Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Armenian stamp of Nansen

As per your request for references to stamp in honour of Nansen: The best source for stamp issued in 1996 is HayPost, the official website of the Armenian Post entity (Hay means Armenian in Armenian language): http://www.haypost.am/view-lang-eng-page-198.html which says "150th anniversary of the birth of Fridtjof Nansen -1 stamp ) ... Other sources -- See: http://www.armenianstamps.com/index.php?cPath=33 (refer to #095) Another source (a blog, I don't know how reliable or acceptable this is: "...and in 1996, Armenia put Nansen's picture on a stamp". Reference http://hyelog.blogspot.com/2005/11/fridtjof-nansen-son-of-norway.html werldwayd (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Rosendale Theatre PR

Main page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Rosendale Theatre/archive1

Thank you for your comments so far, if you don't have the time to complete a review of the entire article, that's fine (I've been swamped offline as well). --Gyrobo (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to look at it again a little later, if you ping me. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Peer review of Gita Gutawa

Hi Brian, thanks a lot for the very thorough review. I've addressed your comments at the peer review and would like a bit of feedback (nothing too in-depth if you feel it is unnecessary) regarding the fixes, if possible. I also took the liberty of splitting the lead paragraph. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Terra Nova Expedition

Hi, again. Could I get your help on some more citation details? In Terra Nova Expedition, eleven of the footnotes to Huxley's SLE are missing the volume number and this is needed to make them associate with the full citation in the sources section. Also, footnotes #6 & #8 are not specific to Leonard or Elspeth Huxley. If you could add these details, I can finish this up. Really nice articles you've written; I'm familiar with the overall history, but you've distilled it down to nice pieces. One Ton Depot (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Next major project

Having mostly recovered from Nixon, I've been considering the next major project. After having bashed Theodore Roosevelt all over the coin articles (with more to come in Indian Head gold pieces, presently at PR), it looks like that's what will be next. As with Nixon, I will gear up slowly by doing subsidiary articles, I've been doing a little poking at Citizenship in a Republic and have a book on his tenure as New York police commissioner. I also have Morris's biography of him and will slowly start accumulating sources as I box the Nixon books and store them in the attic.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt looks a challenge. For some reason he always seems to be depicted in films as a bit of a buffoon which I'm sure he wasn't. Oddly enough I remember in the mid-1970s seeing his daughter Alice interviewed on TV. She must have been around 90 but was still pretty sharp. I will get to the coin PR if/when I can, but as you may have seen PR is still pretty gridlocked at present. I will have a PR request of my own coming up soon, too. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Alice would be a fun article to do! Maybe I will make it one of the articles I attempt to learn about him and the era before working the main article, you know the system. I remember her too. I will keep an eye open for your PR. Everything seems gridlocked right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I kinda like Teddy but am glad he is not President now, he would have bombed Iran at 9:00 last night.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
"Walk softly and carry a big stick" - was that him? Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I've always heard it as Speak softly and carry a big stick, (wow, can't believe we have an article on that!) but maybe that's just me. A couple of years ago I read a great (though rather dense) biography on Edith Roosevelt - interesting woman. Dana boomer (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
You are right, I've just checked it out. But I was on the right lines. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 1957

Hi, you were one of the FA reviewers. Could you take a look at this discussion and consder weighing in? All substantive FA reviewers are being asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Fossil beds

Thanks. I appreciate your continued support. I, too, was surprised and more than a little discouraged. I kept hoping the opposer would suggest a specific remedy, but his objection seemed to be that more research might produce better results. (This might be true.) Since hundreds of technical articles have been published on the fossil beds, the thought of combing them for tidbits to please a single opposer was simply too daunting. Like Bartleby, the Scrivener, I prefer not to. Others might, though, and I'll cheer them on if they do. Finetooth (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Otis Redding

hello,

I saw you on PR/FAC very often. I hope you can copyedit the article Otis Redding, as its GAN is on hold. You can also leave comments on the talk page if you like. Nikkimaria did the copyedit, but it was not enough. Thanks.--♫GoP♫TCN 21:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. If you're hoping for some quick action I'm afraid I can't help - I'm overloaded with prior obligations and have my own article coming up for peer review. If you're not in a hurry and can wait awhile, I'll try and look at it towards the end of the month. But send me a reminder. Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I am afraid the end of the month is too late, but it would be useful if it passes the GAN. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 21:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Amundsen

Where are we with this article? I'm at the point where I need to go back over my sections and copyedit, so not too far away from PR. Were you going to write an Aftermath section? Does anything else need adding? Apterygial (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been rather tied up elsewhere in the past fortnight. On Amundsen, I've just copyedited and trimmed the Framheim and Depot journey sections, to keep as much space as possible for the Polar journey section. I don't think anything significant needs adding; there may be room for further slimming (there usually is in my articles). If you've done with the main journey, I'll get busy with the Aftermath. The "Comparison" section will disappear; that topic has its own article and doesn't need to reprise here. When I've done that I'll try and lose a few more hundred words from Preparations, which still looks overlong to me. I'll have more time to work on this article now that Georges Bizet is safely at peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Bueno; I noticed you'd down some cutting and editing on those sections. Thanks. I left a question on dates at your sandbox a couple of weeks ago; not sure if you saw it. Apterygial (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Quarter asked

I believe the comma concern is addressed and I explained a bit more on the heraldry (east) thing. Come and admire the nice new images.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have admired, and I registered my support 24 hours ago. I even repositioned one of the images! Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Quarter given. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Georges Bizet PR

With pleasure. The images alone are a great attraction. Finetooth (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I will take a full look later this week, Brian. Off-hand on first look, however, that Carmen audio file is problematic; {{PD-1923}} does not apply to audio recordings and http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm makes it clear that pre-1973 published (anywhere) recordings are not in the US public domain. Jappalang (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Amundsen's South Pole expedition

Hi. I've replied on my talk. I won't be editing until rather later, so I'll check for a reply and review things before doing anything else. Is there really enough time to get this through the Feature Article Bureaucracy and into the Main Page Queue in less than 2 months? One Ton Depot (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've looked things over and tried few things, and believe I've addressed your concerns. First off, here I tweaked your new link to use the loc parameter such that the link connects to the source (see the last part of the diff). The next few edits are tests that didn't work (didn't expect them to work, either). Here, I moved the notes back into the prose using {{#tag:ref}}, which is a pure hack to work around MediaWiki being unable to parse nested ref-tags. They really should fix such problems. The whole practice of placing citations inline in prose is due to some earlier version of the site software not being able to parse references anywhere else in the text, not because a two-hundred character citation template embedded in prose is actually a good thing. This seems to have led to the terse plain-text ref usage. The sfn approach is nearly as clean as the plain text form, but with many useful advantages. They establish a direct link to the full citation and enable tools that check that all is in order. You know about: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors? Useful. I've been using template:sfnRef on most of these to keep things succinct; the parameter used there becomes the footnote's link-text, which can usually just be the author's surname. fyi, you know who created template:sfn? Charlie Gillingham.[1]
I've also switched back to "group=n". The letters seem much better, to me, but it works either way. See: Help:Cite link labels and WP:CITELABEL.
I don't want to be distracting you from getting this article ready for the main page. That's a centennial and should not be missed. I don't have any of the books on this subject, these days, although I read several quite a few years ago. If you've concerns about any of the mechanics I changed, just let me know and I'll do what I can. I read the FA-criteria and it's all about being "the best" — and robust referencing would be part of that.
I've a couple of things I would like you to look at. The article refers to "Huntford, 1997" but doesn't define the source. I added a stub in the sources, but expect it may be a typo for 1979... Or it's another printing. Also, in ... Oh, I just now see that you did combine {{sfn|Huntford|1979|pp=430–37}}. I was also wondering about the nbsp on latitudes and longitudes; I added some when I added prime characters and I saw you remove at least one. I thought they were called for, but that may only be when there are degrees and minutes...
Enough. Have a cookie. Best wishes, One Ton Depot (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I've sorted out the Huntford problems. "1997" should be the "2001" edition. Also The Last Place on Earth was duplicated in the sources because an older version of the article used a different edition - a lot of the refs towards the end of the article will need when I get down that far. I will look again at te nsbps in lats/longs; I've never used them before but maybe the presentation is better with them. Lots of housekeeping will be done when the text is more or less complete - that's our priority at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just looked. I removed a link to the Huntford1999 edition you cut. I'd just linked it because it was there, 'asking'.
WP:MOSNUM#Unit symbols and WP:NBSP show coords with no space between value and symbol and a nbsp between degrees, minutes and seconds. The example on one of those pages I looked at clearly had nbsp in there. Anyway, I'll hew to what you prefer over the boilerplate.
I saw you have Georges Bizet at peer review and made some, hopefully, helpful edits. Nothing too radical; see the edit summaries. Oh, the part about Huntford being republished in '99 as TLPoE after the TV production, would be in the US? It's given as published in UK in '85 in the sources.
I'll mostly stay off this except to fix problems while you work of the final draft. Best wishes, One Ton Depot (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll fix-up and explain a few techniques with the refs when you next pause. One Ton Depot (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be better if you wait until I have finished reviewing the prose, which is too long at the moment. I aim to cut around 500 words of text; that means that some references may disappear. I will drop you a note when I have completed my task, tomorrow or the next day; it's a waste of time your doing anything before then. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I did make a few minor fixes, but will leave it to you for now. Enjoy, it's a great story. One Ton Depot (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Ernest Shackleton

Got an opinion on Shackleton's 'nationality' vs 'ethnicity'?

The BBC link specifically says "Anglo-Irish", as does the lede. This fellow has changed this before, too. We could ask Oliver... Best, One Ton Depot (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically he is right; when Shackleton was born he was a British subject, since Ireland was not then independent from the British crown. But you may just as well say that George Washington was British, since he too was born a subject of the British crown. Anglo-Irish is a convenient and much-used term that resolves this notional dilemma, and people generally understand what it means. This editor seems to think, for some reason, that it's a good idea to confuse people by having a different description in the infobox from that in the lead. I haven't time to get into this argument, but there is a case under this provision for restoring the description in the infobox, at least until this specific point has been properly argued out (again) on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I think sometimes we have to use common sense. The first nine Canadian prime ministers spent their entire lives as British subjects. We do not, however, designate them as such.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Jonchapple offers that I added it (here), but he had removed it before. And I found that an anon had added it... and didn't look back further. The anon also was at Tom Crean, as was Jonchapple (and note 1938...). So, what stays? Whatever the most persistent editor wants? Common sense isn't, as they say, all that common. What would these two men call themselves? One Ton Depot (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not the same as I would call them, no doubt. The right course, I believe, is to change the infobox to conform with the lead, on the basis of FA stewardship; I doubt that article would have passed FA with such a conflict of information. Then open a new thread on the talkpage and politely ask the editors concerned to make a case, rather than indulge in repeated edit warring. See how they respond. Brianboulton (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've looked a bit further, and agree. I'll be reverting it soon and will start a few discussions. I hope you and Wehwalt will opine. Thanks for the advice. One Ton Depot (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. Discussions at article talk and WP:AE. One Ton Depot (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear here – I wasn't that IP at Tom Crean, as you appear to be insinuating, OTD. I don't ever edit without logging in. JonCTalk 11:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
JonC: Don't mess with the chronological sequence of posts. I wasn't saying you were the IP, I linked to your post where you were going after the IP's editing.
Brian: JonC has promise to not edit Shackleton again, and has been topic banned from Troublesome stuff for 3 months. I quoted you at the AE page, but it was removed because it was closed while I was writing my post. One Ton Depot (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I hope that will be an end of the matter...at least until the next time. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this place always so argumentative? Because I sense that you're well-aware that there will be a next time; here, "there", everywhere... Wikipedia has a reputation as an argument nexus. One Ton Depot (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I find petty grand disputes to be one of the less attractive aspects of Wikipedia. I can see I'm going to have to find myself some goggles and other protective gear— maybe blinkers would help?--MistyMorn (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Helpful comments on article under review
Many thanks for your helpful comments on the article I nominated for FA review. Marj (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments regarding List of monarchs of East Anglia, which I will work on. Hel-hama (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Selena

