User talk:Johnbod/45

Roman concrete
Yes, your SD at Roman concrete is better (well, I would [say that], wouldn't I, because that's what I wrote first). Unfortunately, it exceeds the permitted 40 characters permitted by WP:HOWTOSD. The discussion at wikipedia talk:Short descriptions talks about the implications of exceeding the limit. In some contexts, the excess is simply discarded. Personally, I think that the limit is generally too small to be useful - see wikipedia talk:Short descriptions - but that's the current policy. If you concur, please add your voice there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Oh, I say! Well bowled, that man!" [Now why didn't I think of that gnash gnash]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Birth/death places
Why are you disruptively and inaccurately reversing edits that accurately record the historiography of figures under discussion? Why do you feel that alone among biographies on this website, people from England/Great Britain/UK should not have this accurately stated? For ALL other historical figures, we do exactly that. For example, anyone born in what is now the Russian Federation, we accurately record as the Soviet Union prior to 1991, or the Russian Empire prior to 1917. Why is it that unique among pages on this website you think that this should not be the case for England/GB etc.? This is blatantly politically motivated by you, and you have absolutely no consensus for your mass and disruptive reversions. Desist. Vaze50 (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, does have support for maintaining the status quo ante, per WP:NOCON, and  is the one becoming disruptive.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well, that discussion will absolutely be re-started. I am simply not going to stand for articles relating to Britain being the ONLY ARTICLES ON THIS WEBSITE that are subject to different rules. Please note, however, that when these articles were initially created it was very much the consensus that UK etc. were added - it was after this that they began to be changed, with no consensus. Do you have a WP: for a situation like that I wonder? Vaze50 (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think a viewpoint like "I am simply not going to stand for.." will get you very far here, but it's up to you.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And I don't think you taking a view that quite literally only articles involving people from Britain should not accurately include changes made to political constructs in birth and death places is remotely sustainable. Why don't you try, for once, explaining why it is that on every other historical figure, changes made to countries during their life time are accounted for in the infobox, but not for people from Britain? Do you have a good answer? Or will it simply be arrogant dismissal, probably politically motivated? Answer. Vaze50 (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've set out my comments at WT:MOS. I really don't think that claiming that editors are "arrogant" or "probably politically motivated" is helpful either.  No personal attacks, please.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ink wash painting
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Korakou culture
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

BC/AD vs. BCE/CE
I really do apologize for not following the proper procedures, but I do feel that BCE/CE should be the default format, except in those instances involving quotes or if the topic is somehow related to Christianity. Almost all the articles I converted were related to ancient China, which was definitely not Christian, or if there were a few, they weren't in power. I recognize that your Talk page probably isn't the right place to make my case. What would be the right place? It seems inefficient to plead my case on each page. That could take months, if not years. I'm really not trying to make trouble, I'm just trying to make Wikipedia more inclusive. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't bother - there have been endless discussions at Talk WP:ERA, Talk:Common Era and other places, and your views, though shared by many (Americans mostly) show no sign of being accepted. Most of the world has no idea what CE means, including many Americans. Thanks for the apology. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh well, there goes my noble crusade. That certainly didn't last long. ;-)

--JDspeeder1 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Peerage titles and honorifics: MOS amendments
I have made a proposal to amend the MOS at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography; you might be interested to contribute to the discussion. DBD 14:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pipal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

