On 16 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sybil Thorndike, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sybil Thorndike was known as Britain's leading tragedienne? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sybil Thorndike. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sybil Thorndike), 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.
The article Alexis Soyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alexis Soyer for comments about the article, and Talk:Alexis Soyer/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Limousin cattle has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. I have pinged you since you are the reviewer Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could have a look at the Boulton and Park FAC and find the numerous deliberate flaws I've left in the article? I'd be much obliged. And KJP1, as it was you who gave me the lead to the subject in the first place, I'll extend the invitation to you too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mr. Riley! Around thirty minutes ago, your article Alexis Soyer was promoted to FA status, although the bot is being a bit slow. Congratulations on this achievement! It was a pleasure reading and reviewing the article. Cheers to many more, Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, Alexis Soyer, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago we discussed ODNB's unhelpful indexing and I thought you would be interested in an experience of mine. I wanted to check the Stock Exchange Year-Book for a non-Wiki article I am working on, and checking the BL index at home I found that the Birmingham Central Library has put it online, but only searchable in London in the BL. I was puzzled when I could not find it on a BL computer, and the assistance person could not find it either. I finally worked out that you have to search on a specific year, for example Stock Exchange Year-Book 1904. If you search for Stock Exchange Year-Book, it does not exist. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley, we are at one about useless indexing. I send you Bernard Levin on the subject: here. You were kind enough to look in at the current FAC of the article on Otto Klemperer, and Levin − who admired Klemperer as much as I do − would have rejoiced at the excellence of the index of the main source, Peter Heyworth's biography. I have never seen a better index. The imbeciles who index the Stock Exchange Year Book so unhelpfully should be ashamed. On the other hand the ODNB has woken up and provided a useful index for its articles: if one is looking for, e.g., H G Wells one no longer has to scroll through dozens of Bishops of Bath and Wells and their Deans to get there, and you get in at the first attempt − a great, though lamentably overdue improvement. Tim riley talk23:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Dudley Miles: For the record, it's cause you didn't sign your ping on the same line; ironically, you signed every other line. Had you pinged in those lines, it would have gone through; but for it to have worked in the line it did, it required a signature in the same line. See WP:ECHO for further details :) SN5412913:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! But I think "This unnecessarily complicated piece of code was brought to you by the WMF" definitely applies :) SN5412913:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, Otto Klemperer, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many congratulations!!! I was privileged to see him conduct when I was very young. Then, a couple decades later, I was at a performance of Beethoven's Egmont accompanied by a series of readings by his son Werner. The article is excellent. Congrats again. MarnetteD|Talk16:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriel Fauré
Can you recommend any of the best recordings off the top of your head for my Apple Music playlist? I would like to spend the next month or so diving into his work. I tend to prefer the more modern recordings but I’m willing to listen to the older ones. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, off the top of my head, and with a quick glance at my CD shelves. All but the Thyssens-Valentin sets are in stereo, and the others are in, to my ear, excellent sound:
Orchestral:
Masques et Bergamasques/Pelléas and Mélisande/Pavane: Academy of St Martin in the Fields, Neville Marriner (Decca)
Dolly Suite: an early stereo recording but in good sound and an incomparable performance, the French National Radio Orchestra, conducted by Sir Thomas Beecham.
Piano Barcarolles and Nocturnes: Germaine Thyssens-Valentin (Testament) or Kathryn Stott (Hyperion)
Piano Quartets and Quintets: Domus (Hyperion)
Violin Sonatas: Pierre Amoyal and Pascal Rogé (Decca)
Cello Sonatas (and 'Elégie'): Steven Isserlis and Pascal Devoyon (RCA)
String Quartet: Ad Libitum (Naxos)
All the songs are worth exploring, and the Hyperion cycle with various singers accompanied by Graham Johnson is full of good things. Some of the best known are 'Après un rêve', 'Clair de lune', 'Soir' and the cycle, La bonne chanson.
Requiem: if you like the Anglican choral sound the recording by David Willcocks and King's College Choir is incomparable; if (like Fauré) you prefer female voices you might try the LSO Live version conducted by Nigel Short.
I hope, pretty confidently, you'll find some things there that will please your ear. Of the chamber works, I recommend the First Piano Quartet for starters. The later chamber works are tougher nuts to crack, though well worth the effort. Tim riley talk10:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim, I was hoping you might find that article interesting. I've recently finished essentially a head-to-toe rewrite and I'm planning to take it to FAC. In the meantime, I was hoping you might be able to find time to offer any thoughts on the peer review. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?15:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"What God would have built if he had had the money" - GBS
Tim, apropos Hearst Castle, it's been picked up for DYK - not by me! The hooks are "the model for Xanadu" or the GBS quote. Both may generate a bit of noise; there is a cohort that's very hot on whether Hearst was the model for Kane, and thus the castle for Xanadu; and there's another that gets surprisingly worked up over the GBS quote, either saying he didn't say it, or that he said it about somewhere else, usually St Donat's Castle, or that somebody else said it. On the second, is there a definitive Works/Quotations of GBS you're aware of, that might have a stronger provenance for the quote? KJP1 (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Not sure about the attribution to GBS. Plenty of books, including one by Hearst's son, say Shaw said it, and others hedge it by saying "is said to have described it as ...", but I notice that Michael Holroyd in his magisterial four-volume Bernard Shaw gives ample detail of Shaw's stay with Hearst but doesn't quote the line, and I suspect he would have done – who could resist? – if he was confident of the ascription. I know little of cinematic matters – the medium doesn't interest me much – and can't offer any thoughts on whether Hearst was the model for Kane. Tim riley talk14:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. Hmm, as you said. It's a bit dubious, isn't it. I think, as and when I wander to FAC, I will need to heavily caveat it. On a related point, Dudley has finished his review with a Support, here. If you had a chance to give it a once-over, I'd much appreciate it. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KJ, done. A pleasure to read, and very much in the line of Dudley's exemplary (and highly readable) FLs on similar but English topics. I think the ghost of GBS would be pleased if you piped his full name to omit the "George", but I do not press the point. Tim riley talk14:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the caption in the Shepherd's Pie article, it would be nice to be able to specify that if the caption needs to be split over two lines, a good place to split it is after the word "peas". But I don't know of any way to do that. It's easy to specify where to optionally break a word (with ­), but I don't know of any way to specify preferred places to break a line between words in WP markup or for that matter in HTML. Is there one? --Macrakis (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Terrific job on Alexis Soyer. Enjoyed reading the page and several of the subtopics today. Fine topic, comfortable writing, nice narrative and well-executed. BusterD (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Bloom's Berlioz in Time
Saw this and thought of you. Now Open Access from Boydell & Brewerhere. You should be able to legitimately download a paginated, searchable PDF of the piece (as I did for something else). Their OA bit is only a small section at the moment, but new titles are being added regularly. Best, SN5412910:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another English author on his way, I hope, to FAC. I have Galsworthy up for peer review here and would be pleased to hear from anyone who chances to notice this shameless rattling of the begging bowl. Tim riley talk16:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Panagiotis Kavvadias - thank you
Thank you for such a lovely review, and for your time in doing the source review: taking a trip to the BL on its account certainly seems above and beyond the call of duty! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did I ever tell you about the time when your learned friend made off with the petty cash after seducing the switchboard operator and setting fire to a local orphanage? Tim riley talk16:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. My learned friend bankrupted the UK economy after cutting a swathe through the better looking half of Soho and started a civil war in a small third world country. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, it was a quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom I know nothing. No larger than western Europe at any rate. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I disclaim "expert", but this is my opinion. The thought crossed my mind when reading through for my review that your wording had a vaguely AmE feel, but I didn't mention it because it is, in my view, not exclusively AmE and is perfectly good BrE. "Edward had his army prepare ..." certainly seems to me preferable to the rather cumbersome "Edward commanded his army to prepare...". Shakespeare uses "have him" and "have them" in this sense any number of times. Examples on request. – Tim riley talk14:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim. If you're interested, I recently nominated the king's article for GA status. If you want to review it, it's on the table. Any help at all is appreciated; conversely, if you're not interested, or don't have the time, I completely understand. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim. There was a review, but a wildly inadequate one. Feel free to review the article to your heart's content; we really need a proper one. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about what is going on at the GAN page. I don't think I can review the article as things stand. If it is failed and renominated I can look in, but at present it must, I think, be the prerogative of User:RonaldDuncan and/or User:AirshipJungleman29 to pass or fail the nomination. Tim riley talk18:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what - if Ronald doesn't make a move in 5 days, I'll withdraw it, then re-nom immediately and then Tim (or anyone else who wants to do it) can do the second review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't run across a circumstance like this before, and so I have just been studying the GAN instructions: as far as I can see what you propose is OK. Best if you can get Ronald Duncan to fail the current GAN, I think. Not sure how the review can be formally closed otherwise, but I leave that to you. Once the article is freely available for review I shall be happy to undertake it if nobody gets in before me. I haven't so far read the article and I have no idea what my view of it will be, so if I end up as reviewer, beware! Tim riley talk13:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to reach