Jump to content

User talk:Tim riley/Archive-2015

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

January 2015

[edit]

Re: Seeking enlightenment

[edit]

The {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} templates apply the same formatting as {{reflist}} to other bibliographies or reference lists, one 'opening' and one 'closing'. The Benjamin Disraeli article was already using both, but with refend placed before refbegin, meaning that refbegin was unclosed and therefore applying the reference-style formatting to the rest of the article (including the succession and navigation boxes). The use of these templates is optional and I just placed the corresponding opening and closing template to those already in use. Their use in this article seemed appropriate given the length of the lists (and their use seemed to be the previous intention), hence why I added the 'missing' templates rather that deleting the existing ones. I hope this helps, mattbr 09:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this. It's only taken me nine years editing Wikipedia to learn it! I shall make sure henceforth to use the templates where appropriate. Tim riley talk 09:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kenneth MacMillan

[edit]

The article Kenneth MacMillan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kenneth MacMillan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

[edit]

GA review

[edit]

Yes! I have "We'll Never Have to Say Goodbye Again" open if you would like to review it. Thank you. Seattle (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I shall most certainly do so. I have promised to look in at the FAC of Shah Rukh Khan, but will put the album next on my to-do list. Tim riley talk 09:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a cheque...

[edit]
The Running Man Barnstar
Thank you for all you have done to help me with the Boat Race articles. Tonight we hit a landmark, over 50% of the race articles are now Good or Featured Articles, which is a monumental achievement considering that none of the articles even existed eight months ago. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you so much. It is indeed a landmark, and it's really all down to one editor. Wikipedia has cause to be grateful to you. Tim riley talk 10:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support collaboration where I find it! - Better sources (than Allmusic) are wanted for my Christmas gift, St. Cecilia Mass, - all help welcome. I couldn't believe there was no article. - Tim, we will sing the Fauré Requiem later this year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Cooper peer review

[edit]

Hello, Tim. I hope your holidays were pleasant. Today I created a peer review request for the Gary Cooper article that was promoted to GA last month. I spent the past two weeks making additional edits related to GA comments and suggestions. If you have the time, please review the article and leave any feedback at the peer review page in preparation for FAC nomination. Also, can you recommend any other experienced editors who might be interested in participating in this peer review? Regards, Bede735 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I shall certainly look in, and have done a little (legitimate) drumming up of trade here. Tim riley talk 14:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 'In the event'

[edit]

To my embarrassment, English is my first language and I have never encountered that phrase before, at least not knowingly. Is it more commonly known in the UK than the US, perhaps? At any rate, I still dislike it and hold that the English Wikipedia is not the best place for it, as I think it would more often than not confuse people for whom English is not their first language. I won't press the matter further though, since it has no real bearing on the article, and I don't know if anyone else has expressed confusion over it. Thanks for enlightening me! Cyrenaic (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project MUSE

[edit]

Hello! I apologize for contacting you out of the blue with a request, but Ms. Gerda Arendt directed me here in response to a question I asked regarding a journal hosted online by 'Project MUSE.' Do you happen to know any editors here who might be members? Specifically, I'm looking for the information in this journal. As far as I can tell, it is only viewable to members of certain institutions. Thank you in advance for your time, and I hope the new year has found you well.-RHM22 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed. We're all here to help each other. I think I can view Project Muse material online at the British Library (which is very near my flat) but one isn't allowed to download copies. That is, I can look things up for you, but not send you pdfs of full articles. I suspect this isn't much use to you. But some wise and wily editors are kind enough to watch this talk page, and perhaps one of them may have a more constructive suggestion. Tim riley talk 19:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply! It is a tricky situation for sure. Hopefully someone will know how to access the website, but if not, maybe I can find an alternative method of accessing that journal.-RHM22 (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RHM22, you want that particular article, or just info on the journal? If the former, you can send me an email, I should be able to get a PDF. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: I was looking for that particular article, but Wehwalt was able to access MUSE and send me a PDF. Thank you for your consideration, though!-RHM22 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slyboots, Wehwalt! Bless you! Tim riley talk 18:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you also from me, Tim. DYK ... that Camille Saint-Saëns commented after the premiere of the St. Cecilia Mass' by Charles Gounod that "at first one was dazzled, then charmed, then conquered"? ... that its Sanctus was first performed in England on a 13 January, and the whole thing only four years later? ... that Wikipedia had no article until recently? (couldn't believe that, - help welcome) ... (on a private note) that we will sing Faure's Requiem on November? (The Gounod was Christmas: the angel making a soft announcement over the humming chorus ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

[edit]
[edit]

Hi Tim. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the text down to a little over 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. A top notch job of compression, thank you, Dank. Tim riley talk 19:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: December 2014

[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.

[edit]

This is to inform you that Ralph Richardson , which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 28 January 2015. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see Dank has already informed you. BB

Safari

[edit]

Hi Tim. Have you ever tried the safari browser and the reader function?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Doctor, I am a dunce at computer technology. Is Safari a web browser like Firefox and Chrome? What are its attractions? Tim riley talk 12:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a web browser. Not quite as ideal as firefox for editing, but for general reading it's excellent. The reader function, makes it look like an actual book encyclopedia when you click "reader" at the top of a page. I love it for reading, I thought of you for some reason and wondered what you'd think of it. All you have to do I think is click download here and you'll spot the icon on your desktop or start menu. Give it a try anyway, it should look like this (not blurry though!).♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any luck with safari?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it certainly doesn't play the odd tricks that Firefox has started playing on me when editing WP, and I have always hated Internet Exploder (sic), so after a decent trial I may find myself gravitating to it. It doesn't like the laptop I'm using as I type this (a venerable machine) but there are five other computers across the three Riley residences. It was so kind of you to mention it to me - thank you, dear Doctor. Tim riley talk 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's better for reading wikipedia rather than editing wikipedia. I use firefox as I find explorer, chrome and safari annoying when you cut and paste things. If I'm logging out though and browsing I often use the reader function on safari. I think there really ought to be that option built in on here. It is an encyclopædia after all, anything which makes it feel more that way the better. I've long wanted an old medieval parchment paper you'd expect from an encyclopædia from the middle ages as a background graphic option in preferences, I guess I'm rather like you in that I like to be as traditional as possible in my approach to the project. Even now I prefer to look at an old book encyclopedia than a web page!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if you call for a song of the sea...

[edit]

...we'll pass the Capstans round. I'm off on my travels tomorrow, but I've managed to get my story of nautical shenanagins, aka Girl Pat (1935 trawler) to peer review. I'd be most happy if you (and any other willing and faithful soul} would look at it and comment while I'm away. Obviously I won't be able to respond immediately, but it will give me something to look forward to when I get back on 26th. I hope all is well with you. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be my privilege and pleasure. Bon voyage, dear Brian! Tim riley talk 21:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

[edit]

Erasmus Prize

[edit]

Congratulations on our Erasmus Prize! [1] -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About time we were recognised too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know, I was quite moved to read that. It does make one feel that all our labours are worthwhile. I know one Wikipedian who is a professional writer in real life and has not so far felt comfortable coming out to his colleagues as a WP contributor. Thanks to Erasmus of Rotterdam for changing the climate rather a bit. Tim riley talk 20:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disraeli

[edit]

Why, please, did you revert my minor wording change in Benjamin Disraeli? ... Never mind; I just saw your comment in the wikicode. I understand. This British usage is new to me. --Thnidu (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Tillman

[edit]

I've just laid this article on peer review. It is easy reading, about a pleasant, unobjectionable character well beloved in American History ... oh wait, that's the other guy. Sorry. Would appreciate your comments, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am intrigued, and will certainly look in. I've just been peer reviewing another eminent American, Gary Cooper, which you might well enjoy looking in at, if you have time. Tim riley talk 12:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good God! I've just glanced at the Tillman article. What a stinker! I'll put a clothes-peg on my nose and read on. Tim riley talk 12:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. Yes, I'm afraid Tillman will have a place in my Hall of Shame. I will look at Cooper but it probably won't be until after the weekend. Trying to tidy up loose ends and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hensley Henson

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hensley Henson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hensley Henson

[edit]

The article Hensley Henson you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hensley Henson for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry of the Godwins

[edit]

Hi Tim. I am a bit stuck on Hermeneutic style. An expert has promised to look at it, but at present he does not have time. If he does, I will no doubt make major amendments, so it seems premature to take it to PR. However, I came across an article I created years ago about an eccentric theory concerning the Ancestry of the Godwins, which seemed possible FA material, so I have put some work in improving it and taken it to PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ancestry of the Godwins/archive1. Your critical eye would be most welcome. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to do so, though I have to review Wehwalt's amazingly odious Benjamin Tillman first. Does Laurence Olivier interest you at all? SchroCat and I have him up for PR if you're inclined to look in, but absolutely no obligation, naturally. Shall report back on the Godwins PR a.s.a.p. – Tim riley talk 20:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will have a look. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hensley Henson

[edit]

The article Hensley Henson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hensley Henson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting read. It may not make it to the front page as TFA, but it has the consolation prize of a place at Portal:University of Oxford (Portal:University of Oxford/Selected biography/78, to be precise!) Well done. BencherliteTalk 14:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What very gratifying messages to get! Thank you, Ealdgyth, for a stimulating review and a hoped-for result, and thank you, Bencherlite, for that news of the Oxford portal, which gives me idées au-dessus de ma gare. Tim riley talk 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting good edits?

[edit]

Hi Tim, I think that setting back the edit of Rose Leclercq has the feel of you saying "this is mine and I like it this way". Am I wrong to take that view? I would have expected some explanation. I was hoping to do some work on this family, but I have just gone off the idea. Can you explain yourself? Victuallers (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that info-box aficionados get protective about their additions, but boxes that pretty much just duplicate the lead are no help to our readers (who should always be our first concern). I am a great fan of boxes where they add value. For e.g. cricketers, bishops, politicians with lots of stats/offices they are really helpful, but not when they take up prime space repeating what's already easily read. There was an instructive exchange on this very point here recently. But if you think a box would for some reason be helpful here by all means raise on the article talk page and I'll gladly, or at any rate, uncomplainingly, go with the consensus. Tim riley talk 18:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion. I intend to raise this issue on the talk page as you suggest as I think this is a marginal issue, bit iboxes drive wikidata and some people appreciate the information being in a defined format. I suggest that is one of the appeals to our readers. Frequently they could read the information on the internet somewhere, but not in a repeated layout. As you know, talk pages do not get much attention so I will add the ibox to ensure that those who object are aware of this needless? duplication. I will be intrigued to see who arrives on the talk page. In this case I created the ibox so that I could create an article for her sister which I was preparing - that is why I created the red link and an ibox for the article I was going to make.. Your very quick reversion with no explanation in the edit box (that I understood) prevented me from doing as I intended. Can I suggest that the reversion could have been better studied before you pressed the revert button?? You left no time to find out why a red link had been introduced - did you see it? Or was that IYO another needless addition?? I think you assumed that some "info-box aficionados" were targeting your? article. That is not the case, I don't feel very strongly about having iboxes in articles. I can cope with them being there or them not being there. I do object to this argument interfering with my contributions to this project. A reversion after 10 minutes does not show much consideration for other editors. I think you should have studied what was being done and what was happening before acting. I will copy this conversation to the talk page so that your point of view can be seen too. Hope this in line with your suggestion. Victuallers (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

[edit]
[edit]

Your name has been invoked here, and I'm invoking it too, hopefully not in vain. Your opinion? Agreed that "the musicologist" might not be the best attribution. My position is that, per guidelines, policy (at WP:SUBSTANTIATE) and general experience with history articles, mentioning someone without at least suggesting what their connection is doesn't work. I can see that if you've got a sophisticated readership and an article that's focused on music criticism, there's an argument that they'll get what you're saying without attribution ... but we're talking about the Main Page viewership here. (And btw, that sentence has been a pain from day one. Dropping it is an option.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda now suggests "the Bach scholar". That's preferable to "musicologist" I think. - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with "Bach scholar" - it's correct and self-explanatory: just what's wanted, I'd say. Tim riley talk 17:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next person, this time from your table James Bates, sad, I will start, feel free to add, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Younger than me, by a few months. Requiescat! Tim riley talk 21:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I've added a tiny bit on the Bates article talk page (not wishing to muck up your referencing style with my own efforts) but I'm afraid it doesn't amount to much. Tim riley talk 11:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and TFA today, RR, precious again, says infobox aficionado and emotionalobserver --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Just a quick note to say thanks for reviewing Mortimer Wheeler; it is much appreciated! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was genuinely a pleasure. I hope you will consider taking it to peer review and then to FAC. Tim riley talk 13:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Pat

[edit]

Would you mind briefly revisiting the peer review, to comment on an issue raised by SchroCat concerning the most appropriate title for this article? I'd be most obliged for your wisdom. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

[edit]

Bramshill House

[edit]

Good evening. Many thanks for your valuable input into the peer review. The article is now at FAC. All further comments and input will be much appreciated, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name's Cat... SchroCat....

[edit]

Many thanks for your recent thoughts and comments at the informal PR for Casino Royale (novel): The changes you suggested have been taken on board and implemented, and the article is much, much stronger than it was before. As such, I've gone ahead and opened the FAC, and I hope you will have time to have another look through at some point in the future. Thanks again. – SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Reread with pleasure and duly commented on at the FAC. If you have time and disposition you might like to look in at the peer review of Rafael Carrera. I looked in on spec and was impressed, as I often am, at the skill with which editors whose native language is not English write for EnWiki. I've copy-edited a bit, but I think this worthy cause would benefit from your attention (and that of anyone else kind enough to watch this here page). Tim riley talk 16:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks as always - and I'll be along to Carrera shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting in on the act

[edit]

I have consigned my little song of the sea to the tender mercies of WP:FAC, so any further comments or observations can be made there. Thanks for your interest and encouragement. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with the greatest delight. It was particularly pleasing to be able to wax enthusiastic, having earlier today turned down one GAN and damn' nearly shot down another. Though I have the pleasure of basking in the reflected glory of promoting Magna Carta to GA yesterday, which is something any Englishman must feel proud to have done. I'm hoping the article's editors will take it to PR and FAC, and I shan't scruple to drum up trade for it, if so. You have been warned. Tim riley talk 17:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a quite delightful story! The Spanish Civil War later story certainly adds an air of mystery to the whole affair.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

[edit]

A much more pleasant character

[edit]

If I may ask a further favor, Horace Greeley is lagging rather at FAC. If you have a spare moment, could you look in? I assure you that Greeley held the highest principles and was second to none in his regard for those of other races. Really.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with pleasure. A most engaging person, despite his tendency to vegetarianism. Tim riley talk 09:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Rukh Khan peer review

[edit]

I have put this article up for peer review again, since it failed FAC. Please have look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Shah Rukh Khan/archive2, and comment if there is any reason that it would not gain your support next time. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 15:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it on my to-do list. Tim riley talk 08:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now done. Tim riley talk 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. May I ping you when it goes to FAC again? BollyJeff | talk 19:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Tim riley talk 20:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shepseskare GAN

[edit]

Hello Tim Riley, since after your review of Neferhotep I you proposed that I ping you in case I have another GAN, I am writing you to let you know that I have put up a new GAN article: Shepseskare. It would be my pleasure if you were interested in reviewing it. Iry-Hor (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I shall certainly look in, probably later today. Tim riley talk 08:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And have now done so. GAN page opened, with a few minor comments from me. Tim riley talk 18:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A fine article, and a pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 16:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

[edit]

Gary Cooper at FAC

[edit]

Thank you again for your time and feedback during the GA and PR reviews of the Gary Cooper article. Throwing caution to the wind, I nominated the article as a featured article candidate. I would very much appreciate one last review and assessment when you have the time. By the way, I read the Olivier article, and I think you and SchroCat did an excellent job—a subject worthy of the effort. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with pleasure. Thank you for your kind comments about Olivier. We have him at FAC now, and I'm pleased to see Cooper also there. Tim riley talk 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hermeneutic style

[edit]

Hi Tim. I have taken Hermeneutic style to Wikipedia:Peer review/Hermeneutic style/archive1. Your critical eye over it gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest of pleasure. I always enjoy reviewing your articles: I learn so many interesting things. Tim riley talk 15:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now done. A most pleasing way of spending an hour of a February afternoon. Tim riley talk 16:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eccentric editing

[edit]

I happened upon the topic of eccentric dancing recently and have given this a push forward today. This seems to be mainly music hall/vaudeville but I see some jazz ballet described in this way too. It's an awkward topic because it is, by definition, unconventional and idiosyncratic. Perhaps you can help, if it pleases you ... Andrew D. (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! Not one I'd run across. I'll gladly look in. Tim riley talk 16:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shepseskare FAC

[edit]

Hello! This is to let you know that I have put up Shepseskare as FAC, see here. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination for Serralves

[edit]

Hello, Tim. Thank you very much for your revision on Serralves. Far from discouraging me, your comments cast some light I needed to go on contributing to improve the article in the right direction. I was very naïf and certainly needed some guidance like yours. I really appreciate your help. When improved, I will submit the article for your peer review, if you please. Thank you very much indeed. Caravasar | talk — Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: January 2015

[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.

Wikipedia:Peer review/Enthiran/archive1

[edit]

I have opened the peer review for the film. Please do suggest any changes that I should make before I go for FAC. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your 3rd comment about the "in order to" sentence, can you specify which sections have that sentence so that I can change them? — Ssven2 speak 2 me 07:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much the easiest way is to press Ctrl and F, and type in the phrase in the search box that appears. Always works, I find. Tim riley talk 19:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

[edit]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
For all the excellent work you did on Larry Oliver! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you!

