User talk:Johnbod

User talk:Johnbod/Archive 1, to 2018

Please do not overwrite files

---

I noticed that you uploaded a file using the name File:China ceramics red plate.JPG. A file by this name already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its previous version. If the file that you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name. Thank you. For more information, please see Commons:Overwriting files.

This is not a "minor" crop and the file is in use, please upload as a new file per COM:OVERWRITE.--Bidgee (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A crop that is thought to improve the image is not against the guidelines. However once contested, splitting has to be used. The crop tool makes it easier. --Fæ (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, well it's a crap image anyway, which I have replaced at all the major articles using it. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Hedwig-glas (cropped).jpeg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Hedwig-glas (cropped).jpeg, 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!

Jcb (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Guan ware

Hi John,

Unless specified, any ceramics produced in the imperial kiln is a Guan ware. Therefore I removed Category:Stoneware of the Song dynasty in Category:Guan ware. Feel free to create Category:Guan ware of the Song dynasty if necessary. -Mys_721tx (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this is complete nonsense, in English! Guan ware is a very specific type - others would be "imperial wares". You can't import Chinese terms straight into English. This page may help you with appropriate term in Chinese. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Per the article en:Guan ware, The Asian sources ([1], [2], [3], [4]) use Guan ware as "the literally translated sense to cover any 'official' wares ordered by the Imperial court". In those sources, when discussing the crackling ceramics produced by the one of the five famous kilns, "Guan ware" is specified as Song Guan ware, and the later imitations Guan-type ware.
2. Apart from the issues of translation, File:Chinese ceramics in V&A DSCF3471 13.jpg is made during Yuan dynasty, and the various artifacts under Category:Imitations of Guan ware are from Ming and Qing dynasties.

The second point of my argument can also be made for Category:Ge ware. Therefore I believe it is better to leave the period on individual file instead of the whole category. -Mys_721tx (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The sources in English use "Guan ware" as Guan ware does - I'm not sure what you're trying to say here (Note also some Ming Jun ware was stamped with "Guan"). The dates are always rather a matter of estimation, and the situation is complicated by later imitations, and inconsistent terminology, but there is no doubt that both Ge and Guan ware can essentially be described as Song stoneware, and it is best to categorize them accordingly. Settting-up a sub-cat for Ge-type ware (in the sense of later porcelain imitations), as I did for Guan in 2016, was a good idea, so thanks for that. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The Jun ware example is exactly the point I want to make: In Asian sources, the discussion of Guan ware in its stricter sense is always accompanied by a qualifier, i.e. Song (dynasty) Guan ware. In its stricter sense, only the ceramics produced by the imperial kiln in Kaifeng during Northern Song dynasty and the two imperial kilns in Hangzhou during Southern Song dynasty are considered Guan ware. In its boarder sense, anything that came out of the imperial kilns is considered a Guan ware. The Ru ware, Jun ware, and later Jingdezhen ware produced by the imperial kilns have all been considered Guan ware. I agree that it would be less ambiguous to refer Guan ware in its broader sense as imperial wares. -Mys_721tx (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

No one in English ever uses "Guan ware" for all imperial wares. The word is not translated and has a specific meaning in English and other Western languages. You can't expect Commons or other English sources to follow the literal Chinese meaning. I absolutely DON'T "agree that it would be less ambiguous to refer Guan ware in its broader sense as imperial wares" - this would go against all established use of terminology in Western languages, and be hoplelessly confusing. What you call it in Chinese-language labels is a different matter. By all means add a note in Chinese explaining the issue if you like, and give it a different name in Chinese. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

What I was agreeing to is your initial proposal that 官窑 in its borader sense should be refered to as imperial ware and 官窑 in its stricter sense as Guan ware. I fail to see the reason of your objection.

Additionally, at least three non-Asian authors have used "Guan ware" as wares from different kilns. There is another that Google does not give enough preview and is omitted.

1. Valenstein 1988 p. 109
2. Clunas 2004 p. 102
3. Charles 2001 pp. 124-132

-Mys_721tx (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but this is all "Guan ware", of that particular stoneware type. If you want a category for all imperial wares, it should be called that or "Official wares", not Guan. In fact this is probably a bad idea, as what is and is not imperial/official ware gets far too uncertain and complicated. Better to stick to more certain terms like "Jingdezhen ware". Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

September 2019: it's Wiki Loves Monuments time again!

Hi

You're receiving this message because you've previously contributed to the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest in the UK. We'd be delighted if you would do so again this year and help record our local built environment for future generations.

You can find more details at the Wiki Loves Monuments UK website. Or, if you have images taken in other countries, you can check the international options. This year's contest runs until 30 September 2019.

Many thanks for your help once more! MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Johnbod,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It's Wiki Loves Monuments time again!

Hi Johnbod!

You are receiving this message because you have previously contributed to the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest in India. We would be very delighted if you would do so again this year, help record our monuments for future generations and win exciting prizes.

You can find more details in this page. Or, if you have images taken in other countries, you can check the international options. This year's contest runs until 30 September 2019.

Regards,
Bodhisattwa
(on behalf of Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in India team)--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Johnbod,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Thanks for uploading The Mouse Catchers MET DP169146 (cropped).jpg that was selected as Picture of the month on the Neapolitan Wikisource. Ruthven (msg) 12:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Grazie! Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)