out to Ronald, but his Wikipedia attendance seems to be a bit spotty. If I withdraw it, and then re-nominate it, it would essentially force a second review to take place. The thing is, we haven't really had a proper review: the boxes were all ticked, but no elaboration was given; the second opinion recommended not GAing the article, but nothing in-depth there either. The article's in a state of deadlock. So, if withdrawing and then re-nomming will force a proper review? So be it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a Featured Article, with a text agreed by reviews at Peer Review and then FAC. The topic was adequately covered and the recent addition was unnecessary. It was a great struggle to get the word count down to under 12,000 words (see MoS guidelines on length of articles) and gratuitous additions of gobbets of incidental information are unhelpful. In this particular case, moreover, there was a glaring breach of WP:CITEVAR, making a dog's dinner of the references. For future reference, queries of this kind are better raised on the article talk page, where all interested editors can see them, rather than on one editor's user talk page, where they will be seen by few. Tim riley talk13:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your views are requested
Hello again Mr. Riley. I've been busy and wrote another article on a composition, this time by Mark-Anthony Turnage. Blood on the Floor is an orchestral work in nine movements that fuses classical and jazz music together, and has an interesting usage of orchestration and motifs. If you would like to have a look, there is an open peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Blood on the Floor (Turnage)/archive1. I'm wanting to take this to GA, and possibly to FA if I can find the effort. I appreciated your comments on Scaramouche, so if you could find the time to add some comments that would be great! Cheers, Schminnte (talk • contribs)10:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll most certainly look in. From a quick first glance at the article I think it looks impressive, but I'll comment in detail at the PR page. (It's "Tim", by the way, and not "Mr Riley".) Tim riley talk12:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a septuagenarian I appreciate your courtesy. First thoughts now posted on the PR page, but I'll need another perusal before commenting on the main content of the article. Tim riley talk13:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, I am not by nature a steady and methodical worker: I move in bursts as the inspiration strikes, and sometimes, to mix metaphors, I run out of steam. I'm in the doldrums at present with an overhaul of the author John Galsworthy, and I similarly ran out of steam chez Gounod. If you like to pick up the ball and run with it (as I'm mixing metaphors I might as well mix them thoroughly, like a salad) please feel free to take Gounod on to GAN or FAC, with my blessing. Tim riley talk11:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see and can relate too well with my own quick moving interests! I will consider bringing it to GA this summer and certainly call upon your expertise. I may try to bring up Aaron Copland too (improved by the mostly-retired Jonyungk), which is in an incredible state for a non-GA/FA – Aza24 (talk)19:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How kind! I have, by the way, never met the King, though I met both his parents on separate occasions. I wish both him and your article well. Tim riley talk18:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I've never met a royal, but my good friend did once meet Elizabeth in the noughties. I return your well-wishings; regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tim, hope you're doing well! I recently rewrote the Fuzuli (poet) article from scratch and am planning on nominating it for FA status. Since you have experience writing FAs related to literature and poets, I was wondering if you could take a look and share your thoughts on the peer review I've opened. Your feedback would be really helpful. Thanks! — Goldencall me maybe?15:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Tim. I've nominated the article for FA (Link). If you have time, I would very much appreciate your thoughts on the nomination. — Goldentalk14:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone added a reference to this group to a note in the Bernard Shaw article - I appreciate the reason - but is applying the strict rule about "performers" to a "play" written for a specific puppet troupe carrying this a little too far? Give a moment's consideration, anyway. Best wishes. Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to go along with the consensus on this, but I don't think it enhances the Shaw article to give details of the puppeteers. I think, by the way, discussions such as this are better on the article talk page, where any interested editor can see it, rather than tucked away on one editor's talk page. Tim riley talk15:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it doesn't add anything, and begins a slippery slope of mentioning every producer or group that premiered each play. Please let me know if a discussion is opened about this at the article's Talk page, and I will add my views there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case I was by no means sure I was "right" - I quite deliberately posted here rather than in the article for the subject. A bit of a mess? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken about posting here rather than there in this case: v. thoughtful of you, if I may say so. I perfectly understand the desire of an editor putting together a new article to link to it from all directions, but though I think a link from the forthcoming Marionnettes article to GBS will be proportionate and sensible, I honestly don't think that would be true in the other direction. But happy to go with any consensus, and thank you very much for your measured and gentle approach. Tim riley talk13:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - the first time I read that little play was in a complete GBS my Dad brought home (in 1952 if I remember right) - at the time the little boy model Soundofmusicals was a little bemused until it was explained it was written for puppets and wasn't "very serious". I thought at first that the new edit might have added a little more in the way of clarity than a similar note on a major play with multiple productions. Normally I wouldn't dream of reverting you (or Ssilvers for that matter) and in this case I decided in the end to give it a bare mention in a talk page note. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to thank you again for taking the time to contribute to the A-class assessment for Dolwyddelan Castle. I hope I didn't appear dismissive — I try to keep my comments light, but I'm aware that what works in speech doesn't always work online! Your comments were very helpful, and if you happen to appear the next time I have an article up for review I'll consider myself lucky.