[edit]
The Actors and Filmmakers Award of Excellence
For your work in promoting one of the goliaths of the acting world, Sir Laurence Olivier to Featured Article status. A mighty achievement to be proud of! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's very gratifying. Thank you so much Doc! Tim riley talk 20:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

[edit]

Royal opera
Thank you for the London opera, another great article with dedication to details about the people behind an institution, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were the twentieth recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Gerda. I made a rod for my own back in writing up the Royal Opera and English National Opera, because one has an implied obligation to keep them up to date, with details of new productions. There are worse fates. Tim riley talk 13:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Applause! What do you think of latest statement in a production that needs no repetition? - I forgot, did you ever read the poem "letting go of the past" (by Poeticbent, mentioning precious a few times)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have only just had my attention drawn – too late – to the fact that the jehadis (and, to be fair, some otherwise perfectly sensible fellow-travellers) have forced an idiot-box on Chopin's article, the only one of the 27 FAs on classical composers to be disfigured by one. I shall seek the removal of this lamentable excrescence, which makes Wikipedia look amateurish, quite unnecessarily. Tim riley talk 13:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Half Barnstar
To you for bringing Laurence Olivier to FA status. The other one's for Schrocat. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is most kind, thank you! Tim riley talk 19:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A load of old Bazalgettes!

[edit]

Dear Tim, Yet another request for PR help, I'm afraid, although this one comes with an ready-made opportunity for a pun or two while comparing the subject matter to the content and prose! It concerns the Great Stink, a relatively brief event in London history that has had a beneficial effect that we all enjoy to this day. The PR can be found here, if you have the time to spare. If you don't, no worries! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'll have time! Delighted to look in, probably tomorrow. Tim riley talk 23:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

[edit]

Request

[edit]

Hi! First of all many congratulations on Laurence Olivier for getting it to FA status! May I invite you to review Kareena Kapoor Khan filmography and comment at its FLC. If this message is annoying you, feel free to remove or ignore this message. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. You have abstained from supporting as you have no knowledge about the list. Understandable and thank you for commenting despite that. I was wondering if you could do strikeout in your comments (which you feel have been resolved) so that it should be easy for me to know whether or not I have resolved your comments. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 15:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With pleasure. I'll do it immediately. All is absolutely fine as far as I'm concerned. Tim riley talk 15:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi Tim. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Does the article need more work before its day on the Main Page? I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 00:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a model of compression, and I've nothing to add except to suggest we switch round "Lake District" and "English Lake District" to have the longer (and linked) term appearing first. I hate writing leads, and how you manage to boil articles down even further for every day of the year is quite beyond me – but more power to your elbow. – Tim riley talk 07:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks kindly Tim, I needed that. Now I need your help on something else. I changed "story-teller" to "storyteller" in your lead, and you reverted with "the OED and Chambers both hyphenate the word". I'm involved in a, let's say, serious discussion over how much energy I should put into keeping TFA paragraphs and article leads in sync, and by extension how much time I should spend copyediting article leads before TFA day, and how forcefully I should argue my case when I'm reverted. Normally I wouldn't argue this point, but let's use it as a test case. My 6th ed. SOED says "storyteller", as do Cambridge Dictionaries, Oxford Dictionaries, and all the AmEng dictionaries. Compound words can easily exist in all 3 forms (hyphen, separate, closed up) for a while, but generally, when the closed-up form starts to dominate, it tends to displace the other two. I don't have Chambers ... I understand it's fun and charming, but I'd not sure I'd go with that if others are going a different way (but don't get me wrong, I'm aware I don't speak or read British English, I just observe from afar). So, first question: how do you feel now about "storyteller"? - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well we certainly won't fall out over it, and "storyteller" isn't actually abhorrent to me, though the hyphen feels more natural. As to the full OED, one is, as an Englishman, inclined to swank at having a dictionary unmatched in any other language, but it has its quirks. It has only fairly recently accepted that the Bard of Avon's surname is "Shakespeare" rather than "Shakespere". And in the teeth of usage throughout its native land it insists on "civilize" "apologize" etc, for which these past 400 years the rest of us have sided with Kent in King Lear: "Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary letter!" Chambers's (Scottish, not English – credit where it's due) is a joy, with sly definitions such as "Middle aged – between youth and old age, variously reckoned to suit the reckoner" and "a priori – the term applied to reasoning from pre-existing knowledge, or even cherished prejudices". But most oddly, there is, now I look into it, a difference between Chambers's online ("story-teller") and printed ("storyteller") versions. So I think the conclusion must be that though I shall go on hyphenating the word while there is breath in my body, I cannot object to the excision of the hyphen in an encyclopaedia meant for international use. And please bear in mind, whatever lexical quibbles I throw at you, my admiration for your daily summaries is prodigious. None of which answers your question about how much energy you should spend on striving for consistency in the face of possessive editors. From the sidelines, I'd say the WP community has appointed you and your colleagues to deal with TFAs on our behalf, and you should feel Licensed to Tweak. I shall, of course, still complain, but tweak on, dear Dank, and ignore the background noise. – Tim riley talk 00:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My new business card: Dank2007, Licensed to Tweak. Your support means a lot to me. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. The character count on this one is 1296, but Bench recently said that that might be causing problems at ITN. I'm not sure about this, but I've agreed to keep it at no more than 1250 for now. Can you find 46 characters to cut? - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just knock off ", and played a cameo in the 1935 version of David Copperfield", which will blitz 47 characters. The information, though pleasing, is not central to the narrative. (What, by the bye, is ITN?) Tim riley talk 19:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC) (Afterthought: it might read more smoothly if you swap the 1930s Hollywood sentence and the First World War one the other way about.) Tim riley talk 19:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. ITN= In the news; the number of stories they can run is constrained to some extent by how long my column is. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hermeneutic style

[edit]

I have now added a couple of images to make it more visually appealing and nominated for FAC. Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tillman

[edit]

Sorry to be so slow about completing my review of your fine musical article, which I shall finish shortly. Could I ask you to revisit the Tillman FAC? A reviewer has expressed certain concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

[edit]

What a stinker!

[edit]

Aver good afteroon to you! Many thanks for your help on the Great Stink. The article is now at FAC for further consideration, should you wish to partake further. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

[edit]

The Tower House

[edit]

Bramshill House passed FAC, thankyou for your input. I've opened a peer review for William Burges's The Tower House. Comments will be most welcome. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Richard Party-Popper-Puller" - what a way to describe Burges' brother-in-law. Many thanks for your peer comments, which I'll pick up. The Dr. and I shall do such things at Castell Coch that it will knock your classicist socks off. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting off lightly. I was going to refer to him as Popperswill-Pullem, but thought that was a bit 1990s and unseemly to boot, though you're too young to know why. Tim riley talk 19:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Celeste

[edit]

Yet more claims on your time: the Ghost Ship awaits comments at PR. I'd be very glad if you'd visit. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with great pleasure. A very enjoyable claim on one's time. Tim riley talk 13:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Paul

[edit]

Hello Tim, thank you for the expeditious GA review and the very kind words. I have started a peer review for Oom Paul here and look forward to hearing the quibbles you mentioned if/when you find the time. Cheers and I hope you are well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I see you have booby-trapped the peer review page to oblige me to put money where mouth is in re pruning the length. More anon. Tim riley talk
I'm sorry, I didn't mean it in that way. It's just that since Kruger entered public life before he was 20 (and a lot of pertinent things happened to him before then) and remained in the spotlight until he died six decades later, it's hard to find places where cuts could be made without losing important details. This article is a few hundred words longer than the Smith one. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only teasing! I'll be there. Tim riley talk 13:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
=) —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ritz London Hotel

[edit]

Hi, thought this might interest you as a Coward buff I believe. It's still in rough stages of development.. Do you have anything in your books to verify what is written and anything further? I'd guess it went beyond the 1930s..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At a swift glance I'd say all the Coward stuff is irrelevant and should be blitzed. It has nothing to do with the Ritz except that Arlen gave him a cheque there – so what! The Irving Berlin reference at the end is incorrect and should also be blitzed. The title is weird: why not "Ritz Hotel, London"? I'm on my way out now, but will look in later. Tim riley talk 17:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hotel book and articles though tend to discuss luminaries in their history in quite some detail. Most of my hotel articles in fact cover that sort of thing. I think he's worth mentioning but not in as much detail perhaps. The authors of the book on the Ritz thought it notable enough to write four pages on it so., The Ritz London is the official name I think, no Hotel in it. "The" is definitely before Ritz in most sources. In looking in google books I think The Ritz Hotel, London seems to be a common way of wording it, and there's a book on it with that title, I'll move it to that. Do you mean Puttin' On the Ritz? I didn't add that, that was there before, but the article on it states that it was named after the Ritz London. Do you have a source to prove otherwise? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore my hasty comments, above. I'll ponder more thoroughly tomorrow. I'm certainly happy to participate in upgrading the page. Tim riley talk 21:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hotels are tricky things to write as the vast majority of the books really are celebrity/royalty anecdotes rather than a concrete history of the hotels, I suppose the authors believe the luminaries to be the history of the hotel and I agree with them in part, but there needs to be a more even balance in the encyclopedia articles I think. Coverage is interspersed usually with mention of old managers and minor details on its room in which you have to try to glean what is relevant. A lot of the info is really trivial. To start with I'm just going to go through the books and try to glean decent material from them. I then usually try to find more on the technical details and architecture in other sources. As I do that some parts will probably read as a bit trivial, but after writing it we can decide what to remove I think. I do think the coverage of Coward and the Ritz in the book at least makes him worthy of mentioning, I will try to see if I can find something to make it more relevant to the hotel itself though if I can.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck with finding content on the Ritz? Good to see BTW that at least some editors are respectful [2]. I wasn't aware of the Porter article, should be taken to FAC at some point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enthiran/archive1

[edit]

I have opened the FAC for Enthiran. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review request

[edit]

Hello! We haven't met, but I noticed that you are a respected and active reviewer and writer of high-quality content. I wondered if you might be interested in helping me with an article I wrote that is now at peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Irataba/archive1. It's about a Mohave Chief who was quite an interesting character. The FAC was recently closed due to issues with the prose, but since I am about the only person who has edited the page it's getting more difficult for me to find and resolve problems. I'd be appreciative if you took a look, but I understand if you are too busy or uninterested. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to look in. Topics that are out of the ordinary can certainly suffer undeserved neglect at GAN and FAC. I shall read the article tomorrow, I hope, and comment on the PR page. Tim riley talk 20:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! Thank you so much! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

[edit]

Atttention talk page stalkers. It's not quite perfect but if you copy the contents of this into your User:Tim riley/common.css and save you should be able to hide the infoboxes in most biographies with just a photo in place. I've not yet solved the issue of how to rid of the box outline around it, but on my own screen hiding the silly trivia and redundant content in them is a considerable improvement. Obviously this won't change our outlook on the enforcement of infoboxes in articles we've got to FA and the wider issue of them often making wikipedia look less professional and trivial, but at least in our own eyes it is better to not see them in biographies. If you could all give it a try in your User@xxx/common.css see if it is an improvement. Hope this helps.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat Give it a try and look at Peter Sellers, no identibox!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I would have with it is twofold: 1. There are infoboxes that are good and beneficial, and I wouldn't want to miss the career stats on, for example Jason Leonard's page (although where he went to school, etc, means so little that I could happily give that a miss!); 2. I think it's a possible way to miss IB bloating both on watchlisted, but especially non-watchlisted articles. There are several times that I've been on a page, been appalled by the sheer weight of mind-numbing, dumbed-down, out-of-context, misleading and plain incorrect rubbish in there, that I've taken pruning shears to it immediately. I've left the IB in place, but just taken out the dross. I'm not sure I'd be happy not being able to check that the IB is being used for its correct purpose if I can't see it properly. – SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your loss! I don't have to see the darn things in regular biographies like actors anymore! The infobox suppression BTW doesn't seem to have worked for Jason Leonard, I can see the full thing. Doesn't work for footballers either. In those articles they're actually useful. I'd just assume by default that most infoboxes in arts biographies are redundant and that they have an infobox...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine work, Doctor, and I shall enjoy experimenting. Bless you! Tim riley talk 19:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

Hello there! Could I trouble you with your opinion in a notability matter? Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to look in, probably tomorrow. Tim riley talk 19:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So done, but not very usefully, I'm sorry to say. There just seems to be nothing in British sources. Tim riley talk 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It's sad how real culture is often underrepresented. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, Mary (not Marie)

[edit]

Mary Celeste is now at FAC. Please look if you have time. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done (and it was a pleasure to re-read this intriguing article). Tim riley talk 16:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: February 2015

[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.

1804 dollar

[edit]
Hector BerliozGiuseppe VerdiCharles GounodGioachino Rossini
Awarding Saint-Saëns first prize, Paris, 1867: clockwise from top left, Berlioz, Gounod, Rossini and Verdi (clickable image; use cursor to identify)

Hello, Mr. RileyTim. I'm sorry to bother you with a(nother) request, but I wonder if you could please take a look at the FAC for 1804 dollar, if you don't find the subject matter too dull. It seems to have gotten little interest since I nominated it. I know that reviews aren't strictly QPQ, but please do feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have something that needs reviewing.-RHM22 (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are you on grumpy 19th-century French composers? Not to everyone's taste, but all welcome if the topic appeals. I'll gladly look in at the 1804 dollar article, though as I see Wehwalt, numismatic maestro extraordinaire, has been there I don't foresee my having much to add. More soonest. Tim riley talk 10:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I was going to give Saint-Saëns a look, but I wasn't sure if you needed anyone else over there. I would be happy to look it over! It seems very interesting. Regarding your second point, Wehwalt and I have said that it's better to get some non-numismatist eyes on the articles to make sure they aren't bogged down with technical language and things like that. At my last FAC, I had to be reminded that not everyone knows what 'denticles' are.-RHM22 (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like it was just promoted! Sorry about that. I went to leave a support, only to be surprised by the closing note! I do have one small nitpick: The first sentence in the lede doesn't use the Oxford comma, but it's used throughout the article, so I'm sure that's what you intended. Do you have anything else needing review?-RHM22 (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I noticed a few other instances, so I'm not sure which is your preference.-RHM22 (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the talk page barrage, but here's a clickable image which you can use if you'd like.-RHM22 (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

[edit]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Writer's Barnstar
Today's featured article, Hugh Walpole, was a fascinating read. Thank you so much. Krimuk90/✉ 01:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How very kind! What a pleasing message message to get – thank you! Tim riley talk 21:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Tim, on yesterday's TFA. I enjoyed reading the article this morning. Bede735 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As gushed to you earlier Tim, much congrats. Oh, this was for TFA! Well, in that case, double congrats for Camille! CassiantoTalk 18:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bless you, young man! Nice for us ancients to have the approval of the next generation! Tim riley talk 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tower House

[edit]

Thankyou for your input into the peer review. The article is now at FAC. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - really appreciate your input and your continued watching brief. Was very impressed by Hugh Walpole, another beautiful article. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Off to sleep now, but shall resume FAC read-through tomorrow. Brace yourself for a few queries and quibbles. Tim riley talk 22:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, help! "a little beetle on the wall or something like that, it's Burges's attention to detail that is so fascinating": that's a comma splice, which I think is safe to fix even in a quotation. What on earth is a "comma splice"? KJP1 (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) A comma splice is the use of a comma to join together two independent statements. Blame journalists... Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I was about to say (rather more long-windedly than SchroCat, to whom cordial greetings) it is the use, not to be encouraged, of a comma to join together two separate clauses instead of doing it properly with a conjunction or an adequately strong punctuation mark such as a semicolon. Thus: "It was wet, I came in" is a comma splice, when you want "It was wet; I came in or "It was wet and I came in". The Manual of Style gives us licence to amend minor errors of punctuation like this, and though the splice doesn't bother me in this context (the chap's a guitar player and not Fowler, after all), you could replace it with a colon or semicolon if you wanted to. Thus: "I was still finding things 20 years after being there – a little beetle on the wall or something like that: it's Burges's attention to detail that is so fascinating." or "I was still finding things 20 years after being there – a little beetle on the wall or something like that; it's Burges's attention to detail that is so fascinating." Tim riley talk 18:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, both. It's been done. But now I need more help. Curly Turkey would like a footnote explaining Burges's most famous joke, the "dropped H". I've never done footnotes, nor am I sure how I would explain it for the benefit of foreign readers. Would "'enry 'iggins's 'urricanes" 'elp? KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Phonological history of English fricatives and affricates#H-dropping may help with the wording - and I'd certainly add the link, however you deal with it. I can swing by shortly to add a brief note to give you an idea of the format, and you can tweak the wording to your preference later. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about: Footnote: In Burges's time a "dropped aitch" – as in 'Enry 'Iggins – was socially taboo. To verify the statement you could cite this from "A Plea for Aitch-Droppers" in The Pall Mall Gazette, 6 April 1870, p. 6: "…aitch-dropping is no modern Cockney vulgarism, but has the sanction of 'hoar antiquity'." I see you are a devotee of sfn and efn citations, and someone else – ah, I see SchroCat will lend a paw – will help you with the method of adding an explanatory footnote. I still use the quill pen technique. Tim riley talk 08:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanus Johannes Paulus

[edit]

Hello Tim—this is just a note to let you know that Uncle Paul is now at FAC here. Hope you're well, cheers for all your help thus far. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No hardship to give the page a third reading: a fine piece of work. Tim riley talk 15:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Baie dankie meneer —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unas

[edit]

Hello, this is to let you know that Unas (another 5th Dynasty Egyptian pharaoh) is now a GA candidate (and hopefully next onto FAC). I would be most grateful if you accepted to review it, or otherwise, if you could point another user to me for a possible review. This would greatly shorten the (usually) very long wait between GA nomination and review. Note this article received around 40,000 visits/year. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to look in, and will review unless someone else beats me to it. Tim riley talk 15:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, that's a great help! Iry-Hor (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Riley

[edit]

Excuse Mr. Riley,

I have been working on the Stephen Sondheim page for some years now, and I would truly love some input on how to improve the page. (we corresponded about four years ago on a peer review for this page). I would love to get pictures on the page, and the pages that are featured/good articles all have a great array of photos. I would truly appreciate some, or any help in this matter.

