User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 58

Wagner
Hi Brian, I am tied up this week with my music festival but can get started on Wagner in a week or two. But as I have never yet sought to take an article to FA I should be grateful if you have any pointers as to the main work, in your opinion, that needs to be undertaken for Richard Wagner. Best, --Smerus (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have taken a quick look at the article, though not at the detailed prose. Here are some initial suggestions of areas that in my view need attention, if it is to proceed successfully through the FAC process:
 * Lead possibly overdetailed, but this should be left until all the main revisions have been done
 * Biography sections possibly skimpy in places. For example, the Bayreuth section looks very short, given its significance
 * Conversely, the "Opera" section may have too much detail, given the profusion of subarticles that exists
 * "Influence and legacy" section needs a simpler structure. Some of the material looks rather trivial
 * "Controversies": there's a long specific article on this. The section in the Wagner article could be trimmed - some of the content may be better integrated into the general biographical sections.
 * There are several unsourced statements which need to be either cited or deleted.
 * I am not sure about the licence tags for some of the images or whether all are PD in the US. This is an aspect that can be considered later.


 * I think the Wagner article is important, but it may be quite a task to bring it to FA quality. The page has 280 watches and a daily average viewing of around 3000, so there will be plenty of watching eyes. Having worked on Cosima earlier this year I know the territory quite well & have some good sources. If you want to go ahead with this I'll be happy to give a helping hand. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Kafka update
Hi. Thanks again for the great help on Franz Kafka. User:Sarastro1 should complete a review and copyedit of the article today or tomorrow. I was wondering if you would like to take another look at it. It'd be greatly appreciated. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked at it over the weekend but decided I wouldn't intervene until the copyedit was done. I'll be there tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. Pumpkin Sky  talk  09:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added my final comments to the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * – oh, and congratulations on the prize!
 * Danke sehr! Und auch bitte sehen Sie hier (comments and 3 questions): Talk:Franz_Kafka Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

FAC
Hello. Remember when you commented on this FAC back July... well I would very much appreciate your input on this which has been left unattended for almost two weeks. Even the smallest of comments is enough. Thank you. Till 15:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try and leave some comments, if not later today then perhaps tomorrow. (I know the frustration of waiting for significant FAC comments) Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Till 16:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Expedition
coming soon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seen it - will be working on it soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nixon in China is requested, your other dates noted, no conflict yet, - Cosima for a Christmas gift seems a bit strange, but we can't help her being born that day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't do anything with the dates yet. I put them there as a note to myself, not for any "request" purposes. The only one of these I'd really fight for is the Rite centenary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I placed (yesterday) Cosima in the pending requests, that's not overdoing, right? The premiere of Messiah was the 13th, no= I had thought of Good Friday, 29 March (to avoid a battleship or whatever that day), but you are the main (remaining) author ;) - In the long run, I would like a long term calendar for requests, not just a few weeks (requests) and months (pending), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Writer's Barnstar

