User talk:Cassianto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please leave a message; I'll reply here.

Music Hall[edit]

I'm putting some of the information I added on the Music Hall article back up, such as George Formby Sr. being one of the highest paid entertainers of his day in the Music Hall and Charlie Chaplin jnr. starting off his career, it isn't unsourced it even says on the articles of the two performers. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenclayton (talkcontribs)

Charlie Chaplin[edit]

Hello:

(Undid revision [...] -- See WP:LEAD)

Please explain. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to, that's why I provided the link. Cassiantotalk 07:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what in WP:LEAD prompted your action. Please explain indicate, communicate, help. Sincerely, Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think the article benefits from your additions. The article is featured and so has undergone many reviews from many editors over the last year. For a start, a lead section should be no longer than four paragraphs long. It should summarise the entire article, which in its current state, does very nicely indeed. Your edit bloats it unneserssarily and is not an improvement IMO, sorry. Cassiantotalk 22:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Six paragraphs in the lead was too many. It's also not advisable to change the formatting of the referencing either. A couple of US commas went in there, which wasn't an improvement, and neither was breaking the flowing prose into short, choppy sentences, which reduces readability. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Paragraphs: understood. Regarding the reference, do you mean the addition of semicolons? If so, aren't they a standard means of presenting a list in prose (with the benefit of being distinct from any commas used between them)..? Apologies if I've misunderstood your point. If, elsewhere, you mean I removed or replaced some commas, I probably did; as much as shortening sentences might (but not necessarily) reduce flow, so can constructions, for example, such as ", and". Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't mean anything to do with semi-solons: it's to do with the inclusion of templates into the references. They are not needed, and to have them only in the lead and not elsewhere is questionable. The comma point consists of the addition of US commas to the text where they are not used in BrEng. The final point is that your version was inferior to that that exists: it was full of short, choppy sentances, which had replaced some good, flowing prose. That is not an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Re the reference, I recalled and so switched to the page-number templates while inserting  s to prevent linewrapping between an abbreviation and number, but, yes, I suppose the resulting string of templates isn't as efficient. I'm not sure, though, which commas counted as US, so I'd be grateful if you'd point these out. I'm also now more unsure what you have in mind as short, choppy sentences, especially if the text was now full of them. Here's a "diff" of the sentences before and after:
Perhaps it's the "After" version's second-third paragraph that fixed your attention..? It's interesting to see this format draw out some of the shortcomings in both versions. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
No more than four paragraphs: understood. I suspect it was the extra blank lines that supplied the sense of bloat. Are you also saying, though, that:
  • "who rose to fame in the silent era" is more significant than "who is considered one of the most important figures in the history of the film industry" – i.e. that if only the first sentence of the article could be read, "Sir Charles...Chaplin...was an English actor...who rose to fame in the silent era" is preferable to something like "Sir Charles...Chaplin...was an English actor...who is considered one of the most important figures in the history of the film industry"..?
  • making the first mention of United Artists in the opening rather than the current third paragraph is too early..? (Perhaps, though, with a shorter accompanying description.) UA is/was unique in being the first of its kind and still, nominally, exists, with a name that (thanks to e.g. the Bond movies) may be recognised by a wide readership..?
Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Dipping in here too: UA is important, but is only one aspect of Chaplin's life and legacy. There's nothing wrong with the current position in the third para, IMO. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Its seminal, industry-changing nature and continuing appearances at the starts/ends of movies old and new isn't enough to make it a bit more than another aspect of Chaplin's accomplishments (even with Chaplin as co-founder rather than sole founder)..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
PS Am now away until weekend.
Your POV on UA notwithstanding, the lead roughly follows the chronology of the article, and UA is introduced alongside Chaplin's film work, so moving it away from that filmwork is counter-intuative. Regardless of how seminal you think the studio is or was, it has its own article in which to make all those claims, while this one focuses on all the facets of Chaplin and his life, of which UA was just one part. With all the work that's needed on the millions of articles we have, I'm not sure spending hours bouncing opinions together on an already excellent article is constructive: there are many, many more articles that need such time and attention spent on them, and I'd prefer to do just that: I suggest you also move on to work on any one of the parlous articles we have, rather than distract on discussions on how best to guild the lilly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In that case, sorry to've distracted you/Cassianto. Best wishes, Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
You haven't distracted me, I just don't see your edit as an improvement. Cassiantotalk 09:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Keswick again[edit]

