Ceoil

Hi, saw this and immediately thought of you and that tomb

 

ϢereSpielChequers 08:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh wow, in wood and he died in 1285, thats very early! Very tempted to divert to researching the Pitchford Estate! Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thought you might like that, I've categorised a huge number of photos from English churches on Commons, and this struck me as an unusual survival of prereformation woodcarving ϢereSpielChequers 11:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Its way earlier than what I've been reading about, and interesting in that its so formative for later styles (the niches are already in place). That the wood has survived for 700 odd years is really something. Ceoil (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

I've just looked it up in Pevsner's book on Shropshire, two short mentions, "well preserved" "7' long" and one of two late 13th century oaken effigies in the county. Definitely something to come back to after your celtic thing. Not sure whether we should be looking at an article on that monument or the general topic of Oaken effigies from medieval England. the other 13th century one in Shropshire is at Berrington, but we don't currently have any internal shots of   Media related to All Saints Church, Berrington at Wikimedia Commons the geograph has some of the really interesting font but not the effigy. There's also a 14th century effigy at St Edith's which I suspect is File:St Edith, Eaton - Effigy - geograph.org.uk - 2246215.jpg (no dog or lion underfoot and the bier looks Victorian to me). ϢereSpielChequers 11:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

well now you have me hooked. The simplicity of the St Edith tomb and that little is known...line and sinker. Ceoil (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

This takes me back... I remember being terrified by the tomb of The Wolf of Badenoch when taken to Dunkeld Cathedral as a small child. Not because he was a scary person (he was) but because they turned him into stone along with his pet dog which they put by his feet. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nice Jim, into my top 20 the charmingly named tomb of The Wolf of Badenoc goes. I would have been terrified also, in fact...[gulp!!] Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me for butting in, but there is certainly something that can be written here. I think a key piece of research here is a 1909 paper by Alfred Cooper Fryer in Archaeologia, on "Wooden Monumental Effigies in England and Wales". [15] And a revised version of that paper from 1924. More recently, there is a nice doctoral dissertation (Proefschrift) on "Early Secular Effigies in England" from the Thirteenth Century here: [16] That includes a list of 213 examples, with images, several of which are both early with either effigy or tomb/box or both in wood. We have images of most (see below), many look to be in surprisingly good condition given their age. Mostly lions at their feet, I think, not dogs. Only three have the original wooden box - Pitchford, Westminster, and Salisbury. I've not included Pitchford again below, and we don't seem to have images for two in St Mary's, Woodford, Northamptonshire.[17]

•  
  William de Valence, 1st Earl of Pembroke, Westminster Cathedral (with copper plates and enamel)
•  
  William Longespée, 3rd Earl of Salisbury, Salisbury Cathedral (stone effigy, wooden box)
•  
  Robert Curthose, Gloucester Cathedral (reconstructed base)
•  
  Southwark Cathedral
•  
  Old Sodbury, Gloucestershire
•  
  Little Horkesley, Essex (1,2,3)
•  
  Danbury, Essex (1)
•  
  Danbury, Essex (2)

The tomb of William de Valence clearly shows the early use of blank arcades as decoration, that could be filled in by "weepers" in later examples. See the discussion on p.29. We don't have a good image of the extraordinary canopied tomb of Aymer de Valence at Westminster, which is said to be the earliest example of "weepers" in England.[18] Theramin (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

