Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:46, 15 September 2021

IF YOU MENTION AN ARTICLE HERE - PLEASE LINK IT!!!

Archives

/1 to Nov 06 /2 to mid-Dec 06 /3 to Jan 07 /4 to Mar 07 /5 to mid-April 07 /6 to May 07 /7 to July 07 /8 to Sept 07 oct in fact /9 from Nov 07 /10 from April 08 /11 from July 08 /12 from October 08 /13 from Feb 09 /14 from Aug 09 /15 from Nov 09 /16 from February 2010 /17 from June 2010 /18 to Dec 2010 /19 to March 11 /20 to Oct 11 /21 to Jan 12 /22 to April 12 /23 to September 12 /24 to January 2013 /25 to April 13 /26 to July 13 /27 to November 13 /28 to January 14 /29 to August 14 /30 to May 15 /31 to November 15 /32 to February 2016 /33 to 31 July 2016 /34 to 30 November 2016 /35 to April 2017 /36 to December 2017 /37 to April 2018 /38 to October 2018 /39 to April 2019 /40 to September 2019 /41 to January 2020 /42 to June 2020 /43 to December 2020 /44 to May 2021

memo to self - arty student project pages to check through

• Misplaced Pages:Wiki Ed/California State University Sacramento/Art of the Ancient Mediterranean (Fall 2017)
• Misplaced Pages:Wiki Ed/Amherst College/Women and Art in Early Modern Europe (Spring 2017)
• Misplaced Pages:Wiki Ed/College of DuPage/History of Art- Prehistory to 1300 (Fall 2017)
• Misplaced Pages:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Fall 2017)
• Misplaced Pages:Wiki Ed/Duke University/Art in Renaissance Italy (Spring 2017)

Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Boston_University/Venetian_Renaissance_Art_and_Architecture_(Fall)

Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Arabesque

Hello why did you return my article Samlaxcs (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Because it was wrong, as usual. Whether you like it or not, Moor, Moresque and Saracen are historical terms in English, not in fact insulting in themselves, and it is wrong to remove them wherever you see them, especially in historic quotes, or with dishonest edit summaries like "fixing typo". I and others will continue to revert such edits. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Historically, the word "moors" was applied to all those with darker skin or dark hair, and it was applied to the Philippines, Sri Lanka, India, and various ethnicities. For this reason, I am deleting and correcting it, noting that historically the word "moors" not really was used but in modren day as will most of afrostrinc start used it but historically was not used until 1492. about "Sarcaen "is not an insult, but only corrected it to make article just more clear :-)). for" Moresque ", the historical name is Arabesque and Moresque. It appears to be a perversion and there is no source mention the word "moresque" at all

-) Samlaxcs (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense - they are (slightly) different things - see Moresque. I will continue to revert bad edits. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but in any case, this is a misrepresentation of the name! Especially during this period with the Afrocentric campaigns promoting the name Moor, and the well-known name is Arabesque, not Moresque Anyone can open a page, but this does not mean that what was written on it is true at all. At the present time, many distortions occur. must be corrected and we do not overlook it Samlaxcs (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello brother, why do you always delete every change I make without saying the reason or responding to what I wrote to? is there's a problem? Samlaxcs (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

"again" is not ever an appropriate edit summary as per guideline, and it is especially inappropriate when ignoring the item on the talk page. Aren't you taking liberties fashioned to tell the rest of us that you do as you please? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cut glass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crystal Palace.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cut glass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punchbowl.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason for erasing my edits

Hello jonbod I have noticed that you are always returning or deleting all my edits without mentioning the reason. I hope for a response now and tell me the reason why you delete or return my amendments Samlaxcs (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not just me, is it? Very often someone else beats me to it. The overall reason is that they are not improvements to the articles, which will lead any edit to be deleted. You should study the edit summaries I and others often provide. You are changing names on some fixed point of view I don't understand, never with any references, often with poor English, and with wierd edit summaries about Filipinos and Sri Lankans. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am here trying to correct common mistakes in articles, and I know that they are simple mistakes, such as deleting some mistakes, but I do this because I do not want wrong concepts to spread about my history and I do not want it to be distorted as well as there are many very simple modifications such as to delete a word or two words, for example Or correct the word "moors" because nowadays we have seen people often use this word and claim that it meant Africans, and this is not correct for this reason. I am trying to correct the names or amend articles that are written in the wrong way Samlaxcs (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

But they aren't mistakes - "The term Moor is an exonym first used by Christian Europeans to designate the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily and Malta during the Middle Ages. The Moors initially were the indigenous Maghrebine Berbers. The name was later also applied to Arabs and Arabized Iberians.

1. Cite error: The named reference Leo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. The Arabs called the latter Muwalladun or Muladi. Menocal (2002). Ornament of the World, p. 16; Richard A Fletcher, Moorish Spain (University of California Press, 2006), pp.1,19.

-but your edit summaries go on about filipinos and Sri Lankans. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the name Moors was not only given to Arabs or Muslims, but rather to Africans, Filipinos, Sri Lankans, and other ethnicities. Here, the disturbing thing is that many Africans believe that the word "moors" in the history of Spain is their history. Because they used the same term for them

Also, the name Moors was used as an insult, and no one really called himself this term Samlaxcs (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

As the quotation says, the name was first used for Berbers, only later Arabs, and if you are talking about north Africans, then "many Africans believe that the word "moors" in the history of Spain is their history" is reasonably correct. The origin of the term, as classical Mauri, is very clearly North African, & may well have derived from a term Berbers used to describe themselves. Do you have any evidence for usage of the English term for Filipinos and Sri Lankans? It seems to be used in Spanish and Portuguese, specifically for Muslim populations, as the article mentions, but is not a part of the meaning in English. In any case, this is not an excuse for removing the word in all contexts. Replacing "Moors" with "Arabs" is very problemmatic in many cases, and often just wrong. "Moor" was not an insult in itself, but the usual term for groups of foreign people. Of course it was not a term they, or most of them, used themselves, any more than "Japanese" is. But it doesn't seem to bother the people of Mauritania. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Moro people , Sri Lankan Moors The name was given to non-Muslims africans before Islam, and many other contradictory ethnicities were called not one specific ethnicity. Likewise, the name is still used in Brazil with the meaning (dark) and here is only an example that the name or the word does not have a specific meaning and did not call a single ethnicity as I am deleting it So as not to spread misconceptions as is happening now, especially in recent periods of distortion Samlaxcs (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cut glass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Cut glass

On 30 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cut glass, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Ruskin wrote that "all cut glass is barbarous; for the cutting conceals its ductility and confuses it with crystal"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cut glass. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cut glass), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Insular art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Altar Crucifix

Greetings. The article altar crucifix needs work. First of all, the title of the article really should be "altar cross" as many churches do not use a crucifix on their altars. The photo examples show a Methodist communion table and an Armenian Apostolic altar - neither tradition uses the crucifix. The article omits Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, even though a photo shows an Oriental Orthodox altar (the Armenian example).

A crucifix is a cross with the corpus (body) of Jesus nailed to it or in some cases painted on it. Generally, the use of a crucifix on an altar is restricted to Roman Catholicism (where it is required, but the Post-Vatican II rubrics do not demand it be placed on the altar and it is often behind it or to the side); Lutheranism (where it is customary in Europe and occasionally elsewhere), and certain Anglo-Catholic Anglican/Episcopal churches. A lot of the article is written as a pastiche with personal opinion backed up with footnotes that do not fully back up the assertions.

In addition, the "United Methodist Misplaced Pages editor" (my name for him or her) is at work posting "Methodist" content in almost every article on Christianity in Misplaced Pages. My favorite is under the article Mass (liturgy) where this editor asserts that there is such a thing as a "Methodist Mass" - a term that Methodists never use for their Eucharistic liturgies.

