User talk:Johnbod

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Adoration of the Magi in the Snow (1563) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Archives

This user is one of the 200 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

memo to self - arty student project pages to check through

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

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

Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Boston_University/Venetian_Renaissance_Art_and_Architecture_(Fall)

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

Our Hungarian Friend

Thanks for the supportive interjection @Johnbod! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klemperer

Barbirolli: Have you seen Otto Klemperer? I did because I wrote the article of his wife ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Adoration of the Magi in the Snow

Hello! Your submission of Adoration of the Magi in the Snow at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snow in art

Just to make sure that you get the credit on your talk page for thinking of the idea for Category:Snow in art, and then for largely populating it with dozens of links! As always, nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Up to 76 now; Russian art was productive, which I suppose is to be expected. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Do Japanese woodblock prints by the likes of Hokusai and Hiroshige count? I haven't checked to see if there are articles dedicated to individual prints. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! There will be some included in print series with articles, I'm sure. Hokusai's painting Tiger in the Snow is in already, plus a Jap screen, I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Coconut cup

On 10 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Coconut cup, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that coconut cups were believed to have medical benefits? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Coconut cup. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Coconut cup), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,706 views (612.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a change made twice by two different users

Hey @Johnbod, I wondered how fast you (or someone else) would be to revert a change I made this morning to this article: Breeching (boys).

When I viewed the edit history, I see another user had the same issue as I did with the wording just recently. Does it not come off as gatekeeping/condescension to say laypeople may not tell apart depictions of boy vs. girls prior to boys being breeched?

First, it doesn't take complicated terminology or a deep understanding of complex processes to figure out. It's not rocket science or bioengineering. Second, it is a subjective clause that is not informative about breeching.

Third, you could put this on so many other Wiki pages, if we're going to be "diligent" about snobbery. Here's a great example from my personal/professional history:

Laypeople, and sometimes even college students studying operant conditioning, cannot understand the difference between Negative reinforcement and Punishment (psychology) (either positive or negative). I'm a PhD in I/O psychology, and a common mistake is people thinking "negative" means "bad," when in this context it means "absence of something." Do we really need to point out something like "plain folk just wouldn't understand" on a single article, if we're not doing it for all topics tied to a higher degree discipline?

Based on your Wiki profile, I might venture an assumption (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you are not an art historian, yet you contributed 275k+ edits to Wikipedia -- so you clearly have a deep interest in many topics in which you are not certified or hold a PhD. So why fight to keep a subjective, gatekeeping, and uninformative clause about laypeople, when more than one person has objected to it in the past 6 months (and maybe others previously, I didn't look that far)?

Thanks,

76.205.180.44 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Kat (I might finally create a username sometime this month so I can have a bona fide discussion with others as needed.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.85.7.113 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Please remember to sign all comments on talk and project pages by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. May I also direct your attention to the essay at Wikipedia:Expert editors. - Donald Albury 21:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other "recent" edit only wanted to change "lay" to "average" (and to "correct" the spelling in a quote). I could have lived with the first, but not the second. So I think you are the first person in over a decade (and over 1.4 million views to the article) to object to this. I disagree that it is as simple as you seem to think, and after, as you say, lots of edits to mostly art history articles and talk pages, I expect I have a better understanding than you on where the average reader's level of knowledge on historic Western dress is. Why subjective clauses are inherently "not informative" I have no idea, nor do I see where you are going with para 2. I see the sentence as gate-opening rather than gate-keeping. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The revision in question is this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breeching_(boys)&diff=prev&oldid=1237772579&diffonly=1

Well, I guess point #2 could be #2a and #2b. It is uninformative to say "plain folk wouldn't understand" as it does not add value to the subject of pre-breeched boys in art (and, as I mentioned earlier, because it can be said of any article belonging to a niche in any discipline, per my example), and subjective because it is based on someone's opinion that a layperson wouldn't understand it even if they tried. The gate-opening thing to do is, then, to describe at least most common/prominent examples of how such depictions are told apart, rather than end it there. Otherwise, what's the point of going down a rabbithole on Wikipedia on a lazy evening if knowledge is kept from us philistines? :)

I don't argue that you are leagues above me in knowledge of art history. But I'm also sure that laypeople who have seen at least a couple pre-1900 royal paintings captioned "King X as a child" are bound to not assume by default all depicted royal children in dresses are girls, I know I wouldn't - and when it comes to art history, I am a certified layperson (but maybe an observant or curious one, even if superficially).

Hope that clears up my stance some.

76.205.180.44 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Article Edit Clarification for Titian's Diana and Actaeon

Hello @Johnbod I am JulianFleming1 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC) and I am apart of a Wiki Education Assignment here on wikipedia and I noticed that recently you undid, deleted, and rearranged most my my edits that I recently posted to the page for the painting Diana and Actaeon. It is to my understanding that upon making an edit on any wikipedia page, that a publishing summary is necessary to explain specifically what was done in said edit so that other editors may understand and build off of your contributions, however upon checking in to the article last night I noticed that you had gone and made multiple edits to my contributions with no reasoning other than "all sorts of problems" which does not provide myself or other editors with any constructive information as to what was done or needed to be improved. Most of my edits had to do with adding descriptive details and in-depth information about visual and formal analysis while also making sure to delete any biased language that would go against the neutral tone necessary to build a strong wikipedia article, however upon reviewing your edits to my contributions I noticed that you specifically re-added the subjective biased points in the introduction and rearranged content out of its respective topic headings thus interrupting the flow of the article. If supplementary information was added from new scholarly sources then I would begin to understand the overhaul of edits on the page, however after reviewing the new edits it becomes clear that the article was cohesive enough without them in the first place.[reply]