Thank You Phaeton23 (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly look in, though it isn't my area of expertise. My to-do list is long, and this may take me a while to fit in. There are two or three editors with whom I regularly work on Wikipedia articles who know much more about Sondheim than I do, and I'll see if I can interest them in looking in too. (And thank you for the courteous "Mr Riley", but I'm "Tim" to my friends and pretty much everybody else.) Tim riley talk 20:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Phaeton23:I am leaving a few comments and suggestions on your talk page. Feel free to ask for further comment, if wanted. Tim riley talk 09:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim! I cannot thank you enough for the input! If you could pass the word to your Sondheimian friends, that be greatly appreciated! Thanks a million Tim! Phaeton23 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Bondfield

[edit]

Last year you kindly contributed to the above article's peer review or or FAC or both. An issue has arisen from yesterday's TFA appearance, and is under discussion on the article's talk. Briefly: an editor added into the text the cited information that Bondfield's was privately known as "Maggie", and then incorporated this into the lead so the subject appeared as Margaret Grace ("Maggie") Bondfield. I have removed the nickname from the lead, and stated my position on the talkpage. I would be pleased if you could visit and briefly comment there. Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday

[edit]
The Wikimedia UK Barnstar
Dear Tim, thanks for running that editathon yesterday .
this WikiAward was given to Tim riley by WereSpielChequers on 16:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC) for contributions to the UK chapter[reply]
With my two glamorous assistants how could I go wrong! Thank you, Jonathan for oiling the wheels and keeping me on the straight-and-narrow so unobtrusively. I should send a pubic thank you to your manger (a remark calculated to astonish any talk page stalkers, but wholly apropos, as we know!) Tim riley talk 22:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(watching the dance) should I learn "pubic thank you" or is that internal? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be off with you, Gerda! This allusion to typographic errors corrected en masse by WereSpielChequers is no place for respectable lady choristers! (We were in the chorus rehearsal room in the Royal Opera House for our editathon yesterday. Very finely adjusted acoustics, methinks: you'd have liked it.) Tim riley talk 22:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On with you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Attended to, and thank you, Gerda. I am not much of a hand at DYKs, so am grateful. Tim riley talk 23:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you are the expert in infoboxes, I saw that War Requiem has on for Album, but not for musical composition, could you change that? (Did you know that a friend played in the premiere?) Example pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there something to do with Charlie Chaplin at the event Tim?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jenna Roberts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cinderella (ballet). 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) 09:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

Mind Meld

[edit]

Hi Tim,

I hope 2015 has been going well for you. I have started a new FAC here for an article called Mind Meld. Considering that I have appreciated your input into my previous FACs, I thought that I would ask if you have time to participate in this one. I would be glad for any constructive comments you are willing to provide.

Neelix (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me if I pass on this one. I am committed to rather a lot of articles at the moment, and on this particular topic I don't think I have much to offer. Tim riley talk 14:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Walpole

[edit]

Re 'His first novel to achieve real success was his third...'. I note that you reverted my substitution of 'commercial' for 'real', which is not an encyclopedic word, and not a very meaningful one in any context. Valetude (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Commercial" would be misleading. The book made modest sums, but more importantly it attracted notice and favourable reviews, established HW as an author to watch, and was, well, his first real success. One could say "genuine" or "all-round", or one could even dispense with an adjective altogether here, but I think the short "real" is preferable, and none of the distinguished peer reviewers or FAC reviewers expressed the view that it was unencyclopaedic. But I am grateful for your interest and contribution. Tim riley talk 15:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On toe

[edit]

Thank you for Onegin, - I wonder if you could start a stub on Cranko's Turn of the Shrew, to fit in here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ps: while that should be soon, a long-term plan is GA for Fauré's Requiem, by November, hopefully with you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I didn't know ballet was an interest of yours. I'll gladly run you up a stub for Cranko's Shrew. (I haven't heard of it till now, I must confess, but I'm rather an ignoramus about ballet despite the Covent Garden editathons.) As to Fauré's Requiem, I reserve my position on GAN, for the moment, if you'll allow me. It needs quite a lot more work to get to GA level, and I'm not confident I know enough about the musicological side. I have several FAC projects already scheduled: Ravel (a solo effort, now nearing completion in my sandbox) and two collaborations: H H Asquith and P G Wodehouse, on which my research hasn't even begun. Tim riley talk 11:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ballet and I is a difficult relationship ;) - last year I worked on several ballerinas for women's history month, including Birgit Keil and Tatjana Gsovsky, - couldn't believe they had no article yet. Haydée (so far a stub) fit in nicely. I am not as enthusiastic about the dancer of Onegin, and back to Bach anyway, next FA BWV 165 in the making, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right! One stub duly created and awaiting your attention, here. Nb that the date of the original premiere is doubtful. The ROH's performance database says here it was 16 March 1969, but the review of the premiere in The Times is dated 6 May, and was in the 7 May issue. Over to you... Tim riley talk 11:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now I look again at the Times review it reads like a review of a premiere, but doesn't say in so many words that it is, and it is probably safe to follow the ROH database, which I have now done. Tim riley talk 11:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, despite WP:CITEVAR I shouldn't feel the slightest hesitation if I were you in applying the sfn/efn system, which I think you prefer. I shall not assert squatter's rights. Tim riley talk 12:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not consistent myself ;) - yes for GA and FA I apply it, and find text so much easier to read without longish citations in between, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free for a PR?

[edit]

Tim, You were kind enough to comment at PR and FAC on Casino Royale; could I ask for a similar favour for the next instalment of the Bond series: Live and Let Die, which is now at PR? Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a pleasure. I'm busy today and travelling most of tomorrow, and will probably look in on Thursday. Tim riley talk 12:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're a gent and a scholar! Thank you kindly! - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now done, in between trying to calm a loony elsewhere. Dear, oh dear! Tim riley talk 21:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritz

[edit]
Hi Tim, any idea what room File:Piccadilly_(2233873775).jpg is in the Ritz? I was hoping to find a good colour photo of the Marie Antionette room.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)That's the Long Gallery. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fortuna, have you dined with Tim in the Ritz yourself? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been known to have morning coffee there from time to time, but have lunched there only once and dined there ditto. The latter was immoderately entertaining, and when I get back from Keswick to London next week I'll email you an account, Doctor. Unlike the Savoy (Pinafore room etc) I have never noticed that the Ritz public rooms actually have names, so I shan't be of much use to you there. Tim riley talk 20:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irataba

[edit]

Thankyou for your input at the peer review. Irataba is now at FAC. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! Ageing brain has forgotten Iribata. Shall refresh senescent memory and look in soon. Tim riley talk 21:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprised you forgot it! It was open rather a long time! Despite the great deal of input in the peer review I'm obviously aware that there's still a lot to come if you know what I mean...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shall look in a.s.a.p. Monday, once back in London, I hope. Am tied up elsewhere at present with an editor with a very assertive agenda. Heigh ho! You know the sort of thing. Tim riley talk 22:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing not to complain about my talk page spelling

[edit]

I appreciate that you won't defend doing it. AgnosticAphid talk 22:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need for thanks. Errare humanum est, and John viii:7, you know. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 23:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that means, to be honest. Look, I mean this sincerely and positively, and I feel like maybe there are complexities to British sarcasm that I am not aware of, but I truly think continuing to make dismissive and sarcastic comments, especially about other people, is not something that will end happily on wikipedia. I'm pretty sarcastic myself, but here it's really best to be earnest. I know you will say you've been earnest all along, and it is pointless to get into a diff debate about it, but I found the dismissive, sarcastic nature of our exchange to be extraordinarily taxing and I am an exceptionally patient person. But I do know how frustrating wikipedia can be, and I won't pretend to be a saint -- being constructive in the face of adversity is something I struggle with myself -- and I do wish you the best. AgnosticAphid talk 23:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good! And I you, likewise. Very pleasing that after a knock-down-drag-out exchange the civilities are maintained. Absolutely in the WP spirit. Tim riley talk 23:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mortimer Wheeler PR

[edit]

Hi Tim; hope that you are well. Upon completion of the Mortimer Wheeler GAN, you requested that I let you know as and when I sent the article to Peer Review and/or FAC. Well, I've now done the former, and you can access it here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mortimer Wheeler/archive1. No pressure to actually undertake any reviewing unless you feel the desire to, but I thought that I'd let you know. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly will look in at the peer review, in the next few days I hope. Thank you for letting me know: I'm looking forward to it. Tim riley talk 12:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

[edit]

LALD

[edit]

Many thanks for your thoughts on Live and Let Die at the recent peer review. The article is now at FAC for wider consideration should you wish to comment further. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be there. Please see also my touting below in re Maurice Ravel. Tim riley talk 17:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tristis

[edit]

I am speaking of Tristis est anima mea (attributed to Kuhnau), not my mood. "Stay calm and factual", I tell myself, quoting myself from 2013. Far be it from me to use words Jesus spoke, but ... - Question is if you might find further sources for the music section, or how I would source observations to the score. We will sing it on Friday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best, Gerda. Reporting back soonest. Good luck for the Friday performance. Tim riley talk 17:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was good, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing so far. I'll have a rummage at the British Library next week and report back. Easter greetings, dear Gerda. Tim riley talk 16:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking, the DYK is over, nobody questioned the additions based on the score. Getting ready for singing the most exquisite expression of thanks and Handel's Halleluja (no, not that one. I received interesting thoughts on my talk today, - in case of interest, about doing the right thing and blame, for example. (I had offered to take all blame for a friend leaving, and made not clear that I was sarcastic.) - On the sad background: happy Easter, we need it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look: Georgette Tsinguirides, on the job for 70 years with the same employer Stuttgart Ballet! I have a FAC open, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Ravel

[edit]

A note to anyone kind enough to watch this page that I have put Ravel's article up for peer review, where all comments will be gratefully received. Tim riley talk 17:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And still the Tower House hasn't passed.. It feels like this particular FAC has been open 3 months for some reason! Happy Easter BTW!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason (technical glitch?) it is still listed on the [for peer review] page. Tim riley talk 13:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth started Pierre-Joseph Ravel upon request, not sure if you really care but still..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! It hadn't occurred to me that he might be notable enough for an article. Good for him! Tim riley talk 13:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry of the Godwins

[edit]

Many thanks for the review Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angel tube station

[edit]

Hey there, I have began to improve the article according to your review, but I somehow don't know how to flesh ref 12 out cos it's in German. :( That's all that I need help on. Thanks for the review btw. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it's in Swedish, but I've tidied it up, along with a couple of other refs that were a bit scrappy. I've also added one of the two citations you need for the first footnote. Tim riley talk 14:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, I will fix up the rest. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw someone said it was 'on' so I have no idea about this. ->Image Vincent60030 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry. For GAN the prose has to be good rather than great, and on/in is not going to matter. The editor who changed it is a Wikipedian of repute, and though I might take the point up with him later it can certainly stand for now. Beginning what I hope will be a last read-through now. Tim riley talk 12:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ya, and fyi the Rose Douglas ref is not a book but it's a map so it does not need a page number. :p Btw sorry for late message. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward IV of England

[edit]

Tim, Thanks very much for this. Hopefully we'll have better luck than we did with R3! Take your time... I don't hold out much hope for it first time around to be honest. Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, no. I didn't need to take my time: it was doomed to an immediate fail. But there is any amount of good stuff in the article, and once knocked into shape it should do very well at a second GAN. Happy to advise on referencing etc if wanted, though there are smarter cookies that I around on that subject. Tim riley talk 13:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Sparta

[edit]

Hello Tim. Thank you for reviewing the article and for your suggested improvements. I had made some alterations to the article and I believe that I have addressed all of your qualms. Hopefully everything is in order. Thanks, Kyriakos (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Castell Coch

[edit]

Hi. I'd be very grateful if you could give Castell Coch a read and comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Castell Coch/archive1. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I will, gladly. Tim riley talk 19:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't waste any time after The Tower House passed hehe! Cardiff Castle I think will follow suit at a later date!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enthiran FAC 2.0

[edit]

I have opened the second FAC for the article. Please do let me know if you would like to make any comments. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2015

[edit]


Headlines
* Africa report: Closing the gap of the Global South* Belgium report: Gendergap and Belgiumgap* Catalan areas report: One day at the radio* France report: A very busy month!* Germany report: 1 topic, 2 talks, 3 hours* Italy report: Agreements with national cultural institutions and professional associations* Mexico report: Wiki rides the subway editathon and second edition of the Editatona gender gap marathon* Netherlands report: Nature, Art, Feminism and a GLAM-WIKI conference
Read this edition in full • Single-page
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

[edit]

...for any headaches I may have caused. It looks like Maunus has unwatchlisted English language and disassociated himself from the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: We shall rise above it and press on. Surely nobody could interpret your comments as anything other than helpful in intent. I'm sure we'll steer the ship into harbour fairly soon. Tim riley talk 15:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTD

[edit]

our joint effort, Hallelujah, in fond memory, - I decorated my pages with Hallelujah, despised and rejected, to mark the occasion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am emailing you an interesting link to the Gramophone site on this subject. Tim riley talk 17:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wot about the workers?

[edit]

I have been fairly preoccupied recently, but betweentimes have managed to get Jarrow March into a reviewable state, and it awaits attention at peer review. You will notice that your grandfather played a leading role in the march, and that your spiritual grandfather (H. Henson) thought they were all a bunch of dirty commies. I'd be very pleased if you could look it over and make such observations as you think fitting. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you suggest my grandfather was from that side of the Pennines! (In point of fact my Riley grandfather was a music hall comedian on the north-western circuit. I still use his material.) I hope you haven't been too savage to the Rt Revd. It will be a pleasure to look in and comment. Tim riley talk 18:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be a certain Mr John Riley, a co-manager of the Argyle Theatre of Varieties in Birkenhead by any chance? CassiantoTalk 17:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boat Race reviews

[edit]
The Running Man Barnstar
Hey Tim, just a quick barnstar to say thanks for the many reviews of Boat Race articles you've conducted over the past year. As of this morning, I completed my (initial) goal of ensuing that every Boat Race had, not only its own article, but one that was either of GA or FA status: we now have 158 GAs and 3 FAs that we can all be proud of! It doesn't stop here, for me at least, I'm going to keep up with improving the quality of the GAs and look for more FA opportunities. Plus, there's the small matter of 70 Women's Boat Race articles to get up and running! But thanks again, I couldn't have done it without your help. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to get this charming award, but much, much more pleased – and open-mouthed in admiration – at your astonishing, superb feat. Bravissimo! – Tim riley talk 15:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Savoy

[edit]
Indeed! Delighted to see you working on the Savoy Theatre Tim, I had intended on working on the hotel at some point!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to work with you on it, but not yet awhile. As to the Savoy Theatre, it is in a sense the very centre of my aesthetic universe, as my love of literature and music expanded from my youthful (and undiminished) love of Gilbert and Sullivan. Tim riley talk 19:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent choice, look forward to seeing it at the peer review and FAC!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Castell Coch

[edit]

Tim, a brief note to thank your again for your peer review of the above and to let you know it is now at FAC where, again, your comments would be very much appreciated. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be my privilege and pleasure to look in tomorrow. Tim riley talk 19:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - really grateful for your support. Now, a big favour. We're having a debate about Burges's death from "a chill". The consensus is we need a footnote. The bottom line appears to be that the Victorians used "chill" or "fever" for a range of illnesses that they didn't fully understand. Prince Albert was said to have caught a "severe chill" which Jenner later (mis?)diagnosed as typhoid. Cholera and influenza were others. Any ideas where I might find an authoritative source for the Victorians use of "chill" as a portmanteau term? Not my area at all. As an aside, I wonder if we could work The Importance of Being Earnest into the footnote:

"Jack. Oh, before the end of the week I shall have got rid of him. I’ll say he died in Paris of apoplexy. Lots of people die of apoplexy, quite suddenly, don’t they?
Algernon. Yes, but it’s hereditary, my dear fellow. It’s a sort of thing that runs in families. You had much better say a severe chill.
Jack. You are sure a severe chill isn’t hereditary, or anything of that kind?
Algernon. Of course it isn’t!
Jack. Very well, then. My poor brother Ernest to carried off suddenly, in Paris, by a severe chill. That gets rid of him."

Really appreciate any advice. KJP1 (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - just to say Hc's fixed this with a footnote already. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gramophone refs

[edit]

Tim, I vaguely remember that you had ideas about replacement of the refs to reviews in Gramophone. I am interest in referencing the 1978 La clemenza di Tito recording with Marga Schiml. Btw, I forgot about "our" ballet which made it too late for the 50 years anniversary, but the dancer is in prep for her birthday tomorrow, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its like this: The Gramphone used to have an open-access archive of all its back-numbers, but a couple of years ago this vanished behind a paywall, and all the URLs were also changed at the same time. So all I have done since, when revisiting an old article, is to leave bibliographic details (author, month, page) intact, but deleted the obsolete URLs. The British Library has all the issues of the magazine on open access, so I can easily look up any details you need, if you tell me what and when. Tim riley talk 15:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, Marga Schiml, - I did what you recommended. The former url is still on the opera discography, if that helps. I guess there will not be much about her as singing a minor role, - but would be nice to confirm the date. Strange article in German, - simply her university page (OTRS), with only few dates. Any other help to the English article welcome. I saw her on stage ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right ho. Shall pop over to the BL tomorrow and report back. Tim riley talk 20:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Gerda, have a look at my jottings here. There are about twenty more recordings to be added from my researches, but would this sort of layout and detail meet with your approval? Tim riley talk 12:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is impressive! Can we have a column with Conductor + choir + orchestra before "Other performers" or "Soloists"? Leave role empty when no opera? Link every time, even Wagner? - The Boulez Ring is also DVD. Let's do it together ;) - I improved Stuttgart Ballet a bit, replacing peacock by Britannica. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I first had choir and orch columns, and would prefer them, but they made the table so wide that I got scrolling, which is pretty undesirable. Better to stick with this one column for all fellow performers I think. As for duplicate links, I believe that is customary for tables, especially those with some sortable columns, which this is going to have, I hope. Anyway, give me a day or two and I'll have the table complete, D.v., after which I'll paste it into the article for you to amend in any way you wish. I am emailing you about a related matter, which is too speculative for these pages. Tim riley talk 13:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was not clear, I meant cond+choir+orch in ONE column, then the other soloist, - should make it shorter overall because more even distribution. One Wagner link was missing, that's why I asked. The ballerina is on the Main page now, pictured ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Detail: I think we need only the major roles for her bio, - there's always the opera (discography) article for more detail. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find a ref for the Christmas Oratorio, - article says Rilling did it with different soloists, and Bach-Cantatas doesn't know it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what to make out of this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That, dear Gerda, will be entirely yours to grapple with. I'll deliver a table with which you can tinker ad libitum. Meanwhile, the revised cells you have posted in my sandbox cause scrolling on my screen. Not good. I suggest we stick to my earlier layout, but by all means canvass opinion on this. There are so many different screens in use now that an all-round satisfactory layout may be impossible. Meanwhile, pray leave me to build the table, and then once it's in main space it's yours to do with what you will. Tim riley talk
I won't touch yours, just tried a suggestion. I believe to have the conductor before some arbitrary soloist makes sense, and to have choir and orchestra also the same. Let me play with my little bit, and please make suggestions, - it's convenient to have them the same place, if you don't mind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back to Bach, seems to be a recording of a live concert, no soprano given (but there must be one), - while your entry has two. ?? - Leave you in peace now, guest coming, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday thanks, and did you see how smiled mentioning DFD? - Today the Stuttgart Ballet again: DYK ... that Georgette Tsinguirides, employed by the Stuttgart Ballet for 70 years, was the first choreologist in Germany and has taught ballets by Cranko and MacMillan to generations of dancers? - 70 years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Ravel at FAC

[edit]

To anyone kind enough to watch this page: I have put Ravel up for FAC, where all contributions will be most gladly received. Tim riley talk 16:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Receive congratulations ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ps: I added a bit to a neglected Onegin, feel free to improve/add, will show tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a hearty pat on the back Sir!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations from the eastern Mediterranean too. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...from Brentwood also. Ok, so it doesn't have quite the same ring of exotica as Cliftonian's postcard, but I'm equally impressed nonetheless! -- CassiantoTalk 12:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's so kind of all of you, and I am much touched. I really enjoyed writing about Ravel, though I am looking forward to equal enjoyment in my next (joint) FAC project, P G Wodehouse, who is still lurking in a sandbox at present. He lived longer and wrote more than Ravel did, so he may prove a mightier task. Tim riley talk 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. Odd ... familiar?

[edit]

Dear Tim, sorry to bother you but does this ring any bells with you? I am wondering if it is someone returning who has form in this field, but I cannot remember any specific examples. So far, only one edit, but if they are some kind of self-appointed Classical Music Delinking Expert™ it could become tedious. If this has no sense of familiarity for you, please don't worry, and apologies for wasting your time. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't ring any bells, and let us hope that one outbreak of patent idiocy doesn't presage an epidemic. Let constant vigilance be our watchword! Tim riley talk 18:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The march awaits...

[edit]

I have now nominated the Jarrow March at FAC. Any further thoughts, comments etc would be much welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Rukh Khan FAC

[edit]

Hi Tim. This is to inform you that Shah Rukh Khan is now up for FAC again at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shah Rukh Khan/archive2. You said that I could ping you when this occurred. BollyJeff | talk 12:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder in case you didn't see the post; no pressure though. BollyJeff | talk 16:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no (groan groan), not another bloody Indian cinema article. Who said that? Ahem! ;-) I'm sure he'll gladly look at it when he has the chance Jeff, it's only been three days..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah, no worries. I have one more on the way this year too, and then I will probably hang it up and edit other things. BollyJeff | talk 00:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enthiran - FA!

[edit]

Happy to inform you that the article has been promoted. Thank you for your support, Tim. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PONY!

[edit]
Pony!
Congratulations! For your support of Bazy Tankersley at FAC, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw(talk) 19:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

I say! Thank you very much. A good job I'm not Belgian. Tim riley talk 19:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully I am, born and bred in Bruges ;-) I have some carrots to give the pony if he gets hungry!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pony is safe, methinks; my understanding is that they raise these fellows for the dinner table. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Peace

[edit]

I note your request for citations. You may be aware that the current page is a much edited-down version of the previous page. Perhaps whoever supplied that lengthy material might be the one to approach for sources. Valetude (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The final FLC nom of a list of Scheduled monuments in Somerset

[edit]

As you have kindly added comments to one or more of the FLC nominations of Scheduled monuments in Somerset I wanted to let you know that the final list, List of scheduled monuments in Mendip, is nomination for Featured List status at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in Mendip/archive1. If you had any comments that would be great.— Rod talk 20:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. A treat in store, to judge from the earlier instalments. Tim riley talk 20:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New PR request

[edit]

Hi Tim, I have recently been working on the Burning of Parliament, which is now at PR for comment. Any input you could have would be much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favour of it. Oh, I see what you mean! I'll look in with pleasure. Must do Chetro Ketl first. Tim riley talk 20:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sad that another article like that may be needed for this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

[edit]
I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind, but as I can't bear the sound of such music and go to great lengths to avoid having it inflicted on my ears I couldn't be of any use to the project. Tim riley talk 07:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

[edit]

DYK for Onegin (Cranko)

[edit]

Harrias talk 09:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A legend died (met her once), Romeo is alive and remembers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eric might be interested in helping you get her up to FA status now, he's OK with ballet right, just not opera and musicals ;-)?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ballet is not my thing. I have done some work on ballet articles as part of three Editathons at the Royal Opera House, but I'm an opera chap, not a ballet boy, and I can't imagine ever trying to take a ballet article (particularly one on someone I've never heard of) to FAC. Tim riley talk 15:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I'm that wildly enthusiastic about either, but I do appreciate some of the opera singers. I like the odd musical. Now a film about ballet like Black Swan (film), that's terrific.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, did you know about Wikipedia:RIPM? Thought you might be interested in accessing more sources on music periodicals, might help occasionally?17:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I didn't know, and am most grateful to learn of it. I have put my name on the application list. Tim riley talk 17:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discography

[edit]

Remembering fondly your collection for Marga Schiml, it's now in Main space, but under construction, - comments welcome for {{classical discography row}}, a baby, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw "classical discography row" I thought there was some sort of brawl into which I must ride, having donned my shining armour, to rescue you. Not in the least, I find, and I have had much pleasure in adding a few - I hope - helpful suggestions. Tim riley talk 17:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She (the singer) is now pictured on the Main page, and the "rows" in better condition than ever, - always to be improved, of course, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed BWV 22 recordings to the more compact format and would appreciate your eyes on it and comments before moving ahead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks excellent to me. Tim riley talk 19:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Having seen that people didn't dare to change anything on The Tower House before TFA day, I was trembling a bit, changing BWV 165, 172 and 12 also. Andy improved it further. - I wonder what to do about the "one voice on part" recordings, those in historically informed practice but with choir, and those where orchestra and choir form a unity as in Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra & Choir? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cranko and team pictured

[edit]

See Barra etc [3] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings Line FAC

[edit]

I've addressed most of the issues raised. Asked for help on OCLCs and will need to dig amongst my book collection for a definition of secondary railway. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2015

[edit]


Headlines
* Africa report: GLAM activities in Africa* Catalan areas report: First Ever edit-a-thon in Andorra; Libraries project shared in L'Alguero; Archives time!* France report: No spring break for Wikimédia France!* Germany report: Fresh and GLAMmy datasets for Wikimedia projects to harvest* Italy report: Wikimedia Italia Training Day and another one Bibliohackathon!* Macedonia report: Collaboration with Holocaust Memorial Center* Netherlands report: GLAM-WIKI; a new brochure; Wikipedia in the Museum* Poland report: Modern art onto Wikimedia Commons* Spain report: Women in Science edit-a-thon and other stories
Read this edition in full • Single-page
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Falstaff

[edit]

To any fellow editors who may watch this page: I have nominated Verdi's Falstaff for FAC. The nomination is my tribute to the late John Webber, who edited as Viva-Verdi, with whom I worked extensively on the article. I hope I can do him justice. All comments gratefully received. Tim riley talk 14:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, the nom is not listed on WP:FAC which makes me think that you didn't complete the nomination process. You naughty boy! I've listed it as one to be looked at, and will comment later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Brian! A combination of a cold in the head and advancing senility has muddled me even more than usual. Now added to the list. Tim riley talk 20:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If only for amusement: [4] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! It takes all sorts! I got to the third page before I totally lost patience. Tim riley talk 10:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats to the promotion, - "Tutto nel mondo è burla", quite apt on a day when two Precious editors got blocked by arbitrary enforcement, - long live the memory of Viva-Verdi and the master for whom he lived! - Opera to appear on Verdi's birthday, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say! Thank you, Gerda. I hadn't spotted the promotion yet. Delighted, both for self and for the memory of John Webber. Tim riley talk 13:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, congrats! What did you want reviewed again Tim?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I decorated my user page, good until Sunday, - didn't occur to me that the name of both Sirs is John ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irataba FAC3

[edit]

Irataba is back at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive3. We look forward to your comments there. RO(talk) 16:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Yates

[edit]

Slim pickings, I'm afraid, from my shelves. There are two references to her in Freedom's Cause: Lives of the Suffragettes by Fran Abrams (Profile Books, London 2003, ISBN 9781861974259), both in the chapter on Emily Davison. Page 164 mentions Yates as an associate of Davison's from the Royal Holloway College; p. 173 says that Yates was among those who kept vigil at Davison's bedside after the latter's unfortunate encounter with the king's horse. Not much to get your teeth in there. But there is a very informative essay on the old girl in The Women's Suffrage Movement: A Reference Guide 1866-1928, and that's online, here. Just about all you really need to know. I'll keep an eye open for anything more. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff! Thank you. Tim riley talk 10:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Nielsen GA review

[edit]

Hi Tim. I see you've very quickly picked up Carl Nielsen. I'm honoured to see we have such an expert on the job. As you will see, there's been quite a bit of work on the article since we were first in touch. Straightening out the referencing has been a major task but I think everything is more or less in order now. Perhaps you could alert me when you start commenting. I may be able to help out with the follow-up.--Ipigott (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomsbury?

[edit]
Me: I am working on Æthelwulf.
Friend: Æthelwulf?
Me: The father of Alfred the Great.
Friend: It sounds like a little known member of the Bloomsbury Group.
Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delightful! Let me know if and when I can be of any use reviewing Ms Wulf's article. Tim riley talk 07:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Falstaff

[edit]

Re: filling out the music section: there are some possibly useful comments in Roger Parker's essay in Grove Music Online, here. Also, I remember there's quite a lot about Falstaff in Charles Osborne's Complete Operas of Verdi; unfortunately I've lost my copy of that book but I reckon it's fairly accessible. I'm looking through my books to see it there's anything else of substance. Brianboulton (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you! I'll chivvy the BL for copies ere next week is out. Tim riley talk 20:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Grove article is a godsend. I hope I've added enough from it and the learned notes to two of the half-dozen recordings on my shelves to gain reviewera' approval at the FAC page. But I'll still look out Osborne next week and top up further if it seems fruitful. Tim riley talk 12:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bligh

[edit]

Hello Tim, how are you? I hope you're doing well. Brian and I have just finished drafting a new article on the Mutiny on the Bounty and now have it at peer review here. Any contributions you might care to make would as always be more than welcome. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm blest! You two are a pair of dark horses. I'll be extravagantly pleased to look in at your joint efforts. Tim riley talk 22:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll happy accept the description of dark horse for myself, but I must object to its being applied to the remarkably industrious and exacting Brian, who it has been a singular pleasure to work alongside thus far. As always I look forward to your comments Tim. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just another note to let you know as a peer reviewer that the article is now at FAC here. Thank you again for all your help at the PR stage, and do let me know when you visit the Fletcher Christian in Cockermouth. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert, and Sullivan

[edit]

Does this mean it is incorrect to use "Infobox:Person", summarizing key census data up front, for historical figures?Jmg38 (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*groan* - how many more times have we got to endure this? There is a consensus that an idiot-box is not required. Tim riley talk 17:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having a bad day? No need for "groan" and "idiot-box" comments, you could have simply said that there is already a consensus on this issue - I understand that concept. I apologize for the original edit, and thank you for the (essential core) of your feedback. Is it okay/normal to add "age at death" in the text at the start of each article?Jmg38 (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're quite right – sorry! To put my tetchy reaction in context, there is a school of thought that thinks that though IBs are desirable for articles such as sportspeople, politicians and clerics et al where a convenient list of records/posts/career stats is helpful at the top of the page, for most arts biographies IBs add nothing of value to the reader and clog up the page. For classical music there is an established consensus to that effect. When an article is already GA or FA there is probably a good reason why it has or hasn't got an IB, and it is worth checking before wading in. Be that as it may, sorry for training my fire on you, and I trust we are friends. Tim riley talk 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still (new) friends. Good day. Jmg38 (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good! A friendly thank-you. Tim riley talk 17:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library needs more volunteer account coordinators

[edit]

Hey Tim riley: it occured to me that you might be a really good fit for the Wikipedia Library's account coordination volunteer team, because you have been a really strong contributor and really good at interacting with other users! Account coordination only requires a limited amount of time (a few hours a week at peak time), helping screen and approved editors for one (or two) of our donations at WP:TWL/Journals. Its a relatively limited amount of time per month. Would you be interested? Check out our application at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Coordinators/Signup, Sadads (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly check that page out and ponder. Tim riley talk 15:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Crisco_1492#Request

[edit]
Giovanna d'Arco.
Un ballo in maschera
I Lombardi
Rigoletto

Just in case you didn't get the ping. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the ping, and will look in forthwith. Tim riley talk 12:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you could help document and put into articles the images, I'll start on fixing them up. I think only Un ballo in maschera currently has a version used (and that version is terrible, but also the lead image. You could also help me look for any other such images - which scores have illustrations is pretty random, really. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right ho! I'm off to the Lake District for a week from tomorrow, but shall have broadband access and will do the necessary. Tim riley talk 15:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right ho! If you get to Edinburgh, let me know - I'll get ye a drink. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am slightly apprehensive at what that drink might be, young Christopher! Anything much beyond Cab Sauv and Pinot Noir has me worried. I can say authoritatively that Viva-Verdi and I did justice to two carafes of the latter when we met – a happy day!Tim riley talk 15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first set of four are done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They look splendid. I'll start adding them to the opera articles unless someone beats me to it. Bravo! Tim riley talk 17:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Giovanna d'Arco might be a better lead image than the current: The current lead is just an image of Joan of Arc, not related to the opera except in subject matter. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Nielsen FA

[edit]

I would like to thank you, Tim, for the excellent suggestions you made for further work on Carl Nielsen which has just been promoted to FA in time for the 150th anniversary on 9 June. On the strength of this success, I intend to work on the Jean Sibelius article in time for his 150th anniversary on 8 December. The article needs more work than Nielsen did when you stepped in but we also have more time. Let me know if you are interested.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is excellent news, both as to the promotion of the Nielsen article and your plans to upgrade Sibelius's. Very happy to review, at GAN/PR. Not a lot I can contribute to the research and writing, as Sibelius is not a composer I know very much about. I used to attend with pleasure Colin Davis's LSO Sibelius cycle a decade or so ago, but I've never studied the music closely. Tim riley talk 21:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit of additional work needed before we get close to GAN. If all goes well, maybe basic improvements could be completed in about a month. I'll get back to you once we have done what we can. I'm sure you will once again have some useful tips. I believe you said you didn't know much about Nielsen either but it was mainly as a result of your encouragement and enthusiasm that we went first for GA and then FA. Nielsen and Sibelius actually knew each other quite well and in many ways shared similar ambitions - so it should be interesting to work on yet another Nordic composer.--Ipigott (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
: 9 June 2015: Carl Nielsen made: Main Page history: and you were part of : working for his works!

I would like to thank SchroCat the same but do not feel welcome, - please share ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P G Wodehouse peer review

[edit]

To anyone who is kind enough to watch this here talk page: SchroCat and I have been overhauling the article on Wodehouse, and have put it up for peer review. All contributions gratefully received, Tim riley talk 12:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2015

[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.

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally

[edit]

I've laid Warren G. Harding at peer review. Your views welcome. I've laboured long to bear a long article, I'm afraid, but when you have a tempest in a Teapot ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be there! Looking foward to it. Tim riley talk 14:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Could you take a peek at the first line and tell me if "catalog number" turns your stomach? - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord, no! I am perfectly unruffled. The front page is usually in US spelling, and "catalog" is nearer the Italian catalogo than our British-bastardised-French "catalogue". Dr Johnson, great man though he was, has much to answer for. Whether Bold Sir Brian, as main author, will concur is not for me say, but I doubt if he will be mounting his battle charger over it. Tim riley talk 16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good grief, can't believe I missed that ... I mean, if it's spelled "catalogue", do you object to saying "catalogue number" in front of what's obviously a catalog number (for the knowledgeable), and do you think WT:OPERA will object? - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Then I give it as my solemn and quotable opinion that anyone who objects to your proposed phrasing is in urgent need of getting a life. Whether it is the way it would appear in Grove is neither here nor there. This is a generalist encyclopedia. Onwards and upwards! Tim riley talk 16:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll send the angry mob your way. Careful, they may be armed with tuning forks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shall repulse them with the dominant of F sharp, which I am honing to a lethal edge. Tim riley talk 18:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Dank, As someone will point out the US spelling and British date format (you know they will - and many KB of discussion will follow!), it is worth bringing the date in line with the spelling to keep it consistent? - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Schro. It's British English, and the one date in the TFA column seems to be okay ... did I miss an Americanism somewhere? - Dank (push to talk) 11:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you very much for your swift review of Borders Railway! RGloucester — ☎ 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great pleasure. It was an enjoyable and instructive article to review. I am supposed to urge you and your co-editors to keep the wheel going round by reviewing someone else's GAN. Pray ponder. Tim riley talk 19:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A small request

[edit]

While I bask momentarily in the afterglow of the Mutiny before returning to the travails of Jeremy (too long by 1500), would you mind doing a brief talkpage review for The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold? I don't want a formal peer review if I can help it, but I'd be glad of your opinion along with those of a few others. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I call an edit summary that reads "Request re Gilbert" a shocking deception of an innocent Savoyard. I shall of course be pleased to look in, though I have to say the book disturbed me somewhat when I read it as a young man. Tim riley talk 15:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to come in so fast with another request, but I have just now opened a peer review for Sir Hugh Beadle, who Harold Wilson once said could not have a slipped disc as he had no backbone. As always your input would be very much appreciated if you can find a few minutes to look in over the next week or so. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) That Harold! What a card. :) DBaK (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shall certainly look in at the Beadle article once I've done with Pinfold. Tim riley talk 11:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FA for 2017 main page- Don Carlos

[edit]

Hi Tim. Based on your participation at Verdi's Falstaff, I thought you might consider working on Don Carlos with the idea of getting the opera promoted in time to appear on the main page for the opera's 150th anniversary on March 11, 2017. I know that's a ways away, but since you tend to be busy I thought I would throw out the idea now. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How very nice to be asked! Alas, when it comes to Verdi I'm afraid that Falstaff is the only one I know more than a bare minumum about. I've only ever seen Don Carlos once, and I don't think I could do it justice. Happy to research and peer review, though, if anyone takes the job on. – Tim riley talk 14:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JC's Girls

[edit]

Hi Tim,

Might you have the time to give the JC's Girls article a look-over? I have the article up for an FAC here, and I would be grateful for any comments you might provide in the discussion.

Neelix (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! This is about as far from my area of expertise as I can imagine – I have little to do with religion and nothing at all to do with female strippers – but I'll gladly look in and comment. Tim riley talk 07:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelwulf

[edit]

Hi Tim. I have Æthelwulf at peer review and should be most grateful for your advice. I am a bit worried that this one is somewhat turgid, and hopefully you can suggest how to make it more readable. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be more turgid than her elder sister's stuff. (I mean, Mrs Dalloway! I've been dining out on your friend's Bloomsbury remark ever since you reported it.) Shall look in with pleasure. Tim riley talk 18:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

[edit]

Jeremy, Jeremy, bang. bang, woof, woof

[edit]

I have sent Pinfold to WP:FAC on the basis of the talkpage comments to which you kindly contributed. I have been saving my peer review slot for the much more substantial Jeremy Thorpe. The PR is now open, and your comments there will be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinfold duly attended to. Shall turn to Thorpe shortly. More soonest. Tim riley talk 08:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Walpole

[edit]

Re my deleted edit, you might think of a better word than 'deface' for a perfectly legit addition, suitably referenced. There are wiki vandals about, but I am not one of them. (I do note, however, that Featured Articles merit special treatment.) Valetude (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean; all the same it is jolly hard work getting an article to FA, and a few misjudged edits can imperil the FA status. I think, if you would be happy with this, I'll move the JBP gratitude line to the section where other authors' indebtedness to HW is mentioned. The citation is essentially fine, and just needs knocking into shape, which I'm happy to do. Tim riley talk 14:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeves

[edit]

How's that? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks excellent; thank you very much. Tim riley talk 06:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly didn't expect it to come out so well. I had to invent some new techniques for on the letters. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a happy couple of minutes flicking between the original and your restored version. The difference is striking. Bravo! Tim riley talk 09:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I love doing that. It's one of the reasons I upload so many incremental restorations when I'm doing a longer one: Flicking back and forth and seeing that you really are making progress really helps motivate you to carry on. Otherwise, it's so easy to feel "I've been working at this so long, and it feels like I've done nothing." Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italics & quotes

[edit]

Hi, I read your GA review on BWV 243a with much interest. A point you write about is the italicisation and/or enclosing in quotes of Magnificat, "Magnificat anima mea", "Esurientes" etc. You refer to the MoS, in part to MOS:QUOTETITLE. However that same page also contains the following (in the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Neither):

Works named by a generic title: Symphony No. 2 by Gustav Mahler ..., Shakespeare's Sonnet 130 ..., The Magnificat by Schütz, ... the Adagio sometimes attributed to Albinoni.

Interesting. I wonder who dreamed that one up. Grove, always italicises the word, as do our own Wikipedia articles on the Magnificat and on the settings by various composers. Some muddled thinking chez MoS, but as it's there I suppose we are stuck with it. Tim riley talk 12:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That extends to movements of compositions: e.g. "The first movement of BWV 1047 has no tempo indication, the second and third are an Andante and an Allegro assai. Not: ... an "Andante" and an "Allegro assai" – and even less: ... an Andante and an Allegro assai. Similarly, not "Esurientes", nor Esurientes, but Esurientes, not even when a full title of a movement is used: Magnificat anima mea, not "Magnificat anima mea", nor Magnificat anima mea.

It is axiomatic that we don't italicise such words as adagio or scherzo, but I see nothing in the MoS or in normal usage elsewhere to suggest that the same applies to titles of sections within works. Certainly, Grove, The Journal of Musicology, The Musical Times and four sources I've checked at random from those cited for the Magnificat in D article (Jones, Rizzuti, Hogwood and Jenkins) all put "Quia respexit" "Sicut locutus est" etc into quotes. Wikipedia would look rather silly flying in the face of such authorities. Tim riley talk

When referring to words that are sung (not to the movement of the composition, i.e. not referring to a title of a composition nor to one of its constituent parts), italicize foreign words would apply per MOS:FOREIGN, e.g. "The ritornello introduces a motif moving up, later sung on Esurientes implevit bonis." (but that is unrelated to style guides on titles). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to argue with that, as long as it is applied consistently within an article. Tim riley talk

Do you have space in your diary for a PR?

[edit]

Hi Tim, After a recent re-write, the Hitler Diaries are now at peer review, should you have the time and inclination. Any and all thoughts on the article are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but it may be a little while: I have Sir B's Thorpe PR and two GANs to do first. Tim riley talk 12:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No rush whatsoever: I also have to join in the bun-fight at Thorpe. - SchroCat (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Off to Portugal on Sunday for a week, where I doubt if my hosts will leave me much time to fossick about online, so normal service will resume on or about 13 July. Off to the Lakes a day or two after that, but I'll have bags of editing time there. I'm looking forward to your PR rather more than I am to BB's, purely because of the subject matter. I bet I'll be the only one of BB's reviewers who had several conversations with Thorpe in the early 1970s. I never met Lord Dacre or, of course, the supposed diarist, though I sometimes suspect he edits WP and one has dealt with him over... Tim riley talk 13:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SO!! Sensation, sensation, the identity of the mysterious Mr Big in the Thorpe affair is at last resolved!! You murderous swine. (Your review should be most revealing). Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was the minorest of functionaries in the Palace of Westminster, and most MPs were civil but de haut en bas. But not Jeremy Thorpe, Enoch Powell, George Thomas, Wedgie Benn, and Denis Healy, who all used to talk to me as though I were an equal. I shall respect Jeremy Thorpe for that come what may. I really liked him. Tim riley talk 19:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chetro Ketl

[edit]

Hello. Thanks for your comments at the Chetro Ketl peer review. The article is now a featured article candidate, and I'd like to invite you to comment there. Thanks! RO(talk) 17:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you're back, and I look forward to your comments at the Chetro Ketl FAC. RO(talk) 15:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beadle

[edit]

Hi Tim, just a note to let you know as a participant in the peer review that Sir Hugh is now at FAC here. Thanks for all your help earlier and I hope you're enjoying your holiday. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: June 2015

[edit]


Headlines|- style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; text-align:center;"|
Read this edition in full • Single-page
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Oceanides

[edit]

The Oceanides, I found that article - author's first, act of love - and nominated it for DYK, - it graces the Main page right now. I think it has GA potential and will tell the author tomorrow how to nominate, - if you would be inclined to review in your kind way, that would make life easier for the user who mentioned discouragement today. - Different topic: You can now say: Kathleen Ferrier recorded Bach's Mass in B minor with George Enescu. Work in progress, comments welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I never heard Ferrier sing, alas, but I often heard Janet Baker in her heyday, and I shall go to my grave in the belief that she is the greatest singer England produced in the 20th century.
So, we could say that Janet Baker recorded Bach's Mass in B minor with Otto Klemperer, - I like the ease of doing so, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Returning from a concert, music for the soul, Choir of King's College, Cambridge, conducted by Stephen Cleobury, singing all-English composers, Tye, Gibbons, Byrd, Hacomplaynt, after intermission Vaughan Williams, Harvey, Howells and BB, theme of A Boy was Born, - very pleasing to see that spelling which unfortunately still contradicts this house's rules, - the singing boys were very impressive! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am slowly and enjoyably gathering material for an overhaul of the Vaughan Williams article with FA in mind. If the demands of RL allow him time, Alfie Tucker will be joining me in this, and I am therefore taking my time with my researches. I'm afraid Byrd and the Tudor lot bore me to sobs; nor shall I be working on Purcell's article. Real music started with Bach and ended with Britten. (I am going to have to keep very quiet about the god-awfulness of the English folk music to which VW was morbidly addicted.) Tim riley talk 14:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tim. I have heard, of course, wonderful things about your work and your abilities as a conscientious and careful reviewer/editor. Both Gerda Arenda and Ipigott recommended you to me as someone who would take the time to help a new editor like me improve the quality of my work. Gerda has already informed you of the GAN on The Oceanides by Sibelius that I took from stub to its present form. I understand you are quite busy with the Vaughan Williams bio (and I wish you great luck on converting it to FA), but if you get the time in the next month or so, I'd love to hear your comments on my GA candidate :). Sgvrfjs (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am flattered to be asked, and will most certainly look in over the next couple of weeks. My spare time is limited just at the moment, but I'll make of point of fitting The Oceanides in. Tim riley talk 17:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Tim, for taking this on! No rush, of course... :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another pharaoh anyone?

[edit]

Dear Tim Riley, I was wondering he you might consider reviewing yet another article on a pharaoh: Menkauhor Kaiu? This article is part of the series I am building up concerning the 5th Dynasty and which, thanks in no small part to your work, already comprises Unas, Shepseskare (both FA), Sahure and Pyramid of Unas (GA). I hope that Menkauhor will make it to FA, in particular since I have received the help of a professional Egyptologist for this article. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be very pleased to review the article, but I'd like to finish a rather complicated GAN I am currently reviewing before taking on another GA review. That review is, I think, near to reaching a successful conclusion, and I'll get to work on Menkauhor Kaiu as soon as I can. Tim riley talk 12:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, good luck for your complicated review! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diaries, again

[edit]

Many thanks for your excellent comments on the recent Hitler Diaries PR; the article has now moved on to FAC, should you wish to comment further. Thanks again – SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bentworth

[edit]

Hi, thank you for your comments at the recent peer review (and also its GA review back in 2012). Bentworth is now a featured article candidate, and it would be great if you could comment there. Thanks! JAGUAR  20:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look in with the greatest pleasure. I suspect I shall have no difficulty in supporting after a final read-through of the latest version, but we shall see. Tim riley talk 20:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and I hadn't. Splendid stuff! Tim riley talk 20:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly neglected FAC

[edit]

To anyone who is kind enough to watch this page, may I mention a second-time-round FAC that languished at first attempt for lack of visitors: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hastings Line/archive2. I have commented there, and I think comments from others will be welcomed. Tim riley talk 20:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Menkauhor Kaiu

[edit]

Anyone who is quixotic enough to dip into this page may be interested – as I am – in the peer review of this pharaoh. I, of course, have been sitting on a canopic jar full of lungs for 4,000 years, but even so Menkauhor Kaiu is before my time, so all help will be welcome. Tim riley talk 18:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll swing by this or the Hastings line a little later. In the meantime, can I suggest a good read in the Halifax Explosion FAC by Nikkimaria and Resolute. Horrible event but a fantastic article. Pip pip – SchroCat (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Verdi_image_project:_Stage_2

[edit]

I'd really appreciate your thoughts here. I'm trying to figure out what to doo going forwards. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Thorpe – FAC

[edit]

This is to advise peer reviewers of the above article that I have now nominated it at FAC, and will welcome any further comments. Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isolde and Tristan

[edit]

ITN: As soon as Isolde finished "Mild und leise" I had her article started ;) - More for you: Vaughan Williams, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be having with Tristan. Thirty minutes' worth of music and plot spun out to soporific lengths. The excellent orchestral conflation of the Prelude and Liebestod saves all the ludicrous goings on and longueurs, and lets one hear the music without soprano shrieking. I'm afraid I got the giggles at Covent Garden in the early 1980s with Jon Vickers as Tristan wearing a wig that made him look exactly like a British low comedian called Les Dawson. Thank you for the RVW diversion. Tim riley talk 22:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She is going to appear in Covent Garden, Elektra, I would guess ;) - How do you like the possibility to link to a recording by simply combining piece and conductor's last name (+ year when more than one recording)? Alakzi made it possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptical. Rather than clog up this page, please email me the details. Tim riley talk 22:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nabucco horrors

[edit]

I did find... some Nabucco images...

I can't help but feel it has the æsthetics of a Vegas stage show, though. Any thoughts on the Il trovatore images? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Vegas" is about right! The middle one is the least flashy, perhaps. As to Trovatore, T=the costume designs strike me as the best bet. I don't think it matters a bit that they are from the French version. I think number 3 – the second costume for Leonora – is perhaps the best, though number 4 – Azucena – is great fun. Tim riley talk 07:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'll get to that after Macbeth, since it's one of my favourites, and seems to be quite commonly performed (this may have something to do with me living in Edinburgh, of course). Macbeth will push me over the 1/3rd point for Verdi operas with new featurable pictures. WP:FPC is a little slow at the moment - everything's stuck at four votes out of the five-support quorum - but I'm pretty sure that they'll all pass eventually, though I might have to renominate some. WP:VERDI has my list of completed images (note, when counting Verdi operas done, that Aida has two images, and will probably end up with four). Check out the Otello I found. I love it because it's... really a very, very practical design. I've performed on sets like that, they offer a lot of variety and places to position choristers, while being relatively quick to take down and change despite their apparent complexity. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macbeth

[edit]

File:Frédéric Lix - Auguste Trichon - Giuseppe Verdi's Macbeth (1865 revision) - Original.jpg says it's Act I, Scene 2. But, at the same time, the BNF have set designs for Act II, Scene 5, and Act II Scene 6.

Did the French version fail because the performance got hacked to pieces and rearranged? Because this is pretty clearly Act II, Scene 3 in the standard form. There's Banquo's ghost and everything, unless I'm forgetting something about the end of Act I and Duncan's ghost appears where Banquo will be later or something. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Getting some decent evidence - a banquet scene set for Act II scene 5 - I think there were some ballets to up the scene counts - and a clear set design related to this scene, but is that then... Duncan's ghost? I don't remember that... and it's not in the libretto. Was the Paris production taking some rather major liberties? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, not my area of expertise, Adam. My knowledge of any Verdi opera apart from Falstaff is merely that of an average operagoer. Tim riley talk 19:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sinatra

[edit]

I wondered if you or a page stalker would be interested in getting Frank Sinatra up to FA in time for his centenary on December 12? I know We hope potentially might be but she's left wikipedia sadly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not my area of expertise, alas, but I hope someone spotting this may be inspired to act. Very sorry to hear that the excellent We hope has left. The usual bullying, I suppose? Why must a handful of our editors be such pigs! – Tim riley talk 14:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it would be yours, but I thought a stalker might have an interest. Once I get Kubrick done I may consider it, but I'd rather not have to do it all alone. Yes there was a dishonest admin in the commons who relisted a kept image she uploaded because he didn't like the decision. I do hope We hope will return soon enough, as I'm sure you do!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not for me either I'm afraid, although I am a fan. It seems like a monumental effort and one I cannot possibly make in a hectic life such as mine. I reckon Sinatra could possibly end up being the biggest biography we have; perhaps even bigger than Sir Charles of Chaplin, who knows. CassiantoTalk 17:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it would be one of the most demanding articles ever to write because he had several different careers and was a different man to different people, and then there's the organized crime side to boot. I'll give it some thought, but would be more inclined to go for it if We hope returned and agreed to work on it with me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

[edit]

Any chance of you looking at my latest Indian cinema FAC? It just reached the older nominations marking point. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge/archive1. BollyJeff | talk 21:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yippee, another Indian cinema article. Three cheers! ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look in, but I have a peer review and the closing of a GAN to deal with first. Tim riley talk 19:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time, and for your kind words at the FAC. I was quite surprised. BollyJeff | talk 12:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Unprecedented'

[edit]

Hi Tim - there are a number of reasons why 'unprecedented' should be removed:

  1. it is misused more often than not because people don't understand the word's meaning and therefore how to use it,
  2. it is used as sales/marketing hyperbole, as in to make something more appealing,
  3. it is often used incorrectly in place of record-setting, as in sports - where records are broken by even the smallest of margins,
  4. it is often used in a way that is unverifiable, where something's impact is open-to-interpretation, and
  5. it is often unnecessary in an encyclopedia (unless something is truly unprecedented).

More specifically in this case with 'nearly unprecedented' - the additional word 'nearly' is adding on a layer of unnecessary jargon. An encyclopedic article should focus on facts (quantifiable, qualitative, etc). Stating that something is nearly unprecedented is like saying it is almost amazing, trying to make more out of something than really is there.