This all said, I have little time or inclination to redo this article with appropriate footnotes or to argue that it should be titled "Altar cross", so feel free to rollback my edits. I shall not dispute it. --IACOBVS (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. As I said, or implied a while ago, when you moved the article to something else, "altar cross" is probably the best title, but I don't feel like doing the modest amount of work for a proper WP:RM either. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I've recently stumbled across your excellent contributions at Cut glass, Engraved glass and Gold ground. It is (almost) unbelievable that such basic topics lacked their own articles until you created them only weeks ago. I hardly ever give these things out but I just wanted to thank you for such impressive and important contributions. They are a reminder of just how much we all need to do here. —Noswall59 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Many thanks! Engraved glass did in fact have a short article, mainly on modern stuff, but the others indeed had nothing (Cut glass redirecting to Engraved glass). Italo-Byzantine is another one from scratch in 2021. Cheers! Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

More footwear dolls

Hi Johnbod! Please compare and with or . Again, if you meet another editor with this particularity, please take a look at their edit history and if appropriate post here. You could have nipped this one in the bud much earlier. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

True, but he will probably pop up again - there's something to be said for knowing where to find him. But thanks for your report. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Changes made to History of Architecture

Hi John,

I noticed that you had undone my changes (which took hours to structure over night) on the History of architecture. I agree with your point about copying from other Wiki articles. I can rewrite it. However, the point about imbalance. It is grossly unfair to mark "Indian" architecture as one tiny section within Asia when Europe gets section after section. It should be noted that the architectural styles throughout the Indian continent is hugely different. There are different civilisations we are talking about. I consulted architects to understand the different styles (many of which have their own independent sections on Wiki). If we are cutting down on the size of the article, we should start with Europe which gets a gigantic slice of this.

But I agree with your point about copying, which I did for ease. I'll get a friend of mine to write it better. We will reduce the wordage if that helps. But yes, we can either have a few sections for the Indian continent, or none at all, because it's a gross injustice. I'd appreciate your support/advice on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunullas (talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I did feel rather sorry about doing it, but the reasons I gave are valid. I'm well aware of the variety of Indian architecture (I think I wrote a lot of what you added). The article does give more space (though lower down) to the Western tradition, but I think this inevitable, given the presumed interests of our readers. The old Indian section is not "tiny" at all, but a reasonable length in line with the other Asian sections. There are other cultures who have better reason to feel hard done by with the the present architecture, I think. I suggest you take this to article talk if you want to pursue it - but look at WP:LENGTH first. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. My main concern here is that 'Western' and 'Eastern' aren't the best way to show the distinctions. I'm glad you're the one who did a lot for the architecture pages for the Indian ones, so you'd know very well that Asia isn't supposed to be smaller than or even equal to that of the European one. I will not be directly undoing the changes you made. I respect your opinions and concerns. I will definitely give the length article a read. But I do sincerely feel that "Asia" as a section should be split. India, East Asia, and West Asia (which already has the Islamic section) don't necessarily fit together. The notion of "continents" is quite a 20th century idea that is vaguely defined. In our hundreds of languages, "India" (not the modern nation-state) is referred to as a continent. And it's extremely diverse to be shown under one umbrella. After giving the length article a read, I shall rewrite the India section to show the diversity. But I'll make sure it's not too large. I know that most readers now are Western, but Misplaced Pages is forever. This is changing in all fields. I'll move the talk to the article itself. Once again, many thanks for hearing me out. I hope we can come up with a fair solution :)

DYK for Engraved glass

On 11 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Engraved glass, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some of the most celebrated Dutch Golden Age artists who worked in glass engraving (example pictured) were women? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glass engraving. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Engraved glass), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Priest-King (sculpture)

On 16 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Priest-King (sculpture), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Indira Gandhi made Zulfikar Ali Bhutto choose between the sculptures Dancing Girl and Priest-King (pictured) to be returned to Pakistan in 1972? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Priest-king (sculpture). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Priest-King (sculpture)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Botticelli date of death

Ref Botticelli. I don't think I'm being picky to request a specific citation for a specific fact. We already have a running battle against nonsense edits trying to 'correct' his date of birth so if we are going to give a specific date in the infobox for his date of death, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect a citation for it. Given such an infobox citation, then I wouldn't have needed to put a cn tag to the text about his death in the body. (I strongly dislike drive-by tagging if I have any alternative but I don't have a copy of Lightbown and, given the DoB fictions, am reluctant to trust anything I might find on a web page.)

