User talk:Johnbod/17

From June 2010

Reverting Renaissance Humanism
Hi, Johnbod, you reverted my changes to Renaissance Humanism, including a lot of in line citations, on the grounds that the changes were too drastic and had not been adequately discussed, according to you. In point of fact, over a long period of time, I did put a lot of my objections to the article and suggestions for improvements on the discussion page, at least so I thought. No one addressed these and so I was bold, as we are enjoined to be.

In any case, I am very willing to discuss, defend, and supply in-line citations to any and all aspects of the changes I made. Is there something you have in mind particular that you find objectionable or unacceptable?Mballen (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted myself, as I won't have time to go into these, and the earlier changes you've made, in the next 2 weeks, & I accept you know more about the subject than I do. I admit some of the changes initially looked more drastic than they were in the diff, because of paragraphs appearing somewhere else. More citations would probably be a good idea. The rather inadequate edit summary did peeve me somewhat also. So please carry on for now. Sorry about that! Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, Johnbod. I do still have a lot of problems with this paragraph, myself, however. I just wanted to take out or tone down the most egregious things. There is a lot of room for improvement. Sorry about the inadequate summary. I guess I was a little lazy.Mballen (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Water Newton Treasure
Just out of interest, why did you remove my references and changes to Water Newton Treasure? I added some relevant information (ie replacing the vague 'due to the nature' with an actual description of why its thought they were used in a church) and two relevant sources which you then put into one external link. I see you were updating that particular link but surely a few inline citations would be useful too? The Flying  Spaghetti Monster!  10:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I'm puzzled as all I thought I did was update the link. I seem to have been editing the previous version without realizing it. I do plan to add to the article as promised at the meet - I have a BM exhibition catalogue with individual listings - but that won't be till the end of next week or later. I see you've readded.  Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_31
A new proposal has been made; your comments are welcome. postdlf (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Under the denominations section of Islam we are trying to get a reference percentages on the adherents of each denomination. But so far we only have sources on statistics for Shia and Sunni, not others such as Ibadi, Sufi or Ahmadiyya (which has led to edit warring). Could you add that to the list of substantial concerns in [Wikipedia:Featured article review/Islam/archive2] here please? Leave a message on my talk page please Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello
You kindly advised me in the past about pages relating to the BM's collections. I have made a page on the Hedwig glasses but am not very knowledgable on the subject so was wondering if you could cast your eye over it? Thanks Chasuble (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expanding so well! They are a fascinating topic. Chasuble (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - I must admit I'd never heard of them, though they're just my kind of thing! Johnbod (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to Let You Know, I've nominated the article at Did You Know. Chasuble (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing the credit. I'm thinking I should take a camera up to the BM; only problem is I don't have one that works. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you could always go Old School - are you handy with a pad and paints? Chasuble (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Realist visual arts
Hi John,

There is such thing as realist visual arts. The term is used in such sources as the following:,. The problem with calling the article "Realism (visual arts)" is that disambiguators (ie. terms added in brackets at the end of the title) are only employed in order to distinguish the article's subject from an unrelated subject. The subject of the article currently entitled "Realist visual arts" is a subcategory of the larger artistic movement known as realism. Because it is part of the same subject and not a separate one, the disambiguator is inappropriate. If you do not believe that "Realist visual arts" is a term in sufficiently widespread usage, "Realism in visual arts" would be another acceptable option.

Neelix (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first example uses an adjectival form of socialist realism, the second is just notes. You won't find many more. Realism in painting had different timing to the movement in other arts, & is often very different in character. Your OR view that it is the "same subject" as realism in other arts won't hold water. Can't you see that "Realism in visual arts" is ungrammatical? Please reverse this& spare me the trouble of getting it done. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi John,


 * If realism in visual arts was not a subcategory of the larger art movement known as realism, a section about realism in visual arts would not be included on the Realism (arts) article. Realism (arts) is the parent article; calling the article specific to visual arts "Realism (visual arts)" would be like calling the Funerary art article Art (funerals). "Realism in visual arts" is not ungrammatical, but on second thought, "Realism in visual art" (without the 's') may be more appropriate. There are plenty of sources that employ this construction:, , , . Would you object if I moved the article to Realism in visual art?


 * Neelix (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again that's a different subject - "realism" not "Realism". Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi John,


 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand what it is you mean by your last comment. What's a different subjet?


 * Neelix (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

GLAM/BM
"BM-related The Disasters of War"? Hundred quid each so. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you've got to do one starting from now (the FAC not the article - I think). I'm certainly going to have a shot, & so should you. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. I'm searching around for articles that have have a strong and easily accessable biblo. Sourcing is the hardest parts of these things: in my experience, sourcing alone usually costs far above £100. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I like the Royal Gold Cup but there's not much on it. Someone has started a little one on the Lothair Crystal, which is right up my street, but I want it all - no squabbling over shares! We'll see. Also one needs decent photos. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great - it's not my area, archaeology - outside of stones in Cork, but I'll be guided. Sorry for sounding flippant intially, I think this is a good development in general; if we can show some credibality likely there is a large resource that might become accessable which if used skillfully and respectfully is something both parties want. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well they must have some Irish plunder, which might be easier to source over there. At the moment the follow-up to the visit is mainly producing infoboxen & templates. Then there are drawings, and some prints - I only included the Disasters in the cat because of the BM album - just having a copy of a print ain't enough in my view. There's an online catalogue of Rembrandt drawings eg this, which have loads of other coverage.  Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm putting out Knight, Death, and the Devil as a possible. I know Lith, Riggr, Yoman and Raul are interested in Dürer, so it seems like good common ground. And from an afternoon searching and looking, there are a lot of sources out there. I suggest this as the first BM collab by us for FA, though I'm very much open to suggestion. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a good number of sources, though I'm going for a solo one first. Still not sure what - I need a camera.