East India Company
Any database which maintains information (trivial or non-trivial) about those who worked in EIC? Wondering, if something can be retrieved about one Nathaniel Welsh, who lived in the late 1600s and was stationed in India. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Best of luck! - there's a 14 day free trial for the "family history" parts here. I've never used it. Or there are several books on the EIC. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had no knowledge of this digital resource. Had come across his full name from IOR/G/7/3. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Will uploading the scan of a part. document from IOR - as jpeg or pdf - to Wikipedia, run afoul of copyright laws? I think Crown copyright applies but cannot be certain. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad that worked. I suspect it is ok to upload, but there should be a note on the copyright situation somewhere on the site. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Ceramics and Potters
Hey, you recently reverted my change to Category:Ceramists. Since you've been around a lot longer than I have, I imagine you're correct and there should be a category loop between Category:Ceramists and Category:Potters even though neither is a strict superset of the other. I've tried my best to understand "Wikipedia:Categorization", "Help:Categories", and "Help:Category", and must be misunderstanding something (or missing a consensus of guidance somewhere else). I had thought that in order for "category A" to be a parent category of "category B", that "category A" should necessarily encompass the topics in "category B". But it seems this is mistaken. Could you point me to that guidance so I can learn more? Willbeason (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ceramists Willbeason (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As you've spotted on your web page, the WP categorization scheme is not entirely logical, and there are many edge cases where the normal relationship (as you describe) doesn't really work. In this case, the situation is complicated because "ceramist" is a fairly new word, first used in English in 1855 (spelled with a capital "K", in a translation) according to the OED, whereas potter is very old one.  "Ceramist" has also been much more accepted in the US than elsewhere - very few British art potters call themselves a "ceramist", and probably would not be widely understood if they did.  Neither it nor "potter" are actually very tightly defined (who would do that?), except that potters need to be involved with clay (or stone paste etc) in some way. "Potter" also covers business managers or owners, who may not have had any hands-on expertise, not to mention painters etc.  Maybe "ceramist" does too - the very small Category:Chinese ceramists certainly suggests so.  Neither word has its own article.  In general, outside the US, "potter" national categories are much bigger than "ceramist" ones, probably with huge overlaps.  A category loop is not the end of the world. Looking briefly at these categories, a much bigger problem is that we have eg Category:American ceramists - with sub-cats some 500 members (many double-counted) - and Category:American potters (over 200), and there is no relationship between them at the national level. You have to go up to a much higher level to navigate between the two. There is a good case for simply merging the two trees, as which categories a person is included in seems very random and erratic, and I doubt it would be possible to define rules for which one(s) to put a person in.  At the moment, I suspect "ceramist" is used by American editors, and ones from countries where the local equivalent is the common word (eg French, Spanish and Italian-speaking).  Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me! That makes sense - it's a product of the fact that English itself has inconsistent usage and Wikipedia has editors from many different flavors of English. Fortunately for my research, loops like this aren't a big deal. I simply spotted this one (and others) and assumed there was a "right" hierarchy. To your point about the inconsistent categorization - I wonder if as a project I could try to identify such cases where categories are being used inconsistently (e.g. Category:Hemispheres), as from what you're saying this would be a valuable sort of thing to identify and suggest fixes for. Willbeason (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * One could, but for straightforward cases a category note at the top of the category can go much of the way to solve an issue - the potters/ceramists could do with some of these, at least pointing out the existence of the other national category, and the possibility of overlap. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I've just come across this, and started to wonder whether I've been mispronouncing "ceramist" as "ceramicist" for most of my life. I was relieved to find that Lexico has an entry for "ceramicist" – but none for "ceramist", in either its British English or American English dictionaries. Merriam–Webster, by contrast, only has "ceramist", with "ceramicist" noted as a variant. Apparently "ceramist" may not be entirely absent from British English, but it's not even in Oxford's free online dictionary, would there be a WP:COMMONALITY case for not using it? Ham II (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think British people are reluctant to describe themselves as either, but "ceramist" is in my experience pretty much only used by Americans, though it may be spreading over here. "Ceramics" is mostly used imo as a more pretentious term for "pottery", which has a very down to eath sound. It also covers glass & "Department of Ceramics" is a handy term for museums which run pottery and glass together. But very few artists combine working in the two (Émile Gallé is one who did - though you wouldn't know it from the poor lead of our article).  On the other hand "ceramicist" is a rather cumbersome word.  Also calling Luca della Robbia & similar terracotta sculptors a potter isn't right.  Let me know if you propose a rename.  Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not being a specialist in this area, until now I'd understood "ceramics" to be a fancier term for "pottery", as you say, so I'd have assumed that "ceramicist" and "potter" were more or less exact synonyms and therefore didn't need separate sets of categories. Even with the meanings being different, there still seems to be a case for merging the two trees (I'm glad you agree), probably under "ceramicist" or similar because of your point about "potter" not applying to Luca della Robbia et al. (I'd leave the term "studio potter" alone, though.) Not something I plan to do in the immediate future, but it's on my radar now.
 * If "ceramicist" is cumbersome, would "ceramic artist" be worth considering? (Perhaps that would become an awkward construction when it gets down to the level of "Welsh women ceramic artists" and so on, but then again perhaps it just takes a bit of getting used to.) Is "ceram(ic)ist/ceramic artist" a better place for Category:Ancient Greek vase painters and Category:Maiolica painters than the "potters" tree, where they currently are? Ham II (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The trouble with "ceramic artist" (which works well for loads of people) is that many of the "potters" are purely or mainly businesspeople who employed designers and a factory workforce, and may never have put hand to clay. Josiah Wedgwood could certainly throw a pot, but later members of the Category:Darwin–Wedgwood family running the business probably could not. Johnbod (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I should add that in material science, glass is no longer considered a ceramic (but an amorphous solid) but it used to be, hence the museums usage. Johnbod (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Garland bearers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ornament.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

