User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 99

Talbot Baines Reed
Thanks for all your contributions on the Garamond peer review! I'm getting it ready for an FA nom now.

Incidentally, I just saw that you brought the Talbot Baines Reed article up to featured status, so it may interest you to know that there's a good write-up on his work in the printing history line by James Mosley who was once librarian at the St Bride Library where his collection went to - this is a bit of an amateur interest of mine so I was reading through Mosley's blog for things to cite after using it in the Garamond (and other) articles. I suppose it came too late to be included your work on the article, but I've cited where it seemed appropriate as it's a nice, accessible source. Blythwood (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nelson's Pillar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork. 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) 10:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

TFA wishes
I tried - as you probably know - to have Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 ready for Easter 2016. A delegate said "almost there", so I still hope. I am sorry that due to death in the family and vacation I could not be as active as I had hoped. For more planning: I hope to develop Requiem (Reger), which would be most suitable on the centenary of his death 11 May, but that is soon. Possible other dates: centenary of first performance 16 July, or generally thinking of the dead 2 November. - Once I am here: 27 September (possibly, but we will never know for sure) centenary of Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161. - I have good memories of Harnoncourt performances of Ulisse and Poppea. RIP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I  very much hope to run Christ lag this Easter, and  will use a temporary placeholder   for 27th should your article not be through FAC when I  schedule next Wednesday or Thursday. But I expect  it will have been promoted by then. On the Reger, I don't set much store by death centenaries unless they are national/international events (Kennedy etc), and anyway the July date looks more practical. September seems a long way away. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A source review is the last check required for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ian Rose, should I ping people who supported? They may have unwatched already, thinking all was done? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If no one picks it up, I'll do it myself tomorrow (Monday). It does not look particularly onerous. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that! Mincham is a topic we should perhaps discuss (again), I don't know where, perhaps Classical music again. From the position of a reader: to have in one Bach cantata a section relying almost exclusively on Mincham (BWV 122, and others), while in another he gets barely mentioned (now BWV 4), looks not consistent to me. For BWV 143, I tried to balance a version of mainly Mincham + liner notes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ellen Wilkinson
Hi Brian. I made a couple of changes to Ellen Wilkinson, which I hope have helped, and left some talk page comments. It is an excellent article and I very much enjoyed reading it (I don't often read TFAs in full, but I try to when I see it is one of yours). Carcharoth (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this message. It is my invariable practice, when one of "my" articles is TFA, not to get involved on the day itself, but to deal with any issues in the calmer atmosphere a couple of days later. I'll be checking Ellen out later today. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: please continue to monitor my edits on the Pillar – an extra pair of eyes is always useful. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

O heavy burden!
Once the traffic at Shaw slows down, could you take a look at William Howard Taft, presently at PR? I warn you in advance, the article befits the man, some might say.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC).
 * How smart a lash that [request] doth give my conscience! So yes, of course, I will contribute my 400lb-worth. There may be a short delay. Brianboulton (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Pillar
Brian, I thought you might be interested in this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35787116 Aa77zz (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, this is excellent, especially the Alan Whicker film clip. Some great pics which, alas, we won't be able to use. I particularly liked the one of the statue viewed through the mesh on the gallery; in 1965, when I was a little lad, I climbed the Pillar and this is exactly what I remember seeing. Unfortunately the day was wet and misty, and I didn't get to see much of the view. Never got another chance. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nelson's Pillar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Lenihan. 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) 10:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Nelson's Pillar
I am dropping a note off to let you know that I am mostly done for now at the Nelson's Pillar article (version being referred to here). It may be best if I wait now until you have done the drafting and porting over of the final few sections (and then writing the lead section) and then I can have another look over it. I hope the changes and talk page suggestions (mostly polishing at the edges) have been helpful. I'm going to list a few of them here to try and pull some things together (but feel free to respond at the article talk page instead). Apologies if the above and the editing activity over the past few days has been a bit frenetic at times. Hopefully this summary will help. I will try and stay back a bit now until you have finished up the remaining sections. Carcharoth (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Article changes: these can mostly be seen in the following diffs: ; ; and . All those changes are mine except the de Valera comment you added and the two edits by Greentide (demolition dates, co-ordinates). The changes I made were: copyediting (mostly spelling and links, plus some textual clarifications), adding two 'see also' links, the Butler House picture, the O'Connell Memorial picture (later removed), an image caption expansion, a fair number of authorlinks, adding a sourced footnote on the inscriptions, adding a sourced footnote on the 1894 architectural changes, removing the galleries of images of doubtful provenance, changing the Commons link to a gallery page rather than the category page, tidying the 'see also' links, tidying the external links and adding some new external links, removing one category, and adding a citeweb template for the existing Nelson Pillar Act reference. I also did corrections to the footnote formatting and metadata here, providing a separate link for that so you can double-check no errors made there.
 * Talk page suggestions (listing the most salient of these here to give an overview): suggested some new sources (Sakr, 2010; and Murphy, 2010), suggested four cultural references (Joyce, MacNeice, Gogarty, Plunkett), various miscellaneous comments including some architectural details (as a monument, I think it is important to include these details).
 * Other: over on Commons I added images to the category and created a gallery page at Commons. I also left messages with people over there who are dealing with the problematic image uploads. Back at the article, some of the source links are Proquest ones that don't work unless you have a subscription (and should not really include the Proquest account id anyway). There are three newspaper sources not currently in use in the article (am mentioning here rather than the talk page as you might not have got round to adding drafted text yet, or just forgotten to remove them): "Guards on Monuments after Dublin Explosion" (Hickman); "Nelson's Pillar" (Ó Riain); and "The Fall of Nelson's Column Recalled...50 Years On" (O'Riordan). [And as you know, the final four references need sorting or binning]. Have not clicked all the links in the sources, but a couple don't resolve properly. Will try and look over that at some point later.
 * Some final thoughts for now: the article name, lead section and infobox are clashing a bit. In terms of the overall flow, it might help to make clearer that the monument dominated Sackville Street for over 150 years, bang in the middle and dividing it into Upper and Lower sections. I'm sure you've got that all planned for the lead section, but at the moment the article doesn't quite explain why the history of the monument is tied up with that of the street.
 * Thanks for the comments on the article talk page (and the changes). I came across some more material today (actually quite a lot), which I will put on the article talk page for you to look at when you get time. I edited the article briefly to add more link and copyedit, but will leave it again now. Carcharoth (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts, and I hope you will continue to monitor the text for links, spellings etc. However, at this point we do not, I believe, need additional material.   I have a great deal of stuff that I'm not using, because of the need to be selective and avoid overdetailing; we are writing a summary encyclopaedia article, not "everything you may want to know about the Pillar". When I have added the Cultural section, and a proper lead, the article will be between five and six thousand words long, which should be ample enough for this subject.  Later this week I intend to submit the article  to peer review for the comments and feedback of  other editors. The question of whether the article covers all the main aspects of subject can be considered there; right now I'm in a hurry to wrap up the remaining sections and move the project forward to that forum. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand (I only saw your note just now after adding the recent talk page sections). I have one more talk page section to add (regarding some more images), and that will be it. But if you want this to be a 'summary encyclopaedia article' then in my view the background section is currently too long. Six whole paragraphs before touching on the actual subject of the article is excessive - some of the background should be pruned or consolidated or put in footnotes, and some of the space saved could be used to expand or add details later on the story of the actual monument itself. I am also rushing a bit here myself, as I won't have much time later this week. Carcharoth (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The first two sections, dealing with Sackville street and Blakeney (2 paras each), can almost certainly be condensed and perhaps combined. There may be other areas where savings can be made, but I haven't had the chance yet to read the whole thing through and check for overall balance. I'll be doing that when I'm able to finish the draft. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. If there are practical things I can do to help, let me know. I promise to sit on my hands and not add more to the talk page. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I see you are nearly finished. I know you want to take this to peer review very soon (is the 24 April date still achievable, do you think?). I have been following the changes and talk page responses. Should I add some final thoughts tonight or hold off until tomorrow? (Not sure if you are still working on the article tonight or not.) Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Another PR request
Hi Brian, I have another article up at PR, should you have the time and inclination. This is the Senghenydd colliery disaster, a sad episode of some corporate mismanagement which led to the deaths of 339 miners and one rescue worker. All shocking stuff, and the event is still the worst mining disaster in the UK. If you could pop in to the PR at some point to comment, I'd be delighted to hear from you. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This will chime with my own Welsh Week effort, an extension to the article on S.O. Davies, the MP whose constituency included Aberfan. It will take me a few days to get to your article as I have heavy duties meantime. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As always Brian I am deeply endebted to you and am more than happy to wait my turn. Cheers – – SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Max Reger
I know you are fan of anniversaries. This year it's the 100th anniversary of the death of the German composer Max Reger. Maybe it strikes you as an idea for a potential FAC. I've been following your trajectory in Wikipedia for a couple of years and I keep reading every piece of art you create from scratch. Cheers! Triplecaña (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * (watching:) compare above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't do many composer biographies these days. I know nothing of Reger, and the article appears to need a great deal of work. With the projects to which I've committed myself over the next few months, there is no time for me to squeeze in another FAC "against the clock", so I will have to politely decline your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I politely understand your situation and wish you all the best in your endeavours. Thanks for your kind words. Triplecaña (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I will try to make the composer article more decent, improve his list of works, write more on a composition for a DYK on the centenary which the world will notice (the day I mean), and improve Requiem to be nominated for FA that day. However, a recent death keeps me busy, and not much time is left for Busoni, who will be celebrated on 1 April. I managed a DYK, that's all so far. Smerus has improved the biography greatly. The lists of his works are hard to read, but you don't know where to start ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have (or rather my wife imposes) two rules at the music festival I organize in Slovakia. 1) No Sorabji. 2) No Reger. So inlcude me out for the latter.--Smerus (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Pillar - new thread
I see you are nearly finished. I know you want to take this to peer review very soon (is the 24 April date still achievable, do you think?). I have been following the changes and talk page responses. Should I add some final thoughts tonight or hold off until tomorrow? (Not sure if you are still working on the article tonight or not.) Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather you didn't add more talkpage comments. I will open the peer review page tomorrow (later today, actually) and that, rather than the talkpage, should be the main forum for further discussion, as I am anxious to get the views of other editors as soon as possible. The 24 April TFA date is probably achievable if I can get this to FAC around 26 March - ten days' time and if the TFA runs smoothly, which cannot be guaranteed. Now bed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'll do minor copyediting now and hold off on everything else. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I see the peer review page is now open. The final thoughts I had, should I mention them there now, or wait until others have had a chance to look? You did say above that "the peer review page [...] rather than the talkpage, should be the main forum for further discussion", but I am wary of adding my thoughts there immediately, as that might make people think that the article is being reviewed... (well, I have kind of reviewed it, but you want the views of others as well, which is the point of the review). So where should I put these thoughts then? Carcharoth (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * PR page - life will be much easier with just one forum for discussion. It's up to you whether you wait for others to chip in first - by all means add your comments now if you wish. I will be somewhat engaged with the George Bernard Shaw FAC review for the next 24 hours, so I won't be responding immediately to the Pillar PR, but that will give time, hopefully, for some comments to accumulate. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, yes. I am still finding little tweaks here and there. I suspect they are nearly all ferreted out, but maybe some more will be found. Will be interesting to get views on the wider balance of the article (which I think you have done well on). I am following the Bernard Shaw FAC with interest - it is such an impressive amount of work that has been done there. Carcharoth (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