KD&D was a big Nazi favourite, among other things. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good for you re solo effort, given your form since I've known you I'm sure it will be outstanding as usual. The Nazi thing re KD&D I had not realised - fine...more juice. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, sorry I wan't thinking. I don't think myself the KD&D should be categorized under the BM as they have only maybe 2-3 of at least several hundreds of impressions (starting price now maybe £15k). The Disasters were different because of the album, which was unique. Otherwise one might as well make Category:Prints (art) a sub-cat of the BM and several other large collections. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Halkett boat
I have listed the FA status of Halkett boat as needing review. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao back up, better than ever
Hi, some time ago, you reviewed St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao. I wanted to let you know that it is back up for FAC, and is greatly improved since you last saw it. If you have some time to look at it, I would appreciate your feedback. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Polish Rider
If we work on The Polish Rider it could be featured on the front page as a good new article, see The Polish Rider. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't have time to do anything I think, sorry. It is approved for DYK already. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How do I find out that an article has been approved? Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's where you nominated it (if it was you) - follow the link on "what links here" - later it will be set up on a page & go to a queue. Let me know if you can't find it. I added a bit as you can see. Googlebooks have a lot on it  Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hedwig glass
-- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Royal Gold Cup
That's extraordinary! Well done! I presume you're going to list this for a DYK? Would you like me to get you in touch with the curator (i.e. put yourself on the "one on one collaborations" list) and potentially go all the way to claim the first FA Prize? That would be so excellent if you did. I just went and saw that very object today for the first time and thought... "someone should write an article about that..." Witty Lama 13:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll add it to DYK today, & it will certainly be trying to beat the queue at FAC, perhaps after a quick Peer Review. It really needed a photo, but fortunately JMiall, who was at the BM day had already taken a couple. It really needs more of details though. I'd certainly be glad if someone could look at it, & I have some questions, though as you can see there are a number of good sources I have already. It isn't finished yet, but most of the sections are there.  Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you would add it to GLAM/BM/One on one collaborations and then write me an email with any questions, I can then forward that email to the curator and you can discuss with them directly - hopefully get an academic peer review of it too. Witty Lama 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I'll wait till it's more finished. They are mostly small points. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. And thanks for keeping the GLAM/BM section up to date. If you see them could you also add references to the location of their appearing in the DYK so people can check what it looked like at the time? Also - are you free to come to the BM next Friday by any chance?? I'd like you to be here for an event we're running (announcement shortly) Witty Lama 15:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Friday should be fine - I'm intrigued. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here it is: GLAM/BM/Hoxne_challenge. I've signed you up, please confirm you're good for this. Witty Lama 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw. I'll be there! Looks fun, if a bit chaotic. I don't have a laptop though (or a camera), but it's probably just as well if everybody doesn't edit at once. Will one or more copies of the big Bland & Johns catalogue on the hoard be available? That's what we need. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... lack of laptop might be tricky though - how will you contribute? We'll work something out I suppose. Not only will we have copies of the cataloge - we'll have both of the authors attending! Witty Lama 01:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but for an FAC you need the page refs. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Touchdown Jesus
Hey there - Have you heard what happened to Touchdown Jesus a couple of days ago? As soon as I heard the news, I thought, "OMG - I've got to leave a note for Johnbod!" :) Cgingold (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PS - You might be interested in a new category I created & started populating yesterday: Category:Films about artists. I can't believe nobody had ever created it before. Cgingold (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I heard, indeed saw film of the wreckage, but didn't realize it was "one of ours". Mind you, this is the true Touchdown Jesus to my mind - I see we have a disam page. I hadn't realized it was a fire hazard; if they built it so flimsily they're lucky a tornado didn't carry it off - now that would be a sight! All the best, Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow - I just checked Category:Colossal statues of Jesus and it's now up to 14 articles! Cgingold (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I added Caravaggio (film) & no doubt others will occur. But hadn't you better specify it is for films about historical visual artists, otherwise it will soon fill up with films about fictional rappers? Hope the recovery is proceeding ok. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for prints
I've been using your name in vain again :-) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts. Witty Lama 12:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Evans
I want to thank you for your help with him. It's been most valuable. I think I should be nominate while still in possession of the books - in your opinion, is the article ready? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think probably, but I can never tell. It's certainly come on tremendously. Usually captions include at least most of the links again. Maybe a really basic explanation of relief printing early on - people get very confused by talk of printing techniques & this assumes a certain amoiunt of knowledge.  I'd ask Awadewit, who said on the talk "let me know if you want a line-by-line review before FAC" - she's very thorough & it's a good offer. Well done anyway! Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't tell either. I'll ping Awadewit, but I think she's in semi-retirement (or busy), but she did make time to drop by, so maybe she will again. Good suggestion re basic explanation of printing. Thanks for looking it over. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * She's always busy, but as she said she would I expect she will. I'll keep an eye on it. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

which five?

 * Which five are you working on? You can email me if you like, or answer here. &bull; Ling.Nut 02:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean the £££prizes$$$ - all the books you can eat - I'm going with Royal Gold Cup, which is currently listening to Vivaldi down the line at Peer Review. There's plenty of choice, but you need something with sources you can access. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Crap! I misunderstood! I thought you had to get five FAs to win! You mean, each FA wins? crap! &bull; Ling.Nut 02:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, the first 5 past the post - but in any language. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Statue of Tara
Hi, I'm not convinced your change is an improvement. The article Salihundam already references the statue itself (as it was found there) and well as up to the more general goddess article, whereas the disambiguation page you now have the link pointing to has nothing directly relevant. Fæ (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hindu and Buddhist art are full of statues, and still more scuptures, of Tara ; the BM example has no claim to primacy. Given there are two articles I think it has to go to the disam page. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point I'd overlooked. Cheers Fæ (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

lost edit and offer to participate on Hoxne Hoard
Thanks for letting me know about my lost edit. May I presume then, that the reason I could not get back to Funerary Art was because of your intervention at the article? That coincidence is not likely to happen often. I was afraid that with the new program, there had been a wholesale change so that one could never get back to an edit following checking links while in a preview status of that edit. That would be problematic and would need addressing if true.

Funerary Art is such a good article. I'll go back and rework it for a polish as I have time. I suspect, however, that I shall begin to copy my edits to my computer before chasing links again!

Yes, I am interested in the project, Hoxne Hoard, and will sign up. May not be able to lend a hand consistently, given other obligations this week, but will make some contributions as possible. I may need some help understanding the project process. Thanks. 83d40m (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not me, honest guv, I wasn't editing it at the time - I just saw your "lost" edit summary. And it's not part of the new trial - reviewed changes & all that. I must say I lost edits by doing the same thing early on in my WP career, so never picked up the habit. Then later doing it by mistake it sometimes did seem to be ok, but I still don't do it deliberately. I've no idea why it does or doesn't work, but no doubt a more techie editor would.  Sorry about that. Glad you like it - it is er patchy, but I like it. There was not a single source we ever found that addressed the subject on the same worldwide, all-time basis. After a while you realize why, but I think it's a valiant effort.  Excellent to have you aboard on Hoxne. If you look at the talk page you'll see there is no real project process planned, except a) onsite team mob with distinguished authors for four hours; b) onsite team go to pub & let Americans tidy it up; c) er....   All the best Johnbod (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

British-Museum-db
WRT your recent problem, there is a warning about this on the template documentation. If there are square brackets around the template the wiki parser will not necessary interpret these in the expected order. If you had an extra space or stop at the end of the template then it should display correctly. Fæ (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks - I hadn't added it in fact. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The templates Bracket and Brackets may help. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Royal Gold Cup
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Parable of the Prodigal Son
As an art expert, could you cast your eye over Parable of the Prodigal Son when you have time?

I'm unsure of some statements, a citation or two may be needed, and the section is VERY short given the masses of art on the parable. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Catalan/Spanish medieval masterworks
Ciao! Lately I am devoting in adding articles on Catalan/Aragonese religious buildings, such as: which were unexplicably forgotten here (it seems few Spaniards actually contribute, at least in art - perhaps their only interest is soccer!!!! GRRRR!!!), while a host of Anglosaxon useless edifices have tons of pages filled with nothing. Joking. Let me know if you've time to help, since as usual my English and my architectural terms could be questionable. Thanks and good work!!!
 * Tarragona Cathedral
 * Santa Maria de Ripoll
 * Church of St. Mary (Corneilla-de-Conflent) ‎
 * La Seu Vella ‎
 * Monastery of Santa María de Vallbona

barnstar

 * Thanks! Not more than you, of course! It's been a great experience, & I hope will continue to develop. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And congratulations on winning the first BM FA prize! I'm delighted for you. Do email me (mcock AT britishmuseum.org) Matthewcock (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Royal Gold cup pics
Hi John, I have a number of pics like commons:File:Royal gold cup 1.JPG - I think the colour comes out a bit better than in your shots of the Cup so will upload a few more! The Land (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great; if possible crop close to the cup. Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably simplest right now if I upload the decent images I've got - my brain is a bit fried! If you can pick out the 4 best images from different aspects, I'll happily crop those and play with colour balance etc. The Land (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks - a busy day I'll bet! Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Have uploaded 7 images to the commons cat, let me know if you want any cropped etc, also if you can add more descriptive text that would be helpful. The Land (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've just been looking at them, thanks! Can I confirm tomorrow, but I think certainly #s 2& 5 with just the slice showing the underside scene, like the one already done - File:British Museum Royal Gold Cup Detail.jpg. And #5 just cropped to the 2 added cylinders. I look at them again tomorrow, cheers Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Norton Priory
Many thanks for supporting my nomination at FAC; it's been promoted today.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Anna Wintour
Thanks for your support of its first FAC; you seem to have gotten it a little better than the other reviewers. I suppose when you rely on magazine articles for so much sourcing, you will unconsciously start emulating their style.

Nevertheless, the review did identify legitimate issues which I am addressing, and I do intend to take it back in a couple of weeks or so when I have fully done so. Hope to see you then. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll keep an eye out. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hoxne Hoard
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Indenting
Hi -- I don't know if you care about wiki markup, and I hope you're not offended by me explaining something to a veteran such as yourself, but I noticed you were using the indent markup in a way that suggested you didn't know exactly how it works. Geometry Guy explained it to me some time ago; I'd been making mistakes in it for years. The rule is actually quite simple: to indent, you take whatever the markup was on the previous line, and add to that. So to indent after "**" you put either "**:" if you don't want a bullet, or "***" if you do want a bullet. If you do anything else at all, the system assumes you're starting a new paragraph and won't necessarilyi give you what you expect. Hope that's useful, and I hope I'm not driving you crazy with nitpicking the article -- it's a really terrific achievement and I am sure I'll be supporting it soon. Mike Christie (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't mind at all - I never understand the * indents; I know where I am with just the colons. I'll try to remember. Do adjust anything that looks untidy. The article has had so many cooks it really needs a thorough pick-through, so it's very welcome. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken footnote to Potter
The footnote you added to the Potter book was cut off - the page number and closing tag were missing. I've reformatted to harvnb - could you drop in the proper page number or ping it to me and I'll add it? Thanks heaps. - PKM (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, sorry Johnbod (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for article
- I've put in some changes to address your recommendations and now hope the copyedit wizards can work their magic. - Wallanon (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There we go again
At least this time, you know before hand: Resurrection of Jesus in art. History2007 (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - the move just now seems a bit pointless frankly; it won't figure much in Hindu art, after all. I'll get my Schiller out later. NB I think Myrrhbearers (EO) & Three Marys (West) should probably be merged; I have at least cross-linked the 2 now. Johnbod (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I only did the move after I remembered the "Crucifixion of the arts" joke about Manga and whatever it was. And I agree about the Myrrhbearers. But I do have a rather freightning thought now: what if Manga ever meets Hindu art? The world may not survive it... History2007 (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like RG Veda? -Andrew c [talk] 14:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We are all doomed, we are all doomed! Let us all drive up right now to the bunker (really, really) that Seymour Cray had prepared for such a day and just hide there. Wink. History2007 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Royal Gold Cup
Well done, and congradulations. I hope you are considering Marine art for the same punishment. Ceoil (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What Ceoil said (except I would spell "congratulations" correctly). ;-) &bull; Ling.Nut 10:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done...Modernist (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's my first solo FAC without either the VA posse or Ling Nut. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Terrific article. I am delighted to see a "minor arts" FA. - PKM (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, and on the front page already!! Whoo-hoo! - PKM (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Belated congrats on your FA - it's a great article, even more impressive given the time in which you took it from a blank page to FA, and quite the prettiest I've seen too! Chasuble (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks both! Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Medals
Something else left over from the British Museum, and the visit at the beginning of June. The head of Medals told me that when he'd looked, medal went straight into the military type, ignoring the Renaissance background almost entirely. And he's right about that. I looked around a little for the early history - maybe back to the 1390s even, and commemorative medals based on Roman coins like the sestertius. But it occurred to me that this is more up your street. Just some few paragraphs would make quite a difference. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well sort of; the lead pic is at least a Pisanello, which I added. I put in this in late 2006, which has ended up in the miltary section - maybe better in the lead.  I think I had it in a general "history" section. I'll see what I can add, though I don't have too much material & the military may be likely to move anything added down to the "medal as art" section, now added low down. Keep it watchlisted & give me a few days. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done a new "History" section. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary Indigenous Australian art
Dear Johnbod, I have been working on the above article, on and off, for some months now. On the one hand, I'm taking a less active role at WP these days, but on the other, this is one of a group of articles I'd like to ultimately see through GA and FA. I'm looking for some input on what the article is missing: what would you want to see in this if it were to be comprehensive? I mostly do biographies, so a broad subject like this is not something i'm necessarily great at putting together from the ground up. As the joint creator of the fabulous Funerary art, I'd be grateful if you'd take a moment to leave some comments on the article talk page if you have time. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Iconoclasm
"generalise 'christianity' to 'abrahamic religions' since they all derive motivation from the ten commandments and there are examples from all three in the 'major instances' section below" "rvt - not the case in Islam"

