User talk:Tim riley/Archive26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

June 2014


Tim, I hate to be a pain when you have been so good in reviewing articles I've worked on, but would you mind revisiting Pope Paul III and his Grandsons; a portrait of a dodgy hoary old pope by the finest of 16th c masters. ty. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Done, and supported, with pleasure. Nb that I suspect "overgaze" should be "overglaze", but I didn't quite like to make the assumption and change it myself. Tim riley talk 09:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Slinks away in shame. You're right. Ceoil (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ralph Richardson[edit]

I really think you need to mention his role as the wheelchair-ridden tycoon and Sean Connery's father opposite Gina Lollobrigida in 1964. I've added it but knowing how much of a perfectionist you are with the prose you'll probably want to find a way to further reedit it to your satisfaction!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


Following an email from Wehwalt, I've sent you (and BB) an email about tomorrow. Yours, BencherliteTalk 16:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

My songs[edit]

Thank you for your support and spot checks in the FA review of my songs! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It was a privilege and pleasure. By the way, if I haven't already done so I pass on to you some wise advice given to me by Brian Boulton: while the article is on the front page go away and ignore it. Much better for one's blood pressure and nerves to wait till the caravan has passed and then tidy up after the vandals, loonies and well-meaning ninnies have moved on. Tim riley talk 14:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
It was harmless so far, - perhaps the image of a church helps ;) - nobody added an infobox ;)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Snapdragon Productions Ltd unblock request[edit]

As to your unblock request at User talk:Snapdragon Productions Ltd, first, please don't make unblock requests for other users. Please feel free to comment there but I think a request is disruptive since I can't tell if the user is actually interested in returning and it clogs up the backlog even more. Second, the user was not blocked for their edits but for their username. Organizations are not permitted to edit here as an organization because it is likely to be shared by multiple people; individuals edit. If the user wants to stay, they need to come up with a name that is appropriate. I hope that answers your concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't sure I was up to speed with WP's rules for the bureaucraticals, as I said on the page. But it seems a shame to penalise an editor for candour and demand that she or he adopts a furtive pseudonym. We had an entire WP editathon not too long ago arranged by and round an editor who was specifically a representative of Covent Garden who declared her interest from the outset. Tim riley talk 20:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Delius on Tuesday[edit]

Are we all set? I read through it, changed one word, otherwise it reads splendidly. I think you were going to check out the ext links? Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I was and have. All fine. Tim riley talk 07:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I propose to follow your wise advice and hibernate for 24 hours while Fred is on the front page. We can have a post-mortem on Wednesday once the mob has moved on to the next TFA. Tim riley talk 16:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
... the composer who has my name in an opera title ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sophie Wyss[edit]

Thanks for starting her off, Tim. I've added some further details. I tracked down her DOB in Grove V, but her DOD is still missing.

It's quite amazing how BB went from describing her as "excellent" and "outstanding" in 1937 and dedicating works to her children and being godfather to one of them, to regarding her as "a moron" and "daft" by 1945. This seemed to be his way, though. When someone had outlived their usefulness to him, he just switched them off, and from then on acted as if they'd never existed. He did the same with David Hemmings; he went from complete infatuation, to having no contact whatsoever with Hemmings from the moment his voice broke during a performance in 1956, for the remaining 18 years of his (BB's) life. Maybe this is part of why I find much of Britten's music emotionally very cold and unattractive. Still, a fascinating subject to explore and write about. -- Jack of Oz

[pleasantries] 23:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Britten was a strange mixture of generous kindness and ruthless selfishness, but I don't think a composer's personality necessarily informs his music: Wagner was a vile human being, but the music...! Glad you approve of my start, and thank you for building on it. Tim riley talk 16:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Tim, I'm so sorry if my initially removing the Grove reference alarmed or dismayed you - I was being rather literal (about the fact it didn't mention Gyde) and hadn't noticed you'd put it in to confirm the date of the founding of CPNM/SPNM. I've now slightly reworked the sentence to make clear what is being verified by each citation. Alfietucker (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
It passed me by, in truth. I was absorbed in Our Hunting Fathers, which is now open for inspection on presentation of visiting card. Tim riley talk 13:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


