User talk:Tim riley#Cosima Wagner

Happy 2025 to all visiting this page.

Tim

File:Information.svg 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)

: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)

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = 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, [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2024-12-27&end=2025-01-16&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Home_and_Beauty 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)

@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)

: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)

::{{green|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

::{{blue|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)

:::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)

:::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)

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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

@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)

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 [https://www.oxforddnb.com/newsitem/866/whats-new-january-2025 "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)

: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)

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)

: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)

:: Serial, I've added my support – unqualified support, after perusing the article. Tim riley talk 17:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:::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{{nbsp}}... The look? 'Imperial Leisure'" :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::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)

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

: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)

{{ivmbox

|image = Cscr-featured.svg

|imagesize=60px

|extracss=font-size:1.25em; font-family:Georgia;

|text = 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.{{parabr}}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, {{user0|Gog the Mild}} via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

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

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

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 [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/arts/music/ravel-lost-manuscript-dudamel-ny-philharmonic.html 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)

: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)

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)

: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)

::KJ, a singular {{green|no}} certainly takes a full stop in Wikipedia, if not in real life. I use {{green|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 {{green|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)

:::Very helpful, so no. / nos. it is, with capitalisation as required. KJP1 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::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)

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)

: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)

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 [https://slippedisc.com/ 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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

:::::::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABml9AvVXQ4 These two] could play both of us. KJP1 (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::And which would be which? I've always thought of myself as more Hilda Bracket. Tim riley talk 21:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

:I added "Pierre Boulez described Prélude à L’Après-midi d’un Faune as “the beginning of modern music.”{{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}}

: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)

::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)

:::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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. ([https://www.newyorker.com/video/watch/carnegie-hall Richard Brody recommends it].) Charlie Faust (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

:Would [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Lock+Stratford+St.+Mary&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image this] do? Or possibly [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:River_Stour_Near_Roger_Brown%27s_Lock_-_geograph.org.uk_-_7477429.jpg this]? Tim riley talk 13:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::My pleasure! Tim riley talk 13:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuWuJWKIYiw this song about it], though we only sang the first verse! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We know some of your American songs here. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX3d9PmiNr8&ab_channel=TheBandsofHMRoyalMarines 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)

::::::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)

:::::::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)

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)

: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)

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)

: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)

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)

: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)

::"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)

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)

::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)

:::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

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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

::::Sometimes it's possible. SNdeC (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::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 [https://archive.org/ Internet Archive] and public libraries are wonderfully productive resources. Tim riley talk 13:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I didn't know so many books were online. No one would tell... SNdeC (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

File:Humpty Dumpty Tenniel.svg

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)

:I assume [https://www.themorgan.org/literary-historical/412984 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)

::Of course! Dim of me not to think of that! Name your prize! Tim riley talk 13:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I can't think of anything. But I'm glad I could help! AstonishingTunesAdmirer ➜ 14:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm in your debt. Thank you! Tim riley talk 14:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

: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)

::I see someone has beaten me to the prize. Here is the [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/arts/design/looking-at-the-birth-of-lewis-carrolls-alice-150-years-old.html 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)

:::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)

::::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)

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)

: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)

::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)

:::If you put the article up for peer review I'll happily look in. Tim riley talk 19:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I've added it tonight here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Johann_Sebastian_Bach/archive3]. It would be nice to see your thoughts there. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::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)

::::::I've got him on my list. Tim riley talk 12:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

:Cheers reciprocated. Tim riley talk 08:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::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)

I noticed you were reviewing the relevant article and I found the reversion of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgiana_Hill_(cookery_book_writer)&diff=prev&oldid=1296232641 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)

: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)

::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)

:::Applying the duck test I think we can safely refer to stalking in this case. Tim riley talk 20:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Could you please just revert my edit for me? Dronebogus (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::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)

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)

: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)

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)

: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)

::Thank you for that reply, both evocative and eloquent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)