I hope to take my camera to the Abbey this year and I'll put Aymer on my list, but I think it might be too close to the High Altar. There has to be a reason why we don't have any photos of that specific monument considering how much we have from the Abbey. The lion v dog issue does remind me of the debate about the unsympathetic restoration of that part of Phillipe de Pot's monument. ϢereSpielChequers 08:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Looking at the Wolf of Badenoch's "dog" it does appear to have a mane... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Have made a start on expanding Pitchford based on sources provided by Theramin, but there is a lot more would like to dig into. Excellent research as always. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. Impressed with your find of the 1924 updated version of the Fryer article at archive.com. Happy editing. Theramin (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks but as usual am following your lead. I'm trying to think of an umbrella article to bring these together, but coming up with naught. Tomb Sculptures from the Court of Burgundy is obvious and catchy for the other side, but for English examples, dunno. Have always been an anglophile and am besotted by the images you provided, but don't want to get drawn into adding burial foot-notes to the bios of minor knights that nobody will ever read. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Er, something like Wooden tomb effigies in medieval England? Theramin (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ceoil, you and I have both worked on Tomb effigy, which could do with plenty of expansion. It averages 56 views pd, which isn't too bad. Myself, I'd sooner keep stone, alabaster & wood in the same article, as the format & style seem essentially the same. But sections on the various materials, certainly - there's stuff at Nottingham alabaster. In the later Middle Ages at least the British & French styles seem pretty similar, so a Euro-wide article is probably best until it is a lot bigger. Tomb monument and Wall tomb both go to Funerary art at present. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :) Needs an iconography section! Theramin would deeply appreciate if you could suggest starting points on the Early modern section (which is outside my area). Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Sorry, late coming back to this. (Apologies, too much other stuff going on: I hadn't expected to be worrying about parents quite so soon after the demands of children decreased, but this is life. My very strong recommendation is to settle as near to at least some family as you can bear. And so the muse has largely escaped me for some considerable time.)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "early modern" (late medieval? early renaissance? eg Donatello? even into the 16th or 17th centuries?) and I am by no means an expert either, but if it is tomb effigies you are after, we have things like the Tomb of Antipope John XXIII and the Scaliger Tombs. How about the tomb of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York (right)? Theramin (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Some pickings at List of extant papal tombs. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I am currently working on it, but please come again in a few days and check my wordings, I am not always sure if it's ok since English is not my mother tongue. Would be much appreciated. By the way, I am considering to split the lemma in two, if my expansion grows too much: Adam and Eve (Dürer engraving) and (... painting) respectively. MenkinAlRire 17:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think your on the way for a split. Its great to see the work. Would be happy at a later date to revisit the prose. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Regarding your removal of table captions on Doolittle (album) here, just letting you know that they are required for all tables on Wikipedia per MOS:TABLECAPTION (part of WP:ACCESS), explained at MOS:DTT and decided upon by consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 15#RfC on table captions so they should not be removed. Ss112 01:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Completed copy edits and pinged Gog a while ago. Hopefully he comes back to it. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

He already has, still opposing, but with a very useful list of suggest improvements. Ceoil (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Saw that and made some adjustments plus some questions. In terms of plot, the anthology nature and how my sources report it, leaving it as it is is for the best with some fixes on prose. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello my friend. I have been sort of thinking about how to flesh out and snip away at that Troika article. One of my ideas to add to the production section, to make everything in the article click together, is to include a scholarly definition for art film and how the movement had gained popularity around that time. I read over the article on art films, and it adds a bit more logic to some of what Hobbs did for Troika in regards to narrative structure. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a plan. I'm surprised - given its an art-film, that most of the sources you have are from the popular film press; would have though there would be more academic or film theory type essays you could have drawn from. Did a search on jstor and Google Scholar earlier, and....nothing. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I searched everywhere and no scholorly mention of the film. I am unsurprised cause it it not well known at all. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Then I would explain this; why Hobbs is not seen in the pantheon of art film makers, despite this focus on painterly imagery. Snobbery towards the horror genre? Surely some general bio sources have addressed this....ie his legacy. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Flip; the images are so obviously borrowed from painterly sources (I mentioned Goya earlier), would have though somebody had picked up on that. I'm continuing the prose/clarity review on talk. Sorry if the points are bluntly stated. PS when you posted happened to be listening to [19] which is kind of apt, given its throwback retro/future classic horror vibe, which I now know a lot more about thanks to you :) Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

ye. I prefer to be taught the prose so I can work on it and other projects with a better understanding. The Texas Chain Saw film is one of those that I really need to have flawless prose cause of my intentions for it. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have also been trying to figure out how to incorporate the "titles" of Troika's segments. Though they are not titled in the film, Hobbs referred to them under titles in the Thrower interview and it would make the production section that mentions these titles more logical. I want to avoid the pratfall of "Hobbs called the segment..." or "Hobbs referred to it as..." which is lazy writing and poor prose as far as I am concerned. I thought about just leaving a note but that is also lazy. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Have been thinking about this also, and think you are into "least worst" territory. Think readers would be best served by having definitive segment titles, the source of which is explained in the foot-notes. Anything other in the article body is distracting and frankly a bit meta. I strongly recommend you go down that route. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would it be better when I mention the segments in the plot to footnote the titles? Paleface Jack (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Never mind. I am also gonna redo the first couple sentences of the development section as it seems a bit too jumbled for my liking and it's a perfect way to link it to what I have on the art film genre tying to the film. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It would be nice to re-run that on the main page for TFA at some point, and the obvious date would be the 40th anniversary of release in 5 years time (if anyone remembers). The first time it was ran was 2011, so it's been quite some time. I'd recommend sending it to peer review and featured article review on top of the guild. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Harizotoh9, thanks for note; I agree and am anxiously awaiting somebody from the guild to step up...requested a copy edit from them about a month ago; here is hoping. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