 * We really and truly appreciate all your hard work on this. It took awhile to find a writing related award you didn't have already. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We, that's me also, - thank you so much for diligence, precision and ideas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the star! I really enjoyed the chance to work on Kafka, and am very pleased with the results – a huge improvement, as acknowledged by the CORE prize. That is down to your hard work and perseverance; I'm glad I could help. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. FYI, TK asked a question at talk:FK and I proposed a source as better/corroborating. It's about Metamorphosis' first sentence. Feel free to chime in. Pumpkin Sky   talk  03:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Kafka at FAC
This is now at Featured article candidates/Franz Kafka/archive1. I thought you may want to know. Comments and improvements welcome. Thanks again for all the help. Pumpkin Sky  talk  22:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I will certainly check it out there, but it may be a few days. Incidentally, Gerda was a co-nominee in 2011 on Messiah (Handel), though she did less on that than she has on Kafka. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ach ja? She told me this was her first. I'll point this out to her ;-) Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Messiah star is on my user and talk for a while ;) I am grateful to the gentlemen, Tim Riley and this one, who invited me in their nomination although I took more out of Messiah than I added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Modesty, thy name is Gerda. Brianboulton (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This has three supports now and an image. Nikki plans to do the source check. If you are still interested, now'd be the time for a smooth copy edit. Pumpkin Sky  talk  13:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't copyedit, but have left my comment on the FAC page. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment is great, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to see your expedition on the Main page! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you know that there's a date conflict for TFA on 24 December? But Nixon in China is scheduled as requested, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to see/hear the music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thanks indeed, though I don't know why I deserve this. Perhaps someone is secretly reviewing MilHist articles under my name? Oh, well, as long as I get the honours... Brianboulton (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Chapman FAC
FYI, Percy Chapman is at FAC here, and as always any further comments are welcome. Thanks once more for your help. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Images US copyright
Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States 1 January 2012 Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Larwood
To be blunt, images of 30s cricketers are a nightmare! That 4th Test image might be questionable as I can't find anywhere that indicates it's first publication. For any cricketers from this time, English pictures are always out, so it has to be Australian images, and we have to prove that they were published in Australia. Which is not easy. I think that 4th Test image certainly was published in Australia, but there are only so many places to search, and I can't find it at the moment. For any images, the best bet is usually the Sydney Mail, which is available online, for example here or here. I usually do a trawl through the relevant issues (one published each week) and see if there are any suitable images; if you are lucky, the same image has been published elsewhere and can be scanned to much better quality (this worked for Constantine, Percy Fender and Arthur Gilligan). If that's not possible, it's a screen capture job which does not always come out well enough; the images of Larwood in the links are pretty unusable, I think. But the two of the Chapman images were done this way, and some on Gilligan. The other useful place to look is the national library of Australia (Trove) where there are more newspapers which can be trawled through, but not all the images are good. The Queenslander is pretty good, and whole issues can be downloaded as decent PDFs such as |||l-australian=y|||l-decade=193|||l-year=1933|||l-illustrated=y|||l-title=42 here. It's a tedious case of browsing or searching the issues from appropriate dates when the MCC toured. The other way is using anything in the books you have and searching to see if you can find it in a newspaper, but this is time-consuming and often fruitless. The lead Larwood image is fine; it's a cigarette card and there may be a few other images on the site where it came from. This one is from the England team photo from the Bodyline series, but is a little small. I'll keep looking a little myself, but that photo may have to come out of Jardine. Hope this makes sense and that it helps! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this comprehensive report. I will add some further ideas a little later. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I found a couple more here and here which have a publication date. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the cropped image looks rather better. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Warlock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Subjunctive?
You said 'False subjunctive in lead: "the latter of whom would leave and rejoin the group several times over its history". Should read: " the latter of whom left and rejoined the group several times over its history".'

Can you tell me what the tense (or maybe it is a mode) is called where it uses "would + verb"?

I think I asked somewhere once before and didn't get an answer and I thought you might know. RJFJR (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, "would" is a modal verb, so it depends on what follows it. For instance, the tense could be past subjunctive ("I would have done") or future subjunctive ("I would do"), or even future perfect, as in the example given in that linked Wikipedia article ("In 1982, I knew that by 1986 I would have already gone to prison"). Without in any way wishing to put words in Brian's mouth, the problem as I see it with the sentence you quote is that the subjunctive has an essential uncertainty about it; "if this happened then that would happen" kind of idea, and shouldn't be used simply to describe what has actually happened. Brian may of course expand on my explanation, and correct my understanding where it's less than perfect. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also butting in as the original poor writer to say that Malleus is correct on all points. The original text makes it seems as though he may or may not have left and rejoined, depending on circumstances, when he in fact did do just that.  Sad, since I've corrected exactly that type of poor phrasing in other articles, that I did the same thing myself. —Torchiest talkedits 21:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflicted) Well, I am rather relying on what I remember from my student days, which were rather long ago - Elvis was still alive. The subjunctive mood is appropriate when the main verb is qualified by a condition that did not or could not apply. For example, the following is correct subjunctive usage:-


 * "If Nixon had won the 1960 election he would have been the first vice president to be elected to the presidency since Van Buren in 1840"


 * – whereas this is incorrect:
 * Kennedy won the 1960 election and would become the first Roman Catholic to be elected to the presidency".

