Jump to content

User talk:Johnbod/38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Johnbod

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnbod (talk | contribs) at 02:54, 15 October 2018 (May & June 2018). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Re:Lutherans and images

Dear User:Johnbod, thanks for your message on my talk page and thanks for improving art-related articles on Wikipedia. It is important to differentiate between Protestant sects as they are not a monolithic group of people, but rather, hold a diverse array of theological opinions. As you can see from the reliable sources I introduced into articles, there was a stark contrast in the way that Lutherans treated sacred art contrasted with the Calvinist iconoclasts, which the source you provided makes reference to (even note the title of the article)! I will take your point about attributing theological opinions to large groups, although calling someone a Calvinist is akin to referring to someone as a Catholic (one's religion). Those participating in the Iconoclastic Fury were indeed Calvinists. I do concur with your research that forms of sacred art that were suggestive of veneration were removed among Lutherans in an orderly fashion, but this is contrasted with the iconoclasm of the Calvinists. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have read rather more than you have on this, and am well aware of the differences between Protestant denominations (as they are more politely called), thank you very much. While non-specialized sources are prone to lazily bundle large groups of people under convenient theological labels, the specialists tend to dissolve this simple picture. Lutheran attitudes towards images have always been rather variable and complex, not to say confused, going back to Luther himself; in practice they remain so today, with a very wide range of attitudes, although most of the heat has gone from the issue. Regarding the Beeldenstorm, the specialist histories make it clear that a wide variety of motivations were likely to have been involved, and since the participants were not clergy who recorded their motivations, these remain ultimately uncertain. As well as religious motivations, there was clearly some involvement of men paid by others (wealthy Calvinists) for whom it was just a job of work, a good deal of financially motivated looting, and much simple "carnival" enjoyment of a moment in a very tightly-reglated society when anarchistic destruction became possible. Modern riots typically have some political or religious trigger, but it would be foolish to believe that those involved are always those who feel most strongly about these issues. You don't seem to understand the situation in the Low Countries at the time, or what it might mean for an uneducated person to be a "Calvinist". Your edits are tending to give a misleading impression of Lutheran support for images. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again User:Johnbod, thanks for your reply. My comment was not to imply that you did not have knowledge on the differences between Christian denominations, but was to serve as a gentle reminder that it is important to reflect those differences rather than painting diverse groups of people with a broad brush. By the way, I have taken advanced art history courses from a prominent university so I am well aware of art during this period. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is equally if not more important to remember, when talking about the 16th century, that unlike today Protestantism was still greatly in flux, and especially among the lay population, and most especially the majority of them with very limited access to books (if they could even read), people generally had not attached these labels to themselves. The Dutch Reformed Church, for example, usually dates its establishment as an organization only to the Synod of Emden in 1571, six years after the Beeldenstorm. It is important not to project modern assumptions on a very different period. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edit here. That was a nice addition to the article. Kind regards, AnupamTalk 21:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

50+ images in one article?

I think if you ask anyone 50+ images in one article is it outrageous amount and an accessibility nightmare for those with mobile view. An encyclopedia or kids picture book is our goal? I'll help the article out this weekend...move images to pros text.--Moxy (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you raise it at talk first. The number doesn't seem unusual for a very long article on a very visual subject. I think I might have envcountered your attitude to this somewhere before - I think you might be surprised at the views of others. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will fix it this weekend . And you know the community feeling on this you were at the RfC about just this.--Moxy (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which was that??? Undiscussed changes may well be reverted (on Monday, as I'm going away). Johnbod (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry wrong wording....you started the last talk at the MOS. Let me show you the accessibility concerns in a minute.... will take a screen capture shot of the unreadable/see able photos. Always assume the old-timers will get it right.--Moxy (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As so often, you are very cryptic here. What are you trying to say? What talk at MOS? If you mean the text rather than galleries one that has little to do with things here. I'm as old-time as you dude, bar a few months. I know what galleries look like on mobiles. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do remember the example at the MOS image talk right (as seen below)...same problem at the page we are now talking about. Got to remember 50%+ of our readers use mobile view and we have no clue how many have gallery viewing problems lIke below. Basically photos in the gallery don't work as intended alot....so to help I will move them throughout the article.--Moxy (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Example of a gallery that is basically non readable when there is 4 images or more.....note below how 2 images are normal size.
I think that is a particular setting "perrow" perhaps - was that on the mobile site? The galleries are lower down the article, & frankly I doubt many mobile readers get that far down. Indeed, we have little clue how many mobile users have gallery viewing problems, but there certainly are very few complaints. I must admit I never use it myself. What article was that on? Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lutheran art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frontispiece (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Vidame de Chartres

On 2 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vidame de Chartres, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Vidames de Chartres included a song-writing crusader, a glamorous Renaissance courtier, a writer of famous memoirs, and a banker who was guillotined? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vidame de Chartres. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vidame de Chartres), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell?

What is this? bd2412 T 00:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - travelling & using a strange lap-top with over-excitable touch pad thing. I was unaware I had done this. Indeed although he's on my watchlist, I hadn't looked at the diff & must have fat-fingered a rollback. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I was hoping it was something like that, given the lack of explanation. bd2412 T 01:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for taking the time to review Buckton Castle at FAC. It passed the other day and the feedback from everyone involved helped improve the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wightwick Manor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacobean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Persian column

On 9 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Persian column, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the ancient Persian columns of the Achaemenid Empire (example at Persepolis pictured) were revived by 19th-century Parsis in India, and in Iran in the 20th century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Persian column. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Persian column), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gresford disaster

Thank you for reverting my edit on the Gresford disaster with the summary "misunderstanding of sinking for one thing". I think you will find that I have pretty good understanding of coal mining terminology and collieries in general. The pit is the colliery but can be a shaft, but only after they've been sunk. This is a poorly expressed article but you obviously know better, seams don't deliver or produce coal and shafts are sunk. "The explosion occurred within the Main seam of Dennis" makes no sense at all. J3Mrs (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well do what you like - the intransitive use of "sinking" in "The Westminster and United Collieries Group began sinking at Gresford in 1908" may perhaps be a term of art, but should be avoided for a general readership, likewise pit/mine. Most other things were trivial. Perhaps you in fact know too much? Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persian-Sassanid art patterns

Is it an unreliable article? Because I saw you have removed it from navbox and you said it has nothing to do with Sasanians. Then why its name is Persian-Sassanid art patterns? I see there is an essay tag since 2013. If it was a common art pattern among several groups, then I think the current name is misleading. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a complete load of crap, from which some stuff, if completely rewritten, could be used in Animal style or Scythian art. You'll note all the dates mentioned are centuries before the Sasanians, and none of the locations mentioned were ever in Persia! Try googling the title! But we shouldn't lead innocent readers to it. Fortunately it gets almost no views. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reply. I created the navbox yesterday and then added the entries based on the main article and categories. This one seemed odd and I just added it per the article title. Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Church cats