MOS:HONORIFIC
We do not normally add honorifics in article bodies. It will be nonsensical to mention Tariq Ahmad, Baron Ahmad of Wimbledon as Baron Ahmad of Wimbledon in his article except for a few instances where his title is to be highlighted to mention that he has this title.

And btw if you check MOS:HONORIFIC it says clearly honorifics should be avoided normally. Please don't revert again. And you're edit warring yourself. Baron Johnson of Marylebone is a title, not a mention of him as a Member of House. I will be complaining of you anyway. But please self-revert. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't know much about UK matters - complain away, & watch for the WP:BOOMERANG. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do and we don't refer to people as Sir and Baron without reason. That kind of intimidating attitude about BOOMERANG is not going to scare me. Because I've already told you to discuss but you refused even when I contacted you about it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to read MOS:HON very carefully - you are clearly completely misunderstanding it. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I did. Please read WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. Despite me having asked you both to discuss you've ignored it. You're deliberately being uncooperative. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And that's asides from the fact that you could also discuss it on your or mine talk page, instead all you've done is belittle or tell me I'm wrong. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is me discussing it. Read MOS:HON again, and looik at some British political articles to see how it is normally applied. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Read XYZ policy to tell me I'm wrong isn't called a discussion. Btw it doesn't state anywhere titles should be used normally in British articles. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Playground-type taunts
Re this: "Fouler and Fouler" is not a likely typo for "Fowler and Fowler", and I do believe you know the name. Please take this as a warning against playground-type taunts. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for September 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ancient Greek architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Boardman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

A1 or M
Hello! How sure are you about the road past the Angel of the North being motorway? I may easily be out of date but I've quite a strong feeling that the Western Bypass is not yet M standard, recent upgrades notwithstanding. I do drive along it from time to time but I could easily have forgotten something crucial. The Ordnance Survey seems to agree with me, but what do they know? Obviously there is change along there pretty much the whole time, and I'm certainly not up for fisticuffs over this, but I did wonder. I have changed it for now but v happy to discuss there. Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I drove that stretch 4 times last week, under the firm impression it was "M", though the switches in & out of motorway status on the A1 are certainly many & confusing. I've no objection to the "M" being dropped, but I think the more-or-less roadside site needs mention at the start. I just didn't like the plain "located in Gateshead" which may be technically correct but is rather misleading. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agreed re that roadsite site mention: I preserved, nay enhanced, this, adding a link to the road's own article, which I hope helped. (Sidebar: on the other hand I didn't link to this, which is fascinating but also headache-inducing!) I remain fairly sure, having read around a bit, that that stretch is not M – I think it starts (/ends) just a bit further SE from there at the Birtley interchange – where the (now) A194 (M) heads off towards S Shields and the Tunnel. Indeed the Western Bypass would maybe be a bit better if it really were M instead of gussied-up trunk road! But I am also happy to look again when next there and if I am wrong I will find evidence for how to put it right. Thanks so much for the nice response, and happy editing! Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again! Evil WP:OR here, so sue me quick before I report myself to Arbcom for summary execution. I was back there a couple of weeks ago and delighted to find that the GPS thought it was OK to go that way, so we did. I can confirm that it really really is still how the OS map shows it: trunk road past the Angel itself then motorway beginning uphill from it, further S at A1(M) J65 where the A194(M) charges off eastwards. We didn't stop this time but I must again one day – it's great! Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

wp:copyright infringement
You should read this now, and please do not revert anything. You reput those links once more, I report you. Woovee (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which bit do you think justifies your edits? You need to get your head round the difference between a link to content on other sites and content on WP. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't include a link to a website that reproduces material without any authorization of the professional journalists. Do contact a wikipedia administrator, they will explain you our rules. Reading the whole wp:copyright infringement page is highly recommended in your case. We are trying to build an encyclopedia while respecting copyrights... Woovee (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

. 
 * Last sentence of the lead @ WP:COPYVIO: no need a magnifying glass ?
 * '''"Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to"
 * Another detail to be read for you WP:COPYVIOEL.
 * '''"If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it."
 * It's astonishing that you are not aware of this: how long have you been contributing to wikipedia ? Woovee (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Johnbod! Excuse me for sticking my oar in, but this is actually correct – per WP:LINKVIO, we shouldn't be linking to pages that we reasonably believe may be hosting copyright content without permission, as that might be considered contributory copyright infringement; I usually remove links to hosted newspaper clippings and so on unless the website clearly specifies that they are used with permission., please ... a little courtesy goes a long way. Our bureaucracy is extremely complex, and no-one knows all of it – we all make mistakes from time to time. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed - it's not as if one doesn't see such links on WP every day.... Where's the page where we are trained to be copyright detectives? Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Doubting Thomas
Please see WP:SDSHORT for the length of short descriptions. Editor2020 (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of yours are longer, I keep seeing on my watchlist. But they should be accurate. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pergamon Altar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aither.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

RE: systemic bias and a comment on my vocabulary
Hey Johnbod, You replied to me in the comments of this Signpost article. I appreciate the discussion to suss out if Wikipedia has a systemic bias problem or not. Your comments and others were insightful, but I'm still convinced the point stands. :)

I'm not sure I understand your second follow up where you mention my current employer. What does my place of employment have to do with my volunteer work? In particular the discussion we were having, but in general as well. I want to be clear on where I'm welcome and where I'm not. Your response makes me feel unwelcome here. Ckoerner (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this a microaggression? It feels rather like it. Instead of responding on that page to the points I and isaacl made, you follow me here. I wouldn't worry too much about whether you are welcome or not. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If this feels like a microagression to you, I apologize. Sincerely. My intent was to not muddle the discussion at the Signpost article by bring my confusion regarding your comments to me in that space. I though it would be better to discuss with you directly here on your talk page. The topic I bring to you is not about the issue of systemic bias on Wikipedia, but your follow up comment regarding my employment and the vocabulary I used. Ckoerner (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And what about it? I just thought it worth noting that I had correctly guessed your employer from your language alone. You may find that useful, or not.  Johnbod (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is it worth noting exactly? Ckoerner (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What sort of question is that? I just thought it so at the time. If you have a problem with it, please state it clearly (and "exactly"). Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Doubting Thomas
Please see WP:SDSHORT for length of short descriptions.Editor2020 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you said that above. BUT THEY NEED TO BE ACCURATE. Goodbye. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Obelisk of Montecitorio
I do not share your expectation "I expect all we know is in the lead", but no matter if there is this expectation, or even if it is correct, the fact remains: "This article is missing information." Accordingly, I reverted your change. Cheers! --91.64.59.134 (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is most unlikely there is an information regarding the construction of an object already relocated 2,000 years ago, so I reverted you. There are lots of things we don't know about ancient times; don't tag on the assumption the information is known. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I find your lack of faith disturbing.--91.64.59.134 (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Gerard David paintings
With regard to your rationale for moving Lamentation (David) back to Lamentation (Gerard David), should other articles such as Adoration of the Shepherds (David) and Agony in the Garden (David) also be moved accordingly? If so, I'll do that and make the necessary changes to the Gerard David template I just created. Thanks, GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I think so - the Oath guy is much better known, I'm sure, though it's true he hardly ever or never painted the standard religious subjects. Probably we should ask for views at the VA project. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Birthdate vs. Birth date
Hi there,

Are you referring to British English, or American English. I cannot speak for British English, but for American English I believe that "birthdate" as the compound word is much more common accepted. Don't take my word for it though, look into it yourself. I know this aren't great sources, but here is some of what I found on a quick search, here, here, even on Wiktionary, though "birthDAY" is the most common of all of course. "Birth date" is an "alternative", but less common, spelling. Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 03:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I use BE, but I'm dubious it's true in AE either. I see a United States passport uses "Date of birth" and "place of birth" (now "birthplace" really is one word) so I think we should do the same. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No comments on anything I shared? Wiktionary even? What is the source of your skepticism when you say you're "dubious" please. As for passports, yes, I'd agree that "date of birth" is used for OFFICIAL documentation, but then it should be changed to that, and not "birthdate", but as I claimed earlier, I do not think you'll find "birth date" come up much of anywhere. Please ping me so I know when you respond. Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 03:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Especially not Wiktionary! If you want to change it you should start a section at Talk:MOS, not here. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Memling thesis
Hi Johnbod,

what do you make of this? It could be or could not be Miss Piorko. I find these protestations against factual caveats (the thesis contains obvious, although superficial, mistakes) a bit over the top, but maybe I'm too partial. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, It's an MA thesis, so not vital, but nice. Maybe try with the errata in a note, & clarify what "the same 2009 Strasbourg book" is - ref 1 I presume. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Edelseider (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Unique or almost unique
Buscot Park and Ascott House are just two with which I’m very familiar, give me a hour and I expect, I’ll have a few more. Anyway, nice to see a familiar face when I look in. Giano (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok cheers, hope you are well! Johnbod (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am very well thank you. Currently very involved in an exciting RL project concerning a historic building which is absorbing all my time, hence I’m not here much. Probably for the best, I expect I’m far too unawoke for Wikipedia these days, but I do look in to see what’s going on. Take care. Giano  (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Cabinet cup
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the DYK for Cabinet cup, it made me take a look at it. Thank you for creating such a fascinating piece. What a gift for Wikipedia! — Spike  Toronto  14:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - glad you enjoyed it! Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Pleasant surprise on the main page; very pretty. – ♠Vami _IV†♠

Ref formatting
Hi! I saw that you've reverted my edits that were just converting book citations into cite book + sfn. Can you please tell me what's wrong with that? I thought that it was a better and cleaner way to cite a book, but maybe I'm wrong here. Artem.G (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, just saw that it's CITEVAR, never heard of it before. Sorry for misunderstanding. Artem.G (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But, at least for Bull-Leaping Fresco, it makes the cites consistent, all other books (Evans) use cite book template... Artem.G (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see you've reverted. But please be aware of WP:CITEVAR. Lots of people think they know the best way to do citations, & if they write their own articles they can use them. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Duchess of Aosta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cortes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Fairchild (gardener), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Fonthill Vase in the National Museum of Decorative Art, Dublin
I thought you might like this one... (there are some treasures on Flickr!) पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Given a little crop &added to Fonthill Vase. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I made an attempt at reworking the colors, to make them closer to the photograph in the Museum page (it should of course have a white-greenish shade), and restored some clarity to the bottom. Please revert if inadequate. Best  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Sources of electrical energy
 * added a link pointing to Nuclear energy
 * Sugar industry of Mauritius
 * added a link pointing to Creole

