Contents

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 57

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009/archive3

Hi, as you participated in a previous FAC for this article, I wondered if you would take a look at the article again. I have gone through the article, and the comments from the previous FACs and made a number of changes to the article. As always, any input you might have would be appreciated. Regards, Harrias ^talk 15:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I will get to this; my plate is a bit full at present. Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries, no rush! Harrias ^talk 21:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I see you are interested in Peter Warlock, are you interest in the Occult generally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.244.103 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No (and neither was PW particularly, for any length of time) Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that your suggestions and John's implementation of them has resulted in some significant improvement to the article, so I feel the need to apologise for losing my rag a little at the FAC. I won't make excuses, I simply wanted to say "sorry". Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Any time, any time...Please feel free to give any of my stuff the once-over when you're in the mood. Cheers, Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the least I can do. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll let you know when my next FAC is up - quite soon, possibly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you are still following the FAC, but would you have any idea what the medals are that he is wearing in that photograph? Also, I noticed the suggestion you made on Malleus's talk page. This article piqued my interest in legal biographies, so if you are still looking for anyone to work with you on the Goddard article, I'd be happy to help where I can. Carcharoth (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on military regalia, but the one on the left of the picture looks like the 1939-45 service medal, which everyone who served in WWII in any military got (including my father, another Stevenson-type chairborne soldier). I dare say the other medals are likewise standard gongs. As to Goddard, I was suggesting this as a future project for Malleus and John, rather than for myself, but there's no reason why you shouldn't take it up. Someone ought to, clearly. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I see from Malleus's talkpage that he doesn't want to do it, so the field is probably clear. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, though I doubt I'll have time. The most time-consuming part of anything like that is assessing the state of the article when starting work on it, and working out what needs stripping down to start again, or what can be left in after being checked. I did also point out something about sources in the lead section at the FAC - I suspect, though I'm not 100%, that this point I raised may have arisen from your rewrite of the lead. Did you by any chance move a quote that originally had a source attached to it? Specifically, I think this edit I made carries over the reference that was there before this edit (none of that 'worst judge' stuff is in the main body of the article, hence I think the references needed to go with the text as you moved it around). Carcharoth (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, when I shifted the lead material about I didn't follow through with the refs, which I see you've now done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• News and notes: World's largest photo competition kicks off; WMF legal fees proposal

• Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?

• Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror

• Op-ed: Dispute resolution – where we're at, what we're doing well, and what needs fixing

Between closing PR and FAC: I was surprised to find that the French Wikipedia has "Le Sacre du printemps" ;) see also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about the French surprises me. I love the NYT extract; problem is, the Premiere section has two images already and there's no room for a third. So what can drop? I have to keep the "knock-kneed Lolitas", so it is a choice between your image or the theatre photo. As a trial, I have replaced the theatre image, and I think it works a treat! See what you think; I'll keep it there a while, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the considerations, I didn't even mean to include the image (shown on de-WP) ;) - Kafka: I will look later, but your phrasing "chasing women" amused me lot, about someone who (as the lead says in other words) preferred writing hundreds of letters to telephone and train rides to meet Felice, and who spoke about her empty face and unattractive hair in his diary ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey "BB". Gerda and I have taken a good whack at your comments. We left you a few questions. Thanks for the help! PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for more details on The rite! You probably know that I am the one who strongly spoke up for changing the article name of Beethoven's piano sonata #14 from Moonlight Sonata, arguing that you can't say "he dedicated the Moonlight Sonata" because he had no idea it would ever become known under that name, coined long after his death. - Rite of Spring is different, of course, - I didn't want to change the article name. But in the text: if the composer named it in English the day after the premiere, what about the days before? Just a thought ;) - The other: did you see that the French WP has a different capitalisation of the French title? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

TBrandley 23:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

TBrandley 00:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Rite of Spring discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Youth Orchestra (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) 17:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm away for a few days, so there may be a short delay in my picking up messages here. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I trust it is enjoyable and routine.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In this case, the first applies - two days of pleasant idleness in the warmth. I'm back now, and in my absence The Rite has crossed the line, so my cup runneth over. Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad. Personally, I am enjoying the cooler weather now that the DC area summer seems to have broken.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• From the editor: Signpost adapts as news consumption changes

• Op-ed: Fixing Wikipedia's help pages one key to editor retention

• In the media: Author criticizes Wikipedia article; Wales attacks UK government proposal

• Featured content: Not a "Gangsta's Paradise", but still rappin'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Fungi

• Special report: Two Wikipedians set to face jury trial

• News and notes: Researchers find that Simple English Wikipedia has "lost its focus"

• Technology report: Mmmm, milkshake...

• Discussion report: Closing Wikiquette; Image Filter; Education Program and Momento extensions

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your efforts on improving The Rite of Spring to Featured Article status. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly, sir! Brianboulton (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I put this up for TFAR on 14 Oct. Feel free to tweak the blurb. Nice article. PumpkinSky talk 01:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've no objection, and the blurb looks tidy at the moment, but it's a while since I looked at the article and I'll need to check it out carefully. Fortunately, there's plenty of time. Brianboulton (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Monteverdi's lost operas know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 10, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 10, 2012. 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 his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Monteverdi's lost operas comprise seven of the ten operas written or part-written by the Italian composer Claudio Monteverdi (pictured) between 1607 and 1643, during the early baroque period. Apart from a few fragments, the music for these seven works has been lost, though in some cases the librettos have survived. Opera as a genre emerged during Monteverdi's creative lifetime, and he became a principal exponent of this new form, first at the Mantuan court and later as director of music at St Mark's BasilicainVenice. The loss of these works, written during a critical period of early opera history, has been much regretted by historians and musicologists, but reflects the habit of the times, when stage music was thought to have little relevance beyond its initial performance and often vanished quickly. Contemporary documents, including many letters written by Monteverdi, have provided most of the available information on the lost works, and have established that four of them were completed and performed in the composer's lifetime. Of the little music that has survived, the lamento from L'Arianna (1608) is well known as a concert piece and is frequently performed. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

So I am being notified on 14 September of the appearance of this article on the main page on 10 September, four days ago. Fortunately, I was informed well before the appearance date, the TFA went well, no problems. It is this bot that needs a kick up the bum. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh geez. Why'd the bot bother? dumb bot dumb bot!! PumpkinSky talk

The Bot was kind enough to leave me word on Brundage just now. Perhaps it just returned from holiday and is cleaning out the "in" box?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It wuz teh enema teh bot got ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To err is human, to forgive divine, to really screw things up requires a computer... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

ROFL that is HILARIOUS!!!PumpkinSky talk 10:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, if it was first published (used) before 1923, it is PD in the US and can be used freely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. The trouble is, I have not been able to find evidence of pre-1923 publication despite extensive enquiry. When/if such is found, I will amend the licence. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, so even though it's for the 1913 production it may not hae been published at the same time. Okay. Just commenting, as it's a good picture and this week's Signpost needs images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• It is possible that the pic is PD in the US under some other dispensation than pre-1923 publication. But the image gurus that I used to rely on have fled the nest, alas and alack, so I can't consult them. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• I looked at everything I could find online on Roerich pre-1923 (I eventually found all of the ones I mentioned to you, Brian). Even exhibitions of his work don't have these backdrops, at least the ones before 1923. It's possible there are art books that have them which were published pre-1923, but if so, they are not online. Either he was keeping them off exhibition for some reason or he didn't own the rights, that's the only things I could think of. He could not have known how frustrated posterity would be.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am aware of, and very appreciative of, your efforts. The image is not of the actual backdrop used in the 1913 production, it is of a 62cm by 94cm design from which the backdrop was created. My feeling is that the design may have been published in an art book or in publicity material, but the chances of finding such a source now are slim. I won't "close the file" on this, but obviously the time that can be devoted to the quest will be very limited. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. Sometimes "fair use" means exactly what we say: no free images have been allocated. Sometimes we dig some up years after the fact, but others... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'll keep looking. "Good try" is not enough. But it may have to wait for visits to archives and so forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah... that's how I ended up with free images of several key people. Shame its hard to get people into the archives. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• You should see the contortions I am going through to try to get a reliable source of coin images! And images of Jinnah, I can't start that article in the review process until I get some decent images. This is something where we should be getting help and resources from WMF. Millions for servers, not a tuppence for content contributors.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Except for the "seminal" comment, for which we're looking for a really really good ref, I've done all the items you brought up today. Thanks for the superb and thorough review. PumpkinSky talk 21:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Found three journal articles that support this. Ready for your next round now ;-) PumpkinSky talk 21:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

DING! Your turn again ;-) PumpkinSky talk 23:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

