User talk:Johnbod/18 to Dec 2010

I think it's pretty much complete, but I'm sure I'm wrong. Any chance you could look it over and tear it to bits? I'm thinking it's turned out pretty nice for a little bit of shiny yellow metal. Thinking FAC even... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look later. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly. It'll be a big help, I'm sure. It'll probably be a bit before I get too far into it, but... it's much appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Winchestercathedralshaftesburybowl.jpg. I was especially struck by the "only complete piece of late Saxon glass in England"... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thks, they needed a pic at Anglo-Saxon glass. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 1,500 characters? Surely that means 1,500 words, right? I ask 'cause you are the DYK god, or at least the only one I know... Tks. • Ling.Nut 02:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, characters (including spaces, but not lists, captions headers etc). Word will do a count for you. How's things? Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. But no publications, dammit. Also wanna do a DYK of Children of the Stars soon, before my 5-day expiry date. • Ling.Nut 03:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the note, I don't really agree. The gallery is a collection of random images, precisely what the policy seeks to avoid. As for "read[ing] the policy again", you will recall that I drafted it with you. I am not sure that being patronizing is a good idea. In any event, I left a note on the talk page and can hopefully work this out with the other editor. THese are good images, so there is likely some way in which the gallery can be improved. Regards. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Terra sigillata, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao John. I'd like to receive your opinion about a recent edit war started at talk:Temple of Caesar. There's this new editor who's added a new version of the article, full of detailed informations but written in a very wikiamateur way (just as an example, writing words here and there in italics without reason, using "magazine style", overlong titles etc.). I wikified as possible his contain and so. However, now he continues to insist that tuff and tufa are the same thing, citing the sources he uses, despite Wikipedia article clearly states that this is a common mistake even in the most famous sources (especially if not geological ones). Let me know and thanks in advance. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White Boar, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! Notice that the Temple of Caesar guy is now, perhaps, using a sockpuppet account, user:Menuet111 for his revertions of his horrendous article. Let me know! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your brooches looks great. If I remember my hoard article never made it to a decent size, but I'll dust it off and see it there is something there. If you are impatient then feel free to "steal" it. Pleased to see Rosetta on mainpage today too. Victuallers (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've nicked this as you kindly suggested - now at Penrith Hoard, with credit. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and I've nommed it with hook at DYK! As usual change, delete and/or improve. Victuallers (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I can see why you abandoned it! The BM info is very confusing. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a welcome link illustrating Celtic Voices and Hale Bopp, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but if he thinks "Celtic art refers to a definite style of decoration", he's dead wrong! Johnbod (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will tell him. Saying things in half a line is too simple in most cases, with a tendency to be wrong. - As you are "on", would you mind looking at my DYK nom for Sep 19, Bach cantata 161, as I am on travel and not able to answer questions much later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnbod, I am just wondering why you removed two categories from the Borremose Bodies page. They are considered mummies and archaeological human remains... so why did you remove those catogories? -- Platyfishkeeper ^chat 14:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OCAT - articles should normally only be in the most specific category appropriate. Both the others are parents of "bog bodies). There are of course other categories (local etc) that should be added. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. -- Platyfishkeeper ^chat 19:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! I've just added numerous articles about (for, me unexplicably overlooked so far!!) art and architecture masterworks in Catalonia. The last in particular caused me problems in the translation: Tapestry of Creation. Can you help, if you've time of course? Ciao and thanks in advance... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lycurgus cup, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just want to compliment you on a well-researched article, which I reviewed and approved for DYK! Please remember to add ratings for the various Wikipedia projects on the article's talk page. Yoninah (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod: your article on penannular brooches looks great. :) AgTigress (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! Wonderful stuff (I didn't even know we had good photos of the Tara brooch - time to pay attention, Kate!) - PKM (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's your photo! Thanks for that. - PKM (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know the British spelling. However, it was written "aftefacts" in the original. Yoninah (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The central boss does it. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look just now at the DYK graph for the 'Terra Sigillata' article, which now has the viewing number for September 9, and it does seem to be over 5000, if I have read it aright. How does one add that to the DYK statistics? Or have you already done so?  :) AgTigress (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done it - you just add it, but it's a bit fiddly. We did use the German vase picture, didn't we? Thanks for the comment above! Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Johnbod! Yes, that pic is in the TS article. I still think that if some of the other articles to which I have made a major contribution (e.g. Ancient Roman pottery) are classed as 'B', the TS one should be graded higher, because it is pretty comprehensive and fully illustrated and referenced now. But 'A' doesn't seem to be used much, and I don't understand, really, how it differs from the GA classification. Never mind! AgTigress (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Celtic brooch, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Penrith Hoard, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on an expansion and clean-up of Dante Gabriel Rossetti - any suggestions would be welcome. (Also scanning more images, but it takes time that I mostly don't have right now.) Thanks so much - PKM (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, but he's right out of my period. I see you've asked Paul Barlow, who of course is a pro specialist. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John Bod - re your comment on the talk board - not to tread on PMK's toes, who's leading the Dante Rossetti expansion currently, but I'd say - be bold. Add well sourced additions. Go for it! Best wishes Span (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for clarifying that issue. The user in question clearly is a sockpuppet though so I reported them and they're now indefinitely banned as a result. This is their fourth different account!--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, sorry if you took any offense at my corrections to the DGA painting page! Just to clarify, you state that "Only larger cities had specialized painters' guilds", but in the sentence that I changed, only these larger cities are mentioned:" Amsterdam in 1579, Haarlem in 1590, and Gouda, Rotterdam, Utrecht and Delft between 1609 and 1611." All of these cities mentioned had artist guilds (and other guilds!!) going back to pre-medieval times. None of those cities started St. Luke guilds on the dates mentioned, nor at any time during the latter half of the 16th or start of the 17th century. All of them simply secularized the existing guilds (in the same way all church lands reverted to the state) so that the income from membership dues no longer went to the church but to the city. In my copy of the Haarlem St. Luke Guild archival data, none of the painters had to join a new collective, the actual governance and the members went on in the same age-old way, except that the guild no longer showed works in church, but in the city hall. I hope you understand why I changed the words now. There was nothing new about the guilds, only the guild charters were new. Perhaps this is a problem with the semantics? To me a guild exists not just on paper, but is an organisation of people with a common goal. Those organisations were allowed to remain intact (whereas the monasteries all had to shut up shop). Jane (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll have to look at my references, but as I recall them these were new. You of course don't reference to anything! I must say, at a period when Florence had no artists' guild, it is hard to see why Gouda - not now & certainly not then a "larger city" on any normal definition - should have had one. For artistic painters to have their own guild, not bundled up with housepainters, apothecaries, saddlemakers etc, is very much a new thing. I'm also dubious about talk of "secularization" - obviously all medieval life and institutions were mixed up with the church, but guilds were secular bodies not church ones, controlled by the councils not the bishop etc. The article is closely referenced & significant alterations without referencing won't do. Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I see your point. Of course I can't speak for Florence, since I know nothing about that. I'm also not sure that the Florence situation is relevant at all, since the Dutch were of course most influenced by their own specific form of government. The sources I have are all in Dutch, and I do reference whereever possible. In this case I was correcting the term "new guilds", because Haarlem, Utrecht, Delft, and Gouda did not start new guilds between 1568 and 1620, as the sentence states. Also, there were never any guilds anywhere exclusively for painters. Even the first "painting academies" were also used to train smiths and sculptors. All Dutch guilds were for more than one specific trade. In Haarlem the Brewer's guild was the most powerful, which is reflected in the fact that their chapel in the church was the largest, and their hofje still exists today. In Leiden, the clothmakers guild was the largest and most powerful, etc. As for your comment about secularization, the guilds were religious entities up until the Reformation. Before that they met formally at church, which was also their sales outlet. The church was the direct recipient and keeper of the dues, which were paid at church. The city councils only gained formal control of the guilds after the Reformation, not before. In Holland the concept of "Vroedschap" or council was basically the same as the guild regents. So these were all the same people who rotated their yearly assignments, in actual fact. I wasn't making a significant alteration, merely a small correction to a mistake.Jane (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if so that is very different from the rest of Europe. I'll have to dig up Prak again. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll leave you to it then. I can assure you though that the Dutch DO have a very strange form of self-government that is nothing like the rest of Europe!! They call it the polder model, and I suppose it all goes back to their struggles with floods. The governance in the guilds was based on something called co-optation. True democracy was only in the Water Boards. Jane (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing democratic about medieval councils! Far from it. But they were not run by the church. I'll try to look at it all this week. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, I just wanted to thank you for weighing in on the Pound FAC. It's been archived, which I think is best at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I was basically "supportive" but I could see it was changing a fair deal, so I thought I'd wait. I agree major repairs are best avoided during the race. Hope your eye trouble is improved. Johnbod (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How embarassing! I apologize for such a poor attempt. I knew in the process that it was weak...but I hit SAVE anyway. I do enjoy editing. Probably what I need is a mentor. Any ideas? Buster7 (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't worry - it is a very common mistake (imo) & some would say a matter of personal style. Unless the subject is really different I try to avoid sections of less than say 4 lines, but some might say my sections are too long. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User is the dating agency for mentors & mentees & User:Moni3 is a very high-class editor indeed, who is offering a spot. Also User:OhanaUnited is a name I recognise. Good luck! Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information, I meant the "Netherlands" in the sense of the modern nation-state, not the low-lying lands that it comprises. Hayden120 (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through everything, I'd have to agree. Suddenly removing a chunk of text is a little concerning; I would certainly not do that. The GA process is not necessarily meant to find every possible little thing that could be tweaked, just to see if it hits GA status. If you want a 2nd opinion on the article itself and another reviewer, a good person to ask would be User:Jezhotwells, who's really quick and honest about those kinds of things (I could look things over but it would take me a while too; it's a sizable article.) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt, Ethiopia and Greece are also modern countries. The situation is entirely comparable. And all three had their independence curtailed for extended periods. In the case of Egypt, the original dominant nation has been even been replaced (ancient Egyptians=Copts by Muslim Arabs). I don't see why Israel should be treated differently. Monosig (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the article talk, not mine! All three remained "countries", even when not states; Israel did not. In any case those "establishments" are vague & excessive. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now raised for discussion, you may want to check the layout and points count. Fæ (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally made the improvements you suggested to the article, and removed some OR that had crept in. Can you suggest any further improvements? Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've knocked the article around a bit as per your recommendations, and I think there's an improvement, thanks. We've also gained stubs on Invermay and Carpow as a result... bonus! There's a frustratingly large potential for OR in the article, sadly nobody has made direct comparisons with the Monifieth cross, but the links are there for people to make their own judgements. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to apologize for misunderstanding your comments at the British Empire FA review. I'm probably going to stop conversing there, I think the conversation is already too extended for a keep/delete vote section. I do understand your point now though, and agree it is a good one. I'm not sure how much I could do about it though! The articles current information is already beyond a poor soul like me. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can at least assert that it's very rare for GA reviews to end up like that one was. It was painful to watch just from the length of time alone, let alone what else happened. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tresham was promoted but I don't believe in time for your opinions to be counted. I still value your input, and wondered if when you had the chance, you could let me know what you think could stand to be improved? Parrot of Doom 08:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, lost sight of it. I'll take a look. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for your input on the FAC as it certainly helped improve the article. I have Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot) at GAN now, and only five more conspirators to go. Percy may well appear at FAC, I'm not certain there's enough on the Wrights or Wintours to get past GA. Keyes, certainly not. Parrot of Doom 18:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While adding wikilinks to the Camus Cross article, High crosses inevitably came up... According to the article, high crosses are freestanding. Is this always so? I ask because a number of Pictish cross slabs have been added to the article and templates. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not a technical one, but normally they should be freestanding. But we're also using it to embrace Anglo-Saxon crosses, which are certainly from the same tradition, but (depending on location) not usually referred to by the term. I'll have a look. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I'm also puzzled by the inclusion of the likes of the Dupplin Cross in Template:European megaliths. It looks a little out of place there, although I'm by no means expert enough to make a judgement. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've taken that out. I think the main articles on Pictish stones & high cross (under Ireland) are ok, as no period is specified, but that's enough. Are there other individual ones? If so, they could go too. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also took the liberty of removing Clach a' Charridh, but the rest seem fine. I've also removed the template from the relevant articles Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You'll see I've added a bit to high cross, without excludsing them completely. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get it. Bear? I was always taught growing up that they were, just not Roman, and just not the eastern. Outback the koala (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh I see your post on the CFD, puts that in better light. So your saying that it's my POV as a Catholic to think that? I assure you I meant no mischief by it, truly... Outback the koala (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was just joking on the bear theme really. But whoever else might get confused, Eastern Catholics themselves are not just going to call themselves "Orthodox" without qualification, though EOs very often do. Looking at the people in the category, they were all what you would expect - Russians, Greek, & some converts. No doubt there is an Eastern Catholic category somewhere, I didn't look. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realize the full scenario on the Lycurgus Cup when I deleted it from thiasus — I thought there were fewer figures depicted on it, not enough to constitute a thiasos as an entourage. Still not sure it would actually illustrate what a thiasos is, because the scenario is atypical. The Titian is not in question; in triumphal processions of the thiasos, Ariadne often rides as consort in the chariot with Dionysus, and this painting has a large ensemble. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless it shows the thiasos actually in Dionysic action, not just trooping along decoratively, and powerfully so. It's pity you can't take pics of those sides, but they are all accessible via links except maybe one. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers exist in its last public domain edition in the 1920 version? This sort of question is of interest for Wikisource. There exist scans of earlier editions on archive.org but for obvious reasons the latest edition might be the best. I happen to have been adding images with the help of a gadget, and noticed that earlier editions are commonly cited here. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sadly it is much used by some - it should be banned, & is not an RS in the mid 19th century versions usually cited. I doubt it was updated too much, & 1920 is still too old to be ideal. But I don't know about 20th century editions. Actually "Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers" only gets 20 hits on here, which is fewer than I'd have thought. At the least, basic details should be checked against the Getty Union List of Artist Names Online if no other source is used. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, there may be nearly 500 hits for "Bryan, Michael"+Dictionary here. I'll think some more - biographies being my thing currently. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next question: is the Dictionary of Samuel Redgrave any better? Just British, though. That one already has a project at Wikisource. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've come across that used as a source here, nor does it pop up on google searches, unlike Bryan. It's that bit later, includes some first hand knowledge, & has a good brisk style. Later sources use it a fair bit I think, but the basic problem is the same. I forget who it was that we had an article for based on Bryan, when modern sources decided about 50 years ago the artist didn't in fact exist, but was actually another known artist recorded as a variant name (or something). It's no different with Vasari. Most people in the UK can get the DNB and Grove, now Oxford Art Online, at home via their library, & between the Tate, NPG, NMM and others there is usually a brief modern biog online somewhere, especially for British artists. I see we have Redgrave used as a ref, but not wholesale in the way Bryan is. His judgements are often very quotable, which is fine if it is "according to Redgrave" etc. Hope this helps. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I'm just dipping my toe in the water here. My main current interest being useful applications of old DNB text, I have created a few articles today including Samuel Redgrave and spent time linking them in, within your general area. William Young Ottley being one, it turns out that what the old DNB gives is probably only half the story (how he got hold of his art collection probably being of more interest now than his writings). Charles Matthews (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Easby Cross, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than say this there I will apologize in advance if my comments seem confrontational. They're not intended as such, I just seem to be more terse than usual tonight. Probably means it's time for bed. 28bytes (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - I don't remember them as being so, & won't go back to look. I wish there were more people in the discussion though; it's just the same few going round in circles today, so I'll leave it a while. Johnbod (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. And re more people in the discussion: that may just be thread fatigue. It's hard to tell sometimes which thread is going to be the one that "counts." 28bytes (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gee Whizz, Johnbo, do you really think it's worth a B? I think maybe I ought to read it through and tidy it up a bit! Amandajm (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I generally downrate rather than uprate. But it seemed pretty comprehensive. Change it by all means if you no like. I won't pretend I read it all through. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be filled in with something. See File:Britmusborradailetriptych.jpg. This message brought to you by the person who takes too many pictures. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And File:Hermitagetiepolotriumpdentatus.jpg ... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this this is within your usual historical time span or not, but I noticed that you made a helpful addition to the lead. Do you feel that the article makes a decent fist of telling Cragh's story? Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think he is a real case of 15 minutes of fame - or 15 days worth of surviving records, & I doubt much more can be got from him. I only know the tv programme Bartlett made about him. You might move some or all of note 2 into the text. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I agree. I think that the bit about saints supporting hanged men's feet probably ought to be in the article body. Thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jacques Bellange, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the "secretive character" of the Beggar Looking Through His Hat (pictured), attributed to 17th-century artist Jacques Bellange, may have appealed to its former owner, American KGB spy Michael Straight? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Johnbod, for leaving the first positive post I have seen on DYK talk. A little positivity goes a long way. Thanks for contributing to a more collegial atmosphere around here! The Interior(Talk) 04:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao John! I think there's cleanup help needed at Basilica di Sant'Andrea, an outstanding medieval church in Vercelli I've just visited, and Alcazaba of Badajoz... let me know. Thanks and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I'm not sure what your intent was here, reverting to a 6-month old version of the talk page, nor could I understand the edit summary. I've reverted it anyway assuming it was an mistake. –Moondyne 23:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot I was looking at a historic version! Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done! –Moondyne 00:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that happens, well done Moondyne Victuallers (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with this article. Jack1956 (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It would be worth seeing if Oxford & Rylands have anything online on their bits, which I didn't bother doing. Johnbod (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons why I edited the particular places of that/those pages was because I didn't see the wording to be encyclopedic and within some guidelines here. I guess I can relax on some of the editing that I'm doing, because a word such as "many" probably isn't too bad in certain instances. Also, the problem I have with the "It is fortunate..." area is that it is at conflict with WP:EDITORIAL, which states that descriptive words such as "notably" and "interestingly", among others, should usually be avoided from use in articles. Oh, and while the other editor reverted most of my stuff, the person did leave off the previously quoted text. Also, I'm questionable about the use of the word "very" in instances I've seen, due to it having a loose definition with a lack of solid boundaries. I don't intend to cause trouble; sorry for any inconvenience. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but when dealing with heavily referenced text it's best to be a bit cautious, and "many" should not really be taken as a red flag. I haven't looked at other edits of yous, but I think you may be overdoing things somewhat. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Timbouctou's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your kind help. See you soon and let me know if you need help in turn, sure. Good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to discuss the proposed changes proposed by Malke 2010 at talk:Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), but I would caution you about the language in which you do so. I have already had cause to issue a NPA warning to History2007, and I shall do the same if you make any comment which may not indicate respectful disagreement and a desire to civilly discuss the issues. I find it strange that editors to such an article subject find it difficult to comport themselves in an appropriate manner, but regardless I shall be keeping an eye on all parties. Please consider this an official pre-warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? Please consider this an official reprimand for over-officious nose-poking. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John—is Category:Female Christian clergy and religious incomplete somehow? Did you mean Category:Female Christian clergy of religious orders, or something else? If so, I'll speedy change it for you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious in this case means someone who is in some sort of clerical or monastic orders. Sometimes it also means someone who has taken no organized vows, but is a hermit or similar religious recluse. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes—I see. I think I was just thrown by the header on the category. Is the plural of "religious" unchanged, then? Thanks, John, and thanks Ealdgyth. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, at least I've never seen it changed for plural or singular. It's one of those little weird quirky terms... gotta love them. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right - there's no short alternative I know of. The category note was supposed to clarify, but maybe hasn't. I don't think nuns, who of course are the great majority of the category contents, are normally called "clergy". Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clergy usually implies ordination, whether major or minor orders, which at least in medieval times, wasn't open to women. I don't think nuns got benefit of clergy in the middle ages, did they??? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "ordination" only began at deacons, but I'm not sure. It looks as though nuns did get benefit of clergy, as of course did anyone who could read, or recite the neck verse, for much of the MA. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, for all that I write insane amounts of prose on clergy, I've always been a bit nebulous about the lower parts - below the deacons. Ah, well, not important to the point at hand, that's for sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were mainly for trainee clergy, even in the MA. The CE 1911 has strange tit-bits "Formerly it did not exclude them from the ranks of the clergy, and they retained all clerical privileges, provided they contracted only one marriage and that with a virgin..." and "Canonists, including Benedict XIV (Constitution, "Eo quamvis," 4 May, 1745), admit that minor orders may be conferred not only on those who have reached the age of puberty, but on boys over seven years." [2] Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, you or your elite crew of lurkers may be able to add ballast to my slender start on this figure of preumanesimo.--Wetman (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your queries such as this. Just a suggestion - perhaps you might be kind enough to give the candidates a link? I don't even know where to go to do it, so I can't send anyone else there. Thanks. 04:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's different for each, but frankly if they can't work it out wtf are they doing running? Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Is there not a central location to do this? I recall a place on Meta at one point. Is there something else? Risker (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "count" link on their noms. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of digging later: they should create <User:Username>/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to provide data for all projects, or <User:Username>/EditCounterOptIn.js if they just want to do it on this project. Risker (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are still following the issue, but I have revived the discussion of "Subjects of the Russian Federation" as I believe you were right in objecting...

Thanks, William (William MacDougall 10:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)) Link please - I can't find it. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you found it. Many thanks for your comment. William (William MacDougall 16:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

Not so flattering. Could you please explain what is meant by 'nonsense'? Sechinsic (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

diff please. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A diff it is. [3] Sechinsic (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you replaced sourced text with unsourced text, which is generally considered a bad thing on Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The collection of articles by Dumville is a very good book, and it does touch on the subject. But it was my mistake to give that reference (which I did initially). What Dumville is really writing about is the lack of documentary evidence, not the lack of romans, so it was my mental shortcircuit that just blindly placed the reference and the faulty statement in the text, originally. As I wrote in the information field for the subsequent edit:"dumb fault corrected". Sechinsic (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "nonsense" was "The initial Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain took place in the 7th century". As far as I know, this is complete nonsense. Isn't it? They were already there by the 4th century, and in large numbers from the 5th, as both Timeline of Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain and Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain say. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dumville (again) uses only textmaterial, and in that field of perspective the anglo-saxons are called to England to fight back the scots (which are Irish) - all this according to Gilda. Whether England before that was all Britons or partly roman is surely debatable. The point here must be this 'initial settlement' which is - as far as I know - connected with the invitation to the anglo-saxons to come rescue the Britons. Sechinsic (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? I've never seen Dumville, but then I've never ever seen anyone suggest that "The initial Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain took place in the 7th century". Plenty of archaeological AS finds are dated much earlier - Sutton Hoo, which is hardly the work of people just off the boat, is dated to the 620s. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I just looked up Gildas, who lived and wrote in the middle 6.th. century. Please refrain from projecting my mistakes onto Dumville!!!! I am reduced to simply guessing the initial settlement may have occured in the 5.th. century, since Gildas account of the invitation predates his own time, and the fact that Maximus left in 385. So your edit is absolutely correct. Sechinsic (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I have Dumville, but as there is no page number given for the ref, I can't hunt it up. That's neither here nor there, as the 7th century is way late for the Anglo-Saxon settlement. Just look at Augustine of Canterbury - he arrived in Britain in 597ish to convert the Anglo-Saxons in Kent - and those that he was converting had been settled for a while. I'm thinking the information for the 7th century needs a pretty iron-clad source rather than just being a bare fact without a reference. For that matter - Barbara Yorke in Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England states "For it is evident that the majority of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were already in existence by 597..." (p. 1) and 'Germanic settlement in Britain may have begun before the end of the fourth century and seems to have continued throughout the fifth century and into the sixth century." (p. 5 - she sources this to Hills, C "The archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England in the pagan period, a review" in Anglo-Saxon England 8 pp. 297-329 and Myres, J. N. L. Anglo-Saxon Pottery and the Settlement of England (1969) and Myres, J. N. L. The Anglo-Saxon Settlements (1986)) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I was not projecting anything on to Dumville. If you are reducing to guessing, and using primary sources, I suggest you don't edit on the subject at all. The existing text in the various articles adequately gives the conventional view. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, forget the courtesy. Sechinsic (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you can't expect compliments for edits like that. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subject still interesting though. Hills, writing in 1979, suggest not to make the equation between initial settlement and the invitation mentioned in Gildas. Almost just as quoted from Yorke, singular evidence before 5.th. century suggest 'germanic' traits in burial artefacts connected to Roman infrastructure, i.e. the army. Later artefacts can be described in the context of a settlement period, i.e. not a singular event, as in 'invasion' or 'invitation'. (Please, no courtesy)Sechinsic (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Gildas invitation, if it happened at all, was probably just one episode in the middle of the story. Same with Bede. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:CRYSTAL leads you to support the move on United Ireland? Mo ainm~Talk 15:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me that's not a major aspect of the matter - see my comments. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Mo ainm~Talk 19:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As usual, only if you've time, kind help needed at Cathedral of Civita Castellana and Ovetari Chapel. Ciao and thanks in advance. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the talk page.Mavigogun (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there contemporary works known to you that this section would benefit by the inclusion of?Mavigogun (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially. It's been getting on for 600 years since the end of Byzantine period, and apart from Othodox traditions, it doesn't have that much influence today - far less than it used to. If one were going to include a contemporary icon it should be a more representative example. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you want a partner on Byzantine silk. - PKM (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I'm not really sure what I've got on it, & will be weak on the technical side, but have a lot on usage in the West, so that will be great. I won't be doing much for 10 days or more, so do start without me. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit tied up as well, but I'll start collecting my sources and sticking Post-Its on useful pages. - PKM (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image? File:Shroud of Charlemagne manufactured in Constantinople 814.jpg. - PKM (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you'd been dabbling! Needs an overhaul! Any ideas? Amandajm (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking it should probably just go to a disam page. It gets several times the hits of Italian Renaissance painting, which is mainly what it covers. Meanwhile Renaissance art and architecture redirects to Renaissance! Not this week though. How are things? Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give your opinion on Talk:Louis Ferdinand, Dauphin of France#Revert.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! Hope to see you at the next London meet-up! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mystic marriage of Saint Catherine, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... how to tell which of the two possible Saint Catherines is shown marrying Jesus in a painting of the Mystic marriage of Saint Catherine (example pictured)? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You've been doing a bang-up job on this article. Just thought I'd let you know :) Raul654 (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Did I see you say you wanted it to go to FAC? I don't mind responding on content issues, but I lose patience with too much formatting/MOS stuff. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnbod. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 16:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

On 12 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Art of the United Kingdom, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the art of the United Kingdom only dates from 1707 onwards? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have answered you excellent and valid points on the talk page. However, one interesting thing, I did learn and am trying to find the ref for (I failed to note it at the time, but your comments reminded me of it) was that until about 1925 Country Life deliberatly failed to mention any 18th century architecture in or on a country house. Houses we consider 18th century today, but which have small Tudor wings at the rear, were presented as entirely Tudor or medieval. This was the image of "country life" that "Country Life" wished to present and obviously people wanted; my source if I can find it states categorically that 18th century domestic architecture was considered poor and of no importance at that time. So I would refuted the survival of the smaller Georgian boxes - especially if one thinks how Bowood and other very important houses were demolished without comment - I would have thought the "Tudorised" farmhouse would be favoured over the Georgian box - also the Chuch of England demolished many Georgian rectories in the 50s and 60s many of which would have qualified for replacemnt country houses for the newly homeless arictocrats. Regards.  Giacomo  10:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds plausible, but new to me. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate the Winter or Summer Solstice, Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Classic}} to your friends' talk pages.

