User talk:Johnbod/15

Teamwork
I would love you to archive my talk page! Amandajm (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Johnbod! I think I'll talk to Charles about the BOt thing.
 * Trip- not till the end of March. We'll only be in the UK for three weeks, taking in the Easter, because my younger son can't be away from school too long at this stage. My elder son is in London. Amandajm (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me know if you have time for a meet Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Re that finger painting, if it's going to be in the article, because it's an artwork and not a photo of John the B, it needs to be dated and creditted to Leo. It does kinda fit on that side, but not very well. It's possibly more relevant than the pic of Cosimo Medici. Amandajm (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Castle
Hi Johnbod, I've made some additions to the article per your comments here and was wondering if you could follow up on whether it the changes (which are linked in the discussion) are what you had in mind. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuffield buildings
Thanks for your help pre-FAC and your kind words of support; the article will get its bronze star when the bot next runs. After writing about a college that I've been inside once, my next challenge I think will be to write about the architecture of a college I've never even been inside, Wolfson College, Oxford, so I might be asking for some comments on that in due course. Please let me know if there's anything you'd like me to look over for you, in return. Regards, BencherliteTalk 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Art of Denmark
Thanks for all your efforts on this. It certainly looks much more complete now. Do you think it would be worthwhile including something on Queen Margrethe's tapestries which though designed by Bjørn Nørgaard were actually executed in France? They certainly made quite a splash in Denmark a few years ago. I was also wondering whether we should say something about Danish Design, architecture, etc., if you think they come under the general heading of art. (See Culture of Denmark and Danish design.)-Ipigott (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh certainly; the more the merrier. There is no article on the architecture to link to unfortunately. I think they are best treated separately, if only for the categories etc. But something should be said. Photography? I wouldn't know. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you are "watching" this page but you might be interested to know that I've now added sections on Margrethe's tapestries and on contemporary Danish architects. In connection with the tapestries, I discovered that the English Wikipedia had nothing on Bjørn Nørgaard, probably the most prominent living Danish sculptor - so I have spent some time on a page for him. I did not add anything on photography as I could not find sufficient evidence for real expertise in this field. I think perhaps we should start with an article on Danish photography before going any further.