I am asking that you please explain your reasoning for why you saw fit to undo my contributions and restructure the article without explanation or suggestions for collaboration. The goal here is to provide the most accurate information available on the subject so that we may share our knowledge on these works with the world, not to flex one's ego on their self proclaimed knowledge on a subject because they dont believe the contributions of others are up to one's personal standards. JulianFleming1 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there were all sorts of problem; I am not your teacher & it is not my job to explain them all to you. That's what your course tutor is supposed to do. It's nothing to do with my alleged "personal standards", but Wikipedia policies. I'll note that you didn't actually change much of the existing text, and I have left the sections you added alone, except for small corrections. Some of my other edits have more explicit edit summaries. Just a few of the issues:

You changed the article to American English - see WP:ENGVAR

There was tons of WP:OVERLINKING

You don't know where to use "attributed"

You seem to think the grotto actually is a cathedral

You messed up the section headers - look at them in your version.

You added "and is currently housed in the National Gallery of Scotland." - No, it's in London (and "currently housed" is against WP:VAMOS)

and so on, Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings!

Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2025! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oldmasters Museum

I see that you reverted my changes in the Oldmasters Museum article. To be honest, Auden's poem is not even that relevant and could even be confusing, as the 'Oldmasters' museum was officially named 'Musée (royal) d'Art Ancien' in 1929 and there was no post-WW2 name change to 'Musée des Beaux-Arts' (I had temporarily left this in place pending further checks). Actually, the 'Musée des Beaux-Arts' predates the 'Musée d'Art Ancien' by over 80 years and was originally housed in the Palace of Charles of Lorraine, before moving to the current 'Palais des Beaux-Arts' in 1887. The institution housing the 'Musée d'Art Ancien' changed its name twice: to 'Musée des Beaux-Arts de Belgique' in 1919 and again in 1927 to its current name, 'Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique'. In any case, the poem is given too much undue weight, and the fact that it may have somehow inspired the current 'Oldmasters' name is unsourced and/or possible original research. About your sentence that the (Royal) Museums of Fine Arts "(...) has never been a place", this is confusing too, as it did exist in a single place throughout its early history, albeit not anymore. Same for your sentence "An advantage of using an invented word is that internet searches produce the "right" results at the top.". How is this an encyclopedic-worthy entry? Besides, English names (followed by the French–Dutch sequence when necessary) should be used in Brussels-related articles for consistency and neutrality, as per the long-established (2007) naming conventions, so stating that the building's English name misleadingly suggests the poem had an English title is again irrelevant in this context. Finally, you deleted a sourced sentence and added/restored a bare URL, which is quite surprising for an experienced editor like yourself. Jason Lagos (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were messy, in two articles. The point is that your edits said that the poem had a some point had an English title, which it never did. As far as English is concerned, it seems the common name of the museum did change. When you say "The institution housing the 'Musée d'Art Ancien'..." do you mean the physical building, or the managing trust (or whatever it is). If the second, "housing" is the wrong word, is it not? I don't agree that the poem is given undue prominence because as far as certainly people from the UK are concerned, it is the most, if not the only, thing for which the museum is known, as the poem is very widely taught in schools (or used to be anyway). The pathetic description of the collection, which I have started to improve, did absolutely nothing to change this perception. I can't see any bare links, but fix them if you can. What referenced sentence? Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite believe that you actually mean "Besides, English names (followed by the French–Dutch sequence when necessary) should be used in Brussels-related articles for consistency and neutrality, as per the long-established (2007) naming conventions, so stating that the building's English name misleadingly suggests the poem had an English title is again irrelevant in this context." It wasn't the building's name, but your edits that said the poem had an English title - read them again. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply. To be clear, I never claimed the poem had an English title or anything of the sorts. My latest version reads: "The museum has been known by various names, reflected in the changing titles of W. H. Auden's famous poem Musée des Beaux Arts, as it is now called. When Auden first published it in 1929, this was the Palace of Fine Arts (French: Palais des Beaux-Arts, Dutch: Paleis voor Schone Kunsten), still used as the name of the imposing 19th-century museum building." If you exclude the subordinate clauses, you can see that I am clearly referring to the building. Admittedly, the phrasing is awkward as I tried to work around the poem part, so I guess that is why you interpreted it as such. The bare URL is your link to the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium page and the sourced sentence that you deleted is the following: "This "Palace of Fine Arts" had housed the Royal Museum of Ancient Art (French: Musée royal d'art ancien, Dutch: Koninklijk Museum voor Oude Kunst) since 1887 following the move there of the works of Old Masters (French: vieux maîtres, Dutch: oude meesters)." which gives more details about the above-mentioned historical developments. I trust you about the poem's notoriety in the UK, though I still believe directly quoting from it in the museum's article or hinting it may have had something to do with its current name is undue/original research, at least without a valid source. Simply mentioning/linking it and its connection to the museum, as in my last edit, aptly suffices in my opinion. As for your question, I meant the institution and grouping of buildings that include/manage/house the museum. Jason Lagos (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Johnbod, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]