User talk:Johnbod/47

DYK for The Eight Great Events in the Life of Buddha
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Second person
Do you have a reason why you reverted this edit? The usage of "us" implies a second-person perspective, which Wikipedia frowns upon. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 15:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't you see you changed the meaning here, as the edit summary says? That's the reason. 2nd person isn't always terrible. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cloth of gold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goldwork.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Deccan Painting
Hi,
 * You removed this link considering it as dead link, where as | its an active link, there is no technical issue accessing it.
 * You | revert this edit which is translated as, here the author categorized Deccani painting under Mughal School,-probably by then (1720 AD) Deccani school was individually not recognized, and all the paintings from India were considered as Mughal School. So this Deccani painting cannot be considered as Mughal school, as it has all the features of Deccani School. Omer123hussain (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't! What does it matter what was thought in 1720? There was no art history then anyway. This is a modern description, which recognises "Deccani painting", but correctly describes this as Mughal. To be clear, "d’après une peinture deccani" means "after", ie an adaptation or copy of a Deccani painting. This is not a Deccani original. On the link, I've tried it several times, & all I get is "ERROR". Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The Buddha goes to school
For your work on the life of the Buddha, in case you hadn't located it yet, here is a picture of the Buddha going to school, with some students holding vertical writing tablets. Best पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot - that's the one in the P Pal, & I hadn't seen it on Commons. I've set up Category:Schooldays of the Buddha on Commons - any others very welcome. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Coronation of the Virgin
This was the lede: The Coronation of the Virgin or Coronation of Mary is a subject in Christian art, ...It is also the fifth Glorious Mystery of the Rosary. The Roman Catholic Church celebrates the feast every August 22, where it replaced the former octave of the Assumption of Mary in 1969, a move made by Pope Paul VI. The feast was formerly celebrated on May 31, at the end of the Marian month, where the present general calendar now commemorates the Feast of the Visitation....The Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the fifth of the Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary (following the Assumption, the fourth Glorious Mystery) and therefore the idea that the Virgin Mother of God was physically crowned as Queen of Heaven after her Assumption is a traditional Catholic belief echoed in the Rosary. This belief is now represented in the liturgical feast of the Queenship of Mary (August 22), that follows closely after the solemnity of the Assumption (August 15). -would you have preferred "repetitious"? Manannan67 (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In the lead, yes - at 5 paras it was too long, see WP:LEAD. Not sure what your point is. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Joan of Arc
Hey John, apologies for all the pings and am instead going old-school and visiting you here. I boldly swapped out some images on Joan's page. When you get a chance, will you take a look, swap out any you think are horrible, check the positioning & formatting (I'm not up to speed w/ the upright syntax). The commons cats for her are horrible, btw. Anyway, am exhausted and need another set of eyes. Hope all is well over there and not too hot and dry. Victoria (tk) 02:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Johnbod, one of the earlier reviewers on the FAR (can't recall which) was complaining that we didn't have a standard way of referring to artwork in the images, and that they were all over the map, sometimes author, sometimes date, sometimes location, etc., so some weeks back I switched the captions to what, by whom (when, where) ... not sure if that's the best way to do it, but it's where they ended up after the complaint! If we change a few, we have to change them all, lest the same reviewer object again. (I think it was Hchc2009, but could be misremembering.) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same thing ("South Asia" article)?
Hi Johnbod.
 * User Inboy1234, an account with ~15 edits in total, added a source without a page number, seemingly a copy-paste, accompanied by undue info, into the first sentence of the article's lede.
 * I reverted this edit
 * User:James Ker-Lindsay reinstated said user's edit saying "Afghanistan is widely considered a Central Asian country by their own people." (an unsourced WP:OR claim).
 * I reverted Ker-Lindsay, referring to said part of his WP:OR edit summary.
 * You then reinstated the source that had been copy-pasted by the new account (without page number), saying "Rvt - that isn't even in the text.". What exactly do you mean with "that isn't even in the text"? Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Afghanistan is widely considered a Central Asian country by their own people" isn't even in the text (obviously). Why "seemingly a copy-paste"? The first bit of the edit "The terms South Asia and Indian subcontinent are often used interchangeably to denote the region" is pretty important information, not previously present in the lead at all - the next mention (using the same wording) is on the 3rd screen down on my desktop, with a cab-rank of references. So I certainly don't agree it is "undue". The status of Afghanistan is also mentioned at greater length below, with a barrage of references. Have you even read the rest of the article? The page number from McLeod is 1 - indeed it is the first para of the book. Perhaps not the best ref, but there we are. I expect you know how to add this (or maybe better) use one of the refs below.  Nothing was added "into the first sentence of the article's lede" - it's all in the 2nd. This is not the first time I've seen intemperate editing from you - a calmer approach might be more productive. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Fibulae...
Why does Fibula (brooch) say " Unlike most modern brooches, fibulae were not only decorative; they originally served a practical function: to fasten clothing, such as cloaks and togas." Pretty sure togae didn't use fibulae...Ealdgyth (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, fixed. But eek - Fibula (penile) -who knew! Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Museo del Prado
Heya Johnbod, just wondering why you changed my edit of the opening section of Museo del Prado to be very similar to what it was before I edited it whilst removing the copyedit tags for promotion in a subjective matter. I went back in the edit history and saw that from when Justlettersandnumbers added the tag to the current revision there have been no substantive edits to merit the tags being removed. Just a reminder that stating the Prado has one of the greatest collections of European art without providing a source is pushing up against WP:PEACOCK and maybe even WP:SOAP. Thanks, Epikourios Alitheia   talk  19:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's bullshit. Are you entirely serious? "stating the Prado has one of the greatest collections of European art" pretty much falls into WP:SKYISBLUE. Why don't you do something useful like looking for a source for this very basic statement? Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m going to ping @Justlettersandnumbers (who added the tags) to ask why they did so and to serve as a third opinion. On a side note, please stop the snide comments—I’m trying to work with you to find a solution, not create more problems. Epikourios Alitheia   talk  23:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly he's not a 3rd opinion as I reverted him too! I'll ask the relevant projects what they think. I'll copy this to the talk for context. Any more comments there. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Dating system in Qin/Warring States articles
I looked through and found nothing saying that the BC/AD dating system must be used. Why are you not allowing me to update the system to the modern era and one that isn't Christian-centric? Jonnyrecluse (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Read it again. It doesn't say "the BC/AD dating system must be used"; it does say both systems are equally acceptable & systems can't changed without consensus (and that they can't be half-changed, which you were doing). Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Well then please help me modernize the dating system to what is now most commonly accepted/used by experts. Jonnyrecluse (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Also where does it say that? Jonnyrecluse (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Weyden
Was this what you intended to do there? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No - thanks very much. Now sorted. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A request
Howdy. I'm begging you, please don't bullet-point your responses at the ANI report, about the mass change editor. Bullet points are great for RMs, AFDs, etc. But, messy in general discussions. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not? I don't think a single asterisk is exactly a bullet point; you need a seies for that. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

BM
Sorry to hear about HRH the Queen. She was liked here, and there is debate on if we should have a day of mourning; IMO, yes. You might enjoy this. Ceoil (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Greek cross
Hallo John, if you have time and lust, can you please comment on the Last thread of Gül Mosque. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Om mani padme hum article
Greetings. I would greatly appreciate it if you refrained from making snarky comments about my edits to this article. Your comments were uncivil and undeserved. It is not acceptable to accuse another editor, especially one whom (as should be clearly obvious) is attempting to be co-operative in improving the article, of fiddling with wording and making basis MOS errors in the way that you did. Please be more civil. You would not like it if another editor offensively referred to your own editing as fiddling with the words and neither do I. I made a simple typing mistake with the placement of the comma in that edit. I am not so stupid, or so ignorant of the MOS, that I would intentionally move a comma to inside a reference. Also, on further consideration, the comma seems best where it was before my edit even though that sentence is somewhat awkwardly phrased in my view. If you look at my editing to this article you will see that I have already corrected a number of basic MOS errors. I look forward to having a more constructive editing association with you from now on. Regards, Afterwriting (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you use the edit summary "Style and phrasing" on an edit introducing a basic MOS error, don't expect people to always be polite about it. My only contribution to the article is the first part of the 2nd lead para. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see your user page says "I do not make too many editing mistakes and I am always happy to have any mistakes corrected if done politely and with reference to the Manual of Style instead of merely personal preference". Perhaps you set rather a high bar for politeness (especially for an Australian). Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Initial
Hi Johnbod -- Just a heads-up for two new edits at Initial. Also, probably not your specialty, but check out the most recent post to Talk:Initial. Earlier today I looked at Talk:Cursive, where there're several fairly recent nonsense entries. Is there a policy on finding stuff like this on talkpages, to ignore and leave as is, or to delete them? Thx. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Had a go at Initial. On the other, for the last year or so there has been a huge increase in random short test posts, which should just be removed (I use rollback) - done that there. I think the ip ones mostly trace to the developing world. I wonder if there is now an instruction to do this in some training materials, which would be insane. Do you know User:Whatamidoing_(WMF)? Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've not seen anyone encouraging test posts to talk pages, and most training programs begin by telling people to create an account, so if it's all logged-out editors, it's probably not anyone following instructions.
 * I sometimes see random short test posts at MediaWiki.org, and I have wondered occasionally whether it's someone testing a spam bot. Special:Thanks from a newbie also raises my suspicions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks - it suddenly started some months ago, & now I have to rollback 3-6 a day. Lots on big Indian articles.  Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, here's the first of tonight's crop. Unusually, it's his 3rd edit (in 8 years). Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That one sounds like it's a request for a definition of the term. Do these tend to feel like they're written by people for whom English is their second or third language? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Often, but since many are one word it's hard to say! I think they are mostly actual test edits, not expecting any response. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This might be one of those mysteries in life that we never learn the answer to. ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Prince Octavius of Great Britain FA Review
Hi, @Johnbod. Thank you for your feedback on Featured article candidates/Prince Octavius of Great Britain/archive1. I have gone ahead and taken care of your concerns; since it has been a while since I've heard from you. If you don't mind, could you return to the nomination and give more feedback and/or give your support? Thank you, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The Buddhism Barnstar

 * Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Scythians merger proposal
regarding the proposal of merging Iškuza and Scythia into Scythians, I am having trouble understanding your objections.

Regarding this complaint of yours, as far as I am aware, consensus for adding information to articles is necessary only when the information to be added is contentious, and the information I added to Scythians and the reordering of the sections were not contentious and therefore did not require consensus. As I have explained before, concerned section moved was about phases of an archaeological culture and it had to be fleshed out because it was too close to being a rough outline before that. And the information I moved from Iškuza to Scythians regarded this archaeological culture, and therefore was useless and incomprehensible on Iškuza, and required the context of the rest of the "Archaeology" section on Scythians, which is why I moved it. You have also accused me of doing this as part of trying to merge the pages without a consensus, but as I have explained, this is an edit which was necessary irrespective of whether a merger proposal was on the table or not because this information was useless on the Iškuza page.

I do admit that my initial merger proposals were not properly done. I have been a Wikipedia user for only one year, and I unfortunately did not properly understand how the procedures function before setting up the first proposals on talk:Iškuza and talk:Scythia. However I closed those other proposals which did not follow the procedures at your heeding, and I have since then tried to correct myself by attempting to follow the procedures to a T. The present merger proposal on talk:Scythians does follow the WP:MERGE procedures.

As for your repeated concerns of "extremely vague and non-specific explanations," I do believe I have been clear about those in the discussion relating to the merger proposal on talk:Scythians:


 * "Much of the information on both Iškuza and Scythia, both as states and as geographical areas, are inextricably part of the history and anthropology of the Scythians, and because of this about half to three-quarter of both pages require their contents to consist of material copied from each other and from the Scythians page to exist. The Scythia page also functions as a WP:Semi-duplicate, given that the geographic denotation has never denoted any area independently of the location of the Scythians, and has always varied depending on which areas were inhabited by the Scythians at any given time."

and:


 * "the Iškuza and Scythia pages are both pages that cover two nomadic states created by the Scythians, but since they are both about immediately preceding/succeeding states created by the same continuous population group, about half to three-quarter of both pages consist of information copied from each other and from the Scythians page regarding the role of the prior and subsequent histories of the Scythians in the creation and destruction of those states. And because Iškuza and Scythia both cover immediately preceding/succeeding but also partially overlapping parts of the history of the Scythians, multiple sections and sub-sections of each page covering the culture, population, external relations, etc of these states also had to be copied from the Scythians page (e.g. the "Background" sub-section and "Society" section in Scythia, and the "Origins," "Impact," and "Legacy" sections of Iškuza). Which means that only half to less-than-half of the information on the Iškuza and Scythia pages are original to only those pages."

and:


 * I overhauled the Scythians page and initially moved content concerning the Scythian periods in West Asia and in the Pontic Steppe to the Iškuza and Scythia pages because it appeared more judicious to me to have the information spread across multiple pages at the time. However, when I did move the information, I had to copy a lot of information from Scythians concerning the origins and migrations of the Scythians into West Asia and out of West Asia and add that information as the "Origins," "Rise," "Aftermath" and "Impact" sub-sections on Iškuza. And when I did the same for Scythia, I similarly had to copy a lot of information from both Scythians and Iškuza to and add that information as the "Background" sub-section, and the "Society" and "List of rulers" section. The resulting problem has been that around half of both the Iškuza and Scythia pages consist of information copied from each other and from Scythians, and removing that information removes crucial historical and social context required to understand the actual non-copied information that forms the focus of each page. In consequence I have started this merger proposal, not because I support a merger for the sake of merging itself, which I do not favour, but because Iškuza and Scythia require too much context and the information on these pages is too intertwined with each other. These issues fit the WP:MERGEREASON criteria Duplicate, Overlap, and Semi-duplicate in support for merging Iškuza and Scythia into Scythians.

and:


 * The problem is that about half of the content of both the Iškuza and Scythia pages contain are copied from Scythians and from each other. For example, the "Origins," "Rise," sub-sections which form about half of Iškuza are merely recopied content from the Scythians page, and similarly, Scythia's "Background" section is recopied content from Scythia and Scythians, and its "Society" and "List of rulers" sections are just content copied from Scythians and Iškuza. I had initially moved content from Scythians to Iškuza and Scythia with the hope that splitting would make the information better understandable, but they each ended requiring large amounts of information to be also copied from Scythians and from each other to provide historical context that makes the focus of each article understandable. The result is a lot of WP:MERGEREASON Duplicate, Semi-duplicate and Overlap on the three pages, which creates a big problem that needs to be dealt with.

I don't understand why you repeatedly claim that these explanations are "extremely vague and non-specific," given they are as clear as can be and all the other users involved in the discussion are able to understand them clearly. And neither do I understand how they can be made clearer. You never reply any time I address your criticisms, but you nevertheless repeat the same claims of my explanations being "extremely vague and non-specific" without elaborating, even after I have given further elaborations concerning my reasons for supporting a page merger, so I am not sure how am I supposed to address your concerns either, or how to discuss whether Iškuza and Scythia should or shouldn't me merged into Scythians.

