Archives

2005–2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024 • 2025

Hi Tim, I left a note at WT:FOOD a few months ago regarding my intentions to update the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Tools/sources. My motivation tells me that time is now, and as someone who has written many appetizing articles and particularly as someone who has managed the delicate task of working with cookbooks, I hoped you could give any advice on sourcing articles around food and food figures: what to look for, how and where to look for it, what to do with it once you have it etc. Anything you can spare is appreciated. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 14:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rollinginhisgrave, what a nice message to get! More complimentary than I deserve, but thank you! I'll certainly look in. Other editors I've had the pleasure of working with on food articles include SchroCat, Valereee and Kudpung, whose views you may perhaps like to canvass. Tim riley talk 23:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim :) I certainly intend to ask other editors in this area for help and insight into their process/thoughts at some point, and your editor recommendations are appreciated. . Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 03:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having just overhauled the article on Henry Irving with a view to nominating it for FAC I'd greatly welcome suggestions at the peer review page. Tim riley talk 12:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having no shame, I'm importuning

• DBaK
• Dudley Miles
• KJP1
• SchroCat
• Ssilvers
• UndercoverClassicist
• Wehwalt
• Old Uncle Tom Cobley

And a Happy New Year to all our customers. Tim riley talk 13:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shall certainly look in, although so far my sole contribution is the swapping out of what I think was an errant curly concluding bracket. In the meantime, I've amused myself - if no one else - by doing a Start on his birthplace, Irving House, Keinton Mandeville. You can bluelink it, if desired. And best New Year wishes to you. KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Grand! Any more will be much appreciated. And feliz año nuevo to you, dear boy! Tim riley talk 20:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1, duly linked your new article. Very nice, too! Tim riley talk 13:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it. The absence of an image, either on Commons or on Geograph, is surprising and disappointing. We have an abundance of nondescript benches and gates, but people have managed to miss a house with not one, but two, bloody great commemorative plaques! I've flagged it at the Somerset project and I have had success there in the past so we shall see. I've also left a few comments at the Peer review. Hope they are of some help. KJP1 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1, comments gratefully received and shall be addressed tomorrow. Meanwhile pray cast your mincies over this: https://archive.org/details/sirhenryirvingbi00fitz/page/n21/mode/2up. The wizards at the Graphics Lab may be able to spruce it up. Tim riley talk 21:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Severely plain indeed! And without the two plaques given the age. But a good image and a great improvement on the blank we currently have. Shall I log a request at the Graphics Lab or will you? KJP1 (talk 07:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done here – Tim riley talk 09:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Take note that 2025-31733-18, has made zero contributions to mainspace. They've only been giving their opinon at WP:ANI & other boards. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, thank you. That's most thoughtful of you. I'm trying not to be sucked into the brouhaha in which that anonymous editor is making waves, but if I am forced to, then your percipient observation will be helpful. Tim riley talk 13:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, which one, as there are now two! - SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing we've got a WP:EVADE situation, with both IPs. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing surprises me with that page, unfortunately. In many cases it's more about personal dislikes than anything constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is all rather out of my usual area of operation. Would it help if I copied it into the talk page where all the fuss is going on? Tim riley talk 21:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not! No doubt some people would manufacture some sort of false shock and ire about it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, could you take a look at this FAC? Many thanks. Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, a pleasure! And particularly so after your valuable review of my efforts chez Henry Irving. Tim riley talk 14:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, are you interested in commenting at Category talk:People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan per your earlier involvement in the discussion? --woodensuperman 18:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tim -- I have been working on James Thurber, and I was wondering if he's an author you have any interest in. I've been making a pass through the biographical sections of the article, and am getting towards the end of that process, but there will need to be a substantial rework/expansion of the sections focused on his work rather than his life. This is not something I have much experience with, and since you were so complimentary about the Gerald Durrell article, and also since I suspect you of having the sort of sense of humour to which Thurber's work appeals, I was wondering if you had any interest in working on the article with a view to an eventual FAC. No worries if you have no interest or no time, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mike. I'm tempted, as I like Thurber a lot, but I'd better say no: it's "no time" rather than "no interest". I'll put the article on my watchlist and will gladly look in at PR/FAC. Tim riley talk 10:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-- I appreciate it and will be glad of any input when the time comes. PR is probably at least six weeks away, if I ever get there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By consensus of the Wikipedia community (see discussion), you are warned for making uncivil remarks towards other editors in content disputes. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The dogs bark, but the caravan passes on. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't one of the PROJSOCKS back again, was it? - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yes. Not the PROJSOCK that was blocked, but the PROJSOCK that wasn't 😬 —Fortuna, imperatrix 08:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SC, if you have world enough and time your expertise with inflation indexes would be most gratefully received at The Rivals for the modern equivalent of the £600 the impresario predicted Sheridan would earn from it. Tim riley talk 17:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, young man! Tim riley talk 18:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I know I said it would be weeks, but I've had time this past week to do a full pass through Thurber's biographies, and have just put it up for PR. If you (or any of your talk page watchers) have a moment I would love to get some feedback. One reason why it went quickly is that I have simply not done the literary analysis section I know is necessary; I hope to have the energy to try that next month. What's there now is just biography -- I may still tweak it a bit but I think it's basically in shape. Thanks for any comments you have time for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, it will be a pleasure to look in. Thank you for inviting me. Tim riley talk 18:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Tim, I’ve opened a PR for Mary Mallon here. If you have time and inclination, I’d welcome any comments you may have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SC, done, with pleasure. Rather a sad article and (to me) something of an eye-opener. Tim riley talk 10:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 21 March 2026. 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/March 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2026. 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) 14:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Tim riley! The article you nominated, Henry Irving, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. "Brit" is too informal, but apparently "Briton" is no longer a synonym of "British person"? I am aware of the Celtic Briton meaning (my partner writes on that period), but I thought that both meanings were current.... Thanks for the correction. --Macrakis (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a correction, but I have been an Englishman and a British subject for 74 years and "Briton" doesn't sound quite right to me and I don't know anyone who would call himself or herself a "Briton". That said, your scrupulous and knowledgeable edits of food articles have my warmest admiration. Tim riley talk 20:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I might call you a "Brit", which is presumably short for "Briton", but maybe that is an offensive exonym only used by cheeky foreigners or in headlinese.^[1] --Macrakis (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Macrakis, with your excellent additions and those of SchroCat and the promotion by Ssilvers from C to B class I am emboldended to put the article up for GAN and have so done. Tim riley talk 18:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great!