We have a few churches buildings that serve(d) more than denomination at the same time, - are there any categories for them? If I just take Lutheran and Reformed, that could be one after the other, and United is true for today, but is historically wrong for an 18th-century organization. A church is not only a building, - something is wrong with all these cats. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gerda! I'd put them in both denominations, and there are various national ones. This is not a rare situation in Germany, I believe. Frankly I don't much care - but it absolutely should not be in this top-level international category, as the category page note says. There is a vast history of discussions at Cfd on this topic, reading which may or may not produce enlightenment! Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but sigh. Today, most Protestant churches in Germany are United. So is this Luisenkirche today. But when it was built, it was a great exception that the 2 denominations shared one building. I guess there's no cat for it? Category:Simultaneous churches, former such thing? If I add Lutheran and Reformed separately, wouldn't that be completely confusing without any years attached? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A typical church cat, sleeping through yet another sermon.
Well, what do other churches do? I think many continental countries have similar cases, though in the UK there were rare/non-existent until recently. I can't remember any unfortunately. The article might make this history clearer, btw. Presumably the services were originally separate? Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the services were separate. There was not much tolerance for the others' beliefs, but the King only financed under the condition that they worked it out ;) - not my main issue, church cats I mean, back to music, - thanks for enlightenment! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For England at any rate there are quite a few multi-denomination church buildings since the Sharing of Church Buildings Act 1969 legalised the practice (before the SCBA, it was deemed a breach of charity law as funds donated to one faith would end up benefitting another). I'd be willing to bet large sums that regardless of legality, multi-denominational church buildings were relatively common in all the European colonial empires, at least between Protestant denominations; ditto for the North American frontier settlements of the 19th century. (The same goes the other way for minority religions in Europe, where it's not in the least unusual for a town to have a single mosque, Hindu temple, synagogue etc which is shared between the various denominations.)
If you think categorising religious buildings is confusing now, wait until the House of One opens. ‑ Iridescent 2 16:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MS 493

John, would you mind taking another look at this. I think I've gone now as far as I can with the available scholarship. Ceoil (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scythians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pectoral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turkeywork

You might find this of interest (or be able to add something...): Turkeywork. - PKM (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - done what I can. Do you want a dyk? Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits - and the offer. I'm burnt out on DYK, so please don't bother on my account. I'm mostly working in Wikidata these days, but I'll be around. - PKM (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please do not attack other editors as you did with this edit at the John Bolton talk page. Personal attacks are inappropriate and unproductive as well as disruptive. Comment and focus on content, not other editors. See WP:NPA and WP:FOC for more. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCUM

So, you are an expert on archaeology now, too? It's really fascinating how you can spend days referencing scholarly literature and improving coverage on entire fields of knowledge, only to be reverted without explanation by editors with the self-awareness of a shell-script.

Even if you don't know about the content, at least I am sure you know about procedure, i.e. don't copy-paste move material without linking the edit history, it violates the CC licence.

I am expecting to either be presented with a coherent argument based on content, showing awareness of the topic of Stone Age archaeology, or to be left in peace. I could overlook procedural errors if you show expertise and interest in the topic. Since your focus appears to be "cleanup", with the implication of "experts are scum", I would expect to be presented with an excellent reason for you to mess up the edit history. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the attribution was in the edit summary, which you should be aware is all that is required. All I did was RESTORE the article and title that was there before your undiscussed move. I don't object to having an article on the E in the Levant, but you did not discuss it (never your strong point where your own edits are concerned, I know, though you are happy enough blasting articles you haven't edited). Just renaming the Epipaleolithic article was a lazy and unacceptable solution, as is your proposed disam page, which shows your ignorance of the subject. Just treating EW as a synonym for Mesolithic does not work, as they are very often treated as different things in Europe, as you'd know if you'd done much reading on the subject. You are obviously having some sort of temper tantrum, as these wild accusations show. When did I revert you on Epipaleolithic (Levant)? Never. So far from spending "days referencing scholarly literature and improving coverage", your very first edit to the article (or any closely related one) was the undiscussed move. I had been editing the article for a while, and had tried to lure Joe Roe (actually doing a doctorate on the Levantine EpiP, as you probably don't know) to look at the article, hitherto without success. Anyway, you're a linguist, aren't you? Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Claude Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to New York
Company style (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to New York

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

Portrait of Madame Cézanne (disambiguation)

Thanks for your hard work on this. We don't link to Google results on dabs, so I deleted that, but apart from that there is one main problem: most readers will access this from Portrait of Madame Cézanne (the primary title) but it no longer has a link to the dab. I think you're asserting the dab should be moved to that page? If so, it needs an WP:RM and the incoming links sent to the right places. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There is no way the obscure Lichenstein is primary, & I have already moved it, also the plain title now redirects to the disam page. It is of course stupid in cases like this to object to a link to the 27 or apparently even 48 portraits of her, but I long ago gave up arguing with the disam police on such matters. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018

Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018

ScienceSource funded

The Wikimedia Foundation announced full funding of the ScienceSource grant proposal from ContentMine on May 18. See the ScienceSource Twitter announcement and 60 second video.

