User talk:Johnbod

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Re: Prints[edit]


There are different words in French too; but gravure/engraving seems to be the general term, which can be convenient in all cases. My knowledge about these techniques is very limited though, and I will try to be more accurate in the future. Thank you for correcting me if I am wrong. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You can ask me on English wiki (same username) if you are not sure - I can probably tell by looking in books. Johnbod 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The French for "etching" is "eau-forte". "Gravure" is the term usually used for copper-engraving, whilst "Gravure sur bois" is a woodcut. Yellow Lion 20:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but they seem to use "gravure" loosely for woodcuts too, & sometimes etchings & other sorts as well, Johnbod 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, and since there has been more discussion on the subject (below), the French term for a print is "Estampe". This covers all sorts, from woodcuts to lithos, and is the exact equivalent of our English "print". Nick Michael 09:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi John: I have now put nearly all my prints on Commons. There are a few that are so badly photographed (the scanned ones are fine of course) that I'll really have to redo them. Next project is to put a bio of Dan Hopfer on Wikipedia...

I've learned a huge amount by doing this - with a lot of help from other users, and copying other people's pages like mad!

All the best

Nick Yellow Lion 21:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick - that's great! I've had a quick look over, but will give them a proper look later. And your photo too! I think you should have first go at putting them on the articles.

By the way, I just expanded a bit a "Gallery" at an article for the first time today - a very straightforward format, I found to my surprise. See Georges de la Tour - won't link from here Cheers Johnbod 03:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! You've worked really hard on De la Tour. Superb pics - I never know how large a file I can upload - I have usually kept them under 2.5 Mb. Perhaps I can upload bigger....
Incidentally, I've changed my username to my real one as you might be able to see (no, it doesn't seem to have worked very well...) - really no need for a pseudonym here - I don't think people will search me out to slit my throat because I disputed their categorising... Mind you, there's a few throats I wouldn't mind slitting ;-) 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - the pics were all there, or rather here. I'm poking around in a lot of dark paintings, having voted against merging Tenebrism & Chiaroscuro I now feel obliged to get a better description up of the difference ... if any. I'd done Jusepe de Ribera & adam Elsheimer a while ago. So very dark paintings seem to be becoming my new speciality, along with prints.

Actually I just did my first uploads - just 2 crops from an existing pic for Sir John Donne - just about good enough.

J Johnbod 22:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

John, a question: I added some comments to the Bastard, drawing attention to certain details of his costume and accessories. Is this in keeping with Commons' practice? One could add vast amounts of notes to any historic costume pic, but is this within the spirit of Commons? I would have thought it very helpful, but others may think otherwise. Your opinion would be highly valued: thanks Nick
Absolutely it's fine - some people give or copy excellent comments (I include all the Bassenge description now i'm doing some of theirs) but as you've probably seen often you're lucky to get a title/location etc - or the info is just wrong.

Just added the HSB Little Fool to Old Master Print, which I've rather run out of puff on just at the moment! I think I prefer the Memling to the R van W now - it's amazing how often Vienna ends up with the top stuff. I was looking at an atlas for our holiday (sth of Bordeaux) & now know where you live (as they say). I must have been through it on trains & cars but long ago. Do you have snow? Here half the flowers are in bloom - some still going from last year, some coming on for Spring. Johnbod 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No snow here: unprecedentedly warm- the skiers are desperate. But things will apparently change tomorrow. The OMP article is absolutely splendid now - you can't do better than that for an encyclopaedic article. When's the book coming out?! Thanks for your comments re comments. I regard this as licence to paste stuff everywhere ;-). Nick

Uploads II[edit]

Hi, i did the uploads you asked for, see Image:Gärtnerin mit Korb (Belange).jpg, Image:Die Auferweckung das Lazarus (Castiglione).jpg, Image:Moses (Matham).jpg, Image:Herkules und Antäus (Mantegna).jpg. Hope i took the right ones. -- Cherubino 11:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are brilliant - thanks Johnbod 20:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have put them all up - started Bellange stub specially. Amazingly some on else loaded an even better Mantegna on 17/12, so yours went to Old master print. Thanks again! Johnbod 21:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Gloeden in The studio - June 1893 - p. 105.jpg[edit]

An engraving it is, it is signed by the engraver, and it is clearly stated that this is an engraving taken AFTER a picture by von Gloeden. So please don't cancel the category. Thank you. --G.dallorto 01:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

i'm sorry, even with this low resolution image it is easy to see it is NOT an engraving. "incisione" is used in Italian to cover wood-engravings (a different thing) and, loosely and not very correctly, all kinds of prints. I am fairly certain a photomechanical etching process was used. If it was a true engraving it would consist entirely of lines, that would be visible.

