IF YOU MENTION AN ARTICLE HERE - PLEASE LINK IT!!!
|
memo to self - arty student project pages to check through
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California State University Sacramento/Art of the Ancient Mediterranean (Fall 2017)
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Amherst College/Women and Art in Early Modern Europe (Spring 2017)
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/College of DuPage/History of Art- Prehistory to 1300 (Fall 2017)
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Fall 2017)
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Spring 2017)
Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
English gardens
Question: currently Category:English gardens only contains one article and one subcategory. I am inclined to think that the purpose of this category and its subcategory coincide. Do you agree? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not really "English gardens" meaning English-style landscape gardens, wherever located, is a Continental-only term we should not be using. It should probably be renamed to "Gardens in the English landscape style", and the sub-cat split between ones in the British Isles & the imitations (never the same) elsewhere. But the whole area is a horrible mess, as I've said. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if you noticed...
Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Illinois State University/The Middle Ages (Spring) - looks to be hitting a few art articles.... just a heads up. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks - some anyway. But few edits seem to result.... usually. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- May want to check out Medieval English Architecture. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Woodland garden
![]() | On 16 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Woodland garden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the woodland garden (example pictured), "colourfully planted with exotic shrubs and herbaceous plants, dominated English horticulture from 1910 to 1960"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Woodland garden. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Woodland garden), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hook update | |
Your hook reached 7,338 views (611.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2022 – nice work! |
Bruxton (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cult image, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spirit.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Not sure you saw this ...
... you probably did: India’s Art History United in a Single Source Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- No I hadn't -that's paywalled, but this is their site. Are they free? Not clear. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, not sure myself. I might have mistaken "open source" for "open access." :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parterre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Temple.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
AGF
this edit summay not only does not assume good faith, it flies in the face of our remit as editors to edit articles even while WP:AfD is going on. We are not required to keep shitty content in articles just because there is a deletion discussion. Your revert back to a version that included a WP:CREDENTIAL and at least five different unvetted claims is, I would argue, making Wikipedia worse. By all means, improve the article if you can. But that was not an improvement. jps (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- At least I spelled the main guy's name correctly! There was a discussion very recently at one of the admin boards on this very bad practice of gutting Afd's before or during the deletion debate. I was one of many strongly against it - it is very bad practice indeed. I don't agree the content was that bad - such differences of opinion are a main reason why. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- You could have corrected the spelling of the name without reintroducing a bunch of unverified bullshit. Yet, you chose to re-include the unverified bullshit. Why? jps (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Both the generally WP:RS sources made the status of the claims perfectly clear. Add Rollston if you want. Not all the story is "bullshit". Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Do you think fluff pieces like that are "generally reliable" for making claims about the archaeological discoveries prior to any peer reviewed paper being published? Is that really your editorial philosophy? I note that you didn't feel it worth your while to add Rollston. I'm trying to figure out what your game is here. Are you just taken in by any WP:SENSATIONalist piece you read? Or is this particular story somehow after your own heart? It is still entirely puzzling to me how you came to the conclusion that this revert was somehow an improvement. jps (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Now I see why you chose "AGF" as your header - yes, you should. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- So is this an admission that you may have been hasty in that? Fine, if so. But you definitely doubled down on your actions in the AfD. Thus my arrival at your user talkpage. If you have a problem with the way I do things, it would be good to have out with it. But I take firm exception to the actions of those who deliberately reintroduce shoddy academic scholarship into the encyclopedia that are sourced entirely to newspaper articles. It makes me nervous about what other problematic content you may have been including here. My hope is this is just a one-off mistake on your part. jps (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Both the generally WP:RS sources made the status of the claims perfectly clear. Add Rollston if you want. Not all the story is "bullshit". Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- You could have corrected the spelling of the name without reintroducing a bunch of unverified bullshit. Yet, you chose to re-include the unverified bullshit. Why? jps (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
MOS:ERA draft RfC question
Hi Johnbod,
I'm sure you have a lot on your plate, but if you're interested in taking a look, I’ve been working on drafting a MOS:ERA RfC question in my sandbox. Please feel free to edit and/or comment if you have the inclination. For any page watchers here, this with regard to a recent discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Much appreciated, Generalrelative (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, I haven't forgotten, but I am busy this week. But I'll get back to it soonish. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Cool, no hurry! Generalrelative (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Still confused.....
