User talk:Tim riley

SCAM WARNING! If you have been contacted by anyone using my name to write a Wikipedia article for you, it has not come from me, it is not legitimate, and possibly a scam. Please report what information you have to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org.

Archives

2005–2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024

2025

Happy 2025 to all visiting this page.
Tim

His Master's Voice

Hello! Thank you for the post on my talk page. I have been working tirelessly on "His Master's Voice" related matters for the past couple of months, trying to understand the fragmented history of the brand. Unfortunately, most recordings on Wikipedia use the article His Master's Voice as a label, however this page is strictly about the painting and trademark that was sold in 1899.

I turned List of HMV POP artists to His Master's Voice (British record label) and began removing the His Master's Voice on the recording pages and replacing it with His Master's Voice (British record label) under the belief that 'His Master's Voice' became its own record label in 1952 when the Gramophone Company ventured into pop music. However, on further inspection, all His Master's Voice releases still have The Gramophone Company Limited imprinted on them. And then doing some further research, His Master's Voice was never incorporated as a recording company, only as a retailer.

There is no debate that the American releases using the His Master's Voice trademark and artwork are Victor Talking Machine Company or RCA Victor releases.

In an attempt to resolve this, I have made a merge proposal on the Gramophone Company and His Master's Voice (British record label) that I invite you to join. Many thanks. Icaldonta (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hérold-by-David-d’Angers.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hérold-by-David-d’Angers.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука^13 09:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another waste of time deletion nomination: I've swapped the image on the article with the one from Commons, where it is freely and adequately licensed. There's no issue with it here, but as there's a Commons copy, that may as well be used (Iruka13 is blocked on Commons for "wikilawyering, contributing in bad faith and other tangential nonsense", so there is no danger that their version will face a similarly spurious deletion; hasten the day the process is repeated here). - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Home and Beauty

On 6 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Home and Beauty, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Home and Beauty has been described as both a "little masterpiece of polite merriment" and a "misogynist comedy dipped in vitriol"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Home and Beauty. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Home and Beauty), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

@Tim riley Is the use of false titles permitted in an article nominated at FAC? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule against it. Although it is a lumpen, tabloidese usage it is in widespread use in AmE prose (except for The New York Times, whose style guide is a delight to read on the subject) and it is not actually wrong in BrE – just rather naff. If an FAC nominator insists on using it, that is certainly not reasonable grounds for opposing the promotion of the article. Tim riley talk 12:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Altan must have attended the party to be accused of the crime, but why she was present there and not in the Uighur lands is not certain.

Or

Al-Altan must have attended the party to be accused of the crime, but her reason for being present there and not in the Uighur lands is not certain.

The above sentence is an extract from the article Al-Altan, who is one of Genghis Khan's daughters, which has been nominated at FAC. @Tim riley Could you please tell me which version you prefer and why? Looking forward to your response. Regards.

P.S. The first sentence is the one used in the article. MSincccc (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are wrong and both are clear. Don’t let your personal preferences get in the way of reviewing properly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second version is not coherent. "Reason" has the meaning of "an account or explanation" here. What does it mean for "an explanation to be not certain." Is it existence not certain or is it not adequate? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Grenfell

I suspect I’ve irritated you by questioning your judgement on an article on which you’ve spent a lot of time. I understand the feeling, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t make the discussion personal.

We’re all here to improve the article and it looks likely that no change will be made, so no need to fall out, eh? A.D.Hope (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope very much that (with a single exception, and I'd better not mention her username) I have respected all the fellow editors I've encountered over nearly two decades here. It is true that tut-tut-tut and whats-his-name and also you-know-who have driven me up the wall from time to time over the years, but we're all God's creatures and I daresay I've done some up-wall driving myself to other editors. The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you. Tim riley talk 17:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I felt a little like I was being told off, I won’t lie, but you’re not disrespectful.

You’ll probably have noticed that I replied to you on the article talk page and then self-reverted – despite my attempt at humour my tone was harsher than I intended. If you’d like me to reinstate it I will (with a strikethrough?), though.

The article looks to be in very good shape, by the way, largely thanks to you. Have you considered a GA nomination? I’d certainly help support it. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not too bad, I think, but to my mind it is a fair way short of GA standard. It's only C class now, though perhaps B class wouldn't be excessively flattering, but for GA I'd want to have a pretty comprehensive picture, and I don't think we have that at the moment. I haven't checked out all the relevant sources and I don't think I have much more to add to the text, but if you or anyone else would like to have a go at improving it with a view to GAN I'd be offering enthusiastic support. Tim riley talk 18:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article class: I just looked at the article, and I would say that the only thing holding the article back from being B-class is that the Lead section does not appear to give enough of an overview of the article. Regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discussion

@Tim riley You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015). Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New ODNB articles on 19th- and 20th-century opera and musical theatre singers

Dear Tim, I recently noticed that last week the editors of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography have published their January 2025 update and it is on the theme of "Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Opera and Musical Theatre Singers". I know you edit in these areas, so I thought you and some of your talk page watchers might enjoy perusing the new biographies, if you have not already done so. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed, and I'm most grateful, Noswall, for your telling me. Thank you so much. I'll certainly be looking in. Tim riley talk 10:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aldwych-farcical-1 (1).jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aldwych-farcical-1 (1).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука^13 14:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No ifs, no butts

Coming out of your review. Thanks for that! A little derivative at the moment, perhaps, but can probably be expanded further. Serial (speculates here) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]