User talk:Johnbod/48

DYK for Embriachi workshop
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 10,647 - nice to see that marriage as well as just sex gets high views. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Waddesdon Bequest
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 3 March 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/March 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * On it, thanks. From a quick look now, it seems ok, but I'll do a fuller check later. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Royal Doulton
Hello Johnbod:- further to your comment about my recent addition I followed the direction found here [], and in particular 'although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead', which I take as meaning the initial summary does not require any references providing the content in the bulk does have. User name for this site (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No - if there are references, they follow the normal rules, and only what is in the reference should immediately precede it. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, your view is at odds to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User name for this site (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't! Read that and other relevant policies more carefully. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that Wikipedia guideline is clear yet these supposed others are ??? User name for this site (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, for comparison, very few references in the initial part of this Anne of Brittany.
 * You are misreading that one for a start! Where there are refs in the lead, you have to treat them properly, & not just pile your own stuff in front of them. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting read here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by User name for this site (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Communicating with newcomers patiently and thoroughly is integral to ensure they stay on Wikipedia and ultimately contribute in a constructive manner." That's my motto. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Mosan Renaissance
Sorry about the hasty renaming. A question, though. Do you think it should stay as "Mosan Renaissance architecture" or should it revert to the article's original name, "Mosan Renaissance"? Klow (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think "Mosan Renaissance architecture" makes it clear what the subject is - it's not very well known in English, so this useful. I must admit i was unaware of it, & it was good to find out more. Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Rock and wave
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Compilations of biographies about artists
Are these ? Please see Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 24. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Commented there - not imo. Thanks for the heads-up! Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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


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

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited China Room, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Molding.

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

Mezzotint
Nice work on this article! I got there because a few days ago it was what kept me from getting 'Queen Bee' in The New York Times Spelling Bee game. I'm familiar with the concept but had forgotten the word, and of course that led me to the article, which had been created long enough ago that the sourcing was out of date. It's really nice to see someone responding to a tag I left because I'm not familiar enough with a subject to try to help. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for your loss! Thanks - I had used most of those sources years ago when writing much of the text, so fortunately very little actually needed changing. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * PS - I'd wondered what the sudden spike in views was caused by. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * hahahaha Valereee (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Otto prints
BorgQueen (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

The MoS of the English Wikipedia (different from the Italian and the German) excludes much of a person's life data from the lead, just requesting years of birth and death. The MoS seems to rely on an infobox for the details: days, months, places, age at death. Four lines, and one for why we have an article on the subject (be it by occupation, or by a list of works) is all I want in a biography, but also no less. When that compromise was installed for Beethoven (by the arb who had written the infoboxes arbcase), I hoped it would end the war conflict. How many more RfCs will we need? ... every one not only taking our time, but also deteriorating editor relationa. - I missed the last two for Mozart, intentionally so, but now hope once more it will be last one. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I agree that the age at death should be in the lead - that's normally the only thing I look at an infobox for. I think your stated expectations from a biography are very unusual, and very different from mine. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure we speak about the same thing. We have a MoS saying: omit many life data from the lead. I understand the idea is to free the first sentence from a birthplace (Salzburg) and especially its precise political entity when Mozart was born (Holy Roman Empire), and "park" these details in an infobox, which makes a lot of sense to me, lead and box complementing each other. Could I clarify that much? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Marek Kopelent - that's how I write an infobox - what do you think? - In the RfC, the nominator did not ask about any specific filling of parameters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yo, wazzup?
Your favourite painter just got bluelinked! Ain't that swell? Edelseider (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Never heard of him, but any friend of Deck is a friend of mine. I liked this one - more hunters should take the baby along. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, they are defending their cave from a bear, not hunting. The English title is misleading. Benner made a whole series of prehistoric-themed paintings, according to the latest scientific discoveries of his times. I think that this sets him apart from the other Academic painters of his era. Cabanel would never paint this: File:Emmanuel Benner - Chasseurs à l'affût 02.jpg. Anyway, it also gave him great excuses to paint more nude bodies, his favourite activity! --Edelseider (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Display.