You’ve said on the MOS Rfc: Option 1 MOS:RETAIN, though I'm not wholly against Option 1…..
I think it is a reasonable guess that you meant: Option 1 MOS:RETAIN, though I'm not wholly against Option 2…..
If my guess is wrong, please enlighten me as to what you mean by saying that you support Option 1, and are not wholly against it. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
pronunciation
Have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGx5lEDLC4Q No hard feelings! --Schmutzman (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- So what? Another obsessive. I know enough German to know that German pronunciation varies quite a bit anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Jonathan Jones (journalist)
I'm a bit confused by your edit at Jonathan Jones (journalist). I made a series of edits, mostly adding reliable sources, but alos removing one piece of obvious SYN. Then Philafrenzy undid my edits and some previous edits by several other editors (mostly SYN and trivia), supposedly based on my alleged conflict of interest. Given that I am not that Jonathan Jones (but am, as I declare on my user page, Jonathan A. Jones) I'm confused about this supposed COI (are all people called Jonathan Jones supposed to form some sort of cabal?) I undid this revert. And then you undid this again. Can I ask why? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
May 2022
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Sauce boat. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. The personal attack was in your recent edit summary. Sandstein 04:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
A couple of articles that need some attention
See [1] which IMHO is a bad edit, and the existing text "Although Basque-like Neolithic farmers did populate Britain (and all of Northern Europe) during the Neolithic period" is wrong, isn't it? Then there's this.[2] Bell beakerman left a number of problems behind I think. Thanks. If you're too busy or not interested just tell me. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm sure you're right, but I try to avoid DNA stuff, & the garden & Core Contest are keeping me too busy at the moment. I'll watchlist the articles though. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't blame you! Doug Weller talk 15:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Where to seek input on a century-old political controversy
Hello. I'm wondering if you could give me some advice. I recently uploaded a rewrite of tomb of Tutankhamun and created a new article on the discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun. I'm thinking about sending the article on the discovery to FAC, but one of the major aspects of the topic is a political dispute between the excavators and the Egyptian government in 1923 and 1924. Though I didn't participate in the discussions, I remember the blowup at FAC in 2018 over the articles on Black Friday (1910) and the Bengal famine of 1943. I expect you do, too. One of the major focuses of criticism in those cases was the practice of rewriting articles and then sending them to FAC as virtual faits accompli—a criticism that made me uncomfortable, because writing a new article or rewritten version offline, and then uploading it in one go, is how my writing process has always worked. It doesn't escape my attention that both the contentious FACs were related to controversies about the actions of the British government in the early 20th century, and while the dispute in the Tut discovery isn't really about the actions of the British government, it is definitely about British colonialism.
So although I did upload the discovery article in a lump, I'm sending it to peer review and will wait at least three months after uploading before sending it to FAC. I'm looking to notify people about it so the PR receives the input it needs, but I'm not sure where to look. Please note that I'm not asking you to participate in the PR (although you're more than welcome to do so if you like), but simply asking if there are any particular editors or wikiprojects I should be notifying. A. Parrot (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
please review all of my edits on art topis
hello, i just learn drawing in prespective by books, and edited several articles in art. please review my deits. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.184.190.141 (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
Wondering your opinion
Is there a point to this list? Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm - it was spun-off from the main article in 2004. I don't much object to such things myself, though they just summarize categories, or should. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ravenswing 02:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Provenance
Meenakshi Jain claims (Plate 6 caption) a part. sculpture in the Ashmolean Eastern Art Collection to have been found from the ruins of the Sun Temple at Multan. Any way to verify this? TrangaBellam (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, "purchased 1972". They don't mention it. You could ask the Asian curator there. It's pretty small to be an image of the primary deity of a big temple, perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Well....
