User talk:Tim riley/sandbox8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asquith[edit]

Extended content

Calling my co-editors, @Wehwalt: and @KJP1:. I have been drafting my bit, in a desultory sort of way, and it is now pretty much as I want it. It is on show Tuesdays and Fridays on presentation of visiting card. Now then, I believe both of you are sfn/efn men when it comes to referencing, and I am absolutely willing to go along with your strange caballistic practices.

Another thing that occurs to me is that my footnote on why HHA was agin votes for women can easily be transplanted to a later section if wanted.

How are we going to co-ordinate our endeavo(u)rs? Wehwalt, you are the most experienced FA-ist, and I appoint you Lord High Coordinator.

We have no timetable for our overhaul, and there is not the smallest hurry about any of this. We shall assuredly get him up to FA in time for the centenary of his resignation from the premiership, which is in December next year. Tim riley talk 16:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Squiffy or Squiff?[edit]

I think it was actually the latter, the Haig quote certainly supports this. I can source others if necessary. I see, over a twelve month ago, you anticipated the centenary of his fall as a suitable TFA date, something that I only appreciated yesterday! KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round the Horne[edit]

Extended content

SchroCat: Most interested by your history section so far. I had no idea about some of it. Pretty good cheek of Merriman's to maintain that he made KH a star. Did he never hear Much Binding? Everyone else in Britain did.

Thoughts, please, on the characters section. Past or present tense? I have used past so far but I keep wanting to make it present. Any view on this? And am I doing reasonably well with the mad algebra of your sfn secret code? Tim riley talk 16:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on books and films should use the present tense when discussing the plot as the medium still exists, so the characters are "live", as it were (see WP:FICTENSE for more on this). Lost works and some other media are transitory and should use past tense (although a play still has a script, so is present). As RtH has both scripts and is available in downloadable/online formats, I think we're OK if we use present tense, but as long as we are consistent throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table with list of episodes. Now here is a test of your moral character: where do you suggest we put it? In the article or hived off as a sub-article list? Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a separate sub-article would be best. It's a bit too detailed for this one. - SchroCat (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ps. Can I give you a gentle nudge on the Marchioness Disaster PR? If so, consider yourself duly nudged! SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
pps. The show's format. It needs no more than a few words to say it was a revue/sketch show with repeated characters, but I think some examples of the weird and wonderful should be included which will turn it to a paragraph or two. Where would you envisage that being added - as part of the writing history? The current page has quite a lot at the moment, but they have conflated it with the characters. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely in the History part, I think. In the absence of admissible photographs I think we'll have to break the text up with quote boxes. I've tried one chez Jules and Sand. The formatting isn't ideal: do you perchance know how to make Sandy's line indent after the line break?).
Only be forcing the width of the box (now done at 300 pixels). Does that look OK to you, or a bit oversexed sized? - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see how we get on. Tim riley talk 14:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tim, I think we probably need to address the question of the idiotbox. Should we keep or ditch? If we keep, is there anything you think should be added or trimmed out? - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been pondering that, by coincidence. I think we might consider keeping it but moving the picture out of it, so as to give us at least one more photo lower down in the text. If we then give the I-B a wash and brush up it will at least help break our slabs of text up. What think you? Tim riley talk 14:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like that idea. I think the IB actually works OK here (summarising the number of series/episodes, etc), and that photo can be used elsewhere, which will make the box look much less dominating than it does at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've trimmed the IB a bit, to stop it going too far into the body of the article. As for the picture – well, having pulled it out I'm not sure where to put it. Please consider. Any suggestion consistent with health and safety and human dignity will be considered. Tim riley talk 20:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • You could always pop it into Kenneth Horne.... - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the dialogue, are we bolding the names or leaving them as normal? I just bolded, as I thunked you had done the others, but I see you haven't after all... I may need to go and lie down... - Ransden Gnomefumbler

Sorry: my fault. I was experimenting with the layout of dialogue and got in a hell of a tangle, so reverted to yesterday's version of it. I give you carte blanche to adopt any layout you like, though I don't much like the very large left hand margin for the Charles and Fiona dialogue. (Apropos carte blanche, Frank Muir commented that Round the Horne was the first show to which the BBC gave carte bleu.) Raving Jim Grunt and the Pubes.
I'm easy either way (Now... don't start). We can either go with User:Tim_riley/sandbox8#Douglas_Smith:
Smith: Moo Moo – Splosh!
Horne: Splosh?
Smith: I kicked over the milk pail.[1]

