User talk:Tim riley

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

2025

[edit]

Happy 2025 to all visiting this page.
Tim

File:Hérold-by-David-d’Angers.jpg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hérold-by-David-d’Angers.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука13 09:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another waste of time deletion nomination: I've swapped the image on the article with the one from Commons, where it is freely and adequately licensed. There's no issue with it here, but as there's a Commons copy, that may as well be used (Iruka13 is blocked on Commons for "wikilawyering, contributing in bad faith and other tangential nonsense", so there is no danger that their version will face a similarly spurious deletion; hasten the day the process is repeated here). - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Home and Beauty

[edit]

On 6 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Home and Beauty, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Home and Beauty has been described as both a "little masterpiece of polite merriment" and a "misogynist comedy dipped in vitriol"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Home and Beauty. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Home and Beauty), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

[edit]

@Tim riley Is the use of false titles permitted in an article nominated at FAC? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule against it. Although it is a lumpen, tabloidese usage it is in widespread use in AmE prose (except for The New York Times, whose style guide is a delight to read on the subject) and it is not actually wrong in BrE – just rather naff. If an FAC nominator insists on using it, that is certainly not reasonable grounds for opposing the promotion of the article. Tim riley talk 12:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Altan must have attended the party to be accused of the crime, but why she was present there and not in the Uighur lands is not certain.
Or
Al-Altan must have attended the party to be accused of the crime, but her reason for being present there and not in the Uighur lands is not certain.
The above sentence is an extract from the article Al-Altan, who is one of Genghis Khan's daughters, which has been nominated at FAC. @Tim riley Could you please tell me which version you prefer and why? Looking forward to your response. Regards.
P.S. The first sentence is the one used in the article. MSincccc (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are wrong and both are clear. Don’t let your personal preferences get in the way of reviewing properly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second version is not coherent. "Reason" has the meaning of "an account or explanation" here. What does it mean for "an explanation to be not certain." Is it existence not certain or is it not adequate? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Grenfell

[edit]

I suspect I’ve irritated you by questioning your judgement on an article on which you’ve spent a lot of time. I understand the feeling, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t make the discussion personal.

We’re all here to improve the article and it looks likely that no change will be made, so no need to fall out, eh? A.D.Hope (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope very much that (with a single exception, and I'd better not mention her username) I have respected all the fellow editors I've encountered over nearly two decades here. It is true that tut-tut-tut and whats-his-name and also you-know-who have driven me up the wall from time to time over the years, but we're all God's creatures and I daresay I've done some up-wall driving myself to other editors. The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you. Tim riley talk 17:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I felt a little like I was being told off, I won’t lie, but you’re not disrespectful.
You’ll probably have noticed that I replied to you on the article talk page and then self-reverted – despite my attempt at humour my tone was harsher than I intended. If you’d like me to reinstate it I will (with a strikethrough?), though.
The article looks to be in very good shape, by the way, largely thanks to you. Have you considered a GA nomination? I’d certainly help support it. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not too bad, I think, but to my mind it is a fair way short of GA standard. It's only C class now, though perhaps B class wouldn't be excessively flattering, but for GA I'd want to have a pretty comprehensive picture, and I don't think we have that at the moment. I haven't checked out all the relevant sources and I don't think I have much more to add to the text, but if you or anyone else would like to have a go at improving it with a view to GAN I'd be offering enthusiastic support. Tim riley talk 18:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article class: I just looked at the article, and I would say that the only thing holding the article back from being B-class is that the Lead section does not appear to give enough of an overview of the article. Regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discussion

[edit]

@Tim riley You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Princess Charlotte of Wales (born 2015). Regards. MSincccc (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New ODNB articles on 19th- and 20th-century opera and musical theatre singers

[edit]

Dear Tim, I recently noticed that last week the editors of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography have published their January 2025 update and it is on the theme of "Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Opera and Musical Theatre Singers". I know you edit in these areas, so I thought you and some of your talk page watchers might enjoy perusing the new biographies, if you have not already done so. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed, and I'm most grateful, Noswall, for your telling me. Thank you so much. I'll certainly be looking in. Tim riley talk 10:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No ifs, no butts

[edit]

Coming out of your review. Thanks for that! A little derivative at the moment, perhaps, but can probably be expanded further. Serial (speculates here) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously my hubris must be punished. 1300 Words and 47 discrete references... and its up for deletion. Sigh. Serial (speculates here) 17:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Serial, I've added my support – unqualified support, after perusing the article. Tim riley talk 17:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say thanks very much for this Tim, you were just the encouragement it needed. Thanking you! ...also, I've only just seen your new photo—very suave indeed! As Alan Partridge said, "The classic English gentleman abroad: It's David Niven. It's Stewart Grainger. It's Nigel Havers ... The look? 'Imperial Leisure'"  :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind, though the cravat is not so much for dressiness as to attempt to hide the increasingly turkey-neck of a septuagenarian. Tim riley talk 15:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diction

[edit]

Strong language for a good faith edit Tom. Don't set out to discourage people. Spicemix (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Tom? Calling pedantry what it is can hardly be called strong language. My first thought was "idiotic pedantry" but I toned it down before writing the edit summary. Strongly recommend acquiring and reading the latest edition of Fowler, particularly before saying that such a respected editor as the late Brian Boulton was at fault with what you call his diction. Tim riley talk 14:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Mandell Creighton

[edit]
Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, Mandell Creighton, 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, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Token of Thanks

[edit]
A Token of Thanks
For Tim Riley, the sine qua non of Mandell Creighton, BA (Oxon), DDiv. Honorem (Dublin.), FA

The other day, I was pleasantly surprised to find this little green hand-me-down with ornamental cover wedged between other green hand-me-downs with drab covers, most of which were P. B. Ballard's Fundamental English, which I had earlier taken this gem to be, too. Abridged though it might be, this earnest of thanks is not in the least.

In his day, Bishop Creighton received many honorary degrees. I've included only Trinity College, Dublin's because 2025 will mark one hundred years since my late great aunt received her medical degree there. I consider this collaboration to be an honor. With many thanks, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dusky dolphin

[edit]

Hello, would you be able to review? LittleJerry (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Now done. Tim riley talk 10:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Ravel

[edit]

Hi Tim! Just writing that I undid your revert of my edit to Maurice Ravel. Apologies if my initial edit summary came across like spam, but a new Ravel piece really was discovered. The discovery helps clarify how Ravel spent his final years at the Paris Conservatoire, and any rediscovery of a lost work is generally exciting! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 01:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But, unless I'm overlooking something, you haven't mentioned the newly-found piece: you merely inserted some superfluous AmE-style commas and moved a paragraph out of sequence. I'm not sure this prentice work would merit mention in the article, unless it establishes its place in the repertoire, but you can make the suggestion on the article talk page, where it will be seen by any interested editor rather than here, where it will be seen by few. Tim riley talk 08:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Style question

[edit]

Wotcher Tim, hope you are well. I've added a few bits to Rufford Old Hall but you'd already expanded it amply. Can I ask a style question - No, as an abbreviation for Number, as in No 10 Downing Street. Would you write No 10, or No. 10? And if we wanted a plural, as in Numbers 1-7 Vaux Place, Salisbury Cathedral Close, would you write Nos, No.s or Nos.? Does the MoS have a view? I can't find it if it does. Any thoughts gratefully received. After some dreadful storms here, we are now back to sunshine and blue skies. KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have now found this, which seems to suggest No. for the singular but doesn't help me with the plural. KJP1 (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KJ, a singular no certainly takes a full stop in Wikipedia, if not in real life. I use No. a lot in musical articles, where "Symphony No 1" is taboo without a full stop. As to the plural I think in WP I'd write nos.
Thank you so much for looking in at Rufford Old Hall. Excellent additions, for which I'm grateful. Tim riley talk 12:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful, so no. / nos. it is, with capitalisation as required. KJP1 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I'll have a look at what the new Pevsner Lancashire says about Rufford. I'm pretty sure Clare Hartwell's 2009 revision will have a few updates on Herr Doktor's 1969 version. KJP1 (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyleft trolling

[edit]

Copyleft trolling is an extortion scam. That image will probably be deleted or watermarked with a warning soon, so it may not be appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Nosferattus (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Dave Illif has uploaded dozens of superb high-quality images onto WP - many of which have become featured pictures. Maybe you want to think about striking the uncivil slurs against the work of such an excellent editor until you know what you're talking about. - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourcing question

[edit]

It’s me again. I’m becoming like a sitcom character, always popping round for a cuppa and a chinwag. But I do have a serious question: do you know of/what do you make of Slipped disc.com? It purports to be the No. 1 classical music news website. But is it reliable as a source? It’s not on our Perennial Sources blacklist, and I can find a few articles that have used it, but only a few. I have a need of it for this article, Vicars' Close, Wells, but don’t want to use it if it’s dodgy. KJP1 (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I find on further digging that it is Norman Lebrecht’s blog. Now, as a blog, I’d normally steer clear, but Norman Lebrecht’s blog… KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
p.p.s I see he has been called a “sloppy but entertaining muckraker” and Penguin had to settle a libel claim over one of his books. Perhaps not. KJP1 (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky. Lebrecht is certainly opinionated and puts his own spin on the facts (but then don't we all one way or another?) This is what a senior producer at a leading record company has written about him:
He often reminded me of the demented, wild-eyed, toothless crone who used to interrupt the unforgettable Frankie Howerd during his wonderful television series Up Pompeii with her cries of 'Woe, woe, thrice woe!'. Howerd always dismissed her disdainfully as a 'poor old soul' and, to a certain extent, this is the way many of us regarded Lebrecht. ... He was an irritant, like a whiffy old uncle visiting for Christmas and outstaying his welcome.
Nonetheless I'd be unhappy about regarding Lebrecht as an unreliable source. You just need to examine his pronouncements carefully. What are you up to, anyway? I don't have you down as someone interested in classical music. Tim riley talk 17:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re quite right. The Close is having a major renovation, and the Vic. Soc. is worried they are going to wipe out the Victorian embellishments, including those by B. Burges esq. That led me down a rabbit hole and it’s clear that the cathedral has been having some major management issues affecting the resident choristers over a number of years. All very Barchester. Lebrecht covers it quite fully, but I may have to find a more suitable RS. KJP1 (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If you were a sitcom character I'd cast the late and splendid John Savident in the part. You may retaliate if you like by saying whom you'd cast to play me (and if you don't you can bet your chemise that SchroCat will). Tim riley talk 17:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
John Savident - how very dare you. I could share a rather ribald tale about that gentleman, but not on here! Instead, I shall go mull the actor to play you. Take care. KJP1 (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These two could play both of us. KJP1 (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And which would be which? I've always thought of myself as more Hilda Bracket. Tim riley talk 21:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Gilbert Scott

[edit]

Hello Tim. Apologies if my pings have not worked. I wondered if you had any views on the question at Talk:Giles Gilbert Scott#Lead image date? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

[edit]

You undid my revision to Claude Debussy, saying it's better to stick with strict chronology.

I disagree; isn't it better to end with his influence on Bartok, Stravinsky et al. than with the abrupt and rather painful fact that he "died from cancer at his home in Paris at the age of 55 after a composing career of a little more than 30 years"? After, all his influence can be felt long after his death. Charlie Faust (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added "Pierre Boulez described Prélude à L’Après-midi d’un Faune as “the beginning of modern music.”<ref name=Hough>{{cite news| last=Hough| first=Stephen| author-link=Stephen Hough| date=March 2, 2018| title=100 Years After Debussy's Death, He Remains the First 'Modern' Composer| work=[[The New York Times]]| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/arts/music/debussy-stephen-hough.html}}</ref>
That article by Stephen Hough is a good way to round out the lead, I think. It makes clear Debussy's innovations in timbre, and his influence on Gershwin, Stravinsky, Ligeti and others. I think ending with influence is the right way, as it earns him something beyond his untimely death. His influence hangs in the air, like a note after it has been sounded. And it makes other notes resonate. Charlie Faust (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The three main authors of the article and all the reviewers at peer review and FAC were happy with the order. If you can obtain a consensus for your proposed alteration at the article talk page pray do. Tim riley talk 14:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. But I still feel ending with influence is apposite, since that influence can be felt long after Debussy's death. Charlie Faust (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "the article, having been through peer review and featured article candidacy, is in no great need of the extensive alterations you propose, but let us see if you can gather a consensus here for your views."
I don't think the article needs extensive alterations, and that's not what I'm proposing. The lead tells us that he was influential, but not why. The heart of the matter, I think, is Debussy's innovative use of timbre. That is absolutely worth including in the lead, much as Stravinsky's lead mentions his innovative use of rhythm.
Thank you for giving me a chance to gather consensus for my views. Charlie Faust (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is most gracious, but I'm in no position to "give you a chance" to seek consensus on the article talk page: I have no more status there than any other editor. Let us see what our fellow editors think of your suggestions. Tim riley talk 16:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that's the thing to do. (Reading your page is an education in itself; it pointed me towards the Wikipedia: MoS.)
I've become interested in how classical music appears in film. Here's one I stumbled across: Carnegie Hall, directed by Edward G. Ulmer. (Richard Brody recommends it.) Charlie Faust (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A picture

[edit]

Hello Tim:

Do you know how to find a picture of the lock on the River Stour at Stratford St. Mary to upload on Wikipedia? Stratford St Mary is on the old coaching road to London, very likely in Constable's country. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would this do? Or possibly this? Tim riley talk 13:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What a pleasant surprise! Yes, File:Roger Brown's Lock (geograph 7477424).jpg very much will. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! Tim riley talk 13:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things that struck me in my first trip to the G&S Festival, while riding the train from Manchester to Buxton, was the pretty little canal boats. We have canals here in the northeastern US, but the canals are bigger and carry a variety of private and commercial power and sailing boats -- I don't know of anything like the little, similarly shaped, prettily-painted canal boats that I see when I visit England. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They may look picturesque now, but before the Stephensons and the coming of the railways they were a key part of the English transport system, taking cotton, coal, beer and much else between destinations. Tim riley talk 15:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Canals were also important to New York State for the same reasons, especially the Erie Canal, which allowed goods and commodities to sail from New York harbor to the Great Lakes. In school we learned this song about it, though we only sang the first verse! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We know some of your American songs here. Try this, 50 seconds in, to which the usual words here begin "Have you ever caught your bollocks in a rat-trap?" Tim riley talk 16:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they powered the early Industrial Revolution. Narrow boats are recreational now, but as Tim implies, they were pulled by a horse from a towpath, as were barges on the C&O canal in the US. Later, steam- and then diesel-powered boats with a barge behind continued well into the 1940s, I think. They carried a freight of coal upriver and finished goods (such as china) downriver. As I child, I read a book, the "Canal children," published by Longman's in the 1950s, I think. It was about a family with three children. The eldest, a son helped the father with driving the boat. The two younger children, a boy and a girl, had adventures. The diesel boat had a little living area, a galley, ... I loved the pictures. There was infirm schooling when the boat reached a port. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Growing up in Liverpool, I used as a kid to experience both aspects of the Victorian transport revolution. My friends and I would walk along the Leeds and Liverpool Canal and reach a railway station where we would stand on the bridge and shout with glee as a steam train went underneath and blew smoke and smut all over us. I don't think it would be my preferred practice now, but we had a wonderful time back in the late 1950s and early '60s. Now, enough of this here! Tim riley talk 16:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Former archbishops

[edit]

Regardless of whether someone was most notable for once being an archbishop, it is the established convention in articles that we use the clerical style of clergy that they held and used when they died. That is the style we use in articles, not a previous style. A former Church of England archbishop is correctly styled as "The Right Reverend". Please don't continue to be disruptive on this issue. If you want to argue a case for your views on this matter then do so in an appropriate place instead of creating unjustified edit warring. Thank you. Anglicanus (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanus can you produce evidence to back up your assertion that "we use the clerical style of clergy that they held and used when they died"? Where was this policy discussed and decided? Chapter and verse, please. If the policy has been formally agreed I shall of course abide by it, but otherwise I shall feel free to revert to the sensible form as agreed by peer and FAC reviewers. Tim riley talk 06:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HMV

[edit]

I noticed a minor fuss about this some weeks ago and again very recently. I am not currently able to investigate but if you see it come up again, you might post on article talk (a brief why the changes are undesirable) with a ping to me and I'll do what I can to stop it. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a minor fuss. A single editor has misread the MoS and has for now subsided after his/her error was pointed out. Thank you for the offer, nonetheless, for which I'm grateful and will bear in mind. Tim riley talk 06:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Granger caption

[edit]

Could you clarify how the parenthetical date at the end of the caption makes things clearer? What specifically is the relevance of this detail to the image in the context of this article (for example, was the promenade located somewhere else at the time of his attendance)? DMacks (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We often give the date of images when they are substantially later than the equivalent text. This sort of question would be better on the article talk page, where it can be seen by all interested editors rather than here, where it will be seen by few. Tim riley talk 15:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"substantially later than the equivalent text" makes sense. I was merely seeking clarification of your action (your edit summary was not very detailed, and did not provide any rebutal to mine) before deciding what if any editorial change I might want to pursue. That latter type of discussion would definitely be an article-talkpage topic. DMacks (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image request

[edit]

Hello. A little while back you kindly added an image of FL Lucas to Commons for me, so the Wiki article could have a photo portrait. Would you be willing to repeat the trick, please, beyond my abilities, for this c.1920 photo, trimmed, of his novelist wife EBC Jones, from a 1922 dust-wrapper? https://www.ebay.com/itm/326473406591 I'm assuming a dust-wrapper is in the public domain, as many Wiki articles have first edition dust-wrappers, especially old ones like this. I'll then add the image to her article. Thank you. User 193.39.159.73 & 193.39.159.74.

The image is public domain because published in 1922. I'll do the honours today or tomorrow, time permitting. Tim riley talk 11:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See [:[File:EBC-Jones.jpg]:]. I've made it a local EnWiki upload as the image doesn't meet the requirements for adding to Commons (not clearly public domain in both the country of origin and the US) but it meets the requirements for local upload.
By a pleasing coincidence, what with Lady Peel appearing in the book you found, I am working in my sandbox on a real-life Lady Peel: Beatrice Lillie, whose existing article is in need of work. Tim riley talk 12:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks, Tim. Have added it and hope it passes muster. A pleasing coincidence. The Lady Peel in the book grows on you; by the end she's the most likeable character. The real Lady Peel is coming along nicely. With best wishes, AZ

Beatrice Lillie

[edit]

You didn't find her mentioned on page 39 of that book, but the reference also says pp. 36-40. Perhaps you can see in those? I copied it from Tallulah Bankhead's article, maybe whoever added the data got it wrong. SNdeC (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SAYWHERE. You must not copy and paste from another Wikipedia article: you need to read the source for yourself. There is no mention of Beatrice Lillie anywhere in Macho Man: The Disco Era and Gay America's Coming Out, as you can see for yourself if you call it up on Google Books and run a search. Tim riley talk 12:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But it's virtually impossible for someone to have access to all the reference books that are used. Some do appear on Google Books, but I generally expect most books not to be there, so I didn't think about searching there. SNdeC (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is really very simple: if you can't cite a WP:RS from which you have taken a statement you must not use it. It is by no means "virtually impossible for someone to have access to all the reference books that are used": looking at FA candidates I have recently reviewed I have not the smallest doubt that the main authors here, here and here consulted all the sources they cite. Tim riley talk 12:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it's possible. SNdeC (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is always possible: if you can't find the source, don't guess what it may say and don't rely on what others say it says. Find another WP:RS instead. The Internet Archive and public libraries are wonderfully productive resources. Tim riley talk 13:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know so many books were online. No one would tell... SNdeC (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Aristotle

[edit]

Aristotle 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. Psychastes (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review: Through the Looking-Glass

[edit]

To any friendly editor who chances to see this, I have just put Through the Looking-Glass up for peer review, with FAC in mind, and will be glad of any suggestions or comments interested colleagues think helpful. A small prize will be awarded to anyone who can convincingly explain what on earth Lewis Carroll is doing in the photograph of him. He appears to be polishing an electric coffee grinder, which seems fairly unlikely. Tim riley talk 13:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this page refers to the same photograph, and it says it's a "large camera lens in one hand and a cloth resting on the top of the lens in the other hand". AstonishingTunesAdmirer ➜ 13:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Dim of me not to think of that! Name your prize! Tim riley talk 13:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of anything. But I'm glad I could help! AstonishingTunesAdmirer ➜ 14:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in your debt. Thank you! Tim riley talk 14:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What a great thing to do! Through the Looking Glass especially was one of my favorite childhood books and the poem at the end, Aged aged man, or Hadock's eyes, or ... one of my favorite poems. I always thought it was about the passage of time, the end of summer, and made me very sad or nostalgic. It's been a while since I last read it. So, I'd like to read it again. I have two or three copies of the double Alice. The one I just found is very old (1899) though nowhere near the first edition, but its pages could tear easily. I think I also have an Oxford World's Classics version from the 1980s, which has the added benefit of some critical commentary in the introduction. So, I hope this proceeds slowly to FAC, giving me some time to read and reminisce. As for the picture, it is very likely Dodgson cleaning a camera lens. He was an amateur photographer. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see someone has beaten me to the prize. Here is the NYTimes sesquicentenary tribute with the same picture. Dodgson's photography obsession and the young female subjects might have raised a few eyebrows today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having read lots of the source books I am as sure as I can be of anything that Carroll was beyond reproach in his dealings with young girls. (He didn't like young boys, but who shall blame him? I was one myself sixty-odd years ago and can remember how revolting I and my coevals were.) I hope, Fowler&fowler that you will weigh in at the peer review and give me the benefit of your thoughts. Tim riley talk 18:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say, "raised a few eyebrows in the climate of today." I didn't mean I was in agreement. Look forward. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation for Robert Schumann

[edit]

During the Bach eview you mentioned your successful effort at the Schumann FA article which is very well edited. It is really something that you were able to do the Bach article this quickly. It is occurring to me that your comments about me possibly taking Bach to FA might be a good idea for taking seriously. I'm seeing that you have other pages that are taking up some of your time now, and thought to ask if you might be interested in coming back to the Bach article with those other helpful edits which you mentioned during the GAN and which you might have in mind for the future. It might be nice to do as a co-nomination for Bach if you think it might have possibilities. Any thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a charming invitation, but I'm not all that interested in Bach's music ("too much counterpoint – and what is worse, Protestant counterpoint") and though I find it preferable to the interminable baroque gargling in Handel's operas I would prefer to leave both to others more in sympathy with their oeuvres. I'd be happy to add my thoughts to an FAC on either if you or anyone else took it there. Tim riley talk 15:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely reasonable. I'm going to ask that, since the GAN may still be in your recent memory, if you might consider going further with making the FAC-related comments which you mentioned being pertinent at the GAN close. If you have some time open either this week-end or the next, then possibly you could do a peer review for upcoming enhancements of the article. I'm not sure that the "Music" section is as strong as I would like it to be, and your previous comments at GAN were useful for improvements. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you put the article up for peer review I'll happily look in. Tim riley talk 19:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it tonight here: [1]. It would be nice to see your thoughts there. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you will be busy with your FAC for Alice for some time, and it would be nice if at some point you could add the possible FAC concerns you had expressed while doing the Bach GAN, while they are still recent in your memory. Once the Alice nomination settles into place, then maybe you'll have some time for it. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've got him on my list. Tim riley talk 12:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holst – my apologies

[edit]

Hi @Tim riley, I hope all can be forgiven. Have left you a reply on Gustav Holst, cheers merlinVtwelve (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers reciprocated. Tim riley talk 08:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the whole thing has given me a brainwave. I very rarely go near mature articles (and your Holst page is an outstanding one). I'm more of a Stub and Start class editor. Don't be surprised if some of the composer's obscure works get their own stubs / start pages in future.... merlinVtwelve (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I don't only work on FAs, and have put together short articles on numerous compositions by Elgar, Fauré, Poulenc, Sullivan and, most of all, Walton. You may be pleasantly surprised to find that a piece you'd assume already has an article, in fact hasn't. I was astounded to find myself creating the article on RVW's The Lark Ascending less than six years ago. I'm afraid I've bagged Beni Mora and JackofOz has done Egdon Heath but there's plenty more. Happy editing! Tim riley talk 12:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this edit reasonable?

[edit]

I noticed you were reviewing the relevant article and I found the reversion of this edit to be unjustified. I was wondering if you considered this edit an acceptable addition and, if so, might consider reverting it so I do not haven’t to engage in what might be considered edit warring. Dronebogus (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of age at death seems fine to me, but at the same time I thoroughly understand SchroCat's aversion to feeling being stalked. Tim riley talk 19:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feeling stalked is one thing, but you can’t prevent people you personally don’t like from editing an article constructively. That’s WP:OWNership. Articles belong to everyone. Dronebogus (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Applying the duck test I think we can safely refer to stalking in this case. Tim riley talk 20:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please just revert my edit for me? Dronebogus (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That particular edit seems OK to me, but stalking is not. I see in the edit summaries you are conspicuous by your absence until today from the 90 versions of the text. Your sudden interest in Georgiana Hill is unconvincing; your tracking SchroCat's edits in Wikipedia is, on the contrary, conspicuous and reprehensible. And I do not appreciate your dragging your preoccupation onto my talk page. Please go away! Tim riley talk 20:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback on article for the Marx Brothers film Animal Crackers

[edit]

Hi Tim, I see you've also come across the GA nomination for this article. The editor who submitted it wanted to get it to FA or GA quality in advance of the film entering into the public domain in January 2026, and I have started to work on it alongside him; we have made significant improvements since then.

I wanted to ask if you could provide some feedback on the article, since you're experienced with film articles (including some from the same time period). If you have the time, please chime in at the talk page, where we have been trying to figure out a list of improvements needed to get the article up to spec.

We have looked at the criteria at WP:FACRITERIA and WP:GACR, and have also taken notes from FA-level film articles; however, I really think we need more eyes on the article to identify specific changes that need to be made to the prose, scope and sourcing. To my (inexperienced) eyes, I can't see such a substantial difference from the FA-level articles. Thanks for your time! CVDX (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Groucho is one of my showbiz heroes along with Noël Coward and Fred Astaire. I'll gladly contribute my two penn'orth, but I'm puzzled where I should be contributing it. Last time I looked there were a peer review and a Good Article nomination open, and now you add the talk page. I don't wish to contribute at three pages at once. Tim riley talk 21:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This and that

[edit]

Hello there: I don't think I will get around to commenting in the Through the Looking Glass FAC. The FAC already has some excellent comments, and my real life these days does not allow me to focus enough.

I noticed the Shepherd's Pie talk page, though. I can't say I followed the long exchange, but I can reminisce a bit.

In my late wife's family, both sides of which were Vermonters (with Anglo-Saxon names) from the Canadian marches, shepherd's pie was made with "hamburg," (without the -er at the end) i.e. ground beef.

Lamb has been persona non grata in our household for as long as I can remember, as has veal. I'm not sure if this reflects the overall lack of availability in American supermarkets (at least in our part of New England, which is no longer Vermont) or my wife's dyed-in-the-wool affection for young animals. (She once sprang out of a lawn chair and tried to slap a hawk that was in the process of swooping down on a baby bunny grazing nearby. Our son and I, who were also present, had no inkling until we saw a hawk fly away, its talons empty.)

Whether "cottage pie" was also used, I can't say, but at times like these, I desperately wish my wife and my late mother-in-law were around.

PS The slowly vanishing world of witnesses I noticed is being explored in some of the more recent episodes of the BBC series "Father Brown," which my wife and I used to watch, and I now watch obsessively. I'm not sure if it means that the writers themselves have aged over the last ten years and see the theme enacted in their lives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler & fowler, good to hear from you. Don't give the Looking Glass another thought. As you rightly say, it's standing room only in that review. I have the Father Brown books, three of them with covers depicting Kenneth More as Fr Brown in the commercial television adaptations of the 1970s. I haven't watched any subsequent television versions. For the cinema, Alec Guinness would be hard to match, I think.
As to shepherd's/cottage pie, it is at the same time hilarious and infuriating how many drive-by editors insist with the zeal of True Believers that their personal preference for one title over the other has the status of Holy Writ, despite any reliable sources to back them up, and patently without reading the main text of the article. I may say that my mother used to make a delicious beef version she (and we) called shepherd's pie, but that may just be a Riley peculiarity, or perhaps a Liverpudlian one. I think she'd have raised an eyebrow at the amount of red wine I pour in when cooking my ragù for the same dish.
I know life has not been kind to you recently, and I send you my best wishes and hopes for the days and years ahead. Tim talk 12:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that reply, both evocative and eloquent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clownfish

[edit]

Hello, would you be able you be able to review? LittleJerry (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry – I say! The most I know about fish is which ones I like to eat (Dover Sole, anyone?), but I'll look in and do my amateur best. Tim riley talk 14:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Soup

[edit]

The article Soup you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soup for comments about the article, and Talk:Soup/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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap – many thanks. I hoped the nomination would catch your eye and I could not have wished for a more perceptive or helpful reviewer. Your suggestion of an "In literature" section was inspired! Tim riley talk 12:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I guess you've seen the additional item below the GAN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chiswick Chap, I have, thank you. Now attended to. Tim riley talk 08:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mandell Creighton scheduled for TFA

[edit]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 14 August 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/August 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 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 on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Royal intermarriage

[edit]

Royal intermarriage 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) 01:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Through the Looking-Glass

[edit]
Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, Through the Looking-Glass, 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, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

I have the article on Jack Buchanan up for peer review.

If anyone who chances to see this page cares to look in at the review it will be much appreciated.

Tim riley talk 11:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debussy

[edit]

I'm looking at your nice efforts at Debussy and wondering if you could point me to your favorite biography in English about him. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two leap to mind: Eric Frederick Jensen's Debussy (Oxford University Press, 2014, ISBN 978-0-19-973005-6) and Roger Nichols's The Life of Debussy (Cambridge University Press, 1998, ISBN 978-0-521-57887-5). The former is heavyweight (over 300 pages) and the latter shorter (less than 200 pages) but beautifully written and highly readable. Tim riley talk 07:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. It looks like I'll have access to the Nichol's biography on Debussy; I've been interested in looking closer at his ability as a piano virtuoso and whether he played for any famous pianists such a Liszt. Separately, Aza has left some comments about planning to look at the Bach article next month on the Bach Talk page in case you might have any thoughts about it. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause, I have no real feel for how good a pianist Debussy was. Better than Ravel, certainly, though that's not saying much. But though he met Liszt while in Rome as a student I don't think he (Debussy) played for him (Liszt). I can't recall, and from a not very systematic skim through the main sources this morning can't find, any assessment of his pianistic skill. I'll be interested to see what you come up with. As to JSB, I'm afraid I've shot my bolt and can't think of anything useful to add. Tim riley talk 15:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Nichols biography on Debussy was quite readable with a little information about his virtuosity. Nichols starts and ends his book on different orientations. Early on, Debussy's father had hopes for his son to be a virtuoso 'concert pianist' (p12), which the son appeared to move away from as an ambition when he switched his interest from playing to the study of composition. However, by the end of the book, Nichols seems to somewhat change direction by writing that the playing difficulty of Debussy's piano Etudes is so extreme as to be some kind of proof that Debussy as a virtuoso late in life may have been better than someone like Vladimir Horowitz stating: "...a set of twelve piano Etudes... contain some of his most difficult writing--it is significant that five of the twelve were not recorded until after 1950, even Horowitz risking only the relatively easy (ones)," (p155). I've included that in case any of it might be of interest to the Debussy article you've worked on with diligence. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restored images

[edit]

I noticed that you recently began using AI tools to "restore" images by replacing faces with new ones re-drawn by AI. Please stop doing this. These AI image generators are not actually "restoring" anything; they instead destroy the original image and replace it with a fake one. The resulting images are extremely (sometimes jarringly) obviously AI-generated and not infrequently (e.g., 1, 2, 3) bear no resemblance to actual photographs.

I acknowledge that some of these source images are not of great quality, and should be replaced by higher-quality versions. I am trying to get better copies of them wherever possible. But these are not actually better-quality versions of the photographs; they are more the computer equivalents of the infamous "restored" painting from a Spanish church. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are surely not attempting to say that this original is superior to the restored version? Could any rational person think so? You yourself are guilty of distorting originals: this effort of yours is an entirely different colour from the original. I am concerned not with your doctrinaire purism but with what our readers see. Your comparison with the touched up Christ in Spain is ridiculous. And I do not take kindly to being stalked. Tim riley talk 13:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think the real photograph of Walton is encyclopedically superior. It is not a good quality copy, but it is, at least, a real one. The restored photo is fake, although less obviously than in the other examples.
I only noticed this problem because I, when using the site normally, stumbled across your "restored" photo of Arthur and Herbert Sullivan, which immediately struck my eye as akin to that Spanish painting. The re-drawing of the faces is obviously and jarringly fake. I have no idea how you could see that image and think it resembles the genuine article.
The Fauré example is completely different. I downloaded the full-quality image from the BNF (rather than the lower-quality version) and cropped it; there was no new generation of content. I uploaded it as grayscale rather than in the sepia of the print copy. That is not a substantial change to the image.
Site policy (WP:AIGI) is to avoid the use of images wholly generated by AI to represent real people. These images are not wholly generated by AI, but they are versions of real images where substantial portions (i.e., the people's faces) have been redrawn by AI. This is far closer to a fully AI-generated image than it is to, say, advanced denoising. Much of this was discussed in the Village Pump thread that led to the consensus on WP:AIGI, which puts things in a more simplified way.
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are sadly mistaken in your aesthetic judgement. Tim riley talk 15:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the Walton photo, I found a copy of the original AP wirephoto, which I will upload soon; it is of much better quality than the LA Times copy. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't regard these as AI. We have a project that does similar restorations. Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop Graham Beards (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any argument that the examples I linked above are using the process described at Image restoration by artificial intelligence (illustrated with an example there - note the resemblance with the previous versions of the files I link above).
I do not see anything like that on the graphics lab (current or recent archive). From what I can see, the graphics lab seems to incorporate cropping, descreening and editing of the conventional variety (including the filling-in of watermarks), rather than AI-based face restoration. It's possible there is something I've missed there but I do not think it's the same. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Chipping in here: given any restorations are not wholly generated, they are within policy, which I think should bring the matter to a close. - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards, SchroCat, I think so too, but we shall see. Thank you both for your thoughtful contributions. – Tim riley talk 17:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot the place where this is covered. The Manual of Style says (MOS:AIUPSCALE): "AI upscaling software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image. Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption." This should probably be noted at WP:AIGI since the two concepts are closely related, but MOS:AIUPSCALE was the result of a separate (earlier) discussion. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone. I don't know anything about image restoration. I agree that the Walton image linked above by Tim riley is worlds better than the grainy original, and that encyclopedia readers would much rather see it, although I imagine that the image page should indicate what was done to restore it. Would someone please review User:D. Benjamin Miller's recent edits to exchange the Gilbert/Workman/German image shown at Savoy opera, Fallen Fairies and Edward German, to see if you all agree or disagree with this? I think Miller has a point about the Arthur and Bertie Sullivan image, though it was rude and needlessly provocative of him to compare the restoration with the unfortunately restored painting in the Spanish church. Should we invite any other image experts to comment? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped back the Savoy Opera one, as the new version is clearly inferior to the original. - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the necessary with that image on the other pages in which it is used. Tim riley talk 18:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pan

[edit]

I've made a suggestion at the article talk page and would welcome the thoughts of any editors who happen to see this. Tim riley talk 10:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Through the Looking-Glass

[edit]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 September 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/September 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there. 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! And yes, I used your version of the blurb. Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FA review of Hedonism

[edit]

Hello Tim riley, I was wondering whether I may tempt you to indulge in the intellectual pleasures of reviewing the article Hedonism at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hedonism/archive2. Unfortunately, despite its alluring name, the article has not yet received much attention from reviewers. Thanks for taking a look and please feel under no obligation if now is not a good time. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll have a go, but I'm not really much of a lad for abstract concepts. Just working on the FAC for Georg Karo, and will look in after that. Tim riley talk 09:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time! Not all readers have a philosophical background so your perspective could be helpful to ensure that at least the main points are accessible enough. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Bachian Invitation

[edit]

Tim! It has been a moment since we spoke, but I hope you are well. You may recall reviewing Bach at GAN. After speaking with the nominator and others, it seems that to truly become FA worthy, the biography requires a brand-new music section, with a genre-based division (probably how you are most familiar with writing your composer bios). rather than the current highly disparate scheme.

Now, I recall a past conversation where you remarked that music began with Bach. If you'd like to "practice what you preach", so to say, you would be most welcomed to assist. I've begun a start at User:Aza24/Bach music with his organ music (more reading than writing, at the moment). Let me know if any of the empty genre sections peak your interest; you would be most welcome to tackle whichever you prefer.

I was originally planning to write up the entire thing, but would appreciate any assistance. No pressure, though, you've already done more than enough for WP. Aza24 (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. I've replied in detail here. Tim riley talk 07:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info boxes

[edit]

Hi Tim, is there consensus that infoboxes are not supposed to contain a reference to a composer's list of works? I think it's a relevant place to show it. Beethoven's, Mozart's and Sibelius' page show this information. Regards,
- Teodor (d • c) 14:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may care to read MOS:IBX carefully: "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article". Not "force the reader to open a different article", you will notice. An i-box for a composer is pretty useless to the reader, I grant you, but let's not make things worse. Look at the Featured Articles on composers (there are 43 of them) and see how few have an i-box. I left the Schumann one in place because it was there when I started upgrading the article to FA standard and it seemed arrogant to remove it without discussion, but let's have no more clutter, please. Tim riley talk 14:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case of interest

[edit]

I did end up cobbling Ring of Nestor together, in the end. It's still a pretty vicious scholarly minefield, though the consensus seems to be tipping towards "probably genuine" where it had been "almost certainly fake" a few decades ago. If I was forced to put money on it, I'd say that it probably is an ancient object, but also that Karo was right to reject it -- most of the evidence in its favour wasn't available at the time (the most compelling being that some of the weirdest bits of the iconography have turned out to match finds discovered since its appearance, and a microscope analysis of the assembly technique), and the story behind it was downright suspicious. More to the point, perhaps, Evans was almost certainly negligent to accept it as real based on the (basically zero) evidence he had available to him. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC – In case of interest, forsooth! Less of the self-depreciation, if you please! It's an absorbing article and I jolly well hope you're going to take it to GA or FA in due course. The more I learn about Evans the less I can decide whether I think he was a well-meaning menace or a visionary genius. Your article inclines me to the former, but I daresay I'll be swayed the other way by something else in the not too distant. Tim riley talk 15:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think a lot of the "great" early archaeologists -- Heinrich Schliemann comes to mind -- were both. Evans wasn't always a particularly nice man, though -- as Alan Wace found out, he could be petty and vindictive when he wanted to be, and Minos Kalokairinos could probably do with someone going back over his article with the details of how Evans backstabbed him. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Paris

