This page is archived for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023.

Hi Ham II, I see your recent edits correcting the wikilink for "Medici Chapel" in History of early modern period domes and History of Italian Renaissance domes also removed the text "It contains the tombs of Giuliano and Lorenzo de' Medici." but did not mention it in your edit summaries. Why was that text removed? AmateurEditor (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AmateurEditor: Lorenzo de' Medici (1449–1492) and Giuliano de' Medici (1453–1478), who are called the Magnifici, are buried at the Medici Chapel in a single shared tomb. The chapel's more artistically significant tombs belong to two less important figures who confusingly have the same names, and who for the sake of differentiation are called the Capitani: Giuliano de' Medici, Duke of Nemours (1479–1516), and Lorenzo de' Medici, Duke of Urbino (1492–1519). It's the first pair who are the primary topics for the names Lorenzo and Giuliano de' Medici. It felt convoluted to make this clarification on articles which are really about domes, so I just took those statements out.

The edits were part of a batch I was doing with JavaScript Wiki Browser on articles linking to the Medici Chapel dab page. Edits in such batches all tend to have the same summary; I'm not sure whether it can be adjusted for individual edits. Ham II (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this artwork on the corner of Curzon Street and Bolton Street in Mayfair? [1] [2] No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@No Swan So Fine: Looks as if it appeared last year alongside the building behind it, "60 Curzon". I can't find anything about it in coverage of the building. It's too recent to appear in the "Art in Mayfair Sculpture Trail 2023", which includes permanent fixtures as well as temporary ones appearing that summer, but perhaps if they do an updated version next summer that'll include it? Ham II (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like two pieces of driftwood to me - but what do I know about art! Now, while I have you both: I have recently done this little thing, Tomb of Marigold Churchill. But I desperately want a picture. It’s by Eric Gill, although the best bit’s been nicked, and is Grade II listed. So, should either of you find your way to that particular corner of Kensal Green Cemetery…. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake please add categories when you upload to Commons! Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is hilarious, it's like the mad section of an art fanatics members club. My rarest Gill find ... [3] I might do a best practice categorisation essay one day...No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, should you want to further sate your appetite for obscure Gill work, I did this, as part of this, and would love a photo of the Johnston Monument. It has almost no online presence. KJP1 (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you arty folk know any more references to Adrian Ward-Jackson? So many fascinating links here. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help, I'm afraid. But here's a snap of him cavorting with a naked woman, [4] - which was probably a rare occurrence. KJP1 (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added Powerhouse to your stellar Westminster list. [5] No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there two edits you made to Florentine Renaissance art (1), (2) appear to violate MOS:RETAIN which states "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another." AusLondonder (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: A different user added a ((Use British English)) tag to the article on 8 January, 10 days before my first edit to the page. Despite that, the article continued to use a mix of American and British spellings until the edits you've linked to. Ham II (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, you've made ENGVAR changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France- and French-related articles for no apparent reason. With the exception of the word "capitalization", there was no American spelling on that page previously. And arguably, any page relating to a European country has stronger MOS:TIES to British English than to American. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosbif73: That page, MOS:FR, already had "encyclopedic", "capitalization" (and "capitalized"), "favored" and "recognized" in American English, so the section on "organisations" and the single instance of "behaviour" (commented out, so invisible) were the anomalies. But I realise it's only a JavaScript I'm using that makes it easy to check such things, and I should have explained this in the edit summary – sorry. I'd be happy if British English were considered to have strong ties with topics from elsewhere in Europe, but that's not currently stated in MOS:TIES, so in applying one variety consistently throughout the page I picked the one that was already the most heavily used there. Ham II (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"encyclopedic", "capitalization" (and "capitalized"), ... and "recognized" are all fine in Oxford English - "encyclopedic" an option in all BR Eng varieties imo. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah – those are the spellings that get changed if I set Oxford English in the JavaScript, but my Concise Oxford English Dictionary disagrees on the first one; it lists "encyclopedic" first, with "encyclopaedic" only as a variant. (The OUP's free dictionary website Lexico is no more, alas.) MOS:FR wasn't using Oxford English before, what with "organisations" and "favored", but I've changed it to that now. I approve of policy and guideline pages using Oxford spelling because of the ways in which it's a halfway house between British and American spellings, in the spirit of MOS:COMMONALITY. Ham II (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you previously removed a redirect hatnote on Three Musicians (Picasso) and said "no, Musicians With Masks doesn't redirect here". I added it back because I have made it so that it did redirect here. I did that because some people know that painting as Musicians with Masks instead of Three Musicians. CyberTheTiger (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CyberTheTiger: Thanks for that, but I'm still not sure that hatnote serves any purpose, because there's no Musicians with Masks (disambiguation). It would be better to have Musicians with Masks (per MOS:BOLDSYN) appearing somewhere in the lede. Ham II (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Collection (Lincolnshire), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ice Age.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]