SS Arctic disaster is at peer review, awaiting your kind attention if you are so inclined. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

...and, while I'm at it, a request for help. As I have mentioned, I am researching the life and misdeeds of the roguish Horatio Bottomley (Liberal MP for Hackney South). In the first decades of last century he was one of the best-known people in England, and his photograph must have been published all over the place. Unfortunately, none of the many images available online give original publication details such as are required for FA purposes. The same is true of the images in the two main biographies. Do any of your old press sources give any helpful indications of the original publication of any of these? I'd be glad for any help on this. Jappalang, thou shouldst be living at this hour. Brian hath need of thee. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
(continued this one on BB's talk page) Tim riley talk 09:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Useful and constructive discussion about English/British between Deb and self moved to Britten talk page for permanent record. Tim riley talk 18:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Shocked to the core....[edit]

RVW is the last of the big beasts? I'm shocked and saddened at the omission! - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your message briefly had me cheering, you ratbag! I thought you were volunteering to help me upgrade the RVW article, till I clicked on your mischievous link. I have a 1970s album of AWK's pieces, in one of which the Ambrosian Singers deliver words, innocently meant, that would infallibly incur a Fatwah if sung now. Heigh ho! Ketèlbey was, I think, in that grey area between the Ronald Binges and Robert Farnons on the one hand and the Eric Coateses and Edward Germans (and even in light vein the Edward Elgars) on the other. And to speak truth the filler on my CD is Luigini's Ballet égyptiene, which I love more than the entire Ketèlbey canon, but then I am old enough to know about Wilson, Keppel and Betty and also to know Richard Murdoch's words to Luigini's score. Tim riley talk 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
He he! I don't think you'd thank my ignorant input on RVW: I really would be more of a hindrance than a help, and you should count your chickens accordingly! One of the reasons I've never attempted the greatest of all C20th British composers (aka AWK) is that I am an utter musical duffer, and it shows whenever I try and write anything (as you saw with "Die Forelle"!) As to W, K & B: they were wonderful, and certainly an article in need of a good future work-over! - SchroCat (talk)
Your Trout article is damn' good, so less of that if you'd be so kind. I'd be willing to devote a day or two of my remaining years to working with you on Ketèlbey. Yours to command. Tim riley talk 19:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Ha! I'm going to hold you to that one - I have witnesses and screenshots etc, so there's no escape from it, however much you try and wriggle free! It won't be til sometime next year (at the earliest), as Cass and I have some flaming Lancastrian to sort out! before I move onto John Barrymore and his legendary drinking (oops, acting) career to bring up to spec, among other bits and pieces. And, hopefully, a few more bottles of red with you, Cass, BB, BL (and anyone else passing through London!) - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh ye of little faith! I have eight pages of notes on Ketélbey assembled this morning. More anon. 20:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts...[edit]

I've been thinking over your kind invitation to get involved in working on RVW. My first reaction, to be honest, is I might be a liability, given first of all my freelance existence which means I sometimes have to abruptly drop whatever I'm doing on WP for days or over a week or so (or at least, as a rule, not do anything very sustained while I earn my bread); second, I've not exactly had a lot of experience in rebuilding WP articles, so I may need some clear instructions as to what's expected.