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

"Stone sculptures of horses and sheep in the the Caucasian States" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stone_sculptures_of_horses_and_sheep_in_the_the_Caucasian_States&redirect=no Stone sculptures of horses and sheep in the the Caucasian States] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Randi Moth (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm eagerly awaiting...
Whatever you're going to add to The Core Contest/Entries... last year's entry was very impressive! Ealdgyth (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm giving it some thought, but there's time to decide still. Haven't really got a shortlist yet. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity/Nationality
Hallo John, if you have time and lust could you please comment here? The problem is not related to Columbus only, but is general, and regards all the articles concerning people who lived in Italy (and in Germany) before the unification.Alex2006 (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic alert (infoboxen)
You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also note that you've now reverted thrice on Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Please keep WP:EW in mind.  ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well it's a pity your close wasn't longer and more explicit on what info should be included. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hard to do when that was barely discussed in the RfC. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 05:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Anymore comments like "Some of the infobox activists seem determined to prove correct the arguments against infoboxes in the Rfc above" and I will file at AE. No more calling other editors "infobox activists". No more of this infobox battleground BS. It stops today. Levivich (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't initiate because you are (I admit) very clever and use attack dogs eg User:Dronebogus and User:Nemov ectera, ecetra. What always kills me, is that the infobox wars are always initiated by the evangelicals in an almost crusade like manner. The hypocrisy is that on the one hand they ALWAYS heat seek on narrow ground claiming OWN, and than claim, oh i just saw the page and wondered why, as if this wasn't a mission they are preoccupied with. Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ps " It stops today" is ridiculous bombast. haha and is that a treat - are you for real? Ceoil (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Phooey, coming from a leading participant! Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not true that I'm a leading participant. Name 3 infobox RFCs I've started, bet you can't.
 * This is just a heads up that I'm no longer going to put up with editors making me feel bad or calling me names because I think an article should have an infobox. I'm tired of it. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I had the same wish but admit that "activist" always had some positive connotation for me, unlike "warrior" and (worse) "Wehrmacht". How is this: we stop today to find infoboxes contentious, edit with strict 1RR and otherwise discuss, following the greatest model I know: Brian Boulton, who wrote a Signpost essay about what to include (and what not), and had suggestions in articles he stood for such as Percy Grainger and Imogen Holst. Links on my user page, forever grateful. He had the idea of compromise in 2013, and it might be about time to follow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ... or, having looked at your user page and seen the top picture: the other great model, User:RexxS/Infobox factors. Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I never thought Doug understood the infoboxes issues - my own views were set out in discussions with him: :,, . I still think these are correct. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no time right now to study that in detail. I love to keep things simple, and therefore Doug's last item makes a lot of sense to me, Foreign visitors: "This has led to the English Wikipedia becoming the default reference site on many topics for numerous visitors who do not have English as a first language. The infobox, located in a predictable position, with clear connections between each field label and its value is the most accessible repository of key information on a topic for anyone whose English skills are considerably less than a native speaker." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * After 10+ years 'keeping things simple', it might be time to try and understand other arguments, Gerda. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Seven of those years I spent not being served "other arguments" but aspersions of running an army behind the scenes. Check out the Jenny Lind discussion, please, and tell me which argument there I failed to understand. Giuditta Pasta is on the Main page, to compare. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As the talk is horribly long, the link to the discussion is Talk:Jenny Lind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Or, taking from the Mozart discussion, I found cogent. What else should I understand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for what you added to Crucifixion with the Virgin and St John! I remember that you had an article about Jesus and the wine press, in German Keltertreter, but forgot the English name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Christ in the winepress. Have a happy Easter! Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I loved to see Marian Anderson and her story of protest against discrimination by singing on Easter Sunday 9 April 1939 on the Main page yesterday. Impressions of Easter here and music here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My story today, Messiah (Handel), was my first dip into the FA ocean, thanks to great colleagues. - a few pics added, one day missing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Today is the 80th birthday of John Eliot Gardiner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the classical stations here have been giving him lots of play for a few days. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Lithophane
Aoidh (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Bruxton (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ... And a day earlier, this nom got the DYK rules amended. Sorry it took so long (and was so frustratingly bureaucratic), but thanks for your work on rewriting the article, and glad to see it run on the MP. I doubt the rules change will be often utilized, but perhaps it will help some articles in the future. Who knows. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to all who supported this! Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Shah Jahan period architecture
There is already a page existing Akbari architecture on Wikipedia. Shouldn't Shah Jahan period architecture be renamed as well according to above example? Existing title is too hackneyed. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I think "Akbari architecture" should probably be renamed too, after a WP:RM discussion. You don't really encounter either term in good quality sources. WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant policy. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What new article title you suggest? Sutyarashi (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd need to see what sources use, but Akbar period architecture, which I agree is a bit clunky, or Mughal architecture in the reign of Akbar (then mabe SJ too). Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Banqueting house, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Talman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Revert
How is this edit sourced? Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 22:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously? These are two well-known historic events; they are certainly not "OR". Tag it cn if you really must, or do something useful & ref it yourself, but DON'T just remove it. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously. How is you restoring the information without a source or a cn tag any more useful? If you're not going to find a source that makes this connection itself, it's OR regardless of how well-known these historic events are. I reviewed the edit at pending changes; I don't care about the subject matter. Wikipedia editors are not required to be inclusionists, and the onus to demonstrate verifiability is on you, not on me. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 09:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

French phasing
Hi Johnbod, the problem is not that "Gothique classique" is a french word. The problem is that the French phasing distinguishes four phases, whereas the terms Early-, High- and Late Gothic divide the style in three phases only. Also the criteria used by French scholars differ from the criteria used by scholars from abroad. Therefore attempts to translate the french terms into Early-, High- or Late Gothic create chaos.--Ulamm (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really - what creates chaos is writing articles on distinctively French concepts as though they cover all of Europe, without explaining that they are only used in and for one country. The actual architecture is not all that variable, at least between England and France, and few of the phase transitions are as sudden as these schemes often pretend. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The War of the Periods
Dear Johnbod, I agree entirely with what you say above. This war over the periods is getting a bit tiresome. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, I think we should give priority to the most common English terms for the periods, with approximate dates. We could also mention the French periods that correspond to them, with those dates. A bit long and redundant but it might settle the edit war. What do you think? SiefkinDR (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's what we do, mostly. But various Contintental terms, like Sondergotik, justify a separate article. But these need to make it very clear at the start that they are not part of the main terminology in English. That's why I said I would prefer Classic Gothic to use the French name. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

don’t you think High Gothic would make more sense than Classique? it’s the standard term used in English language textbooks. Or do you think there should be separate articles on Classique and High Gothic?SiefkinDR (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, there are, and the terms don't exactly match, Classic Gothic asserts, probably correctly. I don't create or edit these articles, but I'd be reluctant to support merging or deletion. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear Johnbod, I probably jumped the gun here, but I created a short article on "Gothique Classique" to describe the French sub-style. That article is now blocked, I presume for being repetitive.  I've asked them to un-block it. Could you take a look? Many thanks, SiefkinDR (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear Johnbod, Ulamm has once again rampaged through  he article on High Gothic, deleting new sourced text and adding personal insults. Isn't there something that can be done to rein him in? It's hard to edit when he takes out everything I put in. Many thanks, SiefkinDR (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Nanni di Bartolo
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Jean Mignon
Aoidh (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I liked that one, thank you! - I had a good story on coronation day: the Te Deum we sang that day. And the following day we sang it for the composer ;)

I heard pleasant music today - did you know a string quartet with two cellos (and no article yet in English? - I nominated Soňa Červená for GA just to give her a bit more exposure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. My knowledge of chamber music is limited to the usual suspects, I'm afraid! Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nor did I, and was pleasantly surprised. The answer to "did you know?" is expected to be "no", or it's boring ;) - One violin stands out even more on the backdrop of the dark sonorities. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Template Addition in RSS
Hi I recently saw that you edited the Hindu nationalism article. Where you re-added the "Discrimination" and "Islamophobia" templates in the main body of the article. I have a request for you: please check Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. This organization follows Hindutva and Hindu nationalist ideologies. Do you think that "Discrimination" and "Islamophobia" templates can be added for this article also because the article is properly sourced and the organization's exclusionary and Hindu majoritarianism are properly highlighted? Thanks 2405:201:800B:6079:AC03:EEFE:49D1:F1F1 (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Any update on this matter bro. Thanks--2405:201:800B:6079:D10A:6414:C6FF:AF04 (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Gardens in County Wexford


A tag has been placed on Category:Gardens in County Wexford indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Winchester Cathedral
Why did you revert my edit about the mortuary chests? There are actually 8 of them, which is hardly a "large number"? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Aah, not so subjective then! Arguably that is a good number given their age. If you know that, why not add it, ideally with a reference? Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically because I don't have reference to hand, I've physically counted them many times, but that's original research. A quick check of the latest copy of the official guide-book doesn't mention the exact number. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hebrew
Hi John. Regarding my mention of Judaism & Hebrew in this article, there's an image in this article that is literally a page of Hebrew text. I don't see why a reference is required when there is literally an image of Hebrew text. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunhuang_manuscripts David Merrill (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Look under the section "Other textual genres" David Merrill (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add the reference there to the one in the lead, but don't just insert stuff into a sentence with one ref, when it isn't in that. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Donatello