Fear not, Mr Hope (or may I call you "A.D."?): I enjoyed your replies – perceptive and amusingly phrased. Please don't hesitate to ping me if you want me to review any articles in the future. Architecture is not really my area of expertise, but I'm always happy to scrutinise prose and offer suggestions. Tim riley talk19:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Tim. The article has now passed a GA review. Do you have any comments before I consider putting this up for FA? I was cautioned over the use of a master's and a DMA thesis during the review and told to have strong rationales. Do you think these sources are acceptable, as they contain the most in-depth scholarly analysis of the work I've yet to find? During my research, I haven't found any glaring errors in them from a musicology perspective. Interested to hear your opinions on this. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs)11:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly look in. As I understand it, masters' theses are looked at askance at FAC, but doctoral theses pass muster as reliable sources, but I'm no expert on this. I'll leave any further comments on the article talk page once I've reread the article. Tim riley talk14:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Schminnte, apologies for the delay: I've been away at a musical event far removed from the Turnage oeuvre. I've reread the article and I have no additional suggestions before you put it up for FAC. Please ping me when you get there. Tim riley talk12:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tim, hope you're well. I'm taking on a rewrite of Liz Truss's article, in order to incorporate new sources (namely Out by ChristmasOut of the Blue) and have come across "Parliament" a few times. This is particularly meddlesome, given that the version with the capital P is everywhere across the wiki; then again, it's a common noun. Given you're the promoter of at least two prime ministerial biographies (Douglas-Home and Disraeli) I thought you might have an insight into this. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently reviewed two articles in which the legislature, cabinet ministers etc have been mentioned. In one of them the writer has attempted to follow the guidance of the manual of style, which lower-cases job titles and parliament – there being parliaments all over the globe – and in the other the writer has done as I would do, capitalising Prime Minister, Parliament etc. It would look plain silly to write "house of commons" even though ours in London is not the only one, and it looks equally silly to me to deny our Parliament its capital letter. In my experience this is rarely if ever an issue at FAC, and whatever your own preference I should stick with it and chance it. The worst that can happen is that an MoS expert demands changes, which would, after all, not be difficult to make. Good luck with the Truss article – sooner you than me! – Tim riley talk13:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Tim. I supposed uppercase P when referring to a specific parliament, as we do for King when referring to a specific king. And I don't think the Truss article will be too hard to polish up; I have tabs open on my computer that have lasted longer than her. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Getting it to FA-class would certainly be an interesting project, come to think of it. I've made some miscellaneous edits on the article for the last three days, and the only section I've completely rewritten as of now is this one. Using your knowledge of what makes an article featured, do you think that the quality of the prose and referencing there, extrapolated across the entire article, would meet the grade? I'll take it to PR once I've finished, which should alleviate any concerns. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(driving by) I think it may be a little early for a Truss (or Johnson) FA, as the next couple of years are likely to bring a large quantity of material, once all the dispossessed Tories set about their memoirs etc, so an FA now might soon be out of date. I would go with "P" all the time - "uppercase P when referring to a specific parliament" seems too subtle to be understood by most readers, & a hard distinction to make in practice. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now written it up into a state where I am happy with it. I'll launch a peer review in a bit, but want to straighten out the ref formats first. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First you tell me that it needs to be a note rather than a reference, and it needs a citation. So I made it a note and gave it a citation. What's your problem? What would make it acceptable to you? I find it of interest and I think that other readers may. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions of this sort belong on the article talk page where other interested editors can see them. But as you ask here, the addition was inadequately cited (see WP:CITEVAR) and, more importantly, has absolutely nothing to do the topic of the section - the reception of Waugh's works. Details of the origin of the plot device are very fully covered where they belong – in the article on the book. If you can find a suitable place in the EW article for your proposed footnote I recommend you to suggest it at the article talk page. Perhaps I should explain that the EW article was taken to FA by the late Brian Boulton, and in his absence a few editors, including me, keep an eye on his 100+ FAs with the aim of preventing degradation, however well meant. – Tim riley talk11:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to stick to your Talk page, because this is not important enough for me to pursue further. I will give it one more try, and, if you reject it, then I'll concede. What I will do is mention the earlier version of the chapter as a parenthetical, because I don't think that parentheticals have to be fully relevant -- that's why they're in parentheses. I will not offer a citation, because plot summaries don't require citations, and this amounts to a plot summary, because if you read the short story and you read Chapter VI, you see that they have the same plot. Also, I don't want to take the time to figure out what aspect of WP:CITEVAR you refer to. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do please consider where such an addition could comfortably sit. It obviously doesn't belong in the Reception section, but perhaps you can see a place in another section where it will be relevant. Tim riley talk11:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to put it somewhere that A Handful of Dust is mentioned, and it is not strictly relevant in any of those places. I've already put it in Reception. Would you find "Themes and style" acceptable? If not, then I can think of no other place, and you can revert it. But remember, it's only a parenthetical, and one should not be overly rigid. Readers might find it of interest (and might not turn to the discussion of the novel), and readers won't care which section the parenthetical is in. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked another of the editors who keep an eye on Brian's FAs to look in to give us the benefit of his advice on this. 11:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The reason that I don't think that mentioning this in A Handful of Dust is adequate is that some readers may know "The Man Who Liked Dickens" but not know that Waugh used it again in A Handful of Dust. That was the case with me. I read "The Man Who Liked Dickens" and then googled to find commentary on it, and that's how I learned of its re-use in A Handful of Dust. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered that SchroCat reverted my parenthetical, so I sent to his Talk page a copy of my last comment to you, beginning "The reason." You were right that this should have been on Talk:Evelyn Waugh, but I've had enough of this and will let it be. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Laufey and the Philharmonia Orchestra
Hi there! I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, do redirect me if it isn't. Perhaps it belongs on the article's talk page? I'm new to this style of discussion.
I saw that you undid my edit on the Philharmonia Orchestra page, which I'm perfectly fine with should it be warranted. In your reasoning, you stated "Rem uncited trivia" - which I believe means "Remember uncited trivia", and I now see why my edit goes against that. I do think that the performance is more than just a fun fact, and should be on the page. Would the edit still be appropriate for the page should I include a citation for the performance? If so, would an article like this or this suffice for "Let You Break My Heart Again"?
As for the more recent, second collaboration, "California and Me", I cannot find an article talking about the song, so how would I go about citing that? Would the artist's Instagram page or something similar be considered a credible source? I think that even though there's no article about it, we should still include it because it obviously happened.
My apologies for my lazy shorthand: "rem" was short for "removed". The article talk page would be preferable: all interested editors can see discussions there, whereas nobody else will see this exchange unless they should happen to look in here. The reason the addition was trivia is that it is of no particular importance to the Philharmonia Orchestra. The London orchestras do quite a lot of session work for non-classical performers, and it would be disproportionate to single out one such engagement for special mention here. One helpful indicator of the importance the Philharmonia attaches to the recording in question is whether it has been mentioned on the orchestra's website, which from a glance at it, I don't think it has been. This, of course, is just my own view, and others may disagree: if you are unpersuaded by what I say here you can air the suggestion on the article talk page and seek comments. Tim riley talk07:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At first I disagreed, but upon confirming that Laufey is not mentioned on the Philharmonia website, I see your point and agree that you made the right decision. Thank you for helping resolving this and sorry for putting this on the wrong page. Have a good day :) Maximus Pinpoint (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ICYMI
Hi Tim. Just in case you missed it in a flurry of notifications, I've now take Truss to PR. I contact you again because the comments so far focus very much on the premiership section, and not on the rest of the article, which I worry could be a blind spot that trips me up along the road, to mix metaphors. Apologies if you'd already seen and weren't interested, but I thought it would be best to have another go. I very much enjoyed your two biographies on two of our PMs, and hope that you could provide a great insight. If you're busy or disinterested, of course there's no obligation on your part. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A crutch too much? Do you mean a crutch much too much, or much too much of a crutch? Pray clarify. Shall look in tomorrow, though I share User:Johnbod's reservations that it is early days for the article. Be that as it may, see you at PR tomorrow. Tim riley talk22:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Later: just worked out the meaning of ICYMI at the top of this exchange. I had it down as standing for the International Committee of Young Male Idiots, but aetat seventy-one I am still an Idiot and Male but no longer Young. Zu Mittwoch! Tim riley talk22:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rubbing my eyes reading this: "a crutch much too much", I think. Don't worry about the fact that Truss's premiership is still wet behind the ears, as, when Truss publishes her leafletmemoirs, I'll make sure to update the article with the new sources. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC) PS: When I asked SchroCat a similar question, he (she?) queried "is it written as tragedy, comedy or farce?" I thought that was some good, dry British-style humour.[reply]
Of course I'll be happy to look in. Not today, perhaps, as it's too hot where I am for my brain to function fully (if it ever does) but later in the week, certainly. Tim riley talk16:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I concur entirely. We get comparatively few snowed-in or railway-line-buckling days. Somewhere like Chicago, with prolonged extremes of temperature are no doubt right to shell out for aircon and snow-ploughs, but I'm not certain the generally temperate UK ought to. Though, what with climate change, my grandchildren, if I had remembered to have any, might take a distinctly different view. Tim riley talk17:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, maybe I have been reading The Guardian too much. ;) I was thinking more of the more and more extreme heat we're getting, and in more unnerving and seemingly misplaced episodes. September is a strange month to have a heatwave, the UK, I think, is worryingly unready for the extreme climate we're about to experience in the next few decades. Three per cent of UK homes with air conditioning is a low figure. I live in quite a newly-built house in the north, which doesn't have any form of AC, although it does have underfloor heating. I'd nudge Mike to start thinking more about that when fiddling around with what and what doesn't get built. But I digress. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, just plain truth! No comedy intended. Too much painful history. If you want to be helpful, rather than sniping from the sidelines, do please look in at the peer review and give constructive comments. Tim riley talk17:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Over-familiarity
Don't call me Dunc. You can call me Duncan, or you can call me by my username, DuncanHill, but you do not get to call me Dunc. You are not family, and you are not a childhood friend. I find that sort of over-familiarity extremely unpleasant. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not whingeing or a tantrum to ask to be called by my name. You'll be glad to know I won't be reading the Noël Coward article again, I have loved his work for years (he was a favourite of my grandmother too), and (Personal attack removed). DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apology repeated and I wish you joy in your "semi retired" state, and hope you will happily remain there for as long as suits you, but meanwhile, if you still want to help Wikipedia, do please take a break from semi-retirement and help us with the peer review of Dorothy L. Sayers. Tim riley talk21:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New peer review
Moving down from foregoing tantrums. Any non-hostile editor who chances to see this and would like to help us rather than snipe is cordially invited to look in at the peer review of the article on Dorothy L. Sayers, which SchroCat and I have been working on with FAC in mind. Suggestions for improvements will be gratefully received. Tim riley talk14:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drunk! Toi? I fear you and I are among the editors – one could, but won't, name others – who on the whole ought to think twice before editing after dinner. Tim riley talk14:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you're feeling better, and no matter about the "not firing on all cylinders" bit, as mine rarely do regardless of condition. Also, many thanks: you're the one who (probably unknowingly) got me to begin seriously consider pursuing an FAC for Truss, now passed; would not have happened without your expert comments at PR and support at FAC. Many more hopefully to come from us both. Cheers – Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My old boss was proud of his Ferrari convertible. I knew very little about cars and jokingly asked what was the main difference between a Ferrari and a Porsche. He snorted in derision and replied, "Only about 8 cylinders". Since the Porsche does well on 4, I think you'll do well without all your cylinders. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, hope you're well. We've just passed the one year mark since the promotion of my first FAC, which you very kindly shepherded along. Although four more bronze stars have followed since then, I've been working in the background on a big one: Genghis Khan. I've pretty much finished with it now; even though it's probably rather far from your comfort zone, I would really appreciate your comments at the peer review, if you've got the time. If not, no worries. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genghis Khan is indeed far from my comfort zone and from nearly everyone else's too, I imagine. But I'll look in and offer such comments as I can. Tim riley talk11:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
No doubt, but what SchroCat was accurately conveying is my view that everything before Bach was boring. (A couple of Vivaldi, Corelli and Telemann pieces might escape censure.) One of my dearest friends has recently retired from conducting a choir centring on the music of Byrd, and I dutifully attended the concerts, but I mean, really! Five minutes of the stuff is pleasing, but on the whole I leave the pre-musical classics alone. Tim riley talk23:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This may be the most appropriate "to each their own" I've encountered. I suppose, playing to your perspective, centuries of music meant for highly ritualized church services may not translate consistently to modern performance where the music is the only focus. I hope you can at least enjoy Gibbons' Swan. Aza24 (talk)06:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recently reverted a referenced addition to Edward Elgar (a street named after him). The summary stated: "rem (misspelled) trivia". Im not sure what rem means, I assume misspelled refers to "Honor vs Honour". As for trivia, the entry followed the line: "There are around 65 roads in the UK named after Elgar...". How is the name of another road/street in a different country trivia and not a proper inclusion to Honours, awards and commemorations? If this revert was done in error please correct it. Thanks, Palisades1 (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of discussion should be on the article talk page, where all interested editors can see it, rather on one user's talk page where it will be seen by few. Tim riley talk17:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, Dorothy L. Sayers, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your superb work on the Dilys Laye article. There's one thing I thought might be worth adding in, which was her long collaboration with the playwright Peter Barnes. You mention the RSC show she was in, but she was one of his favourite actresses and he cast her a lot (they were also great friends): for example Dreaming (Royal Exchange/West End); a 1989 TV film called The Spirit of Man; his 1994 TV adaptation of Dickens Hard Times. I think he also wrote one of his 'Barnes' People' monologues for her (something about a belly-dancer, I seem to recall). Do you think it's worth adding a short paragraph on this? I'm struggling to find decent sources for them though. Dmass (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're as good as your word! I particularly like the paragraph where you segue from all the high-brow work she did with Peter Barnes straight into the sitcom with Reg Varney. It sums up her range very nicely. I must say, I would have liked to hear her Geschwitz in Lulu. Dmass (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In an email you mentioned a 1989 TV film called The Spirit of Man and Barnes's 1994 TV adaptation of Hard Times. If you care to add them for completeness you can get citations here and here. I think I've done all I can otherwise. Tim riley talk16:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seasons Greetings!
Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld19:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A belated Merry Christmas and a premature Happy New Year to you! I’ve been doing a bit on Carlton House Terrace. Hope it meets with approval. It’s another of those London Streets like Buckingham Street where one could do an FA on the notable residents alone. I’m a little uncertain as to exactly what happened at its Eastern end (t’other end to Carlton Gardens). The Historic England listing for 10-18 clearly includes No. 18 as part of the Nash Terrace, [3]. And it certainly looks the part. But the Survey of London suggests that No.s 18-24 post-date Nash, [4]. I think it’s a typo for No. 19, and that 19-24, built on the site of the Carlton House stables, were badly bomb-damaged and replaced post-war with the office blocks at the eastern end and on the northern side. Any insights gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, and entirely OR from years of working there, yes, the Trafalgar Square end of the terrace ends at No 18, after which there's a lumpen concrete block which in my day was occupied by the British Council. Tim riley talk16:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the BC were the other side of the Mall from CHT - 4 Spring Gardens was their address back in the late 80s/early 90s. I worked for them back then, but in Brazil and only went into the London office once, so either my memory is playing me false, or they had two parts to their office, both of which possibilities are equally likely! - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We had a deal with the BC that allowed Crown Estate staff to use the Council's canteen and many is the ham omelette and chips I've eaten there, with a bijou glassette of vin. Tim riley talk17:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the address may have been, I was on best behaviour and didn’t have any wine. Part of me hopes it was ordinary enough for me not to have missed out before my posting. - SchroCat (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.JPG)
