Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive67

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


Social history of viruses

Hello Brian, do you have the time to take another look before I nominate for FA? Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll make some time, and post any additional comments on the talkpage within 48 hours. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Brian. Thank you for your ongoing comments about the article. What do you think about article's title? I raised my concern about this at the end of my GA assessment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

FA ideas for opera

Brian, given your interest in operas, I thought I might put a plug in for some upcoming centennials of operas that have been performed and/or recorded recently:

Also, although it may be too rushed to get this ready and approved at FA in time, Verdi turns 200 this year on October 10. Also this year: Pietro Mascagni turns 150 on December 7, Britten turns 100 in November, and the 50th anniversary of Hindemith's death is 28 December .

If you are interested in any of these, I am happy to collect resources together for you.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am not a Verdian and have few relevant sources, so I'm not really the one to work up his biography, particularly in view of the short timescale. I have done some preliminary work on Mascagni and I might return to it this summer, with the 150th anniversary in mind. I might be tempted to do the Handel opera, as I have done a couple of these and have good material. I'll be in touch for help/advice when needed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

FAC

I'm all done with Harold Davidson at FAC - it looks like you're going to get a FA article. Well done.

Can I ask some advice? I have a number of articles I've taken to GA (eg: Keith Moon, Van der Graaf Generator, M11 link road protest) that are currently stalled getting as far as FA due my procrastinating over a lack of sources and a general feeling (paranoia?) that I haven't totally comprehensively covered the subject. No matter how much I tinker, I fear the minute I go to FAC somebody will pull out a massive laundry list of offline sources I hadn't thought about. Has this ever happened to you, and how have you coped with this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I began submitting article to FAC about five-and-a-half years ago. FAC was a less rebarbative environment then. I was lucky enough to find a number of experienced editors, in particular Yomangani, Ruhrfisch, Elcobbola and Ealdgyth, who gave excellent advice and support in those early months. There were others as well – I can't name them all. And SandyGeorgia was in charge of FAC then, and was hugely encouraging. Sadly, most of these are much less active on the project these days, or have retired, but I haven't forgotten the help I got, and am quite prepared to help other editors to polish their articles when they are contemplating an FAC submission. If you want me to look at one of those you name, I'll be happy to do so, although it may take me a few days. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
(watching): your help with Kafka is remembered, especially today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I no longer do much with non-history articles, but if you've got a history article you want help with, I'm glad to help. Just drop a line on my talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Benjamin Britten may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
  • Britten and 'The Rescue'|journal= Tempo|issue= 166|date= September 1988|pages= pp. 28–33}} [[subscription}}</ref> Mann finds in this score pre-echoes of the second act of ''Billy Budd'',<ref name= Mann/>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | 8 July 1970:<br/> [[Cheltenham]]]. [[Schola Cantorum of Oxford]], Leicestershire Schools Symphony Orchestra cond. Michael Tippett
  • | 20 December 1955:<br/>London> [[Dennis Brain|Dennis Brain Wind Ensemble]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Franz Kafka all time top TFA!!!

[1] 768,586 hits
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed
WP:TOP25
YEE HAW PumpkinSky talk 01:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. It's my birthday today, so an extra glass is called for, to celebrate this most pleasing news. I am pleased to have had a small hand in the article's development. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your birthday is Yank independence day. Chuckle.PumpkinSky talk 16:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
May I share a glass! Happy birthday, Brian! Listen to Handel! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
And from me. You don't have an Uncle Sam, do you?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to all! Every year the USA lights fireworks in my honour. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
A very happy birthday to you Brian! Cheers from the Holy Land. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry for missing your birthday Brian, I hope you had a wonderful day and I wish you many, many more. Who would have guessed (forgive me for saying) all those years ago, that you would become a star of the Internet? Graham Colm (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Anyone for tennis? Hard cheese old boy!

