User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 45

Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47→Archive 50

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

David O. Selznick filmography

Hi. Can you take a look and offer any suggestions? Thanks. — Jimknut (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hi Brian, I hope you are well. I'm one of the new Storytellers working with the fundraising team at the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. We're preparing for this year's fundraiser by collecting stories from the Wikipedia community and focusing particularly on Wikipedians who contribute substantially to the projects. I wonder if you would like to share your thoughts on Wikipedia and the editing process with me? Please contact me if you would like to participate at mroth@wikimedia.org. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Back again

I'm back editing again, after an enforced break. I'll catch up as soon as I can with the (not very many) requests that have been added to this page in my absence, and hope to be in full editing and reviewing mode ere long. Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope whatever kept you offline was resolved satisfactorily.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Welcome back - glad to see you popping in my watch list again! (And I agree with Wehwalt 100%). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Joining in the chorus, agree also 100%, wish you could be with us tonight and tomorrow, I thought a lot of you and Tim when I wrote this. Some pics will look familiar (and the scores are still not on the commons, right?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Random Round

Hello Brian - I really just wanted to say hello to you. I read your Bizet-Offenbach post on Tim Riley's talk page, and I intend to scrawl a few thoughts on the Grainger Discussion page shortly... I'm kinda wary about butting in with careless suggestions when the article is already so polished! ATB, YNWA - You Never Walk Alone! --MistyMorn (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you need never be afraid of "butting in", if you have something interesting or significant to say about any article, however polished or complete it may appear to be. I am currently working on the Bizet biography in sandboxes; I should have something concrete in mainspace by this time next week, and your views and comments will be most welcome. On Grainger, I'll b e happy to share your thoughts on the discussion page. Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

PR backlog

I closed the PR for Equestria Daily - thanks for the heads up, and for taking on the backlog again. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Middlesex (novel)/archive2

Hi Brian. Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Middlesex (novel)/archive2. Reviewer Jappalang (talk · contribs) wrote:

"Its characters and events are loosely based on the author's life and observations of his Greek heritage. Eugenides decided to write Middlesex after he ... was unsatisfied with its discussion of an intersex's anatomy and emotions. Narrator and protagonist Cal Stephanides (initially called "Callie") is a hermaphrodite man of Greek descent with a condition known as 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, which causes him to have certain feminine traits."

Problem: after reading that, one might assume that Eugenides is an intersex, which is not true and possibly a BLP violation.

I may be too close to the text, as I don't see a problem. Would you provide feedback about whether this can be misread and how I can rectify it? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I would not myself have identified this as an issue, but it is perhaps best to be particularly cautious when BLP matters are at stake. Why not write something like "Although Eugenides is not an intersex, the book's characters and events are loosely based on aspects of his life and observations of his Greek heritage..." etc? Would that be a problem? Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you asked me at Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Some general (and hopefully useful) comments to notify you once I nominated the article for FAC. I will do that when I nominate the article for FAC in the next week or two. Other users reviewed the article:

  1. Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Peer review/Middlesex (novel)/archive1
  2. SMasters (talk · contribs) at Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Copy edit April 2010
  3. Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs) at Talk:Middlesex (novel)/GA1
  4. Awadewit (talk · contribs) at Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Comments from Awadewit

Would it be considered canvassing or improper FA etiquette if I notified these users about the FAC? Cunard (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

  • No, I generally make a point of notifying anyone who has made significant comments at peer review when I send an article to FAC. So do lots of others; it's only canvassing if you request support> Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Need for your attentions

I know I may be joining a rather lengthy queue, but United States Bicentennial coinage is languishing a bit at FAC. Heidi Game is less badly off but might take less work as you did peer review it. However, there is no hurry on any of it. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to both in the next 2 or 3 days. Can't wait to discover who died while the bicentennial coins were being minted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Unhappily, it happened in the era when the Mint had a pension plan.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
As you noted, the Bicentennial has gone away. Fortunately it left Turban Head eagle, which I believe you have reviewed, at FAC in its place. People die in it. Like in an opera.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Fossil beds

I have nominated John Day Fossil Beds National Monument at FAC. Finetooth (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Good, it will have my attention ere long. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Amundsen images

I'm looking for images for Amundsen's article at the moment, and while I can't see that I'll use it, this is a corker. Gone is the image of a professional, efficient team of polar travellers; instead we seem to have a mob of inept 1950s Cockney goons. I believe it's only Johansen who has refused to be drawn in. Apterygial (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

We ought to find a way of using that image if possible! Incidentally I have resurrected the workpage to express some concerns about the article's growing length and would be glad to have your thoughts on this aspect. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Replied there. Apterygial (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Aldwych tube station

Just wondering if there were any other things that you think need doing? DavidCane (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've had a really crappy couple of weeks...

But I do feel pretty well called on the carpet and like I'm being told that I'm not welcome at FAC or something with your comments. I do feel singled out also - since there have been plenty of other articles (not nearly as long, I might add) where the FAC commentary has stretched out. I just don't have time to peer review, and I'm sorry about that, but when we get something that I can actually assess the content on, I feel I'd be remiss if I didn't do it. I guess I feel like you're saying "go away and play at Peer Review" or worse, "We should require Peer Review, because we only want a quick support or oppose at FAC". (sighs) LIke I said, it's been a really crappy couple of weeks, but your comments really have me wishing I hadn't bothered trying to come back to reviewing at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have responded on the FAC talkpage where I have made it clear that my comment was not intended as a personal attack or as any disrespect for your work. My concern is the evident perception that only FAC reviews count and that peer review is a waste of time (" nearly useless") as one editor charmingly dismisses it. Editors new to the FAC process may pick up this vibe, with the result that more and more unreviewed articles arrive expecting your level of attention at FAC as a matter of course. The peer review process remains the best mechanism for ensuring this doesn't happen. That was the point I was trying to get over, and I am sorry if I have inadvertently ruffled your feathers. I also hope your next couple of weeks are less crappy. Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Another huge favour!

Sorry to be a nuisance, but Ucucha has asked for spot checks on Hirst. If you have the time or inclination, could you have a quick look? I think there are enough online sources to make it fairly straightforward. If not, don't worry, you've done more than enough for me already! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Re: Georges Bizet

I think that will do. Jappalang (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Superb as always. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I like images that are conrasted.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
"Oh, a wise guy, eh? ... Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. ... *bonk* Owww!" Jappalang (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi :)

Sent you an email. Kind regards. Wifione Message 06:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Middlesex (novel)/archive1

Hi Brian. Thank you for your insightful suggestions for improving Middlesex (novel) and resolving editorial disputes. I have nominated the article for featured article consideration at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Middlesex (novel)/archive1, where I hope you can review it against the FA criteria. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Jul-Sep 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Buggie111 (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Well that's kind, though probably undeserved from the MilHist aspect. Much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

About the Barbarian...

Brian, I made a few tweaks to resolve your queries before the peer review was closed by the bot. Do you think the current revision of Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), particularly the prose, would stand a good chance at FAC? Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yo, Brian. T'is time for this barbaric little piece to prime for a go at FAC. I have started Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)/archive1. Hoping to see your comments there. Jappalang (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

PR backlog

I can reinstate the PR for Loud (Rihanna album) but it was closed by an editor, not the PR bot - diff. I usually let people who close their own PRs do so, unless they ask otherwise. Please let me know if I should re-open the PR. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

PS I sing in a choir that is working on a piece based on a melody from Handel's Athalia.

FYI

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Fridtjof Nansen Dabomb87 (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The blurb is dreadful I'll work on it. Brianboulton (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Piggybacking here, regarding File:Brothers in misfortune.jpg, I located the actual source and found what I believe is enough evidence to show this photograph is public domain in both US and whatever country of origin it can be deemed as. That said, I believe the title is woefully inaccurate (taken from a self-published document). Nowhere on those cards do they call the boys "brothers" (perhaps I am being too literal in interpretation and the title was figurative, but that title certainly is not an official one), so I put in a rename request. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I support the renaming request. Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Page size problem

To any admin (or other wise person) who happens to be watching this page: The "page size" tool is giving up some queer results, at least as far as the wordcount is concerned. It is generally returning a count of zero, regardless of the size of the article. Is this a general problem, or does it only affect me? If the latter, any ideas about how this might be fixed would be very welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's affecting me also, and I'd bet it's related to the update to the Wikimedia software that took place last night. It's also affecting a bunch of other things, probably the best thing to do is post on the village pump, in the technical category. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Loads of things seem to be broken today, the ugliest of which is citatons embedded in notes. Just take at look at this Notes section for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the citation thing is truly horrible, not just inconvenient. Take a look at Fridtjof Nansen, nominated for TFA on 10 October. Fine advertisement that will be. And I suppose the non-appearance of Signpost is likewise explained. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Today's TFA, The Author's Farce has exactly the same problem. It's a disgrace really. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:Faryl Smith non-review at PR

Hey, thanks for the note. I appreciate the difficulty at PR, and I suppose I'm guilty of that- I spend more time looking at FAC than I do at PR! I felt confident that it was ready for FAC, but I thought that a peer review may reveal things that I hadn't noticed. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

PR ...