I think these examples underline the explanation that Malleus has given, with which I fully concur. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The specific example is when you have something like "After his years at school he would go on to become famous as a musician" which I would tend to rephrase as "After his years at school he went on to become famous as a musician". I think the use of would has something to do with describing a sequence of events that are all in the past but are being described in order. I'd just like to know what this construction is called and I figured someone who uses terms like 'false subjunctive' would be the person to ask. (I'm not asking about the particular sentence, just a general grammar question.) RJFJR (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's just past subjunctive or past perfect subjunctive, with would as an auxiliary verb. —Torchiest talkedits 14:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's called "wrong". Malleus Fatuorum 14:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Haha, in that particular case, yes. —Torchiest talkedits


 * Thank you everybody for answering. RJFJR (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Roadrunner cartoons use Bartered Bride melody snippets:
Sorry, I don't wish to add anything inappropriate to the article about "The Bartered Bride," but the "Roadrunner" has frequently used melodies from "The Bartered Bride" in its cartoons, perhaps you could mention that in the "Film and other adaptations" section. Would that be appropriate? I think it is an interesting tidbit that readers might like to know. Perhaps yuou can put it in the way you think proper. user:steverelei Steverelei (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for raising the matter here first rather than just going ahead. Lots of classical music and well-known opera extracts have been used in this way, not always tastelessly; nevertheless, the use of such music in a context completely different from that for which it was written can be jarring, and often seems disrespectful. I don't think the addition you suggest is appropriate; to me it seems fairly trivial and of limited notability. This is a Featured article, and I am pretty certain that had this information been included when the article received its FAC review, I would have been required to delete it.  Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi both. Brian asked for my opinion about this. My view is that certainly doesn't belong in the Film adaptation section, because the use of one piece of its music ("March of the Comedians")—actually only a snippet of it—in these cartoons is neither a film of the opera nor an adaptation of it. If there had been a Roadrunner cartoon that actually retold the whole story or significant parts of it and used the music too, it might be worth including. An example that springs to mind is Barber of Seville/Rabbit of Seville. The fact that snippets of this piece are used in the Roadrunner cartoons is relevant for their articles, particularly if they have a section devoted to the sound track or the use of classical music in general in them. But it's just a random factoid in Bartered Bride and fits nowhere except posssibly as a footnote attached to the relevant piece in the List of musical numbers section. It would be horribly jarring in the Music section. How would that random factoid help the reader understand the music of that opera? It simply doesn't. As Brian says, if this had been in the article when it went for review as a Featured Article, the consensus would have been strongly in favour of removing it from the main text. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