It's an absolute shower! The King of the Cads is at PR. If there is any chance you could pop your head round to have a look, Cassianto and I would be very much obliged. All the best – SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

ps. Just noted the thread above - a slightly belated birthday to you for yesterday! - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I will definitely review TT, but I may let others have first dabs - I'll keep my eye on it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
That's great: many thanks, Brian. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

SP

Hi Brian, your draft looks good in most respects but I was wondering if you wanted to mention Wikidata and its potential impact on infoboxes? Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not well enough up on Wikidata to include any useful comments. My piece is not a general critique/assessment of infoboxes; its thrust is specifically the habit of overcrowding infoboxes with unnecessary detail, and thereby undermining their supposed purpose. I don't really want to broaden the issue beyond that. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, just my two cents on the draft. Thanks for writing it! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for the excellent dispatch; hopefully I can tempt you to write another in the future! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Raul biz

I'm glad you brought this up at WT:FAC. The issues surrounding Raul's abdication are long overdue for being hashed out. Hopefully this won't up into a huge mess. PumpkinSky talk 03:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Davidson promoted

Just a quick note to say very well done! And hope you're having a pleasant weekend. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Diary of a Somebody

If you have not been keeping abreast of additions to the relevant bit on my talk page, pray look in. Andrew Gray has come up trumps, following up the lead presented by Gareth E Kegg. What excellent colleagues we have! Tim riley (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"Cusp" for "Crisp" is almost certainly a failure of the OCR scanning of the printed pages. Even Wikipedia's austere rules on scrupulous quotation can, surely, be interpreted to allow restoration of what we know the printed source must have said. Tim riley (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't really worried about that. The review is good otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Diary of a Nobody, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benny Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarnia FA Peer Review

Hi, Brian,

Just wanted to tell you that I've made all the corrections you've so far suggested. I was wondering if you could pass the word to your editing colleagues at your level to make suggestions/comments. I don't want to recommend Sarnia for FA status again until I actually get it there. When you get the time, I would appreciate the extra help. Thanks so far too! There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The article really does need a complete peer review before a shot at FAC. Peer reviews are hard to get at the moment; the best suggestion I can make is that you leave it with me and I will find time, over the next few days, to do it (probably in instalments). In the meantime, one area I advise you to look at carefully is that of over-imaging. In a number of sections the text is squeezed between images on right and left, which contravenes MOS. I think you need to decide which of the large crop of images are the more necessary, and which could be dropped with no real loss to the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Brian; I appreciate the comments. The only reason I changed the photos around was because someone complained that they were all left aligned. I changed them to all left aligned when someone else complained that they could not read them. So, I am going to change them back to all left aligned so that there is no problem with the MOS. And I know you're busy, so installments is fine. I look forward to working with you! There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Brian,

The peer-review bot archived the peer review on Sarnia. So I created another one. That peer-review Bot is a pain.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Brianboulton. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sarnia/archive3.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Rite of Spring editions table

I have moved a table of editions of the score of The Rite of Spring from the article to the talk page. The table is copied from a Norman Lebrecht blog post and seems likely to have at least some information worth including in the article. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look at this; I note, too, other instances in the article of bolted-on information which I am not too happy about. There must be a limit to the extent that editors can add on details of adaptations which they think are of great significance but which are in fact ephemeral. It may be a few days before I get to it, however – I am very occupied at present. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I wonder if Wikipedia:Pending changes should apply to FAs to prevent these barnacle-like accretions. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I entirely removed the film sourced only to IMDB (per WP:RS and cropped the paragraph on the solo work down to a few words (as another solo work was already mentioned - added it there with a link to the performer's article which has much more detail). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