Don't get it. Islam doesn't take the 10c as "canon", but it certainly respects and is inspired from them; what am I missing? 82.6.108.62 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Islamic iconoclasm derives from the Qu'ran & the actions of the Prophet, not the 10C, which few muslims have much idea about. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Chasse (casket) Article
Well done on the new article - excellent stuff. I have a few observations and suggestions but no criticisms (apologies for the formatting of what follows - haven't really mastered the mark-up yet):

1) You mention hinged lids and bases but a higher proportion of Limoges chests have a hinged 'door' occupying one or other of the gabled end (it's always amused me that a number of these have an iconic standing figure of St Peter holding his keys and in several cases the keys are adjacent to the lock - a nice visual pun).

2) Although you're right about the normal chests having plaques nailed to a wooden core, from the mid-13th Century some were also produced just using thick metal plates held together with mitres and pegs. I may be wrong but I think there is mention of the latter in; W. F. Stohlman, 'Quantity Production of Limoges Champlevé Enamels', in Art Bulletin, 17(3), 1935, pp. 390-94.

3) I think perhaps you overplay the cheapness of Champleve enamelled chests - they would still have been luxury products beyond the reach of most. The massively greater survival of champleve enamels over cloisonne is mainly down to two factors - firstly champleve uses relatively thick rigid sheets of copper that are more resistant to the torsional stresses which cause enamel to flake off, secondly (more importantly) a high proportion of Cloisonne enamelled objects were subsequently melted down for their gold content - less of a problem with the copper/bronze plaques used for champleve. In terms of difficulty there isn't a great deal of difference between the two techniques.

4) The pitched-roof/gabled ended design has never been fully explained but my own view is that it relates to a tradition of tomb design dating back to those Etruscan sarcophagi that resembled simple houses. The earliest example I am aware of regarding the use of this shape for a reliquary chest is the Merovingian 'Châsse de Mumma' in St-Benoit-sur-Loire (7th century).

5) Regarding the extraordinary profusion of chasses featuring the Magi, I feel it is unlikely that Archbishop Rainald of Cologne would have started giving away core bodily relics of the Magi so soon. An alternative explanation put forward by Marie Madeleine Gauthier is that they were made to distribute fragments of the old shrine of the Magi from St Eustorgio in Milan, sanctified by long contact with the Magi (see M.-M. Gauthier and G. François, Émaux méridionaux: Catalogue international de l'oeuvre de Limoges - Tome I: Epoque romane, Paris 1987, p.101).

6) Although enamel production in the Limousin was in decline by the end of the 13th century, what really killed off the industry there (and much else besides) was the sacking of Limoges by Edward the Black Prince in 1370.

7) As well as the book by Gauthier and François mentioned above (the first vol of what was to have been a comprehensive corpus of medieval enamels), some useful further references are Ernest Rupin‟s massive 1890 study l’Oeuvre de Limoges and, more practically, J. P. O'Neill and T. Egan, eds., Enamels of Limoges, 1100-1350 (Metropolitan Museum of Art), Yale 1996 (one of my top five most useful exhibition catalogues on any topic!)

Feel free to use any of that or ignore it as you wish. As luck would have it, I included a chapter on Limoges enamel reliquary chests in my PhD thesis and since my viva is this Friday, so I have the references close at hand!

Cheers, Stuart

StuartLondon (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much; I'll copy this to the talk on the article if that's ok. I couldn't pin down to a really specific ref what seems to be the case, that in English the term is used based on shape, and partly size (small), and in French mainly on size (large) - does that seem right? Needless to say the OED was no use - see their "Cloisonné". I'll work these useful points in. I've been working through such enamel articles as we have, now collected in Category:Vitreous enamel & any help is most welcome. The NGA catalogue (online) has an alternative explanation on the popularity of the Magi, based on Plantaganet play-acting.  Good luck with the viva!  Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid even specialist art-historical dictionaries and encyclopedias tend to be pretty useless for medieval art. For Chasse, Oxford Art Online (what used to be the Grove Encyclopedia of Art) simply gives "Term for a container used to hold the relics of a saint" while the Oxford Companion to Western Art just has "a box or casket, often with a gabled roof, usually containing relics of a saint or holy person. see reliquary." Often this kind of vagueness is because historians are picking up on equally vague usage of such words in medieval accounts or late-medieval inventories. In France I've occasionally seen the term used for ornamented secular boxes, probably because some pompous 19th century curator thought it sounded better than 'boite'. I think it makes better sense here to restrict its meaning to the reliquary context. StuartLondon (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Copied to the talk page there. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Artworks in metal
Category:Artworks in metal, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Wizard191 (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, but you'll see I have opposed. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Category for Isabella Brant (drawing)
Hi Johnbod, I've corresponded with the prints and drawings department curator at the BM and she considers the portrait a drawing not a painting as the object does not contain any paint. If there is no separate category for drawings, can it remain uncategorised for now please? Thanks. Noelypole (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All these painting-centric categories should be renamed "works", but in the meantime are usually treated as though that is what they are. The main thing is to group Ruben's works together, surely? Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that "works" covers a wider range of media. I'm sure under "works" category, when it gets created, can be sub-categorised. Will look into it and get back to you on that one. Noelypole (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are unlikely ever to be enough articles on drawings to justify by artist sub-cats. But whatever. Your article will just be much easier to overlook now. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I guess the creation of more articles on drawings will re-address the issue. It really doesn't matter that the article is much easier to overlook since being de-catergorised. It is certainly not a competition to see how many hits this page gets. I'm just making sure that the information disseminated to the public is sound. Noelypole (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I've found categories can't really be treated in too purist a way. You could always add a note with a link to the categories page. Other "paintings by" categories have the odd non-painting article included, and I would oppose the removal of these. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation
The footnote to the quote I messed with says "translation from Dalton". I'm not sure whether this means that Dalton printed his translation and you quoted or that Dalton quoted in the original and you translated it. Which is it?

Peter Isotalo 19:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm quoting his translation; otherwise it would say "translated from Dalton". Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. Right.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeat
So now I'm the ref formating guy? Cheers. Anyway, without wanting to repeat myself, I very much think you should do to Marine art art what you did to the cup; the sea page is such a strong article and so attractively laid out; go on. Eh. eh? I know you lurve it. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be in Bristol next weekend - if you know the city are there good pictures to see. Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's some PRB stuff at the City Museum - Millais' Bride of Lammermoor (nothing to get excited about imo), some Burne-Jones and a few associated artists. Yomangani talk 23:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, not very sexy so. I think most Millais is cheese. Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never been to the Museum I'm afraid, or inside St Mary Radcliffe, the spectacular Gothic church. A lot of the centre is very nice Georgian, but I guess you get that in Dublin. I don't think I'll do Marine art - it's one of those ones like funerary art, where you could expand it indefinitely, & people will always ask why this n'that aren't mentioned. Better leave it small as it is I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats fair enough, I take your point. I'll take in Saint Mary's while I'm there. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Lindow Man dates
You suggested letting the British Museum know about conflicting information with Joy and Buckland. A good idea, but how would I go about doing that? Is there a particular e-mail address? Nev1 (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * jjoyATbritishmuseum.org - from Liam's link on the LM talkpage. I only notified mine last Friday & they've changed them by today. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Chasse (casket)
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Artworks in metal
I was going to ask if you were familiar with Category:Steel sculptures, until I checked the history!  Ty  06:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a pretty mixed bunch, but a seedling! Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The British Museum Contest

 * Hey John, congrats again on being the first winner... Hey, if they ever do this again, could you please remember to let me know? Maybe next time I'll be able to participate... actually, the odds are pretty good that I'll see the news myself, but I wanna be absolutely sure I do hear about it... thanks!! &bull; Ling.Nut 14:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure - I'm not sure the BM will repeat it, but other institutions are showing an interest in the BM project, & they may. As the BM shows, you have to be quick though! Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Quicker than I am, surely. Congratulations, Johnbod! But what was the British Museum Contest?--Wetman (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Linked at header - sorry you hadn't seen it, but you don't hold with FAC much I think - and of course you were travelling - hope you enjoyed the trip, amid the rising heatwave death-toll! At least we're not as bad as the Russians, falling drunk into lakes by the dozen. Amazingly, no hosepipe ban yet - and they say nothing works in Britain! Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Progressive attitude at the British Museum! The heat didn't hit til I returned (103°), but it didn't rain a drop all the time I was in Wales, Cotswolds, Yorkshire. Splendid for me, bad for the farmers and the lawns...--Wetman (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ronde-bosse
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Tower of London
Now that I've got Lindow Man out of the way, I'm once again turning my attention towards the Tower of London. Per your suggestions on the tall page, I've clarified the issue of William the Conqueror's approach to London and added more on tourism with Rodw's help. You mentioned that the medieval palace suite has been opened to the public, but I'm struggling to find a source for this. I think part of the problem is I'm not sure which name to look under. Also, while Parnell covers the moving around of the Crown Jewels, he doesn't mention that by 1669 they were diminished. Could you help with either of these issues? Nev1 (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's this bit, which runs along the river frontage as you go in, up to the Traitor's Gate bit. They mention St Thomas's Tower, but most of it is only 2 storeys as I remember it. Here's a press release. The sale of the Crown Jewels is pretty well known, and very well recorded. See Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom, though this is not well referenced; according to them only "three swords and one spoon" survived intact.  this recent book has a generous google preview, (and is often seen remaindered). Hope that helps.  Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that should be a great help. I'll get to use the photo after all, I guessed the wrong location. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Only remaining issue...
No pressure then! I will need to create a scale and add it to the bit map based on the original web site which does not have a scale. Should be done in next 2-3 hours. Thanks for the tip off 15:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC) It was harder than I thought ... Victuallers (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We can certainly change the caption but we need to add something like ""Near to the hoard are a Roman settlement at Scole and an earlier hoard at Eye. Eye is about 5km from the village of Hoxne. The major road in red follows the route of an older Roman Road (Pye Road)." We need to avoid measurements from the find sites (I suggest) as the Hoxne one was 1.5 miles from Hoxne and the Eye find was 2 miles from Hoxne. Neither location seems to be geotagged so they could be some distance or in sight of each other. Will the caption change do? Victuallers (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that a problem? A scale is a scale.  But we could do that but the caption will be rather long. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