Regarding your concerns about the increased page size, I have also multiple times pointed out that about half or more of the information on both Iškuza and Scythia are copied from each other and from Scythians, which means that a page merger would consist of moving only half or less of the content of both Iškuza and Scythia into Scythians, and not the whole of either page, and this therefore wouldn't too drastically increase the size of Scythians.

I do understand that I have made multiple novice errors since I have started my Wikipedia account, but how am I supposed to learn how not to repeat these mistakes without receiving any feedback and constructive critique?

Also, apologies for leaving such a big wall of text. But I believe it's best to lay out the issue as clear as possible if we want to be able to resolve it in good faith.

Antiquistik (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Picture of Big Bird
Hello Johnbod, I saw that you have removed my edit. It was because of the artwork's similarity to the life of Buddha (Sujata giving milk rice) I had uploaded it. Anyhow I was not interested in uploading a picture till I saw that old Japanese painting (Death of a Gourd) so I decided to upload it since both were parodies.

Sorry for your inconviences. Picaboo3 (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Washing the Elephant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giuseppe Castiglione.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Susannah and the Elders
Good day. I have started a new discussion thread regarding my recent edit and your revert on the article's relevant talk page, head there if you want to discuss this. Sormando (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sigh of the Moor
Morning Johnbod - sunning myself in Al-Andalus, I have made a start on this, The Sigh of the Moor. It could really do with some stronger sources. Do you happen to know if art historians have paid it much attention? Also, what genre? I’ve gone for Orientalism, but Historicist might be better, although the link, Historicism (art) doesn’t quite suit? Grateful for any advice. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. I bet there is more in Spanish though. It's both O & H I think, as many paintings were. Mind you, Spanish O relating to Al-Andalus is naturally a bit different. I'm sure there's more on that somewhere. Have a good holiday. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Diffusing categories
Why do you object to diffusing categories such as the Etonians' ones? Rathfelder is paying his usual attention to the views of other editors: diff. Oculi (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there could hardly be a better illustration than Rathfelder's "scheme" - Etonians who people might be looking for are hidden in small sub-cats that make up a small part of their life, as I've explained at the Cfd. By-century schemes are fine to diffuse, by not these. "Soldiers" and "landowners" would be the biggest, but pointless. Rathfelder is I'm sure making a political point rather than concerned about the size of the category. Large categories don't actually bother me - see my comments here just today - a similar case.  Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Rathfelder is generally very keen on 'by century' subcatting (relatively harmless): see his last 500 creations, since mid-Sept. I too see no great problem with large categories. The Oxbridge college alumni categories are similarly large, as are the Yale/Harvard ones. Rathfelder will get to them around 2028. Oculi (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, by century sub-cats are especially suitable for schools and colleges as there is only a small period that's relevant, & therefore far fewer century-spanning people than in "Foo-th-century artists" etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I could do the architects; see User:Oculi/sandbox2. I will do the tagging and nom (straightforward) and you can argue with the remorseless Rathfelder (who created about 3/4 of them). I could suggest People from Dorset educated at Eton - there are about 40 of them. I'm not sure whether there is any pair of categories that Rathfelder would not wish to intersect. Oculi (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - let me know when it hits Cfd, in case i miss it. I don't always follow it these days. I might be more sympathetic to some architects categories - Londoners tend to do a fair amount in London (like everyone else). The trouble with the Dorset ones was that most headed out of Dorset asap & hardly returned. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It will be later this evening. Oculi (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You might have missed this one. Oculi (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Another one. Oculi (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Our prolific colleague seems to be in a spot of bother. Oculi (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ouch - yes. Thks for the lk. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Early modern art
Hello Johnbod,

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

If you don't want Early modern art to be deleted, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for November 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Architecture of Bengal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bishnupur.