Are there a few history related PRs that especially need review, that I can take off your plate? I don't have time to spend ages at PR, but I'm more than happy to pick up one or two if that would help. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Kind offer. There's nothing at the moment in your specialist areas of history (I doubt whether History of Tranmere Rovers F.C. has much appeal), but you might find Roskilde Cathedral interesting. The one I like best on the backlog is The Entombment (Bouts), but I'll gladly hand it over if you want to do it. Or maybe you'd feel more at home with (snigger) The Bad Girls Club. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Main page appearance: Fridtjof Nansen

This is a note to let the main editors of Fridtjof Nansen know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 10, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 10, 2011. 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:

Fridtjof Nansen (1861–1930) was a Norwegian explorer, scientist, diplomat, humanitarian and Nobel laureate. After studies in zoology at the University of Christiania, his researches on the central nervous system of lower marine creatures helped establish modern theories of neurology. As an explorer, in 1888 Nansen led the first successful crossing of the Greenland interior, and later won international fame after reaching a record northern latitude of 86°14' during his North Pole expedition of 1893–96. After 1896 his main scientific interest switched to oceanography and he contributed significantly to the development of modern oceanographic techniques and equipment. In 1905 Nansen was instrumental in persuading Prince Charles of Denmark to accept the throne of the newly independent Norway, and later served as the Norwegian representative in London. In 1922 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work for the League of Nations on behalf of the displaced victims of the First World War and related conflicts. After his death the League established the Nansen International Office for Refugees to ensure that his work continued. His name is commemorated in numerous geographical features, particularly in the polar regions. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox at Richard D'Oyly Carte

I saw that you commented about this on Tim's userpage. Would you like to weigh in at Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Would you mind also noting your preference under one column of the other in the "Count" section on the same page? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC on 'album' notability

Hello Brian - I wanted to let you know there's a music notability RfC ongoing, under the banner "Every album by notable musician gets own article". Unfortunately, relatively few participants in the discussion thus far count classical music among their interests, thereby giving rise to a predominantly pop-oriented debate. I am writing to you because I know of your interest in classical music and feel you might have interesting views to contribute. Concerns have been raised by some of us in the classical music project group about articles merely providing track listings of classical records which a user happens to like or somehow support. Some of us also feel that the term 'album' isn't particularly helpful in classical music, where records generally provide performances of a pre-existing score. Indeed, Ravpapa and Milkunderwood have each made alternative proposals to try to take into account issues felt to be specific to classical music. Of course, you may in turn have a rather different perspective. Whatever your views, I'm sure your contribution would enrich the discussion. If you'd care to join in, please post your view in the space set aside for 'uninvolved editors', here. Thank you.--MistyMorn (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in the 'notable album' discussion, Brian. I notice you've now come out with a firm vote in the D'Oyly Carte querele. If you wanted to do something similar in the album RfC (and maybe you don't) then of course feel free to do so.--MistyMorn (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure a vote is relevant here. As far as I am concerned, the "pop" people are free to do as they wish on this issue. The circumstances for classical music articles are, as I have pointed out, totally different. If the issue was: "Should all classical recordings have their own articles?", then I would deliver a resounding "oppose". Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's rather what I gathered from your reply. However, as I understand it, the notability guidelines under discussion regard all 'music', including 'classical'. So the question "Should all 'albums' have their own articles?" does really seem to translate at present into "Should all classical recordings have their own articles?". Anyway, I think your point is a relevant one which should be registered, whether formally 'counted' or not. Cheers.--MistyMorn (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert Falcon Scott

Hi. Nice article, thanks. I've noticed an ambiguous reference; above. It is unclear which of Huntford's works is being referred to. Can you clarify this? It would become one of:

  • <ref>{{harvnb|Huntford, ''The Last Place on Earth''|pp=229–30}}, {{harvnb|Crane|pp=392–93}}.</ref>
  • <ref>{{harvnb|Huntford, ''Shackleton''|pp=229–30}}, {{harvnb|Crane|pp=392–93}}.</ref>

(I do expect it is the latter;)

Best wishes, One Ton Depot (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It is The Last Place on Earth. Brianboulton (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, glad I asked. I'll drop it in there. Pleased to meet you. One Ton Depot (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47→Archive 50