British Library
Ah - OK. I was just trying to bring some order to the page. You say that "most illuminated manuscripts without a specific name follow the pattern: type of book/author/work then library and number", but the vast majority of the examples that I glanced at to get some idea of what wikipedia does with unnamed mss does no such thing. I was rather assuming that some standard would already have been agreed and that a couple of examples would be enough to grasp what it was, but finding this not to be the case I'm happy just to leave it well alone. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For your information...
I've started working through the 4000 or so shots I took for Commons while I was gone. Obviously, not all these will make it on Commons, but a good chunk will. Figured you'd want to at least look at the paintings and the unorganized bits at least, although all the subpages may have stuff of interest to you. This is just the start.. ugh! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For Correggio's lady with a cup of nepenthe see ru:Портрет дамы (Корреджо) --Ghirla-трёп- 20:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My, you have been busy! Hope you had a great trip - the weather wasn't too bad anyway. What did you enjoy most? Lovely stuff, & it's so rare to find good photos and good info together. Aren't Commons cats just a nightmare? I will return to look at them every so often.  Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's hard to say what I liked most. I must say that the English cathedrals were almost a religious experience for me ... seeing those spots where all that history took place was very moving to me. St Petersburg was gorgeous, but I think I like Berlin better, honestly. On the photos, I wanted to make sure that I had enough information to take the pics to FAC easily, so if I couldn't get good info I didn't take the picture! I've not even started on the British Museum stuff yet... and have just scratched the surface of the Hermitage stuff. It was so crowded, I didn't get as much as I'd have liked there, unfortunately. I hope they help our coverage! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, speaking for yourself, do you prefer the exhibit tag be inserted in the photo or not? I can see both ways, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ideally not, for visual reasons, plus it tends to mean more background is needed all round. Can it be uploaded & listed as a "version" type thing at the bottom of the commons page. I think that would be the ideal; it is great to have the info. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'll just transcribe the info in the description. That is, assuming I can summon the energy to do anything today.. we've got heat indices up near 110 degrees F today and it's just plain icky. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Caravaggio
Hey there, I was wondering if you had caught the commentary by Andrew Graham-Dixon on BBC Radio 3, which I just heard myself. It was the grand finale in a week of 15-minute commentaries. If you missed it, there's still a few hours left to hear it before they take the audio down. I have no idea what his standing is in the art historian community, but the commentary was a real tour de force. Cgingold (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That was the tip of the week for me. Thank you Cgingold! Andrew Graham-Dixon's Caravaggio: A Life Sacred and Profane must be a good read, if he writes as good a story as he relates.--Wetman (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I had heard it in fact, but I'm glad to see the tip useful to others. I've got mixed feelings about AGD, but always watch his stuff. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the polish
Thanks for your tweaks and adjustments on Copper Bull and the Buddha BM start articles. Much improved. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! Johnbod (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Evans
Wanted to thank you again for the help and advice at Edmund Evans. It wouldn't be the article it is without your expertise. User:Smallman12q e-mailed Anne Lundin, whose work was used in the article, for an opinion. Here's part of the response. The second half of the exchange is this from her to Smallman: ''My pleasure! Congratulations on your exemplary piece, rich and full''. In my view, the article is "rich and full" because of your involvement. Thanks so much! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I just footled around & let you do the hard work, so I know who deserves the credit! I'm really pleased with the way the article has turned out, & how you have spread the information around other articles in the area. It's not my period at all, so I was interested to expand my knowledge, and it's been very enjoyable working with you! Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty
Hi, could you return to the FAC and see if your concerns have been addressed? Also, there was one question I had for you there that I hope you can, er, enlighten me on. Hope you will be willing to strike your oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto, ditto, come look again. I'm shutting down for the evening momentarily, but I will respond to anything further you might have as soon as possible.  You've improved the article, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just saw your comment on SGTP, so figured I'd drop you a note, I think you will find Statue of Liberty satisfactory and hope that you will reconsider your oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dürer, Munich
Do you think you could put into words what you see, here. Its not the sort of thing that needs footnotes or anything; its all there in the painting. I've tried, but cant articulate. Ceoil (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Its a very difficult article; a lot of the sources describe in a very abstract manner. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. A ref for the last bit I added would be nice; it extrapolates somewhat from Campbell. I diidn't want to say too much on the geometry, as the picture says most of it, & the rectangles aren't equal, & you can make imprssive looking diagrams of many pictures that don't mean much - the top upward-pointing triangle doesn't take us far for example. Is the Koerner on questia? Panofsky would add lots I imagine. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lorne Campbell was my main source for the van der Weyden, good to see her again!. Koerner is on google books, I discovered today; there are bits on questia, but the search function there is so weak; eg "Dürer" get no results, their whatever does not read the ü. Koerner's coverage is extensive, but it seems to be very much a thesis, I'm not inclined to incorporate until I get broader coverage from other sources and am in a better position to judge him. So its on hold, for me, gathering sources. Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He's a him actually (I used to make the same mistake), and Canadian. The Marquis of Lorne was governor there long ago - hard to imagine that starting a fashion in names in Ireland! Actually I see he was also a Campbell. I'll look up the Koerner, but not tonight. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No hurry with this one, I have a number of other things that will preoccupy me for a few weeks at least. It is something I'd like to develop though, but its too complex (for me) to rush into and I need to do a lot more reading - it will be very much more of a challenge that articles where there is a clear visual narrative or a historical setting you can latch onto. Speaking of which, did you see the translations Ghirlandajo provided. I got from him far more than I could have hoped for, and am delighted. Wrt Lorne; damn, and I had such a clear image of what she might look like in my mind -all dashed now, thanks to you. My universe is a more lonely and bleak place than it was 10 minutes ago. Cheers, Johnbod, really. Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell me about it - it was the long & close descriptions of 15th century clothes in his NG Early Netherlandish catalogue that had me fooled. Told you Ghirla was a star! I think he really is a he. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Har. Might fool me once... Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * hard to imagine that starting a fashion in names in Ireland - I missed this earlier, but yeah, I remember Buckingham Palace O'Reily was a very, very, very, lonely boy in 1989 Macroom. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Vercelli Book
Hi, I don't know if you’re wathing the talk page, so I notice you. Fronſère (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

VPC
— raeky  T  10:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

One for you or your merry crew...
File:Britishmuseumburgheadbull.jpg Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or File:Britishmuseumdunstableswanjewelfront.jpg Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That one's very welcome - added to vitreous enamel and ronde bosse. Any chance of a tighter crop some time? I see the merry crew have added the bull to Scottish art already! Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I take this opportunity to say I am indebted to the pair of you (and others told) for the momentum provided by your continuous input—be it images or text contributions—into the field of hoards. In other words, thanks a lot! – B.hotep •talk• 00:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And by (untold) I meant BabelStone who replaced the Burghead image about 5 hours after I should have! – B.hotep •talk• 01:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can do a tighter crop, as a different image. Would you like the front or the side? Or both? And here I was hoping they'd get their own articles also... I loved both pieces when I saw them at the BM, and went back a second day specifically to get better shots (the ones I just uploaded).... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to the BM this week with my kids (and wife) on the pretext that they should be learning about history. It is, of course, to learn about new article material. Ealdgyth, I will write those articles... one day. Just a bit caught up with hoards, personally. Can you get a decent picture of the Milton Keynes Hoard? – B.hotep •talk• 01:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Too late Bubba! She's back in Ohio(?) now sadly. Thanks for the above. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did get a Penrith hoard and a hockwold hoard shot. I have to admit I was mainly aiming for stuff *I* could use, so I was trolling for bishops/abbots/archbishops and horses. Plus a sideline in medieval weapons and neat jewellery, for a totally non-wikipedia project. What you wanna look through BH, is here and the subgalleries. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the side one? Now the images are there I'll do an article on the Swan some time, so maybe both (or anyone else please go ahead). I've been on an enamel kick recently, but I'm away next week, so it won't be till after that. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the morning, then, I'll do a tight crop for both. And it's Illinois, but pretty close considering. (Of course, I have to admit that I found England... small. It was scary that we could go from York to London in less time than it takes me to get out of my state here... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking Penrith Hoard, using File:Britishmuseumpenrithhoardbrooches.jpg. I am actually not wanting to go to bed now because of it... but I will. :) John, you're safe with the objects, you and Victuallers do such a great job of those! – B.hotep •talk• 02:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I love the Burghead Bull (it's just a redirect now), and took a couple of pics of it myself when I was at the BM last year, but for some reason I forgot to upload them, so I was glad to see the picture Ealdgyth took. BabelStone (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As requested: File:Britishmuseumdunstableswanjewelsidecroppedclose.jpg and File:Britishmuseumdunstableswanjewelfrontcroppedclose.jpg. I didn't replace the old ones, but rather uploaded new crops, in case folks want some more space around them for other uses. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Now added to Wilton Diptych also. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

S H
Dear Johnbod, You were kind enough to send me a friendly message a couple of years ago when I disappeared under an alias and I haven't forgotten it - thanks! I really would prefer not to get too involved with A-S subjects on wikipedia any more. They do attract the wrong kind of attention. I watch the ones I wrote (or rewrote), and some others, just to see what's happening, and very occasionally (e.g. Foillan) I'll make a special effort. If I noticed something going very wrong somewhere I would (as a pseudonymous editor) attempt to prompt a correction, but I am not the guardian of the hoard, and there are plenty of expert views other than mine. Do you think the article needs vetting, or improving, or correcting, or just commenting upon? I remember when SH was proposed for FA long ago, a very influential objection was lodged by one editor, which swayed opinion against it, because I hadn't listed every mound numerically! About then I realised there were more important battles to fight. I feel that content should predicate form and not vice-versa: and Wikipedia does not yet insist on a total formal straight-jacket for information, thank goodness. I think the article has been useful and has stood up fairly well for 3 years, and I'm broadly speaking happier fot it to evolve quietly, that to propel it into publicity which may kill it by a thousand sagacious cuts. But if you want to confer, let's have a dialogue here in Usertalk. Every good wish, Eebahgum (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I nominated it in the belief that it already met the GA standards, and that little would need to be done. I'm away next week, so let's see what the reviewer comes up with. For references I only have Carver's Burial ground of Kings to hand (plus David Wilson's Anglo-Saxon art and other art history stuff not yet in the refs); probably you have more in case further refs are asked for. I don't want to make major changes without your approval, or indeed at all. I think it has been pretty stable, always a sign of a good article to my mind. I took a look at your last version today, & extra links seemed to be the main changes. It won't get that much unwelcome publicity as a GA, & that may deter some less welcome changes. I'll probably leave a message at yours from the 16th on, after I've seen the full comments. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes perhaps I was being a little gloomy. Thanks for what you're doing. The difficulty is not of finding things to add, but the opposite, of keeping a good base-line shape and holding the transforming power of continuing scholarship - on almost every point - slightly at bay so that the broad picture reflects quite well-established consensus information. I am surprized that separate articles have not arisen about each of the main artefacts or groups, in which the more advanced published theories can be explained or contrasted - but I am glad they have not been bolted into THIS article, which would make it all lumpy and disproportionate. The aim is for a clear fairly universal overview, in one big 'byte'. (Gulp! - as they say in The Beano.) Eebahgum (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

re Bartholemew
Comments like "Please read WP:NPOV" are not really helpful amongst experienced editors. If you're having difficulty seeing why the quote as offered is inappropriate, please ask and I will elaborate. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From your edit summaries I had no idea you were an "experienced editor"; nonetheless I suggest you reread the policy. Obviously I can't see why you think it is inappropriate, so please explain on the article talk page as I suggested. I hope you have also read the article beyond the lead; that might help. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well. I guess someone who has difficulty not editting as an IP might not recognize "experience".  But.... abandoning petty snipes for a few seconds, the issue is that this material shouldn't be offered as a direct quote.  Additionally the "Catholicism was a bloody and treacherous religion" is surely unecessarily contentious language. How about to this rephrase.