No need to reply, I will be content if the infobox is updated. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You've GOT a specific citation, and you are being picky. No, I don't have Lightbown now, it came on an inter-library trasfer. The best solution for all the many problems caused by infoboxes is to remove the box. Or at least add a stiff hidden note. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't but I do now:

| birth_date = c. 1445

| birth_place = Florence, Republic of Florence (now Italy)

| death_date = May 17, 1510(1510-05-17) (aged 64–65)

Hidden note added after birth date: Please do not change this because there is no reliable source for his date of birth. If you believe you have confirmable date, please present it at the article talk page first.

Yes, I know. I could have done all that first time. I have a knee-jerk reaction to passive voice that over-rides common sense. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Right, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Ettlingers, 7. Other sources give 1446, 1447 or 1444–45.
2. "Sandro Botticelli - Biography and Legacy". theartstory.org.
3. Edelstein, Bruce (Dec 21, 2020). "Botticelli in the Florence of Lorenzo the Magnificent". sothebys.com. Sotheby's.

E.M. Bannister FAC

Hi! I saw your name on the PR list of volunteers, so I thought I might ask for your help. I recently submitted an FAC for Edward Mitchell Bannister, a 19th-century African American landscape painter, but there have been few replies and the review page might be archived. If you have the time, would you be able to look at the article and comment on the FAC? Thank you! —Wingedserif (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

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

History of Pakistan

added a link pointing to Baloch

Portraits of the Apostles

added a link pointing to Encaustic

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Query on talk pages

Every few days some IP or anon comments on some niche medieval music page I watch (most of which are in awful states) asking "why isn't this included?" "why is this page so bad?" "how can Misplaced Pages have such a bad article"? Like, what should I say—it's not like people are purposely making bad articles, it's that no one works on them in the first place... is there some essay about this? Best - Aza24 (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Well there's WP:SOFIXIT. In a way they are asking a good question, to which the real answer is "Well because most of our vaunted 30,000-strong editor force is fixing short descriptions or writing biographies of 19th-century Americans of one sort or another. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it's just frustrating because its annoying to see so much but I don't want to yell at them for trying to help. At the same time it makes me wonder what about Misplaced Pages deters some readers from editing an article themselves when they can see its in an awful shape. But yes, things like short description editing bothers me too, another reason to love the core contest... speaking of, I've only begun digging into history of music in the past few days or so (mainly just a lot of reading, but some editing to the origins of music section) and I found myself adding quite a bit to the classical music article (all of the "roots" section, for example). I suspect I may try and add more to the classical music article as a chug along with the history of music one; would the additions to the former be eligible to the contest—should I submit it as a second article or something? Aza24 (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Lots of people either don't want to do the research, don't feel confident writing, or prefer micro-topics with manageable numbers of sources. Articles can be submitted at any point before the close, afaik. Edits on other articles beyong the one submitted may be given some weight, but it's probably best to concentrate on one for competition purposes. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Micga

Hi! Regarding this, you might consider taking the matter to ANI, given this, this, this and this. The editor was apparently warned numerous times, was eventually blocked, continued doing it, multiple people called them out again, you called them out, and now they are still doing it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw, thanks - not sure I will take to ANI myself, but someone should. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Inuit clothing FAC

Hi Johnbod, sorry to bother you when you're busy with TCC (the judges' comments there have been cracking me up, by the way). I was just wondering if you were still planning to make comments at the FAC for Inuit clothing? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

|There's nothing for TCC judges to do at this stage, but unfortunately I'm.travelling at the moment. I still intend to comment. Apart from time, this means I have to use a loathsome laptop. I could drop a note at FAC. Johnbod (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem, just figured I'd check in. It doesn't appear to be in danger of getting archived, but if any of the coords bring it up, I'll mention this discussion. Safe travels! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Urine deflector

As discussed Urine deflector has been nominated at Did You Know. Please follow the comments at the nomination's entry and chip in as you see fit. Thanks for your contributions and inspiration. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

revert

You reverted something I fixed in Raphael (Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGigli,_Laura1992). I understand we don't usually change the citation style on articles, but you left the sfn refs to Salmi in place. Why have one, but not the other? There was no consistent citation style, and it is nicer to have link to the reference in the list of citations, don't you think? Vexations (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

No I don't! There should be NO sfn refs in the article; that is not the style. I'm pretty cynical about these claims to "fix" things by using sfn. Then it is claimed there is no consistent style, & that is used as an excuse to convert the whole article to sfn without discussion. If a couple of sfn refs have crept in (it's a big article), feel free to fix that by converting them to the format the rest use. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m going to leave it alone and make sure to never touch an article you’ve edited prior to me. It’s been fun meeting you, but I don’t need this. Vexations (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding merging Rite and Ritual

Hello. I asked you to confirm your position regarding merging Rite and Ritual after I responded to your suggestions at Talk:Ritual but you have not yet replied. I thought it would best to say something here before making any assumptions about moving forward. Scyrme (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, i ceertainly haven't changed my position - more forgotten it, after a month, was it? Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been about a month, which is why I'd like to reach some sort of agreement rather than waiting another month or more for further replies. Scyrme (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello? You still haven't confirmed. I get that you may have forgotten your position, but you could just reread what you wrote as a reminder then read my reply. Scyrme (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Images of Reims Cathedral

Dear John Bod, Thank you for your intervention about the edits of the Banner, who sought to reduce the size of the images in the Gothic Architecture article. Could you take a look at Reims Cathedral? He is trying to reduce the size of all the image there, claiming that readers can simply click to enlarge the images. I agree with you that readers should not have to click on every image just to make it visible. Could you say a word on this in the talk page on Reims Cathedral? Many thanks! SiefkinDR (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

About the editor Catchpoke

Hello! I followed some of the comments, which I think you initiated on this editor's "etymology" campaign. I think it is clear that this editor is not here to make WP:en better for native English speakers. If you look at the pile of edits I just reverted on Black Friday (shopping)‎ (itself not exactly brilliant, because it does not distinguish the Black Friday of US origin from other uses of the same name)... you will see that these are all trivial adjustments, but usually in the wrong direction. I am reminded of this incident in which a speaker of Latvian (or was it Estonian) tried to lecture native speakers on use of articles. Of course it makes no sense, and the simplest explanation is that the problem editor is sincere, but is a total beginner at English. We keep getting stuff with strange phrasing ("Etymology has many pathways"), and someone should be able to guess the native language from which that came. Anyway, just to provide my support for taking this to ANI; I think this editor is just wasting other people's time. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! I thought he was well-meaning, but probably a net negative. Not sure about the language - I was thinking a rather young American, but who knows. At Black Friday he did catch one genuine issue "Origin of the term Black Friday" is not a great section heading, but should have just been trimmed to "Origin of the term". Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Urine deflector

On 14 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Urine deflector, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Bank of England has a device to prevent unwanted deposits (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Urine deflector. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Urine deflector), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and help with this. FYI, the page got about 33,000 views in 12 hours which puts it around #6 in the DYK charts for 2021 – better than Napoleon's penis, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, Andrew - well done! As you know, my contribution was minimal, so thanks for the dyk credit. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks...