For some people, hearing this music in a cartoon may be their introduction to the music and the opera and may get them to explore it(them) further. I have a degree in music, a musician, and have an extensive knowledge of classical music and opera, I also have a sense of humor. I have come to know and love the opera and its music very well, and hearing this music in cartoons does not bother me. In fact I enjoy hearing the music this way. Then I can go to my stereo and hear the whole dance (and the rest of the opera). I also have a dvd of the opera. This also is another example of how this music has permeated into other genres and areas. It's no big deal. I know something you guys don't or don't wish to acknowldge. It is a relevant fact to me. Thanks anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.136.106 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Grimaldi: Latest editions
Hi Brian, Sorry its been so long. Just a quick note to let you know old Grim is comment free again! All your issues have been addressed correctly (I think). I have also replaced 90% of the images and requested an image review, about a week ago from, but alas nothing as of yet. If you have time, could you pop back over and give me an update on my progress? I hope all is well your end :-) --  Cassianto Talk   18:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll check it out. As a very minor return favour, would you mind casting a quick eye over Peter Warlock? The peer review is still open, though I am intending to move to FAC in a day or two. It's been quite thoroughly reviewed, but a fresh eye might bring out something useful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'll start reading now. Incidentally, there was more comment I need to address which I missed.  This one I'll do over the next few days. --   Cassianto Talk   20:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Blakeney Point FAC
Hi Brian, I'm back from Norfolk (lovely on Saturday, distinctly windy at Cley Beach on Sunday). I think I've dealt with all your comments, thanks again  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Whysall
In short, no! I think the reason the article is "Dodger" is because the two major cricket sites, Cricinfo and CricketArchive use this nickname. While these are undoubtedly good sites, they have a slightly odd policy towards nicknames. But I've never seen "Dodger" anywhere else. As for nicknames, I think it is OK if they were purely known by that name, such as Jack Russell or Tich Freeman. In these cases, calling them "Robert Russell" or "Alfred Freeman" would be strange and inaccurate. Or Bill Bowes or Wally Hammond from Bodyline. I'm not familiar enough with Whysall to say whether he fits into this category. For someone like "Plum" Warner, I think it should always be "Pelham" as Plum was more obviously a nickname like "Lol" for Larwood. I think it's encyclopaedic if it's handled with care and it is a clear-cut case of "everyone called them that". Sarastro1 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced that Whysall was ever known as "Dodger", so I have moved the title to William Whysall, with redirects from Dodge Whysall and Dodger Whysall (for those who only believe the internet). I have adjusted the text, and also left an explanation on the talkpage. I've no problems with "Wally" Hammond or "Bill" Bowes, as these are acceptable contractions of real names. I'm not so sure about "Tich"; I prefer A.P. Freeman, or possibly A.P. "Tich" Freeman. But that's not my concern at the moment. Cricket articles aren't really my thing, and Larwood will be my one and only. Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Warlock
File:Warlock1924.jpg should be PD, per Template:PD-UK-unknown. Methinks, at least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to think so, but three things: First, I don't know what counts as "reasonable enquiry" concerning authorship. Secondly, how could we establish that there is no overriding publication right? Thirdly, does this tag demonstrate PD in the US? Brianboulton (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1: Looking in a book or an archive would probably be okay (perhaps online)
 * 2: Not sure... prognosis not good.
 * 3: That's a good question. Based on what I see on Commons, I don't think so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this gives the lowdown on US copyright rules. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Commons has the Hirtle chart too. I'm confused about the publication rights, as I don't think I've come across those before. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