ps, I think many will remember, all of the 25th anniversary's got huge press and prominent retrospectives. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Nice to see my watchlist lit up this morning. I got more than a little sick of Hemingway (have a stack of books to re-read, but procrastinging ... ) so I picked around the edges of the Dry Tree a bit. Still interested in getting it FA ready - five year plans & all. P.s looking at the thread above I looked through Doolittle & didn't find any errors, but I'm not great at finding errors. Is it still at FAR? Hope all is well. Victoria (tk) 15:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I would be honoured; the article has been calling at me for ages, the painting is so haunting and different. The five year plan should be put into full effect, frankly it would be really great to collab on another article, reminding that my openion of your ability has always been sky high. I need a few days to close out on the GA for the Corleck Head, and then would be delighted to switch over. Ceoil (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

ps, Dolittle passed FAR today, but my other main priority is to get Troika (1969 film) ready for FAC, but think it just needs a few hours of focus get the structure bang up to snuff. Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Congrats on Doolittle! Whew, for getting that done. There's work & reading to be done for Hemingway & the clock is ticking so I won't be able to pivot to the Dry Tree immediately (and I'm slow). That said, I'd like to see if I'm even capable of getting an article through FAC these days. I've noticed that the reviewers are checking lots of new stuff - image placement (!!), alt text, templates (which I can't really do), & wanting to see sources for verification, among other things. So I thought maybe we should give it try & see what happens :) Victoria (tk) 23:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with new criteria tbh (although alt text can be tricky and vearing into or OR visual art pages), and it was always the challenge of FAC that attracted me the most. Haven't nomed in a year, planning to get back with the pagan head but want it to be just so. Apart from that, a collab on the Christus would be like old times; exciting and rewarding; your ability has always brought out the best in me. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cool. You're on. Let's do it. The head is creepy - gives me the heeby-jeebies. I tried to give a run through but couldn't. There's power in that object, even in pictures, even after all these many years. It's a worthy project & pairs well with the lady in the tree. Victoria (tk) 23:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see it like that...to me its ancestral and although the craftsmanship is primitive see it as long ago people reaching out to the future. Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

People reaching to the future is probably what I mean by power. Or something. Ignore my hyperbole. Victoria (tk) 14:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks re the head, <trilled> re the tree. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

So ... can you find the Nosow (2012) source? The one I'm finding is about medieval music so I'm confused. Though I know what it's sourcing - the niches & van der Weyden - is true. I think Sterling discusses the niches - will trawl through my files. Later! Victoria (tk) 23:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll try re Nosow but no promises. Take it that am starting from zero with the page. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nah, don't bother. The one that's cited in the article is this (if you can see it). Your approach is right, let's start with zero. It's not like there are a ton of sources. I searched again a couple of days ago & this popped. It's a strange context for the dry tree iconography but it discusses it & the pics are good. Victoria (tk) 00:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great. Nice find! PS We're rewatching s1 of House of the Dragon in anticipation of the season 2 premiere tomorrow night. It's so much better than GoT, which I found tedious from s2 onwards. I am totally on team Matt Smith; he's such a handsome rogue! Ceoil (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I got dragoned out after GoT. Tried reading the book that the new series is based on & just gave up. So didn't even get through much of season one of House. That's me. Critical to a fault. Victoria (tk) 14:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

House of the Dragons is great, as somebody who also was gritting their teeth from about Ned's decapitation onwards. GoT mostly seemed like a bunch of people walking around in a boring quest-like sort of way, but the spin-off is high politics mixed with the bloodthirsty, high-stakes realism of the first season of Rome. And the casting is brilliant. I highly recommend. Ceoil (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I can start on Dry Tree any time, but equally am happy to wait if you're busy. If you're busy, I might take a swing through the Hemingway subarticles before I return the huge stack of books to the library. In other words, no hurry. This is just to let you know that I've not forgotten. Victoria (tk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've not forgotten either and have been re-reading the sources. I need to get this bloody head sorted, which will take about another two weeks, and then will refocus. It's such a strange painting, would be delighted to be reabsorbed. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

ps, I haven't found any new literature since the last expansion, so thinking this might be a necessarily short article. I think the notes you have in the sandbox should about cover it. After that, it's polish. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I haven't found new literature either. I just have to re-read and refamiliarize myself with the sandbox. It's, like, very old. Anyway, no rush. I'm still picking up the pieces from Hemingway. Good luck with the bloody head (that made me laugh). Be well & greetings to Liz. Victoria (tk) 23:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Death (Ligier Richier).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feck. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found a couple of images that could be used for the article in the development section. They depict Hobbs' Trojan Horse piece, One from a still of the film and another from a publication in the magazine Artforum. I was thinking of using both but one can also work too. The other I had is from the press book depicting Nate Thurmond in a crowd of worshipers, it seems much like Goya though i am not sure what specific piece. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great and thanks. I'm starting to think I might be becoming too demanding in my preferences, so may quieten down for a bit! Thanks again. Ceoil (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh wow, the artform article mention's Witches’ Sabbath! Ceoil (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's ok. We both have different styles, and that's good cause we all work to the same goal. Because it is a film article and not like some of you other works, it becomes a bit tricky cause film articles are very exact and picky I. my experience. The article is also not that bit, so adding too many images to it, that can distract readers from the text, and I have seen way too many articles on that as a reader. If the article were 2x longer than it is, then that would be different. It more comes down to what specific images should be used to express the film if they are significant enough. I did find a lot more info on influences for Hobbs' paintings/sculptures using Artforum. And last night, after texting you, I found a treasure trove of information on Begotten from video interviews on YouTube from reliable sources. Paleface Jack (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Its never happened to me but have seen some FAC nominators try to please every opposer and end up with an (promoted) article they no longer like, or slightly less worse....withdraw the nom in frustration. IMO some opposes should be left to stand, and nominators should be able to stand up for themselves, without being a douch about it, obviously. Anyways, onwards :) Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Its ok mate, I get where you are coming from. I am notorious for being stubborn which has and has not worked in my favor. I have been sort of preoccupied working on my edits for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre on my revision page, I am running out of ideas and possible sources/improvements for Troika so I have not been doing much with it. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that why I sid originally that the article should be shorter given the availability of sources. Tight is better than padded....see my last edit summary re Blockbusters. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it's ok with you, I'll be finished with the ongoing copyedit and source review in a few weeks (c. 3 weeks prob), by which time I expect to support. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds Good. I will keep looking for more info. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Ceoil. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks and replied. I hope a non-republican Paddy perspective helps. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, haven't spoken in a while. You been keeping okay? You should known that a friend of mine visited Dublin in the spring and I convinced him to go see the Corleck Head and send a selfie back. I know of its existence, of course, solely due to your work on its article! Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aza24, thank you for saying, and have to admit I do follow your contribs as they tend to lead me to new musical areas. One thing, though, given Human history is necessarily written in summary style, should the article not crib more from the lead of the sub-articles, many of which are far better written and sourced than the current parent. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! How are you doing? I was very flattered by your reeling me in! I'm honestly not sure I can do it properly and write a nice review and everything like the Big Kids do ... is it a Royal Pain for you if I just do little tweaks, on the understanding that I won't mind if I am reverted? I might be slightly more productive looking at it that way, but I don't have to if you would dislike it. Please advise.

In other news, I did try raising the question of English dialects on its Talk page, but it seems to have gone nowhere. My concern was that for me, in BrE, "artifact" is wrong, but I saw some indications that if we are in Irish English then it might be correct. A colleague has changed them anyway though, so I should probably stfu! Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm struggling with this also. To me its "artifact", but signed up for a 30-day trial spell checker which allowed me to stipulate that the article was in Paddy English, but it threw up results that others think are worng and I dont understand. Remember...I was educated in IRL in the 70s when British grammar was at its lowest credibility ebb....so it was avoided and never explained...to understand propper grammar was to accept partition (a viewpoint I completely disagree with) or something like that.

That said, thanks again for the help and edits on the head, your a very solid, unusually dry and witty person to interact with. And I like you being around. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh cheers, that's very kind of you. I will just go on weebling around then, and not be upset if reverted. I am glad you think I am dry ... most people think I am a bit wet, but hey. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

PS The article is splendid, and intriguing! I had no idea. It has been a great education to look at it. DBaK (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

DBaK how you might best help is scanning over and if any sentences are unclear or make no sense - loudly complain on talk. Treathen AN/I if necessary. This would be very benifical to my lazy arse. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ceoil. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Doolittle (album) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ceoil, I've now finished my c/e. I noticed a few points:

In "Background" (first para) and "Recording and production" (second para), I found direct quotations without a citation, which is required per WP:MOSQUOTE. I've marked these with [citation needed] tags.

In "Artwork and title" (first para), I noticed a sentence clause that isn't supported by the given source, which doesn't mention Doolittle, though it does mention the earlier albums. I've marked this sentence with [failed verification].

From what I can tell, and I checked the official website, the band's name is "Pixies", not "The Pixies" or "the Pixies", so I've removed most instances of "The" and "the". If my change is incorrect or unwelcome, please feel free to replace these.

Other areas for improvement:

The citation style is mixed; I noted uses of {{sfn}}, {{cite web}} and non-templated full citations. To comply with FA criterion 2c, these should probably be converted to a single style, though I don't know which style regular editors here would prefer. i haven't attempted to change any citations.