Back to "Britons", with Gemini's help, I thought I'd modernize the refrain of Rule, Britannia:

In a queue while it drizzles and rains,

They find joy in their mildest of pains.

While they wait for their tea,

They're as free as can be,

British people ain't held by no chains!

--Macrakis (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Shepherd's pie is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Shepherd's pie has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Macrakis and Schrocat – warmest thanks to you both for your share in getting the article up to GA standard, duly recognised on my user page. On to FAC, do we think? Tim riley talk 11:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving all this forward! I'd be interested in your comments on and improvements to Steak Diane, which apparently originated in London before becoming widely known in NY, Sydney, and then the rest of the US and Australia... and is now probably the best-known retro dish. --Macrakis (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Macrakis, done, with pleasure. I hope some of my screed is of use. Tim riley talk 12:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think a quick spin over any food history works, just as a precaution, would be best first, but I don't expect there will be too much to add. After that, I certainly think FAC is a possibility. - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who chances to see this page: together with SchroCat and our American colleague Macrakis I have Shepherd's pie up for FAC. It has gone rather quiet at the review and if anyone would care to look in and comment there, it will be esteemed a favour. Tim riley talk 18:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_B._Silvers#c-Tim_riley-20260207153300-Graywalls-20260207152300 what are you talking about here? I asked you to explain in the article, but you did not reply. I don't have an article on me nor have I written about myself. Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no recollection of this exchange and if I have got muddled I regret it and apologise. Tim riley talk 16:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you strike out the WP:ASPERSION you made. Graywalls (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to stir up problems? I see you went to an admin's page to try and get me blocked too. Following on from the efforts opening a case at the Silvers article, there is a feeling of a rather unpleasant vendetta going on here. I suggest you knock it off sharpish before this ends up at a noticeboard. - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not stirring problem to ask someone about something like that, then asking them to strike it out once they realized it was a misunderstanding. I am not sure why you're commenting on this matter here. I commented on their page, because they said something about me that I don't recall, asked them to clarify, and they said it was in error, so I asked them to strike it out. This doesn't have anything to do with you. Graywalls (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have returned to the subject of a comment made ten days ago: that’s the striking point. Why you didn’t ask at the time is beyond me, but at this late stage it feels like faux outrage and a pointy bit of disruption, rather than anything more genuine.

And don’t tell me where I can and can’t comment, unless it’s on your own talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete this thread tomorrow unless some compelling reason comes to light. Nasty bullying pointyness (pointiness?) is not welcome here. Tim riley talk 19:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may have got the ping already, but if not, I've started the nomination for Golden Bough (Aeneid) at FAC. Your thoughts there would, as ever, be most welcome. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]