User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 86

The name's Cat... SchroCat....
Many thanks for your recent thoughts and comments at the informal PR for Casino Royale (novel): The changes you suggested have been taken on board and implemented, and the article is much, much stronger than it was before. As such, I've gone ahead and opened the FAC, and I hope you will have time to have another look through at some point in the future. Thanks again. – SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Bedřich Smetana
I picked up an excellent recording of Bedřich Smetana polkas performed by András Schiff at the record store and looked up Smetana's article while I was listening. I was glad to see it in such capable hands. Very interesting biography, and great compositions. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Andy, for the kind words. I have not looked at the Smetana article in quite a while, and I dare say it could do with some attention now. It's one of my perennial good intentions to update my early FAs, but somehow... well, other things supervene. Incidentally, it is good to see you active and in harness again, and more power to your elbow. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
  Not lost

Thank you for your profound revelation of Monteverdi's "lost operas", you give us the background, your plots are convincing, the staging seems almost visible, - not lost after all, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (3 August 2010, 3 September 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Three years ago, you were the seventh recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is kind of you to remember. I hope to return to music article writing shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You may want to remove the link to a discussion on top of this page, archived and not really relevant anymore, looking at 118 inclusions of infobox opera today, and not only to obscure works ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't resist Today's featured article/requests/Margaret Bondfield, please prune, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See my note on your request page. An Irish-related article would be better for this date, but if none can be found I'm OK with Bondfield. I will edit the blurb. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Closing TFAR nominations
If you're scheduling "Article X" for 32nd February: ===February 32===
 * 1) Open Today's featured_article/requests/Article X
 * 2) Close the nomination using subst: with "no" or "yes+date" (this bit is fine)
 * 3) This then produces a closed, archived nomination, neatly categorized into successful/unsuccessful nominations categories.  This is how is should stay!
 * 4) To remove it from further discussion at TFAR, you need to navigate back to WP:TFAR, open it, and look in the wikitext for this:
 * 1) Remove both lines.
 * 2) Remove the entry for "Article X" from the summary table.

Then you're OK. I think what's happening is you're opening the "Article X" subpage by clicking "edit" while on the TFAR page, which opens the subpage not TFAR, then thinking back to the good ol' days before transcluded subpages when we removed nominations by blanking sections of TFAR... Now we keep the discussion in perpetuity, and just shuffle the transcluded subpages onto TFAR and off again. Hope this makes a bit of sense. BencherliteTalk 16:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, it should make sense, but I'm having one of my much-interrupted, multi-tasking days today (making bread among other things) and my work is consequently error-strewn. We'll see if I properly understand in a few days, when I resume scheduling. Thanks for your patience. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Blackrock at FAC
Hi there. I'm leaving this message to everyone who commented on the Murder of Leigh Leigh FAC nomination. As you showed interest in that nomination, it might interest you to know that the article for the feature film that was inspired by the murder, Blackrock (film), is now also nominated for FAC, see here. All comments on the nomination are welcome. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=646973593 your edit] to Mary Celeste may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * accountid=17321|newspaper= The Manchester Guardian|date= 13 February 1873|page= 6}} }}subscription   |group= n  Hastings records that she "rotted on wharves where nobody wanted her".

Today's featured article/March 4, 2015
Doesn't seem to be a FA. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The featured article is History of Bradford City A.F.C., as per the "Full article" link. The Bradford City A.F.C. article is a different animal entirely. I think that, not surprisingly, you were misled by the link in the first line. It might be as well to remove that link, since the article to which it goes is pretty much rubbish. I hope all is clear now. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I changed the link. Providing the link to the article in question would be a service, - it didn't occur to me to look under Full article ;) - I was surprised that a sports topic was chosen without an obvious date connection while we discuss a team for any date, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I see. - Dank (push to talk) 01:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I got the first sentence. I'm stumped on how to summarize the rest; I don't know which bits football fans would consider the most important. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go at it – I'm not a football fan, but I do understand the basics of the sport. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See Today's featured article/March 4, 2015 for my effort. Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/March 5, 2015
Thoughts on the format I've used here for the Featured Topic message? Crisco 1492? Bencherlite likes the way we've been doing it, but I'd rather not try to explain to someone that I had to cut two lines from their summary (compared to the standard summary length) without some good reason. (Alternatively: if ITN doesn't mind if I take up an extra couple of lines for the Featured Topic notice, then I'd like to have another couple of lines for the TFA paragraph, whether it's a Featured Topic or not. ITN prefers consistency, too.) Another option would be to put the FT message after "Full article", inside the same parentheses, i.e.: "(Full article. Also see the ... featured topic)". - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I kinda prefer the original format, as FT is not related to the previous articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never had, or spotted, any complaints about blurb length relating to FT-related blurbs, whether from FA writers or at ITN, FWIW. BencherliteTalk 08:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Brian, thank you for scheduling this article, but I'd rather wait for November 21, the anniversary of the Revolt of the Lash. Would that be possible? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian, If you're looking for a replacement I'd be happy to write some blurb for S&M (song)...? - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no problem in replacing the battleship.  I am balancing the topics quite carefully, and I need to replace like with (more or less) like,   but  I was  planning to run a Rihanna song on 7 March and am happy to make this S&M (song). The blurb writing should be coordinated with Dank. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The blurb I wrote is now at Today's featured article/requests/Brazilian battleship São Paulo. - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The battleship article has been replaced  for 5 March, at The ed17's request, and I am now running Today's featured article/March 5, 2015. For some reason this has not transcluded to Today's featured article/March 2015, which is still showing the São Paulo blurb. Likewise, my effort at the football blurb for 4 March shows at Today's featured article/March 4, 2015 while Today's featured article/March 2015 still shows your earlier draft. I am too stupid to know what needs to be done to resolve these issues, and am waiting for Benchelite or someone to advise me. Your São Paulo blurb can be kept in cold storage until November, when I understand Ed wants to run the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The stupidity is entirely on the part of the computers that aren't updating transclusions as fast as they should. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your football TFA looks great, thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. I'm going to have to copyedit the football article, as the main editor is AWOL. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You should, if I remember right, be able to purge the cache of Today's featured article/March 2015 so that it updates. Thank you all very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right of course. I should have remembered – no doubt I'll forget again. But thanks – all seems well now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Tosca
Hi Brian, see Talk:Tosca. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Mary celeste
additional book; 'The mystery of the ghost ship Marie celeste' by Ellen Regan, published recently in Ireland. Any good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.121.6 (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a kids' book, written for the 6–9 age group. I have seen it in my local library. It's a simplified version of the story that incorporates numerous inventions and inaccuracies, and is utterly useless as a source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Change to your TFA notifications
Brian, I was initially hoping that I would be able to write all the TFA paragraphs quickly after you made your selections, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Please delete "The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary" from the notifications you're putting on users' talk pages; I'll add my usual notice to their talk pages as soon as I get their TFA paragraph done. (Or if you prefer, we could do it the same way Crisco and I do it ... namely, I do all the notifications, except of course I could add "Brian has selected ..." to it. Either way). - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The notification I've been using is a hangover from our pre-cordinator days and should be retired. It would make more sense and save me time if you do the notifications as you do with Crisco. Whether you mention me is up to you, but maybe we should treat all selections as a joint responsibility, regardless of which of us did the actual pick. Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been using a link to the TFA page for Crisco's selection's, followed by: "A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Does the article need more work before its day on the Main Page?" Does that work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, works fine. Thanks for suggesting it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The sweet smell of PR
Dear Brian, Yet another request for PR help, I'm afraid, although this one comes with an ready-made opportunity for a pun or two while comparing the subject matter to the content and prose! It concerns the Great Stink, a relatively brief event in London history that has had a beneficial effect that we all enjoy to this day. The PR can be found here, if you have the time to spare. If you don't, no worries! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, you do find some subjects! I would like to have thought of that. On Friday I'm busy "co-ordinating", on Saturday I've a duty day in Oxford (while you, Tim et al are presumably boozing away in the Wehwalt Arms) and I have loose ends to deal with on Sunday. But come the beginning of next week I'll be more than happy to look at the PR. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no rush on this at all. I'm not swilling down the red on Saturday: child care duties have already reserved my time for the day, so I will be looking after a bouncy 4 year old, rather than acting like one! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Ian Rose
Any thoughts, particularly what to do about March 5? Would it be possible to omit the "Sirs" on the theory that there are a lot more "Sirs" thans admirals? - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Same question for Today's featured article/March 13, 2015. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In regard to 5 March: military ranks are not quite the same things as ordinary prenominals, as they indicate the right of a person to do certain things, e.g. give orders or command fleets. In the blurb I'd get rid of the "sir" bits, and say something like: "...saved only by the bold actions of the squadron's commander, Vice-Admiral Cornwallis. Detached to reinforce Rear-Admiral Nelson's fleet in 1798 under Admiral Jervis..." etc. Of course, the names will be pipe-linked. In regard to 12 March, definitely get rid of the "sir". This I think should be general policy. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Initial TFA pages
I'm hoping editors will copy some of my changes over to their articles. To make it easier to see those changes in the diff, I'll first paste the article lead (with wikitext) onto the TFA page, then replace it with my tweaked version. This duplicates your work to some extent ... so if you guys want to put up no text when you create the page, or put up the article lead text, I'll work with whatever you give me. - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I usually post the first couple of paragraphs, or the whole lead if it's short enough, as a holding measure until you've had time to do your work. As to "hoping editors will copy some of my changes", you are of course able to make those changes yourself, if you feel they improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Crisco, your thoughts on this? Would you prefer that I start engaging the FAC nominators to get a sense of which of my tweaks they'd prefer I copy over into the article leads? - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would have to be on a case-by-case basis. I agree with Bencherlite that not all changes should be implemented (like trimming to meet the 1200 character limit). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Crisco, I think Brian is asking me to do more than I'm doing, but I'm not sure what you're saying. I can do more, and I'm experimenting with doing more today with the Febrary TFAs. I'm working on a copyediting disclaimer that I can post in the article history so that people will understand that there are two sides to copyediting the article lead to reflect some of the changes in the TFA paragraph. It's not a one-sided, black-and-white issue, as it's sometimes portrayed. Please take a look at what I'm doing in the article leads and let me know if it's about right, or you want more or less. - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean, if there are certain changes to verbiage meant to clarify things, it should be alright, but obviously we're not going to be cutting out information for the TFA blurb. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dank: No, I'm not asking you to do more than you're doing, I'm merely saying that if you think while preparing your blurb that something in the lead could be better expressed, then you can make that change in the article yourself. Obviously you do this with care, and only in the area of rephrasing, as Crisco indicates. Brianboulton (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can do that. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/March 9, 2015 & Today's featured article/March 8, 2015
Kahaani, an Indian woman-centric film ("Kahaani explores themes of feminism and motherhood in male-dominated Indian society.") is scheduled for 9 March. Kahaani may be apt on Women's day, a day earlier. Lost Luggage (video game) is scheduled for 8th. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 08:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * May be worth doing, but wasn't Kahaani a TFAR nomination? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ohh. Just saw Today's featured article/requests/Kahaani. IMO, probably will get more eyeballs on women's day, considering its theme. Also, it was released on 9 March, Friday (when movies are traditionally released in India) next to Women's day. Inviting the nominator and FA nominators, ,  and  for thoughts. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 09:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 8th March would be a great day as well, I agree. -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  06:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll also go with 8th March. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't follow this discussion, who wants what etc. I am leaving the scheduling as it is, and per the original TFAR nom. Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Bizet's buddy
Can I interest you in a peer review of Camille Saint-Saëns? I'm hoping to get the old boy up to FA standard, and comments at PR will be greatly appreciated, if you have time and inclination. –  Tim riley  talk    16:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Tillman
Benjamin Tillman is at FAC, as you asked me to remind you of at the PR. Hope you had a pleasant weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A sure thing. My schedule of outstanding reviews, which I will begin to Tackle on Monday (23rd) reads:
 * Stephen I of Hungary (long overdue promise to FAC)
 * The Great Stink PR as promised to SchroCat, above
 * Camille Saint-Saëns PR as requested by Tim, above
 * Tillman (the other great stink), FAC.

I will have to do Stephen first, then probably Tillman, which shouldn't take long. The longer PRs will follow. Ich werde meine Rache, as Gerda absolutely never says. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My German is shaky ... does that mean "I become my revenge", or "I will have my revenge", or something completely different? - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The latter. My German is spasmodic, confined to phrases I've picked up from reading history or, more likely, from German opera. Most of the phrases are not useful in everyday life – I don't get many opportunities to say "Der Vogelfänger bin ich ja". Brianboulton (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is why I don't get far in Germany, there is a limit to how often you can use rolling Wagnerian phrases such as "verfluchte Weib!" I think I grabbed rache out of Sherlock Holmes ... Could I ask you to look back in on Tillman?  A reviewer has expressed certain concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mary Celeste, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Providence. 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) 09:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

1876 London dog poisonings
Good evening BB. I came across London dog poisonings in an article and thought it might be the sort of topic you or  might be interested in writing about. I don't know if it was that notable, but it does seem potentially interesting to research and write if possible, even if a start class entry.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Blimey! That's obscure, even for me! Although let me have a look to see what there is around! - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember this story, from a year or so ago. I'm sure a google search would reveal a lot more. Bizarre, but not something that really grabs my interest, being neither a Londoner nor a dog. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you're not a ship gone AWOL either, that didn't stop you hehe! Not sure if enough can be found for a starter article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or so you say, anyway... BencherliteTalk 18:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Woof, woof. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget – Reminder to self
18 March 2015: Margaret Bondfield is TFA. Reminder dated 21:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which ... in your lead section, I get no hits on "unemployment benefit" (without the final s) as a noun. I get a few hits in AmEng as an adjective, but I don't trust those. Is this what Brits say? If so, I'm having trouble parsing that without a "the" in front. - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we use "unemployment benefit" and the plural form interchangeably. The singular form  is often used to refer to the total budget for unemployment relief, in the way that you might say "welfare". I've no objection if you want to add an "s", but not "the" – that would read wrongly. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, since it doesn't sound wrong to you, I'll add the "s". Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Double portion?? Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

More of a stink...
Hi Brian, Many thanks for your help on the Great Stink. The article is now at FAC for further consideration, should you wish to partake further. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Composers
Apropos of the coda to your comments at the Saint-Saëns peer review, it occurs to me that having just closed that page down and moved on to FAC, I have left no obvious place for you to comment on my enquiry whether Ravel might appeal as a topic. I am working (slowly) on an overhaul backstage. It's one of those tricky ones where there is a certain amount of decent content in the existing article that must in conscience be incorporated into the overhaul, unlike Camille, whose article had about half a dozen citations from beginning to end, and which I was therefore able to rewrite from scratch. I don't really see you as a Ravellian, but if I'm mistaken I'd be glad to work with you on him. I still have RVW on the back-burner pending the return of Alfie Tucker from the numerous quotidian demands on him. There was some talk of giving the Richard Strauss page the treatment (which God knows it needs). The Debussy article is not very good, but somehow I can't raise much enthusiasm for working on him at the moment. I chuck these random thoughts in for you to make what, if anything, you like of them, or to propose a counter-offer. I pause for breath now, and have the honour to remain,
 * Yours to command,
 *  Tim riley  talk    18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right in your instinct that Ravel c'est pas mon genre – I would be a very weak co-worker, as I have no real knowledge of him or his music, bar a few well-known lollipops that everybody knows. Much the same is true for Debussy. My vaguely-promised next composer article, which I have touted with you before, will probably be Samuel Coleridge-Taylor, for whom I have acquired some reasonable source material – but getting started is proving problematic. I get easily distracted by other things:  sea stories, shipwrecks, hunger marchers and so on. And of course, my main page duties, which  are slowing down my output significantly. After Mary Celeste  (soon to be an all-action peer review), C-T is currently third in my line of projects, which at my present rate means probably June/July. If you were to come on board, though, I might promote him up the order. I  won't even ask if you want to help with my long-term (not before 2016) intention to improve Claudio Monteverdi, but C-T might be fun. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to sign up for C-T, and summer would suit me well. If you think he's off the beaten track, I am committed to SchroCat to work with him on Albert W. Ketèlbey at some point!  Tim riley  talk    22:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)