User talk:Tim riley/Archive18

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

Earliest recordings, Prokofiev's Lieutenant Kijé suite[edit]

I don't know if your archival sources can help, but I am looking for details of any early recordings of this little piece. At present I can't find anything prior to Adrian Boult on Decca in 1955, but as the work was first performed in December 1934 and was very popular, I am sure there are earlier recordings. Can you help in any way? Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ever-enterprising Koussevitzky recorded it in or about 1938 on 78s with his Boston SO. HMV DB 3655-6 and DBS 3657. The 1942 review in The Musical Times (here) reads very much as though that was the first recording. It seems from this 1949 omnium gatherum of Prokofiev recordings that it was still the only one released by the end of the 1940s. By March 1952 there was another one: Hermann Scherchen and the Vienna Symphony Orchestra on Westminster, listed here. By Autumn of that year there are mentions here of sets by Roger Désormière and the French National SO and Efrem Kurtz and the RPO. In 1955 Vox put out a set by Jascha Horenstein with the Paris Philharmonic Orchestra advertised here, and only then did Sir Adrian enter the lists with, of all unlikely orchestras, the Paris Conservatoire, recorded at La Maison de la Mutualité, Paris, on 9 June 1955. Made in early stereo, I see. I'm going to the BL sometime this week, and will have a thumb through the Gramophone catalogues for the 1930s and 40s and report back if there are any other runners. – Tim riley talk 17:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the exceedingly fast reply. I had just unearthed the Koussevitzky/Boston SO version, which he recorded on 22 December 1937 (having given the US premiere a couple of months earlier). I've also found traces of some the early 1950s recordings you mention. Reiner and the Cleveland Orchestra recorded it in January 1945, but I don't think it was issued until some time after that. I've probably got enough now for my purposes, though obviously if something truly early, e.g. pre-1937, turns up I'd like to know. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another PR request![edit]

Hi Tim, I've been working for a spell on Isabella Beeton, who is now at PR for comments and consideration. If you could add me to the end of your review list I'd be much obliged. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a particular pleasure, and I look forward to it. Tim riley talk 20:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music[edit]

Women in Music
  • 10 to 31 January 2016
  • Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jules Massenet by Eugène Pirou.jpg[edit]

Think this is a better image than any we had of Massenet, no? =) can {{CSS image crop}} it if you don't like the carte de visite look. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a most agreeable surprise – thank you, Adam. I think I'd probably be inclined to opt for a crop, but you know better about images than I do and I'll be happy with whichever you decide on. Tim riley talk 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There can be use in including the original context - I mean, this is a typical type of image (a carte de visite) that was handed out and collected by people in the late Victorian era. That said, if you think it's distracting, a crop won't hurt anything. I went through every Massenet image on the Bibliothèque National de France, and this was by far the best combination of quality and pose, so we should probably do whatever makes it look best as a lead image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on a very similar subject, what do you think of [1]? Thought I'd poke around and see what else the photographer did. Some interesting people, some of whom failed to button their fly, which amuses me far, far more than it should. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd seen that one of Saint-Saëns before, and comparing it with the many others of him I don't think it catches him very well. Looks a bit bland and gormless, which he most definitely wasn't. Searching my memory I find we had a cropped copy of that picture in the article at one time (here) but someone – me, probably – replaced it. As to the fly buttons, perhaps this was a saucy French equivalent of the English custom that gentlemen don't fasten the bottom waistcoat button. Tim riley talk 08:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never been entirely happy with Saint-Saëns images. The good ones are terrible quality, and the bad ones are pristine. That said... I've never really gone through Gallica... Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camille[edit]

Okay, here's the ones that look doable, very roughly from easiest to most difficult. I've included only photos, not engraved reproductions, since... why wouldn't we choose photos?

Easy

Medium

Hard

If you think that more than one helps the article, that's doable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think all except the first (which makes him look uncharacteristically vacant) are excellent, and for my part I'm happy to leave an overhaul of the images to you. I must admit, though, that to me the present lead image captures him better than any other, though the photographic quality may not be all that good. Tim riley talk 10:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we had the original, I'd agree, but it's one of those looks-good-at-thumbnail sort of things. I prefer to set a standard early on that images are worth clicking on. =) I think http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8424645h/f1.item.r=Camille%20Saint-Sa%C3%ABns.zoom may be best? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't quarrel with that. Tim riley talk 10:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, I found the original of the Gounod lead. It's almost pristine. Just have to removethe stamps and do some light cleanup. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'd better overhaul that very meagre article one of these days. Not yet awhile. Tim riley talk 20:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's Charlie done. Back to Camille (who's already about 2/3rds done). Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And Camille is in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rossini[edit]

Let's get another notable composer. As an aside, I checked Fromental Halèvy, but didn't see any better than the current lead, which is too small to be an FP, but not so small to justify replacement.

Here's what I see as the options!

  1. File:Composer Rossini G 1865 by Carjat.jpg
  2. File:Nadar - (Gioacchino Rossini) - Google Art Project.jpg
    1. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b53104453s/f1.item.r=Rossini,%20Gioachino.zoom
    2. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b531044547/f1.item.r=Rossini,%20Gioachino.zoom or
  3. [2]
  4. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8424409z.r=Rossini%2C%20Gioachino
  5. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8424410m.r=Rossini%2C%20Gioachino
  6. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8424408j.r=Rossini%2C%20Gioachino

Thoughts? I'm inclined towards the first. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offenbach[edit]

I think we can probably agree the current lead is amazingly awful. I've looked at the Offenbach images, and think http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b530922314/f1.item.r=Offenbach.zoom is clearly the best, with http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b53082127q/f1.item.r=Offenbach.zoom in second place. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something odd has happened to the lead image. It looks as though someone has sat on it, but it was all right last time I looked in. I was never wild about it and I much prefer your alternative, which, looking at the camera, seems to capture more of Offenbach's amused detachment. It would definitely want cropping, though. I think perhaps the topic would be more appropriate to the article talk page than to mine. Other substantial contributors may have Views. Likewise for Rossini, though I haven't dabbled there enough to know if it has a main editor or editors. Tim riley talk 13:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plan to crop (and, indeed, threw up a crop for use). Just... witht he image as bad as tit had got, thought it best to rush it in. Also, checking both the articles, so far as they have a main editor, it's... you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other composers?[edit]

Who next? =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Might do Ethel Smyth, actually) Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 January 2016[edit]

Handel's lost Hamburg operas[edit]

No further losses reported, I'm afraid. But the article is now at peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oct - Dec 15 Quarterly Article Reviews[edit]

 Military history service award 
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 5 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's most pleasing – thank you, Rupert! I can't remember reviewing any military articles lately, but your award will be gratefully placed in my trophy cabinet nonetheless. Tim riley talk 15:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review request[edit]

Hi Tim. Hope this finds you well. I've been really busy this past year (new baby, translating, etc.), so I haven't been on much. If you've got the time, could you do a source review for Panggilan Darah? There aren't many sources cited, so it shouldn't be all too difficult. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a pleasure. It might pay off a tithe of the debt I owe you for help over the years. I'll go and stake my claim at once. Tim riley talk 18:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot. Do you have anything in the pipeline yet? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll do the lot in one go, I think, on Wed afternoon, as the book I've ordered at the BL won't be available till then. Tim riley talk 00:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright. Interesting they have (one) of the Biran sources. I expect it will be difficult to check, language-wise, however. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: December 2015[edit]

[[


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



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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


Soprano[edit]

Could you help me finding out what this subscription review says about Yvonne Ciannella who was the first coloratura soprano I ever heard? (And which recording?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent timing. I have to go to the British Library tomorrow to look up several things and will add this to my list. Tim riley talk 12:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In January 1968 Stanley Sadie wrote in The Gramophone (p. 393), reviewing Telemann's Ino, "Yvonne Cianella on this new version isn't as sheerly beautiful a singer as Miss Janowitz, but her performance is a lot more colourful and dramatic. … I am surprised I have not heard of Miss Cianella before – it's a musical voice, intelligently used, warm and soft in timbre for the most part but capable of firm attack and a good deal of dramatic colouring." In June of the same year Roger Fiske, reviewing Telemann's Pimpinone, wrote (p. 60), "Yvonne Cianella makes an uncertain start, and though her voice is pretty at the top it has rather too much vibrato in the middle of the compass." That's all I could find about this singer in The Gramophone. Hope this is useful, Tim riley talk 12:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, very helpful! Will use, after a new woman today, - my goal to create a Woman in Music every day of the month. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All used, do you also happen to have a title for the review by Sadie. Will use "Telemann's Ino" if not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The standard form in The Gramophone was and is "Telemann, Ino" (no possessive apostrophe). Tim riley talk 20:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like that. I read somewhere that Rilling's recording was the first of the piece, but maybe wo said that didn't know. Sadie got the soprano's name wrong twice, should that be marked somehow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can be entirely confident that Sadie got the name right and Riley scribbled it down wrong when transcribing into my notebook. Tim riley talk 21:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Gerd Rubahn"[edit]

This was a conducting pseudonym used by Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt in the 1950s for reasons I'm unsure of. This fact is attested in numerous internet sites but none that I consider truly reliable. Is there any chance you can locate, say, a Gramophone article that will nail it? "Rubahn" recorded a famous Bruckner Third in 1952. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely astonish me! I'm going to the BL tomorrow, and will put Herr Rubahn on my list. I went to a couple of Schmidt-Isserstedt's concerts at the RFH in the early 1970s and thought him very fine in an unshowy sort of way. Tim riley talk 23:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no mentions of Gerd Rubahn in the pages of The Gramophone. As far as I can see, a dodgy American record label was in the habit of pirating legit recordings from real companies and issuing them under pseudonyms. As well as a Bruckner 3rd, this here Gerd Rubahn seems to have been credited with recordings of Cav and Pag, Chausson's Poème, and Madame Butterfly, which aren't really Schmidt-Isserstedt territory. My tentative conclusion is that Gerd Rubahn was not a pseudonym for just Schmidt-Isserstedt but for a variety of conductors whose recordings the Allegro Royale company pirated. Sorry I haven't found anything more substantive, Tim riley talk 12:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this information. I was first drawn to "Rubahn" when, on the link you gave me above re. Désormière and Kurtz, he popped up as supposed conductor of a recording of the Kijé suite (no mention in this link of Désormière and Kurtz, incidentally). I had never heard of "Rubhan"; no mentions in any of the regular texts, and the idea of a non-existent conductor recording a work about a non-existent lieutenant had natural appeal. My superficial internet searches suggested the Schmidt-Isserstedt connection (see here) but this seems unlikely – the truth is more likely as you say. No matter; for the purposes of my Kije discography, though, would it be possible to provide the link that does give details of the Désormière and Kurtz recordings? Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rummage and find the right link! I quite see that a mythical conductor's recording of a work about a mythical lieutenant would appeal to Bellman Boulton. Tim riley talk 21:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a reply on your talk page, nearer to home, as it were. Tim riley talk 13:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Ciannella has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

But 'twas a famous victory[edit]

