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.

Anyway you could work this into your Bessie Braddock footnotes? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Er, no – it's amusing in context, but totally inappropriate for the Bessie article. She had her limitations, but was an honest politician, far removed from the Dave Spart-like slogan-spouting in the clip, and she doesn't deserve to be trivialised. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brian, it's been sometime since I last dropped by. I have nominated the above article for FA, which I have listed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norodom Ranariddh/archive1. I apologise that I had to delay the nomination for sometime as I had to attend to academic matters, and was afraid that I might not be able to handle any queries posed by other editors had I nominated it earlier. I thank you for the recommendations that you have made at PR earlier, and found them to be very useful as a whole. On this note, I hereby welcome you and your peers to appraise/critique the article at the FA page. Thanks and see you! Mr Tan (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I will certainly get to it. I'll wait for a couple of days, in the hope that another reviewer will pick it up first. I was heavily involved in the PR process, and it would be good to have comments from someone looking at it with fresh eyes. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Feel free to drop by anytime :) Mr Tan (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks – amazing knowledge and thoughtfulness on your part. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Precious again, your "ghost ship" Mary Celeste!

Did you know that it's a birthday?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cosmo Gordon Lang may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• GBR|GCVO|PC|size=100%|sep=,}} (known as '''Cosmo Gordon Lang''') 31 October 1864 – 5 December 1945) was a Scottish [[Church of England|Anglican]] [[prelate]] who served as [[Archbishop of York]] (

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm moving over to your talk because I have a small question, and I don't want to lead your FAC page down a distracting rabbit trail. I am still puzzled by the statement that Battlin' Bessie was not in government. I'm reading the Parliament article, and it's a legislative body, and you get in by being elected. To my American POV, being an MP clearly and definitely makes you "in government". Is it the case, then, that American and British terminology are radically different? Perhaps what we would call "Majority" and "Minority", you would call "Government" and "Opposition"? Perhaps "Opposition" people are not formally referred to as being in "Government"? If that's the case, then any American reader who engages his/her brain while reading this article may well come out being confused... Do you understand what I'm saying/asking? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought this point was done and dusted (your comment at FAC: "That knocks away three of the four...") so I'm surprised it's come up again. The original wording was "never held ministerial office" for which you asked for a wikilink. I explained that the relevant link article was unhelpful, and changed to what I considered a clearer wording. In the UK we distinguish between parliamentary office (MPs) and government office (actual posts in one or other of the government ministries). There may be differences of terminology between Brits and Americans, although I've never met this particular difficulty before. Generally we accept such differences as part of the variations in systems of government, and move on with perhaps a shrug and a sigh at the peculiarities of the Brits (or the Yanks, as the case may be). I really don't want to meddle with this further, but I'll revert to my original wording if you prefer. Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Nope. Good luck in all things. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, and good luck to you too! Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Precious again, your Eighth Symphony, "one of the great artistic mysteries of the 20th century – the great work that never was"!

Happy on the composer's birthday, but more about the works that were, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Brian, I'm not usually moved to comment like this about TFA's, but I wanted to thank you for the work you put into Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius). I'm not sure what about the article particularly stood out for me - it certainly isn't in my normal area of interest - but it was just very engaging, and well organized, and with high quality writing, and... well, just really good. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for these kind words. I am glad that you found the article interesting. Did you try the external link to the YouTube clip of the "performance"? I think on balance I would have preferred the mystery of the Eighth to remain entirely intact. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Brian, could you do a peer review of the WABN article for me? I'm wanting to take it to GAN. Thanks in advance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not my normal territory, but I'll give it a look-over. Expect a couple of days' wait, though. Brianboulton (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have an opportunity and the interest, I've listed Wendell Willkie at PR and I'd appreciate your comments. An interesting character, unfortunately more or less forgotten.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Although obviously I don't "remember" Willkie, I do know of him. How the Republican Party has changed meantimes – can you imagine him being nominated by the present-day party? Or by the Democrats, for that matter? I shall look forward to reading this. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic photos. Finetooth (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, dear E, for your thoughtfulness. Some, like the moonlit image of the iced ship, have been shown before, but most of them I've never seen. I particularly liked the one showing the washing hanging on the line. Brianboulton (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I just finished up the month of December this morning. The baton is yours, if I can convince you to step away from the frothy hot cocoa.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A whole year has passed! Without too much trial and tribulation. I have some interesting/useful data on the 2015 choices, which I will post shortly. Thanks for the most welcome drink. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have set up an embryonic life and works year-by-year chart. Pray add, amend, copy or delete ad lib if you would find it helpful in advance of or during our overhaul of the GBS page in the new year. Tim riley talk 21:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent idea to have this sort of framework as a depot for information and ideas. The only addition I will make almost immediately concerns his visit to the USSR in 1931, which initiated Shaw's "apologist" phase. I am currently collecting information on that. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

(Oh, I see it's there, in the Politics column - sorry) Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Crisco 1492; @User:Dank

For interest only: no specific action required. The above table shows how the 2015 TFAs were distributed across the range of subject categories. The first numeric column shows the notional "share" of each category, based on its proportion of the featured articles available for TFA. The second column shows the number in each category actually scheduled. It is clear that in general, we tended to over-represent the small categories and under-represent the larger. However, only the Military History category is significantly under-represented – and we still get regular comments on "too much war". We do need to be careful that we do'nt overwork the minor categories and exhaust them. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. Thanks for running through the data. Glad I didn't end up scheduling another law article for the end of December. As for Milhist: I seem to recall scheduling an average of three or four a month. I don't feel comfortable pushing it much higher. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• FWIW, I didn't get pinged. (Not that it matters, I check this talk page regularly.) Pinging only seems to be 100% when it comes in a single edit that produces a single, short, signed paragraph. Great table, Brian, thanks. Concerning Milhist numbers, I'd hate to think that all my work at Milhist has actually made TFA worse, by forcing it to run military history articles more frequently than the readers enjoy, and I'm guessing others at Milhist would feel the same way. I can ask if you like. Maybe other wikiprojects feel the same way, maybe not. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• The MilHist people – you included – should be commended for their past and present industry, not blamed for any imbalance in the distribution of featured articles. It's up to other subject areas to up their games, not for your group to feel awkward about its success. Chris and I will do our best to see that the subject is appropriately represented at TFA, and you need have no fears that your efforts are "making it worse". Brianboulton (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with your approach or with Chris's slightly different approach (regarding Milhist) ... I just want to point out that, whatever happens, it's not my fault :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • More serious reply: it's not my fears I'm talking about. All I'm saying is, if the number of complaints about "too much war" go up, it's not inconceivable that some Milhist editor who's on the fence on whether to head to FAC with yet another article might give it a rest, perhaps out of not feeling appreciated or because they don't want the complaints to go up even more by pushing up the Milhist count. I don't know that that would happen, and the complaints haven't risen yet, so there's nothing to do, yet. Just thinking out loud. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

How about a project Peacehist in 2016? I thought we just had a TFA about a peace bell but realized it was in 2014. Anyway, I'm translating it to German (a bit at least), as a program ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to the TFA team for a year of successful stewardship. The comparable previous figures are at User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad 2014 and User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad 2013, if they're of interest. Bencherlite^Talk 21:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks kindly Bench, and thanks for your help. - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Brian,

I hope all's well for you. It was nice of you to rope in User:Wehwalt to gather his inputs on any possible deficiencies and the article's worthiness to be promoted. I understand that from his track record, Wehwalt has a history of writing quality articles and I take it as a privilege to hear from him. :)

There's another associate on my side, William, who has some knowledge on Cambodia and Southeast Asia. I have invited him to take a look at FAC sometime back, but he has not gotten back either. As a matter of principle, I won't drop a follow-up second message on an editor's message, if the editor does not reply to the first one for I don't want to be seen as "forcing" or coaxing.

I have also called in another of your associates, User:Tim riley to seek his inputs and opinions as well. As for Wehwalt, I have droppped him a message to inform him that I have looked into all concurrent points talk page, but he appears to be busy with something else on Wiki...

On my side, I believe that I have done all that I can see to make it FAC worthy, though other editors may have other opinions. I'm definitely open to hearing from other's suggestions, discuss and make improvements where possible.

