User talk:Tim riley

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between October and December 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Sir

Your cooking/food articles absolutely could not be lovelier. Thank you for bringing this beauty to Wikipedia. jengod (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

What a delightful message to get! Thank you so much, jengod. I love cooking and I love eating, and it is always a pleasure to write little articles about minor culinary topics. Tim riley talk 16:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Randall Davidson

Hi! You recently reverted my edit at Randall Davidson which mentioned the Housing and Town Planning Act 1909. Would you mind explaining why you thought it was disproportionate? At WP:Proportion, it says that undue weight should not be given to minor aspects, but this was a short sentence in a section regarding Randall's role in domestic political affairs during the time - I would have thought this would not amount to undue weight. Additionally it might be worth noting that the act was contested in the House of Lords, though I didn't make that clear in my edit. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Gazamp (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Among the other matters on which Davidson spoke in the Lords at about the time of the Housing and Town Planning Act were colonial marriages, election meetings in school rooms, House of Lords reform, inspection of laundries, prevention of corruption, liquor traffic in Nigeria, merchant vessels and first aid, outrages on Jews in Russia, Sunday trading, small holdings and allotments, street traffic in London and women in county and borough councils. In an article of a few thousand words we cannot give every single detail of a person's life: it is our job to concentrate on what is notable so far as the subject is concerned. The Housing and Town Planning Act is not mentioned in the Times obituary (1930), the Dictionary of National Biography (1937) or the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2011), and does not even merit so much as a passing mention in Bishop Bell's two-volume biography of Davidson (1935).

Discussions of this sort should be on an article talk page, where any interested editor can spot them, rather than on a user's talk page, visited by few. Tim riley talk 08:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining! Gazamp (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

And thank you, Gazamp, for your gracious response. Tim riley talk 19:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Trying to avoid an edit war

Hello Tim Riley, I see you reverted my edit on W. Somerset Maugham. I would like to share my reasoning so that this does not result in an edit war. I changed the wording because the phrase "achieved national celebrity" could be confusing to many readers. I disagree with your reasoning for the revert for the following reasons:

• "is prioritized in the OED" - The first meaning for a word listed in the dictionary is not always the most common one.
• "is more appropriate for the time period" - It makes no sense to base wording of an article on the time period its topic is about. The meaning of "celebrity" referring to a person is more appropriate for the time period we are in right now.

As an editor that reads casually, I am concerned with the experience of casual readers. I think that this wording is problematic because it may make many readers, especially those born more recently, do a double-take since it uses a fairly frequently used word in an uncommon way and thus may confuse people. I would like to understand your perspective on this issue as I do not want an edit war, and I hope we can resolve this while keeping Wikipedia accessible to the general public.

Best regards, TypoEater (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This sort of discussion belongs on an article talk page where it can be seen by any interested editor, rather than on a user talk page where it will be seen by few. If you like to raise your proposal on the article talk page we can see what the consensus is. Tim riley talk 17:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments on FA nomination of Knowledge

Hello Tim riley, I wanted to let you know that I nominated the article Knowledge for featured article status, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knowledge/archive1. There has been little to no response so far and I was wondering whether you might be interested in taking a look. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Phlsph7 − Dear me! I'm not good at abstract concepts, but will make a point of looking in and offering any comments that seem to me to be sensible and useful. Tim riley talk 20:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

A Berliozian copyvio concern

Dear Tim (and your friendly s/talkers :-),

Really good to see you around!

Fwiw, I'm seeking some editorial guidance (and opinions) on issues regarding a copyvio concern at Symphonie fantastique#Movements, where there has been massive block citation of Berlioz's programme notes in English translation. Rapid googling suggests that the English-language text may have been lifted wholesale from the Hector Berlioz website, where (at the foot of the page) it appears to be covered as: © Michel Austin for the English translation. All rights of reproduction reserved. So, presumably, the translation needs to be removed (or possibly substituted by a permissable [public domain?] translation).

Personally, I have to wonder whether reproducing the entire text is suitable anyway, although removing it will require major restructuring of the section at least. What think you? Any editorial thoughts or suggestions? Or even active fixes? (Btw, I think the Hector Berlioz FA page is a wonderful achievement. I'm not at all possessive about this particular page, which I'd just like to see improved.)

Best wishes as ever from a misty old wp-friend, now going on 64. 86.180.70.111 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this tomorrow and report back. Tim riley talk 18:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

And is my elderly memory failing me when I remember the excellent "Mistymorn"? Happy days! Tim riley talk 18:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Tim riley talk 18:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

(Shhh young man, the ip is not for outing ;-) 86.180.70.111 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to quoting Berlioz's programme note in full – he's reasonably terse – and Microsoft and Google both offer decent attempts at an English translation.

Microsoft

The author supposes that a young musician, afflicted with that moral disease which a famous writer calls the vagueness of passions, sees for the first time a woman who unites all the charms of the ideal being of which his imagination dreamed, and becomes madly in love with her. By a singular oddity, the cherished image never presents itself to the artist's mind except in connection with a musical thought, in which he finds a certain passionate, but noble and timid character like that which he attributes to the beloved object.

Google:

The author supposes that a young musician, affected by this moral illness that a famous writer calls the vagueness of passions, sees for the first time a woman who combines all the charms of the ideal being that his imagination dreamed of, and in becomes hopelessly in love. By a singular oddity, the cherished image never presents itself to the artist's mind unless linked to a musical thought, in which he finds a certain passionate, but noble and timid character like that which he attributes to the loved object.