 * My problem now is to decide whether the Art of Denmark page should also contain sections on music, theatre, cinema, etc., or whether these should form the basis of a new article on Performing arts of Denmark. I see there are already a number of articles along these lines. See Category:Performing arts by country. What do you think?Ipigott (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw those edits. Normally visual art is treated separately. I see from Culture of Denmark, the usual overall article, that most of these already have their own articles, except for achitecture. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now written an article on Architecture of Denmark and look forward to any suggestions you may have for corrections or improvements.Ipigott (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Bird, air pump, yadda yadda
Whom do you suggest that knows a lot about visual arts and might be able to check the books? I posted on the talk page, but yeah, I don't think anyone's ever gonna answer since the article's gathered dust for so long and all its major editors went poof. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Battle of Alexander at Issus
Hello. I've been fleshing this article out over the past few weeks. I've synthesised all the major sources I could find online to create what's there now, and I'm quite sure it's reasonably comprehensive. What's lacking, though, is a Reception section – and there's not a terrible lot of material available on the Internet. What is there is disjointed, and while critical praise/commentary is not sparse, a cogent history of the painting and its travels has proven difficult to piece together. Your prior edits to the article indicate you're in possession of C.S. Wood's Albrecht Altdorfer and the Origins of Landscape, which I assume has a fair bit on Issus. In particular, most of the material you added to the Reception section was sourced to Wood, so I was wondering if you could look further into the book and dig out some more history. I appreciate any help. Best, — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the reason for this may be a sentence from Wood someone, probably you, has now cut "As late as 1740, a German critic had considered it to be by Albrecht Dürer, despite the presence of Altdorfer's signature." Johnbod (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So you don't have access to the book? — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do, but I think I took everything relevant last time. I'm not sure what to suggest; nearly all the literature is in German. Munich was rather off the beaten track for a long time, & it became much more widely known when taken to Paris. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does Wood give at least enough information to construct a timeline? It was painted in 1529. What happened between then and Napoleon's taking it to Paris in 1800 I don't know. The Prussians took it from his palace in 1814. At some point, it was passed from the Bavarian royal collection (how did they obtain it and when?) to the Alte Pinakothek. At another point, it was at the Louvre, where Schedel saw it. It's all a confusing mess to me. Thanks for taking the time. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can add most of that. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for that. It certainly clarifies things in my own head. Best, — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't think it is ready for FA yet, FWIW. It would need less bitty sourcing, though I don't know where that is to be found in English. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not yet. "Bitty"? — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 04:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One other thing – is there anything Wood says that could be used for the second paragraph of the Reception section? Thanks. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, nothing after the Schlegel quote. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what you think is yet to be done / what coverage you think is missing? I'm not really sure what you mean by "bitty" referencing. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Too many internet sources giving little bits of info, & not enough books with sustained coverage. But, as I said, I'm not sure where to get that in English. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see where you're coming from. My own assessment is that the article neglects no major facts, but I guess there's no harm in looking for some hardcovers and perhaps trying to find translations of German material. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cloisonne Enameling
Hello. I took a look at the cloisonne enamel article and noticed what looked to me to be a couple of inaccuracies, possibly resulting from your edits. I would be interested in knowing where the term gemstone cloisonne came from. I have always considered gemstone inlay to be a very different technique from cloisonne, having done both. There were a few other areas where the article needed some cleaning up. I think a nice photo of Byzantine or other early cloisonne should be added near the beginning of this article. You have done a lot of good work with fine arts pages so I thought you might have something that is suitable. Zen-in (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the title of the article is Cloisonné & its the only one we have, so should cover the gemstone technique to, or be moved to Cloisonné enamel. Are you saying you are unaware that Cloisonné is used for the stones? Well it is - see here for example. Obviously it is a very different technique, but they share the plain term. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject of stone inlay is already covered under the topic of that name. Some artisans use the term cloisonné stone so maybe something needs to be added to the stone inlay page stating that.  cloisonné enameling and stone inlay are very different techniques.  You can't create a cloisonné and then either fill it with stones or enamel. If you try to describe the two techniques as one, it just creates confusion.   If you look hard enough you will find cloisonné used to describe a lot of different things.  That doesn't mean they should all be lumped into this article or that forks should be made. Zen-in (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * continued at the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Duby book on castle article
I'm assuming that Dominique Barthélemy wrote a chapter in the Duby edited volume. If that's the case, if you tell me what the chapter/section/article title is, I can format it like the Aurell citation to make things look a bit neater. Thanks for the edits, Nev1 (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dominique Barthélemy's section is titled "Civilizing the fortress: eleventh to fourteenth century" pp 397-423.--Wetman (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AEOABITAP
Thanks for the additions and the correction of Nicholson. (years I've been spelling that wrong...still, he's dead so he won't take umbrage). Yomangani talk 16:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, I just wanted to say thanks for the work on the Bird in the Pump-- a truly fine article made even better! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks both! I haven't quite finished yet, & have found a better pic. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 777 FA review
Greetings, Johnbod! Thanks for your comments thus far on the Boeing 777 FA review; if you have time, any further comments, suggestions, etc. are welcome at the article's FA review page. If you're not too busy, any contribution, however small, would be appreciated. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Micromosaic
DEAR JOHNBOD. I SEE YOU DELETED MY ETRY FOR MICROMOSAIC. I KNOW DIANA SCARISBRICK AND THINK SHE WOULD AGREE THAT THIS IS MY AREA OF EXPERTISE. I WROTE THE BOOK "MICROMOSAICS" AND OWN THE US COPYRIGHT FOR THE TERM. THERE WAS OUTDATED INFORMTION IN YOUR ENTRY. I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE WITH YOU AND WOULD APPRECIATE IT IS YOU WOULD EMAIL ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. jeanettegabriel@aol.comJeanettegabriel (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it was someone else who removed it - see the edit history, & . but it was:
 * A) not at all in wikipedia style
 * B) a copyright violation of your own site
 * C) Promotional of your business; you have a conflict of interest

I suggest you first read WP:GLAM, which is designed to help curators editing WP for the first time, to understand where we are coming from. Then we should probably continue on the talk page of the article. I have in fact incorporated some information, and added a link to your site and I'm sure we can add & correct anything that needs it. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For your patience and valuable help in crafting the origins paragraph for CC article (and for kindly sticking up for me : )  Nancy Heise    talk  01:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it Nancy. I hope you are feeling ok now - I can understand it is a nasty experience to go through. We seem to be inching forward a bit at the article anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing Micromosaic
Dear Johnbod, Who was the person who removed my information - is he an official Wikipedia editor?

I appreciate you making changes and adding the link to my website. (I do very little business on it and mostly give free advice.) I am retired and have had lung cancer surgery twice in the past year. I do not have the psychic energy to learn the process of writing in the Wikipedia format. I would be very grateful if you would add my book to the footnotes. Do you know Diana Scarisbrick? I was thinking of contacting her if you do, as she and I have communicated in the past and I am sure she would be embarassed to be cited as the authority on this subject. I would be happy to send you a copy of my book if you think it would help you enhance the Micromosaic entry. I get no profit from the book as it was published by the English Heritage. Please do not hesitate to contacct me by regular email. Thanks. Jeanette Gabriel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanettegabriel (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no "official" editors as such - I presume he saw your edits as promotional, which is not allowed, and not in the appropriate style. Also it removed all the stuff on Byzantine works etc. I have added your book as "Further reading" for now, & bumped you ahead of DS (who I don't know) as "the leading authorities". If there are specific additions or removals you think the article needs, please let me know, here or on the talk page. Sorry to hear about your health. All the best Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

R. K. Narayan
I would like to nominate R. K. Narayan for Featured Article status and would like your opinion on the article, and how it can be improved to meet the FA criteria. You had commented earlier, on the article talk page, and I believe I have addressed that specific comment. The article has now been assessed as GA. Can you provide feedback at Peer review/R. K. Narayan/archive1? cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  04:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, I evaluated the feedback and figured that there's a good ways to go still. As sourcing seems to be a problem to address some of the issues, I believe it's premature to evaluate the article for FA criteria and have closed the PR. It will take me a while to find these sources, and hope I can get that task completed over the next couple of months. cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  17:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Micromosaic
Dear John The illustration on the top right is not STONE, it is enamel set in black glass. It depicts the Pantheon. Cheers Jenette —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanettegabriel (talk • contribs) 19:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks< I hadn't spotted that, which was added before I came along. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't check with you before hand...
But pretty sure I've caught any art angles for William Longchamp. Next up is Mellitus (due to the annoying decision to up the Featured Topic reqs) and while the article mentions the St. Augustine Gospels, do we need more there? After Mellitus will be Justus, as a heads up. That should take me through the end of the year, probably. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * related to that File:AugustineGospelsFolio125rPassionScenes.jpg is goign to need a source, etc. to pass FAC. I'll need a website or page from a book that it COULD have been scanned from, not that it necessarily was scanned from. I know you didn't put it up, but I'm hoping you have a book with the page in it? Or if not that specific image, some image from the gospels that can be sourced? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It has the whole of page 113 (11 inches high) in Weitzmann, Kurt. Late Antique and Early Christian Book Illumination. Chatto & Windus, London (New York: George Braziller) 1977. There are only the 2 miniatures left in the MS. Personally I think this is all a considerable nonsense for illuminated MS, which obviously can only be photographed by the owning institution, & are only done every 20 years or so, if that.  All other photos are derived from these. Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is too, but... heck, poor William Longchamp's FAC had a request for "please clarify that the uploader really did mean to release the picture" or something like that ... Thanks for the look up. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wenceslaus Hollar
Aside from the fact that the name was already spelled this way in the text, it had been requested at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

please don't delete POV tags
John, you deleted the tags again. Please take a moment to read the POV tag, and then don't delete it until the dispute is resolved. Thanks in advance for following the rules. Leadwind (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See my edit summary, and please don't call me John. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Goya
Its my habit to thank with tunes:. Thanks for all your hard work and insight and for correcting me along the way. I think we can have a strong article but its not near there yet. Ceoil (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Author's Farce
I have rewritten The Author's Farce. Please check to see if that clarifies any concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have some time, could you go through the rest if you haven't already? Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was hoping Tony1 would do the lot, but I think he won't. I don't really have the time in the next 10 days, & it's hard when you don't have the sources. I'll try to give a light run-through, but it really needs more. I'll query bits I'm not sure about at article talk. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By "needs more" what do you mean? More content? There isn't anymore. That is the extent of the discussions on the work. 30k is quite a lot for a play of this kind. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * More than a light run-through, I mean. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I need to perform a thorough check myself as there have been quite a few alterations that I have missed. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I rewrote quite a bit for tense consistency. The main verbs in the Source and Critical reponse section should now all be in the present tense. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, well! I would support now. Let me know if you put it up again. Johnbod (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm frustrated by the whole "comment" now equals "oppose", because there are many throw away comments I made because I didn't have time to do a full review to stand behind a complete support. Meh. Could you check and see what we have addressed so far? The talk page discussion does not seem to have resolved on some of the matters (or has it?). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On AF - I think (if all the "land-ladies" have gone, my specific concerns are addressed, but I see others have more, & now there is no rush, if you can talk a good copy-editor into giving it a thorough run-through, that would help a lot. I will try to read it through again, perhaps not for a week or so. Sorry, I now see you are asking about OGU. I was happy with the lowing heifers bit as I left it, but I think my more general points remained. I'll look again. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have a chance, could you check out the Featured article candidates/Ode on a Grecian Urn/archive1‎ and concerns about the lead that are current? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To add to the possible Gregorian mission surviving manuscripts...
I've gotten my hands on Lapidge's Anglo-Saxon Library and on page24-25 he gives a few more possibles -


 * Another Vulgate-based Gospel - which he calls "Italian" and of a slightly later date than the Augustine Gospels, Oxford Bodleian Library Auct. D.2.14.
 * A fragment of a Gregory the Great homily in British Library Cotton Titus C.xv (folio 1).