Could you take a look at Lexington-Concord Sesquicentennial half dollar? I'm afraid it is languishing rather at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. Be there anon. Tim riley talk 20:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart Requiem[edit]

That article has a lot of myth, facts only very late, nothing substantial on the music, so sad. Would you help improving? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly, but not for some weeks yet. I have two large projects IRL to complete, or at least work seriously on, before I can devote much time to WP. Tim riley talk 14:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On Mozart's birthday, I formatted the recordings a bit in the way of Schiml, remember? I realized that many lack a year, - could you look those up? I don't know what to do with the strange ones at the end, - help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Proms[edit]

Hi Tim, I have been fiddling again with the wartime bit of the Proms article, the gist of which is better expressed in the Sir Henry Wood article which you so admirably improved some years ago. Among other things I have referenced Reginald Pound's Biography of Wood, which isn't mentioned in the Wood article, but which seems to contain quite a lot about his relations with the BBC etc. Maybe there's a reason why Pound is omitted from Wood? Superseded, perhaps? Would you mind just glancing at Proms to see if I have muddled things up? Thanks! All the best, and Happy New Year, Eebahgum (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me – indeed, it seems to me one of the best parts of a rather variable article. I'd like to help improve the whole thing, but alas I can't spare the time at the moment. If you're taking an interest in the article as a whole it would be as well to look at one sentence that caught my eye: "Newman arranged the first series of indoor promenade concerts...", which is untrue: there had been regular indoor promenade concerts at Drury Lane and Covent Garden since the 1830s, conducted by Louis-Antoine Jullien, Arthur Sullivan and others (a citation for which is in the Wood article). I can't now remember why I didn't draw on Pound when I overhauled the article (five years ago, I am amazed to see!); it may have been because reviewers thought Jacobs's book had superseded it, but equally it might just have been that I didn't have a copy of Pound on my shelves. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I have re-tweaked, and expunged the untruth. The article does need a general overhaul but like you I am too occupied for that effort right now. Regards, Eebahgum (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eebahgum: if at some point from, say, mid-2016 onwards you have time and inclination to start on a thorough overhaul of the article I'd be v. pleased to collaborate with you, diaries permitting. Do please ping me if and when you are minded to give it a go. Tim riley talk 01:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Beeton[edit]

Many thanks for your comments at the recent PR for Isabella Beeton. I have dropped the good lady into FAC for comments and thoughts. If you have time for any, I'd be delighted to hear with them. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016[edit]

GA review[edit]

Hey Tim, if you have some free time these days, can you review the GA nomination of Ride the Lightning? I think you've got an eye for those minor grammatical errors and double linked terms I often don't see. Appreciate your help.--Retrohead (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it to my (rather lengthy) to-do list. Tim riley talk 09:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lost operas[edit]

Handel's lost Hamburg operas has found its way to FAC, where further wise observations will be welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom in short supply here, but will look in nonetheless. Tim riley talk 09:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw[edit]

Here, you will find the draft of my 1200-word essay on Shaw's political activities between 1882 and 1900. As yet the text is unbedizened with citations, though that will follow. Some of the detail might find its way into footnotes, or may be eliminated by representation elsewhere. I have not yet thought about how to assimilate this material into the main text.

I have a couple more paragraphs to write in this section, bringing things up to 1907 when Shaw became less politically active. There will then be two somewhat shorter pieces, dealing respectively with Shaw's attitude to the Irish issue, 1913–23, and his geriatric admiration for Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s. I might save a critical word or two to comment on Everybody's Political What's What in the Works section.

As things stand I reckon that when complete my contributions will come to around 2,000 to 2,200 words, perhaps accounting for 25 to 30 per cent of the "Life" section. Is that a fair proportion? I am quite a good cutter of my own text, so I won't mind wielding the knife if necessary. Let me have some thoughts, please. Brianboulton (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have been wonderfully concise, and crammed a helluva lot about GBS's politics into remarkably few words. Bags of room for every one of them, me judice. On the general life and theatre side, the biog for 1920–50, yet to be written, won't take a huge number of words, so we're looking at something in the order of 6,000 words for the life section. We shall have to apply our minds to condensing all the Works and a Legacy/reputation section into 4,000 words or so, if we are to bring the article in at under 10,000 words, but as, e.g., Disraeli got through FAC with a hefty 14,300 words I think we can allow ourselves a pretty generous margin of error, even though 10,000 is one's preferred upper limit whenever possible. Tim riley talk 20:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now attempted to merge my text with yours. To avoid us possibly conflicting each other, I have done the work in my own sandbox, here. The varied elements in Shaw's career make it impossible to observe a strict chronology; I've done my best, but you're welcome to adjust. Possibly the "Stage success 1900–14" and "Late Fabian" sections could swap places:
A couple of brief points: your text implies that Cashel Byron was written after An Unsocial Socialist. According to ODNB, Cashel Byron was finished in February 1883, serialised in 1885–86 and published as a book in 1886. An Unsocial Socialist was finished in December 1883, serialised in 1884 and appeared as a book in 1887. Perhaps that could be made clearer. When you suggest a line on the socialist element, I assume you mean in An Unsocial Socialist, as there's much more socialism in that than in the other book. Secondly, do you want me to provide the brief commentary on Common Sense about the War? I'll happily do it, but it won't be as long as your Latin efflux. I'd like to fit in a short "Irish" section (300w?) between the First War and the 1920s.
Ping me when you've read this so I know. I'm a bit engaged on other things temporarily. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: – Brian, I am astonished (and of course v. pleased indeed) at how seamless the augmented text looks. I defer to you on the Cashel B/Unsocial S point: please amend ad lib. And yes, I was rather hoping for the Boulton touch in the para about the war pamphlet. I'd gladly do it, but you'll do it better. Looking ahead to the Works section, I have just taken delivery of a battered second-hand copy (5p + p&p) of this, which in terms of organising our text I think may offer us a useful skeleton that we can flesh out. More on this when I have read it. Meanwhile, don't let GBS draw you away from anything that may require your current attention. We have time enough. I propose to blank my sandbox and work in yours in the immediate future, for the sake of firm version control. Tim riley talk 19:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PR request[edit]

Hello Tim, a certain old thespian is currently waiting in the wings here for any comments or criticisms. I would be much appreciative for any thoughts offered, if you have the time. Many thanks. CassiantoTalk 00:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a particular pleasure. More tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 20:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 January 2016[edit]

Alec Douglas-Home[edit]

You keep removing the section heading 'Marriage and children' without explanation.

I think the article benefits from further articulation. Most biography pages in Wikipedia have a section on family and personal life. Probably because readers are often more likely to be in search of such details than they are in the minutiae of the professional life. I refer you by way of example to the articles on Douglas-Home's predecessor and successor as Prime Minister (Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson. Dichtung (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are naturally entitled to your view, but I invite you to consider that an article that has been through the PR and FAC processes has been carefully weighed by numerous experienced reviewers, and there is the possibility that their combined experience and judgement may just possibly outweigh your own opinion. Tim riley talk 21:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, you're one of them. Your comments remind me of why I gave up serious editing more than ten years ago. So long.Dichtung (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you feel everyone but you is out of step, but heigh-ho. Tim riley talk 22:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) (edit conflict) If, by "one of them", you mean Tim riley is one who would rather discuss civilly than edit war: yes you're right. Or perhaps you meant "one who takes the concept of discussion to reach a consensus" seriously. In which case you're again right. Either way, there is little justification in edit warring to force your single opinion against the several community processes just to get your own way. If you still think there should be a separate section, you've been advised on several points to use the article talk page – something that I believe was as active ten years ago as it is now. – SchroCat (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2016[edit]

Edward Elgar[edit]

Thanks for your help with the Edward Elgar citation. I noticed that there was an older edition of Moore's book, but I didn't know if the page numbers would match. I was going to check Google Books tonight, and you beat me to it. Thanks. BTW, what is a "Duff citation?"Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 01:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Duff" as in "not right" (perhaps old fashioned word). Duff there because (i) (as I am very old and technically inept) the article citations don't use templates and your added templated one rather stuck out in the list and (ii) there was an existing ref to the same page, differently formatted. I ought to have thought ages ago to add the bit about EE's deathbed view of the afterlife (pace Gerontius), and I'm v. glad you did. For some unexplained reason this article seems to attract all sorts of eccentric and tangential additions, and it is a joy to come across a relevant and important one such as yours. Tim riley talk 01:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was my pleasure. I was listening to a podcast and heard the quote. I thought, "That's an interesting factoid. Wonder if it's on WP?" Tim D. Williamson yak-yak —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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: [3], 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]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10[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]
    • Brian, will do. I have been filled with admiration for the titanic efforts you have put in, and will get the PR on the go te absente. Tim riley talk 15:15, 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]

Edward Elgar[edit]

There was a comment at Jimbo's talk page here about getting a survey after he read the Elgar article. I don't know if that is something you all set up, or something WMF does, or something in his settings. I checked and you are the biggest contributor to that article. Thought you might want to know. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jytdog: it's kind of you to mention it here. This survey is news to me, and I don't know what it's doing on the Elgar page or who arranged for it to do so. The ways of Wikipedia can be passing strange. Tim riley talk 11:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Welsh National Opera[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Welsh National Opera 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 Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Welsh National Opera[edit]

The article Welsh National Opera 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:Welsh National Opera for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fauré piano music[edit]

Sorry to bother you again. In this phrase "The manuscript (in the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris) is in Massenet's hand." does it means that the manuscript was owned by Massenet and nowadays belongs to the Bibliotheque nationale? It is not clear to me. Massenet died in 1912 whereas Fauré did do in 1924, so I don't understand this. Thank you! Triplecaña (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad you mentioned this! I am embarrassed to have to say that "Massenet" is a typo: I should have written "Messager", whose handwriting the manuscript is in. Now corrected. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 13:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so fast. I was about to write you about this source identifier for searching: MS 17769. All clear now. The section starts with Fons Bibliothèque Nationale so its clear. Triplecaña (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images to Commons[edit]

Which of the images used in the article can be transferred to Commons? I have no idea regarding copyrights and I would like to know if I myself can upload them in Commons with PD-1923 licensing. I will understand if you don't have the time or the desire to do this. Triplecaña (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't give you an expert (or even half-expert) answer. The PD-1923 tag shows that a picture is not in copyright in the USA (and can therefore be used in Wikipedia) but for Commons the picture also has to be out of copyright in its country of origin. I have encountered problems in the past, if I recall correctly, with WP's strange rules that seem to insist that even if the Bibliothèque nationale de France labels a picture as "domaine publique" that isn't sufficient to satisfy the strict standards of Commons. But in truth I really don't understand the rules. If anyone who is kind enough to watch this talk page can throw any light on this I shall be very pleased if he or she chips in here. Tim riley talk 16:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's impossible for the lay person, as Copyright law is of Byzantine complexity, and the law has actually been changed several times retrospectively, so even reading up on it is fraught with danger. If you want to check the best people to ask are on Commons themselves. (Or you can try a copyright lawyer. ;-}) Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which article are you asking about, Triplecaña? Happy to take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is Piano music of Gabriel Fauré. Thank you Triplecaña (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I say! That's service – thank you very much, Nikkimaria! Over to you, Triplecaña. Tim riley talk 12:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate this! I've succesfully transferred to Commons four files. Check my latest contributions Again, maybe this should be moved to the article talk page instead. Triplecaña (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Welsh National Opera[edit]

The article Welsh National Opera you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Welsh National Opera 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 Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent performance! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps: a delegate wants a source review for BWV 4, - anybody out there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again, your detailed constructive comments which helped to improve Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 to FA!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old-sadlers-wells-1879.jpg[edit]

Hello! I need this file for translate the page of English National Opera (ENO) in Italian. For your experience is it possible to put a license for using in Italy? Thank you --Brunokito (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can use it in Italian Wikipedia: the pre-1923 licence tag applies to files hosted on WP's servers in the US, which, as far as I know, host the Italian as well as the English Wikipedia. The tag is not sufficient for the file to go into Commons, where the rules require the file to be in the public domain in the country of origin (the UK in this case), and I can't prove that this file is definitely PD in Britain. But I'm reasonably sure you can use it as it is. I look forward to reading the Italian version of the article (or at least trying to read it - my Italian is not good) in due course. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 16:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maud Carpenter[edit]

Hi Tim, can you find anything on her?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By God! There's a great name from my childhood. My mother used to take us to the Liverpool Playhouse, reigned over by the formidable MC. It will be a pleasure to dig round for things about her. Tim riley talk 15:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you've heard of her! Great. She seems to have been quite a character, no doubt loved/feared by a lot of people!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw[edit]

I've sent you a couple of emails relating to my drafted response to the PR criticisms of the Beliefs and Legacy sections, but I don't know if you've received the last one, which asked you to look at User:Brianboulton/Sandbox5 and comment. Have you seen this? Please let me have thoughts soonest. Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: All spot-on it seems to me: a lovely job. I've left two brief suggestions on your sandpit talk page. Tim riley talk 20:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have transferred the revised Legacy section to the article. I intend to add a couple of sentences on Shaw's influence on American drama, using the Dukore source, and I'll then respond to Sadads on the review page. I won't be able to do that tonight as I have some heavy TFA stuff to get through, so I'll do it tomorrow. I'll also check through the PR for any outstanding issues. I'm not expecting any additional contributions, and we can potentially thinkin terms of a FAC nomiation this weekend. Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton:I've left some further suggestions in your sandbox here over the past couple of days. By all means add anything that you think useful. Tim riley talk 20:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed these. Will comment tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update on latest actions here, at the foot of the page. Comments? Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Thanks muchly. I've commented there, and I think we're very nearly ready for FAC. Tim riley talk 21:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through the PR, can't see any outstanding points. I suggest give Sadads 24 hours to comment further, then go FAC on Sunday. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good. We are of one mind. I did the introductory spiel for the PR: do you want to do the one for the FAC? – Tim riley talk 00:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you adapt your PR blurb for FAC, & that you do the nom with me named as chief supporter. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: February 2016[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Fauré piano music (2)[edit]

I know you are engaged on several other projects, but I have 2 ideas. To use {{Harv}} in all book references and to add a Google books url to each book. For example I was able to check Liszt expression "I've run out of fingers" in [4]. What do you think? I can help you out! Triplecaña (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)�[reply]

What you do in the translated version is of course up to you, but personally I should be fiercely opposed to changing the refs to that loathsome, complicated, clumsy Harv system in the English article. Adding a url to an online copy of the books sounds excellent, though, as long as we are sure the links work all over the world. (I mention this because I have run across links to Google books added by American editors who assumed the texts would be readable everywhere, but in fact in other countries were only snippet views or no view at all.) Tim riley talk 22:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Also, please, if you're going to add GBooks links to an English article, (a) use an English-language Google site, whether that's .com, .ca, or something else so that the interface is in English, (b) use a page link where possible, a quote link where not, rather than that very long and cluttered search link, and (c) don't include an accessdate. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done following Nikkimaria's instructions per above. Just urls added. Triplecaña (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toys out of perambulator[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertgrove (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this really calls for any response, in all honesty. Tim riley talk 20:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Left out in the cold[edit]

Can you please add my name as co-nominator of Shaw at FAC? Brianboulton (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too late! Already done. Now let's see what response we get. Tim riley talk 12:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Bernard Shaw[edit]

To anyone who is kind enough to watch this page: Brianboulton and I have put the article up for FAC here, where comments from all interested editors are earnestly invited. Tim riley talk 12:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016[edit]

Another PR request[edit]

Hi Tim, I have another article up at PR, should you have the time and inclination. This is the Senghenydd colliery disaster, a sad episode of some corporate mismanagement which led to the deaths of 339 miners and one rescue worker. All shocking stuff, and the event is still the worst mining disaster in the UK. If you could pop in to the PR at some point to comment, I'd be delighted to hear from you. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Be there during the week. Tim riley talk 21:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw FAC[edit]

I've just added Shaw to the FAC page (you didn't finish the process!) - but this is mainly to tell you that I am feeling distinctly off-colour at present (not booze-related) and will probably not be able to contribute much to the FAC review for a day or two. Please hold the fort – will emerge when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Sorry to hear you're not well, and wishing you a speedy recovery. I'll mind the FAC te absente. Thanks for repairing my sin of omission: not the first time I've made that mistake, daft old thing that I am. Tim riley talk 21:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I "emerged" today feeling distinctly better, but the powers that she be have decreed a day of rest and watching the ICC T20, so I probably won't be very active until tomorrow. I'll keep a furtive eye on tshe FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove material[edit]