For the link. Between this topic area and the whole mess at Germanic peoples, I'm beginning to remember one reason why I cut back my editing... Ealdgyth (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed - I think you wisely never got sucked in to the Crusades, Crusading, Crusadering movement swamp.... Fortunately my garden is too demanding at the moment for me to do much. All the best! Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Arlington Court floor plan

Yes, it was listed; however, it's listed on Commons, not English Misplaced Pages. Your comments would be welcome there, too. Hope you're well! Risker (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, fine, Best Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Roman concrete

Yes, your SD at Roman concrete is better (well, I would , wouldn't I, because that's what I wrote first). Unfortunately, it exceeds the permitted 40 characters permitted by WP:HOWTOSD. The discussion at wikipedia talk:Short descriptions talks about the implications of exceeding the limit. In some contexts, the excess is simply discarded. Personally, I think that the limit is generally too small to be useful - see wikipedia talk:Short descriptions#Conclusion - but that's the current policy. If you concur, please add your voice there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"Oh, I say! Well bowled, that man!" . --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Birth/death places

Why are you disruptively and inaccurately reversing edits that accurately record the historiography of figures under discussion? Why do you feel that alone among biographies on this website, people from England/Great Britain/UK should not have this accurately stated? For ALL other historical figures, we do exactly that. For example, anyone born in what is now the Russian Federation, we accurately record as the Soviet Union prior to 1991, or the Russian Empire prior to 1917. Why is it that unique among pages on this website you think that this should not be the case for England/GB etc.? This is blatantly politically motivated by you, and you have absolutely no consensus for your mass and disruptive reversions. Desist. Vaze50 (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Johnbod does have support for maintaining the status quo ante, per WP:NOCON, and Vaze50 is the one becoming disruptive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle Very well, that discussion will absolutely be re-started. I am simply not going to stand for articles relating to Britain being the ONLY ARTICLES ON THIS WEBSITE that are subject to different rules. Please note, however, that when these articles were initially created it was very much the consensus that UK etc. were added - it was after this that they began to be changed, with no consensus. Do you have a WP: for a situation like that I wonder? Vaze50 (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a viewpoint like "I am simply not going to stand for.." will get you very far here, but it's up to you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle And I don't think you taking a view that quite literally only articles involving people from Britain should not accurately include changes made to political constructs in birth and death places is remotely sustainable. Why don't you try, for once, explaining why it is that on every other historical figure, changes made to countries during their life time are accounted for in the infobox, but not for people from Britain? Do you have a good answer? Or will it simply be arrogant dismissal, probably politically motivated? Answer. Vaze50 (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I've set out my comments at WT:MOS. I really don't think that claiming that editors are "arrogant" or "probably politically motivated" is helpful either. No personal attacks, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ink wash painting

On 16 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ink wash painting, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ink wash painting was created by the Chinese in the 8th century and the technique then spread to East Asia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ink wash painting. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ink wash painting), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Korakou culture

On 17 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Korakou culture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Greek Korakou culture had two-storey buildings with internal stairs more than 4,000 years ago? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Korakou culture. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Korakou culture), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

BC/AD vs. BCE/CE

I really do apologize for not following the proper procedures, but I do feel that BCE/CE should be the default format, except in those instances involving quotes or if the topic is somehow related to Christianity. Almost all the articles I converted were related to ancient China, which was definitely not Christian, or if there were a few, they weren't in power. I recognize that your Talk page probably isn't the right place to make my case. What would be the right place? It seems inefficient to plead my case on each page. That could take months, if not years. I'm really not trying to make trouble, I'm just trying to make Misplaced Pages more inclusive. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't bother - there have been endless discussions at Talk WP:ERA, Talk:Common Era and other places, and your views, though shared by many (Americans mostly) show no sign of being accepted. Most of the world has no idea what CE means, including many Americans. Thanks for the apology. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh well, there goes my noble crusade. That certainly didn't last long. ;-)

--JDspeeder1 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Peerage titles and honorifics: MOS amendments

I have made a proposal to amend the MOS at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Peerage titles and honorifics amendments; you might be interested to contribute to the discussion. DBD 14:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pipal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