Or with User:Tim_riley/sandbox8#Charles_and_Fiona:

Fiona: All I could think of back here was you out there thinking of me back here thinking of you out there – back here. Needing you, wanting you, wanting to need you, needing to want you.[2]
Charles: I don't have the words for it.
Fiona: I know.
Charles: I know you know.
Fiona: I know you know I know.
Charles: Yes, I know.[3]

References

  1. ^ Took 1998, p. 64.
  2. ^ Took & Coward 2000, p. 146.
  3. ^ Took 1998, p. 104.
They both look OK to me, with a slight preference on the first. Widow Ganderpoke
Me too. Gladys Harbinger.

Series 3: I'm fascinated by your new bits about the start of the series. While reading the available scripts as part of one's arduous research one has been struck by how much better series 3 was than the earlier ones, let alone the patchy fourth series. On the latter, can you think of any funnier Coolibah exchanges than I have managed to find? Not really roll-'em-in-the-aisles stuff, I fear. Gladys Harbinger talk 18:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look earlier and found nothing in print, so I'll have a listen to a few episodes and see if anything suggests itself - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for oar-dipping here - much better now. Pip pip - Sir Redvers Cornposture

I'm not sure about this and I may move it into the main history bit (into this bit of the narrative, but I'm not sure about that either. Your thoughts? - Gaylord Haemoglobin

It isn't really part of the RTH story. think it is better in the Legacy section, though I've moved it lower therein. What think you? Well now, I think we're almost there, don't you? I've jotted down some points for the lead – pray add or amend ad lib. Then, if you're content, off to PR, which I predict will be a riot of one sort or another. Tim riley talk 08:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little bit at the end of Broadcasting about the material for series 5 being used for Stop Messing Around. It's another one that is arguable where it is, or in with the 'spin-off' section: I'm minded to move it down to join the Horne A Plenty info, unless you twist my arm otherwise.
Definitely better in spin-off section, I think.
I already have Marchioness at PR, so you may have to do it as the sole official requester, but I will on call to help tweak and twist where appropriate. I'll have a stab at the lead shortly. It's not my favourite part of writing, so feel free to hack and change at will (poor bugger - everyone seems to have a go at Will). - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait till the Marchioness is through PR and and at FAC, and take RTH to PR jointly, There's no rush with it, after all. I dislike writing leads too. I find making a little list of key points as I have done here takes the sting out of writing the spiel. Tim riley talk 11:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied and pasted a Documentaries section (lightly edited) from the existing RTH article; unlike the main text thereof it is decently referenced, but we – by which I mean the proponent of the insane Baroque citation system we are using – will need at some point to go through all the references for websites and possibly for all else and make them consistent. I can see how the three I have copied across will need to be edited and will have a go, but you need to bring your expertise to bear for a final polish before we go live. Julian Lestrange| talk 18:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick spin and I can't find any problems at all with the new section, which is surprising! I don't think there is much more to add in terms of the substantive stuff, but there may be a detail or two to add. I'll start proofing and searching for any more nuggets to add. Pip pip - Prinny Cattermole (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Grigson[edit]

Extended content

WorldCat or WorldCat[edit]

I ask from a position of complete ignorance. The italics of publisher/website is one that I constantly get wrong... - Confused of BonaScreevers

I don't know if the MoS mentions the point. I've had a good rummage, but found nothing, though finding anything in the MoS is always hit and miss. I think, left to my own devices, I wouldn't italicise WorldCat any more than I'd italicise Oxford University Press, though I would italicise the latter's Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. And it seems to me of considerable relevance that the WP article about WorldCat doesn't italicise it. That said, I don't at all object to doing so if you prefer. Yrs, Thoth (Scribe to the Gods, and laundry by appointment).
I shall tweak the refs, etc so as to fall in line with your edict. - SchroCat (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources - chronological order[edit]

Do we have a party line for the chronological order when we cite reissues? List the books by date of original publication or of the editions we're citing? The first seems more pleasing but the second is probably easier for anyone wishing to look at our sources. Thoughts?