The best use of 'unprecedented' would be a situation that causes precedence. So we have to consider the root of the word... Precedence means that something LIKE that has never happened before - so much so that this incident is used as a model for things to come, a new law or set of rules/guidelines is created to deal with the situation next time, etc.

In most cases, simply using 'unprecedented' when discussing something containing a numerical value (sports record, streak of consecutive dates, large salaries or sports player contract values, etc) is an improper use of the word (see #1 - #3 above). It could be re-written to say that this streak is perhaps second only to [xxxx]... but the onus for that would be on the original author making such a claim.

It's best just to state facts and move on. Entirelybs (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some good and interesting points there. I think the idea was to put the figure in context, and on the whole I'd still prefer to leave the phrase there for that purpose. I'm pinging the principal editor @Ssilvers: who may have views. Tim riley talk 21:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think "near record" would be better than "nearly unprecedented". (And ideally, reference what that record is, or what the average/norm is, something more to indicate why this is a big deal). But I won't start an edit-war here. I have plenty of articles to review. Many american-sports related articles violate this in the worst way. One of my pet-peeves, I suppose. Cheers Entirelybs (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a pleasingly civilised exchange! Thank you, Entirelybs. I wish such give-and-take among WP editors was the norm. Tim riley talk 21:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I concur. Edit-wars are generally unproductive in the long run. And while I would write it differently, it would be presumptuous of me to think mine is the only acceptable way. For many issues involving word usage, I would prefer to err on the side of caution; I prefer the less-is-more approach (often removing an objectionable phrase may remove the objection entirely). But because we know different languages/dialects allow for different word usage (and I suspect that UK/US usage may be involved here), I typically try to back off once that potential situation exists. Also, I suspect that preference should be given to the WP editor(s) that spends more time on the topic/article. From your comment it appears that you and/or Ssilvers match that description best. Brad S. Entirelybs (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have divined that you gentlemen are talking about the Arthur Sullivan article. While it's true that the run was "nearly unprecedented", as only one other show had ever run longer, I've added more specific information. What do you think of it, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. Thank you so much Ss! (Sorry not to have left clues above about what Entirelybs and I were talking about.) Tim riley talk 20:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Begging bowl out once more

[edit]

What ho, and all that. I'm being a pest on the Bond front again, with book three of the series, Moonraker, which is now at PR, should you have either the time or inclination to visit. Many thanks and pip pip. – SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be there. Tim riley talk 20:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Oceanides for FA?

[edit]

Thanks, Tim, for all your constructive comments during the review. We now have an article which looks to me as if it is a candidate for FA. And as you will have noticed, with Sgvrfjs we have a highly competent and cooperative editor to take it further down the line. What do you think? We are still hoping to have the main Sibelius article at FA or at least GA by S's 150th anniversary on 8 December but in the meantime it would be good to have an article relating to Sibelius on the front page. Any further advice you may have would be greatly appreciated.--Ipigott (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sgvrfjs scares the pants off me: s/he actually knows how music works, whereas I merely like the noise it makes, and can just about find middle C with map and compass. The prose of the Oceanides article needs work before it would be a plausible FA candidate, but the content seems to me of FA calibre. Well worth pursuing, I'd say. Happy to help with the prose if wanted. Tim riley talk 20:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've already made considerable improvements with the prose, Tim, but any further changes or suggestions would certainly be appreciated. Maybe Gerda Arendt or Smerus would also like to comment or intervene? I do not think very much more is required before we go for FA. Sgvrfjs would probably also benefit from the comments made by other editors once the FAC process begins.--Ipigott (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has potential, but think getting the Nymphes to another GA would be what I would do first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt, Ipigott, and Tim riley: Hi team! I'm pleased to hear of the desire to push both the Wood Nymph to GA and the Oceanides to FA, and I am happy to help out...in September. I am a PhD student, and my qualifying exams are in August, so it's time for me to curtail my activity. I do however plan to be back in the Fall to help on the Sibelius main page. Tim, I'm still of course keen on your further suggestions for the Oceanides (on prose, notes, etc.) and when the time comes, I'd love you help on the Wood Nymph GAN. Of course, feel free to take action while I'm gone; if I miss out on the FAC of the Oceanides, it's my own fault! OH, and Tim, I have no formal musical training, just a shelf full of Sibelius books and a passion for his mastery. :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No rush for the FA, we hope to have the composer himself on the birthday, and the work should probably better come afterwards, and spaced. If we want a DYK on the Nyphes on the birthday - which would make sense to me - a review should be finished within the week before. Unless you can offer more pieces for that purpose ;) - DYK quality (1,5 characters and good sourcing) and publication within the week before would suffice. - Best wishes for the exams! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we try to push forward slowly on all fronts. Maybe after he has completed his exams in August, {u|Sgvrfjs}} will be able to follow up on any suggestions which emerge in the meantime. I also hope to have made more progress on the main Sibelius article by then.--Ipigott (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should have a peer review for the Oceanides after the exams, and/or have the guild of copy-editors look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FLC nomination

[edit]

Hi Tim. If you can look at List of Local Nature Reserves in Hertfordshire at FLC I should be most grateful. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A delight. How quickly do you expect to roll out the Miles empire to the Local Nature Reserves of Cumbria, where the Riley family house is (though I am mostly to be found in Islington)? I can book a slot in my diary for 2022 to celebrate my seventieth birthday. Tim riley talk 20:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah a mere stripling! My seventieth will be in 2017. As to Cumbria, that is surely a job for a Cumbria patriot such as yourself? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piccadilly

[edit]

Hi Tim, any chance you could review this one for GA? Ritchie and We hope may have some further things to add but I think it's decent for GA now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure. Nothing about it in music I see from a quick once-over: see para 6 here. (A comment not to be taken too seriously.) Tim riley talk 21:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. With Park Lane, The Dorchester and The Ritz at GA that area is getting quite well covered now, and rightly so. Hyde Park I really think should be something of a priority next though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie thinks he has a bit more to add so can you wait a bit until he's happy with it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Review now on hold. Tim riley talk 09:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Glazunov

[edit]

That 150th birthday is on 10 August, - a bit of attention there would be nice, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not my stamping ground. I rather agree with Stravinsky when he called Glazunov "Carl Philipp Emanuel Rimsky-Korsakov". Tim riley talk 09:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full* Single-page* Unsubscribe* MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

[edit]

Piccadilly

[edit]

Master Ritchie has now finished. Look forward to further comments if there's any!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Menkauhor at FAC

[edit]

Hello Tim Riley, this is to let you know, as you requested, that the article on Menkauhor Kaiu is now at FAC, see here. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFAR and FAC

[edit]

Hi Tim,

Thank you very much for your review of the JC's Girls article during its FAC. The article has been promoted to featured status and I have nominated it to go up on the main page here. I have also started a FAC for the "Sisters at Heart" article here. If you have time to contribute to the discussion, your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've chipped in on the TFA page, and, having looked in cursorily, will look in more carefully at the Bewitched article and comment at FAC if I feel I have anything of value to say. Tim riley talk 21:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tim! I value your input. Neelix (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have given the article a close reading and it strikes me as in good shape. Pusillanimously, before committing myself, I should like see if editors who know more than I do about FACs for one-off episodes of series think it covers the topic fully and proportionately. So I'll wait for a few days to see if there any more expert views I can piggy-back on. Tim riley talk 11:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that the Sisters at Heart article looks good to you. Now that two editors have added their support to the FAC and none have opposed, would you feel confident in contributing to the discussion? Neelix (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FAC input

[edit]

Hey Tim, can you take a look at Kill 'Em All, which I nominated for FA a couple of months ago? It desparately needs reviewers, and since you've been doing FAs for quite some time, thought to give you a call. The nomination is here, and any input will be much appreciated. Have a nice day.--Retrohead (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few minor comments, and look forward to adding my support once you've addressed them. Tim riley talk 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm sure Tim has it on his iPod ;-) [5]♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forfeit.

[edit]

Your way on the Faure thing is the wrong way, but it's not worth trying to convice you over. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:34, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

[edit]

Guildford Church

[edit]

In undoing my edit to P. G. Wodehouse you claimed "The Church's own website calls it "St Nicholas" with no possessive. The WP article is wrong" Which website would that be? That the church in Guildford is dedicated to Saint Nicolas (NOT Nicholas) is confirmed by the current church website - https://saintnics.com/ and the former one - https://www.stnicolas-guildford.org.uk St Nicolas is confirmed by A Church Near You; St Nicolas, Guildford - http://www.achurchnearyou.com/guildford-st-nicolas/ by the Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/saintnicolasguildford and the linked school, St Nicolas CofE Aided Infant School, Guildford - https://www.st-nicolas-guildford.com/ You can even read the signage on the image used on the church's Wikipedia page - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/St_Nicholas%27_Church%2C_Bury_Street%2C_Guildford_%28April_2014%2C_from_Northwest%29_%281%29.JP I accept that the listing text does use Nicholas but that is often in error. The weight of evidence clearly backs Nicolas. Nedrutland (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry! I missed the Nicholas/Nicolas point. It was the American-style possessive that I was concerned about. Perfectly happy to defer to you on the inclusion or omission of the "h". Tim riley talk 14:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Your latest edit is spot-on. Tim riley talk 18:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Issue happily resolved. Thanks. Nedrutland (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J Gordon Edwards

[edit]

I looked in at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/J. Gordon Edwards filmography/archive2, and I think anyone kind enough to watch my talk page may also enjoy dipping in. Tim riley talk 21:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thanks for your PR and FAC comments and/or edits to Chetro Ketl, which is now a featured article. It was a long and interesting process, but thanks to a wealth of insights and suggestions the article is now among our best. Thanks for taking time out of your busy editing schedule to help me. RO(talk) 16:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: July 2015

[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.

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Tear, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Tomlinson and Royal Opera. 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) 09:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Pitt filmography

[edit]

Hi Tim! The above list is currently at FLC here. Can you review it? -- Frankie talk 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalidas (film)/archive1

[edit]

Hello Tim, it's been quite a while. How are things going? The article on the first talking picture in Tamil, Kaildas (1931) is at FAC and is nominated by Kailash29792, who was also the co-nominator for Enthiran. You are most welcome to leave comments at its FAC page. Thank you. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

[edit]

Your reversion on Symphony No. 1 (Elgar)

[edit]

Would you clarify what you consider to be a breech of WP:CITEVAR in this edit? CITEVAR is usually invoked to discourage changing (without consensus) between major citation styles: using and not using cite/citation templates, or using inline citations vs. parenthetical references.

The addition of annotations, in the form of quotations from the source, is a common Wikipedia technique that is independent of citation style and in my experience has always been considered by the community to be an improvement. It is particularly helpful when the source is offline (as Reed is), the source requires translation, or a passage combines information from multiple sources. It aids verification, helps maintain source-text integrity, and helps avoid copyright violation or close paraphrasing, among other things.

In the edit in question, for instance, the technique highlights the fact that the cited source doesn't say, as the article does, that Elgar's letter to Jaeger was written in 1899. That adding annotations to this one source in this one article didn't reveal any larger issue is a testament to your good referencing work five years ago. Other editors will inevitably come along, however, and add information from Moore, say, and inline citations to McVeagh, rearrange text, etc. When they do, the annotations should help preserve your efforts. Worldbruce (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never, as far as I know, seen great screeds of English text quoted in references, essentially repeating what is already in the main article. I both write and review GAs and FAs, and I believe I can say in good conscience that I do not recall seeing any instances of this strange practice in GANs or FACs (or in fact anywhere else). It looks most peculiar, indeed, with the greatest possible respect, rather amateurish, and should not, in my view, be imposed on an existing article without consensus. Naturally, if you can establish such a consensus I shall meekly abide by it. Tim riley talk 17:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Steiger

[edit]

Evening, any chance you could provide some input at the peer review?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tim riley talk
...and, while you have your reviewing boots on, could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jeannette Expedition/archive1, which has also just opened? Naturally you must give Steiger your first attention. Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Am now turning to (in between GAN reviewing Hadrian) Tim riley talk 14:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
....coming in at third, could you also have a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Diamonds Are Forever (novel)/archive1 too, please? (Brianboulton, could I ask the same from you too?) many thanks to all. – SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. If I don't get trapped in Brian's ice-floes I'll look at your foreverlasting ice over the weekend, I hope. Tim riley talk 14:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

[edit]

Guardian Style Guide

[edit]

I understand that about 2500 solvers send in the weekly prize crossword, so I don't normally bother even if I complete it because of the adverse odds. The (Easter?) holiday special was a larger than normal grid with an islands theme. It was so head-achingly difficult that it was more luck than judgement that I finished it. On that basis, it had to be worth a shot! Can't remember who the setter was, but too late for Araucaria. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem something off about calling Meryl Streep a "great actor" rather than a "great actress". I know some "female actors" see them being called actors rather than actresses as a gender equality and respect thing, but I've also heard others say "I am an actress".♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edith Evans always used to call herself an actor, and it's not uncommon nowadays for actresses to adopt the term, but "actress" is still the most generally used word for them. Of the quality papers in the UK it's only The Guardian that peddles the doctrinaire unisex term at the moment; The Times, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph all use "actress". The time will probably come when the shorter, gender-neutral term is commonly applied to all stage, radio and screen performers but it hasn't come yet. Tim riley talk 17:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. This month I've started asking the FAC nommers to take a stab at reducing the lead section (the current text at that link) down to between 900 and 1300 characters (counting characters on the page readers see, not in the edit window). Don't worry about perfect prose or MOS; I want to know which bits you think of as the important bits. I'm happy to do the condensing if you prefer. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drumming up trade

[edit]

@Bencherlite: @Dr. Blofeld: (and anyone else who sees this and may be interested) – I've been reviewing a Featured Article candidate on St Denys' Church, Sleaford, nominated by an editor new to FAC. One wants to encourage that sort of thing. If you, who know more about writing on churches and places than I do, have time and disposition to look in, it would be a kindness. – Tim riley talk 14:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, will try to look tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peter I. Vardy is an expert on churches but I don't think he feels comfortable reviewing. Still, it would benefit from the likes of @Bencherlite: and him commenting at the FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Port Sunlight

[edit]

To avoid cluttering the FAC, asking here—can you think of a better way to describe the location of Port Sunlight? I do agree that "near Liverpool" isn't ideal, but Liverpool is realistically the nearest place of which most Wikipedia readers will have heard—to a typical Australian, American etc "Wirral" or "Birkenhead" may as well be random words, while "Merseyside" isn't much better. There are certainly precedents for "go with the nearest town the readers can be assumed to know"—we describe Cheshunt as "in the London commuter belt", for instance. ‑ iridescent 19:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Perhaps it doesn't matter all that much about the precise geography. Would it detract from the article if we just said the gallery was in northwest England? If you don't fancy that, then I shan't witter on any more if you stick with "near Liverpool". Tim riley talk 21:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Across the River Mersey from Liverpool"? I do feel it makes sense to give readers an idea of where it is, should someone want to see the original; Lady Lever is something of a shrine to Etty, and Merseyside is to all practical purposes Greater Liverpool as far as the rest of the country is concerned. (Since Lady Lever is a part of Liverpool Museums, they can hardly complain at the association.) Describing the location of independent areas with reference to their better-known neighbours will hardly be a new development—count the number of times "San Francisco" appears in Oakland or "New York City" appears in Hoboken. Even Salford and Trafford grudgingly acknowledge the existence of Manchester. ‑ iridescent 22:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think your suggested phrasing is both geographically accurate and rather poetical. Bravo! Tim riley talk 22:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fac

[edit]

it seems i'm not having a good evening - did not mean disrepect and have rolled back on my approach. It just seemed that the page was being rushed as promoted when it needs work yet, imo. I'll temper from here. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure to see the Wikipedian spirit going strong. I hope we can all come to an agreement on the FAC page. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 22:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

[edit]
Please leave a message; I'll reply here.

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

[edit]

Jeannette Expedition FAC

[edit]

This is a note to all participants in the recent peer review. Many thanks for your help; the article is now at WP:FAC Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have commented there, with great pleasure. Tim riley talk 21:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

[edit]

Royal Opera

[edit]

Good performance today! Precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dear Gerda! I'm steering clear of the article until the caravan has passed and some other article is TFA and suffering the attentions of the usual smutty schoolboys etc. I'll look in tomorrow and incorporate any useful amendments and ditch such junk as may have survived the attentions of the noble, gallant band who keep an eye on TFAs minute by minute. They (including you, sometimes) are an unsung, wonderful bunch of people, who don't get anything like the recognition they deserve. Tim riley talk 20:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A diamond in the rough

[edit]

Hi Tim, Many thanks for your comments at PR for Diamonds Are Forever (novel). The article is now at FAC for further comments, should you have the time and inclination. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make sure to look in tomorrow. Tim riley talk 20:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2015

[edit]


Headlines


  • UK report: QRpedia AWOL; RSC holds another edit-a-thon
  • Special story: New toolkit on Photo Events documents best practices, strategies and more
  • Open Access report: Wikipedia as an amplyfier; horse face recognition, rhythm perception, fossil rodent teeth
  • Wikidata report: Wikidata this month
  • Calendar: September's GLAM events



Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

They aren't royal ones like yours but ...

[edit]

Could I interest you in the peer review of Boroughitis? I assure you it isn't contagious. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be delighted, Tim riley talk 19:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added some explanatory sentences since Brian looked in, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now at FAC. Happy for any comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linking World War II

[edit]

Hi, I could have sworn you or somebody in previous reviews said about not linking the wars. I'm sure somebody even said that the MoS guidelines advise against it. Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It depends on the context - how relevant it is, how likely it is that someone will want to go read that article. Sometimes it definitely should be linked, sometimes definitely not. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I'm currently working on a composer whom the First World War largely passed by, and I don't propose to link the brief mention of the war in that article. Had I been working on his colleague George Butterworth who was killed in the trenches I'd certainly link it. I think Nikkimaria homes in on the key point: what's the link for and is it likely to be of use to a reader? Tim riley talk 18:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would would either of you do with linking it in Vereinigte Glanzstoff-Fabriken?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link it, I'm certain. It's central to the article. Tim riley talk 21:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Newspaperarchive.com

[edit]

I don't know if you or stalkers are interested in signing up for this but I was the one who proposed an agreement originally. It's the largest newspaper resource in the world I believe with about 2.2 billion articles, or at least as they claim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

[edit]

Importuning

[edit]

Brianboulton, SchroCat, Wehwalt, and anyone who may be kind enough to watch this page, I have Arnold Bax up for peer review, if I can interest any of you in this slightly offbeat English composer. No obligation, naturally, but glad of any comments that may be going. Tim riley talk 22:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Steiger

[edit]

Thankyou for your constructive comments during the peer review. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rod Steiger/archive1 is underway if you'd care to comment further. Cheers. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leni Riefenstahl

[edit]

Hi, at the GAR I've expressed some concerns about the "Views of critics" section. I think it would be better if rather than simply being a collection of quotes it was reformatted to form a coherent argument, with some analysis of her directing and style. I'm unsure whether I can really promote it to GA at the moment, any thoughts would be most welcome.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it certainly is something of a quote farm, and would not pass muster if the article ever got to FAC, but when reviewing for GAN I always try to stick rigorously to the letter of the criteria, and I can't see that a properly cited quote farm fails any of them. That being so, I personally should not regard the matter as a sticking point for promotion to GA. Tim riley talk 11:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, overall I think it has sufficient content for GA, though I do think the prose could be significantly improved. I'll try to encourage the needed improvements anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victrola book of the opera

[edit]
Lucrezia Bori in a 1908 revival of the opera "Iris" by Luigi Illica and Pietro Mascagni. Example from the book plates project.

Hi Tim, you may be interested in taking a look at c:Category:Victrola book of the opera, or tipping off someone else. There look like several hundred usably good/quality portraits of notable performers from a century or more ago, possibly a source of new Wikipedia biographies. There's no chance of me finding categories against performer name automatically on Commons, so this relies on good old editor knowledge and research. You may want to have a surf through my book plates project, it's a treasure trove with over a quarter of a million illustrations. I hope to see lots of excitement for reusing lovely images from the 19th century. --Fæ (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ, that is most thoughtful of you, and I shall certainly be looking in. Thank you so much! Tim riley talk 18:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

[edit]

Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant

[edit]

Hi Tim,

I don't know how busy you are these days, but if you have time to review an article I currently have up for featured status, I would be grateful for any comments you might provide at the FAC. The article is called Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant.

Neelix (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

God bless my soul! You do pick some recherché subjects. I'll look in soonish. Tim riley talk 21:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

French cuisine

[edit]

A good article?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I were reviewing it as a new GAN I should certainly not pass it as it stands. There are dozens of duplicate links, too many uncited statements, some dodgy English and a rather rickety reference section. If you were to carry out a WP:GAR and find that it failed criterion 2 (and is dodgy in re 1b so far as the lead is concerned) you would get no flak from me. On the other hand, there's a lot of good stuff in the article, much of it adequately cited, and mostly in good English. The question is whether the virtues are enough to outweigh the deficiencies. The article was promoted in 2007, when perhaps (I'm guessing) the criteria were less rigorously applied. Have you mentioned your concern to other regular GAN reviewers? Might be worth doing. (Tangentially, it's unkind of you to oblige me to read this article today, when it's only going to be bangers and mash chez Riley this evening. But it will be good Cumberland sausage from our local Keswick butcher, and plenty of cream in the mash.) – Tim riley talk 15:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is the main issue! I'm just thinking of all those lovely books which no doubt exist on the subject. It's a bit listy in places too, but in fairness cuisine articles are probably not very easy to write well. Ir would be the sort of article I'd love to see at FAC though. Would it not be a real labour of love for you to write?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When Blofeld breezed in to a conversation on my talk page a couple of hours ago he obviously missed my mentions of cuisine and a couple of wines I'm rather fond of. And the fact that many years ago I cut my teeth (or wetted my Wiki gums) completing and adding many articles on Rhône Valley wines rather than the non-descript villages of Isan. As a true cosmopolitan I'm afraid I have to admit that French food is the best in the world - but it also has a lot to do with the enormous rôle their cuisine plays even in their everyday culture. How about saucisson d'Auvergne with mashed potatoes mixed with chestnut purée and cinamon, washed down with a Coteaux de Pierrevert?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Rhone wines are a lot more fun to write than some obscure Thai village but both I'm sure would have their charms! Unfortunately many editors shy away from the core articles for reasons which are quite clear. Infobox disputes. Just kidding, well half kidding... ;-) "How about saucisson d'Auvergne with mashed potatoes mixed with chestnut purée and cinamon, washed down with a Coteaux de Pierrevert?" does sound delicious btw! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination of Howard Sims

[edit]

Thanks so much for your kind and constructive comments on this article. I wanted to discuss a few of the particulars with you as I go through making the suggested improvements. (Anything not brought up below, I have just changed per your comments.)

  • Duplicate links: "Off-Broadway" and "Gregory Hines" are both linked more than once from the main text.
  • "Off-Broadway" was an error. "Gregory Hines" I thought appropriate as the second instance was a ways down the page and in a different context from the first, but if it would stand in the way of GA classification I'm fine with changing it.
  • The MoS (MOS:MDASH) requires either spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes.
  • I was trained (long before Wikipedia existed — I used to work as both a professional editor and a graphic designer) that spaced em dashes were correct, and those two options were not. If strict adherence to the MOS in this regard is required, I'll change it to spaced en-dashes, but tbh I would prefer not to.
  • "Sandbox" or "sand box"? At present we have both.
  • "Sand box" was in the stub when I found it; I left it mostly on the presumption that there was some reason for that orthography, and a bit as it disambiguated Sims's box from a children's sandbox. Since one of the instances of "sandbox" is a direct quotation, though, I've gone with that version throughout.
  • At present the lead does not comply with WP:LEAD, according to which (i) everything of substance in the main text should be glanced at in the lead and (ii) there should be nothing in the lead that isn't written about in the main text. We are pretty much all right so far as the first is concerned but the Stradivarius and Kisselgof quotations appear only in the lead.
  • I have placed the Kisselgoff quotation in the body as well (is it correct for it to be in both places?) but I am struggling a bit for a context to insert the Stradivarius quote; it seems it would be a shame to lose that one, though. Can you offer any suggestions?
  • I reworked the lead a bit in general, and i think it now serves better as an encapsulation of the highlights of the body of the article, but any further suggestions you have are welcome.
  • "working whatever jobs he could find" – is there a preposition missing here or is "working a job" normal in AmEng?
  • "working a job" isn't really seen, but yes, "working a ___ job", e.g. "working a dead-end job", "working multiple jobs", etc., is standard American usage.
  • The block quotation beginning "At the Hoofers Club" has no discernible context – it is not clear who said it or why we need a 128-word verbatim quotation from him or her at this point.
  • I have provided identification and context, which is I think what you were suggesting, rather than that I convert the information to paraphrasing?
  • There is another block quotation with no indication of who said it or why it is reproduced verbatim rather than paraphrased (except for the quoted comment by Sims at the end).
  • I had been uncertain of my ability to paraphrase that section without paraphrasing too closely, particularly in regard to the "floor tax" which I don't understand well enough to paraphrase. But I have given it a go.
  • "The crescendo of interest" – a strange choice of word: one knows "crescendo" as a musical term meaning "getting louder" (as indeed the linked article confirms). Here it seems to be pressed into use to say, "Interest in tap dancing continued to grow".
  • I suppose I might have gone too far in trying to avoid repetitive wording being dull? I still like it, but if you feel the metaphor is that inappropriate, I'll re-word.
  • "following an overdue renovation" – overdue according to whom?
  • I'm almost positive one of the sources did call it that, but I can't find which one, so I've changed it to "extensive" which I believe is unambiguously supported by the two sources cited.
  • "Sims married his wife Solange" – I imagine you haven't mentioned her maiden name because it is not known, but if it can be found in any of your sources it would be a welcome addition here.
  • Believe me, I tried every Google trick I know looking for Mrs. Sims's maiden name. It does not seem to have been published anywhere, or at least not anywhere that's online.
  • "A memorial service for Sims was held May 28, 2003" – this comes as rather a surprise, as we haven't been told that he was dead at this point. (It's in the lead and the info-box, but it ought also to be in the main narrative.)
  • Ha! You can tell I was too close to the article to see this issue by the time I got to the end. Fixed, I think.

I believe I have addressed all your other points in my most recent edit to the article. I look forward to your next round of feedback. (Oh, and if your talk page wasn't the right place to put this, feel free to move it wherever it does go. This is my first time nominating an article for GA status.) —GrammarFascist contribstalk 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

[edit]

GA nomination of Howard Sims

[edit]

Discussion (1 October) moved from this page to Talk:Howard Sims/GA1. Original archived at end of September TR talk page. Tim riley talk 09:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They shoot Tories, don't they?

[edit]

Greetings to the House of Riley. Two matters of grave import:

  • I have interrupted my researches into Bessie B., and have created Assassination of Spencer Perceval – an interesting diversion, not too long. I will be putting it up for peer review later today; should you feel so inclined, your comments will be most welcome. If any of your multiple page stalkers would like t have a go, their comments will be welcome, too. No particular hurry, as I shall be away and out of touch Monday to Thursday next week.
  • Re Bessie, progress has been hampered by the poor quality and readibility of much of the source material, which makes me think I ought to look at Millie Toole's so-called biography, written in 1956 when BB was very much alive and kicking. From the scraps I've been able to discern from google, it's pretty much a hagiography and may not be much use. Could I ask that, when you are next in the London Library, you take a peek at a copy, and give me your opinion as to whether it's worth my splashing out on? The Book is called Mrs Bessie Braddock M.P. A Biography, published by Robert Hale, London 1957. ILL has drawn a blank.

Regards, Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly look in at the peer review, and will order the Toole book at the BL and report back. Tim riley talk 16:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

[edit]

Peer Review for Bharat Ratna

[edit]

Hi. I have listed Bharat Ratna for peer review. Its currently a GA and I would like to take it FAC in the near future. I would really appreciate if you could find some time and provide your comments here. Thanks in advance. - Vivvt (Talk)

This Month in GLAM: September 2015

[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.

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

[edit]

PR request

[edit]

Hey Tim, I intend to take this article for FAC. Would you mind offering some comments here? Thanks, —Vensatry (ping) 14:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look in if I have time, but there are so many other things I ought to be doing that I doubt if I'll get there. Tim riley talk 13:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Take your time. —Vensatry (ping) 18:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

[edit]

Marilyn Monroe

[edit]

Hi, any chance you could give this a review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Marilyn Monroe/archive1? A core article if ever there was one which really needs a good review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look in. It will be a contrast with my current labours on Vaughan Williams (not in main space yet), though the old boy had an eye for the girls, and I imagine he clocked Marilyn appreciatively. Tim riley talk 13:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Spencer Perceval

[edit]

This is a notification to all the recent PR contributors that the above article is now at FAC. Comments welcomed there.

Tim, I see you are working on VW – please keep in touch on this. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Vortex

[edit]

Dear Tim Riley,

Re: "The Vortex" - Noel Coward

I hope this is the correct way of replying to your message to me. Thank you for your words.

I should explain that my feelings about the way the play, as described on the Wiki page, are strongly influenced by the fact that our (professional) theatre company is about to produce "The Vortex" in the Far East. However, some potential sponsors we have approached - not having read the script - have gone to look at the Wiki page and come away with the impression that this is a play about a man's addiction to cocaine and drug abuse in society in the 1920s. They have then turned us down: a major blow to us.

It is precisely because that entry and description of the play on the Wiki page is already a personal interpretation by someone that I changed it. It is not based on Coward's scipt. The play is first-and-foremost and principally about the mother's vanity and promiscuity and how that affects her relationship with her son, "Nicky". It most certainly is NOT principally about her "Nicky's" drug addiction to cocaine.

Indeed reading the play - essential- will show there is not one single mention of his being a cocaine user - not one. Indeed his use of drugs is only referred to twice in the script for a total of just eleven lines - in all. Hardly a major theme of the play.

This in not my interpretation of the play, Tim; it is based precisely and exactly on Coward's script. To say that the play is about Nicky's "severe cocaine addiction" or "drug abuse among the upper classes" (the latter statement being a complete nonsense) most certainly is a personal interpretation though and totally misleading.

So, I made changes because I believe the current page is someone's personal interpretation and that interpretation is wrong and damaging to producer's like ourselves who have difficult censorship rules in Asian countries to navigate. Most of all though the script confirms I am perfectly correct and it is the script that matters

I cant expect you to put-back my corrections I know but I do think someone official at Wiki should read the play and then decide for themselves based on Coward;s word's alone.

Thank you again for writing

Yours

John Faulkner www.britishtheatreplayhouse.com.sg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denningrichard (talk • contribs) 05:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a most civilised and quite touching message to get. I have a shelf full of books about Coward, and I'll give the article an overhaul, bearing in mind the points you make, and ensuring that all statements are cited to a reliable third party, e.g. John Lahr, Sheridan Morley, Philip Hoare or Kaplan and Stowel. I hope to do it this week, if time permits. There isn't, by the way, anyone "official" in Wikipedia: we are all officials, and the whole thing is constructed and maintained by consensus. It sounds impossible, but it works! Tim riley talk 16:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot work out how to leave a message on a talk page I'm afraid as there seem to be no link for that BUT thank you for your reply. I would only say to you there's no need to look up any sources other than ..the script!!
John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.238.43 (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New FLC

[edit]

HI Tim. I have nominated Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust for FLC at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust/archive1 and should be grateful if you have time to comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with much pleasure. A treat! Tim riley talk 20:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

[edit]

Ralph Vaughan Williams

[edit]

Will try to look at it in a day or two! Funny coincidence but he was supposed to have been Frank Sinatra's favourite composer, and Sinatra was a classical music aficionado and liked a great range of composers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no rush whatever. I still have Bax at FAC, so there's not the smallest hurry to get RVW there as well! I think I remember reading that about Sinatra. VW seems curiously more exportable than Elgar. Tim riley talk 15:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

[edit]

November 2015

[edit]

Bessie Braddock

[edit]

I shall be absent all this week (Rome, gloat, gloat). Meanwhile I have completed my initial draft of the Bessie article. It is not formally reviewable yet – I have several footnotes to add, the lead image is unsatisfactory, the Appraisal needs expanding and the prose needs polishing and trimming, all of which I intend to do when I get back. I'd be very pleased, however, if you would give it an informal readthrough, and let ne know via my talkpage where you think the main weaknesses are?. Two quite surprising things I've found: she promoted very little if any parliamentary legislation during her 25 years in parliament, and in her last seven years she rarely even contributed to debates. She was apparently a good chairman of the Commons Catering Committee, though. Brianboulton (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bon voyage! A report shall await your return, as requested. Tim riley talk 09:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another fellow with a temper (no pitchfork)

[edit]

I hope your full visit to the Lake District did not turn out dry. Once your keyboard is no longer endangered by flooding, would you mind having a look at George Mason, at peer review? He spent a summer in Philadelphia once and did not like it very much. But it's for the new school tie and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignomy

[edit]

I cannot tell a lie. The Father of Our Country said "ignomy". My spellcheck doesn't like it either.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He can take a hundred lines! Well worth a "sic" of anyone's money, I'd say. Tim riley talk 14:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clifford Grey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page My Wife's Family. 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) 10:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MacGregor

[edit]

Good evening Tim, how are you? I'm sorry to have taken so long to get to Vaughan Williams, but I got there in the end. Now here I am soliciting your thoughts—I have the "King of Con-men", Gregor MacGregor, up at peer review here. If you can find the time to look in I would appreciate it very much, as always. Thanks and I hope you're well as we approach Guy Fawkes' Night. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be my pleasure to look in. Tim riley talk 22:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a note to let the participants at the MacGregor peer review know that the article is now up at FAC here. Cheers and I hope you're having a great weekend. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheshi

[edit]

Dear Tim Riley, a new pharaoh article is up as a good article candidate. I would be most grateful if you were interested in reviewing it some day. The article concerns Sheshi, who is paradoxically the best attested king of Egypt c. 1700 BC and "the one" about whom Egyptologists cannot agree on any single thing. The problem of understanding Sheshi's identity is deeply intertwined with that of piecing together the fall of the Middle Kingdom and the arrival of the famed Hyksos in Egypt. He may even have inspired the Biblical figure of Sheshai. In any case, thanks for your help and attention! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a note to look in as soon as I have dealt with outstanding reviewing commitments (notably Gregor McGregor, above, who is next on my to-do list). Tim riley talk 10:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

[edit]

Mullum Malarum FAC

[edit]

Kailash29792 has nominated the article for FAC. Feel free to leave comments at its FAC page.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation, but I am rather pushed for editing time at the moment, and reviews of Indian films and performers cannot be on my agenda for the foreseeable future. Tim riley talk 10:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TAFI

[edit]

If you want to, take a look at the article about Marie Serneholt which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert

[edit]

[Template removed - causing technical problems with archiving] Labeling those who disagree with you in article layout discussions as "zealots" contravenes WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded, even if it may have been intended in a tongue-in-cheek away. Many editors are unaware that style discussions are subject to tighter civility restrictions, so I thought it sensible to inform you of this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. The monomania surrounding IBs disruptive and divisive, and self-appointed templaters on the tiniest points make themselves something of a laughing stock. A glance at TR's edit history shows absolutely no edits of anything close to "Article titles and capitalisation" (the subject of the ArbCom restriction above), so if you are going to try and hassle or gag another editor, please don't do it by spuriously linking your threats to Arb sanctions that have nothing to do with the matter in hand. Temper your urge to spread disharmony onto other people's talk pages in future (and try not to post very long-winded walls of text in the already pointlessly long IB threads). - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, SchroCat. It wouldn't have occurred to me that there was sleight of hand as well as an imperfect acquaintance with the dictionary in the earlier contribution. Still, if mentioning the zeal of the ultra infoboxistas makes them unhappy there are plenty of other neutral terms to describe intransigence. We must just plod on and try to concentrate on writing, rising above the distractions and agendas as far as we are allowed to. – Tim riley talk 09:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temperatures Rising

[edit]

Hello. Back in February the article that I re-wrote on the TV sitcom Temperatures Rising was promoted to GA status. Since then the article has had some further refining, including a"once-over" by the Guild of Copy Editors. I have now submitted it again as an FAC. Since you supported it last time would you care to take a look at it once more? Jimknut (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: October 2015

[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.

