User talk:Eric Corbett

There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change. I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.

Workhouse

What else do you need for this article? I enjoyed digging up more info on the Ship Canal, so would be happy to help out here as well. Parrot of Doom 16:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Great! The things I know still need doing are to make some mention and explanation in the architecture section of the "paupers' palaces" view expressed by some in the 19th century, the work section needs to be expanded and tied in with the spike mentioned in the lead, the lead probably needs to be rewritten, or at least substantially expanded, the diet section still looks a bit frugal, I'm not at all happy about the last paragraph of the living conditions section, which is largely uncited anyway ... in short I'm fairly comfortable about the first few sections and the final later developments section, but I think there are still some gaps in the sections in between. You'll probably see loads of other gaps as well as you look through. I was thinking of just doing enough to stand a chance at GAN, but if you're on board we might as well go the whole hog, with perhaps a stop-off at peer review, which really was quite helpful with the ship canal. Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And as with our wife selling magnum opus I'm very keen not to get pulled into having to deal with workhouses in Holland, workhouses in Germany, workhouses in France, workhouses in ScratchMyArse ... I don't even know if there were any in those countries, apart from Holland, but you get the point. Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'm full up this weekend but will try to read the article during my lunch tomorrow. Will get thinking next week. Parrot of Doom 19:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll post here so the article's talk page doesn't get confusing. I read it at dinnertime (lunch, pah), my first thought is that it's very compartmentalised, to the point where there seems to be little to no connection between the workhouses' staff, inmates, and work. My second thought was that there isn't nearly enough detail on workhouses themselves. For instance, I want to know what peoples' rooms were like, if they shared beds (day/night shift sharing), if there were bathrooms, privies, was there any entertainment, the usual stuff. I want to get a sense that I've walked in and around a typical workhouse, and know its layout and function. I don't think the article does that right now. I'm sure there must be a few workhouse buildings left, working museums perhaps. Parrot of Doom 20:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There's at least one workhouse museum, The Workhouse, Southwell. But one problem is that there is no "typical workhouse". Southwell is an early one, but after the New Poor Law they were based on a panopticon design, then later a pavilion style based on Crimean War military hospitals. Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I get that. IIRC there was a workhouse in Radcliffe, and a tiny thing it was too. I haven't had time to look at any online sources so I've no idea yet what's out there, but I think we should certainly add more on the buildings, rather than the institutions (which are adequately covered IMO) Parrot of Doom 20:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, that was my thinking in starting off that Architecture section. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I will get around to this, it's just that Sunday was absolutely bloody exhausting, one of the longest more tiring working days I've had in ages. Parrot of Doom 23:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it paid well. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok-ish, not brilliant, but the company do pay within a few days, which is rare. Parrot of Doom 08:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• I see what you mean about this subject. Lots of strings in a tapestry, pull one and the whole thing comes apart. Sorry if my edits appear ham-fisted, I'm not removing text from citations. I've been looking at some of the books online, there are some good ideas for structure in there. I think the article really needs much, much more focus on the bricks, mortar and people. The legal background is, for me, secondary. Please feel free to revert me if you don't feel I'm improving things. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What you've done looks fine to me. I think the legal and social background is important, so I wouldn't want to see it reduced further. What ideas do you have for an alternative structure? Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's where I think the fundamental difficulty lies; there is absolutely nothing you can say about workhouses that would be true of all of them at all times during their 200 or 300-hundred year existence. Therefore the social and regulatory frameworks within which they operated over the years is the only structure we have. Of course that problem gets even worse if we have to consider workhouses in Scotland, for instance, to say nothing of other European countries. When I started this rewrite I had a very clear image in my mind of a typical Dickensian workhouse, as I suppose many of us do, but I quickly realised that story was just a snapshot of the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • The structure I have in mind is to get readers to the nitty gritty asap. So, start with the legal and social framework, and then bang - into the buildings. What was it like, living in a workhouse? What kind of work might you do? How long were the days? Was it like a prison, or like a boarding school? What about the food, disease, etc? Were you "paid" money, and could you eventually leave with something in your pocket?
    • I know that's a naive view, but the Dickensian aspect (if it existed) will, I think, be what most people will come to read. If we can demonstrate that that's a load of rubbish (like the myth that Dick Turpin was a loveable rogue), we've done everyone a favour. If, however, Oliver Twist had a ring of truth about it, then even better. Parrot of Doom 21:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• That all sounds fine to me. The Dickensian aspect certainly did exist, but my problem remains that entering a workhouse in 1780 was quite different from entering a workhouse in 1845, which was quite different from entering a workhouse in 1900. Not only were the people, regimes and buildings quite different, but as the 19th century wore on workhouses had very little to do with work, if they really ever did; they were morphing into hospitals and old folks homes. That's the story I think it's important to tell, the evolution of the workhouse, without dwelling too much on its less salubrious aspects. It'll be interesting to see how our slightly different takes on this come together. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think if enough source material exists we can do that. How much research have you done thus far, online sources mostly, or a trip to the library? Parrot of Doom 22:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Many trips to the library. All the books I've used are in the Bibliography. I think the only significant online source I've used is Higginbotham's Workhouse Web Site, which I trust because he's written some great books on the subject. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• I've currently got out on loan Fowler's Workhouse: The People, the Places, the Life Behind Doors, and Trevor May's An Economic and Social History of Britain 1760–1970. Malleus Fatuorum