Thanks for closing the PR and the notification. Do you think this should be sent to FAR? Or at least discussed on the FAC talk page? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is the scale of the recent edits. An enormous amount of information has been added; at the last FAR (13 October 2010), when the vote was "keep", the wordcount was 2236. It is now 8637. A fairly swift skim of the prose indicates a generally non-encyclopedic tone and massive overdetailing. There is a great deal of discussion on the talkpage, which I don't have the time or the inclination to plough through. The correct procedure is surely to refer the article back to FAR. The choices there would be to revert the article back to its pre-expansion form, and keep, or to demote the article. If the latter, the whole cycle will start again...with a peer review! Depressingly, I don't see other choices. I shall not be reviewing the article myself. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I will nominate it at FAR in several hours - don't have time to right now. I had not looked as closely at the whole thing as you have, but it is depressing. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#Double_checking_before_nominating, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Entombment (Bouts)

Hi Brian, and thanks again for another careful and thoughtful review. I realise I was slow in responding, but you gave me a lot to work on and I think the page is now closer to as it should be. I really appreciate your input, and best. Ceoil (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

December 14

I saw date is 15th. I gather there's some dispute or doubt? The 14th is given at December 14, South Pole and even in File:Southpoleaccount01amunuoft 0044.jpg. I changed Roald Amundsen per your edit, and don't want to roil things without more clarity. One Ton Depot (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I may have been a bit hasty, plumping for 15th. That's the date given in Huntford, Langner, Max Jones and other sources. But Preston, Fiennes, Encyclopedia Britannica and others say 14th (as did I, when I compiled Farthest South!) And that is the date that Amundsen himself gave, in his "first account" which he telegraphed from Hobart. The reason for the discrepancy is the International Date Line; the date is either 14th or 15th, depending which side of the line you are on, and of course the eastern and western hemispheres are conjoined at the pole. I think that this needs to be mentioned in the article, and I will write an appropriate footnote. As to the date that we record, and claim as the centenary date, perhaps we should stick with Amundsen's reckoning and make it 14th. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. It does need an explanation, which could be propagated to other articles. The dateline aspect is cool, and could be part of a main page blurb. I'll have to look at a map. I suppose the correct date would that of the direction he approached from, which may have been his thinking. One Ton Depot (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Fram approached Antarctica by the easterly route: south Atlantic, southern Indian Ocean, south of Australia. Just before landing at the Bay of Whales she crossed the IDL and "lost" a day, hence the discrepancy. Huntford (1985) p. 511 has a note to this effect. I have checked a number of related websites, and it seems that, officially, 14th is being treated as the centenary day. I will deal with the appropriate adjustment and footnote on the Amundsen expedition article a little later. As you say, the same note could be usefully added to other articles, e.g. Farthest South. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Bizet

"Seemingly" effortless! ("seems, madam, I know not seems") but of course not so. Your skill is in making it read as though it were.

BTW, the authorised limerick reads as follows:

There was a young lady of Perth
Who was often prostrated by mirth
And by various barmen,
An opera called Les pêcheurs de perles,
And now I come to think about it, is my rhyme and metre dictionary of very much worth?

Tim riley (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Great! Nash would be proud. How about this:-
There was a seductress called Carmen
Who used to make love to young barmen.
At eighty, she swore
To pursue them no more –
and a thousand young barmen cried "Amen!"
– at least, that's how I think it went, though I'm not too sure about "make love". Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Well, consider it oak leaves on the many barnstars you've gotten. Bizet is a masterpiece. Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this treasure; It certainly brightens the page. Brianboulton (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just like you've brightened up the Bizet article with another star! Congrats!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
My congrats as well. I'm awed by your consistent production of articles of the highest quality. Finetooth (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. Good news - I wasn't expecting anything quite so soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

South Pole centenary

I would be delighted to review it and have already started reading it and fixing typos. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

East Anglia

I've done some work on List of monarchs of East Anglia and made the improvements you suggested. Could you look again? Hel-hama (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied on the review page. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful comments - I think it's worth trying to make it a Featured List. Hel-hama 13:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For Messiah fans

I am going to a brass band performance in Peterborough Cathedral next week. Details here. Should be fun (Gerda please note). Brianboulton (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Brass band playing Messiah? Wow. Your ancestor liked Messiah too, I remember putting that in.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks interesting! But I will sing Brahms at the same time here, Requiem, organ version, with the cathedral's organist. I wrote the program notes for our concert of Messiah (link under the poster, but in German of course, with some familiar pics), and received nice praise: A lady who loved Messiah and sang it many times, said that she finally understood it, - thanks to you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_46&oldid=1140730609"