FA

Re: your post here, would you be willing to do it? I think you've previously indicated no, but I wondered whether that had changed at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I have always made it clear that my role in Wikipedia is that of a content builder and reviewer. I'd like to keep it that way. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
That's why you'd be good for the job. But I understand and won't ask again in case it's annoying. Thanks for asking about the JSTOR situation, by the way. The loss of that is going to be hard. I wanted to mention to you, in terms of evaluating how it's used (or who is using it), that it can be very useful for background reading. I often find that I don't end up citing it, but did use it to learn about the subject or to find other sources. So that's worth bearing in mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to evaluate how JSTOR has been used by the editors who were given access, but I lack certain basic information. I don't even know how many of the first 100 on the list took up their accounts, though I do know that some of that 100 are no longer active on Wikipedia. If the facility is to continue beyond November, there surely has to be a more rational method of allocating accounts. I am hoping that Steve Welling will provide some answers – he has said that he will. I will continue to ferret around, and at some stage (I don't know when) will report on my findings. Brianboulton (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I wonder whether Steven would let you be cc-ed, as an informal community representative, on the correspondence with his JSTOR contacts. If there are people not using their accounts, those could be passed to the people on the waiting list at Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access (presumably those from 101 onwards). We would have to come up with parameters to determine what we meant by "non-use"; but someone who, say, had not logged into JSTOR for the last three months could be considered not to be using it, as could someone who has not edited WP for six months.
Ideally there would be an increase in the number of accounts JSTOR will allow, so that we wouldn't need to bother with the above; Steven indicated this might happen, but it wasn't clear what would prompt or prevent it. But so long as we have that 100 limit, it should really be given to 100 people who are using it for WP-related research. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Having one of the accounts (speaking of which, if either of you need something drop a note on my talk page with a link and I'll be glad to provide it for you), I can certainly say I'm using mine, if not every day, at least every week. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ealdgyth. I have one of the accounts, too, as I believe does Sarah. I use mine all the time – every one of my featured article noms since last November has used some JSTOR-sourced articles. My anxiety is not only that this should continue, but that this very important facility be used by those editors likely to make best use of it. For example, I notice that the artist formerly known as Malleus is lurking way down the list at No. 201; Cassianto is at 209, Ed at 241 and Mike Christie a lowly 254. These are all active editors with a strong presence at FAC who I think would used JSTOR access for the benefit of the Wikipedia project. I am not sure what being "cc-ed" means - I hope it doesn't mean chemically castrated. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, my FA writing has slowed as of late, but when I had free access through my university, I used JSTOR extensively. As for CC, you're ... close. ;-) See carbon copy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
In the corporate world, being incessantly "cc-ed" on emails can be arguably worse than being chemically castrated. --Laser brain (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting that that's the first possibility that came to mind! :) (To cc means to copy someone on an email.)
I wonder whether we could post something on the JSTOR page asking people not using the accounts to consider giving them back. Most people are decent in that way, and some might have signed up not realizing they might not use it much. That would have to be checked with Steven/JSTOR first to make sure any returned accounts would be given to the next on the list. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Archie

Amongst all the excitement, I forgot to mention that Archie is at FAC now. If you get a chance to head over that way, I'd be very grateful if you could do the source review. And I'm desperately hoping that having the spirit of Archie hovering like this will not jinx a forthcoming sporting event... Sarastro1 (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I had indeed noticed it, but I thought I would give the earlier commenters first go. I will be there within a day or so, never fear. Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, and I think I got everything now, with one exception that I have replied to. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, all is fine - no further action required. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1

I could use further feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think everything is resolved now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Harold Davidson

This is a note to let the main editors of Harold Davidson know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 28, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 28, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

St John's Church, Stiffkey, Norfolk

Harold Davidson (1875–1937), rector of the Norfolk parish of Stiffkey (church pictured), was a Church of England priest who was convicted in 1932 on charges of immorality and defrocked by the Church. Ordained in 1903, he worked among London's poor and homeless. Styling himself the "Prostitute's Padre", his declared mission was to rescue young girls he considered in danger of falling into prostitution. In this role he approached and befriended hundreds of women, and although there was little evidence of improper behaviour, he was often found in compromising situations and his neglect of his parish and family caused difficulties. A formal complaint led to church disciplinary proceedings, in which his defence was damaged beyond repair by a photograph of him with a near-naked teenage girl. Davidson then pursued a career as a showman to raise funds for his reinstatement campaign, performing novelty acts such as exhibiting himself in a barrel on the Blackpool seafront. He died after being attacked by a lion in whose cage he was appearing. Later commentators have accepted that however inappropriate his behaviour, his motives were genuine and he did not deserve the humiliations he endured. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

