User talk:Luke Reader

Welcome!
Hello, Luke Reader, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Kingston Choral Society, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Gparyani (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Kingston Choral Society


A tag has been placed on Kingston Choral Society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Gparyani (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Kingston Choral Society
Hello. I watch the page on Kingston upon Thames and so I noticed that you had started to write an article on Kingston Choral Society. I felt it was rather unkind to mark it for speedy deletion after only a few minutes and was frankly shocked this morning to find that it had been deleted already. During yesterday you were adding details at quite a pace. If you are new to editing Wikipedia, you perhaps do not know that it is a good idea to build up an article in your own userspace on a page such as User:Luke Reader/Kingston Choral Society. You are then left in peace to get it into a reasonable state and then transfer it into the main body of Wikipedia.

If you want to recover the work you have already done, you could ask the administrator who deleted the page to transfer the text into a new page with the above name. If you need any help from someone who has been an editor for just a few years, please get in touch. I am watching this talk page and so I shall find any reply you send.

LynwoodF (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes please I could use some help!
Frank,

Many thanks for reaching out. This is my first experience of doing a Wikipedia article, and your message is the first positive interaction I've had so far!

I've taken your advice and recreated the article in my own userspace named exactly as you said (I'd kept a copy of source text in case I needed it).

I guess I now need to know what I need to do to get this article accepted. For instance, I tried hard to stick to the 'neutral tone' principle by not bigging-up the impressive provenance of KCS's conductors and soloists. But did this perhaps make the page seem 'not notable'? But then I look at other choir articles on Wikipedia (Kingston Orpheus Choir for instance) and I felt I'd made ours better-referenced and more 'notable' than theirs.

I genuinely don't want to wrongly-use Wikipedia, hence I thought a short and factual article about KCS would suit. I'm very open to your advice about what to do next.

Regards, Luke Luke Reader (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Luke, I am glad you found my message. I feel your efforts were treated rather shabbily.


 * The article on Kingston Orpheus Choir is rather thin and indeed is tagged as a "stub". The one on Bristol Choral Society is much more substantial and has the Wikipedia look about it. You will see that it starts with a lead section, which should ideally summarize the contents of the article, and then has enough sections for a table of contents to appear automatically. It also has an infobox, which is placed at the top and appears on the right-hand side. I have found three possible infoboxes, which I shall copy into the source of this page. Nothing much will show here, but you could copy and paste one of these into the article and then fill in the relevant details.


 * Infobox musical artist (for groups)


 * Infobox choir


 * Infobox choir (basic version)


 * I did wonder whether you were editing the source in Wiki Markup or using the WYSIWYG editor, of which I have little experience. (I tried it, but I did not like it much.) If you are not sure how to use templates, I could add one to your draft and you could tell me how you would like it amended.


 * I would be very happy to cooperate with you on this article, but I think I should leave the content to you, as you have knowledge of the subject. To my mind, you were right to defend the validity of the article as you did. The Society is comparable to the other organizations you mentioned.


 * LynwoodF (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not comment on your point about not bigging up your conductors. I do not see articles on any them – if there were articles, you could put a link on each name – so it might be an idea to give a few facts about each one. The important thing is not to use "peacock terms". Rather than describing someone as "distinguished", you could mention a prize he/she had won (with a link, if appropriate), but there is no need to describe the prize as "prestigious". The no-no word of the moment is "iconic".


 * If there have been notable soloists who have performed with the Society, you could certainly mention them too, especially if they have WP articles and you could add a link.


 * Please keep in touch on this article. I think it is worth creating, as the Society is part of the cultural life of the Royal Borough.


 * Best wishes, Frank. LynwoodF (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Frank
Appreciate the advice. I've been using Wiki Markup (I've written plenty of HTML and Wiki Markup seems slightly simpler and quite a bit richer, but fairly quick to learn). I was indeed wondering how to get an Info Box up - thanks for that.

This draft article will need some more work. Once I've done enough I'll get in touch if I may for advice on how to publish it. Having started I'm keen to see it through! Thanks for your support.

Luke Reader (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am glad I was able to be of some help. Also that you have not lost heart – this is a worthwhile project, just the sort of thing that should be on WP, as it documents something that is actually going on in our area.


 * I am not surprised you know HTML. You seemed to be coping well with Wiki Markup, which made me wonder whether you were completely new to WP and, if so, whether you were using the WYSIWYG editor, which is something of a two-edged sword. I found WML easy to learn and a good introduction to HTML, which I learned later.


 * I did not mention pictures. If you have any which are relevant, you might want to put them up on Wikimedia Commons. The procedure is quite simple – click on "Upload file". You need to have ownership of the image or permission from the owner, because you are effectively placing the image in the public domain, although I always do as they recommend and use a licence which requests attribution.


 * When you are ready to publish, you need to add categories at the bottom. I generally cannibalize them from similar articles. Categories are very important for images on Wiki Commons – they tell you off if you do not include them.


 * LynwoodF (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Restarting work on a Kingston Choral Society wikipedia page
Frank,

Long time no speak! I have some free time and the agreement of my choir's committee to have another go at creating a KCS Wikipedia page. You said you might be able to offer some advice.

Firstly, I'm taking the Article Wizard route this time, so I'm building a draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kingston_Choral_Society

It still needs plenty of work, including adding several references from external news websites which hopefully will make the entry more valid.

I do have a question at this stage. I wanted to show a small historical picture file (a jpg) of our old '3 fishes' logo. Rather like Bristol Choral Society have a picture. But Wikipedia never lets me upload it (or any file). Given I represent the choir and the logo is very much public domain I think I should have permission to use it on our page! Am I wrong? Or is there a way I can upload it, or do I need an independent person (perhaps yourself?) to look at it and approve that I'm making acceptable use of an acceptable image?

Right, I'll press on with the rest of the content. When its ready I was thinking to ask you to review it, if you're still interested in doing that.

Best regards,   Luke  (luke@lukereader.com) Luke Reader (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Luke.
 * I am pleased you are having another go at this. Strangely, I was thinking about you the other day and wondering if you would have the courage to press on with it. Well, obviously you have! I think it is a worthwhile project, as the Choral Society is a valid cultural enterprise in this area.
 * Placing jpgs is quite easy, once you get the hang of it. You need to load the image to Wikimedia Commons and then put a link in the article. If you like, you could send me the jpg as an email attachment (Address: hogsmill.145@zoho.com ) and I could create a file on Wiki Commons and put a link here. If you want it in the infobox I could put it there for you.
 * Incidentally, two tiny niggles. Generally templates go first and the infobox goes ahead of the lede. Thus it appears to the right of the lede, not below it. Also some people get very exercised about the hyphens in Kingston upon Thames. They were removed in 1965, but someone unaware that there had been a change relatively recently made a nonsense of the article on Municipal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames. I rescued it and took a photo of the County Court building to place in the article.
 * I wish you good progress with this enterprise. LynwoodF (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again.
 * I see someone has made some alterations to your draft. I don't quite see the point of what they have done and, if you agree, you could remove them by going to "View history", finding the edit and clicking on "Undo". LynwoodF (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in the middle of working on it myself. Luke Reader (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Frank. I've hopefully made some good progress today. I removed the hyphens as you suggested, and moved up the infobox. I've also added in content and a lot more references. My plan now is to turn the references into CITE formats (I've done the first one, just the other 14 to do!). And I've asked some choir colleagues to find a suitable historical image we could use, in line with what I've seen on other pages.

Meanwhile, if you have any observations on the draft as it stands that would be welcome.

Thanks again for you help with this. Luke Reader (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Luke. I had a quick look and the article seems to be coming along nicely. I shall go through it more carefully later on. LynwoodF (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I have had a better look at the article and by and large it is fine, but I have several comments:

 I think the chap who messed about with your categories didn't like a draft appearing in the category pages. I have a simpler solution – just put them inside the, which can easily be removed when the article is published. So I have done that.

You might want to create a "piped link" for Nicholas O'Neill.

I am intrigued to know why Festival of the Voice describes itself as biannual. It seems to be irregular and not even biennial. However, that is their problem, not yours!

Names of works are generally shown in italics, e.g. Messiah. I think this would help legibility, especially with longer titles, such as And Since to Look at things in Bloom.

I think it is a good idea to use the template for references. Among other things the retrieval date can be useful, as there is a big problem with what is known as "link rot". Now this is the one that might cause you most work. There is a consensus that external links should not go in the main body of the text. See this section. Personally, I am not bothered about it, but we have to abide by the consensus. Now you already have an "External links" section and in the right place (see this section to see how fussy WP can be). Perhaps you could expand that considerably, maybe breaking it up into subsections.  I have discovered that there is an "Infobox choir". I don't think it is particularly brilliant, but it might be useful, so I mocked up something to see what it might look like. Use it or play about with it as you wish. Or perhaps you prefer the box you already have. It did strike me that if you put the conductors in the box, you could do away with the separate section. I have left in all the parameters I have not used. To my mind this does not matter – someone might want to use one at a later date. 


 * I hope this is all useful. Best wishes, LynwoodF (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again. This is just to let you know that the little notice I have put on my user page is not aimed at you. If you need any further help, please get in touch. LynwoodF (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

OK thank you Frank. Sorry to understand about your health. Best wishes with it. Luke Reader (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Problem with email
Hello,. I replied to your last email, but my reply bounced back three times. I imagine this is just an electronic glitch. Here is the text: Hello yet again.

I have read though the article and, having decided that it is substantially complete, I have cleaned up the source and then published it.

I made some minor alterations to the internal links, but I had a little problem, which is something that was a point of discussion recently on WP. You say KCS performed in "New York and Connecticut in 2007". The link is to an article on New York State and I wondered whether they performed only somewhere not in New York City. However, I have done a little research and discovered that they performed at the Church of the Blessed Sacrament, New York, USA. I found this online and can see that it is in NYC, so I will specify this.

Kind regards,

Frank.

LynwoodF (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Frank
Just wanted to put my thanks to you on Wikipedia. The KCS Wikipedia page would not have made it without you. Luke Reader (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, Luke. On WP a lot of us help each other out. In this case I felt it was a worthwhile project, especially as there were pages on similar organizations. LynwoodF (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

KCS
Hi Luke. Well done with all your work on the choir article. A few little things: Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You honestly don't need to link Ross again as he's already linked in the article twice. You might want to have a look at MOS:DUPLINK where it says: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." That's pretty much what we've got now - he is linked once in the body text and once in the infobox.
 * Punctuation goes BEFORE references! I will try and find you the guideline which says this, but I promise you it's right. Otherwise it can get very messy with several refs in a row followed by a sad and lonely bit of punctuation. Thanks! - ADDENDUM - found it! It's MOS:REFPUNCT where it says (inter alia): "Any punctuation [...] must precede the ref tags."
 * I wasn't asking for a ref for Rutter working at Clare, but for the (sorry to be rude) slightly creepy-sounding "colleague and supporter" bit. If there is no reliable source I think it should come out.

Thank you DBak
Thank you DBaK. Understand about the punctuation, and thank you for accepting my follow-up edits so we no longer have the full-stops before _and_ and after the references. :-)

Re the 'colleague and supporter', I see your concern. I know the statement as it stands is factually correct because I personally witnessed this at the time. However, lets now see if anyone can find a reference somewhere that supports this in writing.

Regards, Luke Reader (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Luke! Thank you for the nice note, and you are very very welcome. I'm glad that I could help. Sorry about those multiple stops - I honestly thought I'd got them all then they kept on coming out of the woodwork! Finally, yes, I am sure the Rutter bit can stay if there's a ref for it. Well done, nice article! Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you DBaK. I've found and added a reference which shows Rutter specifically assisting Ross on a recording production.  What do you think - does that support it?

Luke Reader (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say so, yes. I am not a world expert in this but it certainly takes the sting out of my complaint, and I have removed the tags. Happy Editing! Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Overend/Iseworth
Hi Luke

Overend's biography is really obscure. What is known concerns is his work on music theory beginning in the school of J. C. Pepusch (1666/7-1752), and was continued by his pupil, the composer William Boyce, (1711-79) with whom the organist Marmaduke Overend (d. 1790) studied. On Boyce's death, Overend bought his teacher's manuscripts. His own investigations are today contained in six manuscript volumes and in 1781, he published a prospectus for a series of lectures on the science of music, titled A Brief account of, and an introduction to, eight lectures, in the Science of Music …. Following Overend's death, his manuscript volumes, as well as Boyce's treatise, were bought by John Wall Calcott, (1766-1821) who used these manuscripts as sources for his own work. In 1807, Calcott donated all the manuscripts to the Royal Institution, and from June of that year John Farey Sr. mined the manuscript exhaustively for his work, and today they include Farey's manuscript notes.

His link to the town appears several times in contemporary literature such as Lætitia Matilda Hawkins, Anecdotes, Biographical Sketches and Memoirs, Vol. 1, F. C. and J. Rivington, 1822, p. 16. She commented on his lecturing style: ''… he turned his back on his auditors, pointing with a rod to immense sheets covered with diagrams and series of figures that defied numeration. He spoke very unintelligibly at all times; and in this exertion, his head being very much thrown back, when his progressions led him to the top of his chart, those who listened to him lost still more than usual of what he said: added to which, he was sometimes un peu embrouillé, by having mistaken one incalculable total for another, and being therefore under the necessity of beginning again.''

It is my impression that his contemporaries regarded him as something of an eccentric joke.

The above extracts are lifted from: A. P. Woolrich, Dr Charles Burney, and Marmaduke Ovderend, the scientific organist of Isleworth in the Burney Letter,Vol 26, No1, Spring 2020, p.6

Kind regards

Apwoolrich aka Tony Woolrich

Overend/Iseworth #2
I gather the church was burnt in 1943 and greatly rebuilt and only the original tower remains. Are you aware of any surviving memorials to Overend, please?

Overend/Isleworth #3
I've just spotted that the vicar there when he was appointed had previously been Archdeacon been Archdeacon of Landaff, which might explain how how he got there. The catalogue of the sale of his library after his death is known about. I've to look into it and add a para in due course. I'm supposed to be researching the musical writings of John Farey, Sr. (which I've just updated), but its so easy to be side-tracked.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richmond Opera has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Richmond Opera, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Richmond_Opera help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Theroadislong (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Theroadislong. The road to publishing was indeed long, from initial research and reference sorting through to drafting and reviews from several expert sources before submitting to AfC. Certainly I'll continue to welcome feedback and develop the page further should new information come to light. I hear you about my not needing to use AfC. I guess my caution is that years ago I directly published a page and ran into a difficult editor (who I think has since been barred for 'vandalism') who marked it for quick deletion immediately and killed it off refusing my attempts to have a discussion first! Maybe that was bad luck as my Wikipedia experiences since then have generally been a bit better, and sometimes very helpful. My thanks again, and happy editing! Luke Reader (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Richmond Opera - email re: Charity Commission template
Thanks for your email. The EW charity template was not generating the correct url to hit the page required, so I have modified it to do so. --DavidCane (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Perfect, thank you David! Luke Reader (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)