use (or non use) of sources, I'm not convinced they are an asset. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Fungi in art

Hi Johnbod: As a longtime admirer of your art articles, I wonder if I could ask you to give some "art article" guidance to new editor CorradoNai, who has just uploaded a massive fungi in art article. I've given him some initial feedback on his user talk page, but it would be great to get some "artist" eyes on it. It definitely needs some copyediting (English is not his native language), but it seems to me, on a casual first read, to be impressive in both its scope and its referencing. He's proved to be very open to constructive criticism, and it would be great to encourage him. He's hoping to take it to GA (and beyond) at some point. Please feel free to ping me if you have any questions. MeegsC (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Loving this MeegsC. Thanks! CorradoNai (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ivory carving, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Casket.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with St James's Place plc article

Hello John. I'm reaching out because I saw your active editing, your interest in subjects related to England, and your recent edits to the article on Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild- the founder of St. James's Place plc. Might you be willing to help with my pending edit request to improve and expand the St. James's Place plc article? A different editor got started helping me with this, but is now experiencing some technical troubles keeping them from completing this review and implementation. I'd be very grateful for your involvement and completion of the remaining changes. Thank you in advance, WJack11 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Chora

Hallo John, I noticed your revert of the move at Chora Church. I just saw that the author of the move is making mass moves involving mosques. I think that some of this moves could be controversial. In general, I don't think that they are aware of our policy on article names. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No, indeed. I left them a message, but at least some of these should be reverted. I can't do some of them - they need an admin. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hi John! As an art historian, I am really impressed with the work you have done for WP Visual Arts. Given the breadth of your contributions, I was wondering if you would like to collaborate—or can refer to someone who you know might be interested—on bringing Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki, a painting by Jacques-Louis David from 1781, to a GA or FA status. The article has been mostly abandoned for the last two years and it is a fascinating work for a variety of reasons—including, but not limited to, the politics of 18th-century Poland under partitions and David's cultural influence beyond Western Europe. Thanks so much for taking the time to take a look at this. Ppt91 (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, That would be a worthy project, but it's not really my period, and I don't have many relevant sources I think. I imagine many sources would be in Polish or French too. I can certainly comment after an expansion. You could look at who has worked on other paintings by David etc, or relevant articles on Polish history. His biography (Stanisław Kostka Potocki) seems fairly basic too. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your reply. It's a good idea to look at previous David contributors. Ppt91 (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Roman-era historians has been nominated for discussion

Category:Roman-era historians has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Citing sources

Please do not add content without citing a reliable source. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who restores material.      — Freoh 02:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I've asked Freoh for their source for adding "Many Westerners refer to ". Doug Weller talk 15:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sarcasm

Could you try to focus on content rather than making sarcastic remarks? I don't appreciate some of the comments you've made about me recently.      — Freoh 15:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong section

I noticed that you described some of my comments as being in the wrong section. I agree, and earlier I moved this discussion to Talk:Civilization § Widely referred to by many?, but Doug Weller then moved it back. Feel free to discuss with him if you want to move these comments.      — Freoh 18:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, well! Thanks for saying. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

All I know is that I was unhappy with Freoh’s reply being disconnected from my question. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Embriachi workshop

On 1 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Embriachi workshop, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that around 1400, the Embriachi workshop in northern Italy specialised in marriage caskets with carved bone plaques (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Embriachi workshop. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Embriachi workshop), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

10,647 - nice to see that marriage as well as just sex gets high views. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Waddesdon Bequest

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 3 March 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

On it, thanks. From a quick look now, it seems ok, but I'll do a fuller check later. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Royal Doulton

Hello Johnbod:- further to your comment about my recent addition I followed the direction found here [[1]], and in particular 'although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead', which I take as meaning the initial summary does not require any references providing the content in the bulk does have. User name for this site (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No - if there are references, they follow the normal rules, and only what is in the reference should immediately precede it. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, your view is at odds to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User name for this site (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't! Read that and other relevant policies more carefully. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, that Wikipedia guideline is clear yet these supposed others are ??? User name for this site (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, for comparison, very few references in the initial part of this Anne of Brittany.

You are misreading that one for a start! Where there are refs in the lead, you have to treat them properly, & not just pile your own stuff in front of them. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting read here [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by User name for this site (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"Communicating with newcomers patiently and thoroughly is integral to ensure they stay on Wikipedia and ultimately contribute in a constructive manner." That's my motto. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Mosan Renaissance

Sorry about the hasty renaming. A question, though. Do you think it should stay as "Mosan Renaissance architecture" or should it revert to the article's original name, "Mosan Renaissance"? Klow (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I think "Mosan Renaissance architecture" makes it clear what the subject is - it's not very well known in English, so this useful. I must admit i was unaware of it, & it was good to find out more. Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Rock and wave

On 21 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rock and wave, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the dollar pattern (example pictured) in Turkish Iznik pottery is a variant of the rock-and-wave border pattern adapted from Chinese porcelain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rock and wave. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rock and wave), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Compilations of biographies about artists

Are these Biographical dictionaries? Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 24#Category:Compilations of biographies about artists. – Fayenatic London 23:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Commented there - not imo. Thanks for the heads-up! Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

How did it came to this when it comes to article deletion?

