User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 60

PR Backlog question
Brian, why did you remove the Metamorfosis World Tour article from the backlog list? It needs to be reviewed as the article is part of a GTC and as the concert isn't over yet, has to have the article be Peer Reviewed so the topic can pass. GamerPro64 16:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I took it out of the backlog because the bot closed the review, it not having received comments for 14 days. Sorry, that's out of my control - it happens automatically. If you renominate it at peer review I promise I'll review it in a couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright. Its up on PR once again so if you can review it that would be helpful. Peer review/Metamorfosis World Tour/archive1. GamerPro64  23:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I talked with another delegate and we're going to close the topin nom. GamerPro64  15:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought of you...
Heh I think they are insane... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Insane isn't the word: " using the same clothes, food and boat", they say. They may be able to use "the same clothes" after a good few washes; "the same food" - urrrgh! ... and the boat sank in 1915, so that's unlikely to be available. They should have consulted me first; I could have told them all that. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Larwood images
I'd be happy to do an image review, but you may be better asking someone else as I uploaded two of the images one way or another. I did the original Larwood image from the cigarette card, and uploaded a cropped version of the 1928 England team; if I pass them as OK, it looks a little suspicious! Perhaps you could just link to the image review that Wehwalt posted on the talk page? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had quite forgotten your involvement, which of course disqualifies you. I think Wehwalt is still cruising, but I'll see if I can contact him about transferring his review to the FAC page. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Later) Ruhrfisch has stepped in and done the honours. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A belated thanks
Hi Brian hope your well. The John Le Mesurier peer review has now been archived by a bot with still a few points to do, some of them requiring a bit more work than first thought. I wanted to thank you for the review but I think we are now looking at the new year, what with the Christmas rush, to list JLM at FAC. In the meantime, another of your reviews, Joseph Grimaldi is good to go and will be at FAC having passed a very clean GAC. A belated and very much appreciative thanks for your time as always. --  Cassianto Talk   12:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. I've been expecting to see Grimaldi at FAC, and I'm sure it will do well there. Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Cosima
Curtain up! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Larwood
Pleased, but not in the least surprised, to see Larwood promoted. Tim riley (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just coming here to say the same thing! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, and earlier support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Cosima Wagner
This is a note to let the main editors of Cosima Wagner know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 24, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 24, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegates, , and , 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 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:

Cosima Wagner (1837–1930) was the daughter of pianist and composer Franz Liszt, and the second wife of composer Richard Wagner. She was previously married to the conductor Hans von Bülow. With Wagner she founded the Bayreuth Festival as a showcase for his stage works; after his death she directed the festival for more than 20 years, building its repertoire to form the Bayreuth canon of ten operas and establishing it as a major event in the world of musical theatre. She opposed theatrical innovations and adhered closely to Wagner's original productions of his works, an approach continued by her successors long after her retirement in 1907. Under her influence, Bayreuth became identified with anti-Semitism and theories of German racial and cultural superiority. This was a defining feature of Bayreuth for decades, into the Nazi era which closely followed her death in 1930; thus, although she is widely perceived as the saviour of the festival, her legacy remains controversial. (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 17 days' notice! Great work. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your great work looks great on the Main page! As for Messiah (quoted on my user as a Christmas greeting), I think the Dublin premiere (13 March) might be a good date to go for, - we could move to London if that doesn't work, Or Good Friday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought of you when I placed a reference to Messiah on top of my talk, in fond memory of working together, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Magic Flute discography, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Christie and Les Arts Florissants (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) 11:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Cardus
*May I shorten your mention of his 1936 visit to Australia, which I have enlarged on in the Australia section below, to which I am finally getting round? Yours to command on all three points. Tim riley (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it worth mentioning that:
 * Cardus got his first Guardian by-line as early as 14 May 1919?
 * The ODNB gets Samuel Langford's name wrong (you could even slip in a sic)
 * Later: one point above overtaken by your fine new section on music crit. I am taking advice from a friend in Melbourne as to the idiomatic name of Sir Keith Murdoch's organ - The Melbourne Herald or The Herald, Melbourne. Tim riley (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On the two extant points:
 * Do you mean 1917? He'd been on the MG for more than two years by 14 May 1919, so "as early as" hardly applies. I doubt that his work was all unattributed before May 1919'
 * Yeah, "Longford", same name as my old maths master. Not really relevant to the Cardus article, though.

