Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 104

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

((talkarchive))

Pirates

[edit]

Reminder to me: check opera discographies - regularly.

Elagabalus

[edit]

Watch it! (prose and referencing)

Bayreuth canon

[edit]

Update performance statistics each September.

Watching

[edit]

Well done!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
For your excellent work on the Thorpe affair - just come across it on the Main Page. Great work, and a fascinating read. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


3 August: thank you for today's Thorpe affair, "a fairly unbelievable but entirely true story of British political life ..." (what is it with British political life?) - Thank you also for your measured words in the Holst affair, an article written by more than 700 users! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both – glad you liked the article. Brianboulton (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought about mentoring

[edit]

Rereading Wehwalt's most recent comment at WT:FAC and my response there, it struck me that one way to look at the mentoring proposal is that a first time nominator has to get someone with 5+ FAs to agree they'll support it before they can nominate. I didn't want to clutter that thread with this comment, since it's a bit of a digression, but what do you think? Is that a simpler way to frame it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(TPS) I think there's a fair distance between someone saying "This looks ready to nominate for FAC" and "I'd support this at FAC". The latter requires quite a bit more work on the part of the mentor. Perhaps that's what you intended all along, but I think we'd need to be clear about that. --Laser brain (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be rather more to mentoring than an agreement to support at FAC – supports are often given (by experienced editors, too) without particular care and attention. I see mentoring as an active role within several possible stages, not all applicable in every case: article preparation, help through earlier review processes, final polishing, above all ensuring compliance with the FA criteria. And perhaps helping the newcomer in responding to the criticisms that will arise at FAC. Very few article come to FAC in perfect condition; most need further work, and benefit from the experienced eyes at FAC. I'll watch the discussion at FAC talk, and respond accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mentoring is a good thing. We have, I feel, an obligation to encourage those who will bear the torch in future. The devil is in the details, as usual. If Mike's suggestion above was modified to getting the opinion of a 5+er that he expects that it will pass FAC after the usual process, that might be a good thing. As opposed to a view that it meets the criteria as it stands. In other words, pretty much what LB said.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article

[edit]

Greetings! Not that you should care, but I'd love to see Lord Charles Beresford becoming a featured article!!! Thanks! 79.129.199.178 (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. Victorian naval officers turned Tory MP are not really my area of expertise. The article needs lots of work to get near FA standard, and I'm not the person to do it. You could make a request at WP:WikiProject Military history where you might find an editor willing to take it on. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipedia:Peer review/Andha Naal/archive1

[edit]

Kailash29792 has aimed to make it an FA. Feel free to leave comments and do let me or him know if you intend to do so by pinging either of us. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that due to prior commitments and limited wiki time at present, I will not be able to participate in this review, but I wish your endeavours well. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VvG

[edit]

Brian, this has stabilised and I think ready again for your highly valued input. I don't in the slightest take that you might revisit for granted, but you are a prize reviewer, and am considering asking Ian for a restart, which might be fairest to all; I that you were initially looking at a moving target and appreciate how that might have compromised time consuming review work. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ceoil, of course I intend to revist the review, having only temporarily suspended my activity for the reasons I gave. All in all a restart might be the best thing in view of the extent to which the article has changed since its nomination, but that's for you and your conoms to decide. I'll be posting comments again within the next couple of days – congratulations to you and your colleagues for the terrific work you've put into this article; the images alone are a real delight. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Events have overtaken my notion of a restart, i think given all the feedback and action during this week, and how its been structured, its moot now. The review has become focused again, easier now for the FAC prom/arc team to weigh in their final decision. From a reviewer POV, I hope easier for you also. Ceoil (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a summer PR?

[edit]

What ho! I've recently been working on a biography of a fascinating and important figure, Josephine Butler. The lady is now at PR for comment and consideration, and if you have the time and inclination I'd be grateful for any comments you may have. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be pleased to review this; as everybody knows, the welfare of prositutes has always been one of my chief interests in life. I understand from Tim's page that you are going on holiday shortly, and I hope you have a marvellous time. When you get back, I'd like to ask your assistance in a newspaper search project (similar to the help you gave me on Girl Pat a couple of years back). Details when you're ready. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm off in about ten days time, so feel free to email me your requirements and I'll start running the searches. On a separate note, I'm sorry to see more IB silliness breaking out on Handel's lost operas article: the spike in various IB threads going on all all over the place (with the same small group of highly active warriors pushing their agenda) seems to indicate some increased militancy, which is becoming increasingly disruptive and divisive. Are these people actively trying to drive away editors, or are they so wound up in their agenda that they can't see the damage they do? It's all a bit of a shame that the school bully mentality detracts so much pleasure from the process. – SchroCat (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lost operas article is due to be TFA on 23 August... Hopefully it will not become a battleground before or during. I'll email you with details of my newspaper search requirements, and am most grateful for your help with this. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've got your email, and I'll do the research in the morning. The date worries me a little – the BL newspaper archive I use isn't great post Second World War, but if that's not great, there are a few other bits I can do to dig stuff out. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Very thin on the ground, and non-existent on the British Library searches, but what I have found (from more modern references) has been emailed across to you. – SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: July 2016

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Baton

[edit]

Hi Brian. Just to let you know, I finished up scheduling August. We're all caught up with the other pages too. I'm passing the baton on to you now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Frank FAC

[edit]

Hi Brian, you had helped me a while back with my peer review of Leo Frank. I have since got it up to GA and just nominated it for FA. If you could spare a couple moments, feel free to review the article and leave comments. Note that this is my first FAC, so hopefully I don't become the poster child for why this is necessary. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tony. I do remember the article, and the considerable amount of work you gave to it. I will certainly look at the FAC and comment there, though this won't be before next week as I have a particularly busy weekend ahead. As to your reference to a discussion taking place elsewhere, the focus there is on unprepared nominations, and I don't think you can be accused of that. On the contrary, you have prepared meticulously. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words, and take your time. It's satisfying to finally by at FAC after all the work! Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Borah

[edit]

Would you have time to look at this FAC? He and your Lansbury would have got on well. Too well, on one regrettable point, as they each shared a conviction Hitler could be reasoned with ... Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely look and comment (sorry I missed the PR). I have first to fulfil a promise to review Leo Frank, which might take a day or two as it's a long article. Could you meantime look in at Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev), and perhaps leave a talkpage comment or two? Tim has taken a look and made a number of suggestions which I've adopted. I'm probably not going to ask for a formal PR in this case. Brianboulton (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
as soon as I finish my obligation to Secretariat (horse) I shall.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A PR for Taylor Swift

[edit]

Hello, I can understand you might be busy expanding or reviewing other articles, but if you've got time and interest, please consider leaving comments for PR of Ms Swift regarding its prose which I don't feel is under a very good condition. FrB.TG (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest

[edit]

I understand you might be busy. If you have the time, you can sign up for Doc's contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Brian isn't at all interested!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian. Dr. Blofeld "I'm sure Brian isn't at all interested!" — Sad, isn't it?.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boxed in

[edit]

Apropos the current discussion at Talk:MOS, you might want to take a look at how boxed quotes are used in Phineas Gage and Sacred Cod. EEng 14:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried by the "bossy" version! Yes, I agree with you that these are egregious example of the misuse of quote boxes, but my point has always been that, when carefully used, such boxes can ands do enhance an article. That remains my position. Brianboulton (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh. I thought they were really good examples. I put them there. I'm so crushed. <sniff> Can you elaborate? EEng 20:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry mate, I didn't mean to be cruel. Can I return to this a bit later, as I'm embroiled elsewhere for the time being. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'm made of sterner stuff than that (he said sulkily). When you have time I really would value your thoughts, though please take the time to actually read the article to see how the quotes and captions support and illustrate the text proper. In the meantime, take care not to get too embroiled (see the DYK), and have you visited the Museums? EEng 21:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EEng Right, with a bit more time on my hands I can see that my initial judgement was a little hurried and harsh, based as it was on about thirty seconds' inspection while my mind was on something else. So here is a more considered opinion:

  • Phineas Gage: The use of quote boxes in this article is not its chief problem. The individual boxes are OK, but I think that six, in an article so liberally festooned with images, is too many. I'd say the article was greatly overimaged, leading to constant squeezing of text between left and right-side placements (a MoS violation). I've never seen a left-located supplementary image in a lead before. Overall 27 images, 6 quote boxes and a host of indented quotes overdominate the text which is supposedly the meat of the article. My position is that quote boxes should be used sparingly, and are most effective when there is a shortage of available images.
  • Sacred Cod. Unfortunately, here I think my initial snap judgement was right. This use of quote boxes, spread across the page and combining them with images, doesn't work at all. The box in the History section represents about 80 percent of the text in that section, which is absurd; the text is supposed to provide the narrative, with the quote illustrating or underlining a significant part of it. Perhaps you are experimenting with formats to see what might be done? If so, I'd drop this one.

Anyway, that was an interesting detour from my usual activities here, and I'm glad you called. Brianboulton (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find boxed quotes invaluable on visual arts articles, when an artwork is intended to illustrate a particular passage from literature or mythology and one wants to provide the original text from which the artist would have worked to give a context; it means one can explain the scenario in modern language but still provide the exact original wording, instead of (a) using only the original text and thus dropping a chunk of The Faerie Queene or the King James Version into the body text, which some readers (particularly non-native speakers) may find confusing, or (b) including both the original text and a modern 'translation' in the body text, which is repetitive and annoying to readers. The Dawn of Love is quite a good example of this usage. They're also handy as "proxy illustrations" for articles or sections without an appropriate image, to break up an otherwise lengthy block of body text without disrupting the narrative flow of the main text—see the "Funeral" section of Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, for example. (Quotes about the topic can have a secondary purpose on articles on topics which appear obscure to modern eyes, as they demonstrate that this apparent-non-notable topic was considered worthy of notice at the time—there's a good deal of this going on at Daniel Lambert, if you want a concrete example.) ‑ Iridescent 15:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My rough calculation, based on recent promotions, is that between a fifth and a quarter of FAs use quote boxes in the way you describe. I rather think the community will have no truck with fundamentalist attempts to prevent their use, but editors may find their articles challenged nonetheless. This may be the shape of things to come. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Time to start something new

[edit]

I just mentioned your lovely lost operas as an example of how we might achieve a little more peace in IB editing, - repetitions of the always same arguments are not it, as you said, I agree. I would not have mentioned the operas yesterday, for fear to be labeled "edit-warrior" once more for even mentioning it. (I have not edit warred once in my career here, and would not add an IB to a biography by authors who don't like it. Pointing out where a longstanding one was reverted is a different story, because I think that is also a matter of respect for the work of others.) Singing concerts with Reger's Der 100. Psalm in Bruges and Wiesbaden coming up, - much more rewarding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The great barrier to resolution is the policy that requires page-by-page resolution in any conflict over the presence or absence of an infobox. This encourages division among editors, the creation of false consensuses, and an eternal battleground mentality. The Holst article is a good example of the consequences of this disastrous policy - acres of hositility, nothing achieved. I accept that you do not add infoboxes to articles whose main editors "don't like it", although opening a discussion on the talkpage can have much the same effect. I have said before (most recently in the Holst discussion) that I don't agree with removing infoboxes where they have been established, and I think that both sides of the debate have been guilty at times of unnecessarily stoking antagonism by word and deed. But the real villain of the piece is WP policy, which simply has to change if we are to make progress. Enjoy your concerts, as I enjoy the weekly recitals at Peterborough cathedral, although as a listener not a performer. And thank you for signing up for the mentoring policy which I hope will get off the ground soon. Brianboulton (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the individual article resolution is a concept that is not working, I therefore tried on WP:COMPOSERS to find support for a minimal IB - replacing the former Persondata - following your model of Percy Grainger, and also Beethoven where it was installed as the result of community consensus. I really liked that its presence there attracted thousands of clicks to his list of compositions on 17 December, mentioned in the IB but not the lead. I enjoy the sweet irony that my design from the workshop of the infoboxes arb case was thus installed by one of the arbs who wrote the case, - showing clearly how kafkaesque that case was. I also agree that both sides could improve showing respect. Btw, I also don't normally add suggestions to have an IB on articles where I know ..., such as Holst. In that particular case, I only showed - once the discussion was started - how an IB could look like, because some participants in a broader discussion might not know (how simple it could be). I should not have done that, but can't withdraw now. It will not happen again. - Music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#Active RFC archived before end (or even closure) at Talk:Gustav Holst. Thank you. --Izno (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thorpe affair

[edit]

Unfortunately it appears that the self-appointed Guardians of the Galaxy (a less-than-charming group that back each other up) have miraculously and coincidentally all "found" the article within a matters of hours of each other. I have (unfortunately) had dealings with the tag team before, and they are inflexible, lack all common sense, courtesy, perspective and the ability to compromise. Even on something as obvious as the poor comma use they are trying to force a sub-standard version onto the page based on nothing more than their own opinion. I'm sorry to see that even when we have quality work to display, it remains unprotected from such group bullying to force sub-standard dross onto somewhere that isn't needed. 5.2 million articles and this is what they decide needs their "improvements"? – SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Writer's Barnstar
Contrary to what the "Guardians of the Galaxy" think, wikipedia is incredibly fortunate to have somebody as able as you writing here. It is sad to see how some of our best editors are treated and the bullying and harassment that goes on on here. You deserve much better than this. These people are generally clueless on how to write an encyclopedia. You're setting the best possible example for others to follow. Unfortunately these people are not easy to ignore, but I hope you'll continue to hold your head high as all you've seemed to have had in the last month is negativity and all I see is positivity from your contributions here. I don't know how you put up with it, but you're easily worth 500 of these snivelling idiots. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User page instead of talk page

[edit]

Hey, you accidentally posted on my user page instead of my talk page. You might want to check if you've done that elsewhere. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Yours was the only one to go astray – I've just checked my contributions. Thanks for letting me know. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

[edit]

Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme

[edit]

Thanks for the note re the FAC voluntary mentoring scheme - I'm not sure I can help. Most of my FAs are from ages ago & I've only gone near it once in the last few years.— Rod talk 16:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - thanks for letting me know Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Gage

[edit]

EEng#s

I've opened a new thread, as your question specifically relates to the Gage article rather than the general Qbox question.
What you decide to do should depend on where you want to take this article. If you are not intending to put it through formal review procedures you can probably leave it as it is, since the Style Inquisition rarely notices articles that aren't either GA, FA or TFA. But if you are thinking of GAN or FAC you will need to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, including:
  • Too many images can be distracting
  • Avoid sandwiching text between images
  • Placement must be relevant to adjoining text
  • Generally, don't vary sizing (there are exceptions to this)
  • Establish copyright status of every image
I can't really advise what images you should remove, as I don't know which are the most important, but the one that might cause the most problems is the left side insertion in the lead. Hope this helps. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But I don't see where MOS/Images says placement "must be relevant to adjoining text" (merely that images "should generally be placed in the most relevant article section"), or that sizes shouldn't vary. I've also never been able to get any clarity on what "sandwiching" means. Some editors interpret it as forbidding left and right images/boxes which are together so wide that the text is unattractively "squeezed" (on a typical screen); others see it as forbidding box/images to appear opposite each other, period.
Also, if you can't point to one or two images that you think the article would be better off without, how can you be sure that there are any? EEng 03:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't help further. I've pointed out what I think are the relevant MoS guidelines, you may interpret them differently. I can give an opinion but am not a judge. Perhaps you should canvass for a wider range of opinions, or try a GAN/FAC? Good luck anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about quotation boxes.

[edit]

Hello Brian. This is just a message to let you know that I have recently initiated a 'support/opposition' section at the RfC discussing the issues surrounding the use of "quote boxes" (here). As you previously expressed a view on this issue over at the MoS talk page several days ago, you may wish to reiterate your opinion in a 'support/oppose' format. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do so. I wonder whether the editors who have taken articles to FAC/GAN with quote boxes ought also to be advised of this? A decision here might affect their work. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

  • New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
  • Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
  • TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
  • OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Edit request

[edit]

Hello Brianboulton,

I wrote Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly, an advanced draft, but as English isn't my first language I am unable treview/volunteers#History]] and think that it would be great when you could do some part of the work. --Keysanger (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, it's years since I left that message, and I can't remember the last time someone used it to contact me for a copyedit! I'll be happy to do it, but youe may have to wait for a while, as I am very busy at the moment with other commitments. Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate notice

[edit]

(deleted)

What some people think reading an article should feel like to the reader
  • Well, remember in that MOS quote-box discussion, you and I and others were talking, and someone said something and you said something and I said I thought that the something you said was really good and so someone else said something else and you said something more and so I said something else and then I inserted the image at right. Well, he's up in arms about that image -- says I'm "smearing" everyone. Apparently there's lots more emotion involved in this issue than I realized. EEng 23:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on receiving the MoS Thought Police badge of disapproval. You have had an unthought on matters that can only be considered by The Party. (I received one of these joke-shop notices for commenting on a talk page that there wasn't a major problem in using a quote box: I deleted and ignored and Wikiworld hasn't crumbled around us, despite the vein-popping rants and handwaving.) – Gavin (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Thought Police... User:EEng#For_want_of_a_comma.2C_the_clause_was_lost.... To his credit, elsewhere SM has indicated he realizes he may have gone a teensy bit overboard. EEng 14:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for all the recent trouble. You can safely ignore the boilerplate, Brian. The best I can tell, a feud started between one or more FAC people and one or more MOS people at some point, and innocent parties are getting caught in the crossfire. I can't help with sorting it out, because what's really needed is a good closer for some of the thornier MOS issues that are implicated, so I have to stay strictly neutral. FWIW, I think the best thing to do about Thorpe affair is just what you're doing ... leave it alone for now, and after tempers have cooled and we've sorted out the quoteboxes, if you're not happy with the results at Thorpe, I think we might want to look at trying some kind of neutral ground for a discussion, with adults present ... FAR would be one suitable forum, because we can rely on the coords to set a suitable tone and do the heavy lifting. But there are other forums that might work. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amid much other silliness and kerfuffle...

[edit]

...the good lady Josephine Butler is now at FLC if you are able to raise enough enthusiasm to look again, I'd be most grateful. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at WT:FAC

[edit]

I just posted a short note agreeing with your most recent comment at WT:FAC, but I wanted to add a note here thanking you for continuing to clearly articulate the issues. I'm also glad to see that you're not considering retirement over this (and of course I'm sorry to learn of the impending retirements of others). I am not particularly hopeful that Arbcom will be able to resolve this, but all we can do is make the case as well as possible, and you're doing that. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. I'm not considering walking away, but I am concerned that I haven't done any serious content building for months, and my reviewing and copyediting work has suffered too, mainly because of these distractions. On the brighter side, we have at least established a platform for the mentoring scheme, and editors are still signing up as potential mentors. It will be a while, though, before we know if new editors are taking it up. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Random thought...

[edit]

I'm very busy this weekend - but I just had a thought related to infoboxes and quote boxes. When folks object to quote boxes because they highlight selected text and push the text into higher prominence ... isn't that exactly what an infobox does also - highlight some facts over others and push them into prominence? If people object to colored quote boxes on NPOV grounds, that should also mean they object to infoboxes because of NPOV grounds... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another random thought about infoboxes. I can't see any way to actually make this happen, but...if everyone agreed on the set of factors (both pro and con) that should be taken into account when deciding whether to include an infobox, and if there were a small group of editors that everyone trusted to fairly apply those factors in disputed cases, with no appeal from that decision, then there would be a way to end the discussions. Unfortunately I can't think of any way to staff such a group with editors everyone would trust. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To Ealdgyth: there is logic in what you say. But the over-insistent infobox pushers are generally a different bunch from the over-active MoS pushers; some of the latter are infobox-sceptics, while many of the former have no quarrel with quote boxes,
To Mike: Indeed, where is Mother Teresa wnen you need her (and I don't mean Mrs May) Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic co-ordinates and Wikidata

[edit]

Briefly (because I have been just now reading some of the related disputes, but not really having time or inclination to get involved), I noticed a link to and re-read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Dispatches. I must have read it at the time, but it was good reading it again. I do disagree on the geographic co-ordinates point though. Where something is precisely located is, in some sense, vital information (but there still no real standards on how to accurately source that information, which does say something). Maybe it is more vital information in a data-driven view of Wikipedia, but it is a good example of data that would be considered essential if collating a database of key information. Which goes back to my point that Wikidata will have an increasing impact. What do you think, for example, of List of women linguists? It depresses me quite a bit that this is an 'article' aggregated using data pulled over from Wikidata and what readers see is:

"This list is generated from data in Wikidata and is periodically updated by a bot. Edits made within the list area will be removed on the next update!"

It gives a poor impression to readers - that the content is being bot-generated and has no human input. I could support that on human name disambiguation pages, which would side-step edits like this. In fact, I am going to ask someone now if that can be done using Wikidata. It would be more useful that generating dodgy lists of women linguists. Carcharoth (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The observations in my 2013 Signpost about co-ordinates were not intended as the meat of that contribution, merely as examples of data which I thought were not key details in every case. I still think that, but others disagree. I share your concern that entire articles (or lists, anyway) are being generated by bots, and will be interested to hear the results of your enquiries. Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The final hurdle

[edit]

Morning Brian, Thanks so much for your help on the Butler article - it's looking in good shape now. Once you've finished with your duties on that one, can I ask yet another favour - and this will be for the final time. As a farewell to the project, Chris and I have been working on the Burke and Hare murders, just to ensure we go out with something from the sensationalist end of the gutter. If you have time, energy and inclination, any thoughts you may care to share at the PR would be most welcome. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Just as a note, there's an ongoing discussion about citation formatting. I can't see it leading to any horrific edit wars, but it may put a question mark over it appearing on the MP. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it and pull if necessary, but it's such a fine and unusual article for TFA that I'll be very reluctant to do so. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks- and thanks for your kind words. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2016

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Horatio Bottomley

[edit]

Do you have a preference on the capitalization of "parliament" in various phrases? My understanding is that lowercase and uppercase are both common, depending on the phrase. Someone uppercased it in the TFA; I checked the article and saw that it was usually uppercased, so I uppercased two other instances. But now I see some of the uppercasing in the article was quite recent. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have expllained in a talkpage note the particular circiumstances in which "parliament" should be capitalised. Otherwise it should not be, and I have reverted the most recent edit. Can you deal with the blurb, and also check that our usage is consistent through the article? I am away for several days and will be out of touch online. Brianboulton (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burke & Hare

[edit]

Hi Brian, Many thanks for your comments at the Burke and Hare murders article's PR. This has now progressed to FAC for further consideration. Should you wish to make any further comments, it will be most welcome. Thanks also for your very warm closing comments: they are much appreciated. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Work

[edit]
The Writer's and reviewer's Barnstar
For years of high quality article output and leading by example. And for you sense of integrity and for keeping the show on the road; a small illuminated token of appreciation. In this instance for your highly detailed and engaged critique at the Vincent van Gogh FAC. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this splendid illuminated book: I only wish I could open it! Reviewing great articles is always a pleasure. Brianboulton (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember

[edit]

Hi Brianboulton,

It is only to remember that you wanted to do a copy edit in Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly. --Keysanger (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion re huge quotes

[edit]

Hey. I assume you feel the same way I do about really huge block quotes: at the very least they are an unnecessary eyesore, and in almost every case they are in fact a symptom of simple laziness (to put it bluntly). But is it possible (I am honestly asking) that there might be an exceptional exception to every rule? If you look at the very top of User:Lingzhi/misc there is a painfully humongous quote, but there are just so many things going on at the same time, each of which is serious in its own right, that I almost thing putting them all in once block of text really conveys the true nature of the situation. Your opinion solicited. Tks in advance.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Sometimes, a huge block quote genuinely does provide a better service to readers than any of the alternatives. Take for instance the 570-word Fanny Kemble quote here. Although it looks at first glance like a waste of space, it's actually more efficient in terms of space at simultaneously illustrating to the reader (a) that the concept of "engine" was so alien to even a well-educated member of the public that she literally didn't have the vocabulary to describe it, (b) what a first-generation locomotive actually looked like and how it operated, (c) that anti-Northern prejudice was already commonplace among the ruling classes, and (d) that contrary to modern conceptions of a woman's place in Regency England, the engineers were happy for a woman to take part in the testing of a sensitive and potentially dangerous piece of highly expensive equipment. All of this would need to be included anyway, and Kemble's explanation is more interesting to the reader than it would be if I translated it into the usual Wikipedia dry technical waffle, and there's no point writing a 10,000-word article if it's too boring for the reader ever to reach the end. (For some years I've meant to do something about Fanny Kemble—hers is one of the most extraordinary biographies ever, and we really don't do it justice.) ‑ Iridescent 08:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What a beautiful example of the (very rare) case in which a very extended quote is appropriate (though not an example of a good use of a boxed quote). I love the way it operates on all the different levels you mention. EEng 08:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, that same page has some way further down what I'd consider a canonical example (if I do say so myself) of the correct use of an extended boxed quote, too, in that it's a piece of text whose inclusion greatly assists the readers' understanding of the topic but whose inclusion in the body text would be inappropriate. Sure, I could just say something dry like "the funeral drew an exceptionally large crowd, who were unusually respectful by the standards of the time", but including the contemporary quote makes it clear that even at the time observers felt there was something special going on here. (We the readers know that Huskisson's death triggered a series of legal and social changes which led to the industrial revolution and to democratic government in Britain—or at least, we will know once we get a couple of paragraphs further down—but nobody present at the time knew that. The contemporary quote from The Times—an organ not exactly known for its love of uppity northern radicals—makes it clear that even at the time observers understood that they were present at something extraordinary, and it isn't just hindsight at play.) ‑ Iridescent 08:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another good example, though to be honest I wonder if much of the Honeysuckle ;) material shouldn't be peeled off to his article. There is a kind of novelistic quality to alternating between his sickbed/deathbed and various things going on back on the line. EEng 07:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That article is effectively three different articles (one on the opening ceremony, one on Huskisson's death, and one on the Manchester riot), which are so intertwined that it's not really appropriate to separate them; the accidents and riots would obviously not have happened without the railway, but the notability of the opening ceremony in large part derives from the accidents and riots. Steam engines had been in commercial use since 1712, and steam locomotives since 1804; the reason histories and museums conventionally take 15 September 1830 as day one of the Industrial Revolution is that the string of accidents led to the events being publicised to the general public rather than a few specialists working in mining, weaving and water pumping (at the time the only commercial uses of steam technology), and the rest of the world suddenly realised the implications of a technology which could transport unlimited quantities of people and freight over unlimited distances. In the same way, that big bio of Huskisson at the start looks superfluous at first glance, but the background is necessary to explain both why he was so desperate to speak to Wellington that he'd run in front of a moving train to do it, and why he was so highly regarded in Liverpool and Manchester (two cities which have never been renowned for their fondness for either southerners or Tories).
The flipping back and forth between Eccles and Manchester is necessary, as so much of the story depends on precise timings and on the lack of communication between the three sites. Remember, the telegraph hadn't been invented at this point, so there was no way to keep the crowds in Liverpool and Manchester updated as to what was going on and warn them of the delays; likewise, what in retrospect was the single most influential legal ruling in England since 1607 was made by a jury composed of rounding up a dozen locals in an Eccles pub as there was no means of passing the buck to London or Lancaster. FWIW, I see nothing at all wrong with "a novelistic quality", if it makes the article more interesting to readers and doesn't detract from its accuracy. I've never been a subscriber to the view that if something was tedious and time-consuming to write, it should be tedious and time-consuming to read; remember, for an article like this a significant proportion of readers will be children as the opening of the L&M is on the GCSE history curriculum. (You can take a mini-mock GCSE here if you want to play "are you smarter than a 15-year-old?".) ‑ Iridescent 08:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, interesting. I'll admit to not having read much of it beyond Mr. Honeysuckle -- busy day. I applaud your willingness to think through a strategy for best presenting the subject. I fear, though, that in wanting to do so you and I are up against a great majority of editors who think that the duller and deadlier an article reads, the better an article it is. EEng 09:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi: A lot of interesting stuff's been added here during my indisposition, but I'll deal with your initial inquiry. My basic view on quotes and/or quote boxes is that we need MoS regulations that are essentially flexible, to allow for the very wide range of circumstances that arise in articles across the encyclopaedia. I think that a verbatim quotation of 230+ words is on the long side and would only be acceptable in fairly rare circumstances. You say "there are just so many things going on at the same time, each of which is serious in its own right, that I almost thing putting them all in once block of text really conveys the true nature of the situation". OK, but shouldn't that "all in once block of text" to be written by you in a carefully moderated account, rather than displayed in the words of one source (is this source out of copyright – that could be another issue?). Iridescent here argues forcefully for a much longer quote in the Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway article, but I would reiterate the view that such exceptions should be very rare. Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Brian, Jarrow March was just scheduled for the anniversary. I'll get to work on the TFA text tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for reminding me; I meant to nominate this myself! Well done, Chris, I'd have hated to have missed this important anniversary. I'll work on the blurb myself today, and you, Dan, can tidy it up tomorrow if you will. Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPP & AfC

[edit]

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrow TFA

[edit]

Thank you for the Jarrow March, a "nothing revolutionary" but a "polite, constitutional action"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darlwyne

[edit]

Nice start, but referencing needs improvement. The addition of {{infobox ship begin}} and {{1966 shipwrecks}} would probably benefit the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can safely assume that matters such as references, images and other issues will receive proper attention. That is what is implied by the underconstruction banner. There is obviously much work yet to do, and I'm doing it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loss of MV Darlwyne, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Penryn and Mylor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baton

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

[edit]

Hello, I'm ATS. Ike Altgens is a Featured article candidate. I hope you have a few moments to check this article against the criteria so I may address any concerns and see this nomination through. My thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

[edit]

Thank you for S. O. Davies and your summary in the FAC, - yours are the best! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely to see the article at TFA and knowing that the Dragon contest motivated it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see S. O. Davies as TFA, an excellent piece of work and well-deserved placement on the main page today on the 50th anniversary of Aberfan. I have to say I originally thought the opening line on the lead : "aged at least 85 and possibly 90 or more" looked like main page vandalism at first glance, until I read it in more depth! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another barnstar!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
You deserve another barnstar, this time for your work on S. O. Davies. You're a great asset to Wikipedia, Brian! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dank/TFA

[edit]

Brian, I'm working from that table, I'm assuming that's the right one but let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's the right table, and is used to provide target totals for each category until the end of this year, when the targets will need recalculated for 2017. That's a bit complicated, and will need to be discussed later. Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to run one of your FAs at TFA this month, but I don't want to burden you with any work. Is Bessie Braddock likely to be smooth sailing? Is there a better choice? (Btw, if you're wondering why I'm not updating FADC etc., Bench offered to do some of the paperwork, I'm waiting to see what he means to do.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A better choice would be The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold as History/Politics has been somewhat over-represented recently. Brianboulton (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's a fun one, a semi-autobiography of Waugh. I'll stick it in the next slot that I can't find a date connection for. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

  • New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
  • New Library Card Platform and Conference news
  • Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter



19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Retirement

[edit]

I am Brian Boulton's daughter. I am sorry to say that Brian will not be contributing to the project further because of health issues. He would like to thank all the people who have worked with him over the past 10 years, with especial thanks to: Dank Crisco 1492 Wehwalt Tim Riley Gavin Cassianto Ealdgyth and Ian Rose. If I have not mentioned you by name, please accept Brian's thanks just the same.

Maria Fox

I have taken the liberty of fixing the links to the editors Brian wishes to thank. Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold

[edit]

Thank you, Brian, for The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold which you introduced: "This article is about a short novel by Evelyn Waugh, in which the author relives a real-life episode of temporary madness through his fictional counterpart, Gilbert Pinfold. Waugh chose to frame his experiences in the form of a black comedy. The book was greatly admired by his friends for its unshrinking honesty, but the critics and the public were less entranced. It is indeed a slightly odd work, but the quality of the prose surely redeems its faults. Read it (the book) when you can." On St. Cecily's day and Benjamin Britten's birthday, greatly admired, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a suggestion from the list on top: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev) for TFA

[edit]
Wikipedia:Main Page history/2016 December 21 looks splendid, thank you, Brian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

[edit]

This is Brian. I have been touched and greatly encouraged by the warmth and generosity of the comments posted on this page since my sudden and enforced withdrawal a month ago, and would like to record my deep appreciation to everyone. My daughter Maria read them to me, and I felt proud to have worked with a community of such colleagues. Although there will be no early return to general editing, it is possible that later in the new year I may be able to start contributing the odd review again. I will continue to watch this page. I think the Lieutenant is a great TFA choice for 21 December, but I'll leave the blurb as it stands. With warmest regards to all. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{talkarchive))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_104&oldid=1146578219"