User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 70

Michael Tippett

I have only just seen the Tippett page. Your expansion of my original article is superb. You have given it the depth and seriousness that it deserves. I could never find the time or dedication to do what you have done. As a sufferer from Parkinson's since 1996 my time is severely curtailed and I have almost stopped the very sporadic editing I had done since 2005. Congratulations too on your Britten article. It was badly in need of work. I am in awe of your dedicated and scholarly work. Andrew Lowe Watson (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. You've done your usual, thorough and erudite job on this. Great work. Any schedule planned on getting it through PR, FAR or anything like that? Would love to help wherever possible. Jonyungk (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is currently at peer review. All comments welcome there. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will review the article again and post comments at PR. Jonyungk (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Brian I have to say that I am very disappointed - in fact I am outright appalled that you would make a post like this. It outright crosses the line of WP:NPA - and if you're honest with yourself then you know it does too. Yes, your work at FA related things affords you the luxury of being able to say such things without fear of reprisal; but it was WRONG. Have you been an admin on this site? Have you been a 'crat, OS, CU? Have you been an arb? Have you ever had a ton of people come down on your head because something you wrote was too close to how the source said it? Have you been at the top and then shoved off? Have you ever been unjustly blocked? If you haven't walked in a man's shoes, then how can you pass such judgement? Obviously you're not a child - in fact if I had to guess I'd say you were even close to my age; so please understand that I'm not trying to talk down to you. But a man who puts in more than 100,000 edits - countless hours, deserves much more respect than to be told "grown-up editing". Has PS made mistakes? I don't think even HE would dispute that. My point is: you don't know the man - so words such as "stop wallowing in self-pity" are cruel and hurtful. Saying: "unwarranted stance of victimhood,"? Who are you to say what is warranted?

To be honest, I had hoped that when I returned today I would have seen some of that post struck through - perhaps even an apology. Sadly, it was not so. I'm not interested in a debate, but I do have to speak my mind here. IMO? You were wrong to post that as you did. If you could not find less hurtful verbiage and tone, then you should have canceled the post after preview. — ChedZILLA 20:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. You know nothing of my life – my real life, that is - or the issues that I have faced there, and your "Have you been..." litany, above, leaves me unimpressed. I am not making any judgements about PSky's general editing contributions to the encyclopedia, or his motives. He was entitled to protest Bencherlite's recent decision, and I might well have supported a reasoned case. However, his attack on Bencherlite's integrity, and the wildly overblown language used, were highly inappropriate and not justified in any circumstances. Bencherlite has done an excellent job in turning round what was a rapidly failing system. Shouting and hurling accusations around, whatever one's level of disappointment, are not grown-up editing, and I have no regrets about pointing this out forcibly. This is a storm in a teacup in the larger scheme of things; I believe that PSky will return in due course, because the encyclopedia is too important to him not to do so. I will be happy to make my peace with him when he does – I do not bear grudges. Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Bizet TFA blurb query

Just looking at this again and not sure how this bit adds up: Neither of his two operas that reached the stage—Les pêcheurs de perles and La jolie fille de Perth—achieved initial success. The production of Carmen was delayed through fears.. So should that be three operas, or are some words missing? Bencherlite^Talk 21:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I see your point; the word "early" should appear in the first phrase, thus: "Neither of his two early operas that reached the stage..." I think that makes sense, but if you're not happy with that I'll tweak it further. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That makes more sense! Thanks for fixing that. Bencherlite^Talk 21:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Tiruchirappalli

Hi, since you commented on the previous FAC, can you post your thoughts on the article's talk page to improve the article. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your perspective welcome

I would be gratified if you would give your views on Bakke. Your outside perspective may prick some assumptions that we have made that the reader knows something that he may not. Have a good time in Madeira. I was there for six hours off the cruise ship last December, the weather was not very sunny.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I will be happy to do this. I shall shortly be asking you to cast your ever-observant eye on (yet another) 20th century British composer, Michael Tippett – though not yet as I am still tidying him up. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I look forward with anticipation.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DBpedia

Continued from FAC L'Arianna, topic: the box which I should not name but which appears a few million times on Wikipedia.