But on reflection, I think I should make an exception for RVW (plus, I'm very aware of the honour of your asking me to pitch in). I did miss the GvH boat, after all, and it would be nice to have a go with a close colleague of his. So the will is there, if the invitation is still open, and you don't mind someone who is still learning the ropes. Alfietucker (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

How very gratifying! I am provisionally committed to work on Lord Salisbury with Wehwalt in August or thereabouts. How would Sept or Oct suit your calendar? There is no rush or deadline of any kind.
When I have collaborated on FACs before, the two or three of us have divvied out the tasks in advance, so that you can have as much or as little as you like. For example I wrote most of the Britten article, but only a couple of minor bits of the Neville Cardus one. Brian B and Gerda A wrote most of Messiah and I just did a chunk of performance history and the recordings section. With Disraeli I got Dizzy into the Commons and Wehwalt took him from there, with me adding a coda about the novels. So really, whatever you fancy doing will be fine with me. I have chez Holst and Delius cunningly got Brian to do the hard bits – the overview of the music – while I craftily bagged the easy bit, the biogs, but I am wholly biddable on this for RVW.
As an amuse gueule, I send you a story from a friend who is a luminary of the Royal Philharmonic Society etc. Mrs VW was presented to the Prince of Wales at some RCM bash. Was it she, he enquired, who had asked him to sponsor a music foundation on Ischia? "No, no, sir," she replied. "You must be thinking of Susana Walton." "I see," said HRH. "Will it be any good?" There was a long pause before Ursula's answer: "Well, sir, she's an excellent gardener." Tim riley talk 20:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
That made me laugh - thank you! From what I gather from a friend of mine who also knew Ursula, she sounds as if in private she could be quite sharp-tongued especially about people either she or her husband disapproved of or were disappointed by.
I would say I don't know RVW's music in quite so much depth as I know, say, Britten's or Holst's; but that's probably not particularly relevant given that we have to write up according to reliable secondary sources. Maybe that's a good excuse for me to catch up on what the latest scholars have added to Michael Kennedy's insights.
That said, I'm intrigued by RVW's involvement in such bodies as the British Council and the Society for the Promotion of New Music (both during the 1940s), so if we're thinking of doing a special section on this I would be glad to take this on.
Sept or Oct, so far as I can tell, should be fine by me, though freelancing does mean that sometimes a big job turns up unexpectedly. Assuming that doesn't happen, though, I should think I can fit in some work then. Let's firm up nearer the time. Alfietucker (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Tim, you are too kind, - what I did for Messiah was mostly taking things out ;) - I added He was despised on the side. A change I would like to make is replacing the redundant side navbox with the composer's image (it could all be in a bottom navbox, as in Utrecht Te Deum, and I wonder how may people actually get the idea that it IS a navbox, not a image with a strange frame, - I think that's what I thought for a long time about the opera articles, - it never occurred to me to click on "show") by the infobox from the other , - what do you think of a beauty contest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm still up for Salisbury on my return from sea. But I understand that things come up. Sounds like a very worthy project, and I understand if you are engaged in something else, but we'll make it work one way or another.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
No change to plans needed. Lord S is next on my list of biggies. RVW follows on his heels. I hope you are enjoying yourself extravagantly. Tim riley talk 20:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Quite. In between ports and trivia competitions, I am working in a desultory fashion on John Hay.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
No need. I've dealt with him already Tim riley talk 21:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Pierre Monteux[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Pierre Monteux know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 1, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 1, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Pierre Monteux

Pierre Monteux (1875–1964) was a French (later American) conductor, who directed orchestras around the world for more than half a century. After violin and viola studies, and a decade as an orchestral player and occasional conductor, he began to receive regular conducting engagements in 1907. He came to prominence when he conducted the world premieres of ballets such as The Rite of Spring, Daphnis et Chloé, and Jeux. From 1917 to 1919 he was the principal conductor of the French repertoire at the Metropolitan Opera. He then led the Boston Symphony Orchestra, the Concertgebouw Orchestra (1924–34), Orchestre Symphonique de Paris (1929–38), San Francisco Symphony (1936–52), and from 1961, aged eighty-six, the London Symphony Orchestra. Monteux's chief love was the music of German composers, above all Brahms. He disliked recording, finding it incompatible with spontaneity, but made a substantial number of records. He began to teach conducting in Paris in 1932. After moving permanently to the US in 1942, he founded the Pierre Monteux School in Hancock, Maine, which has continued. His students included Igor Markevitch, Neville Marriner, André Previn, Lorin Maazel and Seiji Ozawa. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