Even if it were a reproduction by means of engraving, I don't think it should be classed as an engraving itself. Would you categorise a photo of a painting as a photo?

See discussion above this - You get this all the time with translations - "gravure" in French etc. Regards Johnbod 03:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:LOC_SHS.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:LOC_SHS.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Rüdiger Wölk 04:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Traditio Legis in Perugia[edit]

Hallo, I agree with your reading of the relief (my mass-uploads lead me to judge too quiclky so save time, I know), and I corrected the caption accordingly. Thank you very much. --User:G.dallorto 12:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tacuina Sanitatis[edit]

Sorry for late answer, but all those pics come from "Codex 4182" of Biblioteca Casanatense in Rome. Regards --Sailko 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hello, Johnbod!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:


2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Philbrook - Wedgewood (2)crop.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 22:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

commons categories (copied over)[edit]

hi1 Who do you have to sleep with to rename a Commons category, and why is it impossible to discover this information by navigating from the Community portal? Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! See COM:CFD... not sure who you have to sleep with, though. Where do you think this should be linked from? Does the Comm Portal need better links? Did you check COM:VP? Should it be linked from there? Meta has a list of common places you might want to go that is embedded in a lot of those places so once you find one you can find a lot of the other ones. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - it is on a template at the VP, but I never thought of looking there. To judge by the level of traffic, not many have found it. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Cameo prince Louvre MR54.jpg[edit]

Hi! I removed your comment ("Dubious, surely earlier or later?") from the description page of this picture, because the data is actually sourced from the museum itself (see, in French). There was a revival of the cameo technique in the Middle Ages and some of them look very much like Greek and Roman ones. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Humph! Excuse me if I'm unconvinced. This is clearly Gothic & I don't believe such a convincing classical gem could have been created at this date, certainly not in France. Gem dating is often controversial. But if the museum dates it then,it should be left. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Three faces on one head[edit]

Not all are depictions of the Christian Trinity; File:Dante_f48r.jpg is demonic, and File:CdM, pisanello, medaglia di leonello d'este 1441-1443 verso.jpg and File:Baphomet.Tomar.jpg are very doutbtful. The 'Flag of Aztlan" may be based on old Trinity depictions, but I don't know whether that's still the intent. AnonMoos (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course - I removed Bahomet from the holy Trinity cat, where I found it. Did you see the new Category:Holy Trinity as three figures I have started? Johnbod (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much[edit]

Thank you so much for kindly pointing out[1] the grave error I made upon uploading all those dinky ship pics.

Peter Isotalo 15:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well they do mess up the head cat considerably, but I see you are unrepentent. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm just reacting to your unprovoked and vulgar griping.
Peter Isotalo 17:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks re hoards Victuallers (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:VA23Oct10_159.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:VA23Oct10_159.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

GeorgHHtalk   21:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The information about the artist and his work is OK but not the requested. You have to state who have made the image and where was it made. If you are the photographer add {{own}} to the image description. Read Commons:First steps/Quality and description and have look at {{Information}} to learn more about file descriptions. --GeorgHHtalk   22:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The licensing is clear. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Now its done. Yes. Since this is a photo of a 3D object the photo is subject to your copyright, you are the author and its your work. The information about the porcelan is good for the description. --Martin H. (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
And it always was! Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
No, before the first tagging no authorship for your photo was mentioned, before a second tagging the authorship on the photo was confusing, it was to read that the photo was created by the Museum. --Martin H. (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Isra and Mi'raj and Category:Angels in Islam[edit]