East India Company

Any database which maintains information (trivial or non-trivial) about those who worked in EIC? Wondering, if something can be retrieved about one Nathaniel Welsh, who lived in the late 1600s and was stationed in India. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Best of luck! - there's a 14 day free trial for the "family history" parts here. I've never used it. Or there are several books on the EIC. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I had no knowledge of this digital resource. Had come across his full name from IOR/G/7/3. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Will uploading the scan of a part. document from IOR - as jpeg or pdf - to Misplaced Pages, run afoul of copyright laws? I think Crown copyright applies but cannot be certain. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad that worked. I suspect it is ok to upload, but there should be a note on the copyright situation somewhere on the site. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Ceramics and Potters

Hey, you recently reverted my change to Category:Ceramists. Since you've been around a lot longer than I have, I imagine you're correct and there should be a category loop between Category:Ceramists and Category:Potters even though neither is a strict superset of the other. I've tried my best to understand "Misplaced Pages:Categorization", "Help:Categories", and "Help:Category", and must be misunderstanding something (or missing a consensus of guidance somewhere else). I had thought that in order for "category A" to be a parent category of "category B", that "category A" should necessarily encompass the topics in "category B". But it seems this is mistaken. Could you point me to that guidance so I can learn more? Willbeason (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Ceramists Willbeason (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

As you've spotted on your web page, the WP categorization scheme is not entirely logical, and there are many edge cases where the normal relationship (as you describe) doesn't really work. In this case, the situation is complicated because "ceramist" is a fairly new word, first used in English in 1855 (spelled with a capital "K", in a translation) according to the OED, whereas potter is very old one. "Ceramist" has also been much more accepted in the US than elsewhere - very few British art potters call themselves a "ceramist", and probably would not be widely understood if they did. Neither it nor "potter" are actually very tightly defined (who would do that?), except that potters need to be involved with clay (or stone paste etc) in some way. "Potter" also covers business managers or owners, who may not have had any hands-on expertise, not to mention painters etc. Maybe "ceramist" does too - the very small Category:Chinese ceramists certainly suggests so. Neither word has its own article. In general, outside the US, "potter" national categories are much bigger than "ceramist" ones, probably with huge overlaps. A category loop is not the end of the world. Looking briefly at these categories, a much bigger problem is that we have eg Category:American ceramists - with sub-cats some 500 members (many double-counted) - and Category:American potters (over 200), and there is no relationship between them at the national level. You have to go up to a much higher level to navigate between the two. There is a good case for simply merging the two trees, as which categories a person is included in seems very random and erratic, and I doubt it would be possible to define rules for which one(s) to put a person in. At the moment, I suspect "ceramist" is used by American editors, and ones from countries where the local equivalent is the common word (eg French, Spanish and Italian-speaking). Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! That makes sense - it's a product of the fact that English itself has inconsistent usage and Misplaced Pages has editors from many different flavors of English. Fortunately for my research, loops like this aren't a big deal. I simply spotted this one (and others) and assumed there was a "right" hierarchy. To your point about the inconsistent categorization - I wonder if as a project I could try to identify such cases where categories are being used inconsistently (e.g. Category:Hemispheres), as from what you're saying this would be a valuable sort of thing to identify and suggest fixes for. Willbeason (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

One could, but for straightforward cases a category note at the top of the category can go much of the way to solve an issue - the potters/ceramists could do with some of these, at least pointing out the existence of the other national category, and the possibility of overlap. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Garland bearers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ornament.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

MOS:HONORIFIC

We do not normally add honorifics in article bodies. It will be nonsensical to mention Tariq Ahmad, Baron Ahmad of Wimbledon as Baron Ahmad of Wimbledon in his article except for a few instances where his title is to be highlighted to mention that he has this title.

And btw if you check MOS:HONORIFIC it says clearly honorifics should be avoided normally. Please don't revert again. And you're edit warring yourself. Baron Johnson of Marylebone is a title, not a mention of him as a Member of House. I will be complaining of you anyway. But please self-revert. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You obviously don't know much about UK matters - complain away, & watch for the WP:BOOMERANG. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)