 * @MenkinAlRire (& anyone else) Moving this long thread (detailed queries on the article) to Talk:Donatello. Johnbod (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Important notice
Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Read WP:STONEWALLING. Capitals00 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Another canon?
At Donatello you wrote There may have been mutual influence, and Donatello seems to have returned from Rome with an interest in a modular system of human proportions. The bronze David uses proportions very close to those Alberti recommends.[Seymour, 90; Coonin, 130-133] When you have finished the edithon, maybe Artistic canons of body proportions could be expanded with info about Alberti. I'd do it but I don't have the sources.

Just parking this outside your house until you have time to consider it. No need to reply. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe - Seymour has a bit. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That only can be guess work. Alberti rejects Vitruv's measurements and then adopts them again (and adapting his concept). As Zöllner wrote 'old wine in a new bottle', essentially the medival manuals of practice with some antique spices. (#Canon - What Richard Tobin wrote on The Canon of Polykleitos is quiet interesting. The quote in Artistic canons of body proportions doesn't provide his solution. See Polykleitos with jstor link.)MenkinAlRire 22:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Mughal Empire
hey, there are a lot of problems in the Mughal Empire article, specially in the demographics section which is citing 1978 report despite us having a modern day estimate of the historical population. Same way there is a mispresentation of the facts in the GDP part. Hope you can remove the semi protected thing and let me fix the problems. 103.81.215.217 (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Important notice
౪ Santa ౪ 99°  09:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  13:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Category:German chronicles has been nominated for renaming
Category:German chronicles has been nominated for 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Illustrated Manuscripts- Not a valid reason
It wasnt neccessary for you to remove my edit as it wasnt wrong in any way i hope you will understand that the reason you retracted it wasnt necessary at all Fabrazio224 (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Request
Hi John! I appreciate your almost always excellent and unique contributions at DYK. I was just wondering if you were willing to create an article on the 16th-century Piedmontese engraver Georges Reverdy? I encountered this name while I was working on Promptuarium Iconum Insigniorum and he seems to be certainly notable... and an interesting artist too. BorgQueen (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Applause
I don't think there is any barnstar that properly recognises your marathon effort to improve the Donatello article to what is now clearly FA standard. So please consider this a poor substitute for a standing ovation. Bravo!!! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! The Core Contest/Entries has sections for comments by "Others", btw. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Berenike Buddha
Thought you might be interested: Berenike Buddha. Best! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)  (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Antonio del Pollaiuolo
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Pictish Language
In some ways I feel that assuming good faith is less kind than assuming we're being trolled.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  20:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect he's sincere, just er, underinformed. I blame the internet! Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Picking up on *Mig as Pictish isn't something I'd normally expect. It's a bit obscure.  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  09:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Never mind... he's tried to blank the talk page. Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  19:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

New section
HeyJohnbod (talk) The Wikipedia user Capitals00 is continuously editing wrong information on pages especially releted to 'Hindu Monarchs' and releted to them by adding hate words and unsourced statements as he now doing on the page of 'Mughal - Maratha wars' where he didn't provided any single source and blanked most of the page including Result of it.when i undid his revision by asking him sources then instead of providing sources he undid my revision and stored his edit without providing any single resource!This is somehow close to Dictatership as his edits are more than 5000 so now he misusing his powers by deleting others history perticularaly 'Hindu Community' for his relegious agenda. So kindly look at this and take immediate action on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan330 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Equestrian pic as thumb or in gallery
I guess we'll have to agree to differ again. But for the record, it wasn't an arbitrary edit: on my small laptop, that page is very congested and it seemed to me to be an obvious solution.

I don't propose to argue the point. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge has been nominated for renaming
Category:Manuscripts in Cambridge has been nominated for 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The Core Contest winners announced
The winners of the 2023 The Core Contest are announced 🎉. We had an amazing set of improvements this year, and the judges (, and ) would like to thank everybody who joined and congratulate the winners.


