User talk:Wetman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 DYK 2 Marca Hispanica 3 Archaeology "corrected" to archeology 4 The vandal strikes again 5 Thanks for assuring 6 Secularism 7 Runaway Bot! Runaway Bot! 8 Châteaux 9 Vandalism warning 10 Vlaamse Opera 11 I am sending this out to wikiart folks everywhere, 12 "Etruscan pottery"?? 13 Château de Talcy rewording 14 Rhapsody (music) 15 Opinion sought 16 Turpentine - Woodwose 17 Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet 18 Of course its art history 19 Template talk:Revivals 20 Apollo Citharoedus 21 St. George 22 List of scientists... 23 Chiaroscuro / Tenebrism merge 24 Capitoline Venus and Crouching Venus edits 25 Do you have 2 minutes 26 Renaissance architecture 27 Quoth The Raven: Nevermore ? 28 yep 29 Theological Views. 30 Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess 31 Re Baroque in the Italian Renaissance article 32 Re: Heracles 33 Via Giulia 34 Chi-Rho: "heavenly chi" 35 Heracles 36 Secularism once again. 37 Keeping Wikipedia transparent 38 Walhalla "enshrinees" 39 Reverting: slow down please 40 Architecture notability

Archived:

User talk:Wetman/archive3Mar2004

User talk:Wetman/archive16Jun2004

User talk:Wetman/archive12Aug2004

User talk:Wetman/archive16Oct2004

User talk:Wetman/archive15Jan2005

User talk:Wetman/archive22Mar2005

User talk:Wetman/archive23Jun2005

User talk:Wetman/archive3Sep2005

User talk:Wetman/archive1Dec2005

User talk:Wetman/archive28Mar2006

User talk:Wetman/archive3July2006

User talk:Wetman/archive15Oct2006

=CURRENT & NEW TALK=

[edit] DYK

On 21 October 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articles Prinias, Al Mina, Rue de la Chaussée-d'Antin, Château de Tanlay, Château de Courances, via Giulia, Pinax, Villa Molin, Crouching Venus, and Orsten which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 19:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A newbie clamored that the article should be expanded before being DYKed. I don't care. The little knowledge of the subject I have is derived from Google Books. It is a priceless source of information, as I'm sure you know. If you don't have a google account (it is required to view the text), I will send you one. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 20:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marca Hispanica

I agree totally they should be merged, they are the same topic just with differently spelt titles.

(responded at User talk:Vivbaker)--Wetman 20:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I had a go merging the two texts providing a geographical and historical context. I copied the test into the two sections as I don't know how to remove an article. What do you think. I will attempt to draw a map of the area for inclusion later.--Vivbaker 08:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. You really seem to have managed a meld of information. Since you've done all the work, which is the better title? The other should be deleted and replaced with REDIRECTpagename preceded by a #. The last refinement is to check "What Links Here" for the redirected page and fix double redirects to make them direct to the new combined page. Your map needs to be credited to "self". --Wetman 15:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeology "corrected" to archeology

Wikipedia doesn't generally "correct" international or British spellings to American ones. Think how tiresome this is outside the US. --Wetman 07:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wetman, I agree about leaving American/British spelling as is, if my bot's doing that, it's certainly not intentional. Could you tell me what article you're referring to? I've just checked my bot's spelling substitutions list and i doesn't change any word into 'archeology'. Thanks, CmdrObot 00:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dang, now I can't find it in my contributions history. What good is that? --Wetman 03:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The vandal strikes again

Hi, the vandal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.63.63.204 struck again today. This time, he/she was caught by the vandalbot. Can we block him/her again? Just a thought. Great work you're doing around here!  :-) --MonkeyTimeBoy 19:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm the wrong one to ask, though I'm totally sympathetic. The only use I'd find in being an Administrator is having buttons that package vandals and eject them into Deep Space. Picking them off by hand as I do is a bit like ridding oneself of lice with a comb... --Wetman 19:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for assuring

that the Piccirilli Brothers maintain their rather small niche in history for one more day. Carptrash 17:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secularism

I have reverted secularism back to my changes with a lengthy explanation. Please be civil if you engage this on the talk page. Clearly you have made your edits in good faith and have considered them within your own frame of reference. As I hope you will understand when you read the explanation so have I. I was rather unappreciative of your insinuations that I do not understand concepts and that I made thoughtless changes. The easiest way around doing so in the future is to engage the content I provided only. Thanks and best.PelleSmith 13:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Runaway Bot! Runaway Bot!