More Larwood
Thanks for the kind words. On the two images, I have to admit to having had doubts myself. The team photo gave me pause, but if the State Library of Queensland says it is out of copyright, then I'm not too sure we can argue. The cigarette cards did have me wandering for the simple reason that they include Duleepsinhji, who obviously did not tour, which made me question if the photos were actually taken in England. But I think that a few of the images may date from previous tours - Duleep did tour Australia on a non-Test tour - and they are definitely printed in Australia at that time. And I've never seen them anywhere else, they look to have been taken at the same time (the background is the same in the whole series of pictures), and the clothing and MCC blazers look right. So, on a balance of probabilities, I think it is OK, and I think we can believe the publishing information on the back of the cards (rather than my guesswork). I'll keep an eye on Larwood as I'm interested to see how you handle a cricketer! (And I warn you, I may unashamedly steal your approach in future) Sarastro1 (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great - I will use your thoughtful rationale if/when my use of these pics is challenged. The basis of my approach to a cricketer article, as you will soon discover, is a broad brush; not getting bogged down in individual match accounts, particularly county games. A few such matches are mentioned, but by and large, whole domestic seasons are summarised in a sentence or two. There will obviously be detailed coverage of the 1932-33 Test series, but anything like that level of detail elsewhere would in my view make the article impossibly long. Do keep an eye on developments, and don't be afraid to convey your thoughts; as far as cricket articles are concerned, you are El Supremo. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing on Compton, I'm afraid. I've a pretty extensive cricket library (worryingly so, perhaps!), but very little on Compton, who I confess leaves me a little cold. Maybe it's a regional thing, I always prefer Hutton. I think I've still got one of Hammond's equally dreadful "auto"biographies somewhere. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be Cricket my Destiny, possibly. My father had cricket books, hence my memory of the Compton thing. I got rid of nearly all of them, but kept a few, including In Quest of the Ashes. I've had to invest in a few more on account of Mr Larwood. The Compton quote is not crucial, to the article, happily. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Miss Moppet
Hi Brian, you asked at TFAR what I thought was a very pertinent question in regards to The Story of Miss Moppet. I've listed the article at FAR to have a centralized place of discussion. I'm notifying you, should you want to re-ask the question at a place where people who are perhaps smarter than I can give a better answer. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine - I shall be away for a few days, but I'll pick this up when I get back. Brianboulton (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harold Larwood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Foster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Peter Warlock
Hello Brian, thanks for your message. I have suggested Peter Warlock at Today's featured article/requests for the 30th October, although if you would prefer to wait until 2014 as above, I can withdraw it if you like? Rob (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, in an unexpected twist, Dabomb has gone for Charles Villiers Stanford (one of Tim riley's gems) for 30th October, so Warlock is spared at least for now... BencherliteTalk 22:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine; any of Tim's articles will make a fine TFA. Warlock can wait. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We could have the makings of a very good concert programme here! Well, Stanford was rather unexpected, but I'm very pleased to see him there all the same (Jeremy Dibble was my tutor, you see). I have been thinking of having a go at improving a British composer article to this sort of standard for a while myself. Ralph Vaughan Williams is in a rather poor state, but seems such a huge undertaking. I was wondering about E.J. Moeran? Rob (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Moeran would be a lovely project (I've thought about it - the current article is completely inadequate). The most recent study is by G.R. Self: The music of E.J. Moeran (1986). There are some older books, and there's quite a lot of Moeran-related material in the Warlock sources. RVW would be a bigger challenge, though material might be a bit more accessible. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Monteux
I gave the LEAD a pass and looked over the rest quickly. You have done a good job with it. All the best! I'll support it at FAC. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Was about to review this and post my comments and I see it has already been passed. Not even a week! Well done to you and Tim anyway!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

List of cities in Uttar Pradesh
Hi, an editor wants this listed at Featured Lists as a candidate, can you help him do it?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear what I'm being asked to do? Review the article (not much chance of anything in the immediate future)? Or simply explain the FL nom procedure? I should be able to manage the latter. Brianboulton (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've nommed it, Featured list candidates/List of cities in Uttar Pradesh/archive1. Comments are most welcome of course.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Louis Fourestier
Congrats on the Monteux double-quick-time FA. In case you hadn't noticed, the redlink for Fourestier is now blue. I'm off to Wexford to see L'arlesiana and Le roi malgré lui (but NOT A Village Romeo and Juliet of which I've had enough). Best. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 12:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The real honours must go to Tim and his Friend with the Unsayable Name. I was taken aback by the speed of the article's promotion - hadn't expected anything for days yet. Thanks for dealing with the Fourestier stub, and enjoy your Irish trip. I have to confess that I can't remember ever hearing of L'arlesiana before now. Brianboulton (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your kind comment. I lost power for only about 24 hours, and suffered no damage at my humble abode. The electric company was fearsomely efficient, most people had much less of an outage than I, but I was in a very localized, low-priority one. Though in another way, I was fortunate, my brother, in New Jersey, expects no power for a week, and him with two preteen kids.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)