Though by no means unique, it "was the worst of the century's religious massacres." (1) Throughout Europe, it "printed on Protestant minds the indelible conviction that Catholicism was a bloody and treacherous religion".(2)
 * to

Though the event was not unique, it has been considered one the century's worst religious massacres, (1) and resulted in increased tensions between Protestants and Catholics throughout Europe.(2)


 * Two quick additional points,
 * 1) If you want to move this to the talk page feel free, but I think we are the Most Interested People.
 * 2) If you don't like my suggested rewrite, please offer another that eliminates the contentious language.
 * Many thanks, NickCT (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Copied to the talk page and continued there. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

BnF categories
We have two the same categories: Category:Bibliothèque nationale de France collections and Category:Holdings of the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo GA review
Sutton Hoo has been nominated to be listed as a Good Article. A review has started and is now on hold while the reviewer does more background reading on the topic. In the meantime a few points have been listed for improvement or discussion here. You have been a contributor to the article, and any extra assistance is always appreciated during a GA review.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just tagged the top few listed contributors who are still around, and all the WikiProjects. I have ordered some books from my library and have put the GA on hold for at least two weeks, so no significant decision will be taken in your absence. Enjoy your break. (Or - Welcome Back from your break!) Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 10:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A belated thank you...
...for your comments at Talk:Contemporary Indigenous Australian art. I hadn't disregarded them - I read them at the time, i think you are spot on, and there were some good ideas there that i hope to act upon. I have been skirting around the article for a while, but will eventually come back to it. Your effort will not go un-acted-upon. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Marcantonio Sabatini
In working on engraved gems, Johnbod, did you encounter Marcantonio Sab[b]atini? Is he in ''Diz. Biograf. degli Italiani''?--Wetman (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I think he's new to me. I've added him to the category, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Most excellent looking...
Swan you have there. I've still got lots of pics to upload, just hit a real busy stretch in RL. You're going DYK on that, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, though it's a 2 week queue at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dunstable Swan Jewel
John, I'm constantly delighted with the articles you do, and chagrined at the contrast with my own.--Wetman (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Too kind! It had been on my list for a while, & when Ealdgyth produced the excellent photos off I went. But I hadn't anticipated how much could be got out of it. Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugg boots
I recommend participation by fashion editors on the Ugg boots article. This is fashion footwear worn by such celebrities as Sarah Jessica Parker, Kate Hudson, Jessica Simpson and Oprah Winfrey. In most of the world it's a well-recognized designer brand, but in Australia and New Zealand, it's considered a "generic term." Please help. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

William Butler Yeats
Hi Johnbod please weigh in here about the category about requiring infoboxes, thanks...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dunstable Swan Jewel
Hello! Your submission of Dunstable Swan Jewel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified.

It's a good article, you might want to nominate it as a GA. By the way, I remember Michael Hicks using this swan for the cover of his Bastard Feudalism. Lampman (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I approved it. If you're interested, I also remember Helen Castor writing in her The King, the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster about Richard II's use of livery badges, and contemporary commentators making puns about the king distributing "harts" to his retainers, but loosing the "hearts" of his subjects. It's an interesting passage, I think you might be able to find it on Google Books. Lampman (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - found it in Castor - at least the Introduction, where Richard the Redeless is quoted. I copied, with changes, the political stuff to livery badge, and some to Wilton Diptych, & I might add more there than in the jewel article. I still need to read the main Cherry article on the badge before taking the article further, but I might do an FA at some point.  Btw, I left a query at the RichII talk because I've lost the name of Richard's faithful servant, imprisoned by Henry for continuing to weare the badge. A foreigner I think.  If you come across it please let me know. We don't have an article on medieval retainers at all, which is a gap - actually I see we have Bastard feudalism, which maybe needs attention. I fact-tagged its conclusion: "Although both Edward IV and Henry VII limited "retaining", bastard feudalism remained the basis of English society until the late sixteenth century" - seems very late to me.  Johnbod (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll copy the last bit to the talk, for future reference, but I've added some from Castor. Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Naming of cathedrals
Remembering that you've an interest in how cathedral articles are named, I wonder, if you have a second to spare, whether you might be willing to take a look at the proposed renaming of La Seu (Cathedral of Palma vs Palma Cathedral)? HeartofaDog (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! HeartofaDog (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon art
Hi Johnbod1

Just about the following abstract, taken from 'Anglo-Saxon art':

"the Bayeux Tapestry is a rather different sort of embroidery, on a far larger scale."

What do you mean exactly?

Thanks a lot in advance! LIGHETTO LIGHETTO (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the thing is 200 feet long, or whatever it is, & uses wool to make large images with plenty of "white space". See the article which describes the method. Most AS embroidery is highly detailed. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Johnbody! LIGHETTOLIGHETTO (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Johnbod!

About the following abstract: "Anglo-Saxon artists also worked in fresco, stone, ivory and whalebone (notably the Franks Casket),........ as the Vikings, Normans and Reformation iconoclasm between them left virtually nothing in England except for books and archaeological finds."

Just about the phrase "Reformation iconoclasm". What Reformation is involved here? Thanks a lot in advance! LIGHETTO LIGHETTO (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The English Reformation (and the Scottish one too), now linked. Johnbod (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Johnbody! LIGHETTO LIGHETTO (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks a lot,Johnbod! LIGHETTO (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dunstable Swan Jewel
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 7,000 ... very good for no pic... which was pity. I have nommed "White Boar" ... I never connected the movement of Bosworth field to the white boar symbol Victuallers (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was bit peeved they didn't use the pic! Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was too, I admit! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the lead one is now used in 7 articles at any rate. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)