JSTOR

Great minds think alike eh? I saw your comments and that was on my mind yesterday with an article on the Kanak people I wanted to see if JSTOR had further material which I could use to help develop it to FA. I like others here I had the year access which was terminated in early May. I miss it and HighBeam Research greatly and the quality of research isn't the same. Thanks for speaking up about it Brian!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I saw that too, thanks for thinking of me. Access would have been great and I would have been a prolific user of it (although there is also something quite nice about trekking up to the BL with a flask of coffee and the MacBook Pro to browse the shelves of curiosities. -- CassiantoTalk 07:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Britten

At the peer review, Gerda suggests that we re-order the sections, moving the whole Music section up, to sit before "Honours, awards and commemorations/Britten 100". I had, coincidentally, been pondering the same thing, and on balance I'm in favour of it. What think you? – Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I was going to suggest this, along with my feeling that the "Pianist and Conductor" and "Recordings" sections should be separate sections, rather than subsections of "Music". I would like the Music section to end with my still-being-prepared "Legacy". Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Excellent. As you have since added the legacy section (of which I wouldn't wish to change or delete anything) I have done the deed. And Gerda and you and I are right: it looks and feels much better in this order. It will probably also make unobtrusively updating (and probably thinning out) easier in the Britten 100 section after the anniversary shenanigans are all done. I think, if you are happy, I'll close the peer review and do the FAC nomination over the weekend. I've sketched out a draft preamble for the FAC page, which I'll email to you for comment/amendment rather than clog up your talk page. Tim riley (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
No, please send it to the talk. My email is such that (for reasons I won't burden you with) I have to log on to a different laptop, which is a great bore - and why I don't always reply to emails quickly. My only thought about the peer review is that there haven't been any comments on the music section - but we don't normally get a lot of those. I suggest Sunday for the nom, which will give me time tomorrow to give the section a final cleanup. Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Drat. Already sent. Reproduced here:
Mindful of the approaching centenary of Britten's birth on 22 November, User:Sjones23 set the ball rolling on getting the article to FA standard. For one reason or another I have written most of the new stuff, with a very substantial input from User:Brianboulton who has agreed to co-nominate. Britten the man was prickly and not always the most loyal of friends; his sexual inclinations have aroused hostility and suspicion. But his music is widely regarded as among the most important and durable of the 20th century. Building on the earlier work of several prominent Wikipedians, and with the help of some very thorough peer reviewers, we have, we believe, got the article to a level that does him justice.
It's noticeable, don't you find, how when you write a substantial biographical sketch of somebody, you can end up liking him or her much less or much more than when you started? I found by the end of this little number that I liked Milord Britten rather better than when I began. No mad rush to nominate. Happy to wait into next week or beyond if you prefer. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Ideally, Monday would suit for the nom, to give me two days for my fussing about, and Sunday is often a quiet day. Brianboulton (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Brian/Tim, please excuse me butting in here - "Four Sea Interludes" from Peter Grimes in First Night of the Proms - does this warrant any mention? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I assume you're thinking of the Britten centenary. It's up to Tim if he wants to include this in the list of centenary events. My own feeling is that there is probably enough in that section already. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was. I quite agree, it's a bit marginal. He has other works also included this year, of course [2], so maybe a more general note would be justufied. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Butting in? By no means. I think the Britten 100 section can and should be drastically pruned and condensed in late 2014 when the centenary celebrations are over. That being so, let 'em all come for now, and why not add the First Night 2013 Sea Interludes? Will you do it, Martin, or shall I? Tim riley (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said BillyBudding in. Have added - please adjust as necessary. Am startled to see that the whole of last year's season is still missing from The Proms?! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I think Britten 100 can't, arithmetically, accommodate 2012 info. I wonder, parenthetically, if we ought to copy this series of exchanges to the article talk page where all interested editors can scrutinise it. Tim riley (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was moaning about the gap at The Proms article, not suggesting any further addition to Britten! Copying over is fine by me. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Excellent analysis of the situation. An RFAR just got filed on it too.PumpkinSky talk 11:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Stevens

I may delay responding further for a day or two to see if Rjensen makes any other edits. I am not questioning his judgment, mind you, which I have come to respect considerably. Just waiting for the article to settle down. I'll work from the diff from the time you edited so as to keep footnote numbers straight, if that makes sense.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem - I hope you are feeling better now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, much improved, thanks. A foretaste of the thousand natural shocks to which the flesh is heir I fear.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for starting infoboxes.