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

DYK for Tibetan art
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Great job John! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Venus figurines are not pottery
Venus figurines are not pottery. They're just ceramics. Therefore, Europeans did not invent pottery. oldest pottery ref — Sean Brunnock (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The definition of pottery varies, as the lead explains, & I don't think it is appropriate to use a narrow one here. Are you one of those people obsessed by where things were invented?  Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Archaeologists consistently define pottery as ceramic vessels ref. If you're going to discuss ancient pottery, then you should use their definition.
 * I just noticed your latest edit on pottery. The term "pottery vessel" is meaningless. Pottery is a noun, not an adjective. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That definition is purely for the purposes of that document. The lead cites a more authoritative one. Who says this article is an archaeological one? It isn't. Your second claim is demonstrably nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That definition is purely for the purposes of that document.
 * What on earth do you think the purpose of the document was?
 * A Standard for Pottery Analysis in Archaeology
 * The aims of the Standard are to...Ensure pottery assemblages from all types of archaeological project are recovered and analysed consistently, with the aim of producing the best possible levels of information to allow detailed and informed interpretations.
 * This project was entirely funded by Historic England. The project team comprised Derek Hall (Archaeologist and Ceramic Specialist, Project Executive), Duncan Brown (Historic England), Paul Booth (Oxford Archaeology), Jane Evans (Worcestershire Archive and Archaeology Service), David Knight (York Archaeological Trust), Alistair Barclay (Wessex Archaeology) and Imogen Wood (University of Exeter).
 * Can't wait for you to tell me that you know better than Historic England.
 * And again, the word pottery is a noun. Anyone who uses it as an adjective is misusing the word. Otherwise, the term pottery pot would be acceptable.
 * — Sean Brunnock (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * oddly enough, there are quite a few here. I hope you will contact the authors and tell them how wrong they all are. Johnbod (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Lot's of folks misuse the word. That doesn't give you a license to do so. I'm not going to contact them. I'm going to correct you. The word pottery is a noun. That's a demonstrable fact. The adjective for pottery is ceramic. It's a collateral adjective. You're welcome — Sean Brunnock (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm taking English lessons from someone who begins a post "Lot's of....". Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I'm man enough to admit when I make a mistake. Wish you could too. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Rhinoceros Vase
An article in today’s Guardian on the latest Heritage at Risk Register led me to start this, Rockingham Kiln. I think, if you have time, that an article on the Rhinoceros Vase would be an indispensable addition to the ‘pedia. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. Would need disambiguating from this, Rhinoceros vase snail!
 * Not sure there would be much to add. Frankly I'd be more tempted by this fine fellow, and I think there is a Sevres one too. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Life of Buddha in art
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Amaravati Stupa
You don't appear to be short of pics. Was there anything specifically you wanted?©Geni (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ©Geni, there are actually few good photos of the main types of sculpture; most are taken in gloomy Indian museums, often blurry & at funny angles. I would use good ones of the round medallions with scenes, and of the thin coping stone relief on the BM back wall, also the garland frieze above that. One of their rectangular drum-slabs is carved on both sides - pics of each would be great. We only have 11 photos of the Amaravati Marbles from London (in this commons cat), one a crop of another. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

For your information
Hello Johnbod, hello also Musée des Beaux-Arts de Mulhouse has now been created at long last. It is just a stub, but it will grow over time. That museum is not even better than its reputation, because it has no reputation at all. Which is not only a pity, but also a mistake. As a display of "second rate" (I purposefully use scares quotes here) French art, it is as good as any big American museum. If one accepts that artists like Henner were able to produce genuine masterworks, then the collection has a lot to show for. All the best, Edelseider (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice work, thanks Edelseider! Considering the size of Mulhouse I can imagine it has many hidden gems. Jane (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, the museum owns about 1,000 paintings, but it cannot display more than 100 at the same time, due to the lack of space. It's the place where you can still discover very talented painters who should not have been forgotten. Take Émile Zipelius, who died at 25 (!) in 1865. His 1862 painting Brutus is as good as anything Gérôme, Cabanel or Bouguereau ever painted. --Edelseider (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice! Feel free to add that painting to his Wikipedia page - he has a page on French Wikipedia. Jane (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Short description
WP:HOWTOSD:


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

Jay D. Easy (t) 11:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Van Gogh may not be the best example, but we have hundreds of articles on Dutch artists. You can be sure that for every editor going round removing dates from articles, there is another going around adding them. Both are wasting their time, imo. Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * What does any of that have to do with a short description's intended use? Jay D. Easy (t) 18:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Jay. I agree with Johnbod here, and I think your misunderstanding the intent of short descr's, which the guideline you quote says should be "a very brief indication of the field covered by the article" and "a short descriptive annotation". Not including the lifespan / era leaves this goal short. Ceoil (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've never liked dates on short descriptors, although I've never seen one in person (never have looked at the internet on a phone, too easy to take the addiction on the road on a daily basis). In the case of van Gogh's: "Dutch painter (1853–1890)" descriptor, what does that even mean? It reads like this van Gogh fellow painted from 1853-1890, a nice 37-year long career, and I'd bet a dollar to a donut that he probably created lots of good stuff in that time. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see constant to-and-fro on my watchlist - for every adder there is a remover. It clearly doesn't mean he painted in the 15th or 17th century, which for many Dutch artists is a useful clarification. Arguably, for Anglophones, all "van..." names are "similarly named". Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Dutch Post-Impressionist painter"? Ceoil (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That might well not last long, & what it conveys to the average 16-yr old in Kansas I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats not the point. See busy work. Ceoil (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas! ''Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten! ¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua! God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus! Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce! Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством! শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스! สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส!'' ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành! Весела Коледа! Hello, Johnbod! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

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

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

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

Yo Ho Ho


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

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

 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas! ''Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten! ¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua! God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus! Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce! Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством! শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스! สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส!'' ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành! Весела Коледа! Hello, Johnbod! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Adoration of the Magi (Signorelli)
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited San Giovanni Battista Decollato, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francesco Salviati.

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

Happy New Year, Johnbod!


Happy New Year! Johnbod, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

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

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

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


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

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

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

That too with citation and ref. and

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

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

Really mate.?

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


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

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


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

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ivory carving, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Casket.

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

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

Chora
Hallo John, I noticed your revert of the move at Chora Church. I just saw that the author of the move is making mass moves involving mosques. I think that some of this moves could be controversial. In general, I don't think that they are aware of our policy on article names. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, indeed. I left them a message, but at least some of these should be reverted. I can't do some of them - they need an admin. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration
Hi John! As an art historian, I am really impressed with the work you have done for WP Visual Arts. Given the breadth of your contributions, I was wondering if you would like to collaborate—or can refer to someone who you know might be interested—on bringing Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki, a painting by Jacques-Louis David from 1781, to a GA or FA status. The article has been mostly abandoned for the last two years and it is a fascinating work for a variety of reasons—including, but not limited to, the politics of 18th-century Poland under partitions and David's cultural influence beyond Western Europe. Thanks so much for taking the time to take a look at this. Ppt91 (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, That would be a worthy project, but it's not really my period, and I don't have many relevant sources I think. I imagine many sources would be in Polish or French too. I can certainly comment after an expansion. You could look at who has worked on other paintings by David etc, or relevant articles on Polish history. His biography (Stanisław Kostka Potocki) seems fairly basic too. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I appreciate your reply. It's a good idea to look at previous David contributors. Ppt91 (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Citing sources
Please do not without citing a reliable source. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who restores material.     &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 02:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


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

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

Wrong section
I noticed that you some of my comments as being in the wrong section. I agree, and earlier I this discussion to, but  then. Feel free to discuss with them if you want to move these comments. &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 18:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, well! Thanks for saying. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All I know is that I was unhappy with Freoh’s reply being disconnected from my question. Doug Weller  talk 18:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)