(quote) I must say that "sorrow, anger, fear, self-pity, desolation and a sense of futility" rang a bell with me ;) - Putting self-pity aside: I prefer the box on the talk, thinking that time, place and the renowned librettist deserve their place on something like the article's title page - instead of the present white space, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. You will observe that the time, place and renowned librettist are all given in the article's opening paragraph, and I prefer to stick to the present arrangement, although your views on the matter are, as always, most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC) (end of quote)

Yes, I observe that time, place and renowned librettist are in the opening. These key facts are not structured, as would be helpful for someone looking for nothing else but the name of the librettist (for example) or for a reader whose native language is not English but who uses the English Wikipedia because such a specialized article appears only there). There is no date in templated form which would permit programs to place the article in time. Did you know about DBpedia which allows more complex queries than "our" search function but will find data from the boxes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Google has no trouble "reading" the "unstructured key facts" in WP articles without infoboxes and in fact produces its own illustrated infobox, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. Best Voceditenore (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear. I am not talking about Google, but a reader looking in DBpedia for "operas with a libretto by Rinuccini" or "operas composed before 1610" would not find this one. He would find nothing. Side note: looking at Sparafucile listed as the first character in Rigoletto also makes me wish "we" would supply better data than that. I said the same for Carmen before, - sense of futility was mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I know you were talking about DBpedia, Gerda, but it (and its wall of code) are hardly the first port of call for the average reader ;-). Anyhow, I've trespassed on Brian's front porch with that subject quite enough. By the way Brian, Arianna is looking great! I'm going to try to expand and improve Goehr's Arianna, which is currently in a bit of sorry state. I finally found my ROH programme from the world premiere. Goehr's version was... er... interesting— large artificial fishes, neon lights, etc.. Don't know what "La Florinda" would have thought of it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This was a sidetrack from the FAC where I supported. - How about an article on La Florinda? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea about La Florinda. There are some useful looking sources here and here. There's a scholarly article here and a number of related articles from Google. Plus numerous mentions in my Monteverdi books. So there should be enough material, though I will not myself be able to work on it immediately (I have plans that will keep me occupied until the new year). If it's not been taken up by then I may well give it a go. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, a good start ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Started, Brian. See Virginia Ramponi-Andreini. Will get it up to a reasonable start article by the end of today (hopefully), although it will not even approach "Brian-esque" proportions. :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I will fix the links in the L'Arianna article, unless that's been done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I only linked her in the role table. Wasn't sure if you wanted extra links anywhere else. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just added one in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

• Op-ed: Commons medical diagnostic images under threat from unresolved ownership

• Discussion report: References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more

• News and notes: WMF signals new grantmaking priorities

• Featured content: Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia

• Arbitration report: Infoboxes: After the war

• WikiProject report: U2 Too

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Georges Bizet

This is a note to let the main editors of Georges Bizet know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 25, 2013. 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 all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 25, 2013. 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:

Georges Bizet (1838–75) was a French composer, mainly of opera, whose final work, Carmen, became one of the most popular and frequently performed in the opera repertory. As a young composer during the 1860s he struggled for recognition; he began many theatrical projects, but found that the main Parisian opera theatres preferred the established classics to the works of newcomers. Two early operas—Les pêcheurs de perles and La jolie fille de Perth—failed to achieve initial success on the stage. The production of Carmen was delayed through fears that its themes of betrayal and murder would offend audiences; after its premiere in 1875, Bizet was convinced that the work was a failure. He died of a heart attack three months later, aged 36, unaware that Carmen would prove an enduring success. After his death Bizet's other work was largely forgotten. Manuscripts were given away or lost, and published versions were often the result of revision by other hands. As his operas began to be performed more frequently in the 20th century, commentators increasingly acclaimed Bizet as a brilliant and original composer, whose premature death was a significant loss to French musical theatre. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A Nobody

Great, your article on the Main page! I am sure CT who raised the identitybox question on my talk could get all advice in matters of {{book}} from you! - Hint: the first link above (Opera) goes to nowhere, thank goodness, it was archived. The latest such discussion is here, as I bet you know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to hide away on TFA days – pick up the pieces tomorrow when the vandals have had their say. As to the arbitration report: All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full ... and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said: "This is new?" (Ecc 1: 7–10). Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you know that WP:QAI watches every TFA, so you and the other authors can safely hide away? - Actually, yours today is relatively harmless, compared to Verdi, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I like your quote! I live with the report, - those who left (I miss four) don't comment. The discussion has some interesting aspects, including L'Arianna. - Do you have an idea regarding the latest idea on my talk: how to lead people to a template documentation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The rivers of debate will continue to flow pointlessly into the sea, until both sides stop restating or reinforcing their positions, and start to show respect for the opposite view. I confess I have made hostile comments in the past; more recently, however, I have sought to find a semblance of common ground, via the so-called "identity box". A basis for future community-wide agreement might be acceptance that (1) all boxes should conform to the "key facts about the subject" principle, (2) different levels of infobox detail are appropriate for different kinds of article, and (3) the indentity box should be available as an option for the infobox-averse. Until I can see some harmony in th discussion, and some movement towards acceptance on the above lines, I prefer to keep away. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I support all that, shown in the FAC, and giving you credit for the identitybox on my talk and several user talk pages. It is sad that the arbs seem to have looked too much at a heated past and less if at all at compromise which also showed in Sibelius's First while (!) the case was open. I miss Smerus, among others, thinking of his Wagner day (with a Chéreau image!) on Verdi day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet another one on the main page! Congrats!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