Please feel free to tinker with any of the sections I've posted thus far. I'm not altogether happy with the cricket and music sections (perhaps overlong?), but I do like the Harty image. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The cricket and music sections are most certainly not overlong! I enjoyed them extravagantly and wouldn't mind if they were longer. Licence to tinker hereby reciprocated. We shall have to come to an agreement about "the Manchester Guardian" -v- The Manchester Guardian. I admit that the former (as favoured by you) is, and has been since Cardus's earliest days on the paper, the publishers' preferred form. It's just that I've cited the paper as The Manchester Guardian in so many articles that it pains me to see it rendered differently. (Also, I'm right and you and the Guardian lot are wrong. (Did I just say that? Quick, nurse, the screens!)) Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We will make a policy decision on the name format before the article goes anywhere. While I'm drafting, old habits die hard so I'll probably stick pro tem to my preferred form. In the meantime, can you clarify the 1917 v. 1919 issue, above?
 * Looking at the end of the Australia section, it reads as though he stayed there until 1950. In fact, he returned in early 1947, went back later that year, came back to England with Bradman's Australians in the spring of 1948 and returned to Australia at the end of 1948 before making his final return to England in April 1949. I was thinking of writing a short section covering the "uncertain" years 1947–51 between the Australian section  and "Final years". How do you feel about ending "Australia" in 1947? Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

PS (unconnected): One of my lists from my polar period, long ago, is today's FL! That's a first for me (mind you, I only have two featured lists, both from my green and salad days, but still worth celebrating). Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I shall raise a glass of something suitably chilled later in the day to celebrate your arctic heroes. 1919 it was - my thought was that it is generally assumed that he was "Cricketer" or "N.C." until after the war, but that 1919 article is signed "Neville Cardus". Not a matter of great moment, but it was news to me. Happy to end Australia in 1947. I haven't done with it yet, though. I got happily sidetracked in Cardus's 1961 Beecham memoir, and will return to the business at hand later today.
 * I think the NC/Cricketer/Neville thing is probably a bit too esoteric to be of much interest to general readers, so maybe leave it? I'll go ahead and write my "unsettled years" bit, and we'll work out a smooth transition from your Australia piece. I'm thinking about an image for the Australian section; we haven't yet got one of Beecham in the article, though the free Beechams are from an earlier era. Maybe you have better ideas? Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Image for Australian section: perhaps File:BradmanAllenToss.jpg? Or one of my quartered composite images with the rather early Beecham image bundled up with C B Fry and Bradman and A N Other? I have just run across this, which made me chuckle: at the Palace to be knighted he grumbled loudly while waiting: "I've been through all this before when I got my CBE. You can't sit down, you can't get a drink and you can't spend a penny. I can't go through it all again. If they offer me a life peerage I shall turn it down." Is it worth including this as a footnote, in the honours section? Tim riley (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)                                                                              Tim riley (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Beecham, Fry, Bradman and another would be excellent, but let's give careful thought to the identity of the other. We don't want the composite to be over-orientated to cricket so we need a non-cricketing figure. That might be problematic - I'll give it consideration. The "spend-a-penny" anecdote will make an excellent footnote in the honours section, when that comes to be revised . Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(further Cardus discussion continued below)

Pressies
Santa has arrived. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope he has my address, and that the chimneys aren't blocked. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And that you're not on the naughty list. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Cardus (continued)
Delius quote: page number from Ten Composers now inserted. Rereading the Autobiography I wonder if Cardus's words about Sullivan on p. 242, which you quote, aren't perhaps tongue in cheek. He certainly liked the Savoy Operas, and I don't recall any clamour from him in the Guardian for revivals of The Golden Legend etc. (See the article on Isidore Godfrey for Cardus on G&S.) Tim riley (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's more Cardus on Godfrey than on G&S - he says nothing of the music itself. If you look at p. 102 of Second Innings you will see: "Savoy operas never influenced the course of my musical taste, though I heard much of them and liked them up to a point. But Sullivan did not warm my senses or moisten my eyes" - unlike, he goes on to say, Lehar's Vilia song (described in rhapsodic terms which I quote in the article). So I don't think there was much tongue in much cheek. Perhaps a bit of cultural snobbery? I know people who are reluctant to go beyond the "up to a point" level when professing their liking for G&S. I may even be one of them. Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Touché! I withdraw. And shall go and listen to one the five recordings I have of Godfrey conducting The Mikado. Tim riley (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to carry on about this but I must return to the fray. The attached makes it pretty clear, to my mind, that he rated the operas higher than the solemn stuff. By the bye, is "Vilia" a Cardus spelling? It's usually written as "Vilja", I think. Tim riley (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, Neville faced both ways on the matter of Sullivan's worth, professing different views at different times. I have modified the original comment, and added the 8.3.52 article as a reference. By all means tweak it a bit more if you like; I trust you completely to do the right thing, but we mustn't let this issue assume undue importance in the article. Cardus definitely uses the Vilia spelling; I have seen it spelt both ways, though probably "Vilja" is the more common, and as it is not part of a quote, I've altered it. The Fry-Beecham-Bradman tryptich will be excellent in the Australia section. I am currently pounding away at the London years, 1951-68, and if I can escape from writing bloody Christmas cards I should have that finished by this evening. The Australia section is looking great. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Sullivan reference seems ideal now: a deft and elegant solution. Tryptich added. Tim riley (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

On a separate issue, I've added a line about Fry in the Australia section, to help readers understand who he was without recourse to the link. I also suffer fits when G.O. Allen, not by any means a nice man, is referred to chummily in an encyclopedia as "Gubby" (an absurd nickname anyway) so I have formalised him. Change it back if you think I'm being petulant. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy with all that. There is a debate to be had about nicknames as article titles (anyone for the Liberal leader Jeremy Ashdown?) but on the whole I agree with you that the formal/baptismal name is the one to use in these pages. Tim riley (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicknames (however absurd) are OK in sports articles and general journalism, but an encyclopedia should be a bit different. Who's Who has "Ashdown, Jeremy John Durham (Paddy)". It also has "Woods, Eldrick (Tiger)". Brianboulton (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Brookes has got himself muddled over the Hallé concert to re-open the Free Trade Hall. The Queen opened the hall on 16 Nov 1951, at which event Ferrier sang Land of H&G. There is nothing in the Guardian archive to suggest that Cardus was present: the paper's coverage of the concert had no by-line (and ergo wasn't by NC, surely). The concert at which Cardus felt the Mancunian exile's emotions as quoted at length by Brookes was not, as Brookes says, the Ferrier one, but one two days later. I have recast the sentence slightly to reflect this; please re-recast if you aren't happy with my wording. – Tim riley (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine; biographical works sometimes get things wrong (I've noticed errors in Daniels, too). Well done for spotting it, and feel free to make any other adjustments where necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Cardus (part 3)
A bit of the detail presently in the "Reputation" section will be absorbed into a brief "Last years" section I am about to write. I also intend to provide a paragraph dealing with a subject avoided thus far - Neville's private life (Barbe Ede etc). I don't think we should make too much of his amorous liaisons, which were by no means deceitful in nature, but it is part of the picture of the man which we need to present as fully as we can. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We should definitely mention his cricket wife and his music wife too - Margaret Hughes and Else Mayer-Linsman, I think. As we round into the home straight, three points occur to me:


 * The punctuation, capitalisation and referencing style must be internally consistent. For example:
 * the Manchester Guardian (BB) or The Manchester Guardian (TR and all right-thinking persons)
 * a comma in phrases like "At first, x did y"; "In April 1952, q did z"; I think you incline to use the comma; I don't. Anyhow, we are both inconsistent: see the openings of the last four paras of Australia and of the first and third paras of Years of uncertainty.
 * I suggest you take control, as the lead contributor, and apply your preferred forms of punct, referencing etc, with which I will happily comply. But I'm equally happy to undertake the task if you prefer.


 * We don't, I think, mention anywhere that NC was staunchly secular. Perhaps his memorial service might be a place to mention it?
 * The old crack about proving anything with statistics is true on WP: if you look here you will see that I appear to be the chief contributor, with you as runner up. Che ingiustizia!, as Basilio says in Figaro. I reckon something like three quarters of the article is written by you.  Tim riley (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Margaret and Else are not forgotten. If you are willing to take on the chore of sorting out style and punctuation consistencies (to accord with your preferences, which are doubtless more educated than mine) I would be immensely grateful, as I fuss around with the final prose sections. When the draft text is complete, I will do what I always do with my articles, which is a thinning-out process to get rid of all unnecessary or longwinded prose. By this means I usually manage a 10 per cent reduction, with no loss of relevant material.

I think the "Books by Cardus" list needs a slight rethink. Daniels's Celebrant of Beauty is by no means "by Cardus"; about 60%, maybe more, is by Daniels. The same might be true, perhaps to a lesser degree, with some of the other posthumous publications. I think the list needs some differentiation, and I am giving thought to how this may best be done.

One way or another, I can't see the article being ready for independent review before the middle-to-end of next week, and what with the holidays, I am inclined to think that we should keep it under wraps until the New Year. What do you think? Incidentally, I have no problem whatever with our relative edit counts. They may be a bit closer by the time the article is finished, but if not, so what? Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As a retired civil servant of forty years' service I am a strong proponent of masterly inactivity. By all means let us wait till the new year to launch Sir N on an unexpecting world. Meanwhile I shall gladly undertake the standardisation of our punctuation etc. Tim riley (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Brookes confusing the facts again, I see. The last issue of The Manchester Guardian was on Saturday 22 August 1959. From Monday 24 the paper was The Guardian. It didn't move its editorial HQ to London until 1964. 1960, as in Brookes and the current article, is wrong in either case. See Tim riley (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Brookes has a lot to answer for. I have corrected the dates and re-referenced. Should other such instances come to light, as well they might, please feel free to put things right; I am not especially protective of my prose (well, not always) Brianboulton (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (PS: Note the hidden clerihew in the above post)

Orphaned non-free media (File:NikolaiRoerichRite1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:NikolaiRoerichRite1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

infobox rites
hello. I was hoping you might get in touch, though unfortunate we should start in a confrontation. I saw the note in the text about infoboxes and duly read both the linked style suggestions and the talk page. The style suggestions linked specifically refer to articles which are the biographies of composers. As such I was a little at a loss to understand why it had been linked, because it would not apply to an article about a ballet. Did you add that? My own experience has been that although infoboxes might not have been adopted by policy, they are universally added to articles. What they do do, is create a quick reference point for anyone seeking specific basic facts.

I read the talk page too, and the only comment I could find there suggesting any sort of consensus on the subject was one posting asking for one to be included. As I see it, there is no evidence of any discussion at all on this matter, though I noted you yourself removed the infobox which had been in the article for some time. I left a comment there too, and I shall shortly have a look to see if anyone has commented.

Now I agree the infobox doesnt much help the scene image. My inclination is that the infobox needs some other image, I would have loved  a program cover, or a closeup of something.

No, i dont plan to delete the infobox, because I dont see any evidence anyone except yourself disliked it. I fear you are being a little possessive about this article, (I see you have written much of it?). This is wikipedia, you know. Sandpiper (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I got here because I have been editing 'afternnon of a faun' and the Vaslav Nijinsky articles lately. So eventually I got to this one and was delighted to see a real genuine article already existed. In the case of 'faun', as I think I alluded to somewhere, the article has been split into separate articles describing the music and the ballet (in fact, two ballet articles, or stubs anyway, for the distinct productions). This isnt quite the same, because here the music was specially commisioned and grew up with the intention of adding dance, but on the other hand this article is beginning to get a bit long.Sandpiper (talk)


 * First, you are wrong in your assumption that infoboxes are "universally added to articles". There are certainly areas in Wikipedia where they are avoided, including nearly all classical music articles, be these composer biographies, opera articles or about other individual music pieces. The consensus among involved editors has generally been respected when such articles have been presented to the review process; infoboxes are not present in any of the 30-odd classical music articles which have reached featured status. There have of course been many discussions on this issue: see for example the Talk:Georg Solti page, and indeed my own efforts to find some compromise with the box-lovers, on Talk: Gustav Mahler.
 * but this is a ballet, not an opera, composer biography or indeed musical piece. I have come across issues like this before, where transferring from one project demarcation to another, suddenly someone has a strong view on how to interpret guidelines which is completely opposite to  some other project. Perhaps you can better explain wy music feels it is unique in how it should be presented? Sandpiper (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that your box doesn't help the scene image is rather beside the point at issue. What do you think boxes are for? My view is that boxes can sometimes provide accurate summary information as a service to  the casual reader, but in some cases they can mislead rather than inform. In this case, the box is solely concerned with information on the ballet to the exclusion of the concert version,  and  gives primacy to Nijinsky above the composer. Anyone consulting the box would be not only underinformed, they'd be misinformed. Please ask yourself the question: What does this box add to the article? On the matter of the lead image, the question is not so much about what is most suitable but what is available within the scope of the US copyright laws. The Roersch backdrop is presented under a fair use rationale; it is a lovely image, but if you can find one that is free, then by all means suggest it.
 * You suggested on my page that an objection to the box was that it spoiled display of the image, so i replied here on that. I dont understand how the box gives primacy to the choreographer over the composer since both are mentioned. Are you objecting to the box because it lists the choreographer first? If so, surely you should take that up on the infobox page. The music was designed to be a ballet, which as I undertsand it is unusual for music which becomes a ballet. As to boxes in general I was at first somewhat bemused by them but I see their advantages. Most of all, since some like to have them, I see no objection to their being present. Those that like to look at a checklist can do so, others can simply ignore it. I dont really understand why this is worth arguing about to remove them? They have beome a house style for wikipedia. I ask you, how do they detract from the article?


 * You raise the spectre of ownership. You should acquaint yourself with this guideline, which makes a sharp distiction between ownership and "stewardship". Having led the effort by which the Rite article was raised to FA and TFA status, I think it's my responsibility, not just my right, to see that changes to the article by subsequent (and not always well-informed) editors are consistent with the article's standing. This does not mean preserving the article in aspic, and changes for the better are to be welcomed. But the guideline does set out a protocol for such introducing such changes, in particular: "... the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly." Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have noted a regrettable tendency on wikipedia for articles labelled as FA to indeed become aspicated. Eventually their cumulative errors catch up with them and they are changed. Frequently against the opposition of those who rewrote them last. I have already posted some serious objections to the content on the talk page, rather than this which I frankly thought would be uncontroversial and trivial. Its just a detail of presentation, not an issue of serious article content. Sandpiper (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry to see that a single user is attempting to overturn the consensus established during this article's rigorous reviewing during its promotion to Featured Article. User:Sandpaper is, of course, entitled to his/her views, but the consensus is very well established, and we don't want a single editor attempting to impose his/her WP:OWN views as Sandpiper might be considered to be doing. Tim Riley (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone please point out where this debate took place? As I mentioned somewhwere, thus far the only comment I have seen on this is another editor apart from myself requesting inclusion of an infobox. The genral coonsensus on wikipedia is that placing an infobox on a page is uncontroversial. Sandpiper (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have copied this lot to the artcicle talk page, so perhaps we should continue the debate there?Sandpiper (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Britten and Penderecki
Hi, Brianboulton. Just so you are aware, I am planning to work on both Benjamin Britten and Krzysztof Penderecki, and get them up to FA status so we can feature them as TFAs on 22 November (the 100th anniversary of Britten's birth) and 23 November (the 80th birthday of Penderecki). I am working on these in my sandbox (Britten sandbox and Penderecki sandbox). The relevant discussions can be found at Talk:Krzysztof Penderecki and Talk:Benjamin Britten. I should be grateful if you have any pointers as to the main work, in your opinion, that needs to be undertaken for both Britten and Penderecki. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I shall be pleased to see someone working on the Britten article; I have from time to time considered this as a project myself. I regret that, for the moment, I won't be able to give time to it. One thing to bear in mind: 22 November 2013 is the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination, so I think your chances of getting Britten as TFA on that date are approximately zero. You may have a chance with Penderecki the next day, though. Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends on who is scheduling TFAs in November, what the Kennedy alternatives are and how much of a classical music fan (or Kennedy fan) the scheduler is. FYI, Sjones, I think your idea of a Britten FA is an excellent one (!) and I happen to be a UK-based classical music fan.  Oh, and I'm one of the four people who decides what should be the TFA... Whether even I would schedule two composers two days running, though, I'm not sure. Try me in November! BencherliteTalk 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer review/Music for a Time of War/archive1
Thank you for taking the time to conduct a thorough review of the article. Your feedback is much appreciated. I have not yet addressed all concerns, but I did respond to a majority of the comments by both reviewers. Feel free to cross out or cap addressed concerns (if you do that...) or reply to any of my responses. I look forward to wrapping up my work on the article before taking it to GAN, then eventually FAC. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please let me know how it gets on at GAN. I would like, if you agree, to take another look before you take it to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