A medical canon?

The proposal includes downloading 30,000 open access papers, aiming (roughly speaking) to create a baseline for medical referencing on Wikipedia. It leaves open the question of how these are to be chosen.

The basic criteria of WP:MEDRS include a concentration on secondary literature. Attention has to be given to the long tail of diseases that receive less current research. The MEDRS guideline supposes that edge cases will have to be handled, and the premature exclusion of publications that would be in those marginal positions would reduce the value of the collection. Prophylaxis misses the point that gate-keeping will be done by an algorithm.

Two well-known but rather different areas where such considerations apply are tropical diseases and alternative medicine. There are also a number of potential downloading troubles, and these were mentioned in Issue 11. There is likely to be a gap, even with the guideline, between conditions taken to be necessary but not sufficient, and conditions sufficient but not necessary, for candidate papers to be included. With around 10,000 recognised medical conditions in standard lists, being comprehensive is demanding. With all of these aspects of the task, ScienceSource will seek community help.

OpenRefine logo, courtesy of Google
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. ScienceSource pages will be announced there, and in this mass message.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking your advice concerning a move request. Thank you.

I am taking your advice concerning a move request. Thank you.

As I've just said at Legacypac's: "... the "Yale" article was apparently created as a bio in 2008, then deleted at AFD and somehow re-created as Yale student abortion art controversy (not sure of the precise hiostory here, but presumably this was agreed), which people seemed happy with until just recently). Since we have a draft bio of decent quality created, despite a number of editors having objected to that at "Yale" talk, possibly the best way forward is to set that up as an article and start an AfD to test the current feeling." The issues of whether have a bio and whether to overwrite "Yale" with it are rather different. We could easily have both. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the reasons given: "Delete per WP:BLP1E. We all get our 15 minutes, but that doesn't entitle us to Wikipedia articles."[1] She has an extensive history as an artist. It is ten years later. Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe, although many of the recent sources are still mainly looking at 2008. Personally, I rather think "Yale" should stay, but perhaps with the bio up as well. I note that Meghan Markle was deleted in 2006 as non-notable! Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is amazing. The Meghan Markle article was the re-created in May of 2007 after being deleted in November of 2006. She is non-notable. Bus stop (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wilby

You might be interested to read this and this before deciding to restore Philip Cross's edits. — kashmīrī TALK 17:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that. I still see no excuse for your edits. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lithic reduction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camera di San Paolo

Hello John! All OK? After a lot of time I've returned to writing some art articles: here is Camera di San Paolo, I think needing some copyedit from experts like you... Thanks!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done that. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC wording

You commented on an RfC recently, and you were the first of three people to query the wording, so I obviously did a poor job of that. On the other hand, I'm having difficulty improving it. I wind up with hideous statements like:

  • If marketing claims are described in RS, and the accuracy of the statements made in the claims is described in other RS (or MEDRS, as appropriate), would it necessarily be off-topic or undesirable to use the other sources to describe the accuracy of the claims (even if the other sources do not mention that the statements are marketing claims), assuming that other policies, such as neutrality and due weight, are followed?
  • Under what conditions is it off-topic to discuss the accuracy of on-topic marketing claims? Is it necessary to use sources that mention that the statements are marketing claims and evaluate their truth, or may separate sources be used for each task, especially if the claims are medical?