And no more "lamento" on Arianna, congrats. What do you think of handling all Monteverdi operas consistently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Festina lente. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In German: "Ich gehe nicht schnell, ich eile nicht ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Michael Tippett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Evanston

The Diary of a Nobody (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Williams

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

• Traffic report: Shutdown shenanigans

• WikiProject report: Australian Roads

• Featured content: Under the sea

• News and notes: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed

• In the media: College credit for editing Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute and Ebionites 3 cases continue; third arbitrator resigns

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Tich

Hello Brian and thank you for your comments. I will get to them in the next few days if that's ok as RL is unfortunately dominating my time right now. Hope your well. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That is fine. My life is also a little complicated at the moment, and I am away from Tuesday until 25th, but I will try and get my review done and dusted before I go. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm all done over here. -- Cassianto^Talk 04:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

L'Arianna image

(transferred to new thread)

• link to talkpage debate

Re L'Arianna pics: Hi Brianboulton! I just want to say that the Titian doesn't truly offend me as the lead. I'd just like to alert other major contributors to music/arts articles to the possibility of tracking down the closest parallels to the subject, date/place/style, rather than going for the best known and most beautiful. In order to give a more expansive view of the period in which the work is created.

I think that its up to you to chose. I prefer the Turchi, because it's such a close match date/place/style and also remarkably close in subject. However, the Titian is OK-ish. (I can assure that if I thought it was horribly inappropriate I'd say so). Have the Tintoretto, if you like it better than the other. Amandajm (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Amanda. In terms of the choices available, I understand your reasoning. I think it is a fairly close call, and I would have no objection to either the Turchi or the Tintoretto. But rather than make the choice myself I'd like people who have had some hand in the development of the article to give an opinion. Hopefully some clarity of opinion will emerge after a period of debate. Brianboulton (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that you were the major editor, were you not? If you're happy to go with the present, let's leave it then, unless there are further comments or someone comes up with a good reason for change. I think the picture grows on you, after a while.

Re the Titian, I knew that it had been very heavily restored, but I had no idea it had suffered so many indignities, until I read the article just recently. Johnbod has just finished writing about its companion piece, The Feast of the Gods. Magnificent painting, though not quite as spectacular as the Titian. Amandajm (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

• News and notes: Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin

• Traffic report: Peaceful potpourri

• WikiProject report: Heraldry and Vexillology

• Featured content: That's a lot of pictures

• Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case closes

• Discussion report: Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: A Child of Our Time

This is a note to let the main editors of A Child of Our Time know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 9, 2013. 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 all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 9, 2013. 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:

A Child of Our Time is a secular oratorio by the British composer Michael Tippett (1905–98). It was inspired by events in 1938 that had affected Tippett profoundly: the assassination of a German diplomat by a young Jewish refugee (Herschel Grynszpan, pictured) and the Nazi government's reaction in the form of the so-called Kristallnacht—a vicious pogrom against Germany's Jewish population on the night of 9–10 November. Tippett uses these incidents to represent the experiences of all oppressed peoples, in the context of a pacifist message of ultimate understanding and reconciliation. The text's recurrent themes of shadow and light reflect the Jungian psychoanalysis which Tippett underwent in the years immediately before writing the work. The oratorio's most original feature is the use of African American spirituals, which perform the function allocated in Bach's Passions to chorales; Tippett believed that these songs of oppression possess a universality absent from specifically Christian and other hymns. A Child of Our Time was well received on its first performance in 1944 at the Adelphi Theatre, London, and has since been performed all over the world in many languages. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Maurice Leyland

I gather you have been away, and hopefully a good time was had! If you are not too busy, I've got Maurice at PR Maurice Leyland welcome at the PR here if you have the inclination. I'm not quite sure about this one; there's no real juicy bits, and hopefully it doesn't drift into stats listing. With this in mind, your eyes would be greatly appreciated, and as ever let me know if I can return any favours. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to do this, though I have rather a busy weekend coming up, so it may be a day or two before I get started. I've just closed a peer review on Michael Tippett, and will shortly be nominating it at FAC, if you have time to comment there. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

• News and notes: Grantmaking season—rumblings in the German-language community

• Traffic report: Your average week ... and a fish

• Featured content: Your worst nightmare as a child is now featured on Wikipedia

• Discussion report: More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more

• In the media: The decline of Wikipedia; Sue Gardner releases statement on Wiki-PR; Australian minister relies on Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: Elements of the world

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ping

Wehwalt and I have addressed your comments at the Homer Davenport article, if you'd like to take another look and such. Montanabw^(talk) 05:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm continuing my review and will be posting more comments shortly, but my online time has been rather limited this weekend, hence the slow progress. Brianboulton (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm just a habitual "pinger!" Montanabw^(talk) 16:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ping again. I think we've now addressed all of your concerns at the FAC, other than the sizing issue, and I've pinged Ruhrfisch per your suggestion. Let us know if we got everything else. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Identibox composer

You asked. The shortest possible identibox was suggested in March for Handel and recently for Verdi, composers who have a detailed navbox. In other cases, I use more parameters of {{infobox person}} and feel no need for a special dedicated template. As Andy said in 2012: "Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Thinking further: I like something above the picture that tells the random reader what an article is about. It might contain what would come in the debatable parameters |occupation= and |known for=. This is not yet an established function in many infobox templates but worth pursuing. Let's look at Verdi: we might say Composer or Composer or (as suggested on the talk page) Composer of Italian opera (which doesn't say "only" of opera). What would be best for a reader who never heard the name Verdi before, but does't "insult" someone who knows, - that is the question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I am experimenting with a simple identibox for use in classical composer articles. The box will have the single function of enabling rapid identification of the article's subject, without duplication of information found in the first lead paragraph or inclusion of non-key personal details. To keep any discussion low profile, I am currently trying out such a box on the Percy Grainger article. I intend that it should be there for a while, to see whether any useful discussion emerges. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I tried something here: show the main topics immediately. What do you think of having other parameters (in this case "occupation") in the box but not shown? The technical people will be able to find a way to have data ready for a search function, but not clutter the page. For the data about death and birth, I think they should always show: dates and locations give a reader new to an article and topic a feeling for where in history and location the story takes place. That's why I would add to any musical composition (including opera) a year and location of composition or date and location of a first performance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

My purpose in this experiment is to find a box that does not contravene the concerns (which I share) of many classical music editors, that the box does not duplicate information carried in the alongside first paragraph, and doesn't extend to include either non-key information or inappropriate summaries. The sole purpose of the box is to provide rapid identification of the subject; thus, in the case of Grainger, it is immediately apparent that he is an composer, his provenance is given, and the caption provides information as to his active era. A signature and a link to his compositions are extras. Whether such a box will become acceptable in the longer term I don't know, but I am sure that if it becomes an infobox by stealth, it won't be. Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the term "by stealth". The data of death and birth are what I associate first with "identity", a term I used a while ago already, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

My box is intended to identify the article, not the person, whose characteristics are readily available in the first paragraph of the text. This is my attempt to find an end to the discord between those who are committed to the principle of infoboxes and those who are opposed to them, by offering a compromise which, if nothing else, will help to establish some uniformity in article presentation. The L'Arianna article got through the FAC process with its identibox, which made me think that this might be the basis for an acceptable compromise. Maybe I was wrong, after all. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I like your approach at a compromise. What I don't understand is your differentiation between "article" and "person" if the article is about a person. FA doesn't touch the topic infobox at all, there are FAs without and (more) FAs with, it's not in the criteria. Why would you think you are wrong? You asked my opinion. I don't think we will ever have uniformity in article presentation. Grainger can stay as it is, if please Waterhouse can stay also, who is more conform with other people articles, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I never try dictate with regard to other editors' infoboxes; it is for editors to decide themselves whether to have an infobox and, within WP policy concerning key information, what to put in it. My identiboxes simply increase the range of choice available, with the more averse primarily in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

MT

Hi Brian! I am presently only dipping my toes very selectively. I would in fact comment on TT but ask to be excused as November is Alkan 200 month and I am giving talks in US, France and Italy at various colloquia, thus my time is almost completely bespoken - good luck, anyway - it looks the right shape! (as my economics teacher used to say about my essays, holding them up to the light). I once made the mistake of asking Tippett, in a long and convoluted question, what he thought about aleatory music - he looked at me (and was justified in doing so) as if I was completely mad.--Smerus (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all, and the best of luck with your Alkan work. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on music articles that make us joyful and with your unending patience 2.26.108.157 (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)