Original dates, I think.

DID[edit]

First, Roy Plomley addresses her as "Jane". He was always careful to be no more informal than his castaway was comfortable with, and if he had succeeded in getting ED on the programme I'll bet you he'd have called her "Mrs David".
Second, if you can hear a trace of a north-east accent in JG's Cantabrigian tones you have a better ear for dialect than I have.
Third. Mother had been an art student and taught her a lot about painting. Nice line about 5 mins into programme about longing to tear down the watercolours from the walls of the Bond Street gallery and put up Ben Nicolsons instead.
Fourth. Totally irrelevant, but to me how thrilling to hear the Sanctus from the B minor Mass conducted by Klemperer - slow, massive and magnificent, rather than quick, casual and trite as is now the fashion.
Fifth: her comments on translating Of Crime and Punishment (9 mins in) - showing her liberal views.
Sixth: 12 mins in a fuller explanation of why and how she wrote the Charcuterie book. (She doesn't name the man concerned, but he is named somewhere in other sources I've seen.)
Seventh: to be a good cook you need to main ‘a sort of neurotic cool’ - 15 mins in.
Eighth: Luxury - typewriter and paper.

List of books[edit]

I've changed my mind yet again, and bunged a list in as we did chez Mrs David. See what you think. It has the merit, it seems to me, of mentioning the four non-food books but disposing of them quickly, thus making the Works section comprehensive. If you approve, I think I'll prune some of the info about publishers and illustrators from the text and shove it into the table instead. Tim riley talk 07:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that - I think it looks good, and you're right to have added it - for completeness it nothing else. - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinocchio[edit]

SchroCat, as far as I can discover JG's translation was never published. Does that accord with your researches? It doesn't matter so far as the text goes, but if it was published it should be in the collapsible list of all JG books. Tim riley talk 20:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found no trace of publishing when I did that bit - no listings on BL, Library of Congress or WorldCat. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good. It may come up at FAC and it's as well to be forearmed. Tangentially, not to say irrelevantly, I'm sure there's a reason why the ODNB and Who's Who are listed in Sources under "Journals and magazines" but I'm blest if I can see what it is. Neither of them is a journal or magazine, surely? Yrs, Puzzled of Islington. Tim riley talk 20:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bot (and a couple of editors) that swap the ODNB to journal, rather than anything else. WW... I don't know which fool did that, but they should be sacked immediately. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting[edit]

I've moved the Broadcasting sub-section to a main section in its own right for the moment, but there are a couple of options:

  • We could try and weave parts of it into the chronology throughout, but I think it works best kept together;
  • We can have it in mid-chronology at some point in the 1980s;
  • We can leave it as a section whereit is. In this way it can match the Works section below it;
  • It could go into the Works section as a sub-section (i.e. one sub-section for books, one for broadcasting).

Any preferences, or alternatives? My vote (by a thin margin) if for the last, as it seems most logical. - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I rather like it where it is. I'd be content if you preferred to move it to Works, but it seems to me to sit perfectly where you have it at present. People may have views at PR and FAC, of course. Tim riley talk 18:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's all good with me - it was my very-close-run second choice (I had them in reverse order of preference), so I'm happy to leave it as it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approach, style and legacy[edit]

I've found a good academic source that deals with her style (I've pinged it across to you), and I've pulled together some other bits on that and her approach. The section is all a bit quote-heavy at the moment, but we should be able to flesh it out into something a bit more readable. A couple of things to ponder:

  1. Given this info is close to that in what is currently called the Legacy section, should these two be combined into one with a title that captures all aspects (all suggestions welcome), or kept as two separate sections (which is how I've left it for now);
  2. When you dropped your very helpful information into the Legacy section (about the Trust, library and award), did you intend the sub-sections to remain in place, or were they just for guidance while writing?
  3. For ED, we had an "Honours and awards" section. Too thin on the ground in the case of JG (writing awards for three books, and one for translation), but should they be in the chronology, Books section, or this one? The awards are:
  • English Food, 1974 (Glenfiddich Food Book of the Year);[1]
  • Jane Grigson's Vegetable Book, 1978 (Glenfiddich Writer of the Year; André Simon Memorial Prize);[2][3]
  • Jane Grigson's Fruit Book, 1982 (Glenfiddich Writer of the Year; André Simon Memorial Prize);[2][4]
  • translation: Of Crimes and Punishments, by Cesare Beccaria, 1964 (John Florio prize)[2]

All answers on the back of a postcard to the usual address. - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A Good Cook". The Observer. 6 May 1979. p. 13.
  • "Jane Grigson wins awards". The Observer. 8 May 1983. p. 5.
  • "What's Around". The Observer. 6 April 1975. p. 24.