It's not quite as herculean as your turning a redirect into an incredible article, but I didn't lose my will to live with my efforts on the Core Contest. I know it's lacking in art sections ... if you feel the urge, it can use those later ... but at least we're at a solid starting point for information to be added to it. Now I can return to my regularly scheduled obscure medieval topics... heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm happy to do that over the next month or two. I was just looking at - seems decent. I waited to start Italian Renaissance sculpture & will probably take it to the wire.., Best, Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Congratulations and excellent work to the two of you. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
May music
![]() |
I don't know if you watched it: Hanning Schröder is now an article. - I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Bouguereau
Hi John, you may like this one, especially the last sentence! All the best, Edelseider (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Calumnia
Hi. You are right about the argument for the edit, because it is not really proven. But I did not write it in the article. So I didn't get, what you mean by "worse", since the argument of 'not proven' runs both ways. Then less might be more. - Maybe you didn't see it, I also changed "ancient lost" to lost ancient. I hope the logic is obvious. MenkinAlRire 16:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- That was what I meant by 1). Frankly I think you should be cautious with what you call "grammar" edits. I take it English is not your first language? Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
David Vases
Please note that there are a number of issues with what you wrote on the David Vases. Firstly the reference does not give the page number so it is difficult to check the validity of the assertion, secondly the claim that the date given is based on a 60 year Chinese calendar cycle appears to be incorrect - I have given the translation, and the date given is the reign era date (i.e. between 1341 and 1370), the 11th year of that era which would be 1351. Given its inaccuracy and I cannot check the source to see why the claim is made, I would delete it if no further sources are given. Hzh (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Which reference? I've noted the discrepancy re the nature of the date. There is a vast amount of scholarship on this, which you've only scratched the surface of, and which I dug into many years ago. By all means comment out the 60 year bit for now, but I think there is more to say, & I will probably return at some point. Anyway, it's good to see something on them at last. There is a good analysis of the decoration in Watson's volume in the Yale History of Art. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Italian Renaissance sculpture
![]() | On 6 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Italian Renaissance sculpture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that new forms appearing in 15th-century Italian Renaissance sculpture (example pictured) include the medal and the plaquette? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Italian Renaissance sculpture. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Italian Renaissance sculpture), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
Italian Renaissance sculpture is really an outstanding new article. So beautiful. Superb effort! And started on my birthday! Thanks John! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |
Spelling?
Did I misunderstand you in this edit? Was there a spelling change involved, or just the case styling that I restored pending the outcome of the discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:3RR warning
J, I keep trying to improve the article, toward both status quo ante and what's suggested by MOS:CAPS, while being responsive to details you pointed out that I got wrong, but you just keep reverting to the recently aggressively over-capitalized version, even while discussion is ongoing. That's not productive, and may land you in hot water. Dicklyon (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's the under-capitaized version that is "recent", as my post on talk showed. You started the reverting, against the current title, to the one you prefer. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, do you think you might be too caught up in all this? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. And you? Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Of course I am. I've written the first three or four chapters of the article. I would have been just as involved had you left a polite note on the article's talk page asking about the conventions for and against in the literature. In my view, the conventions employed in naming a page are not quite the ones of the main body, which can change throughout the article. I would go for IVC for the title; IVC for the first-blush appearance in a section, at least the early sections; Ic thereafter if "I" needs to be mentioned; but IVC when comparing it to Mesopotamia or Ancient Egypt; IVC, most likely, once in the concluding paragraphs of a section; and "the c," definitely not "the C" everywhere else. ngrams aren't able to catch those sorts of preferences. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. And you? Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jacopo da Trezzo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portuguese Africa.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)