Figured you'd be interested. I've added this to the footnote in Mellitus, will get around to getting it into the various other spots where it'd be needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Did you see and . I appear to have put my big foot in it again. Live by the snip, die by the snip, I'm somewhat tempted to say. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw it. Having just finished with a round of source checks at FAC, I have to say that I'm not in the mood for that kind of discussion. I can see all sides, basically. Sources, images, etc. are very boring but necessary details to check at FAC, which gets you grief but little appreciation. On the other hand, I've had to deal with my own FAC noms, where getting pictures into order is getting to be a royal pain, so .. I'll play Switzerland here and just hide behind my mountains of books. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very wise. That page is getting very dramatic all of a sudden. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some days I think the Wikipedia servers run on "drama" not electrons... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Recycled material at Bradwell
In the article on Anglo-Saxon architecture, you recently added a mention of reused roman material at St. Peter's on the Wall. Rodwell (1980) quotes a study by Miss Jane Wadham, suggesting that the Roman material in St Peter's, Bradwell is a “secondary introduction”. I'm afraid I have no idea who Miss Wadham is (or was) and I've not yet managed to trace her study. Do you know anything about her or her study? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not, nor do I know what a secondary introduction might be. The usual account, as at the article, is that they re-used materials from the wall next to the church. It would seem odd to do anything else. Actually I see they are talking about roman brick here, used for touching up the gable etc. The main walls are of stone. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nefertiti bust
Two things:
 * Thanks for the DYK comment. If you find better hooks in the article, please nominate.
 * What do you mean by art history? This is the first article I am dealing with art. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there isn't much discussion of the style, or critical appreciation, compared to the history, and the technical stuff, which is all fine of course. I may be able to add something in a few days. Johnbod (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ALT nominated for the DYK. Please check. I want to expand the description, but could not find referenced accounts of the description of the bust. Please let me know if find something online. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church
Re your edit here. No, my edit was not remotely intended to evince laughter—I found no comedy in this evening’s BBC coverage of the Ryan report. Nor, if it comes to that, do I imagine for one moment that buggering children/young adults is inherently inconsistent with educating them to the very highest standards and improving their ‘life chances’: that is why I took care to use the form ‘and/or’. But to push Catholic charities as an unmitigatedly good thing in the lede of an article seemed to me to need correction, or at least a little moderation. Of course I expected rapid reversions on the part of the numerous papal fanboys who inhabit Wikipedia. But I certainly did not expect you to masquerade as one of them. A mistaken attempt at humour, perhaps? Ian Spackman (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That subject (not the latest) is covered lower down. If you don't like the coverage, take it up at the talk page. AFAIK the new report does not concern charities anyway, but parish priests. Were you seriously trying to make a constructive edit? Whatever. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A serious edit? A lot more serious than yours, I think. But ‘whatever’, dear fanboy. Ian Spackman (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact you might have a view on whether this edit is sensible, silly or mere vandalism. You see what fellow editors we have to deal with? But you knew that already. I won’t object if you revert him/her as an idiot: but if you don’t I shall wear it as a feeble little badge of pride. Ian Spackman (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

English Gothic etc
That article needs an overhall! I see you have a little conflict about whether one ought or ought not be able to describe the most magnificent hammerbeam roof in the world as magnificent. Well, never mind! Don't forget the row about whether or not the rules of wikipedia permitted one to refer to Leonardo as famous, even when his "fame" was the precise topic. Didn't Uncle Nick say anything eloquent about that roof? I'm sure he did! As for that line about Perpendicular Gothic not being used in Gothic Revival. What an odd thing comment! Check out St. Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney and Sydney University. Edmund Blacket was a master of Gothic. I was in one of his cathedrals yesterday. Goulburn Cathedral. It's like a big parish church really, unlike St Andrew's which is a mini-cathedral. I'm always staggered at how good Blacket was at designing tracery. Anyway, Blacket hit the Sydney shore at exactly the right point in time. An architect with his skills was just what was needed. He would have had openings in the UK, but nowhere as much as New South Wales where there were churches, cathedrals and a university just waiting for him to come along and design them. He ought to be renowned as one of the greatest Victorian architects, but being a colonial, he is little known.

The other brilliant architect was James Barnet. Gee I love the internet! I had heard the story, years ago, that when Barnet was designing courthouses to be built all over New South Wales, he received the commission for the Bangalore courthouse. The story goes that the plans for the Bangalore Courthouse and the Bathurst courthouse got muddled and sent to the wrong places. After some time, Barnet travelled the 100 miles out from Sydney and discovered that they had laid the foundations for the Bangalore Courthouse in Bathurst! It was too late to change the plans. This is the story, I was never really convinced until I found the Bangalore courthouse online, and everything just fell into place.

Bangalore got an imposing Victorian classicising edifice, with a long facade with two stories of arcades above a basement, and covered with stucco which has since been painted bright red. (the entire building, mind you, apart from the coat of arms, which is white). Bathurst got an extraordinary building. It's central section houses the courthouse, and has a high dome. The dome would have been very significant in Bangalore, where the Prince's palace, and another building already had domes. This would have made it clear that the Law was something to be reckoned with.

Bathurst Courthouse has two long wings that extend at right angles to the main block. They were designed to house the post office and the telegraph office. Both wings are approached by shallow steps and have very wide verandahs right around them. The verandahs are nice on a hot day, when someone from the sherriff's department comes to psot the mail, but otherwise, they are superflous. Every street in Bathurst is equipped with wide overhanging awnings. But I can just imagine how those verandahs would have served the poor of Bangalore. They were designed for pedlars and beggars to shelter from the sun and rain. There would have been a water fountain in the middle of the square. People would have set up market stalls. Barnet knew exactly what he was doing! Such a pity that the poor of Bangalore were deprived of it, and the most elitist town in New South Wales missed out on the grand imposing Italianate facade! And yes, those are elms, where there ought to be palm trees. Neither the square, nor the verandas have ever been properly utilised. Amandajm (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd heard the story too, but not so circumstantially. I was only passing through the Gothic - I tend to avoid architecture as its not my real subject, and there are fortunately other editors like yourself - though not so many on medieval Western stuff sadly. One wonders how on earth the mistake was made - they normally label every plan with the location surely? Harder to understand than the first dragon prop Wagner ordered for Siegried from Paris for Bayreuth, which got delivered to Beirut (Beyrouth to the French).  I'm not writing as much these days anyway.  Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rambles in Germany and Italy
Thanks for your help with the BE in the above article. I had someone check for spelling, but nothing beyond that. Since I am American, my BE is rather limited to words like "flat", "bonnet", and "loo", which are not really relevant to this article. If you see anything else that needs fixing in this article, I would appreciate the help! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's that time again...
Are we basically looking good with Mellitus? Longchamp's done at FAC and I was thinking of running the poor little archbishop through shortly. If things are missing, etc. let me know so I don't clog up FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, nothing to add. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Metalcut merge proposal
Metalcut, created by you, has some nice historic information but seems a bit limited in scope. What do you think about merging it into a history section of the relief print article? —Parhamr (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church
Hi Johnbod, we are discussing the sex abuse paragraph here. I am trying to get some past editors to come to the discussion so we can discover what others think. Thanks,  Nancy Heise    talk  19:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was wondering if you could email me?  Nancy Heise    talk  04:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

request from drooling idiot administrator
Being an admin doesn't necessarily mean I'm bright, OK? Please see User talk:John Carter. I know comparatively little about images or copyrights, but figure you probably know a bit more about them than I do, and I would welcome any sort of input which might help me get somewhere with this. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Cook Baronets
Hi Johnbod

I dunno if you spotted it, but I replied at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 29 to your !vote opposing merger. For the benefit of the closing admin, may I ask if you could perhaps add a further comment to say whether or not I have persuaded you to change your mind?