• Thinking about this a little more, it makes the article seem more and more complicated, but I'm convinced we can't just present a mid-Victorian view of the workhouse. And I'm beginning to wonder why I ever had the temerity to embark on this project ... but on the other hand I can see a potential structure emerging. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Largely as a result of all the reorganisation you've done I'm starting to feel much happier with the way the article's structured now; it seems easier to see what's still missing and where it ought to go. I want to write something on the admissions procedure (hopefully later this evening), which I think will give a slightly more human face to our account, but all in all I'm beginning to believe that it may just be possible to "finish" this article. Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That's great, it's a complicated subject which demands a lot of work so I'm not surprised you got a bit fed up with it, I'd have given up long ago. I've been looking around for images, scholarly sources and the like. An interesting link I found is at London Lives, which contains page scans of a workhouse census from 1785. It also contains some links to extra reading. So far I've tried to find Keith D. M. Snell, Settlement, Poor Law and the Rural Historian, but haven't been successful. I'll see what else I can drag up. I'm also not quite satisfied with the images the article uses, especially the Ripon image. I'll see if I can source some better ones. Parrot of Doom 18:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I think I inherited those images, so I'm not wedded to any of them. It would be nice though to get a better image of Ripon, as it's a good example of the post-1860 architectural changes. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't go up that way much, but there's a workhouse in Northwhich. Provided there's another sunny day, I'll ride down there and shoot it. Parrot of Doom 19:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
        • One of my (very) long-term aims is to write an article on every workhouse, a bit like Peter with his churches. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
          • I was born in Fairfield Hospital in Bury - that was once the Bury Union Workhouse. My auntie has traced our family history back centuries, and found a few ancestors who went into the workhouses. I bet many people are unaware that their distant relatives once ate gruel. Parrot of Doom 20:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
            • The workhouse was part of everyday life for many of our ancestors, which is partly why this has become such a labour of love for me. Added to which I'd guess that what many people know about workhouses comes from watching Oliver Twist, but the real story is much more complicated. And in a way, the story of its evolution from an institution to punish the able-bodied poor to a place of care for the sick and elderly as the 19th century progressed is quite inspiring I think. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm beginning to think that the main image should be workhouse inmates, rather than a building. Parrot of Doom 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Fine by me. As I said, I just inherited the images, I haven't really given them much thought at all. I'm happy to leave all the decisions about images to you. Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• The work section is getting a bit muddled now. I think we've covered the kids, but we've hardly addressed the adults at all. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You know when you've got two browsers open (split left and right on Windows 7), and about 30 tabs? Gah, my head. Rain or not I'm off out for a nighttime bike ride to clear it. Parrot of Doom 19:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I haven't used Windows for ages, and with reasonable luck I'll never have to use it again, so Windows 7 is an unknown to me. Tell a lie, I do have a desktop machine somewhere that's still running Windows 2000, and a server running NT4. Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Sod it, I've just noticed its still windy. Wind + rain + dark = wet leaves hiding in corners. Add slick 110psi tyres to that and I might never post again. BTW Windows 7 is actually pretty good, although I use Ubuntu on my laptop. Parrot of Doom 20:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• "The workhouse system evolved in the 17th century as a way for parishes to reduce the cost to ratepayers of providing poor relief." - I think there's merit in moving that sentence right to the start of the article, with something like "which developed from the Black Death etc etc" appended to it. I'm not certain though what it's cited to. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 20:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure, I think it's probably in the right place where it is. The impact of the Black Death was to reduce the mobility of labour, the Old Poor Laws had nothing to do with reducing any costs to taxpayers except to keep wages low. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • The introduction just doesn't seem right to me, although that might change once everything's in, and the lead is sorted. Another thing, what about that "working hours" table - I think that would be better as prose, there's so little information in there. Parrot of Doom 21:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I think that when there's a proper lead it'll be easier to see where thing fit best. As for the table, I'm quite attached to it. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Sorry to butt in on the dramahaz below, but I found a source which refers to Fowler's book, which I believe you have/had. I made a few additions, could you double check them? I believe Fowler estimates 18th century numbers of workhouses. I reckon his "most very small" [paraphrased] might be very useful to expand the intro to the "Early Victorian Workhouses" section, which desperately needs a "Before the 1834 Act, most workhouses were small parochial buildings, with x inmates" - that kind of thing. Parrot of Doom 21:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
          • I do have the book yes, I'll take a look. Why is everything so fucking difficult here? (No reflection on you, just on incidents elsewhere.) Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
            • You'd never make a politician :P Neither would I, though. Too honest. Parrot of Doom 22:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
              • I think I'd make a very good dictator, but as you say, a rather poor politician. I really, really, have no patience at all for stupidity; I didn't choose this username randomly. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
                • The inability to suffer fools is a perfectly good trait, which I hope I share.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
                  • Incidentally, anecdotal evidence from my colleagues suggests that the studio design at MediaCity is one huge, thundering cockup. Galleries in completely separate areas, that kind of thing. Parrot of Doom 22:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
                    • I wouldn't be surprised. Actually MF mightn't be so bad as a politician, but diplomat... that's another matter. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
                      • I think you may be right. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

St Somewhere, Llansomewhere

Go ahead, punk, make my day... