User talk:Tim riley/Archive26

March and April 2019[edit]

FL review[edit]

Hi Tim. My nomination of List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Norfolk is languishing with two supports. I should be grateful for a review if you have time. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley, certainly, and with great pleasure. I happen to be working on the Round the Horne article at the moment, and it is therefore a delight to find that the River Tud has tufa hummocks, which is pure Rambling Syd Rumpo. Tim riley talk 16:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Round the Horne[edit]

This is a warning to anyone rash enough to watch this page: SchroCat and I have Round the Horne up for peer review. Anyone who is so kind as to look in at the PR will have only themselves to blame, but we nevertheless hope to see you there. – Tim riley talk 19:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

citation bot in Rossini[edit]

Tim, I don't at all like what citation bot has done in Rossini. It's removed the 'subscription' from the Grove Online entries, added a spurious volume 1 to each such entry, and confusing and unsightly doi links. Can we reverse this?--Smerus (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smerus, done. I see Ravel (front page today) has been similarly marred and will fix when doing my post-TFA clean-up tomorrow. Tim riley talk 07:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim and Smerus. The bot came back to Gioachino and reverted Tim. I've now reverted the bot again and added {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} to the page which should keep it from returning with further ministrations. Feel free to remove it if you want.Voceditenore (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I say! That's splendid. Thank you so much for the cure. I'll keep this code in my Wikipedia kit bag for use elsewhere. Voceditenore. Tim riley talk 11:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead right! I'm going to add that to every decentish article I've written. Many thanks, Voceditenore! ——SerialNumber54129 13:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Detected as a watcher of this page, SN 54129! May we expect the pleasure of your company at the Round the Horne peer review? Tim riley talk 19:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, rumbled! Yes, I think I'm due an airing, Tim; it will be a pleasure. But tomorrow, please! A hot toddy awaits right now :) ——SerialNumber54129 20:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this tip VdT!--Smerus (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Ravel[edit]

Hi. Two of the words you unlinked aren't really so common. As a reader I might have liked a ready link to concerto and song cycle. I'm often doing wiktionary links to words I might often see but then realize I don't really know what they mean. Examples: cohorts, unplaced, ambivalent, habituated, delimited, innocuous, gormless, ostensibly and so on. Me no English can speak good. Slight Smile 23:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should explain that featured articles such as this have been through at least one and usually two rigorous reviews by a number of experienced editors, and a consensus arrived at about the text, presentation etc. I respect your own views, naturally, but please bear in mind that the text approved for FA has been vetted most carefully. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 01:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks. Slight Smile 01:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made several corrections but you undid all of them. Why? Most of my revisions are correcting things clearly wrong or incomplete, like a composition couldn't have been written in 1926 if the premiere was on March 21, 1925. Other pages (list of compositions and other sources) confirm. Other things done for completness, like listing ALL the composers Ravel arranged. Etc. I could go on and justify every revision I made one by one, but you can check the validity of my changes yourself very easily... which you should have done before you just blanketed all my changes with one stroke. I will undo your undo if you don't come up with any good reason why not. saguaro-sun / chuckstreet (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps explain how Wikipedia works, particularly at FA level (though the same principles apply throughout). All statements need to be verifiable and cited to a reliable source. If you take issue with any such statements in situ you need to cite sources in support of your contention. You make several assertions about dates etc but provide no evidence to back them up. If a date is self evidently a typo it can of course be changed, but otherwise sources are required. The best place to pursue this is the article talk page, where other interested editors can see the discussion rather than here, where it will not be seen by many. Tim riley talk 08:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congrossinilations![edit]

...Hey, it's about as good of a joke as Il Signeur Tambourossini. Seriously, though, you worked hard, did excellent work, and should feel very proud of yourselves. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.4% of all FPs} 18:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's most kind of you, Adam. And thank you again for your valuable input. Tim riley talk 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GBS on eugenics[edit]

I have moved a recent addition to this page across to the article talk page, so that other interested editors may see it and comment if they are so inclined. Tim riley talk 07:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1345-46 in the Hundred Years' War[edit]

Good afternoon Tim

Thank you for your recent support. You seem to be taking an interest in my 1345-46 articles, so I thought that I would give you a sneak preview of what is planned. Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 is the last of the five Gascon articles to go to FAC. I am hoping to then submit the Battles of Sluys, Caen, and Blanchetache from the Crecy Campaign. The overarching article for this campaign, Chevauchée of Edward III (1346) is on the stocks and should be working its way through the process ere long. I will then turn to the Siege of Calais, which I envisage being quite long and technical - the siege lasted a year and was hotly contested - and to Crécy. With 122 watchers, and being what it is, I anticipate some fun and games around that. I can then relax with the grand over-arching Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347 and, I hope, complete a featured topic (see, they have a function) which sets Crécy clearly in context. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, I don't know how things are nowadays, but in my schooldays (the 1950s and 60s) history was taught in seemingly arbitrarily chosen chunks – some periods studied in detail and others completely ignored – so that I still know more than I need to about Martin Luther, Frederick the Great, and the French and Agricultural Revolutions, but nothing at all about mediaeval England or France. Perhaps it is for that reason that I so enjoy your articles, and those of SerialNumber54129 among others. I shall keep a benevolent eye on the work-in-progress you outline above. I steam with envy at your superb illustrations: I am collaborating with SchroCat on upgrading the article on Round the Horne, and as you can imagine, it's damned difficult to find free-use images of a 1960s radio programme. I think my record for getting away with "fair use" pics is three different ones chez Osbert Lancaster, to illustrate his three different artistic careers, but as SchroCat rightly says, it's hard to argue that one needs fair use images to illustrate an article about a radio programme. We are at peer review at the moment, by the way, if you care to look in. We'll be at FAC fairly soon, I think. Tim riley talk 14:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

During my schooldays during the 1960s and '70s it was much the same. I dropped history at age, thus cementing a life long interest in it. I would also decry the over-emphasis on the significant events and people, but Wikipedia-wise I get comments like the one above yours complaining that the article is very technical and seems to be all background and aftermath, with insufficient detail on what to article is entitled. I have enjoyed working through the articles, and it is possible that I am now one of the score or so best informed people on the Gascon theatre 1345-46. Which is a frightening thought.