Anyway, that's all I can think of right now. Good luck with the article and cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC).Reply

Thanks a bunch Baffle gab1978; a skilled copy edit and have your sourcing stuff addressed. Much appreciated from here, happy days. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 1 September 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and to Dank for the blurb. Ceoil (talk)

My pleasure. Wonderful article. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

In case you didn't see I nominated Born to Run over at FAC in case you wanted to leave some comments. If not it's all good. Thanks! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yo Ceoil, I'll reply properly to you message on my page soon! In the meantime here are two tunes by a certain somebody to keep your brain churning: [[20]] ("Fly with me!") and [[21]]. Great! Moisejp (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 30 October 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 30, 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 2024. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. – SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks SchroCat. Ceoil (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Corleck Head you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Corleck Head for comments about the article, and Talk:Corleck Head/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks you a bunch for the extended review. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It has been a while since there was activity on Troika's FA nomination. Gog seems busy offsite and has not replied to my message on his talk page. Hopefully the inactivity does not result in a failed nomination. Paleface Jack (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Paleface Jack, I wouldn't worry and think your fine; noms are usually only archived after inactivity if there are no or few supports, espically if the article is turning into an extended peer review; thats not good. You dont seem to have that prob here, and wouldn't hassle Gog too much on his talk; he'll get to it. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

sounds good Paleface Jack (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are archian rules/practices I know, but needed unless articles with out a snowballs hope suck up reviewers time. Hint hint, you could do some reviews. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewing has never been my strong suite or interest sadly. Getting into the nit-picking of prose (still working on my own), would be a disservice to articles I review. In terms of Troika we have 4 support reviews already and I am not completely sure if that means a pass or not. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just an update, had a very strange user do an unsigned review of Troika. Though they had some honest critiques, I have some reasons to question some of its validity as some of the critiques like some sources not mentioning certin information (i checked some of them and they did have the info). It is very weird.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jo-Jo is very experienced, and as you (yet) are a nominator without a sucessful FAC, you'll get more scrutiny regarding sources, especially re article text vs source integrity. Most reviews tend to be about prose; the source reviews are more important. Ceoil (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure how to email people my stuff, my yearning for privacy my detriment here. Also, had to restructure the final section to fit a reviewer's critique. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have a few choices. You could send the screenshots to me and I'll send them to Jo-Jo (it wouldn't be hard from a google search to find me, so am unlikely to dox you, especially as have admitted on your talk that am a weekend goth...something would not like work to know:), you could change the source, or if the book is available on kindle on Amazon for a few quid (old books tend to be c. €2.00 and I like books), point me in the direction and I'll send the screenshots. However, I wouldn't panic or get too excited; FAC is very different to most other parts of wiki and can be daunting early on. But if you stick with it you get to anticipate and prepare for the inevitable requests WHILE writing the initial drafts for the article. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have the screenshots I will email you them. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sound, have emailed Jo Jo in return. The pages are fascinating, and am blown away by screenshots, though known we cant include them, Ceoil (talk) 00Jo Jo :45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I dont' think Troika shall pass as it is inactive.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, its more that its unlikely not to pass unless Jo-Jo finds a fundamental issue with the sources. This is why both myself and Gog were saying that Jo-Jo is so highly respected as one of the few editors at FAC who goes so deep to look at source to text integrity, and weed out copyvio. Hold tough; having read the book pages you sent, am confident you are fine. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds Good. Paleface Jack (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Grand. You seem to be highly strung about such matters; again suggest you get involved in reviews and get to know the culture before you go further, especially with a major nom such as Texas Chain Saw Massacre; you don't have the cloult/cred/knowledge yet, and frankly any reviewer will be thinking is this guy out for himself vs. invested in the process. Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fair. Such matters are difficult as reviewing FA and GA take more out me than working on articles and they never really interested or been a strong skill. I get what you are meaning though. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I might take a break when this FA for Troika is over so I can get one of my articles peer reviewed. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thats a good idea, you have a lost of articles now to choose from now for a PR. Ceoil (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

... for adding your voice of reason at Talk:Memorial Hall. FYI, though, I've restored "vast and cavernous" to Widener Library. It's presented in quotes (as imagery like that needs to be) and though that exact phrase isn't referred to again anywhere in the article, it's a myth that everything in the lead absolutely must be repeated later, and there's nothing wrong with a catchy phrase that draws the reader in. EEng 05:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Re "vast and cavernous", it's a matter of placement; have moved the claim to the 2nd para. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a very depressing pile-on for the likes of me, who is increasingly focusing on architecture. Look at this attempt to remove supposed "pov" language such as "broad west front" and "dominant features"[22] and weap. Although the changes didn't stick they were intended as the basis for a WP:FAR. One of my greatest fears is that when I inevitably drop dead, my FA work will be reversed on stupid basis by one or two determined people. Ceoil (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