Hi Brian, I'm a designer with the WMF and I'm so grateful that you got this discussion started. Along with the density issue that you brought up, infoboxes are heavily and arbitrarily styled that takes away from quick reading.

It would be great to have a few structured mechanisms for the infoboxes. Some of the design proposals are here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_vision-1.png

Vibhabamba (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Britten

I have done the deed, and the FAC page is open for business. I expect to be facing some lively, occasionally hostile, bowling. (Sorry: the cricketing imagery must be due to the mesmerising events at Trent Bridge these past few days. I hardly dare look at Sarastro's user page, fearing that he may have spontaneously combusted by the time of today's luncheon interval.) Be that as it may, off we go! Tim riley (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

... did someone mention info boxes? Sorry. lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
They will, soon enough. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
As far as I have spotted, the only WP editor who contributes much to articles on composers of grown-up music and is also keen on info-boxes for them is much loved by all her friends here, but is on her own on this question, as she graciously concedes. There is at least one non-music editor with an absolutist agenda, who would like to bully everyone into accepting idiot-boxes, but so far we have held him at bay. But, natch, Martin, your views are of equal weight with everyone else's who has a view on the matter. Tim riley (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
See the recent "Dispatches" talk page, here, for some interesting views on infoboxes generally. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Daisy Mutlar image

Hi Brian, I cropped File:Daisy-mutlar.gif per your request. If you would prefer, I will upload the cropped version as a new file (so both versions are available). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I am sure you'll agree that the reduced size fits the article much better. The problem I have is that when I right-click to "save" an image from a website, I am not given the opportunity to edit or crop the image. I didn't have this problem until recently – has this been a problem for you? Brianboulton (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You are very welcome - I have never known how to crop a photo while downloading or saving it from the web. I always save the whole photo, then use either MS PAINT or PAINT.NET to crop or otherwise adjust the images. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert Falcon Scott

Hi Brian, not sure if you have seen the discussion at Talk:Robert Falcon Scott or not, but there is an enthusiastic new editor who is very pro-Scott and does not seem to understand or perhaps want to follow WP:NPOV or citation or FA standards. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to this, and for your efforts to protect the article from unwarranted editing. I have commented on the talkpage, and will keep my eyes on this page for a while. Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You are very welcome. Thanks for your input on the talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

T-T, back in the spotlight

Thanks again for your previous help at PR for the T-T article. The old chap is in the spotlight of FAC, although the stage is a rather crowded one at the moment. I hope you'll have the time to pop along to see him once again. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not quite another review request... yet

I expanded Curtly Ambrose a while ago, with quite a bit more to do, but whether or not this one progresses to FAC (about which I have doubts), the sourcing is a mess. I've had to use Wisden a lot (probably too much, but I digress) and I've referenced chapters in each edition (e.g. Cozier, "England in West Indies", Wisden' 1995, etc). Is there a tidy way to cite this without repeating the information for each Almanac edition, which is how I've done it at the moment (So the 1995 Wisden is referenced multiple times, for each chapter used). If you could have a quick look (and there's no rush on this, it is some way from going anywhere), any advice on better presenting that horrible bibliography would be greatly appreciated. (And sorry if this doesn't make much sense. I'm still recovering!) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Part of the problem here is that there is no biography or autobiography to use as principal sources, so you are rather forced to this reliance on Wisden articles. I wouldn't be too worried about this; Wisden is a reliable source, and you are drawing on a great variety of respected writers. If there are one or two other non-Wisden sources that you could use (WI cricket histories, Northampton CCC history, other players' reminiscences, etc) even in minor way, this would improve the look of the bibliography, but I'm inclined to think this is a cosmetic rather than an real sourcing problem. Brianboulton (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Mike Capel

Hello, Brianboulton. I wrote Mike Capel, and I nominated it for featured article status. If you have the time to give this a review, it would be appreciated. The page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mike Capel/archive2. Thanks. Albacore (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the consideration. Albacore (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't respond to every request immediately. I'll get there when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Diary of a Nobody, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Davies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Your pic

Looking at your new user page, the theme of the day seems humbleness, Dr. to Prayer, no more fireworks. I think I spot a typo ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The time for self-delusion is over, and the myself of 20 years past had been banished to an inner page, together with all fireworks, boasts and trinkets. Couldn't spot the typo, though I noticed I had used the Mahler-era name for the opera house and have updated this. If you can spot a mistake please feel free to correct it.
"visible cente left" - intentionally so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Got it! sorry Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

From one classical musician to another, this glass of frothy Pilsener is for you, Brian. Thank you for the help you're giving me on Sarnia. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Britten FA

To hell with your modest disclaimers! Your contributions to the Britten article have been crucial, not only in what you wrote, but in keeping my prose afloat and in your wise advice. It has, as usual, been a pleasure collaborating with you. Tim riley (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You are more than generous; Britten was very much your baby. Now, to serious matters. My venture into Grossmith territory is now ripe for peer review and will be there later today. I would much value your views, also those of the esteemed Grossmith expert Mr Silvers.
With this largely out of the way, I feel that I should bring forward my Tippett research and make that my next main project. The main reason is that I want to do it while I still have my JSTOR account; there are lots of relevant learned articles that need to be read and cited as necessary. I actually have quite a large collection of Tippett books in my small private music library, so I feel pretty well placed to go ahead. The present Tippett article, unlike others we've expanded recently, is fairly comprehensive, and written by an editor – Andrew Lowe Watson – who is also a composer of some repute and clearly very knowledgeable. It is not at all bad, though it's not written in encyclopedic style and is short on citations. Lowe Watson does not seem to be active on Wikipedia now, and I think this is probably his only substantial article. Anyhow, I will leave a courtesy note on his page before I start my reconstruction efforts. My main question is, do you want to share in this project? I know that you have committed yourself to work with Wehwalt on the Disraeli article, which sounds to me like a fairly tough order, so please don't feel you have to oblige me on Tippett.
I think I'll sit that one out. I know little of MT's music, and have nothing much about him on my shelves. Happy to help with ad hoc tasks during your overhaul, of course, but this project had better be a BB solo effort, I think. Looking forward to Mr Pooter later today. Tim riley (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
That is fine. I have been something of a Tippett fan since I attended his 70th birtday concert at the RFH and (I'm sure I've boasted this before) SAT RIGHT BEHIND HIM! Sadly, he failed to acknowledge my presence. He did not look a day over 45. Brianboulton (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

UDI

Hi Brian, just a quick one to let you know that the Rhodesian UDI article is now at FAC. If you're interested, the link is here. Thanks again for all you have helped me with in the past, and have a great week. Thanks —Cliftonian (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I had noticed this, and will definitely get to it, but to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort I'll wait until NickD has finished his comments before I review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Brian, that's probably a good idea. Have a great week. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

CVA

Hi Brian - in the unlikely event that you have a free moment, and should Charles-Valentin Alkan not prove a turn-off for you, might you be prepared to cast your eyes over the CVA FA review? It's been going slowly as it was beached for a while by some slightly opaque comments, but I think they have now all been answered and it is now presentable enough. Cheers, --Smerus (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I always have time for composer articles, even for composers I've hardly heard of. I will visit and comment anon. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Gradely!--Smerus (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarnia reminder

Hello, Brianboulton. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sarnia/archive3.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of compositions by Michael Tippett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Pasadena, Bath, Edward Thomas and Rudolf Schwarz

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Naughty vicar

Great to see this on the main page!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on this excellent TFA. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Brian. What a truly wonderful TFA. In the June 1933 episode, the Blackpool Evening Gazette reported: "He went to prison, but not after he had left the booth under a pretext which deceived the officers, raced out of the building and down the promenade, the officers in pursuit, ultimately finding sanctuary in his apartments. There he locked himself in his bedroom, and, as the bailiffs were hammering on the panels of the door, opened the window, climbed down the water-pipe and completed his escape in a taxi cab.":[3] Like a scene from a 1970s TV comedy!! 11:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive67&oldid=1089946648"