Hi! I noticed you added Category:Angels in Islam to a lot of files in Category:Isra and Mi'raj. (I have the files on my watchlist because they're a frequent target of license blanking and other vandalism.) Since you already added Category:Isra and Mi'raj to Category:Angels in Islam, these files are now over-categorised, which is generally not a good thing. Was this intentional, or are you planning additional changes to eliminate the over-categorisation? LX (talk, contribs) 15:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I originally did it as a temporary thing to help a cat-a-lot transfer, but then realized I had moved all the files, as all had angels, & decided to leave it. I don't really think it is overcategorization here, but if you feel strongly, remove it. None of the category are yet crowded. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Over-categorisation does not mean the categories are overcrowded, but rather that a file or category is inserted at several levels of the same category branch. For example, all photos of Category:Flags of France is a descendant of Category:France (via Category:Symbols of France), so if a file appears in both Category:Flags of France and Category:France, it is over-categorised; it should only be in the more specific category. Similarly, files that are in Category:Angels in Islam and Category:Isra and Mi'raj are over-categorised as long as Category:Isra and Mi'raj is a subcategory of Category:Angels in Islam – by definition rather than as a matter of opinion. I'm not intimately familiar with the subject at hand, but I would think that illustrations of Isra and Mi'raj would not necessarily involve angels (even if all currently hosted files do). If that's the case, the easiest way to remove the over-categorisation would be to edit Category:Isra and Mi'raj so that Category:Angels in Islam is no longer a parent category. LX (talk, contribs) 16:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps better to add a category rather than change the category.[edit]

I could understand adding a category, but do not understand changing the category [2] as you did, from 'Islamic Art' to 'Islamic Culture.'

My understanding is that Commons categories are regarded as primarily a search convince for people who are searching for images to fill their needs. If that is correct, removing a category might not be helpful. If I am wrong about that, and I might well be wrong, I would appreciate an explanation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously "Islamic art" is a head category, with ultimately a few hundred sub-categories, and several thousand images. If all these were also in the head category, it would be ridiculously overloaded. Categories should normally be added only at the most appropriate sub-category levels. The policy is here. Clearing out head categories is useful and necessary maintenance work. In this example Category:Plaster carvings in Islamic cultures, though oddly named like so many Commons categories, is naturally a sub-cat of the "Islamic art" category, so my edit was correct. Placing the image in the appropriate sub-cat in fact means it is much more likely to be seen by those looking for this sort of thing. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea why there is a category called 'Plaster carvings in Islamic cultures'. I created the gallery with that name [3], and put it into the category 'Islamic art', at least that is my recollection. User:Foroa seems to have changed the category without my noticing. I hesitate to change that back right now because I have been in enough arguments with Commons administrators already.
As for the change you made to the category, it was my intention to ask for an explanation. I was not arguing, but asking; and if you think the change of category is really for the better, I can go along with that. You have more experience with, and knowledge of, categories than I do. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think otherwise. The gallery is still there, and now there is a category, it should be in that. I suppose it could be re-added to "Islamic art" as well. But generally it is certainly better to keep things at the appropriate loqwest level. That way they are in the "plaster" tree as well, etc. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Illuminated manuscripts in the British Library[edit]

Not really sure how "illuminated" Harleian ms. 6163 and ms. 2169 were -- they mainly contained "tricked" illustrations of coats of arms (without coloring). AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

By convention anything with drawings - scientific diagrams for example - tends to be counted as illuminated. There isn't really a concept of "illustrated" manuscripts in english, though I think there may be in German. Islamic manuscripts are an exceptuion. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


good to know, in Italian jewelry is almost everything made in precious metals! Yes please give a fix to those categories. I would mostly appreciate also if you could choose a standard between "jewellery" or "jewelry". --Sailko (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Being English, I go for "jewellery", but some cats use the American. I've just done Category:Metalwork in the Cabinet des médailles, Paris, with the Jewellery as a sub-cat, & so on. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hellow Sir Please add Source of this image

05 GroupofCourtesans

P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Interlace in art[edit]

I really don't know what the difference is between Category:Interlace in art and Category:Knots in art and decoration (which was established six years earlier)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No courtesy of a reply, so merged the two categories after a week and a half. AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Didn't see it, rude boy. That was an unfortunate merge, which will have to be sorted out. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Whatever -- a notice about the matter was placed on your user talk page in plenty of time. If you didn't read your own user talk page, that's really not my fault... AnonMoos (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Notice that you've been been busy as a beaver editing, but you still haven't bothered to answer my April question. This is not one of your more endearing characteristics. AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Look, we don't like each other, let's leave it at that. The term interlace, which is extremely widely used, has a lot of overlap with knotwork, but the latter is mainly used in context from the Renaissance onwards, while interlace is used for medieval and classical uses. I'm certainly not going to try to define a difference, but interlace tends to be continuous with repetition, and may extend over a wider area than knotwork, and usually lacks a central point. Most interlace contains no actual knots at all. Category:Knots in art and decoration is the wrong title for either of them, & should be restricted (as was probably the original intention) to things that actually are knots rather than things that look as if they might be. Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I was the one who originally created Category:Knots in art and decoration , and I can tell you that I had no such intention. AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I believe you, but as I say that should be a sub-cat of interlace/knotwork, for things that represent actual knots. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Names of uploaded files[edit]

Why are you giving them names like that? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

To get them through the ridiculous upload tool filter. I go round adding both a photo of the the museum label AND a link & copy of the metadata but you can't do that while uploading. Really this must be sorted out. Perhaps I'm wrong to blamwe the Dutch, & think they are all called Maarten. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Whatever the problem is, adding profanities and random chat room type tirades into the filenames really doesn't help anything. AnonMoos (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Seriously how long do we have to go around fixing your errors? The reason it was doing that is because you're leaving the DSCFxxxx prefix on it, which adds nothing to the file name. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This shows your lack of understanding, and is typical of the lack of intelligence going into the upload process, which gets worse and worse. The prefix is necessary for me to reference the original photo on my machine, so that I can match it with the museum labels I also shoot, and in case for example I later want to edit the original again to upload a detail. The idea that adding a "descriptive" title like "Olmec mask" is in any way useful to anyone is nonsense. The information you can get into a title is too little to be of any real use, as millions of Commons photos amply demonstrate. Also it cannot be changed when it is wrong, as it very often is, and cannot be translated. As someone who actually uses photos in articles, I know that descriptive titles have no value whatsoever. With over 12 million photos there aren't enough descriptive titles to go round anyway. The obession with "descriptive" titles has taken the tool down the wrong road, and represents one of the many small stupidities that now make it almost unusable. I now have a couple of hundred potentially very useful photos I can't face uploading, and that's from a very experienced Wikimedian. God knows what newcomers think. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Votive has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

moogsi (blah) 23:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

WLM organization in the UK[edit]

Thanks for indicating your interest in this. I'd like to get some proper teams in place now, so we can decide who will be doing what, and I wonder if you could go to Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom/People and move your signature to the correct heading? Many thanks, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I rather think it is in the correct place now; I've always been cagey about getting very involved in this, & have only been so previously in the absence of anyone else coming forward. Also I'm not really a photographer, certainly not of buildings. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Copper engravings vs. engravings[edit]

Hi Johnbod; I noticed that you added a note "Don't use this category. Use Category:Engravings instead" to Category:Copper engravings (still well populated with images and subcategories) in 2010. Well, there are other types of engravings besides copper engravings, such as steel engravings or wood engravings (not to be confused with woodcuts), and there are subcategories for these in Category:Engravings, too: Category:Steel engravings‎, Category:Wood engravings... so I think it would be reasonable to use Category:Copper engravings, but strictly for copper engravings. Ideally, Category:Engravings itself should be empty and only contain subcategories with the engravings appropriately sorted by technique, but as many "engraving" uploads don't come with the technique already clearly identified, and as there is some experience needed to differentiate between various types of engravings (also, not all images are of sufficient resolution to identify the type of engraving with certainty), this desirable state will probably never be fully reached. But before I remove your note, I thought it appropriate to ask you - do you think some different approach would be better? Gestumblindi (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"Copper engravings" is just not idiomatic or correct English. The correct term for them is "engravings", with the other types specificied by "wood", "steel" etc. "copper engravings" is mostly used by people who think the German translates directly into English, but it doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, then the whole Category:Engravings would need some fixing. If "engraving" means strictly what we would call "Kupferstich" (copper engraving) in German, then all those subcategories of "Engravings" are wrongly sorted, as e.g. "Steel engravings" couldn't logically be a subcategory of a cat that is for engravings in copper. However, the English Wikipedia defines "Engraving" more broadly, see en:Engraving - "... or may provide an intaglio printing plate, of copper or another metal, for printing images on paper as prints or illustrations; these images are also called engravings". There's also a paragraph en:Engraving#Terms where "copper engraving" is mentioned as a term used. So, maybe - even if it's more idiomatic to call "copper engravings" just "engravings" in English, maybe it would be easier for Commons sorting purposes to stick to "copper engraving" to differentiate in the category system? Would need less fixing and reconstructing of the whole engravings category tree, I'd say. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
"Engraved" is less precise that "engraving", and one might change Category:Engravings to "Engraved prints" and have a note on Category:Engravings. The question is a bit theoretical as our images are extremely badly sorted and described, and it can actually be extremely difficult to work out, especially from a small photo, what sort of plate was used in some cases. Large numbers of them are etchings, lithographs, aquatints or other types of print, or not prints at all. I notice most of the titles in the copper category are in German, and if you are using German there is no problem I suppose. I just changed Category:Illustrations from De re metallica (1556) from engravings to woodcuts - it had been loaded by an Italian using "incisione". I also see the note at Category:Engraved illustrations - most of the subcats of Category:Engravings belong there, according to that. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Files by User:Nomu420[edit]

Hello John, You made several changes to some of the files uploaded by the above user on 7 Jan. I have a couple of questions regarding your edits:

Yes they & other items are not Lacquerware at all (wood with a hard coating)
They are carved (with considerable skill and difficulty) so yes. One might make a subcat for "Small carvings in ...." or "Jades in ..." But the most important thing is to ensure they are categorized as being in the museum in the first place.
I expect from other photos of the same objects. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

These questions are partly also because I am still in the process of understanding Commons! Cheers, Rahul Bott (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Brit Mus room 41 New display from 2014 brooch yada yada fdh.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Brit Mus room 41 New display from 2014 brooch yada yada fdh.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ies (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Festival books[edit]

Thank you for the adds to the "Festival books" image category and article. Do you happen to know if any of the non-English language Wikipedias contain articles about festival books (e.g. French Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, etc.)? I am not sure which foreign-language phrases to search for. Advice welcome. M2545 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no. There's no Festbuch or feestboeken anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your photo, File:Brit Mus 17sept 036-crop.jpg[edit]

Dear John,

You appear to have granted wide permission for the reuse of your photo, but before incorporating it in my work, I thought I'd check just to be certain. I'm writing a book on Irish rural life, and I'd like to incorporate this photo. I would of course credit you as the photographer. Is this acceptable?

Best wishes,

Teva Scheer

Yes, certainly. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


The image is usually considered to be anti-Christian as a whole, but it doesn't depict Jesus in any usual or ordinary sense, but rather a hypothetical derogatory onocephalic entity. AnonMoos (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This is just wriggling. The image is normally discussed with Christian images, and should be categorized with them, as English Wikipedia does. It was pretty clearly intended by the "artist" to represent Jesus. Saying he got it wrong has no real bearing. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It's probably an anti-Christian image, and should be grouped in a category with anti-Christian images. However, the original artist made a deliberate conscious intentional decision not to depict Jesus in any usual or ordinary sense, but rather to substitute a hypothetical derogatory onocephalic entity in place of Jesus, so that it is not a depiction of Jesus in any meaningful sense of the phrase, and should not be grouped with images depicting Jesus... AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
That is your (very speculative) opinion, and, as I say, not supported by how reliable sources generally treat it. The category you keep removing it from does not specify that it is for Christian or pro-Christian images. Please stop this. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Whatever, dude -- that's basically what the body of en:Alexamenos graffito says (as opposed to the first paragraph, which uses loose and arguably inaccurate terminological shortcuts). The artistic intention is pretty much analogous to File:Félicien Rops - La Tentation de saint Antoine.jpg, which doesn't show Jesus on the cross either (though it shows Jesus off the cross)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow dude, I admire your insight into the mind of some Roman squaddie. The RS are not so confident. Give this up. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)