When we're gone, new defenders will rise to take our places. EEng 14:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Or old behaviors could move in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. When I read opinions like "Imposing" is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact" I wonder if "anybody can edid" a is really a tentative position; but overall it evens out. Sandy, directly relating to this fear, hopefully you remember my early FAR focus[23]. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

story · music · places

Thank you today for Gothic boxwood miniature, introduced: "Impossibly small wood-cut miniatures from the 15th and 16th centuries, which have unfortunately been under studied until very recently, partly because they are too small to fully appreciate even with the naked eye. I have watched people come across them in museums, and the usual reaction is jaw drop; it takes a few minutes to realise what you are looking at." Exquisite and eye-opening! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's story has 3 composers, I couldn't decide for the one on the Main page or the one who didn't make it on his bicentenary, so took both, and the pic has a third. Listen if you have a bit of time. The music, played by the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra in Germany in April 2022, impressed me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just came here to say the same thing as Gerda. Delightful article, so happy to see it on the main page. I am one of those who always try to find these whenever I visit a museum, and let my jaw drop. Thanks for your hard work in bringing it to FA. Best, Yakikaki (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to add a third voice of thanks. What a fantastic article! I didn't know anything about the minatures and now feel that I know something, so I'd call that a success. Given the article is substantially your work I hope you've been able to take some pride in it. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Gerda, Yakikaki and A.D.Hope; it was great to have them on main page as they are so overlooked. Best Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Love the thought of wanting the overlooked on the Main page! - places have a new museum for abstract art, - can't believe it has no article in English yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry wot Gerda...and tks as always my friend. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I came to bring you more Bach: a cantata on the Main page on its 300th birthday (per calendar), my story! - In case I was unclear: You brought the miniature - often overlooked - to the Main page, and I like that. I'm sometimes less successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with a DYK hook from 2010 and another from 2014, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

140th birthday?...he doest feel that far away! Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

140th was ten years ago, and still Schoenberg. - Back to 300: Ach, lieben Christen, seid getrost, BWV 114, is one of the pieces in my topic of this year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

My story today features a pic I took from my position in the choir, I can also offer varied delightful music, some from Venice, also with pics I took, - note the rose in the clarinet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I created a page on Aideen's Grave but the subject matter is a bit out of my comfort zone so I thought I would tag you in for any input or review.Financefactz (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Financefactz, nice work, looking now but there doesn't seem to be more sources that what you've uncovered. Flip :( Ceoil (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have brought this article to FAC again and after your comments on the first times, would you care to contribute again? K. Peake 14:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Off topic, I saw in Jo Jo's ongoing review that I have troubles with satisfying WP:NFCC#8 for non free and free images. I was wondering how I could do that with current and future articles and images. I have also uncovered two old photographs of Stephen Richards while watching a youtube video put out by a history professor from UNK Department of History. One of the images I found but the other I have yet to find and even he has said that the location of the physical copy is unknown. I took a screenshot and enhanced the image so I don't know if or how I can use it. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the area you are working in, you are screwed. Late 60s/early 70s images are all still under copyright, so the best you might hope for is to include one image under Fair Use...to illustrate the primary topic under discussion. I'm not an expert here as I usually write about old things, but you could just ask Jo Jo directly or look up the FACs of similar-era films. When claiming fair use, you need to be very exact, and emphasise educational value, ie that inclusion informs the reader more than words might. There are plenty FACs on similar era articles,[24] advice is copy their approach. If you want to use an image of a person who has passed away, there is allowance as the pic is thus "irreplaceable". Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

For Richards, the image was taken from 186-1870. Though this image I screenshot was from the video, the image itself is old. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well that seems fine to me....the photographer defiantly died more than 70 years ago. The source shouldn't matter. Ceoil (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright. By the way I added and swapped out some Begotten sources. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great. IMO you are stressing over the wrong things; this time around, you had an extensive C/E from John (widely considered a heavyweight), and the quality and your usage of the sources stood up to scrutiny. Image usage is very important but more of a compliance thing. If you loose a few, grand, move on. Initial reviews will always focus on prose, while those on sources and content are the most important, and you just have to deal with image usage objections as they arise (the rational is very legalese and hard for most people to get). Yove now passed on the prose/content/sources criteria and hopefully picked up a few pointers on the way, as they used to say in 1970s sitcoms ;) Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Danke. The image has been uploaded and added to the article Paleface Jack (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