Thanks -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

User:Benkenobi18
Mr. User:Benkenobi18 is not really listening to my reasons given here. Please consider giving him a 2nd opinion/warning, (assuming he has not reversed his edits, al a category emptying, by the time you read this, which seems unlikely). Thank you. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 09:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Images in Architecture of Denmark
Thanks, Johnbod, for improving the presentation. Personally I prefer to see larger images at the beginning of the article too. User:Materialscientist obviously thought otherwise and downsized them a couple of weeks ago. He was also the one who introduced all the galleries. I'm not sure this is the best solution as the pictures are now frequently removed from the text to which they refer. Someone also commented (rightly or wrongly) that Wikipedia was now discouraging galleries. How do you think we should sort this out? You'll see there is quite a lot of discussion now about improving the article - see its talk page. Ipigott (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Grecian Urn
Could you revisit, I have made a few changes since your last statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think this image should go in the poem section next to the sentence mentioning Raphael? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? It's a pity we don't have a Commons pic of the Claude, as the landscape setting seems a closer match, but the Raphael gives a good close-up view. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution and Dogma
Either we keep the fork or we don't. It's almost evil to create a copy if you revert the original ref. ADM (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * YOU were the one who decided to remove the passage from the article & set it up as a little stub. Your language is absurd under the circumstances! I don't agree that only one can survive, but if so it should clearly be the main article.  I will give you some time to improve the article, but will then put it up for AFD if you continue to insist on leaving a hole in Evolution and the Catholic Church. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No way, I'm reverting my edits, I'm not going to put up with this trial by ordeal. Ordeal is what this is called. ADM (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Veit Stoss
Curious. When I made a few changes, hoping to give this article a little more "encyclopedic" quality, I noticed that you reverted me with the comment that they were not improvements. So I have to ask you if you think ..."his exact date of birth is unknown though it may have been in 1473..." is preferable to my change? So then he traveled to Krakow when he was three? Is his altarpiece at St. Mary's Church a triptych? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See my subsequent changes. Your edit had its own problems, & it was easier to start again. Yes, the altarpiece is a triptych. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of German art
Hello! Your submission of German art at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think editors are sympathetic to this being ticked off for the main page and would be happy if you're able to add any more references. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this article and see if there's anything I can add to it. I can certainly expand the post-WWII section And wow, great job! It's about time someone so capable as yourself worked on this article.  Litho  derm  17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you take a look at one last issue re in-line cite? Ta! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - not hard, as it is the first line of Wood's book. If only refs for later periods were as easy! Thanks for your help on this, & Lithoderm's. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Gothic
Just looking for a clarification. On this page you observed that "this job ... the article Gothic (term) does ok". I wondered if you meant the Gothic (term) page, or the dab page, as other editors have done. If you did mean the term page I would appreciate it if you could find the time to point out its usefulness there, which is also disputed. If not then perhaps you could clarify on the template talkpage. Thanks for your time.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 09:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

GA peer review on Architecture of Denmark?
As you, Johnbod, were the one who encouraged me to start writing this article, I thought I should let you know that I think I have now more or less completed my own contribution in the light of the suggestions and inputs I have received. On the article's talk page I have added the following:
 * After trying to follow up on all the suggestions I have received in recent weeks and in the light of all the positive inputs from others, I don't think I can do much more with the article at the moment. It may therefore be a good time to ask for a peer review for GA. I am not too sure whether I should submit the article myself (if I can cope with the template!!!) or whether someone else should do it on my behalf. As always, open to suggestions. Ipigott (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Architecture_of_Denmark"

I would appreciate any advice you can give in this connection. Ipigott (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Migrating pottery in Iron Age Ireland
John, I have to confess that I wasn't completely frank about my reasons for objecting to Iron Age migration getting into History of Ireland. I'd be ignoring WP:BEANS if I left this comment there, so I'll leave it here. What I said is true, Raftery gives almost no space to migration. He flatly dismisses the idea of migration from the continent and has no truck with the idea of migrations from England either. I'll give an example (p. 153): "Inspiration from north-east England for the introduction of the beehive quern has been postulated and it has been taken to indicate a folk movement to the country from that quarter. But the appearance of a technological improvement of such striking and immediate relevance to the everyday life of the people would spread quickly once the idea was implanted and the principle understood. It hardly seems necessary to invoke significant population change to explain the development in the means of grinding corn." The section on continental migration is even shorter. The real problem, and one that I don't want to leave on record on that talk page, is that the putative migration to which Raftery devotes most space is that from modern Scotland into County Antrim. That gets four pages on the archaeology as a whole, including a couple of paragraphs on the presumed migration. This might seem innocuous enough, but it runs dangerously close to weird theories on the Cruthin which were popular with the Ulster Volunteer Force not so long ago. It's bad enough having people edit-warring over Laudabiliter because it offends against myths. We don't need to get that on History of Ireland too. Not when the idea of Iron Age migrations gets so little space, less than a page in a book of almost a thousand pages which is in turn part of a series of nine volumes, most of which are equally large. The very best of the season to you and yours. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I remember, the invasion/migration ideas are outdated and opinion amongst archaeologists has moved on. Dramatic changes in material culture used to be attributed to a change in the population, but now (IIRC) there's more emphasis on trade and social interaction as a means of disseminating new technologies. I don't know much about that side of the Iron Age though as the issue of Celtic identity is very subjective and sometimes influenced by nationalism. In short, the people at the time would not have called themselves "Celts" and it's not as if the material culture is uniform across the so-called "Celtic nations" anyway. Nev1 (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Angus, & the same to you & yours - and you Nev! Fair enough. I think the existing text is probably adequate - it has more detail than his proposed addition; perhaps you should comment there again. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation
For double clarity, I really appreciate your significant contribution to the German art article. --Sum (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What forms of acknowledgement do you expect? As far as I know, there is no explicit credit when material is copied within wikipedia itself.--Sum (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Splitting and Content forking. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't go through my points one by one, but I don't see why I should really waste my time trying to help out with this article if all you can do is this, which ensures the article is as badly written as it was before my edit. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I added back a couple of points, but many seemed fiddling, altering the meaning for no good reason. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough – although I'm sorry that you consider them to be fiddling. I've remade a couple of edits that help with the English. Ericoides (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

