Talk:Peter Warlock

message: I added a sentence aboout Warlock's rediscovery of the works of Thomas Whythorne, although, as I am not an expert on this topic, my addition probably appears hamfisted.  Feel free to better work it into the article.  --Roisterer 09:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas Whythorne

message: A commentator (I don't recall who) put it this way: His suicide was almost a musician's wish fulfillment: A composer (Warlock) murdering a music critic (Heseltine).Saxophobia 00:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A blackly humorous comment on his suicide 

message: This page has several images of warlock, and a photo would nicely enhance the wikipedia article.  Clearly, the photographs are old; but have they passed into the public domain yet?  I read on Wikipedia:Finding_images_tutorial that photos before 1923 are in the public domain, and since warlock died in 1930 there are obviously going to be some of these out there.  --Starwed 13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo? 

message: #The recent extension of this article by Brianboulton is marvellous.
#For those whose English vocabulary doesn't cover the more obscure terms, would it be possible to work a wikilink to warlock into the lead, or into the name's 1st mention?
#Nitpick: a link to Wikt:factotum might be more helpful than to the disambiguation page factotum. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikilink suggestions

message: This is a brilliantly written and researched article, so good that it really makes me want to write something of similar quality (but I expect I shall fall short!) 
I note Hestletine was born on 30th October, which has not been scheduled yet for Today's Featured Article. Would this be a suitable candidate Brian? (I know some FA writers don't really like having articles put on the front page). Rob (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been away, just seen this kind comment for which many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provisionally noted 30 October 2014 (PW's 120th birthday) as a possible TFA date. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrific article, front page? 

message: The Abbey Theatre in the photo in this article is NOT the Abbey Theatre that existed during Warlock's lifetime. The theatre company has moved at least once, maybe twice, since 1930, and the building in the photo is jarringly out of synch with everything else on the page. It would be great if someone could replace the current photo with one of the Abbey Theatre of the 1920s (I'd do it myself, but I don't know how to).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.216.193 (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Photo of Abbey Theatre 

message: Why was Heseltine exempt from military service? As far as I can tell, the first mention of his exemption in the article is, "In February 1916 Heseltine returned to London, ostensibly to clarify his exemption from military service," which suggests that the fact of the exemption was already explained. Neelix (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair enough point. The wording has been altered (not by me) to "ostensibly to argue for exemption from military service", which I  think is  a decent summary. The government's conscription bill was going through parliament at the time, which provided a plausible reason for Heseltine to return to London, although the real reason was to get away from Lawrence and his circle. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military exemption 

message: Did Frederick Delius literally put a spell on Heseltine?  Is this Twilight?  68.104.139.226 (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Came under the spell of... 

message: This will probably have been fixed by the time I've typed this, but there is an "and and" in the New friends and acquaintances section. It's a quote, so perhaps it's in the original, but I can't check.
143.117.198.147 (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: and and

message: This edit has appeared. Comments;
*We have no information as to who "Nigel Jackson" is, or whether he has published his idea
*The use of the name "Peter Warlock" and the given description appear in the book "A Charming Fellow" (1876),by Frances Eleanor Trollope, as can be seen here
*"A Charming Fellow" had previously been serialised in Dickens' magazine All the Year Round
This is all very interesting, but any connection with our Peter Warlock must be considered WP:OR at this stage, unless anyone has a source??? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree, I see a Nigel Jackson has commented on some Warlock-related sites, but this doesn't appear to be from a published article/journal/book as far as I can see, so as this is an FA I have removed this. Rob (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit about pseudonym origin 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Peter Warlock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/mid/sites/arts/pages/peter_warlock_biog.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there any actual evidence except Sewell's own claim that he was Warlock's son? Unless there is, shouldn't the claim be treated sceptically?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.187 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Sewell 