The bot is changing international 'knowledgeable" to American "knowledgable". I'm a New Yorker myself, but isn't this a little ruthless on our poor overseas allies? Seriously, these things don't need to be regimented quite so strictly. --Wetman 05:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Wetman. Could you tell me tell me where this happened? I have a number of rules where I change definitely incorrect spellings such as 'knowlegeable' (note the missing 'd') to 'knowledgeable', but none where I turn anything into 'knowledgable'. Cheers, CmdrObot 21:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Found it this time! Amphitrite. --Wetman 00:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah excellent. Thanks. CmdrObot 14:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Châteaux

Hi, Wetman, do you know that some guys took a cue from you and ALoan and continue to translate French articles about châteaux? The problem is that translations are rather rough. You may want to take a look at Château de Menars, Château de Louveciennes, Château de Rosny, in particular. I shall add some details too. Regards, Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm bringing over some châteaux right now and some articles about French architects. This is mostly what I've been working on, User:DVD R W/Claude Nicolas Ledoux - should have the first draft done soon. This one too User:DVD R W/Charles De Wailly - but it has too many links. Thanks for the edits and DYK noms, I'm only about fr-2 so miss some important things sometimes like l'extraordinaire des guerres and corps de logis, so many thanks again, DVD+ R/W 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, could you show me some that you and Aloan have done before? DVD+ R/W 17:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! This is a great move forward, DVD. I've added material from Svend Eriksen's Early Neo-Classicism in France (1974), which I have here, to the Louveciennes article, and DVD I'll go to your private sandboxes to add bits from Eriksen to your drafts, okay? Charles de Wailly is the better form. You can go to Category:Castles in France (not my title) which collects all of them. I've done a lot at some, just tweaked others. Keep in touch. --Wetman 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, add anything you want my sandboxes aren't so private, it is just that I don't want them to get {{notenglish}} while I'm working on them. Any refs and things from printed sources is more than appreciated, my poor excuse for a library is in boxes right now :-( DVD+ R/W 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you change your mind about the "D" or "d" in Charles Wailly? And, I could probably convince a bot to turn Category:Castles in France into Category:Châteaux in France, if that would be better (though the accent circonflexe isn't easy to type redirecting from chateaux will do). Ledoux is now history merged into article space, after a little more work I might try to send it to become a GA (which I've never done before). I looked up Svend Eriksen's book on Amazon - do you know how much that is worth? I'll look into the genealogy question you asked at Ledoux tomorrow. Thanks again for your help, DVD+ R/W 07:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you changed my mind about the "D": I hadn't twigged, and now I've looked at the brief vitae in Eriksen's Early Neo-Classicism in France and it's under "D". I just took it without thinking that it was French. Hmm, I'd bet it's a $100 book by now (I've just looked: good grief!: if I only hadn't dropped mine a couple of times and wrenched the spine.) Châteaux are hard to categorize: some are country houses, some really are castles: best to leave categories alone I guess. --Wetman 08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently even used issues are going for £700 quid + [1]. I've been thinking about ways to get poor impoverished DVD out of his Seattle garrett for some time now........ By the way I've commented on Tudorbethan architecture and moved the "conspiracy theory" paragraphs to the talk page for dissection. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism warning

Hi Wetman,

What's the deal with this edit? The editor had already been warned and had not vandalized again, as far as I can tell. Your edit summary is "blatant vandalism should not be 'welcomed' ", but this user was given a standard warning, not a welcome message (by me). What's going on? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if "blatant vandalism should not be 'welcomed' ", per your edit summary, you shouldn't use the BV template all, as it leaves a message that begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia." and then says "Take a look at the welcome page". Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like blatant vandalism to me too. And since they made the edit twice I think they should have gotten two notices or at least a more severe one than test1. I'm usually in favor of accelerating the blocking process for obvious vandalism. DVD+ R/W 03:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the edit summary says "blatant vandalism should not be 'welcomed'" (which isn't the template that was left). I left a test warning template. And the BV template gives a message that begins with "Welome to Wikipedia". Firsfron of Ronchester 04:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And what's your suggestion? Is there a template to use in cases of blatant, obscene vandalism, whether previously warned or not? Are you afraid that these people might be discouraged? --Wetman 04:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid editors that already gave a warning will be discouraged by people saying "blatant vandalism should not be 'welcomed'". I know I am. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I currently have 4123 pages on my Watchlist. It's my fault I suppose: Ttey tend to build up as one adds content to Wikipedia. If one were to increase one's Watchlist, I imagine that leisure would cease to weigh so heavily on one's hands. That is quite enough on this subject. --Wetman 04:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know what you mean about watchlists. Until a few weeks ago, I had 7,600 on mine. It was a bit too much, so the number I'm monitoring now is significantly smaller. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vlaamse Opera

Hi. I see that you are a member of the WikiProject Opera. I thought you or someone you might know might want to write an article for the Vlaamse Opera. Its conductor, Silvio Varviso, died November 1. Please let me know if you are uninterested and I will inform others. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 17:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply ignorant and I don't read Flemish or Dutch except by improvising from my second-rate German. Someone else would do a better job.--Wetman 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am sending this out to wikiart folks everywhere,

so please don't feel picked on. Here's my thing. I've been watching list of sculptors recently and have been weeding out the entries in red on the theory that this is an index of sculptors in wikipedia. However i have been reluctant to remove artists that I know or discover to be real, wikipedia worthy people, so am trying to decide if i should just do a stub - maybe a lot of stubs - of these folks or leave them on the list [I HATE lists with too much red - check out the List of Frank Lloyd Wright works for example.

For example, i checked out one, François-Joseph Duret (1804 - 1865) and discovered that there are at least two sculptors with that name, (1732 - 1816) and (1804 - 1865)- this one is the son - and both probably could comfortably be in wikipedia. I did have a rather bad moment recently when someone DELETED my article on Connor Barrett about an hour [maybe less] after I first posted it, on the theory that he was not wikiworthy [or something] and a lot of these fairly remote (in time and place from me) artists are a lot more obscure than Barrett. So, i would like to know that i have the support of the wikipedia art history community before doing this. Drop me a line, if you wish to sit down and be counted. Life is good, Carptrash 06:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. although i do mostly American art i have contributed to lots on non-American articles including Aleijadinho, Ásmundur Sveinsson, Einar Jonsson, Gunnfrídur Jónsdóttir, Henry Moore, Ivan Meštrović, Ørnulf Bast, Rayner Hoff, and probably some others. I say this because most of the stubs I'm proposing would be Europeans.

Hi Carptrash, I responded at Ghirlanajo's page. The Categories Category:French sculptors, Category:Italian sculptors,etc. will give many names with Wikipedia entries not yet represented on the list. --Wetman 06:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Holy Moly - those are some lists. hmmmmmmm. Carptrash 08:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sending me that nice blue list of English sculptirs - though i did miss Eric Gill. Carptrash 14:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Etruscan pottery"??

Wetman, your work on the châteaux has been superb! For my own part, I managed little beyond expanding Valençay and starting stubby entries about Raincy and Talcy. And I also discovered DVD RW's translation of Château de Troussay. I believe the most obvious articles have been translated now and we may move on to other subjects. Have you seen Image:EtruscanPottery.jpg? This century-old photograph has been tagged in the catalogue of the Library of Congress as depicting etruscan artifacts. I notice that the image is similar to the one I uploaded in Phanagoria today. Having changed the description in Commons, I seek second opinion. What do you think? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 02:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't say. I've seen this image at Wikipedia, but I know when not to have an opinion! I've never been face-to-face with anything like these. Your sphinx pot is beautiful. --Wetman 03:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Château de Talcy rewording

Hello Wetman, I was reading Château de Talcy and was wondering if:-

"It was commissioned toward 1520 by Bernardo Salviati, a Florentine banker with connections to the Medici family. The château, which is imbedded in the village to one side, where the village church forms one side of the courtyard, is more Gothic in its vernacular feeling that might be expected in a structure built for an Italian at the height of the Renaissance."

Might be better as

"It was commissioned in approximately 1520 by Bernardo Salviati, a Florentine banker with connections to the Medici family. The château which is located to one side of the village centre, with the church forming another side of the courtyard, is more Gothic in execution than might be expected in a structure built for an Italian at the height of the Renaissance".

My French is utterly non-existant so I have no idea what the original articles thrust was - but I made the proposal to Ghirla who suggested i talk to you about it. Kind regards --Mcginnly | Natter 19:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

- The Salviati had had a branch in Bruges for decades (Gerard David altarpiece in NG London commissioned by bastard of family etc) so he may have spent most of his life in France or Netherlands. Johnbod 01:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rhapsody (music)

No, I can't remember whether Keats wrote about a lark (nightingale, yes), or indeed a thrush, but I was amused to read on your user page that "I derive enough poetry out of Scientific American not ever to read verse any more". Always verify your references, m'boy! Best --GuillaumeTell 22:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My ears are just burning! It was a half-memory of "thou art pouring forth thy soul abroad In such an ecstasy!" that tricked me, I think... but the analogy with the inspired artless character of rhapsody is still a good one! - -Wetman 06:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion sought

Hi Wetman, how are you doing?. I'm just making a few copyedits to Claude Nicolas Ledoux, and becoming a little bogged down in the translated text decided to look up a chateau to see if I could make out what was going on - Now what do you make of this [2] to me that is baroque in the vogue of Vanbrugh's Marlborough House yet is supposed to be Neoclassical - it could be my new spectacles but the facade even looks as though it could be slightly canted - what do you think? Regards Giano 15:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A style is rarely in complete control of an object or a structure: the château you illustrate (it is French, isn't it?) is a compromise with a conservative taste, like the familiar French commodes we call "transitional" in English, with a rectilinear corps broken slightly forward in the center, raised on cabriole legs. In the house, the conservative taste (of a patron?) requires that the block be lightly articulated in the established Baroque manner, an effect that the architect has minimized: lightly syncopated rhythms, eh. Terrible lump of sculture over the portico! --Wetman 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the portico thing in the middle reminded me of the one on the garden facade at Blenheim (I can't remember is it the south front? - not the big cour d'honneur one), the overall for some reason made me think of Easton Neston (I'm not sure why I say that) and the "lump" of sculpture again some of the "ornament" ar Blenheim, coupled again with Marlborough House - I came upom English Baroque - Vanbrugh, Hawksmoor and Wren yes it is French 1770 something - looks like a sannitorium doesn't it? Giano 22:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the west front of Blenheim, rather than the south front facing Duchêne's water parterre, that you're reminded of, with its successive forward breaks in the cornice. The central recession in the attic storey of your château seems to be carried up from the recess behind the portico below: it's not a proper flat neoclassic façade at all, is it? in spite of its severe windows. Those "transitional" commodes are also 1770s: Oeben invented the formula, and Riesener carried it on almost to 1780. Is it simply the colossal order that reminds you of Easton Neston? --Wetman 01:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Château de Bénouville!, and the date is 1769! though it wasn't Oeben who invented the so-called "transitional" commode, I find, but Gilles Joubert.--Wetman 20:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turpentine - Woodwose

Barbara Tuchman "A Distant Mirror" p 504 my edn:

"In costumes of linen cloth sewn onto their bodies and soaked in resinous wax or pitch to hold a covering of frazzled hemp, "so that they appeared to shaggy & hairy from head to foot""

- several refs given for her very full account at the back. (see also p436 death of Charles the Bad of Navarre if you look).

Both pitch & turpentine are or were pine resin products going back to antiquity (what we buy now being properly "spirits of turpentine") but I suppose "pitch" might be less confusing Johnbod 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Spirits of turpentine, being a distilled product that I confuse with turpentine, like most of us I figure, had me doubtful. Why not just give Tuchman's quote directly and and reference her, and avoid the extra layer of interpretation? --Wetman 01:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC) --Wetman 01:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

ok will do Johnbod 01:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

Just letting you know I reverted your (probably unintentional) revert of Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet. Gzkn 12:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you! My Watchlist was getting stale as I worked down it. Got fuddled. --Wetman 13:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Of course its art history

[edit] Template talk:Revivals

There's a new proposal waiting for your opinion. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo Citharoedus

Howdy - I greatly appreciated your improvements to the Apollo Citharoedus article, as I learned a great deal. Nice photo too. Also I did enjoy reading your rather rambling 'self' page. Quite entertaining. Cheers, Daderot 01:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. George

Ok, Mr. Englisher, as far as I am concerned, there is a thing in English grammar called redundancy and this in fact can be seen in this sentence from the article: in Georgia the feast day on November 23 is credited to St Nino of Cappadocia, who in Georgian hagiography is a relative of St George, credited with bringing Christianity to the Georgians in the fourth century, where the verb credited is used two times and sounds awkward. In addition, I would respect others edits than just reverting everything that he or she wrote. I am not sure what is your religion, but different denominations of Christianity have different stories and interpretations of the saint's life and the fact that you don't quite agree with it, does not mean that it is wrong or silly. Regards SosoMK 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad editing, I agree. I've forgotten what was the silly part. --Wetman 23:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of scientists...

Did you mean this revert [3]? It doesn't fit the edit summary at all... William M. Connolley 09:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I did not. Thank you for catcing my error. --Wetman 13:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiaroscuro / Tenebrism merge

Hi again Wetman, These are very old tags - back to 05 i think. The opinion seemed to go C - all against; T - some for, most against. I was thinking of removing the tags, but thought i would sound you outJohnbod 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't care much. Encyclopedic thinking doesn't come easily to most people I find. None of the other "editors" who voted against the merge at Talk:Chiaroscuro have actually made an edit, according to the Page History of Chiaroscuro: a most Wikipedian situation, don't you know! Perhaps one day both articles will be so rich and long, we'll be glad of the division... --Wetman 00:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitoline Venus and Crouching Venus edits

Could I just take issue with your reverting my edits on those?

• Capitoline Venus - 'not to create a separate one on each sculpture' - yes but these are 2 different sculptures, the BM one isn't a copy of the Capitoline Venus and so should be discussed separately.
• Crouching Venus - if we're creating a list, surely asterisks are a good idea

Neddyseagoon - talk 18:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you take the article Madonna and Child, and separate it in bits, with an isolated article on each example, because after all none of them are exactly alike? Maybe you would. Thus you could with very little effort interfere with a reader's getting a general idea.

Well, there's no need to be sarcastic, and that's a far more extreme example than this one. I'm not 'separating it into bits' so crudely as that, just trying to clarify if it's on the type or on the specific artefact - I just feel that 'Capitoline Venus type' does not equal 'Capitoline Venus' (which is a single artefact), as you half-acknowledge below. Neddyseagoon 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No one is keeping you from creating a stub on every single example, if you like. Capitoline Venus is a type, as you know from your art history. Indeed, the BM one isn't a copy of the Capitoline Venus: both are Roman copies of a lost Greek original. The variations are instructive, are they not? --Wetman 19:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Which would make far more sense - Capitoline Venus, with precis on both statues, and also as a list page for stubs on them both? That way they get this 'general idea' you are so keen on, plus 2 more specific pages.Neddyseagoon - talk 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Lists? The type is established by Capitoline Venus. If you'd google those words you'd find more examples, none precisely like any other: there are many more than two. You could make a stub on each example you find, if you like, and add a precis to the article. The overview is at Capitoline Venus, the type to which art historians refer the other examples. But, if each Venus with its own article is added to Category:Venus types, the category will collapse under its own weight into trivia. Lists reduce everything to uniform trivia. We're both concerned with building context. --Wetman 21:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitoline as is, with link to Iemini stub - a good compromise? And I'm not suggesting stubbing every single, say, Crouching Venus, just ones where something major could be stubbed off to relieve the main page (eg Lely Crouching Venus. Neddyseagoon - talk 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise? just link up any stubs you make, to be sure. Articles are never cannibalized to make stubs: cut and paste all the stubs you like without trashing the main text. A mild enough request. I'd have thought the page scarcely needed "relieving" yet, unless one's attention span were seriously damaged.

It didn't, and my apologies, but I've seen too many pages start off like that and get into a near irredemable mess (eg Venus de Medici, with parts on the Weddell Venus and half a dozen others).Neddyseagoon - talk 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Venus de' Medici is a famous example of a type The Weddell Venus is of encyclopedic interest— rather than as one in a bulleted directory listing— as an example of the "Venus de' Medici type". Context is what one tries to provide. You seem very resistant: can this be utterly new to you? --Wetman 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But imagine my surprise! when a connected series of paragraphs, each of which treated a single sculpture (some still too short), has been turned into a bulleted list! That's generally considered a step backwards: in general one tries to turn such lists into connected text.

Well, it didn't seem like they were getting longer any time soon, and so I felt that format was far more suited to it for now. Of course, when it can be made fuller, with a full paragraph (rather than 1/2 sentences) per statue, which then all link up into a thread (the connections seemed a bit bitty - were they in the order that they were acquired, or something else?), then they can be boosted up into a fully paragraphed format.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a step- backwards. The article was currently being worked on as you intervened: "any time soon" is quite unnecessary.--Wetman!

And then to see the illustrations shuffled into a foto-strip down one side, like a travel brochure!

Well, the right hand side is the only proper side for a bulleted list, otherwise the asterisks vanish. Plus you had section lines cutting over the Louvre example when it was where it was, which looked ugly, or at least you did on my web browser.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Their was no need for a foto-strip except that text was now reduced to a bulleted list. --Wetman 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How disheartening that you couldn't see why the Rubens was contrasted with the Lely Venus in a single screen shot— and yet felt competent to make these changes.

Oh, I did and can see how it was contrasted (whatever else we say, let us not denigrate each other's competence), but I felt the Rubens was more relevant right next to the part of the text on the Lely Venus - then you can see directly how Rubens came into contact with it - whilst the main Lely image had to stay at the top as the article's 'headline image'. The alternative in the article as it was seemed to be that the unenlightened user was questing around for which specific example the Rubens was linked to, a problem I felt needed remedying. I felt it more important to make that relation, than to have those 2 images together for comparison (which can be easily done by scrolling between the two.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

An "Identification" subheading: am I to sense that "attribution" is not yet in your vocabulary?

It is in my vocabulary, and that would be a far better title, thank you - I was grasping around for one and happened to pick the wrong one ('to err is human...').Neddyseagoon - talk 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I shall painstakingly retain the good edits you've made when I have the heart to pull this together again. --Wetman 23:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened to ' 'good faith edits'? If more info had gone into those paragraphs first time, they would not have appeared list-ish and not invited such an edit.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are simply getting an inkling of your discourtesy. Your good faith is not being questioned, but perhaps your self-confidence is less than warranted. --Wetman 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, all well-justified - I am far too blunt and disputatious for my own good, and I over-compensate for low self-confidence outside WP within WP , all things I of course need to grow out of. Thus, I apologise unreservedly for all my previous discourtesy and thank you for your extreme patience in straightening me out, which I do not deserve. Mea culpa etc. You are far 'older' in Wikipedia than I, my knowledge of classics is greater than my knowledge of Wikipedia's ins and outs, mechanisms, courtesies etc (which I am trying to remedy, in fits and starts), and your edits are of course superior. There, white flag - I'll say no more, barring the addition of links to stubs, I leave the articles entirely to you and eagerly await your additions to them. Apology accepted? Neddyseagoon - talk 20:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I'm just copying this over to Talk:Capitoline Venus and Talk:Crouching Venus respectively, so others can chip in, and where I will continue discussing it, as I assume we both have it on our watchlists! :-) Neddyseagoon - talk 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not mine. I've had my fill for now, but shall return in a few months to pull these articles together again after you've moved on. You might do some reading in the interim to get that "general idea" you put in quotes. --Wetman 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you have 2 minutes

Sorry to be a nuisance but an appeal is being made for an expert here [4] I think the others have already commented. Giano 19:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, always nice to have an expert opinion - what wants tweaking, I was top of the class in English in Palermo! Giano 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the best overview of Palladianism on the Internet, Giano. I didn't want to say so in the review, because it would have sounded gushing. As you know, I'd tweak the Declaration of Independence if they'd give me a draft: isn't "Nature" sufficient, without adding "...and Nature's God"? --Wetman 00:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaissance architecture

Wetman, I would appreciate your opinion on these edits. The girl believes that Baroque was a "phase" in the development of Renaissance architecture. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may butt in - I love my old Bannister Fletcher (my great-grandfather's copy - great drawings instead of photos) but this cheap reprint is liable to cause a lot of trouble. You should see what he actually says about Baroque architecture (short but sharp)- makes EB 1911 look progressive. you just have to explain that though this was the standard history in 1901 (even earlier in UK?) things have moved on. Johnbod 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Baroque is also the last stage in Wylie Sypher's Four Stages of Renaissance Style: Transformations in Art and Literature 1400-1700, a standard text in English. None of us would agree with Sypher's closing date nowadays, excluding Galileo Galilei and Vanvitelli. Then, I can't see how you'd include Late Baroque academic classicism but omit Neoclassicism. So, the general rule in encyclopedias seems to be "the broader the topic, the less satisfying the article." Should the discussion of Baroque as a subsection of Renaissance Architecture emphasize the continuity of its architectural vocabulary? It has its For the main article, see... header. --Wetman 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I have just read this statement there: "After the building of the Banqueting Hall (1622), English architecture moved with great rapidity in the direction of the Baroque." I can't agree with that sweeping statement. Chatsworth (1696). is Englans's first truly Baroque house, and some people would argue that Castle Howard (1720?) is; but remonstrating there seems to have no effect at the moment. Giano 17:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A more nuanced view:"Such Italianate styles remained confined to a small circle of Caroline courtiers; elsewhere English architecture in general followed a vernacular development from Antwerp Mannerism. After the building campaigns at Wilton House, completed following a fire of 1647, ambitious English architectural projects were aborted by the English Civil War. Following the Restoration of 1660, the architectural climate had changed, and taste moved in the direction of the Baroque, even in projects designed by Jones' pupil John Webb and Hugh May." --Wetman 18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So iy was hardly from Banquetting House to Baroque with great rapidity. Giano 09:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Parenthetically, I suppose this editor would appreciate your attention. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quoth The Raven: Nevermore ?

A sad thought. Our friend Mariska Veres has just left the building. She sang about Venus and was she not ... Nature's Godess ?

Well, it is not all that. I just feel another Christmass coming.

a slightly depressed,

Lunarian

[edit] yep

your userpage is pretty awesome. — coelacan talk — 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! compliments are always welcome— and ever in too short supply. I looked at the page again: it does seem a tad wordy... --Wetman 20:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find it wordy, although I didn't read it all at once. It's in inverted pyramid structure which I think is appropriate to your purposes. — coelacan talk — 20:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theological Views.

First, I must say that you're articles are very well writting and neutral. However I felt that I had to say something regarding ur User Page and it's depiction of your Theological and Religious Views. I am forced to point out that Atheism is as much a religion or cult as any. Regarding something as right (i.e The Bible) when there is no proof, is faith, Just as regarding it as wrong without proof is also faith. I am afraid I am relativly new to Wikipedia Editing and am unaware as to the rule of User Pages. I did find that calling all people with any faith children was a little naive. After all beleif that something is wrong requires faith as well. Also, I think that Religion does not thrive on Ignorance, at least not anymore. Many Church's will pay Theology Degrees for it's Clergy, A Degree that covers all religions.

I do not want to seem to be moaning at you or getting at your opinion (I Beleive that everybodies opinion should be heard and listened to no matter how "controversial"). Instead I wrote this not to change your opinion but I felt an inexplicable sense of duty, I assess every new piece of infomation I recieve and I use it to question my beleif and if I came up with solid proof either way i would accept and move on.

Feel Free to Delete this once you have read it. If I have assumed wrong please tell me, I just ask you think about what I said.

Again I am not sure on rules but is it okay to use a talk page to get across your own views i was under the impression it is not but i may be wrong. I would also like to reiterate my congratulations of the clarity and extent of your contributions. Thanks, Drew 14:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My child, the Wetman has no theological or religious or extra-terrestrial or atheistical views. The Bible is not a book, it's a library: no library is "wrong." These are historical texts. There is no "rule" concerning Userpages: perhaps part of your indoctrination suggests that there should be. After you have assessed every new piece of information it must be pleasant to be nestled all snug in your thoughts.--Wetman 17:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Wetman—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 14:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Baroque in the Italian Renaissance article

Hi Wetman!

Thanks for your contribution!

The problem is, that within that pargraph, I'm trying to make a fairly brief (but non-the-less lengthy point in which what happened in England is simply an example of a general trend ie architecture that was fully Classical in style didn't appear until the Italians were already well into the Baroque period.

The paragraph is not about specifically English architecture, and I don't want the detailed history there because it already exists at pages on Elizabethan, Jacobean and Palladian architecture.

Now, I've just removed Spain, Hungary, France and England to their own pages and some well meaning Pole has put in the entire history of Poland!

Not to mention contending with the dunny jokes and poor Lady Catherine de Burgh and sweet little Attilios who interprets my poor Italian into English that is worse and persists in removing dates.

So I hope that you won't be terribly offended by my shifting what you've written elswhere, if i can slot it in. --Amandajm 06:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your thesis, that styles are not simultaneous all over Europe, is too narrowly defined to substitute entirely for Renaissance Architecture. It would be missing an opportunity to reduce the article to a series of concise reviews of major personalities. Considerable non-biographical but essential material won't "fit" your thesis either: architects and patrons, the invention of "Antiquity", treatises and illustrations, etc. --Wetman 06:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Heracles

Hi Wetman, I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 06:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Via Giulia

I've added the requested note. Galanskov 21:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's accurate enough. Galanskov 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chi-Rho: "heavenly chi"

You wrote on the Talk: Labarum page about "heavenly chi;" What? Are you saying "The modern Chi has angles closer to 90-degrees, while older Chis had obtuse upper-and-lower angles?" Because, if you weren't... I don't know what you said. If you did mean that... I just barely got it. Scoutersig 04:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's that simple. It was a quote from the link that I gave. Compare the modern illustrations with the ancient ones. The ancient angles are not cross-angles like the modern adjustments; in fact they are too close to the angle (23½ degrees) between the ecliptic and the celestial equator for it to be coincidental in the labarum, a sign that Lactantius affirms was adopted by the Emperor who also— and more certainly— worshipped the Unconquered Sun and who put that, rather than the labarum, on his coinage, with the unmistakable legend SOLI INVICTO COMITI. Thus in the chi-rho signal, the chi also has a clear astronomical referent that can't be avoided. Fairly plain, don't you agree? --Wetman 04:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I went ahead and was bold by adding the link into the paragraph that already talked about non-Christian meanings. It's not much, but it does add depth and "proof" to that section. Scoutersig 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I use "proof" slightly cynically.

[edit] Heracles

No problem:). It seems that the anon wants to remove all non-english sources, something that could be well considered vandalism... Though it is the english wikipedia, i have seen non-english sources in many articles. Afterall, all sources and books have not been published exclussively in english. There is much good material in other languages, and as far as i know, for the Greek mythology German (primarily) and French researchers and writers have done a really good job! Regards Hectorian 04:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secularism once again.

I've responded on the Secularism talk page once again. I wanted to note, however, that I am myself "secular", belonging to no religous institution, supporting the disestablishment of religion and believing in no god or gods though I am no "atheist"--that is I do not deny the existence of gods--I am simply not concerned with them. I'll gladly confide this information to you. My concern with what you wanted to include, originally, was that it only covers a small part of the picture--secularism of a very strongly atheistic nature. This is why it cannot be essentialized in the lead--because it is a very partial aspect of secularism. If you want to make sure that it is included in the article, as an aspect of sceintific secularism, materialistic secularsim, materialistic atheism ... or whatever you want to call it, then by all means do. The lead, however, should introduce the topic in terms of how it then is fleshed out in the article, and not from a very narrow perspective.PelleSmith 13:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(At Talk:Secularism the curious reader with a taste for the morbid can follow PelleSmith's tortuous justification for suppressing the fact that the secular state assesses natural causes "without reference to the supernatural." You'd have thought this were a necessary part of the normal definition of secularism. All very elaborate and protective of something-or-other, for a person "of no religous institution." The struggle to keep Wikipedia honest seems a thankless task. Wetman 18:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Keeping wikipedia honest? Torturous justification? Are you ready to get tortured: Secular = that which is not "religious". The secular is not "that which is not supernatural", ONLY. I'd love a second, third or even fourth opinion on the matter, so please come and see the circus.PelleSmith 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(Secularism is not currently on Wetman's watchlist.)

[edit] Keeping Wikipedia transparent

Recently User:Str1977 has methodically gone through articles included in the Category:Christian mythology removing them. Wetman has inserted in almost every Talkpage concerned the following notice, with the edit summary "Christian mythology?":

User:Str1977 has methodically gone through articles included in the Category:Christian mythology removing them. This article was one of those removed.Perhaps not in the interests of the non-indoctrinated Wikipedia reader? I have no opinion in this particular case myself. --Wetman 10:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The notice has also been posted at User:Str1977 's own Talkpage. The notice is accurate and self-explanatory. No discussion is expected --Wetman 10:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

These claims are false. I have gone through the category but only removed those I deemed inappropriate for various reasons. I can give those reasons and classify them on the category talk page. Your stated disinterest in those articles places your notice close to wiki-stalking or spamming. Also, your insults against another editor (me) by implying that I am indoctrinated may be true to your Wikipedia record but not helpful either. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 02:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there will be discussion anyway. Did you even read the notice at the top of the category page? While I agree it was perfectly justifiable to remove those articles only tangentially related to Christianity, it looks to me as if you removed any article you personally considered historically true, but this is irrelevant to what is meant by "mythology". Even Christians so devout as Tolkien or Lewis did not hesitate to call the body of Christian stories a "mythology". (That they are mythological had much to do with Lewis' conversion.)

You repeatedly asked "How is this mythology?" You've been answered. A better time to ask would have been before making such a sweeping set of changes. (And I'm sorry, but this was systematic. You obviously went through the category article by article and removed those whose listing there you thought incorrect.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, TCC. I expected to be accused of stalking; since the categories were methodically removed, it was necessary methodically to draw attention to the action which would have passed unnotioced otherwise. I have no opinion in this particular case myself, I merely draw attention to the actual facts. --Wetman 03:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you are not interested, Wetman, I will not continue this discussion here. I have replied to TCC elsewhere.

As for your actions, you are overestimating your importance. You are not needed to draw attention to this - the editors of the pages would have noticed or not regardless of your campaign. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walhalla "enshrinees"

Since I remember a comment from you, no doubt on the talk page, you might like to vote here Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_13#Category:Walhalla_enshrinees where the Category is winning a vote against deletion, which I have just tried (too little too late, probably) to swing to a Rename as Persons in Walhalla Temple Johnbod 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Too many categories. Any imaginable list might be made into a "category". Why not this one? "Enshrinees" is a barbarism, but I'll not vote for or against in this case. --Wetman 01:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree there are far too many categories, but I don't think this should be (one of) the first to go. Johnbod 17:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The essential is that information be preserved in a list: Persons inducted in Walhalla Temple, where the date is also preserved in the alphabetical listing. The list is linked from Walhalla Temple, perhaps simply under "See also". The criterion: is this a category useful enough to appear on every relevant page. Few categories are. --Wetman 18:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting: slow down please

Dear Wetman, In your admirable zeal in the fight against vandalism, you have inadvertantly reverted some well-justified changes. The most obvious example from someone other than me is the article "Rapunzel", where you reverted a comment on the alternative version of "radish".

It so happens that Rapunzel is German for a plant of the radish family, and such versions of the story do indeed exist. "Rampion" is used in some verions also. Had you but glanced at the discussion pages, you would have seen a lengthy discussion on exactly which type of vegetable Rapunzel referred to, complete with original German text (Grimm).

Perhaps you are not taking enough time to check the discussion pages to see if edits are being made in good faith?

Perhaps, too, you are trusting your own gut feel more than other peoples cited contributions? (Jerome's comment on James)

Please extend the courtesy of considering the possibility that an edit may be correct, or at least in good faith. It may even be, as in Rapunzel, outside of your personal area of expertise, considerable though that may be. Trishm 08:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Some versions of the story" that identify Rapunzel as "radish" do need a citation. I have requested one. In such versions is the name 'Rapunzel rendered inexplcable, or translated "Radish, radish, let down your hair..." This article shouldn't be on my watchlist anyway: a fairy tale with a spoiler warning! --Wetman 17:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wetman, I'm sorry, did I not make myself clear? There are times when your judgement of vandalism is producing false positives. The issue under discussion is not about the citations required for variant translations of the word "Rapunzel". The issue is that there are instances where you have reverted a correct, good-faith edit, without checking or making comment on the discussion page. I recognise that you are acting in good faith, and doing a tremendous amount of good work. I just think that there are moments when your enthusiasm gets the better of you. Cheers, Trishm 01:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right. When there is a shadow of doubt, I try to note in my edit summary "Vet my revert" or similar. But when anons. make changes to dates and statistics, I almost always revert, but alert others in the edit summary. Sometimes, however, with the best will in the world and infinite patience— both of which I have in short supply, I confess— it is difficult to judge between fatuous nonsense edited in perfectly good faith and furtive vandalism intended to render Wikipedia ridiculous. I'm all too aware, as you must be, of the limitations of "assume good faith" in the face of experience. I find that I am equally in sympathy with the essay "On assuming good faith". --Wetman 01:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. By the way, the "radish" versions of the story leave the name Rapunzel, and also the sense that Rapunzel is another, perhaps archaic, name for radish. Trishm 02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture notability

To counter spurious time consuming AfD's, I've had a stab at a draft policy for architectural notability here. I've attempted to restrict the scope of the proposal to actual 'works of architecture', architects, building technology and legal aspects of the profession. Buildings and structures notability enmasse should probably be a separate enterprise, or at least a later one. I need to give some thought to threshold notability and have shied away from minor works by major architects, because buildings are not like music or literature, they cannot generally be ignored by the public and play some kind of role in most built environments, so I argue the impact is beyond just they're effectiveness or otherwise as a work of art. Comments (by anyone) gladly received. Cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 21:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)