The Requiem (Faurè) lead: count me among those who think that line is no lead material. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means remove it, Gerda. I am less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt when changes are made without any edit summary, but we can rely on you. Tim riley talk 09:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I try to keep what editors before found worth having, just don't know the reason in this case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pillar[edit]

The one-eyed adulterer awaits his fate at FAC. Surely they won't blow him up again, but who knows? Still hoping to make the date. Re GBS, I have almost fulfilled my promise to upgrade List of works by George Bernard Shaw; a few more licks of paint and it'll be done. It's frugal, but useful; in the future someone may wish to embellish it with first night details, or other extra info, but that someone is not me. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturne No. 4 review[edit]

In this sentence "a Nocturne which Cortot found rather too satisfied with its own languor" from Morrison's notes to a Fauré recording, can you help understanding its meaning? Is it a bad thing or good? Satisfied in this case could it mean fed up? (any page stalker that is an English native could probably solve this) Sorry for bothering you (again). Triplecaña (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) (By invite!) I started to answer but could not without sounding patronising. Anyway: I might be fluent in the language, but not the language of music! Sorry about that. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My best attempt at conveying what I think Morrison means would be "...which Cortot thought was leisurely in a rather self-indulgent way" or "was self-indulgently drowsy/sleepy/relaxed". Sorry not to be more precise, but in English there are seldom any exact synonyms, and I can't pin down "languor" any more precisely than this. If anyone happens to see this and would like to suggest a better rendition, please feel free. Tim riley talk 17:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand langour (its languidez in Spanish, meaning "feeble" and "from low spirit, value or energy") and know how to describe it. The problem is with satisfied. Maybe it means that Cortot founds the piece to slow or relaxed in a fake way, meaning Fauré made it too drowsy or relaxed on purpose. Is Cortot describing Fauré's approach to the piece or the piece itself? Sorry for my stubbornness. Triplecaña (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to know the original French. "Satisfied" sounds like taking something French too literally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The same phrase in French from Morrison notes PDF, un Nocturne dont Cortot pensait qu’ilse complaisait un peu trop de sa propre langueur, and German, einem Notturno, das laut Cortotzu sehr in seiner eigenen Trägheit schwelgt. The original reference comes from p. 155 La musique française small preview by Alfred Cortot, but I cannot read all of it. I found the book is available at the Médiathèque from L'Insitut Français in Madrid. Stay tuned! Triplecaña (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what p. 147-148 of 1981 edition of Cortot's La musique française de piano in French:

Le quatrième et cinquième Nocturnes, op. 36 et 37, paraissent tous deux en 1885. Ils se rencontrent dans l'expression d'un sentiment commun, qui est, una fois encore, amoureux et nourri de désirs.

Le cinquième Nocturne, il est vrai, oppose à la tendre interrogation de son thème initial l'agitation d'un intermède pathétique. Mais c'est moins par l'assombrissement momentané qui pèse sur ses premières mesures que par la passion chaleureuse de son développement qu'il prend sa véritable signification.

Et la nostalgique rêverie qui emplit le quatrième Nocturne, qui se mêle aux lentes vibrations des cloches vespérales, qui porte en elle tant de regrets et d'élans, à quoi aspire-t-elle si ce n'est aux délices perdues d'un amour exilé?

Nous pressentons ici à nouveau ce mystérieux travail d'élaboration, qui, sans toucher à la nature des sentiments, en modifie portant l'accent, leur prête avec una noblesse plus grande une sorte d'inquiétude, une ardeur grave et soutenue et qui par deux fois dans l'œuvre de M. Fauré caractérise un moment de sa production que nous pourrions nommer de transition. Puis, s'affirme derechef, la serine plénitude d'une pensée maîtresse de ses moyens d'expression, justifiant par de nouvelles (next page) œuvres, plus hautes encore et plus belles, le choix réfléchi d'un style et d'une forme.

I don't find anything related to Morrison's quote about Cortot.Triplecaña (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Senghenydd[edit]

Hi Tim, Thank you once again for all your comments on the Senghenydd colliery disaster. This is now at FAC, should you wish to comment further. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom[edit]

The Phantom Tollbooth is now at FAC. Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw[edit]

An editor is trying to insert further material re the Academy Award into the lead. I have reverted, and also left a polite note on the editor's talk page. Better be watchful while the article is on the cusp. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. This was one predictable attempt to lumber the lead with a piece of trivia (or to be charitable, a fact of minor importance to the article). The other, which I await with a pouch full of dry powder, is mention there of Lerner and Loewe's musical version of Pygmalion. Tim riley talk 19:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to raise the point on the musical now...! – SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there's a moral in there somewhere if sad people continually try to breathe new life into the Pygmalion myth! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A pharaoh back from the deads[edit]

Hello dear Tim Riley! I have just completed and submitted as a GA candidate a new pharaoh article on Djedkare Isesi. A long lived king, he was the first reformer of the Egyptian state (with catastrophic consequences...), fond of writing letters to his officials and during whose reign many "firsts" occured: earliest letter on papyrus, earliest depiction of warfare, earliest piece of wisdom literature, earliest record of an oracular divination etc... I would be most grateful if you were once more wiling to review the GA nomination of a pharaoh article (in this case see here). Iry-Hor (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I shall look in with great pleasure if someone else doesn't get in first. Tim riley talk 17:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert and Sullivan[edit]

With regard to the Gilbert and Sullivan categories, I was using Category:The Beatles as a model, where it is a subcategory of the categories for each member, but since I seem to be outnumbered here, do whatever you like. Trivialist (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Trivialist – a comradely response greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 15:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New lede sans cites at Austen[edit]

Just returned after a week away and the new lede, along with a group of new references in the main article, is now posted at Austen. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your kind closing comments on the GA are appreciated. I have given some time to follow-up thoughts for an FA section for the major novels of Austen though this could take some time, more on this in the coming weeks perhaps. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw bore[edit]

It's been a week since anyone contributed to the FAC. Can you see any unresolved issues that we ought to be tackling? I don't think I can. Brianboulton (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. All seems well to me. I imagine the coordinators will have him on the slipway soon. Tim riley talk 11:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harper[edit]

Hi there Tim, if you have the time and are interested I have William Harper up for FAC here. If you thought the UDI affair was something with Smith in charge, just try to imagine what might have happened if this chap had been PM of Rhodesia instead. Any thoughts would be very much appreciated. Hope you're well. All the best, —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exeat[edit]

I'm more or less absent for a month or two, busy on an off-WP undertaking. Back by the summer, with any luck.

I can be contacted by email if, per impossibile, I am urgently needed, and will in any case look in briefly to meddle from time to time. Otherwise, see you in June or thereabouts. Happy editing!

Tim riley talk 17:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Djedkare FAC[edit]

Hello dear Tim Riley, after having settled the issues with italics, I can announce that Djedkare Isesi has reached FAC, see here. Thank you for all you did already! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Terfel[edit]

Hi Tim. Still three weeks left on the Dragon. I was wondering if you think it would require too much effort to get to Terfel to GA? Even a 3kb improvement would register on the board as a core improvement. Or do you have a rule against BLPs like Schro? Perhaps Roald Dahl could still be improved? No worries if not, as you did do the WNO article!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not available till June or thereabouts. See note above. Good luck with BT. Tim riley talk 12:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Missed this. Will miss you being around!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2016[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Jessie Rose has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Hello, Tim riley. Jessie Rose, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 22:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 April 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FRWL[edit]

Hi Tim, Many thanks for your comments and edits on From Russia, with Love. This is now at FAC, so if you happen to be passing through at any point and wish to make further comments, I'd be grateful to receive them; no problems if you are tied up with other matters, natch. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disraeli article reversion[edit]

You reverted a minor edit I made on the Benjamin Disraeli article regarding a point of grammar. Rest assured this is not an argumentative note. On the contrary, I found your reason for the reversion most interesting. I had added “of” after “all” in: “All Disraeli’s grandparents….” Your implicit reason was that it was appropriate to use British English instead of American English for this subject. As the subject is a very notable British figure of the past (and one whom I have always greatly admired), I don’t dispute that reasoning. However, I have never before considered this point. You're saying that writers in the U. K. omit the preposition in such instances that seem natural here as an indefinite pronoun? That is the case now and has always been? If so, I wonder why we Americans altered the practice. I've always been interested in such differences between us regarding the common language. Thanks much for the input.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker): Since Tim is away, and I'm also a native Brit, let me say "Yes" to your question. "[You] Americans" have not necessarily altered any practice - it is very possible that British English has changed since 1776 (or near offer). New England accents are closer to Shakespeare's speech than mine is, for instance, and spellings like humor and color were commonplace in 18th century England. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) The practice appears in both US and UK English, just for some reason at different points. For example, Americans "look out the window" while Brits usually "look out of the window". See for example Zero-marking in English (though reduction extends beyond just that). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking in briefly: Thank you, HB, for your friendly and interesting note and thanks too to CC and NM for their stimulating comments. I'd sum up my view of the matter thus: in BrE "all of xxx" generally means "every bit of xxx" whereas "all xxx" means "every example of xxx". So, "all of my limbs will be covered in hair" means that my four limbs are going to be completely hairy, but "all my limbs will be covered with hair" means that as many limbs as I possess will be hairy. The BrE use without the "of" can be seen in the King James Bible ("and all the sons of God shouted for joy") and in Shakespeare ("And all our yesterdays have lighted fools/The way to dusty death"), and in Gilbert and Sullivan ("When all the great officers of State resigned in a body") etc. I know the "of" is often used in AmE for the equivalents of these, but is it a rule? I'm thinking of Arthur Miller's play All My Sons (not All of My Sons), but you'll know better than I on this point. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 19:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all. I also found this interesting, and Tim's explanation is very clear. I hope I'll remember it in future writing. As to one point above, I understand that Noah Webster did change many American spellings to make them more phonetic, which reminds me of an old joke: Noah Webster's wife entered the kitchen to find him kissing the maid. "Noah, I'm surprised!" she exclaimed. "No, my dear," he replied. "I'm surprised. You're amazed." -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I never thought my ever so seemingly insignificant comment concerning a seemingly equally insignificant matter would have engendered so many interesting replies. Tim, as I said, in the case of indefinite pronouns (“An indefinite pronoun does not refer to any specific person, thing or amount. It is vague and ‘not definite’. Some typical indefinite pronouns are: all, another, any, anybody/anyone, anything, each, everybody/everyone, everything, few, many, nobody, none, one, several, some, somebody/someone.” [The English Club internet site] ) it is my experience that usually “of” is inserted. However, I went to another online grammar site (that appears to be American), and it states that your perspective is preferable because it “probably sounds less clumsy,” but adding “of” is also correct, so take one’s choice. As in the example you cited from the Miller play, it is true one does sometimes here the “of” omitted as also in the popular soap opera (which I wouldn’t be caught dead watching (assuming it is still running), I might add!) All My Children. So it would appear as if your way might be at least equally correct as mine on both sides “of the pond” as you Brits sometimes express matters.
Nikk, you’re right. We do (almost always from my experience) say “Looking out the window,” omitting the “of” as sounding both clumsy and perhaps even redundant. It’s curious that in this instance we reverse matters, arguing the opposite way! Ssilvers, thanks for the joke about Noah Webster. I hadn’t heard that one before. Most humorous! Thanks to all for this educational and thoroughly enjoyable experience. And Tim, I never had any intention of reverting your reversion, so please sleep soundly! BTW, you must be some sort of Wiki potentate judging by how many users apparently view your talk page on a regular basis! Salute! Very best to all!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tim is possibly the best researcher on WP, period, and he is very generous in reviewing the work of others. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time for the toons...[edit]

Hi Tim, I have recently been working on Walt Disney, which is now up for PR. Any thoughts or comments on his huge figure would be much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I tempt you back briefly?[edit]

Hi Tim, A brief note to let you know that Walt Disney is now at FAC, should you wish to visit and comment. Cheers! – SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as it's you. I have got a bit bogged down with my off-WP magnum opus, and I shan't be sorry to have a break from it. Tim riley talk 18:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FLC[edit]

Hi Tim. Do you have time to look at List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Buckinghamshire at FLC? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2016[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Olivia de Havilland[edit]

Hello, Tim. I hope you are doing well. I see you are on sabbatical from Wikipedia. I am preparing the Olivia de Havilland article for WP:FAC nomination and would appreciate any feedback or guidance if you find yourself available. You can add your comments to the peer review page. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venice-composers-2.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Venice-composers-2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 10:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:John-cann-bailey.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:John-cann-bailey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Henry Wood 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:
  • the conducting gave Wood good reviews.{{refn|[[George Bernard Shaw]], in a long review in ''[[The World'', commented on all the principal singers, the costumes, scenery and choreography, but

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grossmith-family-tree.tif listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Grossmith-family-tree.tif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A yes for No?[edit]

Hi Tim, You have previously been good enough to review one of the previous Bond novels; I have recently filed Dr No, Fleming's sixth Bond novel, at PR for further consideration. If you have the time or inclination, I'd be grateful for any comments you may have. No rush and no compunction at all, obviously. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monteux[edit]

I've made an adjustment to the Monteux article. The information that Pierre's brother died in a concentration camp was challenged by an editor, who added a footnote supported by two citations to French sources indicating that he died elsewhere. As this has nothing to do with Pierre, I thought it advisable to remove the mention of Henri's death from the article. You are the Monteux maestro and I will of course defer if you feel differently (I'm also updating some urls that have gorn orf). Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just the job, and thank you very much for mentioning it here! Tim riley talk 16:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride 2016[edit]

As a past contributor, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

  1. Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
  2. Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
  3. Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2016[edit]



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

Dr No[edit]

Hi Tim, Many thanks for your comments and edits on Dr No. This is now at FAC, so if you happen to be passing through at any point and wish to make further comments, I'd be grateful to receive them; no problems if you are tied up with other matters, of course. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Done. A pleasure to revisit. By the way, I don't think I mentioned that when I was still working for a living, a newspaper published a story (content forgotten) headlined "From Russia with fish". This set off an office frenzy of retitling the entire 007 canon: we agreed on The Fish Who Loved Me, Live and Let Fish, You Only Fish Twice, Fish are Forever, For Your Fish Only, etc, but we practically came to blows over whether the seventh novel in the the sequence should be Goldfish or Fishfinger. – Tim riley talk 11:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is that James Pond? I know Judi Tench was excellent in the films... - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Groan! If you aren't careful I'll counter with Diamonds are Forelle. Tim riley talk 13:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Covent Garden[edit]

The Covent Garden article has been scheduled to appear on the main page at the end of this month on the 30th. Shortly after it was scheduled, a FAR was opened by User:Scott: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Covent Garden/archive1. I am looking at addressing his concerns, though they are vague, and he appears unwilling to expand on his concerns. As you were involved in the FAC in 2011 (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1) would you mind looking at the review, and providing some guidance as to how to proceed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Dooley[edit]

If you have a mind to get your Irish up, step this way.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-correction to US spelling[edit]

Hi Tim. When I edit, Wikipedia flags British spelling as wrong and sometimes auto-corrects it to USAmer - e.g. sceptical to skeptical. Do you know how I can stop this? I cannot see anything in preferences. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Dudley, Have you recently installed IE 10 on your computer? – SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have auto-update on and it has installed IE 11. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1 – Click on Tools>Internet Options.
2 – Select the Programs tab.
3 – Click Manage add-ons.
4 – In the left-hand column, click Spelling Correction.
5 – Scroll to the bottom of the window and uncheck the box beside Enable spelling correction.
6 – Click the Close button.
Hope this helps! – SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much but Microsoft have left out the facility to turn off spelling correction in IE 11. They say they will consider putting it back in future versions. Why do Microsoft's updates always make their programs worse? I use Access extensively and the modern versions are very inferior to the old ones. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to firefox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. I just thought of that myself! Dudley Miles (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A. S. F. Gow, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Manilius and Gower Street. 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) 10:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of botched and unnecessary citations[edit]

Hello. I don't understand why you removed the reference to the newly published book of Britten-Pears correspondence. Please explain. HerdMusic209 (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the fact of your putting your question in the middle of the previous section here (now moved) I infer that you don't normally edit Wikipedia. I should explain that Wikipedia is not a site for advertising new publications. We cite books as support of stated facts; the facts in the Pears, Britten etc articles were already fully cited and the mention of the new book added nothing of value, besides being inserted in such a way as to mess up the layout and appearance of the page. The latter could be remedied by a competent editor if necessary, but there is no cause to do so as the insertions were superfluous. Tim riley talk 18:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I welcomed the new editor, before anything else ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tim, for controlling spam. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim_riley/Archive18&oldid=1136132291"