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
The memory of SlimVirgin is pictured again today, in the context of my dangerous thoughts about arbcom. I mentioned you here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda! Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Economic history of Uganda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Groundnut.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Xmas DYK?
Hi there Johnbod. In years past, you have supplied some beautiful nativity paintings for the Christmas DYK lead spot. I'm wondering if you're planning to do the same this year? With only two weeks to go, we currently have only three Christmas related hooks and nothing for the lead. Gatoclass (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, I've been planning that, & realize I'd better get on to it sharpish! Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks John! Looking forward to seeing what you come up with :) Gatoclass (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canal (garden history), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Nash.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino)
Hello! Your submission of Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cbl62 (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Phoenician metal bowls done - thanks for quick review! Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Cristoforo Majorana
Hi, I'm looking to get expert attention on the Cristoforo Majorana article, can you help please? The start year in the lead is 1480, but the work in the gallery is dated c. 1470 and French, Italian and Spanish Wikipedia seem to be attributing works to him in the 1470s. According to the external link, 1480 is the date of "the first attestation of his autonomous work free from collaborations with the bottega", yet there he's dated fl. 1470–1500. -- 00:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd go with  per the Vatican. Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Please can you do this? Because I don't want to interfere with the citations; the current date is sourced in the first ref ("active c. 1480–1494"). Also; do you know how to flag the article for expert attention? I know it's a stub but the gallery, for instance, is quite small considering how many prominent articles feature his works. -- 15:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed the dates. I wouldn't bother asking for an expert. You could add to the gallery, and text, by all means. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canal (garden history), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyde Park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
 We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, And a Happy New Year! May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

''Adapted from Xmas6. Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page.''

Wondering your thoughts
Did you see the recent creation of Dark Ages (Europe)? I can't see any world where it is anything more than an POV pushing-essay thats scope essentially covers Dark Ages (historiography)... any thoughts? Aza24 (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I hadn't. It may be well-meaning, but should just be redirected to EMA. Some bits might be added to Dark Ages (historiography).  Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the format "Dark Ages (historiography)" suggest the possibility of "Dark Ages (other things)"? Historiography is not the same as history, you know. If you are taking this taking to WP:AFD, I guess I'll see you there. ThuDauMot (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably not - it should just redirect to Early Middle Ages (most of the narrative middle), with some to Dark Ages (historiography). I dare say nothing will happen until after the holidays, so you might start reading the talk archives at Dark Ages (historiography). Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Btw, the fact you linked to it at the start of EMA: "The Early Middle Ages or Early Medieval Period, sometimes referred to as the Dark Ages...." shows it is indeed a WP:POVFORK. @User:Ealdgyth btw,
 * After perusing the guideline, I would put this under "Articles whose subject is a point of view" (WP:SUBPOV). That is to say, "Dark Ages" suggests a framework of societal collapse whereas EMA suggests that we are getting ready for the High Middle Ages. We already have articles examining this period from different points of view, including Migration Period and Late Antiquity. ThuDauMot (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


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

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

DYK for Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Mis-guised?
Re: this edit, did you really mean the word "disguided"? Shenme (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, just a typo, which Victoria corrected. Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Canal (garden history)
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the new Garden canal article. Sometimes people go swimming in these when inebriated! Cheers, North America1000 16:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just passing but the hook for this did catch my eye when it was run so well done! Following the recent rain, our garden could use a canal to direct the flood waters so I'll be giving it some detailed thought now! Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you know...?
Compliments of the season. Did you know that someone has kindly put all the pending DYK hooks into play by inviting everyone to comment on them and suggest improvements? I have suggested that this novel free-for-all be closed but you may wish to comment before this is done. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

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