New article on review[edit]

Hi Tim. I have Æthelwold ætheling on review at A Class. Many thanks if you can review it. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It will be a privilege and pleasure. Shall join the review on Tuesday as tomorrow is earmarked for walking-boots and a circumambulation of Derwentwater with a serious lunch half-way round. On Tuesday I shall be sober and suitably critical. – Tim riley talk 18:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

SS Arctic disaster[edit]

Everyone seems to be away at the moment, but I've put up the Arctic shipwreck at FAC, as a sort of light holiday reading. I'd be pleased if you'd check it out there, when you have time. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It shall be done, next on my list after Æthelwold ætheling, above. I’m away too, but am at the Riley ancestral shack near Keswick, where we have broadband access even in these remote parts. Parenthetically, I made the mistake of looking at the WP Keswick article yesterday – a helluva lot of work needed, and I guess it’s my duty to do it. Heigh ho!) Tim riley talk 18:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

International Ballet[edit]

Thank you for querying my unjustified assumptions which were not backed up by facts. Offending sentences now removed. Pstaylor (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad my tag was helpful. It's a most interesting article, even to a non-balletomane. Tim riley talk 11:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Royal intermarriage[edit]

After a little tidying up and some further expansion, following the peer review of Royal Intermarriage, I've nominated it for 'Good Article' status. If you have the time, a review of your support (or opposition of course) would be great. Thanks Sotakeit (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you can rule out my opposition. At a quick look just now the article is in fine shape. I'll review it later this week if someone else doesn't get in first. Tim riley talk 11:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


Many thanks Tim for all your help. Do give me a shout if there is anything you want me to review. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London is curently languishing in the peer review backlog, so any time convenient at peer review.
There is no hurry with the ISBNs. I see that the three articles I have put through FAC were not consistent how ISBNs were shown, and no one queried it. I wonder whether sorting them for this article might be a waste of your time better spent on your intriguing new article. I look forward to seeing it. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, well fine as to the variegated ISBNs in that case. If perchance they become a matter for concern at FAC I'll wade in then. My own current efforts are not on a new article, but on Keswick, Cumbria, from which I am, as I type, a mile or so away, at the Riley family country house in Portinscale. The present Keswick article is pretty poor and I'm working on it privily here, and am not past 1276 AD yet. A peer review on a pleasing topic will be a nice break. More there, soonest. Tim riley talk 17:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Had a quick look at your sandbox. Is it worth mentioning that (according to The Historical Atlas of the Celtic World) the area was part of the Kingdom of Strathclyde until about 1018, and then briefly in Scotland until 1092. (You have 1029 as a typo.) However, I dare say that with your local knowledge you will say that is a gross over-simplification! Dudley Miles (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It most certainly is worth mentioning! – thank you. Would be kind enough to give me a page number? I can get the rest of the biblio details from WorldCat. I'm back in London today, and will look properly at your nature reserves page tomorrow. Tim riley talk 16:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
p. 104 text. "Weakened by Viking attacks, the British kingdom of Strathclyde became a satellite of Scotland before it was finally annexed c. 1018." p. 105 map shows north west England between the Firth of Forth and (about) the River Esk as an area of Strathclyde lost to England in 1092. PS I seem to remember reading elsewhere that Strathclyde recovered after the Viking attacks before finally it became a Scottish satellite and I can check this out if you wish. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
What you have given me already will do beautifully, and I have gratefully incorporated it into my draft. I foresee another week's or fortnight's work on my Keswick labours before they are ready for the main space. Meanwhile, having so enjoyed the London nature reserves peer review I am hereby drawing it to the attention of User:SchroCat and User:Cassianto, both of whom know a thing or two about featured lists and may have something to say at the PR. Tim riley talk 21:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I can look and review the FLC, but as a delegate I don't normally support unless it's getting late in the process and the list is struggling for attention. I'm very happy to look it over and comment appropriately though, and will do shortly. While on the subject I'll do a bit of publicity for my two: John Barrymore on stage, screen and radio, which has been going a while, and List of works by Leslie Charteris, which I launched today. Any comments and suggestions are welcome (esp if people can find my English errors in the Americanese of Barrymore)! I'm not around tomorrow though—a bread-making course in Borough Market beckons! Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
A fair quid pro quo, and I'll look in at both over the weekend. My maternal great-grandfather was a master baker from Düsseldorf, transplanted to Liverpool, so I'm blest if I'm shelling out for a breadmaking course at Borough Market: I have it in my genes. While you're at B Market be sure to check out Elliot's Café. Superb. Tim riley talk 22:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Tim for recommending my article. Unfortunately I have only just noticed your comment and I took it out of PR too soon. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Elliot's is nice, but I have happy memories of Maria's and their lovely breakfasts, which I thoroughly enjoyed this morning. The course was fantastic, and I am now all breaded up for the remainder of the week with me own produce, before I need to start all over again! – SchroCat (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Kildea's claim about Britten's medical condition[edit]