First off, I just want to say sorry if this is not a appropiate place but I have been wondering. Wikipedia legit hosts everything from list of Intel processors to Intel Brand CPU List - Xeon Series CPU List - Whatever architecture based Xeon CPU list all in sepearte pages with legit price listings but when it comes to some sensor list. It becomes "advertisement catalogue unencyclopedic" even though it still uses "primary secondary reviews".

I just want to know how come there are such giant double standards or how some random people can come and happily delete peoples hard work when it comes to "saving kilobytes of web space" or just some rules or whatever they believe and simply making fun of wall of text I wont read it or simply idc I won't respond to arguments etc. Is there really a way to fix this? 78.163.105.147 (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Also sorry for my clumsiness. Here is the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_Exmor_image_sensors It got deletion nonimation less than 10 minutes after it was announced. 78.163.105.147 (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited China Room, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Molding.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Mezzotint

Nice work on this article! I got there because a few days ago it was what kept me from getting 'Queen Bee' in The New York Times Spelling Bee game. I'm familiar with the concept but had forgotten the word, and of course that led me to the article, which had been created long enough ago that the sourcing was out of date. It's really nice to see someone responding to a tag I left because I'm not familiar enough with a subject to try to help. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss! Thanks - I had used most of those sources years ago when writing much of the text, so fortunately very little actually needed changing. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

PS - I'd wondered what the sudden spike in views was caused by. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

hahahaha Valereee (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Otto prints

On 13 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Otto prints, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that three of the 16th-century Florentine Otto prints show young males tied to a tree and abused by women? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Otto prints. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Otto prints), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,446 views (703.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Signups open for The Core Contest

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Mozart

(I think I don't have to link to the article.) You called me a hardliner in the discussion, and yes I am: a hardliner for compromise. It was suggested almost 10 years ago. I am also a hardliner for respectful behavior. As I don't want to blow up the discussion:

The MoS of the English Wikipedia (different from the Italian and the German) excludes much of a person's life data from the lead, just requesting years of birth and death. The MoS seems to rely on an infobox for the details: days, months, places, age at death. Four lines, and one for why we have an article on the subject (be it by occupation, or by a list of works) is all I want in a biography, but also no less. When that compromise was installed for Beethoven (by the arb who had written the infoboxes arbcase), I hoped it would end the war conflict. How many more RfCs will we need? ... every one not only taking our time, but also deteriorating editor relationa. - I missed the last two for Mozart, intentionally so, but now hope once more it will be last one. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Well I agree that the age at death should be in the lead - that's normally the only thing I look at an infobox for. I think your stated expectations from a biography are very unusual, and very different from mine. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure we speak about the same thing. We have a MoS saying: omit many life data from the lead. I understand the idea is to free the first sentence from a birthplace (Salzburg) and especially its precise political entity when Mozart was born (Holy Roman Empire), and "park" these details in an infobox, which makes a lot of sense to me, lead and box complementing each other. Could I clarify that much? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Marek Kopelent - that's how I write an infobox - what do you think? - In the RfC, the nominator did not ask about any specific filling of parameters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yo, wazzup?

Prehistoric hunt

Your favourite painter just got bluelinked! Ain't that swell? Edelseider (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Never heard of him, but any friend of Deck is a friend of mine. I liked this one - more hunters should take the baby along. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

In fact, they are defending their cave from a bear, not hunting. The English title is misleading. Benner made a whole series of prehistoric-themed paintings, according to the latest scientific discoveries of his times. I think that this sets him apart from the other Academic painters of his era. Cabanel would never paint this: File:Emmanuel Benner - Chasseurs à l'affût 02.jpg. Anyway, it also gave him great excuses to paint more nude bodies, his favourite activity! --Edelseider (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Display.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"Stone sculptures of horses and sheep in the the Caucasian States" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Stone sculptures of horses and sheep in the the Caucasian States has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 20 § Stone sculptures of horses and sheep in the the Caucasian States until a consensus is reached. Randi Moth (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm eagerly awaiting...

Whatever you're going to add to Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries... last year's entry was very impressive! Ealdgyth (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm giving it some thought, but there's time to decide still. Haven't really got a shortlist yet. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)