YGM
– SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Bernard Shaw, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Caesar and Cleopatra and The Doctor's Dilemma. 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) 09:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

GBS - main picture
On Nikkimaria's advice at FAC I've removed the picture of Shaw we inherited in the info-box (not definitely public domain in the USA) and have uploaded a replacement from Illustrated London News, 1911, which I think captures the old buzzard rather well. But do by all means replace it if you have a candidate you prefer.  Tim riley  talk    13:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I quite like the more youthful Shaw, but the picture is a bit bleached and fuzzy - I wonder if it can be sharpened a bit. Any talkpage watchers who are image-wise are cordially invited to help if they can. Brianboulton (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Now attended to by the brilliant boffins of the Graphics Lab.  Tim riley  talk    18:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, much improved thanks to them Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of works by George Bernard Shaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Doctor's Dilemma. 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) 09:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Nelson's Pillar destroyed.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Nelson's Pillar destroyed.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Pillar images
I added alt text, per my comment at the FAC. I also swapped in a better non-free license tag for the destroyed Pillar image. I did notice that the image for the Spire of Dublin has the caption 'viewed from Talbot Street', but the image information page says 'from Henry Street' (Henry Street, Dublin) - do you know which is correct? Looking on a map, there is also North Earl Street and the Talbot Street in the caption. Whichever street it actually is could maybe be linked? Purely out of interest, do you know whether that location has always been a crossroads, right from the very early history of Sackville Street, or did the other streets come later? Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Henry Street is correct;   I've  altered the caption and linked the name.  The crossroads appears in an 1811 street map, and clearly predates the Pillar, hence the initial worries about traffic congestion. Brianboulton (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have been pottering around reading some related pages (with a side trip looking somewhat aghast at the list of 'nicknames' in List of public art in Dublin - some of the nicknames for The Spire of Dublin are, um, interesting - is this Irish humour? I've not seen other listings of public art festooned with nicknames like that.) . One article I did enjoy reading was one of those you mentioned in an old talk page discussion: 'Easter, 1916' - it is a very moving and evocative piece. I am finding some of these pages while checking 'What links here' for Nelson's Pillar (just under 120 links, with 59 from article space). I try and do this at some point to ensure that what has been so carefully crafted in the article in question is not being misrepresented in other articles. What I expect to find is oversimplifications such as "the IRA blew up the Pillar" - what in your view is the best source and wording to use if I wanted to spend time correcting that? (examples where I am unsure what to do is here or with the phrasing in Ulster Volunteer Force or in Battle of Trafalgar.) As a bit of trivia, Kilbride, County Wicklow has a mention of the quarry the granite came from for the Pillar and I found a dreaded popular culture mention at The Rare Ould Times. More interesting is An Stad, with a mention of a plot to destroy it in 1938. No idea why the Spire of Dublin is in victory column. If all this is going 'beyond the call of duty', please don't feel obliged to spend much or any time on it, as I know you have many other things to attend to. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC) PS. I see the article got promted - congratulations! Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to you, too – your part was considerable. Yeats's Easter 1916 is indeed arresting and moving, but to understand it fully one needs a considerable background knowledge: who was the woman whose "days were spent in ignorant goodwill"? Who was the man who "kept a school", and who his "helper and friend"? Who was the "drunken, vainglorious lout", and to whom had he done bitter wrong? And, for all the heroics, Yeats muses whether the Rising was necessary or worthwhile, "for England may keep her faith, for all that is done and said". I don't know how much of this is explained in the WP article on the poem. The best source for refuting the lazy assumption that the IRA blew up the Pillar is within our article – Ref 105.  In the UVF article you could replace "a group of Irish Republican Army (IRA) volunteers,  acting on their own initiative" with "a group of republican dissidents, acting independently from the IRA" – I wonder whether that would be reverted? In the Trafalgar article you could replace "leading members of the Anglo-Irish aristocracy" with "public subscription", and change the bit about "old IRA". Use our Kennedy and Fallon references. But you will find it a Sisyphean task to correct all the misinformation that clogs our beloved encyclopaedia. Now, as you say, I have other concerns that I must get on with, although I look forward to working with you again some day. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The WP article does actually explain some (all?) of that (and Yeats does helpfully name the people concerned in the final stanza). Thanks for the tips (I will probably leave it a bit before trying changes in some articles - maybe others will migrate the information outwards by osmosis?). The experience of working alongside you on this may prompt me to work a bit more on some things I have neglected, and hopefully those articles will appear at peer review or FAC one day. Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Senghenydd
Hi Brian, Thank you once again for all your comments on the Senghenydd colliery disaster. This is now at FAC, should you wish to comment further. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know – I'll be there soon. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Nelson's Pillar

 * Just to let you know that I am hoping to propose this as TFA on 24 April – the actual centenary of the Dublin Easter Rising celebrated with much ceremony last Easter weekend. Could you please bear this in mind as you consider whether/when to promote, perhaps highlighting any issues which you feel need to be fixed first. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)