Useful exchange on this topic cut and pasted from here to Talk:Benjamin Britten to make it available to future editors of the article. Tim riley talk 18:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


I have played Mr. (full stop carefully included) Benjamin at FAC and was able to find a source on that Benjamin quote stating that a similar tale was told of Disraeli. Your input would be very welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Have added my enthusiastic support at FAC. The Dizzy reference is very pleasing. Tim riley talk 16:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"I dood it!"[edit]

... or, at least, if I were We hope I'd say that. We (mostly We hope) have been pushing to bring Red Skelton to FAC, and have opened a peer review for pre-gauntlet comments. Since you're quite well versed with actor biographies, we'd be much obliged if you could leave some feedback. You might even see a familiar face or two ;). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Was a.w.o.l. today on a swift sortie from London to Winchester, but I'll clock in at the review tomorrow, once I have done justice to the GAN of Royal intermarriage, which is top of my to-do list. Tim riley talk 18:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Royal intermarriage? Now there's a topic! I've never actually looked into how the local royalty choose their spouse (spouses for men, at least until the 20th century). Thanks Tim. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Malcolm Sargent[edit]

Proprietary? Please insert mention of the Leicester Symphony Orchestra into the appropriate spot in Malcolm Sargent's article. He's noted as the founder in 1922 and continued to serve as conductor until 1942. Sources are easily available if necessary. Thank you.Pkeets (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not proprietorial, I assure you, and I am far from the "onlie begetter" of the Sargent article. You will see from the exchanges above that I believe in the WP collaborative spirit. But we can't, nor should we try to, cram every minor fact about a subject into a 4,000-word biography. Even in the 302-page biography of Sargent by Aldous there is only one brief mention of this ensemble. It was (forgive me) disproportionate to mention it in the lead section, and my personal opinion is that it fails the notability test for coverage in the main text of the biography. Editing, especially perhaps for a GA or FA, requires us to identify and home in on the essentials and discard the rest, however personally appealing one may find this or that detail. If there is a consensus that the Leicester ensemble is notable in this context I'll go along with it with due meekness. I must in fairness add that the earlier biography by Reid has a bit more on Sargent's stint in Leicester, and there is some interesting stuff in there about women players in general and Grace Burrows in particular that you may find interesting if your library can conjure up a copy for you. Failing that I can send you scans if wanted. Tangentially, I think the nomination of the Burrows article for deletion as not notable, though no doubt well meant, is misguided, and I shall be saying so on the discussion page. – Tim riley talk 18:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on Burrows. However, I do think that a 20 year association with LSO is worthy of mention somewhere in Sargent's article. It was one of the projects that helped him get started. Pkeets (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Now I look again at the article I see we have mentioned the orch in the third para of the "Early career" section. It's a long time since I worked extensively on the article and I grow old and forgetful. So much for my pontifications above! Tim riley talk 19:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)