A bit of tweaking is needed ("vague des passions") and later in the text: "fixed idea" needs untranslating and leaving as idée fixe (did you know that Asterix's dog, Dogmatix, is Idéfix in the original French?) and both Microsoft and Google are understandably stumped by ranz des vaches: I particularly like Microsoft's: "he hears two shepherds talking to a cow in the distance".

If you concur I'll replace the pilfered translation with a tweaked Googlesoft one. Tim riley talk 09:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

If you care to look in at my sandbox you can see work in progress on a potential rewrite, properly sourced and cited. Tim riley talk 15:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Fantastic! 86.132.54.124 (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

4 or 5?

Oh, thanks so much for that Tim, including the ideal fixes and doggy tidbix (DIK? - no! "... like a bunch of lovesick cattle - weight?). Yes, of course I fully concur (and am lazily relieved that the layout won't need shrinking - I'm rather attached to the manuscript images appearing alongside the relevant content, though I imagine that editorial opinions on that might vary...).

Oof... my excuse for coming to your esteemed talk page, rather than the article talk page was, of course, the particular copyvio aspect. I suppose that in addition to following standard copyvio process, we should really post my OP question (minus the personal effusions :) and your considered response on the article talk page (I'm happy to do that, of course :).

I suppose a residual concern could regard machine translation of idiomatic French phrases such as maladie morale ("moral disease"), where I assume the sense of morale broadly corresponds to the 5th entry here ("spiritual disease malady / ailment", perhaps[?]). Of course, I'd be happy to collaborate on such tweaks, even though my translation skills are notoriously atrocious, haha. 86.132.54.124 (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've finished translating Berlioz's comments via Google and Microsoft. If you care to look in at my sandpit and tweak I shall be pleased. I am now working on a new section for the article covering critical opinion from the 1830s onwards. Suggestions welcome. Tim riley talk 17:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Really glad... Strong support! (And I like "emotional affliction" :-) 86.177.202.242 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding: Splendid Tim! (...one minor suggestion). So happy for the page... I believe it's worth it.
(marginal note: please don't feel in any way style-cramped by my "attachment" to manuscript images alongside the text :)
Cheers! 86.177.202.242 (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Prolonged applause and a standing ovation! 86.177.202.213 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeat in the fourth movement

The manuscript score is online and it is clear that Berlioz put a da capo and repeat marking in the Marche au supplice. But I mean, really! "Oh, we're nearly there, chaps, but let's go back to the clink and start the procession all over again!" I'm reluctant to draw attention to this silliness. The repeat isn't mentioned in the article and I'm inclined to leave it like that. Tim riley talk 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Top DYK stuff... lol (...until it reminded me of this real-world craziness). 86.177.202.139 (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

A Hooke hook?

Thank you for doing the GAR on Robert Hooke. I appreciate it.

I have been so immersed in it for the past couple of weeks that I can no longer see the wood for the trees. Did you happen to notice any suitable DYK hooks in passing?

I found a good one, but we can't use it :-^ In researching the aphorism attributed to Clairaut,

"Il ne faut pas croire que cette idée ... de Hook diminue la gloire de M. Newton ["One must not think that this idea ... of Hooke diminishes Newton's glory"], Clairaut wrote; "L'exemple de Hook & celui de Kepler [serve] à faire voir quelle distance il y a entre une vérité entrevue & une vérité démontrée ["The example of Hooke and of Kepler" [serves] "to show what a distance there is between a truth that is glimpsed and a truth that is demonstrated"]

I found that the original claim (Ball, W W R (1893). An essay on Newton's "Principia". London: MacMillan. p. 69.) and the many subsequent citations of it would fail verification if it were in a Wikipedia article!
The original source is Clairaut, Alexis (1759). "Exposition abregée du systême du monde, et explication des principaux phénomenes astronomiques tirée des Principes de M. Newton" [Abridged explanation of the world system and an explanation of the principal astronomical phenomena drawn from the Principia of Mr Newton]. Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle. By Newton, Isaac. Rigaud (ed.). Vol. 2. Paris: Desaint et Saillant.
The aphorism is attributed to Clairaut in Ball (1893), but the introduction (Avertissement) in Volume 1 merely says that the Exposition is drawn in the main from the works of Clairaut or from the notebooks that he had previously given in the form of lessons to Madame la Marquise de Chastellet.
Academic standards have gone down the toilet. Something oughter be done! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Yours is the rigorous approach that cheers me greatly. For an easily understood and wholly verifiable hook you might perhaps say that in addition to his scientific discoveries he designed the Monument in London and worked with Wren on the rebuilding after the Great Fire. Tim riley talk 09:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Tim riley!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery FAC

Hello Tim riley, My latest FAC article is attracting little attention and is now possibly going to be archived without having received a support. Any chance of you taking a look at the article for me, with a view to helping to keep the nomination afloat? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Done, Tim riley talk 19:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Tim riley :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Done, with pleasure. Tim riley talk 19:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

FAC - invitation

I've put Jacques Offenbach up for FAC and will be very glad to get comments from colleagues who wish to contribute. Tim riley talk 19:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sir Arthur

Thanks for that! I have replied at my Talk page. If I had only realized that you were the author of the missing comma, I would have been much more reverential in my approach! Um Gottes Willen! I am ashamed.

I am too embarrassed to ask this at the Bliss Talk page (hmmm sounds dodgy) but is there a reason why some of the names of pieces are italicized and others not? Examples: Four Songs for Voice, Violin and Piano; but Music for Strings. I am sure there is some reason for this but, preferably without making the older children laugh at me and throw things, could you please explain how it works?