German art just before the Third Reich
You may well be correct that this article is unhelpful, and perhaps I was too ready to assume good faith on the part of the creator. None the less I don't think this fits A10, which i think ought to be construed quite narrowly. A prod would take little work, and would allow the creator to do serious work if he chooses, and if he doesn't will demonstrate that quite clearly. DES (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment on the article's talk page.  Litho  derm  18:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Scuola Grande
I find the neutrality of the Scuola Grande di San Giovanni Evangelista rather doubtful now. It claims as fact that a "relic of the true cross" brought the scuola prosperity--a rather extraordinary claim--and that this cross hovered over the water. It may be true that it is referenced--I have not seen the original source--but surely the law of gravity is also referenced. Ucucha 15:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing extraordinary about the prestige of the relic bringing in wealthy and powerful members to the confraternity, with their donations and bequests - that is how these things work. As to the miracle, it is as well documented as anything in 14th century Venice, and I don't think the text as it stood (copied from Vendramin in fact, which I should have said, where it has been for ages without objection) amounts to an endorsement of the factual nature, but I have added an "according to ...". This should be at article talk, where I will copy it.  Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, that's part of what relics were for. Am I right about Masser being Maser? I thought the paintings were as famous as the Splinter. Happy Johnbod's Day! Will it be Johnbod's Day again in 2010?--Wetman (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Johnbod's Day!
Finally.

DYK Nativity at Night
Suggest changing the hook from

... that the depiction of the Nativity at Night by Geertgen tot Sint Jans (pictured) is influenced by a vision of the mystic Saint Bridget of Sweden? to

... that the painting Nativity at Night by Geertgen tot Sint Jans (pictured) was influenced by a vision of the mystic Saint Bridget of Sweden?

Please approve or propose an alternative. Materialscientist (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever! I can't see any need, but fine. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The point was to avoid obvious repetition "depiction pictured" and to shift from present to past tense. Yes, some hook tweaks look like nitpicking, but this way we can talk back to the author - when complaints come at the prime time, we just change things within seconds. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I was in a hurry & only saw was/is! Fair enough on the other one. All the best for the holidays! Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Hi Johnbod, Happy New Year and Merry Christmas.....All the best...Modernist (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The same from me, Johnbod. With appreciation for your stellar work. Happy holidays, JNW (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My new edits... a Christmas gift needed
Ciao John! Before leaving for my Christmas holidays, I give you my best wishes and ask you help for my last, rushy additions (The Triumph of Death (Palermo), Palazzo Abatellis, Santa Maria della Catena). Thanks and merry Christmas from --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings and all that ...
Happy Christmas & New Year to all! This is my wiki-card to everyone: Nativity at Night (Geertgen tot Sint Jans) - should be on DYK tomorrow some time. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)



DYK for Nativity (Geertgen tot Sint Jans)