I welcome you to revisit the FAC at anytime, be it to express more inputs or your position on the article's FAC-worthiness. Hope to see you around! Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Tan, and greetings. Rest assured, this article is very much on my "to-do" list. As explained earlier, given my considerable involvement at the PR stage, I didn't want to jump in to the FAC review until someone else had commented. Wehwalt is doing this, and I'm giving him a bit longer, if possible so that he can finish. I am watching the review, and I don't think it is going to be closed any time soon. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Brian, no problem – I fully understand your position, and am just writing in to update you of the FAC's present status. Nevertheless, given my past experiences of monitoring the FAC process, I noted that there has been instances of FAC discussions stalling halfway and becoming disqualified, and that is what concerns me most. For the update, Wehwalt has just told me that he is experiencing limited internet connection on his side, and I"ll be happy to give him a few days time to get back on track Mr Tan (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brian! You may be interested to know that I have started a peer review for William Sterndale Bennett, hoping to get the article up to GA/FA status for his bicentenary in April 2016. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. My knowledge of Sterndale Bennett is precisely zero, all the more reason to educate myself. It may be a few days, but I will certainly read and comment. Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks!!--Smerus (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Afternoon Brian, Mr Riley and I have recently been working on the peerless Albert Ketèlbey, who is now at PR for comments and complaints. If you have time in your limited but busy time here, we'd be delighted to hear your thoughts. Pip pip. – SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

My cup runneth over – Sterndale Bennett and Ketèlbey appearing on my talk page together! This is great news: the number of "classical" (in the broadest sense) music FAs currently available as TFAs has dwindled to four (and I'm responsible for two of these). We need more featured articles for composers and works, and I'll do what I can to get 'em there. I'm also doing my bit by working on a couple of music articles: Handel's lost Hamburg operas will be up for review in the new year, and something on Prokofiev is also in the pipeline. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Brian, was there anymore you wanted to add to the Informal PR of the WABN page? I ask because I was going to take it to GAN if there wasn't. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies - I have had very little WP time in the last couple of days. I'll try and take a look tomorrow (Friday), but if I haven't appeared on the talkpage within the next 24 hours, I suggest you take it to GAN for review there. Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I figured it was something real-life-related. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2016 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / – SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Tim Riley just pinged me that the Andrew Sledd article has been promoted to Feature Article. It was a much improved article for your review and wordsmithing, and I look forward to our next GA/FA collaboration. Best wishes for a Merry Christmas. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear this, and also pleased to have played a very small part in helping the article on its way. Feel free to ping me when you next need a review; in the meantime, enjoy the holiday break. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hope you and yours are doing well and wish you the best for 2016.Jonyungk (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and all your loved ones, and a joyous and prosperous 2016. All the very best from your friends: Cliftonian, Mrs Cliftonian and the two little Cliftonians. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the festive greetings! I will try to attend to the source review and outstanding issues raised by Wehwalt so far over the next few days. Mr Tan (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Brian, I have replied to your concerns on Ranariddh's FAC (Source review). However, there are one or two points I'm not very sure as to how I should fix them, would you mind looking through them, and give further inputs? I am refering to your points (1) Ref 48 -- (2) Mehta's books. Thanks in advance Mr Tan (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Brian to you and yours for the festival season - from you know who (chuckle chuckle) 93.93.219.240 (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea, but good wishes anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes to you and yours in this holiday season

and in the year ahead. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Brian, Merry Xmas once again. As promised, I have given a run through of the suggestions and comments that Wehwalt have posted at FAC. I've done all that I can so far, and I hope the article is now worthy for consideration for FA status. Nevertheless, if you feel that there are still serious concerns that needs to be looked into further, please do not hesitate to let me know and I"ll try my best to fix them or discuss. At the same time, if you see any arrears that can be fixed on the spot, please feel free to make the edits as you see fit. I have also informed Wehwalt of the latest comments posted so far. See you! Mr Tan (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm working (slowly) through the article, making minor prose adjustments as I go. When I'm through I'll comment on the FAC page. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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.

Albert Ketèlbey

added a link pointing to The Evening News

Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev)

added a link pointing to Sting

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2015 (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.