Thanks so much. Yours, in profound ignorance and with deepest apologies therefore, DBaK (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

As a dyed-in-the-wool Savoyard I jumped to the wrong conclusion about "Sir Arthur" in your heading, but yes I am the perpetrator of most of Bliss's article. As I understand the MoS, music titles that are generic such as Mass, Gloria, String Quartet and so on are in Romic but titles that are names are italicised. This is rather a grey area it seems to me. I probably wouldn't italicise "Serenade for Strings" as there are several such, but "Music for Strings" doesn't seem to me a generic title, though I don't press the point. If anyone chancing to read these remarks thinks fit to expand on or contradict them I shall be pleased to see their comments.

You were quite right to insert the comma I neglected to add. I try to spot such omissions when I'm writing, but having been guilty of such lapses since the 1960s I doubt if I'm going to reform adequately now. Very pleased you're planning to look in at the Offenbach FAC. You'll be among friends: Gog the Mild is already weighing in, and so will SchroCat if he knows what's good for him. I hope Dudley and Cassianto might look in, too. Tim riley talk 12:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes sorry, wrong knight! I was off down a complete rabbithole because I started with Roy Harris then found to my complete astonishment that Bliss had once taught him.

Thank you very much about the titles. As an area it sounds just perfectly suitable for me to run away screaming. Watch me!

Thanks also re the comma, and the good news regarding friends looking at Offenbach.

All good wishes, DBaK (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Piles of stones

Wotcha Tim, that's a fine photo on your Userpage - you could have stepped straight out of Death on the Nile! If you have "World enough, and Time", I'd very much appreciate an extra pair of eyes at the FAC for Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century. It's currently enjoying one Support, and green lights from the Accessibility and Image reviews, but comments have rather dried up. You were kind enough to comment yourself at PR, and you'll see the ordering has been re-cast as two other editors were as mystified as you by my original structure! I see Herr Offenbach is hardly in need of my support, and he's already had Image and Source reviews, but if there's anything else I can help with, let me know. All going well here but the constant presence of builders is rather distracting. Fortunately, the large number of public holidays and religious festivals enjoyed in this part of the world provides some respite. KJP1 (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll look in today, with pleasure. Tim riley talk 08:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Death on the Nile? Salome Otterbourne strikes again... - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt if you looked in too, my lad! Tim riley talk 08:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Already done! - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Arnold Bennett

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 27 June 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

George E. Mylonas

Perhaps foolishly, I've gone and put another article up for FAC -- it is still very early in the day, but your thoughts on the review would be much appreciated. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I shall be delighted. Tim riley talk 07:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is a contentious topic

You have recently made edits related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. This is a standard message to inform you that the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Galsworthy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Galsworthy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Galsworthy

The article John Galsworthy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Galsworthy for comments about the article, and Talk:John Galsworthy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 750h+ -- 750h+ (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Jacques Offenbach

Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, Jacques Offenbach, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Frederick delius

Hey man just questioning as to why you removed my Kate bush thing, is it not part of delius legacy that he was honoured by Kate bush? capstar (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Pop songs plagiarising classical music are not usually germane to articles on the latter. Tim riley talk 10:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

it doesnt quite matter your opinion of how much you enjoy pop music, her song has carried part of his legacy onto the modern world, try not to let your bias cloud the facts capstar (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is neither here nor there. It may be relevant to Ms Bush's article that she plagiarised Delius, but it is not relevant to his. But if you wish to persist, please discuss on the article talk page where your opinions can be seen by any interested editor rather than here where they will not. Tim riley talk 11:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think, with the greatest respect, that you have this backwards. Kate Bush refers to Delius and so it should be linked from her article to his: you are reading about Bush and you can click through to see the connection – it is outgoing from her, or rather, correctly, from Never for Ever. But Delius is mentioned or used by lots of people and it is not appropriate to add them all to his article, where it just looks like trivia ... it's just, in the nicest possible way, the wrong way round. Incoming is fine! Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I hope that Delius feels absolutely crushed under the weight of the honour that Kate Bush brings upon him; frankly, without her, would he be anything more than a ringtone today... :) ——Serial Number 54129 11:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Peer review

To anyone kind enough to visit this page, I have the article on Robert Schumann up for peer review, and will be grateful for input from colleagues I respect. I don't normally stray deeply into German music and will value comments on whether I have the balance and the tone right. Poor Schumann! What a tragic life! Tim riley talk 13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Aleksey Ivanovich Kandinsky

Hello Tim. I wonder could you spare a few moments for my random query? I am guessing that you may have access to this source. I wonder is there any claim there that Aleksey Ivanovich Kandinsky was the grandson of the artist Wassily Kandinsky? The article for the latter says he had only one child, a son who died in infancy. Many thanks for any help. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I have indeed got access to Grove, which confirms that Aleksey Ivanovich Kandinsky was the grandson of Wassily. Grove seems to think he's still with us, though born in 1918. I'll email you some more details. Tim riley talk 13:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim, that's very good of you. They can't both be right! How very intriguing. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Email sent: pray check your in-box (and spam folder, too). Tim riley talk 13:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again. Not only a grandson, it seems, but also a great-grandson?! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm always tickled by the vagaries of heredity. One of my heroes is Sir Ernest Gowers, of Plain Words, whose father was a leading neurologist, and whose son was a fine composer, grandson a mathematician of international repute, and great-granddaughter the editor of a marvellous update of Plain Words, which is on my shelf alongside the original. – Tim riley talk 13:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

FAC advice

@Tim riley I don't believe we've met, but I have long observed your work on English Wikipedia. Given your extensive experience with FAC and PR, I wanted to inform you that I have nominated Catherine, Princess of Wales at FAC. I have already addressed comments from two other users, and user Nikkimaria has completed the image review. Your suggestions at FAC would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to your response and the possibility of future collaborations. Regards.. MSincccc (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. (I am amused to see that I am, to the day, thirty years the lady's senior.) Tim riley talk 17:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley You might be amused to know that I am almost three decades younger than the lady. What are your topics of interest? I have come across your work multiple times in the past two years since becoming a contributor to English Wikipedia. Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You can see what I've been busying myself with these past eighteen years by looking at my user page and opening "Best efforts" and "Brand-new efforts". From what you say I calculate that I'm old enough to be your great-grandfather, though arithmetic was never my strong suit. Tim riley talk 18:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You're not as old as my grandfather is. Anyway, getting to the point, I'd like to make a comment on the Robert Schumann's FAC when I'm free to do so. Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley I don't mean to trouble you, but I'd like to ask if you have an interest in British royalty topics. I'm currently working on improving the Princess of Wales's article and since you were an accessibility reviewer at its archived FAC, would it be alright to notify you when it is listed at peer review? If you prefer not to be notified, please let me know. Otherwise, feel free to review the article and its content. Have a lovely evening ahead, and I look forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley Thank you for your suggestions, which were greatly appreciated. Would you mind leaving a definitive closing note regarding your views on the nomination? I look forward to your response and anticipate our future collaborations. Kind regards.MSincccc (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not much interested in the doings of current British royalty, but I'll peer review your article if asked. Tim riley talk 17:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Is using articles from The Times, The Guardian, BBC News and The Daily Telegraph as news sources in a British royalty article fine for an FAC? I am asking you because you are a Britisher as your user page denotes. This is my last point here. Thanks for considering my request. Looking forward to your response. Have a great evening ahead. MSincccc (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

All four are fine as reliable sources. Tim riley talk 19:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley You are invited to join the peer review discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Catherine, Princess of Wales/archive1. MSincccc (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No hurries at present @Tim riley but please do take a look and leave your feedback if possible. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments once again @Tim riley. Please do let me know if you have any further suggestions (if any) else let me know what more I can do to make the biography more comprehensive. Looking forward to your response. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley One last comment in this thread, please. If you cannot proceed with further comments at Catherine's PR, would you mind giving me advice as to how I should proceed before re-listing it at FAC? Also please do let me know of whether you will be available at the article's FAC. My sincere apologies if the article was too long for you to thoroughly review but that's how her life has been until now. I would, nevertheless, continue with my efforts to make it a shorter and more concise read. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

My advice would be to see what other peer reviewers have to say and act on such of their suggestions as you think suitable. Politely reject well-meant suggestions for tweaking your prose unless they correct a grammatical error or clarify meaning: we are not here to impose our stylistic preferences on other editors. I'll look in at FAC if you get there and ping me, although when a subject is one completely outside my areas of interest or expertise I tend to restrict myself to commenting on the prose (as here for instance) rather than supporting or opposing. Tim riley talk 10:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Jacques Offenbach

The paint hasn't even dried on this one, but is it time to run it through TFA, perhaps on July 15? - Dank (push to talk) 05:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yours to command. Tim riley talk 09:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

In the FAC for this one, your reference to the mud along the Champs-Elysées outside Ledoyen brought back good memories for John and me ... can't believe it's still there! (the mud, not Ledoyen). - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Tiger

Hello. Would you be able to review tiger for FAC? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. A pleasure to read and review that excellent article. Tim riley talk 11:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your work on Igor Stravinsky demonstrating yet again why you are the Wikipedian's Wikipedian. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I say! I'll need to visit my hatter in Covent Garden for a bigger size. Thank you, Gog – greatly appreciated! Tim riley talk 11:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Undid addition of Trollope's novel Is He Popenjoy?

I don't understand why you removed my addition of Trollope's novel Is He Popenjoy. The book is referenced on Trollope's bibliography page Anthony Trollope bibliography. Admittedly, the novel is still red (the individual wikipedia page is unwritten) but that is liable to change at any time. PloniAlmoni (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You've lost me, I'm afraid. Removed from what? I certainly don't need confirmation that the novel is one of Trollope's. It is one of the many I have read over the years, though not, I seem to remember thinking, one of his best. Tim riley talk 11:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This is about OP's addition to Tichborne case. Is He Popenjoy? is not blue-linked, so it does not belong in any See also section. See WP:See also. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Thank you, Ss! Is He Popenjoy has certainly a plot strand about a claimant to a title, but, as I recall, he's an innocent little boy (put forward by one of the nastiest villains in all Trollope) and he dies before the end of the novel. Nothing at all like the Tichborne case. Tim riley talk 17:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Peer review – to anyone who chances to see this

SchroCat and I have put Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh up for peer review, with a possible shot at FAC in mind. After our successful efforts at FAC with other BBC radio comedies – ITMA and Round the Horne – we'd like to make it a hat trick, and will welcome comments from kind colleagues. Tim riley talk 13:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your kind note and your well considered edits. --Macrakis (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Robert Schumann

Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, Robert Schumann, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Congratulations, Tim! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

I have just put the belligerent bishop Hensley Henson up for FAC. He was a combative creature - nothing of Barchester Towers here, but full of interest, I think.