As Troika has passed. I express my thanks for your help and support for it over these past months. Happy Editing, my friend. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Am delighted for you; will be great when the very strange lead image from Troika makes main page. As have said before, you're articles are opening new, uber goth, visually fascinating areas I didn't know existed. Many thanks for your hard work and research, and more please. Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks as well. I am not doing massive edits at the moment. I am trying to figure out how to proceed with the Richards article and how much I can include newpaper articles without it being constituted as original research. I am also trying to figure out the editors in each newspaper so I can use them as the citation rather than the newspaper itself. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Holy god, the massacre is now 9150 words! I do think the film deserves such in-depth analysis, but at FAC it's going to be large, intimidating undertaking for any reviewer. Few would be prepared to spend hours reading and picking apart unless you already had cred/clout as a successful nominator and as a reviewer. This is the largest page I've taken there, but it took years of participation and reviewing to attract a calibre of editor that would put in 10s of hours to go through it all and stand over in the end. It damages an editors rep if an article they supported later turns out to have dodgy sources, close paraphrasing, miss-attribution, copy-vio issues, etc. Really, for an article that size, you need reviews from at least two subject matter experts, a detailed source review, and copyedits from some seriously highly skilled writers (9150 is a lot of words). Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I figured. It is why I have been separating things into different potential articles. The only film related user I know of is DarkWarriorBlake and I might enlist him with help on working on this sort of thing. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

And do a few more shorter FAC's in the meantime. IMO Begotten only needs a copyedit, so ask people. And for god sake review. Pinging User:Gog the Mild who has an excellent guide to reviewing that I can't find atm under special pages. Ceoil (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You probably mean User:Gog the Mild/Misc#GAN/FAC checklist? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

alr Paleface Jack (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

TBH, the fact that Begotten's plot is so daft is the biggest obstacle to FAC. In the plot section you are basically trying to explain nonsense. Its a silent film; cut down the narrative part of the article as much as you can. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I had a couple looks around on that, the plot does follow a story. Removing some of the fluff is possible but it risks becoming overly simplistic if I do it wrong. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

yes but have a think. Ceoil (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Will do. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Did Pinging Gog help? Paleface Jack (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

See my response above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Gog, it has great pointers. PFG, for film articles, WP:RECEPTION gives very good guidance on common pitfalls that will often tank a candidacy. I've done a few noms for 70s/80s/90s albums where "critical reception" is the most interesting part of the page....and got hammered until I read the points in that essay. The same applies to films, so would read and absorb. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why shouldn't Léal Souvenir have a "see also" link to the list of paintings by the artist? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi BarrelProof, we have a better navbox at the foot of the article which makes the see also redundant IMO. Plus, thanks for the read-through, it's almost exactly 10 years since it became FA, so a spruce up is due. Looking at your cn tags now—which are all fair—and will address. Ceoil (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Re this edit[25]...there are a few other claims in the lead not in the body. I think I need to get out the books and expand the body somewhat. I have the pdfs to hand, but the books are somewhere in the attic :(Ceoil (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You might want to have a look at the RM discussion that I just opened at Talk:Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ugg. Ceoil (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just came across this. fantastic - great remix of a great track. Never heard of this band before. @Kafka Liz:? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I love the origional. Here is some recent brightness i my life by a reformed shoegaze band[26]. Ceoil (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not 'arf bad that either Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Noticed you have been copy editing Begotten a bit lately. I am still trying to master copy edits and might take over one of these days. Is there any portion (Besides the analysis section) that stand out? Paleface Jack (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also I am thinking about including an image of tribal art into the visual effects section as its was an influence, though I am not sure a specific one to use.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No idea; tribal art is very much outside my area. Have any sources mentioned a specific region x time period? I wouldn't add a broad non-specific example just for the sake of it. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Figured. All he said was tribal art so I probably wont use it. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

re: Copy edits; my tweak are for flow only, being a paddy I wilfully dunno anything about English grammar etc, so you'll need somebody of a higher order before the 2nd FAC (hint hint get involved in FAC reviews and befriend people of the calibre of John). If you want to "master copy edits", look at what he did for Troika. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will see what I can do. Kinda have some health issues rn I gotta focus on so edits are not as important. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ceoil: Just saw your reply on John's talk page and replied accordingly. I do agree, TCM is a beast and I feel its not even close to being done. While Begotten is my top article I want to get FA, I feel working up to 100 plus source articles is necessary. There are a lot more things I want to do with Begotten before even attempting copy edits. Some might take issue with the short films not having their own articles, however they all have insufficient info to warrant separate articles (i.e. no reviews and not enough sources). I plan to have an article with slightly more sources and larger before Begotten so Lake Michigan Monster (Maybe Possum) fits the criteria I have set up. I still dont have enough mental energy to work on larger edits and articles at the moment so the smaller ones helps me. I always appreciate your guidance and advice my Gothic Irish friend, hopefully my mind shall come back up to full capacity after these little things. --Paleface Jack (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Of course, Lake Michigan Monster seems like a bunch of fun. I hope you realise as a fellow horror/comedy fan, I am hijacking your articles as a means to impress my retro/futurism horror-obsessed uber Goth wife with new exciting/not on Netflix films for Monday-Thursday nights so as I'm not divorced; keep them coming my friend, for the love of Christ :) Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is fine. I have taken the liberty and have stolen your identity so the hijacking is mute and goes back to me. :D Paleface Jack (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ceoil: Looking over the article on the Lake Michigan Monster, it seems good. DO you believe it is ready for the FA nomination? Paleface Jack (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes on content and sources, but would like a few days to run through prose. Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