 * First place goes to for improving  The Holocaust; very core, highly relevant; their work on bringing geographical balance to the article puts the topic in a whole different light. We also commend improvements to sourcing and prose
 * A close second place goes to for improving Education from an unstructured jumble into a well-sourced piece of instruction
 * Third prize goes to for improving  Donatello, a near five-fold expansion with great sourcing and fantastic imagery
 * A tie for fourth place goes to for improving Crime, for a strong improvement in sourcing
 * A tie for fifth place goes to for International law, improved by converting contextless listicles into a proper sourced prose

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Paintings
Please, can you help me to find the real-life models for these cartoon's paintings:, , , , , , , , , , , ? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.239.159 (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.169.94 (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding edits
I've seen that you continously keep reverting my edits in Infobox of Brahma from Mirpur-Khas article, why is that so? <span style="border:1px solid; background: linear-gradient(to bottom right, #1F2230, #22242f); box-shadow: 0px 5px 15px rgba(0,0,0,0.3);"><span style="background: linear-gradient(to right, #00b4ff, #21d4fd);-webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; text-shadow: 0px 2px 5px rgba(0,0,0,0.5), 0px 8px 20px rgba(0,180,255,0.2);"> ⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ <span style="color:#1F2230;background-color:yellow; text-shadow: 0px 2px 5px rgba(0,0,0,0.5), 0px 8px 20px rgba(255,255,0,0.2);"> 📧 <span style="color:white;background-color:#ffd700; text-shadow: 0px 2px 5px rgba(0,0,0,0.5), 0px 8px 20px rgba(255,215,0,0.2);"> ✍️ 11:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Because, as my edit summaries explain, they are all wrong. You seem to be spamming the Sindh flag everywhere. The number of articles where this is appropriate is limited. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giovanni Benedetto Castiglione, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laban.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Piero del Pollaiuolo
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Pollaiuolo, Tobias and the Angel
Hi Johnbod. Thank you for all your stellar recent work on Florentine Renaissance artists! I take it you must have a fair bit of literature on the Pollaiuolo brothers to hand at the moment. How do they refer to the painting we have at the article title The Archangel Raphael and Tobias? I'm wondering whether the best thing to call the article is The Archangel Raphael and Tobias (Pollaiuolo) or Tobias and the Angel (Pollaiuolo); the current article title I think should be a redirect to Tobias and the Angel. I'd especially like to know what Alison Wright's monograph calls the painting. All the best, Ham II (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've rather got sucked into the wormhole on that, but it has been interesting. Unfortunately, I only have the (rather generous) google preview for Wright, and the amount I can see seems to have reduced between doing Antonio and Piero; I can't now see any of her very useful "catalogue" section. I've whipped through, but I can't see the painting mentioned - but google turns up "Whereas the St Christopher was painted for a church in the immediate neighbourhood of the Pollaiuolo brothers' house, the Tobias and the Angel now in Turin (fig. 197), which has long been identified with the 'oil on canvas' painting ..." p. 253. So does Galli ("Fortune", 42), and most in a gbooks search. So I think you are safe with that, the standard English title.  Some in the gbooks search do use "The Archangel Raphael and Tobias", like the owning museum. You'll have seen our Titian article - same thing. It seems to be an Italian thing. I like "Tobiolo"! Best, Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I've tried your Google Books link and in the result for the Wright I'm getting p. 253 in its entirety; it's the first page of a section titled Tobias and the Angel with that title in italics appearing all over it. Of course, I know it's the usual English title for the subject matter, but I like to have some evidence of usage for the individual artwork to draw on as well; there's always the possibility (admittedly more in RMs than in page moves) that someone will challenge any change on WP:COMMONNAME grounds. Cheers, Ham II (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I've reached my "viewing limit" on Wright, which is a pity. I'm now contemplating Tobias's dog. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Cults
If by "POV" you mean that I regularly argue that Wikipedia should depend far less on non-specialist sources like journalists then I suppose guilty as charged. But when a statement about the existence of a secular political cult is being sourced to a complete non-expert for one and a man with a long and documented history of lying about Iran specifically on the other I'd say that it's not a violation of WP:NPOV to say that these aren't WP:RS for this wild claim. I've started a discussion at talk. I didn't want my slight annoyance over your edit summary to be an issue at article talk so I thought it'd be appropriate to ping you here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Edits to Italian sculpture
Hello. I believe my edits were genuinely improving Wikipedia. I have an account, do you want me to log in and make the edits? It seems users love to revert my edits when I’m not logged in. 2603:9001:E01:5E62:A54C:DD0F:826C:DF69 (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree - we DON'T want to start the article with two incredibly well-known works by the same artist! If people keep reverting you, you might ask yourself why. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, what if I move David somewhere else in the article? If the article for ALL renaissance sculpture begins with Michelangelo, why on Earth wouldn’t the article on specifically Italian sculpture begin with him? It is so silly to have a 19th century painting as the first thing readers see on this article. 2603:9001:E01:5E62:A54C:DD0F:826C:DF69 (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Johnbod gets into "I can't bother with your pedestrian ignorance"-mode sometimes. Just revert him right back when he can't be bothered to write edit summaries. Peter Isotalo 15:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't recommend following Isolato's advice or practice on how to handle other editors! There is ongoing discussion at the article talk, where it should be. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Resolution
I see an attempt at pretty overt nastiness in these edits. Not just that I'm doing this or that wrong but straight up "I'm gonna start messing with you"-shit.

