User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 98
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Brianboulton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 |
Thank you @ Norodom Ranariddh
Hi Brian, I apologise for the late reply as I was away from Wikipedia until now. As for the above article, I must say that reaching that for the article to reach FA status, is not only the work of mine, but also that of yours, User:Wehwalt and User:Wugapodes. Thank you once again for the advice and guidance that you all have given along the way :)
While this indeed is a major milestone, I will now be shifting my focus towards improving the article of his father, Norodom Sihanouk. It's a bit too early for me to ping you now, or any of the editors, as I intend to do another round of copyedit before roping in any external help, but since you have dropped me a message a week ago, I might as well let you know of my interest in advance :) If you like, you are most welcome take a look at the article, and drop any comments on the article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Norodom Sihanouk/archive2.
Ideally, I would put up Sihanouk's article for FA nomination from May 2016 onwards. I foresee that I may drop by Wikipedia on a less frequent, more irregular basis due to more hectic real-life commitments. Nevertheless, thank you once again, and it would be my pleasure to see you around :) 14:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good to hear from you. I'll try and keep an eye on the Sinahouk article as it develops, although as with you, time is a little short at the moment! Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Brianboulton, it was my impression that editors could only have one FAC open at one time. So I was surprised to discover, when checking a new GA review opened for the long-since nominated Philippine Constabulary Band (over three months old), that according to the article's talk page it also had an FAC open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philippine Constabulary Band/archive1, and that its nominator, LavaBaron, had another FAC ongoing. (President's Guest House was actually opened six days after Philippine Constabulary Band.) As LavaBaron and I have had conflicts in the past, I thought it was best that I did not post directly to either FAC page; I'll leave this to you to sort out. I may be familiar with Good Article nominations, but I've had limited experience with FAC procedures. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm not actually responsible for FAC, though I help out occasionally (TFA is my territory). The rule is one FAC at a time, unless specific consent is given. I've left a note for the FAC coordinators asking whether this editor has permission to run a second nom – which seems unlikely given the short interval between them. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Maw Shore
Other things, while I remember. We need to do a properly balanced para on GBS's views on Shakespeare. He was full of contradictions, and it'll be a helluva job to boil the old buzzard's multifarious pronouncements down to disgestible length, but this seems to me a good starting point: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.5325/shaw.31.1.0118.pdf. I'll take this on, if you concur.
- This is yours, I think. It will make a fine paragraph in the putative "Criticism" subsection within "Works". Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
And we need to standardise our practice for page ranges. You favour 423–25, and I go for 423–425. I don't particularly press the claims of my version, but we must be consistent. Similarly, do we or don't we put a space between first and second initials in W.H. Smith / W. H. Smith? I regard both as ludicrously old-fashioned, but I know we won't get away with W H Smith as long as quaint ole American punctuation remains the norm on WP. As we must have full stops, my slight preference is for a space, and for once the MoS concurs: MOS:SPACEINITS. If you like to give a view on these two points, I'll go through the refs with the hallowed fine-toothed comb. – Tim riley talk 22:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'll follow your preference on page ranges. On initials I have long accepted the alien full stops in name initials (though I never will in things like OBE, MA, KCMG etc – to mention just a few of my decorations). On spaces, well, if you insist, but the pain of having to type "G. K. Chesterton" will linger for months. Thank goodness Shaw wasn't interested in cricket, or we'd be typing "J. W. H. T. Douglas" and dear old User:SchroCat would be having Schrokittens. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Easter Rising 1916
A week ago I left a thread on the Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article page, mentioning that 24 April 2016 will be the 100th anniversary of the start of the Dublin Easter Rising, and suggesting that it would be a good idea if the occasion could be marked by an appropriate TFA. I don't think anyone has read my message; if they have, they've kept quiet. So I'm hoping that the odd talkpage stalker might respond.
There is no appropriate featured article available at the moment. My belief is that it would be impossible to get the main Easter Rising article through the various review hoops in the time available, and the same is probably true of the other principal articles, e.g. those of the executed leaders or other major figures. Such articles might be too contentious to secure broad agreement in the relatively little time available. I've identified a few article which I think could be used fairly neutrally, my first choice being Nelson's Pillar, the story of the central Dublin monument that survived the Rising but was blown up 50 years later. The exisiting article is not in bad shape, but needs work if it is to get to FAC. If anyone would care to join me in the drive – or has a better idea – I'd be pleased to hear. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I would have joined in, as it's an interesting and important topic, but Dr. Blofeld has strong-armed me into his Welsh project for April, so I have promised him I'll put together something on a particularly nasty event instead. Sorry! - SchroCat (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't get a response from Brian or Cassianto on the Wales one, I was hoping others aside from Schro could help contribute something. Tim is also aware of this I believe. The Easter Rising though I guess is as worthwhile a cause as any!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- My sincere apologies for not responding re the Welsh project. I honestly don't remember receiving the request – was it here or by email? I doubt that I could have found the time, as I have long committed my main efforts to the G.B. Shaw article, with Tim. The Irish idea is more recent. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- By email yup. No worries, thanks for the explanation but I was beginning to wonder why there wasn't a response from the others initially!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Emailed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I read your (Brian's) original message, but having had my fingers burned before won't touch any article even tangentially related to the IRA with the proverbial bargepole, and couldn't in all conscience advise anyone else to do so, since it vies with "Indian castes" and "Men's rights movement" when it comes to topics that will force you to disable Special:EmailUser to prevent the hate-mail from triggering mailbox size limits. I can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that I speak at the very least for Eric also in this. ‑ Iridescent 16:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your view. Obviously I will bear what you say in mind, before deciding what to do. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| not lost | |
|---|---|
| ... you were recipient no. 7 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
Thoughts?
Hi Brian, Someone added this "In fiction" section to Dan Leno the other day, and I'm not keen on it. Like you, I don't particularly like "In popular culture" sections or things similar, and this seems consistent with that; especially seeing as this section has no room for expansion (it's the only fictional work that Leno features in). Ssilvers added a source citation to it, but personally speaking, I don't think it should be there at all. What's your opinion? CassiantoTalk 22:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- BTW, I have no strong opinion about it. The question is whether the addition is encyclopedic info or not with respect to the Dan Leno article. When I looked it up, it seemed pretty solid, as literary references go, as Leno is a main character in the novel, so I did not remove it. I suspect, Brian, that you might have some experience with other theatre/actor Featured Articles that you could bring to bear here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- My view is that using Leno as a character in a novel written 90 years after his death is not relevant to the real man's life, notwithstanding that Ackroyd is an author of repute. However, rather than removing the added text I have opened a thread on the talk page, stating my view and asking others to comment. If a consensus develops that the information should stay, it certainly shouldn't remain in a separate section, which amplifies its importance. Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I doubt that anyone will comment, except maybe the person who added the information. As I said there, I'd give it perhaps 48 hours and then go ahead. Personally, I think it does say something about Leno that a respected writer would choose to make him a major character in a novel a century after his death. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- My view is that using Leno as a character in a novel written 90 years after his death is not relevant to the real man's life, notwithstanding that Ackroyd is an author of repute. However, rather than removing the added text I have opened a thread on the talk page, stating my view and asking others to comment. If a consensus develops that the information should stay, it certainly shouldn't remain in a separate section, which amplifies its importance. Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 February 2016
- From the editors: Help wanted
- Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the Signpost
- Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration
- Traffic report: Bowled
- Featured content: This week's featured content
Baton
Hi Brian! Have scheduled up to the 29th of February. The TFA section is all yours. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, and thanks again for your efforts in recently trying circumstances. I trust all is well now. Brianboulton (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, more or less. I'm still taking a liter of guava juice a day, to keep my immune system in fighting shape. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Besieging you with a PR request
Hi Brian, I've been working on the Siege of Sidney Street recently, and I've just taken it to PR. If you have time, and if the topic is of interest, would you be able to take a look? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry not to have acknowledged. A splendid subject; I'm a bit time-constrained at present but will look forward to reading and commenting at the weekend. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Michael Hordern FAC
...has been started here. Thanks once again for all you help. CassiantoTalk 17:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Noted – I'll be there as soon as possible. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I hate to bother you again, but could you possibly do a source review?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Noted – I'll be there as soon as possible. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 February 2016
- News and notes: Another WMF departure
- In the media: Jeb Bush swings at Wikipedia and connects
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: A river of revilement
If you would like to take a break from Shaw, consider the above which is a childhood and adult literary love of mine, at peer review. No idea if you're familiar with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have heard of it, but am not familiar with it. It will be a pleasant break from GBS duty. Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 15
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)
- New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
- #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
- New branches and coordinators
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 February 2016
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Traffic report: Super Bowling
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Mortara case
Hi Brian, I hope you're well. If you have a few minutes I have Mortara case up at FAC here—a 19th-century cause célèbre that captured the attention of much of Europe and America for a few years. Any comments would be gratefully received. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I will certainly visit shortly – somewhat tangled at present in Shaw matters and other distractions. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Kate n Sidney
Hi Many thanks for your recent comments at the Siege of Sidney Street PR. I've now moved this on to FAC, should you have the time and inclination. Many thanks once again. – SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Pixies
Brian, we've done front page stories like this on April 1 on a number of occasions. I'm not suggesting anything revolutionary. Besides, are you suggesting we also discontinue the rest of the usual jokes we fill Main Page with every April 1? --Dweller (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, basically that is my personal preference. Indeed, I thought we had largely discontinued that practice, and the "Pixes" suggestions looks to me like a blast from the past. Of course, my fellow coordinators might feel differently. I assure you there's nothing personal in this, I'm an admirer of your work for the project, but I think this "joke" has outrun its time. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I respect that view. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Susan's dollar
I thought this was a good idea: honour a woman for women's rights on her 110th anniversary of death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- With Ellen Wilkinson scheduled for the 8th and Isabella Beeton for the 12th, a third woman-related article in 6 days would be too much. I do plan to schedule a third appropriate article before the end of the month. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your choice, of course. (It's a coin's article.) For what occasion would you advise to postpone it this time? (Had been scheduled in June 2015 first.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 February 2016
- Special report: WMF in limbo as decision on Tretikov nears
- Op-ed: Backward the Foundation
- Traffic report: Of Dead Pools and Dead Judges
- Arbitration report: Arbitration motion regarding CheckUser & Oversight inactivity
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Newbie TFAs
Just spotted this comment from you: "without a date relevance we would not normally consider a just-promoted article for immediate TFA." Not that it really matters, but FWIW my view is that (a) it is good to run brand-new FAs in with the older ones, since new ones should be in better condition than FAs from 2007, making it easier to justify them as an example of Wikipedia's finest work, and (b) rewarding a 1st-time FA nominator with a speedy TFA is a good idea since it gives them (and their reviewers) an early return on their hard work. BencherliteTalk 11:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)th
- I agree up to a point. In this case, we had an established TFA request for a video game, Final Fantasy Type-0, for 17 March, to which I felt I should give priority. I have advised Jaguar that he shouldn't have to wait too long for his turn. Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
| | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Brianboulton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 |