 * Kudos. Happy...etc. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The wanderer returns - excellent! All the best for the New Year. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice you are still fighting the Bacon wars. If you have read anything thing about him, that the issue of nationality would be an issue is boringly ironic. Wikipedia for you, I suppose. Ceoil (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I have tried to kick the ball into touch anyway. Let's see how long that holds .... Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Stavelot-Malmedy
Any chance I could ask you to help with the art section of the article, please? It's the part about which I know the least, so any contribution you can make would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, will do. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Awesome work, dude. Thank you so much! I've tweaked the references a little, but a couple are one is missing — Lapière and Swarzenski are both is mentioned with page numbers but with no reference to what they are it is. Any chance you could add those it in (or just point me to the full citation s ), please? Again, a dramatic improvement on the rubbish I'd written; thank you! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You removed Julian Hatton an abstract landscape artist from Landscape art
What's your reason? I can't see how WP:UNDUE applies since it was only one line.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Two lines, plus notes, which is more than anyone else in the last 150 years gets. Let's face it, he's not a major artist. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Three faces on one head type depictions of the Trinity
They were condemned by the Catholic authorities in the 16th and 17th centuries but continued to be made well into the 17th century (at least a few examples), to judge from the contents of commons:Category:Three faces on one head, the date of the painting discussed in the Guss article, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much what I said isn't it? You may be interested in the new God the Father in Western art, which I am sorting out somewhat, which has spilled over into Dogmatic Sarcophagus. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No you said on Trinity 15th-century only, but from what I can tell the majority of surviving depictions of this nature are 16th or 17th centuries... AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "There are a number of similar sarcophagi, and occasional images at intervals until a revival of the iconography in the 15th century" is what it says currently. The 15th century manuscript images are of very high quality, whereas the later ones are pretty provincial. Of course more 17th century works of any kind survive than 15th century ones, but I see it as a 15th century revival which was echoed into the the 17th century, despite church controversy. But the article phrasing is vaguer than that, as I don't have detailed sources on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What do three-faces-on-one-head type depictions of the Trinity have to do with sarcophagi? AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Such "Cerberus" depictions of the Trinity as three faces on one head were mainly made among Catholics during the 15th to 17th centuries, but ..." is what we are saying there, which is mostly you, no? The Perugia fresco on Commons is 13th century, I now see, so perhaps that should be extended. But I still think the 15th century was the main age of iconographical experimentation. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed "15th" to "15th-17th" because from what I can see majority of surviving three-faces-on-one-head type depictions of the Trinity are actually from the 16th to the 17th centuries, and therefore the previous wording written by you tended to be misleading. Not sure when the precise beginning was, and perhaps there was no abrupt and total ending; however, based on the available evidence, the 16th and 17th centuries should be included in the hey-day or most prominent period of three-faces-on-one-head type depictions of the Trinity. AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gniezno Doors

 * Happy New Year Johnbod! I hope you had a Merry Christmas too.  Nancy Heise    talk  07:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

art
Hi, I just saw this Crucifixion in the arts. Seems low quality. History2007 (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well spotted; indeed it is. Split off from the main article at the end of November. I think the way to go would be to leave this largely to stew (ok improve somewhat) & start a new Crucifixion in art for mainstream visual art - a rather daunting task, but I have the books. This one might get the "crucifixion in anime" section back any time. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, fine. But given its quality, crucifixion of the arts may be a more apt title. History2007 (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Style ID
John, what would you call ? Thanks,  Litho  derm  08:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know. Names for medieval clothing are generally very vague, & often settled on by convention among historians. There are lots of period images, and lots of of documentary references with names for styles, but hardly any clear indications which name goes with which style. Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorting the mistagged BLPs
Thanks for sorting them. I was going to get to it today if you hadn't, this saves me some time. Gigs (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Of course, the total count is now lost. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Arts Project discussion
Thanks for contributing to this. I am going to draft some proposals, probably today, on a user page. Would you like to comment on/add to them before I put them up for agreement/disagreement? I think we should cover all the main possibilities. I'm also hoping we can get some of your VisArts colleagues involved, it that's possible. The decisions won't carry so much weight if there are only two of us. -- Klein zach  23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure - let me know where its been put. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are five proposal, I probably won't be supporting them all, and I don't expect you will either, but I'd like to have as clean and clear a process as possible. It's here. Maybe you would like suggest changes directly on the draft page itself? Thanks. -- Klein  zach  05:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. i've made some changes per your comments, and posted the proposals to the discussion. No doubt you will want to give your views there. I'm hopeful we can get agreement on the substance, if there is some 'give and take' on the details. -- Klein zach  23:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm getting the feeling you are finding the existing proposals a bit of a straitjacket. Why not make new ones? We can then withdraw those that haven't attracted any support. -- Klein zach  01:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that I have an alternative scheme ready, & all of yours have attracted some support, so I'm inclined to carry on there. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Help needed...
Ciao John! I invoke your omniscent art knowledge to help at my new long addition, Carpaccio's Legend of St Ursula. Can you? Thanks soooo much in advance from --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks soooo much. Just a note. Can you find a source about the type of the panels? Ain't sure they are canvasses.... Ciao and good work frmo --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes they are, per Accademia Electa guide. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And to show I can do "art"....
Liudhard medalet. Anything you can add is greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you for your notice
of me on my BBC premier. Who knew anyone would watch it, much less take the trouble to figure out "carptrash". You'd like northern New Mexico where stuff such as Flagellation of Christ is still pretty popular. Say "hi" to Wetman if you are still in touch. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)