I invited you to comment on my talkpage regarding the first comment. I'm offering it again in an attempt to de-escalate whatever it is you think is going on. Peter Isotalo 17:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Wagner
Did you know that Wagner was rather keen (later in life) to avoid the term "Opera" for his creations? "Handlung" (action), "Bühnenfestspiel" (stage festival play), "Bühnenweihfestspiel". "compositions" is nicely neutral ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I did. But infoboxes inevitably over-simplify - a good reason to avoid them in some situations. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I avoid them (usually) when I know the principal author doesn't like them, as in this case (and I said so just above the RfC). Otherwise, I'd think better a link to "compositions" or "stage works" than no link to a creative mind's works at all at the beginning of an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Albrecht Dürer
Taken by this image I found today, I thought maybe I might add a section about Dürer to the artistic canons article. For my sins, I don't know much about the northern European renaissance so thought best to research further. I see that you were a major contributor to the Albrecht Dürer article, so I would welcome your advice. If I have understood correctly from the Four books section of the article, he seems to have rejected the idea of an idealistic archetype – that it should guide but not rule. (I added a quotation from CoomaraswamyEdit at Body proportions a while back, which expresses this idea rather well.) If you agree with that assessment, then I'll drop it but if you think there may be something more, then Talk:Artistic canons of body proportions would be a better place to discuss. Or indeed you might decide that it would be quicker to write it than explain it! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Art vs The arts
Hi John, wondering if you could help with something. I'm trying to take a dedicated crack at rewriting the arts article (see User:Aza24/The arts although its very rough and not representative at the moment), and moving it away from being simply an outline summarizing different art forms.

It seems like most reference works give "the arts" as always being visual, literary, performing etc., while "art" is usually just visual, but sometimes all of them. I feel like I'm beginning to explain this properly in my definition section. However, I'm looking at the art and Classificatory disputes about art articles, and they seem to discuss all of the arts quite a bit. Is there a way to avoid not treading into their territory?  Aza24  (talk)   21:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All the arts are art, consisting of works of art, but by convention, both on WP & in RS, "art" in very many contexts means just the visual arts, not the others. It is inherently a bit confusing. In terms of our articles, Art is supposed to cover wider aesthetic issues, and the arts article to be as you say "an outline summarizing different art forms". I'm not sure we want to depart too far from that. Perhaps your "history" section might be in Art instead? Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's kind of what the OED was getting at. So:
 * Art is painting, music, literature etc. but colloquially (or "without context" as the OED said) just visual arts. The article should focus on aesthetic issues about painting, music, literature etc.
 * The arts are always painting, music, literature etc. The article should broadly focus on what each of the arts are and (probably?) classification methods for them.
 * If this is the case, the art article needs to be a lot less visual art centric, I mean even the lead image is just paintings (maybe the lead collage should be moved to Visual arts?). The history section seems to intersperse the occasional mention of literature (Homer and Goethe) and some random acknowledgment that the Chinese did more than just painting, but I can't see that as satisfactory.
 * Does this analysis seem apt? If so, I could indeed see the history section I'm going for put in the art article instead. –  Aza24  (talk)   17:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the art history section is unbalanced, maybe not needed. Of course visual art is much easier to illustrate with pics! Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, interesting. This gives me a much better idea of how to do this. If the arts article is really as we say, than it should be considerably easier to do than the art article. I think both articles will require a rather similar definition section though.  Aza24  (talk)   18:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this more. Honestly, maybe a merge is the way to go? Every source I find on one of the two topics ends up using the other word without thinking. There's just no consistency in reliable sources, and really I don't think academics much care about which word anymore.  Aza24  (talk)   21:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merging which? I don't think I'd support any merge among the three. I think academic and press usage is consistent in distinguishing between the three. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This proposal in 2016 didn't go well. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merging the arts into art and making art more clearly broad in scope. The problem with the opposers' rationales is that they are claiming art is just visual art—so how could the article be different than visual art?
 * But then, if someone says "art history" then mean visual art history, so having a broad history of music, literature and visual art would not make sense in the "history" section of the "art" article. Or would it? This all seems impossibly convoluted!  Aza24  (talk)   03:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * art history is always the history of the visual arts, as opposed to the history of music or literature. As I said above I think there is too much on visual art in the "art" history section, but I don't see why other major artforms shouldn't be given brief coverage. If the article needs a history section at all, which I'm not sure about. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm becoming more uncertain about a history section as well, which I why I began working on the definition section instead. Such a section may be destined to be synthesis. Will keeping thinking on it –  Aza24  (talk)   04:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:German chronicles has been nominated for renaming
Category:German chronicles has been nominated for 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Coronation of the Virgin (Pollaiuolo)
Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Tholos (architecture)
Hello Johnbod, wondering why you inserted this kind of reference link to Wiktionary Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As your diff shows, I merely tidied an existing malformed ref (5 years ago). Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnbod, though, I do not quite understand why not directly linking. In fact adding [1] and for example [2] to the page
 * on Wiktionary could be an option. Lotje (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there are better options, and tholos tomb (pic 2) should not be confused with a classical tholos. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Good catch!
1. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Kudos to Jb! and to TB for bringing it to our notice!
 * PS There's also coroneted for minor royalty, and corneted (past part. of cornet v (OED: transitive and intransitive. To play (a piece of music) on, or as if on, the cornet. Also figurative.)
 * So perhaps we might talk about Wynton's cornetting Happy Birthday on his trumpet (trans.) or my favorite: 1899 The missel-thrushes are cornetting in the chill rain. (intrans.) (OED example)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Prodigy House Multiple Image
Hi Johnbod,

Please check my talk page section on the Prodigy House page.

Thank you. EPEAviator (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Academic art: your opinion welcome
You may wish (or not!) to add your thoughts to talk:Academic art? Feel free to ignore. No need to reply, 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Re Truss
I don't want to make a big deal out of your driveby comment, so I won't. Expanding on what I said on that talk page, I just think that we shouldn't be bound by the lack of a future source (which, I agree, will inevitably be written); that being said, we already have a really good source, and masses of BBC, Telegraph, Times and Guardian references: easily enough to make a well-written, rock-solid article. When Truss publishes her memoirs, I'll update the article, incorporating in the new sources. If I neglect to do so, I'd be happy to let it undergo FAR. Still, there's a lot of work to still be done, and this is all hypothetical for now. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rotunda (architecture), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olympia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Short description of Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry
Hi! I noticed you reverted my edit to Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry with the edit summary "rvt worse". I was adding a short description that didn't exist locally (the Wikidata description "overridden" belongs to Wikidata and isn't a short description). Did you prefer the Wikidata description over the version I added? In hindsight, I would agree that "illuminated manuscript book of hours" or "illuminated book of hours" would be a better description of the work than "illuminated Christian prayer book", although WP:SDDATES suggests that the more specific date of 1409 would be better than "early 15th-century". Thank you! Liu1126 (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't work out what the WD one was. Anyway, I've added a new one. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, this version also looks good. Thanks! Liu1126 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

"Gold Hat" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gold_Hat&redirect=no Gold Hat] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  01:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You might be interested
Just created this small article, thought it might fit your art interest. Cheers, - LouisAragon (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks - is it really "on the ceiling", implying fixed horizontally, or just very high up on the wall? Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe its actually on the celing, as in, fixed horizontally. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow! Ok. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, wow!
 * Noting on a sad note that the lioness (Panthera leo persica) is now extinct in Iran, and the Asiatic cheetah is on the verge of extinction there; its latest count, last month, was 12. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sad indeed. I hope the Indian govt is continuing its efforts on this. Are they still in Pakistan? Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Asiatic cheetah is extinct everywhere else. The 12 in Iran are the last of the subspecies.  Indians have imported Southeast African cheetahs which don't seem to be adapting very well.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)