I have made a slight contribution to RtH's PR, but shall keep my powder dry for the FAC, which to my eye it seems to be ready for. Or a GAN, if you prefer a steadier approach. Give me a ping when it is nominated if you would. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian Glass[edit]

Tim—thank you for taking the time to review Venetian Glass. I currently work full time and am rehabbing a broken wrist, but I plan to address your suggestions tomorrow. On the hour to row to Murano question, that is what the source says. I will check for a second source—although that might be a difficult task. I went from a hotel in Venice to Murano in a power-boat about 5 years ago, but I can't remember how long it took—maybe 20 to 40 minutes. I appreciate your work reviewing Venetian Glass, and look forwarding to making refinements tomorrow. TwoScars (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars: – Take your time! No rush at all. Don't bother about a second source for the rowing time to Murano: the existing one will do very well, and my offhand remark is neither here nor there. On another point, I didn't mention this in the review, because it was irrelevant, but I hadn't quite twigged that Murano is not one island but a series of little ones joined by bridges. You make me impatient to get back to Venice! Tim riley talk 17:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim—thank you for your work on Venetian glass. I have always believed that reviewers are vastly underappreciated and their work is difficult. Cheers! TwoScars (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TwoScars – A pleasing comment, thank you, and one that emboldens me to suggest you might think about reviewing one or more other GA nominations as and when the demands of your day-to-day work and the healing of your wrist permit. (Please ignore the remarks below. I have to put up with these editors online and they even turn up at small gatherings at my flat from time to time. What can one do? But they are harmless – and are very generous with their time in reviewing, verb sap.) Tim riley talk 22:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DriveRow-by comment[edit]

Tim riley - Practised expectorator though you are, if you can spit from Fondamente Nove to Murano, the wine's on me in May! The ferry takes 18 minutes and an hour under muscle power sounds wholly reasonable, two if you're at the oars. KJP1 (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which oars – and do be careful with the spelling and aspiration – you are at, KJ I cannot say. Nor, of course, can I say which hour you have spent under muscle power. Tim riley talk 17:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: You mean row-by comment. Basta! Any further nonsense to be on my talk page, if you please. Tim riley talk 17:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After, afterthought - Do you have the Duplinks script or do you spot them by eye? I'd like to run it over Sissingishurst before she goes on the main page as Sarastro noticed some, but I've never managed to run it. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are dup links to the RHS (first one in VS-W section and second in Head gardeners), Hidcote (first in Building a garden and second in White Garden), the Great Storm (first in White Garden and second in Orchard) and old garden roses (first in Rose garden and second in Roses). I can't remember where I got the dup link gizmo or how to install it. SchroCat, who is technically competent – by which I mean competent technically – may be able to help you. Tim riley talk 20:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Competent? How dare you sir!

To install the duplicate link script, add the following line to your common.js:

importScript('User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js'); // [[User:Evad37/duplinks-alt]]

There should appear in the left hand column of your page under the "Tools" header the magic words "Highlight duplicate links". Press on that, and hey presto, little red boxes should appear round the duplicated links. Pip pip, Sir Redvers Cornposture 20:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bidni review[edit]

Tim, thanks for the comments / feedback on the Bidni article. Bon Appétit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolluxWorld (talk • contribs) 11:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ban this Filth ...[edit]

... is the title of a book about a Mrs Whitehouse, who campaigned against what she supposed to be immoral programmes broadcast by the BBC in the 1960s. I am pleased to say that SchroCat and I have been working on the article about outstandingly the BBC's most flagrant outrage against public morals, the much-loved radio show Round the Horne. We have extravagantly enjoyed researching and writing this disgraceful nonsense, and we look forward to comments from anyone willing to be seen in public frequenting this deplorable FAC. – Tim riley talk 21:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, this deplorable article has been promoted to FA. Thank you to all the editors who risked their reputations by looking in at the review. Tim riley talk 20:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

Appreciation time[edit]

		You are a Ray of Sunshine!
		It says here "The Ray of Sunshine is bestowed on that person who, when you see their name at the top of your watchlist, you know that all is right with the world and that you can relax. May be awarded to any person who consistently brightens your day." So here you go. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I say! What a very nice thing to see on one's talk page. Thank you very much. I shall try to live up to it. Tim riley talk 16:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your peer review of Milton Keynes[edit]

For some unfathomable reason, I missed your peer review of Milton Keynes. I am most grateful for your work (as well as really annoyed that I failed to see it because there are some really useful action points to follow up). Thank you so much. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Massenet scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that Jules Massenet has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 12 May 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 12, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Évohé ![edit]

What amazing work... I shall have to educate myself. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cg2p0B0u8m: that's most kind of you, mon général. I hope you won't refrain from polishing up any of my linguistic infelicities or anything else you think needs polishing. – Tim riley talk 21:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orpheus in the Underworld[edit]

If anyone who watches this page and happens to spot this message cares to look in at the peer review of the recently-overhauled article I shall be very glad indeed to read any comments. Tim riley talk 09:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]