Wikipedia

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 89

< User talk:Brianboulton
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Rationalobserver in topic PR request
Archive 85←Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89

New PR request

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

  • Lovely subject for election week, pity it couldn't be TFA on Thursday. That'd larn 'em. I shall have to review in segments amid a welter of other duties and obligations, but I'll get something out today (Kenneth Horne would have liked that). Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Books and Bytes - Issue 11

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
  • I just noticed this. The Common Starling was just featured on the main page (POTD) last month... is it a good idea to run the article twice in such a short period of time? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • We aren't "running the article twice", merely running it as TFA a few weeks after its picture was featured in POTD. I don't see much wrong with that – if the appearances were within a day or two, that might look a bit odd, but I doubt whether any eyebrows will be raised this time. If you are worried about too close proximity of TFA/POTD, I suggest a note is placed on the article's talk concerning the POTD appearance. Otherwise, the TFA scheduler is unlikely to know about the picture. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

PR request

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello! I'd like to invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1. I'll understand if you are too busy or not interested. Thanks! RO(talk) 16:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I know your skills are in high-demand, and you are probably too busy with your own work, but I could really use your insight at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1. Any chance you'd be willing to take a look? RO(talk) 20:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Anachronox on the main page

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hey Brian. I noticed that there are plans to get Anachronox on the main page later this month. As the person who nominated it to FAC, I had plans to nominate it next year on June 27th for its fifteen anniversary. There are plenty of other older video game articles to take its place, though. Then again that would mean three video game articles are going to be on the main page this month and I've seen people get cross about the representation of video games on the main page over the years. But that's just me. GamerPro64 20:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've scheduled it for 26 May. It's partly as a result of people's objections to video articles on the main page that we have something of an over-representation of such articles in our pool of available featured articles. I'm trying to redress this problem, and three within a month is deliberate and perfectly OK. As to your hopes of running it on 27 June next year, you should know that this date is the 50th anniversary of the album Freak Out!, which would probably be given priority if it were nominated. Are you sure you want me to replace Anachronox on 26 May? Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
As a side note, I've already done the TFA text. I guess I'll start notifying people first before I do the text, in case they don't want it to run; it takes me a while to do these. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Changed my mind, that would cause problems too. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You can schedule it for the 26th. Its been a Featured Article for nearly a year, anyway. Though I do believe that some of the older Featured Articles for video games should get some representation if they still hold up here. GamerPro64 21:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. I agree about the older video articles, although in many cases the main editors have gone and the article is likely to need updating. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Understandable. Some articles there should be taken to review pretty soon. GamerPro64 22:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

1877 Wimbledon Championship

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just a notice to let you know that the article is now at FAC.--Wolbo (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Hey there! User:Dank suggested I come to you. So, I'm not the most proud of Hurricane Erika (2003), which is an upcoming TFA. I'm not saying it shouldn't be on TFA, but I was wondering, is there a possibility of changing it? If there is gonna be a tropical cyclone one, there are others I am far more proud of and would be far more interesting to read, such as Hurricane Iris, Hurricane Lenny, or Typhoon Maemi? Erika was a very run-of-the-mill storm, and I think there are some more exciting ones to put up. I'd happily do the blurb if you'd need. If this is a problem, I totally understand though. Hope all is well! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • (TPS) Personally, I think run-of-the-mill storms, so long as they meet the notability criteria, should still have their day in the sun (so to speak...). Maybe our next storm could be one of the more exciting ones. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, the last hurricane TFA (ironically also named Erika) was fairly average. And the previous featured hurricane article was Hurricane Claudette (2003), from the same season as Erika. Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate the regular TFA's! I just thought it could use a bit more variety as far as hurricane articles go :) Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, HH, it would help us if you would from time to time nominate the hurricane articles you're prouder of at WP:TFA. I don't know one hurricane from another and just pick randomly from the large available stock, mainly the fruits of your noble labours. I'll replace Erika, if you care to provide a suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Lenny is now up on the 24th. Btw Brian, if you ever make edits rather than copying in part of the lead section, please let me know ... otherwise I probably won't notice, since I start off by copying in the entire lead section (as a starting point, and so that people can compare the lead to my summary with one click). - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The only editing I do in these circumstances is to remove references from the lead text. Otherwise I just chop off a chunk and leave the rest to you. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Rose Emma Lamartine Yates

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Greetings! Finding that the aforementioned was my partner's great-grandmother I feel it my duty to upgrade the existing article. Let's hear it for nepotism! I have the ODNB article to hand, but not very much else so far. A visit to the BL is called for, but it occurs to me that your researches into reform-minded women of the early 20th century might have turned up passing mentions of Mrs Yates. If you can, with moderate and convenient rummaging, point me to anything from your shelves it will be esteemed a favour. Tim riley talk 15:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I have come across her – I seem to remember she was a friend of Emily Davison. Give me a little time, and I'll sort out from my sources what I have. Brianboulton (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You are a gentleman and a scholar, sir. But please don't spend more than half an hour rummaging. Tim riley talk 15:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Irataba FAC3

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Irataba is back at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive3. We look forward to your comments there. RO(talk) 16:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Reviews outstanding

15:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Carl Nielsen

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Brian. Tim passed this as a GA today and said he hoped to see it at FAC in the future. Now I was thinking it would need more biographical material before heading there but it might be acceptable, I imagine Nielsen has less written about him biographically than many of the other composers. But if we were to head straight to FAC do you think we've really left it too late to not only go through FAC but to be in the queue to be shown as a possible TFA if it passes on 9 June to commemorate Nielsen's 150th anniversary? I don't want people to feel like it is being rushed, but it would still be a great achievement if you think it's still possible. I think it might just be possible, there's 25 days to go, but usually a non peer reviewed FAC nom takes a good three weeks at least to pass and with the time needed to nom for TFA, then it would seem really too late without it being rushed. I'd like yours, and Tim riley and anybody else's opinion on what the right thing to do here would be. Unfortunately Ipigott didn't realise until late that it was the 150th anniversary. We could just settle for a DYK, but it's not exactly the same is it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll give a better answer later tonight, when I've had a chance to look at the article properly. Certainly a 150th anniversary is worth going for. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I was fairly confident as I read and edited it for GA that from the music sections down it was approaching FA standard, but my concern was whether it was really comprehensive biographically. You would normally expect more detail and more dates mentioned. The main 1979 biography on Nielsen does seem to have at least been consulted in fairness though. Tim did take a trip to the library I think and didn't think there was much material available in books. See what you think anyway, you might see more than I can wrong with the music sections too. I know you've also got others to review and read so appreciate you doing this anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've been working on this article and many of Nielsen's compositions since 2010. It is entirely my fault that I only remembered on 20 April that it would be Nielsen's 150th anniversary on 9 June. Unfortunately it has taken me most of the past three weeks to reformat the refs and sources. I would have welcomed more specific comments on areas for expansion but have received very little, even from Smerus and Riley. I would be great if we could reach FA for highlighting on 9 June. I realize I will not be able to contribute in the meantime but hope to cover follow-up on the celebrations later in the year.--Ipigott (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott:: I have added an informal "peer review" of the Life part of the article to the talkpage. I will continue reading it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for all your helpful comments. I am in the process of making the suggested improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Brian, I've nommed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carl Nielsen/archive1. I'd be very grateful if you and page stalkers could take a look at this. 24 days left I think before the big anniversary!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page#Footer formatting

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a ping. - Dank (push to talk) 01:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Could I trouble you to have a look at this FAC? Although it has three supports, I have the impression there is a need for one more. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, it has been promoted. I will nominate Panama–Pacific commemorative coins
Ah, well... I'm sorry I missed the Cincinnati coin. Please feel free to give me a reminder when you put anything up to FAC. I'm not always as watchful of the FAC page as I used to be and tend to miss things when not prompted. Also I have numerous distractions at present. I trust all is well with you. Brianboulton (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I hope the distractions are pleasant, or if not, that they soon cease if that is your desire. Could you do a source review on that, if you have a moment?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Books

  • John Campbell: Edward Heath (J. Cape 93)
  • Ben Pimlott: Harold Wilson (Harper Collins 93)
  • Steel?

22:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.96.188 (talk)

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A thought ... when people read "All the music is lost apart from the extended recitative" and see an image of the music score, will they think that score must be the only music that wasn't lost? So the issue here is what to say is being "pictured" ... your call. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The music shown is that of the extended recitative, so you can safely add (pictured). Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
To avoid confusion, this is of course in connection with L'Arianna, not Carl Nielsen.--Ipigott (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

PR request

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

(moved to remind me)

I know your skills are in high demand, and you are probably too busy with your own work, but I could really use your insight at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1. Any chance you'd be willing to take a look? RO(talk) 20:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. It may be a day or two, though. Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Great! Thanks, Brian. There's no hurry. RO(talk) 15:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
There still isn't a big hurry, but I plan to close the PR in about two weeks. So if you're still interested and willing to take a look I really hope you can do it this week. If you aren't interested or too busy I'll understand. Thanks. RO(talk) 00:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

TFAR

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Percy Grainger, a pleasure for several reasons, - please adjust the blurb, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying you'd like it to be more like the finished product? I can do that. - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please go ahead. I will check the article generally for broken links etc. Brianboulton (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Collapsibles

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

@SchroCat: Any ideas as to why the collapsibles won't collapse on this page (archive box + 2 lists at the top)? Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brian, all three are showing as collapsed for me, but I'm only seeing it on an iPhone at the moment. It may be that you need to clear the cache on your machine to reset it. – SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, tried that – doesn't work. Tried logging out & re-logging in – no joy. Tried swearing at it, no luck either. I blame the new Conservative government. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
They're all showing collapsed for me too and I'm on a normal laptop. Have you tried completely closing your browser and then starting it up again? If nothing works, try Village pump (technical). The folks there can be quite helpful. Voceditenore (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Collapsed for me as well. The top link about opera discussions - uncollapsed - should go to an archive or go completely ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@SchroCat:@Voceditenore:@Gerda Arendt:: Just to let you know – the problem righted itself withour recourse to the Village Pump. One of those strange gremlins... Thanks for the advice anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Brian. I went over to the "Pump" shortly after my note above and there were a lot of people there complaining about the same thing. So I guess someone took note. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Archive 85←Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_89&oldid=1141614723"