Comments will be most welcome from colleagues kind enough to look in. Tim riley talk 13:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Edith Evans – stage and film roles video

Thanks for making the Edith Evans – stage and film roles page back in 2013! I actually went ahead and uploaded a 1928 short featuring her and added it to the page. Please let me know what you think. :) Best, SDudley (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

SDudley. How nice! Thank you. The clip is squashing the first table on both the screens I use. I'd be inclined to remove the colour picture of Evans and just use the clip. Tim riley talk 17:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure! If you think that is better. I don’t know as much about formatting on Wikipedia, so I’d defer. I also just don’t like to step on other people’s edits. @Tim riley SDudley (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Query

@Tim riley A new book on Catherine written by the author Robert Jobson is set to be launched on 6 August. If you were the one working on her FAC, how would you have cited relevant information from that book? Looking forward to your response soon. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Having satisfied yourself that the book meets the standards of WP:RS, you put this in the list of sources at the end of the article: {{cite book | last=Jobson | first=Robert | authorlink Robert Johnson | title= | year= | location= | publisher= | isbn= }}. In the text you should give the page number of anything you cite. You can do this (as I do) by inserting <ref>Jobson, p. xyz</ref> in the text or by using the sfn template (more popular now among editors, I think) {{sfn|Jobson|2024|page=xyz}}.. The latter has the advantage that you don't need to remember to conglomerate references to a particular page (e.g. citation 7 in Gabriel Fauré): the sfn template will do it for you, as in citation 27 in It's That Man Again. The disadvantage of the sfn template is that it produces a sea of blue in the citations section. You pays your money and you takes your choice. @SchroCat (or anyone else who sees this), would you care to add anything? Feel free to contradict me. Tim riley talk 16:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to add, really except that the key is to be consistent in your sourcing, so if the article uses the older style at the moment, you have to stick with it. I can’t think of a more boring topic to write a book on (or an article, come to that), but each to their own. – SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Tim riley and @SchroCat Thanks for your response. But how do I access the book and it's pages given that it's a new release? Do we get "just launched" books on Internet Archive and similar websites? Looking forward to your responses. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you go out and buy it. Uusually new books are not released to libraries until six months after publication. And if aiming for FA, do not confuse "it's" (contraction of it is) with "its" (neuter possessive pronoun). Tim riley talk 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Mandell Creighton

Hello there: How would you like to work on Mandell Creighton and take it to FAC?

I will be traveling come September. I love MC's story and for reasons all of which can be laid at my doorstep, I've dawdled. Still, there are a couple of things I'd like to do to earn brownie points and assuage my guilt:

• James Covert's biography of Mandell and Louise is what is most often cited in the article. I'd like to reduce that load by distributing the citations among:
  • Crowder's ODNB article, and
  • Fallow's Mandell Creighton and the English Church, OUP, 1964. (Available on the Internet Archive).
• I'd like to include some material from James Kirby's Historians and the Church of England, OUP, 2011(?)

You are, of course, welcome to work on the article alongside. Regardless, it will be all yours on WWII's 85th, and very likely well before. I hope you will take on the mantle. The article needs your erudition and writing skills. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Pleased and honoured to be asked. I'll send you suggestions on MC's talk page as you have done for me at Henson's. If your travels include a stop in London, please come to lunch at my flat. Tim riley talk 12:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Great to hear.

There won't be a London stop this time, but might well be in the not so distant future. Thanks for the invite. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Tim, September 1 is upon us. The article is yours to edit and improve. I'll keep checking its progress on the weekends. If you have any queries, please post on the article's talk page or my user talk page. Here's wishing you and the Right Reverend all the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I'll gladly undertake the task, and will hope for your approval. All good wishes for your travels. Tim riley talk 16:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Moriz Rosenthal

Surprised you haven't heard of him, although he is not particularly famous outside of the piano world! You should hear his Minute Waltz in 3rds—in typical Lisztian fashion, a terrifyingly difficult arrangement.

The story goes that Liszt had a pupil (not sure that we know the name) that was not so skilled. He would come into lessons every week with a progressively worse playing of the original minute waltz and seemingly refused to improve. Apparently Liszt had had enough, so he scheduled his lesson with Rosenthal right before this student, and had him play his arrangement in 3rds. According to Rosenthal, the other student promptly dropped piano! Aza24 (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that, dear Aza24. Will you think me prissy and snobbish (or just plain stupid) if I say that I am not attracted to composers like Liszt whose works consist of more notes than music? Tim riley talk 16:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

As it is a sentiment I find deeply entrenched in the opinions of many colleagues (even quite a few pianists), I’d be remiss to judge you. Particularly when in such good company: I believe Clara Schumann herself fell asleep when Liszt first played his B Minor Sonata for her.