Hello John! Thank you all for your comments at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance! Now that the RfC is over, and since concensus seems to be that the sandbox article User:Per Honor et Gloria/Sandbox/Mongol elements in Western medieval art is a worthwhile article, would you mind actually copying the article into the main space: Mongol elements in Western medieval art, and link one or two articles to it? Thank you! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 11:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 00:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a minor change, just one letter (if it were an article, it would be a simple "move"). Do you really feel that it is necessary to take that to CFD? --Crusio (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GLAM Wiki UK 2010, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies has been nominated as possible Featured article. She was an Italian princess and the wife of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. If're interested on reviewing and voting in favor or not of it, please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, as you are wiki's foremost dandy, if you get time could you give a hand with the description of this lady's headdress and sleeve. I'm struggling with the Italian terms, and repeditive sources, but if I can build the section would like to include a gallery similar adornments (more interested in the headwear than gown). Ta. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed your 1 January DYK hook and thought it's a bit boring, everybody knows that. But probably I'm wrong. Anyway, Bach wrote a cantata for the occasion which I am going to nominate also for the date, but first have to finish, preview BWV 190, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year! Now, our articles in the same DYK slot, I linked them both ways, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy New Year to you too. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Mistagged BLP Cleanup Barnstar
	This barnstar does not cite any references or sources.[1][2][3] For your work with mistagged BLPs, thank you! The list is now empty with your help. Gigs (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of British Institution at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! [4], [5], [6]...Modernist (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to let you know I've filed an edit war report on User:95.148.158.141 for exceeding the 3RR limit on Socialist Workers' Party (Britain) - it's here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. (The image, while not medieval or equine, is by one of my favorite poets and artists, William Blake.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas/Holidays to to you and everyone. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is is likely that I would edit war with you? Is is credible? Are there more likely and rational explanations? I am surprised at your conclusion given our history ... is it not more likely that one or both os us made a mistake? I genuinely wish you a happy Christmas and hope to see you in the new year. Victuallers (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't think of it as edit-warring, & the edit makes no sense as such, but from the edit summary it looks like a rollback, not an editing-the-wrong-version as above. Maybe I'm wrong. It looked like an edit conflict to me. Anyway, please put my comments back. Thanks, & Happy New Year Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a rough draft on Byzantine silk at User:PKM/sandbox. Need to add something on Islamic silk-weaving, influence of Persian (Sassanid) design, and then I hope you can do the influence of Byzantine silks on European visual arts. I also need to track down the comment that Opus Anglicanum may have been an attempt to compete wtih Byzantine silks at a lower cost (!). If you want to do some work on this let me know, and I'll move it out to the article space. (I'll probably do that shortly anyway so folks can tweak it.) Also using UK spelling, so if you see any creeping Amercianisms please point them out. Thanks!! - PKM (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did a few more hours work and put it live at Byzantine silk. - PKM (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great additions, thanks.

Ha! Re: books behind the Christmas tree; mine is in front of a window, so no books are blocked. I've pretty much added what I have - just did a bit on dyestuffs - I'm on holiday this week, so I've had time to work on this. I've been going around adding links back to the article (where you haven't beaten me to it).

I'll draft a joint DYK. Happy New Year! - PKM (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK here - PKM (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British Institution, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Constable called the Superintendent of the British Institution (pictured) "a much greater man than the King—the Duke of Bedford—Lord Westminster—Lord Egremont, or the President of the Royal Academy"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Byzantine silk, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Byzantine silk designs include the tree of life, winged horses, and imaginary beasts, along with fashionable images of hunting and quadrigas (pictured)? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the stray "|24" in the blockquote you added a partial footnote, or kruft from your source? I don't want to delete it if it should be part of something that's truncated...

It is a page/section marker. It's useful for locating the passage within the full text, but it could go. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also... Muthesius says that the Gunthertuch shows that large-scale figurative designs were possible in tapestry weave (Jenkins 2003 p. 351). Does your source actually call this an embroidery?

I was going off the image file, plus maybe other sources, I can't recall. Most of the stuff I've seen is very vague on the technique. Beckwith also calls it a tapestry, so we'd better go with that.

Happy New Year! - PKM (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy fix, taken care of. - PKM (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. Anna Muthesius' 3 books: Studies in Silk in Byzantium; Studies in Byzantine, Islamic and Near Eastern Silk Weaving; Byzantine silk weaving: AD 400 to AD 1200. But you'd never get through them in 2 days!! Donald King's 1963 book on Opus Anglicanum. - PKM (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]