message: Significance? A film was made of his life. That is more than significant; it's notable. There are literally hundreds of articles on subjects that list films (or portrayals in media) in a Popular Culture Section : Parker , Warhol , Liberace , Lewis , Hepburn , etc, etc, etc. This is standard practice at WP. What isn't standard practice is blindly reverting a source content with an edit summary not backed by WP policy: "significance?". Bring it to the Talk Page if you have a question; not the edit summary. It is a significant inclusion as supported by a previous editor's inclusion under External links: Voices at IMDb. I am reinstating. Do not revert unless you gain consensus here. Maineartists (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is usually unwise to add a whole section to a Featured Article without first securing consensus to do so on the article talk page. I'd support deleting the addition. This 1969 film was known about when the article was promoted to FA but no reviewer thought it worthwhile mentioning. The film itself has no Wikipedia article - a distinction achieved mainly by films of the utmost unimportance. It was never shown in the cinema, according to the cited sources, but only on American television, and the cited source mentions its "ludicrous misrepresentations" and dismisses it as a laughable travesty. The answer to Nikkimaria's question "Significance?" is plainly "zero", in my view. I do not think we would be doing our readers any favours by mentioning this film.  Tim riley talk 07:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I couldn't disagree with you more on all grounds. Simply because the film has no WP article, does not disqualify its significance or reason for inclusion. WP works on sources, not wikilinks. Furthermore, your defense to delete is strictly personal based on what you deem to be "quality". What you are actually describing is what would make up a reception section - very common. WP does not base inclusion on praise by critics only. Lastly WP does not work on personal preference or "thinking" as to what a reader would like or not like. WP is not in the business of selling newspapers with content that appeals to customers' likes and dislikes. The examples given, which are endlessly found across WP, are not included based on personal preference, quality, critical praise, etc; but because this is an encyclopedia and they are fact. Plain and simple. But in keeping with your view of how content should be added: the above editor removed the link to "Find a Grave" under External Links; something that is commonly found across the board in WP articles for BPs. No reason. Just removal. However, there is an image under Death that shows an unmarked grave plot: "Foreground. The unmarked grave plot, Nightingale cemetery Godalming". If we are to use your method for inclusion, and the editor's reasoning for removal, this is also: "zero". To include: "Philip Heseltine was buried alongside his father at Godalming cemetery on 20 December 1930" and find it "significant" and not a film made about his life, is to compare apples to apples. In keeping, what is the "significance" for including Warlock's own epitaph: " Here lies Warlock the composer. Who lived next door to Munn the grocer. He died of drink and copulation, A sad discredit to the nation"? One might say this is mere "filler" and certainly "trivial". No "significance". But that's not how an encyclopedia works. If you do not think the film mentioned merits its own section, then place it somewhere else within the article: legacy. In my estimation, this entire article is undue weight focused on praise only for a composer hardly anyone knows or plays anymore. But that is no reason to not have an article on him. Maineartists (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument for inclusion, and the burden of consensus is on those seeking to include. As for the external link you question, see WP:ELPEREN. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And saying "OTHERSTUFFEXITSTS is a poor argument for inclusion" is an overused dismissal. Thanks for the WP:ELPEREN. You've got a lot of cleaning up to do at WP then. Good luck. Maineartists (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The main author of this article, the late Brian Boulton, had more than 100 featured articles to his credit, Nikkimaria has been a key contributor to countless FAC reviews and I have taken more than 40 articles to FAC. We are not unacquainted with or clueless about quality articles. You are of course entitled to contrary views, but I don't think it is necessary to lecture us at length, as you do above. I suggest we leave the thread open for a few days lest a consensus build up to keep the new section, failing which it can safely be deleted, I'd say. Tim riley talk 14:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Regardless of whether or not a "popular culture" section is appropriate, it is certainly not appropriate to create a brand new section for a single item, particularly on a heavily vetted FA. Notice my emphasis of "single"; the item would be more fitting in the "legacy" section, if anywhere. However, since the film itself does not have a WP article, I find myself leaning towards total exclusion. Aza24 (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture