Jump to content

User talk:Tim riley/Archive19

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

Hubert Parry

[edit]

Dear Mr Riley, thank you for your kind invitation to participate on the Hurbert Parry page. I am not sure, despite my being a fan of Jerusalem, I have sufficient knowledge, skill or accuracy required for improving advanced articles. After a quick skim - all I could think of was solving the red link to Heather Professor of Music to redirect it to the relevant bit of William Heather. But I am not sure how wise this is. Anyway I may return to this if anything pops up. There is some stuff in Cox, G on Stanford's bio which might be useful for his article but it is "political" not musical and am not sure how nice or well received or easy to add it would be. best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC))![reply]

"Mr Riley"? "Tim", I beg you! If you don't fancy dabbling chez Parry that's fine, of course. I just thought I'd try my luck. Do let me know if I can be of help with any other articles you choose to work on. At your service if wanted. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 17:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tim, made a little stubby page instead of the redirect - from the Heather Professor of Music which in my book counts as helping a bit..... best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]
It counts the same in my book. Just the job! Thank you. Tim riley talk 19:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw refs

[edit]

Dear Mr Riley The harvarding of the Shaw refs proceeds apace. I've done the straightforward ones; the more complex/dubious ones in the latter parts of the list I will tackle more cautiously.

As I've said, continue with your old method for as long as you like – I'll pick them up. However, if you are going to cite any more to either of the ODNB sources (Ervine and Weintraub), could you please use the following formats

  • {{sfn|Ervine 1959 DNB archive}}
  • {{sfn|Weintraub ODNB online 2013}

Otherwise glaring red messages, if not klaxons, will blight the page. Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir Brian, I am trying to master the modern formatting, and it seems to work in the latest bit I've added (about relations with O'Casey et al), but please vet. I'll do as you bid for ODNB stuff. (Remarkable how different but equally valuable the two sources are.) Tim riley talk 08:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton:: Brian, I'm just getting my 1930s biographical stuff together. I'm not sure which of us is to write up the Russian trip. I'm happy to do so, but I feel it comes more under your purview as "politics". Yours to command. Tim riley talk 16:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you leave the Russian trip to me? I'm preparing some text on it, to slot into the 1930s section along with other political stuff. I'm doing the same for the 1920s. I shall shortly put some proposals for the structure of the Works section on the Shaw talk page, for discussion there. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tim and Brianboulton, let me know if you need any help with the formatting or otherwise with the refs. I'm happy to chip in and sort any of them out if you have problems. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, dear SchroCat. It's only I who struggle: BB is a templatist of the deepest hue. I think I'm getting the hang of it for books and journals, though I'm still at sea with newspaper cuttings. And I don't at all like the fact that one can't bundle three or four references together, and so have to smack the reader in the eye with four separate citations in a row when multiple cites are needed. Tim riley talk 13:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On another matter: Have you read this article? Could be a useful source for the Assessment section. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC) (The section towards the end, headed "The plays are the thing" might be useful to you)[reply]

Soprano again

[edit]

Grammophone again: [1], what does he say about Hana Blažíková? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What ho! Shall be at the British Library on Thursday and will look up the article. Can you give me a rough idea of the date it might have appeared? Tim riley talk 16:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the link to find out, and this time the thing was not covered after a second by subscription info, I could read it all, and what did he say about her: nothing! Only the viols, the viols, the viols. Don't bother, but thanks for offering. Did you see my talk page decoration after I archived heartache? The woman who can't believe what she has to see - again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Critics! They don't always concentrate on what you'd like them to concentrate on. Tim riley talk 21:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares, facing death's bonds. I worked on the cantata, perhaps give it another read? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With great pleasure. Slapping your hand for not pinging me before. Tim riley talk 21:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revert slap, wasn't ready before. I wrote an article about a woman almost every day of the Women in Music thing (missing two days because of a death), was on vacation to get away from it all (rather successfully so), but now back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Yvonne Ciannella

[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw works

[edit]

While drafting the "Drama" subsection, could you hold off with the blue boxes until you've written the correspondong section of text? Otherwise it's difficult to get the rest of the section into some kind of logical organisation, which I'm trying to do at present. Much thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have (sort of) rearranged the material to form the new Works, Appraisal and Legacy sections, using the article's existing text. A few bits that I couldn't fit in, but which could be useful, I've parked here. I will begin work soon on getting the "Politics" and "Other works" sections into shape (I think "Criticism" is probably yours), but before that I'm going to do a bit of trimming on the "Life" material which is currently hovering just over the 8,000 word mark. I like to see it below 7000 if poss. Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do as bid. Feel free to prune my prose too in the Life sect. Tim riley talk 20:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

[edit]


The PR of Stepney

[edit]

Hi Tim, I've been working on the Siege of Sidney Street recently, and I've just taken it to PR. If you have time, and if the topic is of interest, would you be able to take a look? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Bernard Shaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creative evolution. 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) 12:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English cuisine template

[edit]

[Discussion moved from here to Template talk:English cuisine so that all interested editors can conveniently access it. Tim riley talk 20:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)][reply]

This Month in GLAM: January 2016

[edit]
[[

File:This month in GLAM logo.png|350px|center|link=outreach:GLAM/Newsletter]]



Headlines
  • Argentina report: New Editing Challenges and Design the guidelines for cultural institutions
  • Belgium report: Heroines Wikipedia workshop addressing the Gender Bias; Public Domain Day Celebration; Wikidata meeting & workshop; FOSDEM: MediaWiki, Wikidata and more
  • Germany report: GLAM on Tour at Technische Sammlungen & Verkehrsmuseum Dresden
  • Italy report: BEIC Library Project goes on, and Wikipedia for Press and Media Freedom in Europe
  • Spain report: GLAMing Madrid, Wiki Loves Folk & Gobernantes de Chile
  • UK report: Audio-describing London Landmarks, celebrating Wikipedia 15
  • Special story: Pre-production starts for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons tutorial videos
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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


account creation

[edit]

Hello Tim riley,

We are cleaning up some unused account creator flags. This flag is for people that need to create lots of accounts for other people on Wikipedia, normally part of the account creation team the education program, or for specific edit-a-thons

You show as inactive for this flag (0 actions in the last year), and it has been removed. If I have overlooked some other pressing need for this flag, please reply on my talk page. Please note, this will have no impact on your ability to edit anything, or create up to 5 new accounts per day for other people. Thank you and happy editing! — xaosflux Talk 22:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hordern FAC

[edit]

...has been started here. Thanks once again for all you help. CassiantoTalk 17:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Precious anniversary

[edit]
Four years ago ...
Royal opera
... you were recipient
no. 20 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you perhaps take an informal PR look at Requiem (Reger)? I hope to have it FA by Reger's 100th anniversary of death in May and fear that there won't be the time for a formal PR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more: a Gramophone again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what it is that you want me to find out about this extract. Tim riley talk 15:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Details about Busoni's youthful Concerto for piano and string quartet. After I asked, I found a 2003 review on musicweb, - so only if it's something different, adding to understanding the composition (which I picked sort of random as a tribute to the composer's 150th). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw

[edit]

Could you supply source details for the following:

  • Holroyd 1991 (refs 210, 211, 212, 2132, 245, 248) Done
  • Pierce 2011 (ref 261) perhaps misdated - s/b 2001? Done
  • Pierce 2001 (refs 262, 265, 267, 268, 269, 270) Done - all corrected to 2011
  • Wilson 2002 (ref 264) God knows what that was. I've replaced it with Pierce.
  • Matthews 1969 (ref 266) Done
  • Ref 309 shows "Shaw and Laurence 1976", but I think this should be just "Laurence 1976" Letters Vol 1 - wrong date, now amended.

Also, perhaps you'd do the checks for (e.g.) page range consistency, use of numerics in text, ensuring that individuals are appropriately described at first mention, etc. – and anything else you can think of. I'll bash on with harv formats.

I will not dine until I see the same. Tim riley talk 19:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Missing sources added. Is it a problem that I refer to the American hardback of Holroyd Vol 3 and you to the British paperback? My copy was from the library, and if we are to harmonise the page refs it will have to be to your Penguin copy, but I don't think we are obliged to do that. I can't see that listing both versions with the relevant page numbers contravenes any WP rules, though I admit it's a touch inelegant. Pray ponder. Meanwhile I'll turn to the checks you suggest above, page ranges etc. Tim riley talk 20:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Later: page ranges checked. Minor amendments. My Linear B style ref to Grove (ref 61 a-e) looks a bit odd among the sea of blue hi-tech refs: will you take a look? Tim riley talk 21:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The paginations of the American hardback and British paperback eds of Holroyd 3 are identical (I have checked all 6 refs) so we needn't list the US version. I'll look at Grove - I'm encountering one or two problems in standardising formats and there may be left a few oddities I can't fix. Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: forgot to list ref 263: "Cooper 1953, p. 40". Any ideas? Is it Sergeant Shakespeare? Can't think what else. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's Duff Cooper's memoirs, with, in the circumstances, the singularly relevant title Old Men Forget. I'll add it. Tim riley talk 22:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is this link to the over-praised, over-regarded Duff Cooper's memoirs if you want it. Still p.40, but its the American edition. I'm about done with harving; ref 150 I cannot do without unbundling and creating a multiple string, which I'd rather not do; in addition, there are about 15 unlinked newspaper sources which I've left in old style format because I can't see any advantage in harving them – 2 clicks instead of one for no further information. Whether our hands will be forced at PR or FAC remains to be seen.
Tomorrow I'll draft the lead and remove the banner. You can have a go at the lead, then I suggest we sail the uncharted seas of PR. Perhaps no one will read it and we can have a rest. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New lead now in place. Please add text as you think necessary; I could not bring myself to write the word "Oscar". I've removed the banner. Can we wait 24 hours before PR? Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my twopenn'orth. Happy to go to PR tomorrow or when you will. Tim riley talk 15:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have a little more work to do on the refs, per the talk page comments. I'll let you know when I'm fully through. I don't want to change the ref formats as suggested – can't see any real advantage to the reader – but I'm doing some tidying up. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, Brian, If you want me to have a spin through to sort and tidy, I am happy to do so, please just tip me the wink. Give the thread on the talk page, my immediate reaction would be to avoid at all costs the suggestion "{{rp|page number here}} template giving this page number result : 183 ", which I've ripped out of a few articles as being utterly incomrehensible to man or beast. - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, most kind. That change isn't going to happen, but with 300+ citations and more than 140 cited sources, there will certainly be room for an extra pair of eyes to check out the whole references area. I'm doing a bit of tidying myself at present, so best let me finish to avoid problems with the citation numbers. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim: I have done all I possibly can to standardise the refs in harv form. There are no remaining harv errors that I can see; if there are, the peer reviewers will I'm sure find them. I think it's OK to open the PR now - will you do this? It is my practice not to look at a PR page for the first 48 hours, and frankly I desperately need a short break from the minutae of Shaw. Likewise, I'm postponing work on the "List of Works" for a similar period, but will work on that while the PR proceeds. Bon voyage! Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

[edit]


Mortara case

[edit]

As requested, a ping for FAC. Thanks again and I hope you're well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate n Sidney

[edit]

Hi

Many thanks for your recent comments at the Siege of Sidney Street PR. I've now moved this on to FAC, should you have the time and inclination. Many thanks once again. – SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw peer review

[edit]

To anyone kind enough to watch this page, Brianboulton and I have now put the article up for peer review, and all contributions will be gratefully received. Tim riley talk 15:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Evelyne Crochet

[edit]

Note: discussion moved to Talk:Piano music of Gabriel Fauré – Tim riley talk 14:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disraeli dispute resolution invitation

[edit]

Hello. As advised, I seek dispute resolution regarding Disraeli’s assessment, available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard and you are invited to provide your summary. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.16.1.254 (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In more than ten years of editing Wikipedia I have never been invited to that forum, and as, sadly, it is plain that everybody but you is out of step, I don't think it would be particularly helpful for me to comment there. Tim riley talk 17:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim_riley/Archive19&oldid=1144300682"