I have made a conscious effort these past few years to interrogate my negative reception of many big names. Liszt wasn’t an issue (I’d liked him since my youth) but Brahms, Mendelssohn and Bartok didn’t come easy—I came to appreciate them much more after many tries. Whether this says more about me or them, I’m not sure. Bruckner is the one nut I’m yet to crack. I’m not particularly fond of Xenakis, for instance, but I understand that Messiaen encouraged him not to study harmony, which I suppose is apparent in his work! Here I am with more composer anecdotes… Aza24 (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Aza24 (May I call you just Aza?) Bruckner – I came to him via recordings in the 1960s (Philharmonia/Klemperer), and in particular the Seventh. I was in my teens and like many musical teenagers was under Wagner's spell (it has worn off a little, but not wholly, since) and the scherzo of the Seventh seemed to me in the vein of the Flying Dutchman overture, and, as I was and will remain to my last day under the spell of Beethoven, the adagio seemed to me the next best thing to the Marcia funebre from the Eroica, and it still does. I think the Seventh is the most accessible of the symphonies, with perhaps the Fourth and Ninth as runners up. I don't think I'll ever get a handle on the Fifth. Tim riley talk 19:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Just Aza is fine! I understand the difficulty in escaping Beethoven, not that there is any need to. Of course, the Seventh is irresistible, while both the glory of the Ninth & Drama of the Third have never failed me. I may be the only person I know who absolutely adores the 8th, perhaps above most of the others. I'll have to give Bruckner's Seventh another listen. Aza24 (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Appreciation

	Mister Fireberg
	Stravinsky once was recognized on a train and called "Mister Fireberg". Thank you dearly for finishing up the final reviews and tying loose ends. The article would not have gotten here without your comments and support! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Honoured, dear colleague! And thank you for this gong. Tim riley talk 16:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Hensley Henson

Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, Hensley Henson, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Gog. I'm glad the old boy is now at FA. I grew rather fond of him while working on the article. I've no more bishops on the tapis at the moment, but I hope to lend a hand to User:Fowler&fowler on Mandell Creighton fairly soon. Tim riley talk 12:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

To Grog's congratulations, may I add mine? And, yes, for the final lap in the Creighton relay I shall soon be handing the baton to you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Whilst I am profoundly ignorant about ... well, everything really ... I do have a bit of an interest in Creighton. Specifically, at home I live a few metres away from one end of Creighton Avenue, and where I am right now, in our (ahem) Northern Estates, I am just round the corner from the Creighton Memorial Hall. Not a coincidence. I shall try to keep a friendly eye on this. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Have replied on the Creighton talk page. Your edits are welcome! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• My belated congratulations, too! -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Otto Klemperer

Hi Tim, I saw an unexplained edit by an IP user adding Klemperer's Sephardic descent, which to me seemed unnecessary and also hard to believe that the IP user checked the source before adding that. That is why i reverted it. I apologise for not checking the source first. Cheers — Gor1995 𝄞 13:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Gor1995, how nice to get a civilised and courteous message like that! Thank you - greatly appreciated! Tim riley talk 13:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Tichborne case scheduled for TFA

What ho! This is to let you know that the Tichborne case has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 October 2024. This is one of Brian's articles; if you haven't got it watchlisted, would you be able to pop it onto your watchlist and keep an eye on it, please? Could you check that it needs needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2, 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 2024. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Many thanks. – SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Et tu, Brute?. Oh, all right. If ever there's an article to bring out the loonies well-meaning half-wits conspiracy theorists, this is it. Tim riley talk 14:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've given my support to the draft blurb. Shall run an editorial eye over the text of the article tomorrow. How I miss the old boy! Tim riley talk 17:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Me too. - SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A handful of v. minor comments from me on the text of the article: see article talk page. Tim riley talk 15:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Per your Faustian request...

I have Ove Jørgensen up for FAC at the moment -- it's already had a few very kind people drop in to review, but I think we're at a lull at the moment, so your thoughts and advice would be most gratefully received. UndercoverClassicist ^{User talk:UndercoverClassicist}

Duly done, with much pleasure. Tim riley talk 20:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The Importance of Being Earnest

With much valued preliminary input from UndercoverClassicist, AirshipJungleman29 and SchroCat, I've put the article on Wilde's incomparable comedy up for FAC. Comments and suggestions for further improvement gratefully received at the FAC page. Tim riley talk 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Opinion

Tim riley I would just like to know your opinion on one thing. Based on my edit contributions, GA promotions, and overall my work here so far, do you feel that I am too young to write FA-class articles? Do let me know of your opinion. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you are too young. We all get more experienced, and one hopes, wiser, with age, but nothing venture, nothing win at any age. Tim riley talk 18:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bidni

Bidni has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Kimikel (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll sit this one out. The article looks fine to me except for the citation templates, which need adjusting. Perhaps you would like to have a go, Kimikel? Tim riley talk 15:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Giselle

Giselle has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of The Importance of Being Earnest

Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, The Importance of Being Earnest, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Peer review anyone?

I have put the article on Mandell Creighton up for peer review. The article has been on the tapis on and off for years, and at the suggestion of its main author, Fowler&fowler, I have extensively revised it with FAC in mind. Creighton is an interesting subject - both a fine and innovative historian and a distinguished, though too short-lived, Bishop of London. I hope to welcome interested colleagues at the PR. Tim riley talk 14:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Edits to Lord Driberg page

Morning. You have removed sourced information about the subject, on the basis that it isn't mentioned in either of two sources. I'm not really sure that's how Wikipedia works, is it? Surely if there is a valid source and it is encyclopaedic information then whether the subject has discussed it in his memoirs or not is irrelevant. OGBC1992 (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the point is that if a fact is too trivial to appear in two full-length biographies, then it's likely to be too trivial to a summary article in an encyclopaedia. Looking at the Driberg article, I think this addition falls into the trivia category. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat homes in on the key point. As editors it is our job to boil down the available material from reliable sources into an encyclopaedia-sized article, concentrating on the essentials. The names of a subject's godchildren cannot reasonably be said to be an essential (particularly as Wheen and Driberg in a total of 723 pages make no mention of the matter.) If you think it is important that TD was Ms Sylvestre's godfather you may like to add it to her article. (Incidentally, verb sap, your heading is wrong: he was never Lord Driberg.) Tim riley talk 16:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Irene Vanbrugh

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Irene Vanbrugh you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mertbiol -- Mertbiol (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Irene Vanbrugh

The article Irene Vanbrugh you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Irene Vanbrugh and Talk:Irene Vanbrugh/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mertbiol -- Mertbiol (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Irene Vanbrugh

The article Irene Vanbrugh you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Irene Vanbrugh for comments about the article, and Talk:Irene Vanbrugh/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mertbiol -- Mertbiol (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh

Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

François-Louis Auvity

As I mentioned on the Peer Review page for this article, I discovered immediately after adding my comments that the main author, Mémoiredumaquis, had died. I said then that I'd see if I could add anything of value to bring the article up to GA standard. I've had a go, but don't, in all honesty, think I've achieved that and would welcome any additions or alterations from editors including KJP1 and Ssilvers, who commented on the PR page, and from any other editor kind enough to look in. Tim riley talk 13:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but you did bring it up to real B-class level, which is a big improvement, IMO. I went through it and asked a few questions (using both templates and hidden comments), and requested a couple of citations, which may already be there somewhere but should probably be repeated where requested. I also added some wikilinks, but please review to make sure that I did not misunderstand. For people who are not French, or not Christians, there are a lot of mentions of place names, Catholic lingo and dioceses that need linking. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You’ve done a grand job of re-ordering, and making the best use possible of the limited sourcing. He’s surprisingly under-researched, or perhaps not too surprising as I suspect it was a stone many would have preferred left unturned. The extent of French/Vichy collaboration with the Nazis is a tricky subject. Rather like consideration of Francoist supporters in Spain, of whom there were many, not least in the Catholic Church hierarchy, it’s all rather an embarrassment. I’ll see whether I can add anything from the meagre book sources. KJP1 (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Now that that's done, could either of you also please add any of the sources that pertain to them both to the poor archbishop Florent du Bois de La Villerabel entry? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look once the Internet Archive site is available again. It's been down for a couple of days. Tim riley talk 11:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The Importance of Being Earnest

Good evening Tim. I am looking to make this the TFA for 24 November. Is that ok with you? If so, do you fancy having a crack at a draft blurb? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Gog, by all means. How many words do you need? Tim riley talk 18:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Ta much. 925 - 1,025 characters inc spaces are the hard limits. I'd do it myself, but a week down with covid has left my interaction with reality even more coincidental than usual. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

How about this?

The Importance of Being Earnest is a drawing-room play by Oscar Wilde, premiered on 14 February 1895 in London. The farcical comedy depicts the affairs of two young men about town who lead double lives to evade unwanted social obligations, both assuming the name Ernest to woo two young women. Other characters are the formidable Lady Bracknell, the fussy governess Miss Prism and the benign and scholarly Canon Chasuble. The play, celebrated for its wit and repartee, parodies contemporary dramatic norms and satirises late Victorian manners. Contemporary reviews praised its humour, although some critics faulted its lack of social messages. The successful opening night marked the climax of Wilde's career but was followed within weeks by his downfall: his feud with his lover's father, Marquess of Queensberry, led to a series of legal trials from March to May 1895 that resulted in Wilde's conviction and imprisonment for homosexual acts. The play closed in May after 86 performances. Wilde wrote no more comic or dramatic works. The play has been revived frequently and adapted for radio, television, film, operas and musicals. (Full article...)

If you both like it, is the length right, Gog?. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Nice, but that is 1,273 characters. Could we lose 250? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Bloody hellfire! So sorry to hear about your Covid. Tim riley talk 18:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Trimmed:

The Importance of Being Earnest is a drawing-room play by Oscar Wilde, premiered on 14 February 1895 in London. The farcical comedy depicts two young men about town who lead double lives to evade unwanted social obligations, both assuming the name Ernest to woo two young women. The play, celebrated for its wit and repartee, parodies dramatic norms and satirises late Victorian manners. Contemporary reviews praised its humour, though some critics faulted its lack of social messages. The successful opening night marked the climax of Wilde's career but was followed quickly by his downfall: his feud with his lover's father, Marquess of Queensberry, led to a series of legal trials from March to May 1895 that resulted in Wilde's conviction and imprisonment for homosexual acts. The play closed in May after 86 performances; Wilde wrote no more comic or dramatic works. The play has been revived frequently and adapted for radio, television, film, operas and musicals. (Full article...)

How zat? Do you like it, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Gog, here is my suggestion:

The Importance of Being Earnest is a drawing room comedy by Oscar Wilde, premiered on 14 February 1895 in London. It depicts the affairs of two young men about town who lead double lives to evade unwanted social obligations, both assuming the name Ernest to woo two young women. Other characters are the formidable Lady Bracknell, the fussy governess Miss Prism and the benign and scholarly Canon Chasuble. The play, celebrated for its wit and repartee, parodies contemporary dramatic norms and comically satirises late Victorian manners. The triumphant opening night was followed within weeks by Wilde's downfall and imprisonment for homosexual acts and the closure of the production, but from the early 20th century onwards the play has been revived frequently and adapted for radio, television, film, operas and musicals. 948 words including spaces.

Tim riley talk 19:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Or, edit conflict.