May I pick your brains, my dear Cassianto? At peer review you commented (and I agreed) that the article was probably better suited to the GAN route than the FAC. Doctor B, however, has pitched in good and proper, to very considerable effect, and I should value your candidest view of whether FAC may now be the way to go, if you can face reading the article again. If I may intrude on the hospitality of your talk page I am pinging (see how modern and clever I am with the jargon!) @Cliftonian:, whose views on GAN/FAC were the same as yours. Blunt opinions, please, perhaps on the PR page (still open) or my talk page rather than here, in the circs.

PS. As SchroCat and I were both at the BL this morning, in adjoining reading rooms, we took 15 mins out for coffee in the open-air café in the quad. All very decorous, and not a drop of wine to be seen. Tim riley talk 18:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

PR for the Wigan Nightingale[edit]

Evening squire,

After the son came the father is all very much in the cart-before-the-horse territory, but the little clean up of the Formby Snr article got a little out of hand and turned into an overhaul. For better or worse, the Wigan Nightingale is now at PR for comments, criticism and complaints. If you have the time or the will I'd be delighted to hear your views, but I appreciate that your Wiki time may be limited. Pip pip – SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick update to let you know George Formby Snr is now at FAC, if I can persuade you to pop over for a review? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

George Formby[edit]

Precious again, Formby as TFA, the unlikely star, "too stupid to play the bad guy and too ugly to play the hero"! Simple question: I saw the honorific without a comma, - both right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, although SchroCat should take the most credit on this one; my time is scheduled for my birthday, later this year. Re Gardiner, he should've had a comma as the honorific would otherwise form part of his name without the clause. I checked a dozen FAs before making the edit so it appears correct. Cassiantotalk 09:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, will copy to Gwyneth Jones, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I did it, but have the next question: now it looks like the suffix is born and is a soprano, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
On Jones? No, the parenthesis help there, by acting as a separation from the rest of the sentence. They basically make what is contained within it invisible from the sentence, thus being able to link what was before the date of birth to what comes after. To my English eyes, this looks correct. A dozen or so FAs can't be wrong. Cassiantotalk 10:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for educating my not so English eyes, for which the things in parenthesis don't exist, so I would read "GW, DBE is a Welsh soprano." See what I mean? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I see. The parenthesis act as a clause and allows one to stray off the subject momentarily (just like this). Cassiantotalk 10:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you like Ernst Roth? See also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Back to Formby: I wanted to find out if this edit was vandalism, read the sentence several times, it still didn't make sense. Can you educate me further? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Without wishing to get into an infobox discussion, I would say no to it being a vandalistic edit. However, I dare say that some on here would think that having a missing infobox is vandalism, for which I vehemently disagree and make no apologies for ;) Cassiantotalk 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Read, read, read. I looked at the edit because a little thing, mobile edit, might (!) have been vandalism. It wasn't. It was only removing a space between two sentences commented out. Why someone would make the effort I don't know, I normally have a space between two sentences. I have no trouble with the content. I simply don't understand the meaning of the second, particularly "without discussing changing", - if you want to be understood word it differently. Posiibly my lack of English, that's why asked for education. - I was busy on the list of Mozart's masses, remember? Comments to names? - I declared my liberty some time ago, DYK ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Like I say, this in my mind isn't vandalism, just someone who doesn't know (I like to assume good faith; note the parenthesis) ;). If I remember correctly, Brian uses the double space after a full stop. I think there maybe something technical behind it. At least one space should be used after a full stop, and in fact any clause come to that. Are you referring to the two "ing"'s? Yes, I agree this does sound odd, I'll take a look. Cassiantotalk 18:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
We agree, it wasn't, said I, no? - Removing the only space is odd at best. I stopped removing one of two spaces years ago when I noticed it was intentional. What I removed later today was worse, - removal a service of QAI ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Lost in translation, we agree. I altered it slightly, better? Cassiantotalk 19:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)