[edit]

Paris 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. CMD (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Jack Buchanan is under review

[edit]

Your good article nomination of the article Jack Buchanan is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Jack Buchanan is on hold

[edit]

Your good article nomination of the article Jack Buchanan has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Jack Buchanan has passed

[edit]

Your good article nomination of the article Jack Buchanan has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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 AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March No.1 in D

[edit]

Hi Tim. He spent much of his life living in and around my home town. Do you think I'm being too sensitive to the fact that the music snippets are not played by an English orchestra? After all, it is one of our de facto national anthems. The author died in 1934, so this work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's 'life plus 80 years or fewer'. I'm sure there is a local recording of it. Maybe you have one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Greetings, Kudpung! I'm far from expert on copyright, but I think the question here is not whether the music is now public domain, which it is, but whether any recording we post is out of copyright. I find Barbirolli's 1966 Philharmonia set of the marches the best, but I think (though may well be wrong) that recordings come out of copyright 60 years after their first issue, and that's not till next year in this case. I'd have to upload from the original vinyl disc (which I still have) rather than a CD transfer, as digital remasterings are themselves copyright. I'll consult a colleague more expert than I on copyright and I'll keep you posted. (I heard the Hallé in the concert hall in JB's day, but never in Elgar: my best name-drop for that is Boult, whom I heard in Elgar at the Philharmonic Hall in Liverpool and at the Festival Hall many times.) Tim riley talk 12:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Tim. I'm not an expert on copyright of recordings either. I look forward to what you come up with. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this, it should expire seventy years after publication. Nikkimaria is a better person to confirm whether I've read that right or not... - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I was a lawyer, I should hasten to note that I am not a copyright expert. Correct me if I am wrong, but (1) the copyright of a UK recording must be expired in both UK and US to be used on Wikipedia, since WP's servers are in the US, unless the use of the recording complies with our Wikipedia:Non-free content rules; (2) the expiration of copyright on sound recordings in the UK is, as SchroCat's source says, 70 years after publication; (3) the duration of copyright on sound recordings for the US is, for recordings made after 1923, 100 years, so we cannot use sound files made after 1925 (except in special cases -- this one is allowable because it is published by the US government), unless they comply with Wikipedia's very restrictive Wikipedia:Non-free content rules, which I have not reviewed for this. See [this]. I wonder if a short excerpt might qualify under those rules, but I have not reviewed our fair use policy about sound recordings at all. So, basically, I have not helped you much. (takes a bow). Ssilvers (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for your input. It certainly answers my question why American recordings are being used. Remains to be seen if 'fair use' can be applied to short music extracts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel any better, "Pomp and Circumstance" (as the article states, the Trio section "Land of Hope and Glory" of March No. 1) is, or at least was, in my day, *invariably* played at all graduation ceremonies in the U.S. (and in every film or TV show depicting a graduation), so it is also an American tradition. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers I know ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I hope you enjoyed the Last Night last night. I watched it live streaming here in Thailand coupled to the loudest sound system I could wire together (I'm nearly deaf), with tears literally streaming down my cheeks at March No.1. It's one of the most beautiful pieces of music in the world and I don't say that just because I grew up surrounded by it in Malvern. I wish I could attend a Last Night but alas, it will always be a dream... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sweyn or Swein

[edit]

I have request a move from Sweyn Forkbeard to Swein Forkbeard at Talk:Sweyn Forkbeard#Requested move 7 September 2025. Any comments from you would be helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I undertook the other day to upload some images, but unfortunately I cannot now remember images of what, where. If anyone can remind me, please do. Tim riley talk 10:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list of your contributions to commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tim_riley -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it’s not going to be any of you in a dilapidated state. Think of the children! KJP1 (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I? They never think of me. No, it was to do with AI-enhancement, but of what and in which article my ageing memory refuses to let on. Tim riley talk 18:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hensley Henson scheduled for TFA

[edit]

What ho,

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 8 November 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/November 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 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 those who assist the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs. 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! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walpole

[edit]

Hi, what do you mean by "uncredited" here? DuncanHill (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa! What on earth was I seeing or missing? Now reverted. Tim riley talk 15:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Dronebogus (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[edit]

Francis Poulenc's article is truly a joy to read. Thank you! Theodore Christopher (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Christopher, that's so pleasing to read and I'm delighted by your approval. I blush to say that I love the frivolous Poulenc more than the serious Poulenc, but to each his own. Tim riley talk 16:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
I see that you are the champion FAC reviewer, with a ratio of 52.7 reviews per article nominated. You put the rest of us to shame! Dudley Miles (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dudley! I didn't know such statistics were published (but where?), though I'm gratified to get a good score. Truth to tell I'm over-fussy about which FACs I look in at: my eye skids off anything to do with pop music, footer, third world politics, physics, American television, philosophy and much else besides. I admire our coordinators, past and present, who gamely study every FAC review. I salute, but cannot emulate, them. Tim riley talk 17:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for September 2025 see the last table 'Nominators for July 2025 to September 2025 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months'. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive - and selfless. Well done, it keeps the wheels turning. Now, while you're in Lady BracknellBountiful mode, would you still hyphenate preeminent or not, in BrEng? KJP1 (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, the OED hyphenates the word and I follow its example. Tim riley talk 18:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]