The Importance of Being Earnest is a drawing-room play by Oscar Wilde, premiered on 14 February 1895 in London. The farcical comedy depicts two young men about town who lead double lives to evade unwanted social obligations, both assuming the name Ernest to woo two young women. Other characters are the formidable Lady Bracknell and the fussy governess Miss Prism. The play parodies dramatic norms and satirises late Victorian manners. Contemporary reviews praised its humour, though some faulted its lack of social messages. The successful opening night marked the climax of Wilde's career. His feud with his lover's father, Marquess of Queensberry, led to a series of legal trials from March to May 1895 that resulted in Wilde's conviction and imprisonment for homosexual acts. The play closed in May after 86 performances; Wilde wrote no more comic or dramatic works. The play has been revived frequently and adapted for radio, television, film, operas and musicals. (Full article...)

Mostly taking out stuff implied or specified elsewhere. Now 988 characters, so a little scope to add stuff back if you wish to. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Too much stuff about Queensberry and po-faced contemporary critics in my view. My draft is more to do with the play. But up to you. Tim riley talk 19:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It is your article gents. By all means let us not be po faced. So Tim's version, but could we perhaps sneak in one more factoid? "The triumphant opening night was followed within weeks by Wilde's downfall and imprisonment for homosexual acts and the closure of the production, and Wilde wrote no more comic or dramatic works. From the early 20th century onwards the play has been revived frequently ..."? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that works nicely, I think. Hope the Gogian respiratory tract is functioning efficiently now. Tim riley talk 20:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Also, Tim's version is much better than my draft! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The Importance of Being Earnest scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 24 November 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Berlioz in Time

Hope this finds you well Tim. Just noticed the above (University of Rochester Press, 2022: ed. Peter Bloom) is open access from Boydell & Brewer, here, if you're interested. All the best! SerialNumber54129 11:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, SN. I'll certainly look in. I'm a great fan of the Boydell Press and its successor. Tim riley talk 13:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Mahler

Hello Tim:

I'm writing this message here to notify you I posted an opinion disagreeing with your recent revert to my edit on the article's talk page. I would be happy to talk about it with you. Milo8505 _(talk) 15:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The Decca Ring

I put together an article a couple of years ago about this milestone in the history of recording, and after a little buffing I've now put it up as a Good Article nominee. If any music lover who sees this would like to review it I'd be most grateful. (Importunate as ever I'm also hawking my wares at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music.) Tim riley talk 12:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations to you and your brilliant colleague on your work! SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

. Five of the six opening words are "and the same to you". Tim riley talk 13:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Volcano

Hello, Tim. At Noël Coward on stage and screen, someone made this edit. Was 2002 a typo, or does M&M note a 2002 production? Where was it? Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

infobox

Hey, just a heads up, with changes to MOS:SIR, articles are now arguably required them otherwise postnominals will not be displayed on them. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Nford24, but I can't work out what you are trying to tell me. Could you make it clearer, please? Tim riley talk 23:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I tagged the wrong MOS. Post nominals are no longer acceptable in the lead sentence of articles per WP:Manual of Style/Biography#Post-nominal_letters, due to this WT:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Proposal: Moving post-nominals from lead sentences to article bodies consensus. I'm currently trying to clean-up the sway of removals on every article in sight, I'm avoiding composers now of course. Just keep it in mind, they're going to disappear from every article eventually without an infobox. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I see – thank you. Yet another initiative by Wikipedia activists to make life more difficult for contributors and readers alike, but we're used to that. Tim riley talk 23:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Joyce Grenfell

Hello Tim You didn't like my addition to the Joyce Grenfell article. I cited some of the information about the wedding published in The Times in 1929. I need hardly remind you that it was a newspaper of record and one of the most respected of the period. Their piece published the wedding date (accurately); the names of all 293 guests attending the reception, some of whom I mentioned; and where it took place. If any of that had been inaccurate don't you think somebody would have written to The Times? You described my contribution as "social tittle tattle". The Cambridge dictionary defines that as "talk about other people's lives that is usually unkind, disapproving, or not true". I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning on how that applies to my edit. I would welcome you agreement that my addition is indeed authentic, and permit me to reinstate it. Best wishes, John Jgdc47B (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The list of names just look like trivia, but that's just my take on it. - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Jgdc47B, I do not doubt that the information is accurate, but it is trivial and unencyclopaedic. It is not a question of accuracy but one of notability. As JG's biographer Janie Hamilton does not find it appropriate to mention – in her 400+ page book – Mitford, Seaman et al at the wedding how could we justify taking the space to do so in a concise encyclopaedia article? The ODNB doesn't and nor, in my view, should we.

Please note that discussions like this belong on the article talk page where all interested editors can see them rather on a user's talk page, seen by few. Tim riley talk 11:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Champagne

(moved from preceding section to avoid muddling two separate topics)

SchroCat, thanks for looking in. While you're here, may I ask for your thoughts on the question posed here? One could argue it either way and I don't want to impose my view if others disagree with it. (All editors' view welcome, natch.) And I imagine you've got some Wine Society champagne in your racks, in which case you may like to run an eye over this article I've just put up. All suggestions for improvement welcome. Tim riley talk 12:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Very nice. The only quibble (and it is mere pedantry on my part): you are not consistent with whether you use a serial comma or not. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, as ever, SchroCat. Tim riley talk 13:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Golden Gun

Hi Tim, you will get told off for two bolded supports here: [1] Graham Beards (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Really? I've always done that when supporting an FAC. As you are telling me I didn't oughter I'll stop henceforth. Tim riley talk 10:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

-) See Ian's edit summary here: [2]

Graham Beards (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Right ho! I'll dutifully comply in future. Thank you for mentioning it. Tim riley talk 11:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)