sure thing Paleface Jack (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You should do a checklist of the types of issues Gog found on the first review of Begotten, and make sure they are resolved in the current draft of Lake Michigan Monster. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure where that is. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No I mean you should do a mental check-list of the type of issues he brought up, and scan the current article to ensure they are not occurring. If you don't do this, then the FAC will likely be a repeat of Begotten I. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

true. hopefully I am able to get some rest this weekend to be ready for that. Paleface Jack (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Am running through, but am not the world's greatest copyeditor. In the meantime, here is a funny Horror Fim related sketch to keep you amused.[27]. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Neither am I, obviously. Been whittling at it myself then got distracted with a particular user causing some drama around the pseudoscience of cryptozoology. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did watch an adaption of Beauty and the Beast I feel is more definitive than the french one or Disney's. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ceoil I am thinking about placing Lake Michigan Monster under a copy edit request when you are done, just to run through anything we might have missed once hwe complete our own edits.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good idea, but GOCE can take a few months and even then its random as to the the skill of the copyeditor you get - some of them suck. I'm thinking of doing the same thing with Tandragee Idol via GA. But will also likely take months..so will be developing Tomb effigy as it goes through and will it nom shortly after & if Tandragee passes. Given this, be strategic re your pipeline for FAC; don't develop them all to a similar state and then clog them at GOCE/GA ready level; if one is at a certain stage nom it at that stage and then have others coming along in the pipeline. If that makes sense, am a bit stoned after an earlier Halloween party. Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ceoil: Looking over the Lake Michigan Monster article, I am thinking it is tight enough in its prose to be nominated. However, I might ask John for some imput if he agrees with the assessment. This more about getting enough imput to see if it is indeed ready for a successful nomination and your support and imput has gone a long way from its original state. I have also been preparing another article for GA status (The Head Hunter) in addition so even if LMM still needs work, I am working on other things. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know Le Dizès, but listened to a few recordings on youtube during the day; very, pleasingly odd :) Give me a few more listens before I can say like or nor as suspect the music is a slow burner. I certainly like the spirit and intent. Thanks as always for new horizons. Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for listening, and next discovery was Rohan de Saram who inspired Sequenza XIV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Scary stuff[28], love it but cant describe it yet. The opening dramatics and the following descendant chords will stay with me. Wow. Ceoil (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for listening! - My story today is about a composer and choir conductor, listen to his Lamento. - My story on 13 October was about a Bach cantata. As this place works, it's on the Main page now because of the date. I sort of like it because today is the birth date of my grandfather who loved and grew dahlias like those pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you today for Tomb of Philippe Pot, introduced: "A particularly mournful 15th century French tomb sculpture with eight pleurants (weepers) in black hoods carrying the deceased towards his grave. Enjoy!" - I love the "Enjoy!"-part. Having three who recently died on the same Main page, and two more waiting, one of whom I've seen this month ... - Today's story - between all these heavy biographies - at least comes with a caricature. Enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. I though of you in the Prado. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This was this year's discovery in the Prado, and it came as no surprise that you started the article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lucky you! Hope you enjoyed the gallery and holiday. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes! I saw it prompted by this - short information near the painting said that 24 species of plants were identified in the "meadow" where the angels make music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That looks amazing!!!! Now I'm seeding with jealousy:)!!! Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Ceoil! Your work on Doolittle (album) has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Nikkimaria! And for all your working keeping it going on FAR. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping! The article is looking good. I just had a wee hack at the lead, hope that's ok. John (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks much better, thanks and always a pleasure to work with you. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trials and tribulations is about right. At the moment, I’m rather out of love with the Wikiworld. But that’s an interesting head you’ve got at FAC. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have a very calm and reasoned temperament that gets a person through wiki ups and downs (of which there are inevitably a lot for us all). As a long-term admirer of your approach and work here, hope to see you plugging away in another 10 years! Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect List of Early Netherlandish painters has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 30 § List of Early Netherlandish painters until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations on an outstanding FA. Subjectively speaking, a tremendously interesting read about an item I had no idea existed. Primergrey (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Re [29]: I've undone your last comment and would ask that please you leave it at that for the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fair. Sorry. Will let it go and see how it turned out in a few weeks. I am obvs too involved to keep a calm head. Ceoil (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crucifixion plaque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North of Ireland.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jesus christ man. You need to be able to take as good as you give. This is very disappointing and you have gone way down in my estimation. Ceoil (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply