Talk:Albert Ketèlbey

message: "His most famous compositions include . . . Phantasy for String Quartet Listed but never found (1915)" --- does this make sense to anyone else?  It doesn't seem that a lost work could be one of his most famous. Jason Fruit (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If you are going to claim you wrote the BCC page (believable, given the errors it contains), you need to note that somewhere on this talk page. You also need to provide a citation on the page. – SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: FFS Pigswill, instead of your knee-jerk reversions, see the thread on MRG's talk page (referred to in the edit summary), and do the fecking thing properly, rather than just edit warring to keep an unsourced COPYVIO in place. – SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sort of name-calling is beneath you. Please remove it. There is no copyvio and  was clear:  I've added an attribution at the top of this page, for the moment, as an aid to our re-users. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have added an attribution, but given the laughably inaccurate information on the BCC page, it's not a reliable source, especially as no-one has bothered to add a fecking citation to the article! Attribution is one thing, but it's still a lazy-arsed cut and paste job. It's about as sub-standard a piece of work as anyone can achieve. – SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: I've reverted the removal of the Birmingham Post source. It was removed on the spurious grounds of WP:CITEVAR. CITEVAR advises us not to "" The first inline citations were added in  on 6 June 2011 and they used the  template. There has been no discussion or consensus established to alter that style since then, so all inline citations should be consistent with the CS1 templates. --RexxS (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop bloody edit warring rex. Potw added this this morning and it was reverted. Your on-going edit warring is neither helpful nor constructive. As to the citation, it's not good enough as it stands, and the information is pointless fluff. – SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If Rex wants to change all the citations to a template style I should have no objections. I know my co-editor prefers templates, and used the non-template style out of kindness to me, as I am not very adept. But we really must be consistent throughout. I don't for a moment imagine that the one inconsistent citation was used maliciously, but inconsistent referencing will sink an article at FAC. I have witnessed it, and it is not nice to see. I'll remove the inconsistent citation and perhaps Rex will be so kind as to use the prevalent style, or alternatively to change all the others. Tim riley talk  18:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim: You might like to check the edit history; you have more than one co-editor on this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Come, come, Andy. You know perfectly well what I am talking about. SchroCat and I have worked together for some weeks on improving this article from its existing poor state, and the PR is jointly nominated by us. Do look in, if you would like to make some constructive contributions. Tim riley talk  19:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You have indeed worked together; have a biscuit. However, you must work with more people than just each other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be so grudging, Andy. Do try to be positive and look in at the PR. You can help us get the article to FAC, where you'll find we work with lots of other people. Tim riley talk  21:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

text: It's really not worth the hassle: there were more citation needed tags than sources used. I think the overly finicky idea of trying to cause problems just ce cause of a change to the style of TWO references is questionable, to be honest. It makes me wonder why we bother trying to improve things to be honest. – SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be more than happy to regularise the citations used into a consistent CS1 style using the CS1 templates. However, before I do, I should point out that to cite books that appear multiple times with different pages really requires the use of either  or  within the text in conjunction with the CS1  templates used in the Sources section. Do either of you have any preference between harvb and sfn - I personally prefer the latter as it automatically takes care of duplicates, but YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All Greek to me. Happy to leave it to the experts. Tim riley talk  19:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've made a start on regularising the citations. I should be able to finish them by tomorrow, but please let me know if you want any tweaks to the detail (e.g. year in parentheses or no period at the end). --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Albert Ketèlbey --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFAR 

message: My addition, after the text:
of:
(including many, starting in 1926, where he conducted the Wireless Orchestra),
was reverted with the edit summary "WO work already mentioned". However, the only other mention of the WO in the article is:
which neither mentions that he conducted the WO, nor that the performances were broadcast, nor the date of the first such broadcast. The revert also removed the useful source. It should of course, be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Superfluous fluff – nothing "of course" about it. – SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so, and parenthetically I noticed "Wireless Orchestra" bolded by our excellent colleague Andy in the BBCSO article. Not really useful, I thought, though fairly innocuous. If Andy or anyone else likes to create an article on the Wireless Orchestra it would perhaps be another matter; I might have had a go myself, but the Wireless Orchestra isn't really a notable subject. I know from my reading for the BBCSO article that "Wireless Orchestra" was never an established ensemble and was just a label applied to a much deplored ad hoc assemblage, packed with substitute players under the deputy system then still prevailing in London. Tim riley talk  19:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wireless Orchestra 

message: The article says: "In a Monastery Garden (1915), sold over a million copies..."  I think I understand this correctly: it means that more than a million copies were printed and sold, in an era in which most homes had a piano, and this was a piece that any budding pianist could play quite easily. But I wonder how many readers will ask themselves: "a million CDs, that long ago?" Could/should this somehow be made clear? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales figures 

message: The redirect 'Appy 'Ampstead' has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Nickps (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:'Appy 'Ampstead']]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]