Do you have any advice? HLHJ (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bust (sculpture) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Atrium
Orpheus mosaic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Merida
Roman art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to John Boardman

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum wage reverse

I was writing in the talk page while you made your comment and did the undo. The two references supported the idea that minimum wage and job growth are correlated, but not causal relationships. Check this link while you're at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agreed1179 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are they among: "the arguments made by those for and against minimum wage laws"? - yes. The article doesn't say that the arguments are right. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement was that minimum wage "increases job growth" cannot be supported by correlation studies. It is like saying "ice cream sales causes an increase in murder rate". Perhaps this article can explain it better than I. http://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-statistical-correlation-and-causation-are-different/

  • The claim was prefaced by: "The following table summarizes the arguments made by those for and against minimum wage laws: Arguments in favor of minimum wage laws ...Supporters of the minimum wage claim it has these effects:". ALL that needs referencing is that supporters do claim this - not that they are RIGHT. Stop edit-warrinmg and learn how to sign your posts. And don't start a new double-spaced line every sentence. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand what you say, I think the main issue is with the pro and con list itself. I will think of a way to re-organize the arguments and see how that would work. Agreed1179 (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

here you managed to remove a request. Probably an edit conflict. Please could you restore it? DuncanHill (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DuncanHill (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poppy Goddess

Saw you worked on Poppy Goddess, wouldn't that title be better used at Poppy? ticheek, Randy Kryn (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both are new to me - not many pics of the singer, maybe one of the goddess would help? Cheers Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pisa Altarpiece, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malibu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Can I ring you? Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime - do you need the number? Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I'm 8 hours ahead of you. What time, your time, suits you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
emailed. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss

What do you think about Marie Dentière? That person may be correctly described as Genevan. It's a case of a bit of land that was at different times part of two different large countries (France vs. Switzerland). In my personal opinion the lead of Gregor Mendel is the best way to handle a mixed person -- he is not called either Austrian or Czech in the lead. His passport (if he had one) would have been issued in Vienna by the Austrian Empire. And fortunately, in the article, nobody tried to make him a national of Silesia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that sources do not recognise "Genevan" as a nationality, and nor should we - any more than we recognise "Florentine" rather than Italian. I've no problem with "was a Swiss foo, born in what was then the Republic of Geneva", but that doesn't mean removing all mentions of "Swiss" as these "two" have done. I don't see your point about Marie Dentière. What "bit of land that was at different times part of two different large countries (France vs. Switzerland)"? She doesn't seem to have gone anywhere near Switzerland until in her mid-30s. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the land which is now the Canton of Geneva. Would it be worth opening an RfC on the question of 'Genevan' as a nationality? It is sometimes hard to get consensus on questions of nationality, but 'Genevan' probably sounds more strange to most people than the others that are discussed from time to time. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that the canton has ever been part of France, except for 15 years after Napoleon occupied it, but that isn't really the issue. I see no need for an RFC. This is just a stray city-nationalist nutter. The French WP does not do this (except where he has been trolling it) and RS are clear. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That entire article needs radical revision. The present abortion is not worth arguing about.
  1. It needs proper referencing, especially the opinionated final section. Surely there are French-language sources?
  2. Dentière should be described as being "of Walloon origin" (not a Walloon); where Geneva is mentioned there should be a link to History of Geneva#Reformation. It's silly assigning 16th-century people to inappropriate polities.
  3. One does not "convert to the Reformation", the Reformation is not a religion. Sweetpool50 (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schubert

Schubert composed 6 Latin masses and the Deutsche Messe, all frequently performed in services, especially the latter and the short ones. Not significant? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well not so frequently over here I think, either in services or the concert-hall. I can't say i'm familiar with any of them. But by all means put him back if you like. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I heard the "Heilig" from his Deutsche Messe sung by the congregation even in a normal Sunday service in Montreal (surprised enough to remember). I reverted it once today, and try to stick to 1RR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another one I remember is the Mass in G, performed in St Martin-in-the-Fields for the BBC broadcast on Ascension Dayj. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the article is pretty iffy, but where are Monteverdi, Palestrina, Tallis, etc? Pachelbel one could do without. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why the article was on my watchlist at all, but noticed the changes today. Wrote If Ye Love Me, with help ;) - couldn't believe it had no article until a certain wedding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and support on the Isis FAC. I took a stab at a gallery for the iconography section, in this revision of the Sandbox. I don't think I've ever created a gallery before, so I wanted to ask if I should change anything about the formatting or the image choice.

Note that I have an image of Isis and Nephthys as kites now, but it's too wide to fit comfortably in the gallery, unless there's some way to format the gallery that I'm not aware of. I'm thinking about putting it down in the Funerary section and either moving the current image from that section into the gallery (as seen in the sandbox revision), or just eliminating it. Thoughts? A. Parrot (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, though I've fiddled the embalming caption at the article. Very wide pics in galleries work best with the "packed mode" I think, though generally I dislike this, & I'm not so familiar with the formatting. Examples here. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it in the article. Thank you very much for this suggestion. I'm usually not enthusiastic about Wikipedia's galleries, so the idea never occurred to me, but it does make sense to have them in articles on major deities. One of my frustrations with my offline rewrite of Hathor was that there are too many good images to choose from; an iconography gallery will solve that problem. And Ra, Osiris, and Amun probably have more varied iconographies than any other Egyptian deities, so they would certainly benefit from one. A. Parrot (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altar frontal

I ran across Altar frontal from La Seu d'Urgell or of The Apostles which is called an 'altar frontal'. Would this be considered one for the category 'Altarpieces' you were populating or another type of design? I leave it in your capable typing-hands. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frontals are the front piece, & not usually regarded as altarpieces, I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So close and yet so far, separated by the things laying on the altar. But a possible solution, what do you think of a "category:Altar frontal" as a subcategory of Altarpieces? Even if there is only this one notable one, although I haven't checked to see if the search term draws up more. That way it covers all bases (except the religious objects which lay upon the altars, which, along with the altars themselves, are also considered artwork. But where do crucifixes and the like make their last stand?). I digress, just came to run the Altar frontal subcategory by you to see if it fits your mental picture of the category or is it too tangential? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Altar frontal from Avià in the same museum - Catalonia has much the best collection of survivals. In fact if you search "Altar frontal from" there are others (not all paintings). There might be one or two textile ones, but we don't have an article of the Parement of Narbonne, unfortunately. We have Category:Individual crosses and crucifixes, with several sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ancient Greek temple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No - start a discussion. The fact that some editor "reviewed" the page, whose origin was not properly disclosed, means very little.)

I´m not sure how to "start a talk" but I did what I could. Ic that is not what you meant I´m going to need more directions (or a hand, which would be nice). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cateyed (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 13 – 29 May 2018

Facto Post – Issue 13 – 29 May 2018
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Back numbers are here.
Respecting MEDRS

Facto Post enters its second year, with a Cambridge Blue (OK, Aquamarine) background, a new logo, but no Cambridge blues. On-topic for the ScienceSource project is a project page here. It contains some case studies on how the WP:MEDRS guideline, for the referencing of articles at all related to human health, is applied in typical discussions.

Close to home also, a template, called {{medrs}} for short, is used to express dissatisfaction with particular references. Technology can help with patrolling, and this Petscan query finds over 450 articles where there is at least one use of the template. Of course the template is merely suggesting there is a possible issue with the reliability of a reference. Deciding the truth of the allegation is another matter.

This maintenance issue is one example of where ScienceSource aims to help. Where the reference is to a scientific paper, its type of algorithm could give a pass/fail opinion on such references. It could assist patrollers of medical articles, therefore, with the templated references and more generally. There may be more to proper referencing than that, indeed: context, quite what the statement supported by the reference expresses, prominence and weight. For that kind of consideration, case studies can help. But an algorithm might help to clear the backlog.

Evidence pyramid leading up to clinical guidelines, from WP:MEDRS
Links
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnbod/38&oldid=864099669"