User talk:SchroCat

Can this snowball survive?

Schrocat, in light of all the infobox disputes, what possibility would there be that a collapsed infobox (as on Frank Sinatra's article) could be viewed as a compromise between the pro and anti-infobox forces? The anti-IB get the look they want, the pro-IB get the data they want. Could it possibly be a win-win? I've proposed it before and both sides have expressed irritation, so if it makes no one happy, it might be the perfect compromise... at least until someone cooks up a solution that makes everyone happy. Which is not likely to happen soon. This snowball doesn't have much of a chance, but thought I'd toss it out anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, Let me have a think; I'm a bit hacked off with the entire thought of IBs at the moment, given there has been a rush of summer madness needlessly breaking out, so the thought may not be for a while... – SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to take the time needed to be in a good Zenlike place on the issue. Bottom line is that it isn't going to go away, the issue inadvertently trashed the whole concept of localconsensus on wikiprojects generally (even those where subject area specialists have expertise on whatever issue it is...), and a lot of very good and talented editors who normally would have a lot in common and share many of the same goals for quality article creation and improvement are on opposite sides of the issue. As a result, we have too much emotion flying around over something that is really a tech and formatting dispute. Montanabw^(talk) 18:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, my own personal infobox axe is that I think infobox appearance should be more standardized, the templates have to have different parameters for, say, biology versus biography, but the color-coding should go. Just draw a line around the thing and be done with it, and use the uniform blue or light gray to do any necessary highlighting. Montanabw^(talk) 18:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, I'll be at your list soon, if I can generate enough enthusiasm to get back into WP stuff. My morale is at an all-time low given the colossal knuckle-dragging stupidity rolling round at the moment. I referred to it in my comment to you on the Arb thread, with the RfC route being sub-optimal when it comes to our quality product. Sadly the RfC route ensures that piss-poor half-wits who haven't written anything of note get to vote stack on a knee-jerk basis without bothering to engage their brains first. That's absolutely no way to treat our top articles – and if you disagree, image how you would feel if it was an RfC on a point you deeply opposed happening on one or two or three of "your" articles. – SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Burke and Hare murders page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Josephine Butler bibliography

On 25 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Josephine Butler bibliography, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the English feminist and social reformer Josephine Butler (pictured) wrote more than 90 books and pamphlets over the course of her career? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Josephine Butler bibliography. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Josephine Butler bibliography), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

FLC review request

Hi. Hope you're well. I was wondering if you were interested in reviewing a FLC on film accolades, this time on Cold War thriller Bridge of Spies, remembered for Mark Rylance's portrayal of Russian spy Rudolf Abel, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Bridge of Spies (film)/archive1? Cowlibob (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification of ArbCom Amendment Request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment_request:_Infoboxes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)