–

Handel in Hamburg

[edit]

As mentioned elsewhere, I am investigating GFH's "lost" Hamburg operas – not entirely lost, as it happens. I'm not making much use of Dent's superseded biography, but I need to cite a couple of statements. I only have access to the Gutenberg version which is unpaginated. I wonder if, when you're next in the BL, you could find the page refs for the following sections of the book, all from the first chapter:

  • From "George |Handel, the surgeon, seems to have hated music..." down to "the Lutheran church at Halle."
  • The paragraph beginning "Three days before his seventeenth birthday..."
  • The section beginning: "Keiser was a man of remarkable genius..." and ending "no sense of the fashionable Italianate taste".

I'd be much obliged if you can do this. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a pleasure. I very nearly nipped in there today, but that was only to get out of a cloudburst when I was on my way to Waitrose. I shall look in more purposefully tomorrow or early next week. I've ordered the book for tomorrow, but they'll keep it for three days so I should have no difficulty in getting the page numbers. Tim riley talk 16:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now done. Results posted on your talk page. Tim riley talk 12:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bessie Braddock peer review

[edit]

Bessie now ready for review comments. Any comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim: when you can get here, could you specifically comment on the matter of the use of "Bessie", which has been queried by another reviewer? Most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RVW

[edit]

I was again too late for reviewing, had to sing a piece first that we share, - thinking of recent events. DYK was up to the music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dear Gerda! Yes, the Fauré Requiem is tragically appropriate just now. Dona eis requiem. Tim riley talk 23:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed, singing, that one of the few moments of high tension in the Requiem, in the prayer for relief from "poenis inferni" (No. 2, bar 64), is repeated in complete peace, almost relaxed, in the Amen section (bar 92). Is that supported by any professional source? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on the literature, and when I say I don't remember reading that point anywhere else it doesn't mean it isn't in any source. But surely it isn't OR to say that according to the score the fortissimo notes at bar x are repeated at bar y with the instruction molto tranquillo (or whatever)?
... and changed from chromatic to diatonic, - "only" from forte to pianissimo, btw. Perhaps someday when going for FA ;) - It's so hard not to crescendo on the scale raising an octave the second time (for the altos), but blissful when it happens, easy flow without earthly weight. You may know from my memories that I regularly sing for two conductors. This time one was the organist for the other, and they and we all liked the collaboration. I spoke to the harpist after the concert, and she said she has performed the piece often, but rarely with such a pure soprano section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Gerda spoke to me about music instead of infoboxes!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda and I are to be seen mercilessly arm-wrestling about info-boxes on Mondays, Wednesdays and alternate Saturdays, on presentation of visiting card. Other than that we are the most harmonious and affectionate WP colleagues. Tim riley talk 19:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't sign anything with "merciless" in it ;) + I don't even have visiting cards. Tim knows how to win my heart, simple. You could - and talk music - by doing the FA review for our baby. Another was war in heaven, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the new Midori Suzuki (soprano), could you please find out author and date of the Gramophone review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could rummage in the shelves of the British Library next week, but I see the review was recycled in The Gramophone's The Classical Good CD & DVD Guide 2006 on page 1295. The reviews there are not signed, but the biblio info is: editor David Roberts, and publishing details as here. That should be enough, I think, to satisfy WP:V. But will rummage next week if you want the original magazine issue: let me know. – Tim riley talk 17:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, no rummaging, clever find is fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've probably got details of all the recordings listed here but I mention it just in case. Tim riley talk 20:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

[edit]

Question

[edit]
Comment In my interactions with RO I have found this editor friendly and constructive, willing to act on suggestions for improvements to articles, and a pleasure to work with.

Should we ignore the long-term pattern of bad behavior because you had a good experience? Are you able to understand and consider the experiences of others, even if they are at odds with your assessment? Or are you a solipsist, whose concern for the world ends with his physical body? Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a very odd question! Rather an unwelcome addition to one's talk page, frankly. Getting flak for saying that one has found a colleague good to work with is not what one comes on Wikipedia for. I don't much care for the implication that only bad things are permitted to be said about the editor in question. All comments from colleagues surely add to the picture and help make an informed decision. Tim riley talk 07:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

[edit]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
In recognition of your precious help in reviewing Ancient Egyptian pharaoh articles, with both precision and swiftness, I thereby award you this Barnstar of Diligence! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Iry-Hor! I am continually astonished not only by your scholarship but also by your skill in writing in a language not your own. I look forward to many more articles from you. Tim riley talk 21:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

today

[edit]
St Cecilia's Day
A Boy was Born

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. I sometimes think Britten is Britain's greatest composer, but then I think of Elgar, RVW, and, secretly, Arthur Sullivan, who in his particular sphere was undeniably our greatest composer. I don't imagine you sing much Sullivan with your choir, so let us hail Britten on Saint Cecilia's Day. Tim riley talk 21:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about no Sullivan ;) - Eccard and Reger next, Sandström, and Bach with the other choir. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was my reminder, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sibelius

[edit]

Hi Tim. I haven't yet received anything from you. Maybe you could just leave your comments on my talk page. Thanks for your interest.--Ipigott (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Tim riley talk 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now added. Hope it's useful! Tim riley talk 17:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British library (again)

[edit]

I'm sorry to ask this, but my Handel researches have brought me to this important book. The parts that I need are in the attenuated online text but, infuriatingly, the online version is unpaginated. I am sure they do this to frustrate researchers and force them to buy the book, but this one costs over 200 quid! The page references I need are as follows:

  • The document headed "Early 1708: First performance of Florindo in Hamburg"
  • The dramatis personae list that follows (the English version)
  • The document headed "1708: From the preface to Florindo".

These documents are all in the 1708 section. If on your next BL jaunt you could consult this tome and come up with some paging, I'd be very grateful (and £200 richer). Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You simply mustn't be sorry to ask, I assure you. Very happy to: it's a genuine pleasure. I'm battling the first cold of the season this week, but will be glad to drop in at the BL when the cotton-wool has been removed from my brain, probably early next week. On a more general aspect, @SchroCat: had words of wisdom for me not so long ago on how best to cite unpaginated online books, and I take the liberty of pinging him on this point. Tim riley talk 20:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Page numbers is the key guide here, and it says "If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title." So, as long as there is some indication as far as you can possibly and sensibly provide it, then that is all OK. - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both. The subdivision in this book is in years rather than chapters. I don't know how many 1708 documents there are – quite a few I think, so identification by year will be very approximate. Page nos would be much better – but please nurse your cold, Tim. Handel can wait; the article is unlikely to be reviewable much before the coming hols (when no one will be interested anyway). Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Well, that was one of my easier bits of devilling. The first two are both on page 117 and the third is on page 118. It's a most impressive, not to say heavy, volume, and dauntingly thorough. It even has an appendix on Handel's annual rates payments on his property. I am thinking of asking why his laundry lists have been omitted. – Tim riley talk 12:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your sleuthing, will incorporate accordingly. It is just possible that as the article develops I may need to ask for further page refs from this book, which looks like the source for original material on GFH (beginning as it does with his grandfather's arrival in Halle in 1609!). Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At your service. I noticed in passing today a section on grandpa or pa's naturalisation as a citizen of Halle; no mention of collar size or preference as to starch, alas. It really is a magnificent book. Its importance is emphasised by the fact that there is a copy on open access on the shelves in the Music Reading Room - an honour reserved for only the most essential books. Tim riley talk 15:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gramophone

[edit]

Can you help me to what this review says about a recording of Voces intimae (Sibelius) (or just add it there)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly, but a hint as to the year - give or take - would help, if you can estimate. Tim riley talk 18:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I am not a member, I see it only for a second, - possibly 1983, recording together with piano quartet, - off travelling, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

[edit]

Mason

[edit]

Just to let you know, George Mason is [FAC]. Many thanks for any comments. Hope you are well--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Have looked in and added my two penn'orth. Tim riley talk 22:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bessie Braddock FAC

[edit]

The above article, to the PR of which you recently contributed, is now at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I'll look in tomorrow. Tim riley talk 22:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

[edit]

Another imposition

[edit]

Can I interest you, perhaps, in the peer review for Wendell Willkie? He came to London once when the tourist trade was at an all-time low ... Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a pleasure. And at least I know who WW was, unlike my complete ignorance of George Mason. Tim riley talk 16:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we educate each other.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Tim and Wehwalt, I'll get to this one tonight. Really looking forward to it! You did the man justice. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was enjoyable. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I'll go put something in my userspace about the capitalization on "prime minister". There are a bunch of different constraints; it's not a tractable problem. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so! I think one can become seriously unhinged trying to cope with this question. I find it no problem to write about several "prime ministers", but, illogicaly, I cannot bring myself to leave the capitals off "Lord Chancellor", whether singular or plural. Tim riley talk 16:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I tried to write out my explanation and actually became unhinged. Short version: what you guys have in the article isn't fine at TFA because I need consistent rules at TFA to keep my sanity, but it's fine at FAC (with my usual FAC copyeditor hat on), because copyeditors lose arguments like this one every day, and we've learned to pick our battles, particularly when we don't have a job description hanging over us that tells us what we're required to do battle over. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Do I speak for the firm of Wehley and Riwalt in agreeing happily to whatever capitalisation preserves Dank's grip on sanity? Tim riley talk 18:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as he pleases.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

[edit]

Cluestick Award

[edit]


Thanks for putting in an unexpected word (above and beyond), in spite of all the shoutiness. Cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind, Promenader, and much appreciated. I much prefer a stroll in the boulevards to a troll in the boulevards, and one must say so loud and clear whenever necessary. Tim riley talk 14:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WSB

[edit]

Tim, we should really get William Sterndale Bennett at least up to GA for his 2016 bicentenary, no?--Smerus (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oo-er! I'm game, but there isn't an abundance of sources. Would it be worth taking the article to peer review now, do you think? Might give us a steer on where to concentrate our efforts with GA or even, however improbably, FA, in mind. Tim riley talk 13:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good idea, I will do this when back in London next week (currently in Tashkent). I know WSB's g-g-g-grandson, he can probably direct me to useful sources - the family archives alas will be WP:OR.--Smerus (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I'll happily back you up with fielding any bouncers. Meanwhile I must go about getting some grandchildren so that I can tell them I once had a discussion about William Sterndale Bennett with a man in Tashkent. Tim riley talk 18:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done!--Smerus (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a bit of gentle drumming-up of trade. Meanwhile, coincidentally, SchroCat and I have Albert Ketèlbey up for peer review, and if you care to look in there it will be much appreciated. – Tim riley talk 18:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: November 2015

[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.

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

[edit]

George Frideric Handel's lost Hamburg operas

[edit]

I'm a bit ahead of myself, and I've finished the above, although I don't propose to put it to any formal review process until January when there should be more people about with time to look at articles. But I'd welcome a few informal comments on the talk page, if you have a moment. There is also the issue of the article's title (a move has been suggested on the talk page) and I'd like your views on that, too. (I've got another little music article on the go, but rest assured, from January onwards GBS will be my primary concern). Brianboulton (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will gladly give it the once over and stick my oar in about moving it, Tim riley talk 09:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to FAC @ Norodom Ranariddh

[edit]

Dear Tim,

Good day, I would like to take this opportunity to hear from your inputs and/or your thoughts on the above article's FAC-worthiness. I understand that you are one of User:Brianboulton's close associates, and hence I felt that it is also appropriate on my part to invite you to co-appraise. I have heard from one of your associates, Wehwalt, whom I was led to understand was another associate of yours and Brian to co-appraise.

I welcome you to drop by at the FAC at any time, without pressure or obligations. See you and take care ! :) Mr Tan (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it on my list and look in if and when I can fit it in. Tim riley talk 11:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

To anyone kind enough to watch this page: SchroCat, aided and abetted by me, has Albert Ketèlbey up for peer review. Visitors will be most welcome. Tim riley talk 15:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And another not very well known English composer, William Sterndale Bennett, is also up for PR, where comments will be gratefully received. Tim riley talk 18:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

What better way to start the year than with a Tim Riley article. I've got the TFA down to 1539 characters. It needs to be around 1150, but I don't have a preference what to cut. Tis the season; would you care to do the carving? - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brute! I have done the deed. I consoled myself by thinking of Dr Johnson's words: "Read over your compositions, and where ever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out." Tim riley talk 19:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, but be careful not to do such a good job in the future ... someone might want you to do it regularly. - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, and for the day-in-day-out work of you and your colleagues in doing the front page stuff. We are in your debt. Tim riley talk 20:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take all major credit cards. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again, your "valediction to the late John Webber, who edited WP as Viva-Verdi" and "knew a hundred times more about Verdi"

It's a great way to start a new musical year: "Tutto nel mondo è burla ... Tutti gabbati! / "Everything in the world is a jest ... ". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

Please don't edit war. On Albert Ketèlbey, your bold edit was reverted and at that point you should be heading for the talk page to discuss, not re-reverting. I'll be happy to match you revert for revert at this stage if you attempt to force your personal preferences onto the article. You are wrong, by the way, about WP:CITEVAR. Your edit removed properly sourced material, using the proper citation style for the article. Further attempts to remove good sources for spurious reasons are like to be treated as disruptive. Please take this warning in the spirit in which it is intended. --RexxS (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong way round rex. Potw added this morning and it was removed. YOUR subsequent edit warring is unwarranted. – SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed take Rex's threat in the spirit in which I conceive it was intended. Tim riley talk 18:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


May 2016 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

All the best

Gavin / – SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

[edit]
File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]

Nothing fancy. Just a simple thank you for all your help on the Copland Connotations article and a wish for the best for you in 2016. Merry Christmas, Tim.Jonyungk (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's that time of the year

[edit]
Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes
Seasonal greetings for 2015, and best wishes for 2016. Here's to another year's productive editing, with peace, goodwill and friendship to all! Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

[edit]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and all your loved ones, and a joyous and prosperous 2016.

All the very best from your friends:

Cliftonian, Mrs Cliftonian and the two little Cliftonians. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nadolig Llawen

[edit]

Martinevans123Santas Grotto ... sends you warmest wishes for a:

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace! ... And "Mele Kalikimaka" (Hawaiian Merry Christmas)!!

Seasonal greetings

[edit]
To all and sundry, near and far
F. Christmas in particular

and to everyone else who has been kind enough to send greetings I send my warm reciprocations, and to those who haven't, I send happy greetings anyway. Tim riley talk 21:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clifford Curzon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Ireland. 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) 10:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though

[edit]

Opinions? (Stalkers?) I'm wondering if I should always use "although" in AmEng articles per COMMONALITY. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't presume to have a view on AmEng usage. In BrEng some people mistakenly think a plain "though" is inferior to "although". Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dr Johnson, Dickens, Wilde and Wodehouse did not think so, and used "though" often. This is what the new edition of Fowler says:
Though can always be used instead of although, but the reverse is not true. Though is slightly more frequent than although and somewhat less formal. ... though alone is possible as an adverb in medial or final positions: It is true, though, that one misses out... [and] in the fixed expressions, as though and even though.
If the import of your question is that at present you use "though" but wonder if commonality makes it desirable to use "although", my advice (to writers of both AmEng and BrEng) is to stick to "though" wherever it feels natural. – Tim riley talk 08:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That feels right to me, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]

Hello Tim riley: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Frankie talk 14:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC) [[[reply]


File:A book of country clouds and sunshine (1897), cropped.jpg|center|500px]]


Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Noël Coward

[edit]

Can we please discuss my edit and your subsequent reversion on the Noël Coward talk page? Seattle Jörg (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly, once I am back at home with references to hand, which will be from 30 Dec onwards. Tim riley talk 13:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays...

[edit]
Season's Greetings
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Benjamin Disraeli may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • literary critic and historian, and Maria (Miriam), ''née'' Basevi.<ref name=b3/> The family was of [[Sephardi Jews|Sephardic] Jewish Italian mercantile background. All Disraeli's grandparents and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alastair Sim may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Greg. [http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article.html?id=453447%7c453734 "A Christmas Carol (1951)"], [[Turner Classic Movies retrieved 30 December 2015</ref> In Sim's own country he was at least as

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas!

[edit]
Happy Christmas!
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decade

[edit]
18Y
This Wikipedian joined Wikipedia on December 26, 2005 (18 years, 10 months, 1 week and 1 day ago).

Thank you to all who have made editing Wikipedia rewarding and enjoyable over the past ten years. Tim riley talk 12:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again, your reaching this milestone!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New FLC

[edit]

Hi Tim. I have List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire at FLC. Comments gratefully received if you have the time. Happy new year. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)m[reply]

Bedfordshire? We in Cumbria know it not. But I'll be back in the metrop tomorrow from the rapidly drying ancestral Lake District shack, and will be very pleased to look in at Beds SSSIs. Tim riley talk 23:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

[edit]

2016 year of the reader and peace

[edit]
2016
peace bell

Thank you for inspiration and support, including two excellent GA reviews in 2015, - thanks with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim_riley/Archive-2015&oldid=1158928032"