BB-please don't let this issue of translation hold up getting to the rest of the article. PumpkinSky talk 23:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, of course not - it's your article and you are not bound to follow my comments. My time is limited at the moment, but I will complete the review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm planning on changing the trans section, but mulling over just how. PumpkinSky talk 21:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at the translation section. Pls review. PumpkinSky talk 21:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two in today's NY times: here and here. No, I wasn't wrapping fish, I was on my way to the sports section.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll read them when I have a bit of time. Pity they weren't a month or two earlier. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It is always so.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Warlock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chelsea (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) 11:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook

• WikiProject report: Action! — The Indian Cinema Task Force

• Featured content: Go into the light

• News and notes: Tens of thousands of monuments loved; members of new funding body announced

• Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6

I suggested Les pêcheurs de perles for TFA, please feel free to join the discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And someone else suggested Southern Cross Expedition without notifying you, at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#October 14 - what a diverse range of topics you bring to FA standard! Bencherlite^Talk 15:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit of a golden oldie. Most of my early WP articles were related to polar exploration, but in time I moved on and don't do much in that line now. I've no objection to this one being a TFA, but I'll let others decide. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I currently have the above listed at peer review as a result of a lot of work and research over the last couple of months. I would be extremely greatful for any comments you may have and would welcome any feedback or suggestions. Many thanks in advance. -- Cassianto^Talk 02:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, but it may take a few days. I am heavily committed at the moment to the Franz Kafka review, and I have promised to do some work on Pierre Monteux on behalf of Tim. But I will get there. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, no problem. I have a long list of things to do myself currently. I have just seen Ian Fleming through a successful FAC, I have a FLC waiting in the wings and John Le Mesurier is lined up for a GA review, so no hurry for Grimaldi whatsoever. Talking of Tim, he has been involved in this (offline), so I do indeed have that added reassurance. All the best -- Cassianto^Talk 14:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For your outstanding work and efforts to promote The Rite of Spring to FA. Both you and Tim deserve to be rewarded for your work, I'll email dearest Tim to congratulate him as he has unfortunately left us here. Keep up the superb work you do for us Brian. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• A kind gesture on your part, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look through the whole article now, and my overwhelming impression is of the choppy prose. There's just no way this would ever get through FAC without some serious, serious, copyediting, by a seriously good copyeditor. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. In the review I am trying to deal with other aspects (mainly structure and content issues) at the moment, but when that is done, the prose will need to be overhauled. I just don't have time to do a simultaneous review and copyedit, and seriously good copyeditors are a seriously endangered species. Brianboulton (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've responded to your comment about the "financial paragraph" in this article at the FAC; any other input you might have would be appreciated. Regards, Harrias ^talk 11:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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.

Peter Warlock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Ireland, Factotum, Peter Dawson and Maori

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review so far of Percy Chapman, and I've replied on the PR page. On the subject of over-detailing, please always feel free to say "please cut X, Y and Z; no-one but a cricket obsessive really cares!" As you are very well aware from suffering through many of my articles, I do like to include mind-numbing details! So it always helps to point this out to me. And as regards PR, I'm probably not doing as much there as I should, so as a minimum please feel free to give me a shout if there are any sports articles there in need of review, or if the backlog is becoming very big. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More replies at the PR, including a couple of points where you may want to respond. The Chapman sacked/not sacked in 1930 question is a bit obscure. McKinstry has his faults, but his reporting of that situation is pretty good and covers lots of sources. I think Chapman was kicked out for various reasons, but he kept the SA tour as a consolation as it was not really important, and neither the result nor his form really affected the captaincy long-term. The sources all agree that the Oval was effectively the end for Chapman. But you may be able to see this clearer than I can, so I'd appreciate any further thoughts. The other point is the seven consecutive wins; I hope I've cleared that up, but would appreciate your further advice, particularly on sourcing this issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention

• Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012

• WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011

• News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal

• Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times

• Featured content: Dead as...

• Discussion report: Image filter; HotCat; Syntax highlighting; and more

I've made some edits based on the Johnson book. I am reluctant to add more because I have already expanded the article by about ten percent so I am inclined to let it go at that. Much of the book is highly technical anyway; I stuck to what looked relatively simple.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the book, but the edits seem fine. I agree we don't need to add more. Are we seeking TFA for 22 October (25th anniversary)? If so, will you do the blurb? One other point: is it standard American prose practice to use the possessive apostrophe as in Glass'? I can understand this usage in, say, Moses' or Jesus' (for Jesus' sake, Amen), but Glass' looks very weird. But you may say that to you, the British "Glass's" looks equally odd. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I added it to the template. I am never sure on those apostrophe things; I will make the change as you suggest. And yes, I will write the blurb.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Opera preview ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.