John Le Mesurier
Hi Brian, After something of a hiatus we've finished off the polishing of the John Le Mesurier article. When you have some spare time, would you be able to have another look prior to an FA nomination? Many thanks if you are able to: your thoughts were invaluable at the PR and we want to make sure that we've dealt with them accordingly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll read it through again, either today or tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Brian! All the best. SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Magic Flute discography, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Tomlinson and Barry Banks (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) 09:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Cardus again
I'm really not sure what to do about listing The Essential Neville Cardus in the bibliography. It contains a brief introductory sketch of Cardus by Hart-Davis, and then part one – 232 pages – "Cricket", chosen by H-D, which comprises selections from Days In the Sun, The Summer Game, Cricket, Good Days and Australian Summer and two new pieces reprinted from The Manchester Guardian; part two, chosen by Cardus – 61 pages –consists of four chapters from Ten Composers (Schubert, Wagner, Strauss and Elgar). I'm minded to list it under Cricket, putting a note alongside about the four musical essays. Or we could leave it where it is with a slightly longer explanatory note, perhaps. Pray ponder. – Tim Riley (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Afterthought: in his intro Hart-Davis says (p. 13) of NC in the 1930s: "Several attempts were made by London papers to lure him from Manchester, but he preferred the freedom and the tradition of the Guardian." Possibly worth a mention, though I can't readily see where it would comfortably fit in. Tim Riley (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Essential Neville Cardus is clearly not biographical in the sense that the others are. For want of a better idea I have reclassified it as "General anthology", where presently it stands alone; possibly other books would be better there? I don't know. I have worked the bit about him staying loyal to th MG into the last para of the "Music critic" section where it fits OK I think. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

rite of spring
I have replied on the article talk page.Sandpiper (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Camberwell Duty
Have a splendid Christmas! My regards to thee and thine. Normal service to resume after the festive season. Tim Riley (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Tomcat (7) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. --Tomcat (7) 14:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

 * Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from a long-time admirer of your work. Finetooth (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hyphenation of adjectives
Hello Brain. I recently added a hyphen to a compound adjective used attributively in your excellent Cosima article (at French-language magazine). I am, however, a bit uncertain about the phrasal adjective in the next sentence: "In December 1859 she was saddened by the death of her brother Daniel, at the age of 20, after a long wasting illness ". Does the underlined adjective require a hyphen? The WP article on compound modifiers does indeed give me that impression, though I am no native speaker of English, so I thought I would like to discuss this interesting grammatical question with you. Season's greetings, Eisfbnore (会話) 18:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No hyphen. "Long" and "wasting" are discrete adjectives, not parts of a compound. A comma after "long" might clarify this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Brian,

After coming across a typo in your about me section, I felt obligated to fix it; I hope you don't mind. Sorry for the message bar.  ceran  thor 03:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I'm most grateful. I'm amazed that anyone reads the thing, let alone takes the trouble to correct it. And I quite enjoy seeing orange message bars, at this quiet time of the year. A Happy New Year to you, and much prosperity. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Cardus again
Nearly there! I see you have added an info-box, which I think is almost certainly the right thing to do for this article: existing FAs on English writers have boxes, I doubt if a box will be too much of an irritant for music-lovers in this case, and cricket fans who visit the page will probably welcome one – just a shame we can't add NC's first class stats, as he hasn't got any. – Tim Riley (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Afterthought. In the experimental feedback pages a reader posted this four months ago asking for links to Cardus's articles. I wonder if it would be worthwhile adding these two to an External Links section at the end: Cardus on the Bodyline tour of 1932-33 and Cardus on Jardine Tim Riley (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On the infobox, neither the Langford nor the Newman articles have them, but those articles are relatively undeveloped. C.P. Scott has one. Among the literary biographies that have made it to FA, infoboxes seem to be the norm – I included them with Evelyn Waugh and Talbot Baines Reed. So I think the Cardus box is non-controversial. As to the external links you suggest, by all means add them; I knocked out a couple of useless ones earlier, but these seem not to be without interest. Check first that I didn't use either of the articles as sources. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points all. You have indeed linked in the refs to NC's analysis of the bodyline series, and I've therefore put in only a single external link. Tim Riley (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

JLM
Hi Brian, I hope you had a very good Christmas and are still enjoying a well-deserved seasonal break. Shortly before the festivities commenced, you very kindly offered to have a look over the John Le Mesurier article to clear up any errors (largely inserted by me, I'm afraid). We would very much like to take you up on that offer whenever you are able to find the time and energy; the three of us—myself, Cassianto and Dr. Blofeld—are all extremely grateful for the offer and your efforts. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian, Many thanks for picking up on this again. In terms of his private life, the specifics (and references) are all covered in the Personal life section further down the article, but to answer your questions:
 * The Melville/JLM marriage was in trouble straight after the war and the two separated shortly after his return from India; it was finally dissolved in 1949. Le Mez had been seeing Jacques since 1947 (after the separation), and she proposed to him after his divorce, with their marriage in November 1949.
 * No specific date on the move to BStE, by McCann (p 8) says it was when "when baby John was little more than a year old".
 * The Gielgud Hamlet started in Streatham in the Spring of 1935 (it went on to tour Manchester, Edinburgh & Leeds amongst other places)—all in McCann, p 69
 * Many thanks, and if there are any more questions, please let me know. All the best – SchroCat (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Readers read through articles in sequence. They must be advised, however briefly, of  when Hattie Jacques became Le M's wife; otherwise, like me, they will wonder what's going on. I will insert an appropriate phrase. Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brian, not sure about some of the edits you made here, I thought mention of the Palladium and the Blackpool and Manchester theatres was relevant.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's up to you, of course, but I found the detailing of repertory performances somewhat excessive and tiresome to read, so I trimmed a bit. If you and the other main contributing editors want to restore any of my cuts, that's fine by me. (I won't be working on the article now until tomorrow) Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of the trimming and can see why you found it tiresome, the exact dates of the theatre seasons for instance, but I thought it useful to mention those theatres. Perhaps Schrod or Cass could offer a view. All the best for 2013 Brian, and may we see many more quality articles from you! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that in this instance it may be a case of "less is more"; there doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about the details (in other words it doesn't matter if it was the Prince's Theatre or any other Mancunian theatre), the point is he toured. If we add too mauch in the way of detail we lose the narrative thread and flow. We still have all the details within the project, however, with the dates and locations all listed in full in the John Le Mesurier on stage, radio, screen and record article. that's just my thought anyway - Cass may think otherwise! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, I agree entirely with Brian. The non-notable rep performances were too much for the main article, and are best left to the list. So much so I trimmed some of this a week or two ago. By the way, sorry for the lack of input of late, but family life has dominated over the festive period. Should be back to normal now.  Hope your well Brian! --   Cassianto Talk    22:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, its true that the filmography lists the dates and theatres. As I said I agree with most of Brian's edits in regard to making it easier to read, but I didn't see a problem with mentioning some of the theatres he performed in over a long space of time.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)