References

  1. ^ "What's Around". The Observer.
  2. ^ a b c "Grigson, (Heather Mabel) Jane". Who's Who.
  3. ^ "A Good Cook". The Observer.
  4. ^ "Jane Grigson wins awards". The Observer.

Lead[edit]

I've had a rough stab at the lead, but it's only roughly done, so please don't hesitate to hack it about completely, if you want.

  • Tim, Good to catch up yesterday. I think most of the article is pretty much done. I've gone over it a few times now, and it looks OK. There are a couple of points just above that need addressing before we unveil it, and these two:
  • The opening paragraph of The Observer Guide to British Cookery needs a citation
  • FN 140: a b c Holland, Hunter & Stoneham 1991, pp. 31–31. (not sure of the range you wanted there for all three uses of the ref)

Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What ho! I'm still dimmer than usual from the current summer cold. I'm hoping to be sentient by tomorrow, and will try to wrap things up then. More anon. Tim riley talk 21:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem - no rush and whenever you're feeling up to it - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done now, I think, subject to audit. The only thing in the existing JG article that isn't here is the name of her state school in Sunderland, but it's uncited in the present article and can reasonably be omitted. Otherwise, if you're happy, I suggest you overwrite the JG page with the first half of our joint draft and I'll then add the second, to keep the page edit statistics reasonably accurate and to give us both a visible locus at PR and FAC. Tim riley talk 09:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section[edit]

The only outstanding point is the one below: I think the books should probably remain as divided by decade, so I'll have a thunk about breaking up the bio section... - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've remembered that we can't divvy both the chronology and books by decade, as we'll be duplicating the section titles, so we'll have to think up another way of splitting the bio. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm searching the MoS for the dictat. I've changed them for now, but can always change back if I can't find anything. I've uploaded part, including refs, etc, so just the Works section for you to move over. - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found it! MOS:HEADINGS: "Section headings should: Be unique within a page, so that section links lead to the right place." - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. In that case we can make one lot "1970s" and the other "!970-1979". Same difference but compliant with the Manual of Style. Tim riley talk 10:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent: I've switched my titles around a little (on the article itself), which means I can be a bit more flexible with the timeframes. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works now added. Permit me to say what a pleasure it has been working with you on this overhaul. I am conscious that I had much the easier job rhapsodising about the Works while you were making impressive bricks with less biographical straw than we are used to. I'm still feeling dim, so perhaps you'd be kind enough to put the page up for PR. Usual arrangements - each to field most of the shots for his bits but with licence to poach each other's shots ad lib? Tim riley talk 10:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's been a pleasure, as always. Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poulenc Trio for bassoon, oboe and piano[edit]

Extended content

Who let the bassoon into this trio? A bass clarinet would be nice, but if you let a bassoon play, you may as well have a tuba, too! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just have a listen: it's a joy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2x0mcxtnwE Tim riley talk 19:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can see from the look of astonishment on the bassoonist's face that he is amazed that anyone would let him play anything other than oom pah pah! Even in "Oom Pah Pah!", Mantovani ends with a bass clarinet instead of the bassoon. See this after 2:05: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjKifgZ6e40 -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITMA[edit]

SchroCat, Mostly the biographical details I've been able to dig out for performers who haven't got a WP article are too scant to make even a stub article. I wonder if it might be an idea to create anchors in the relevant rows of the table, and create redirect pages to link to them. Thus, anyone typing in, say, Dorothy Summers, in the search box would be directed to our table, but if anyone ever wanted to write her up properly s/he could simply overwrite the redirect with text – voila! Do you think that would wash? Tim riley talk 10:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would certainly be the best course for now. It covers any searches made for the moment, and leaves it open if a new and fruitful source is published. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim_riley/sandbox8&oldid=1139341948"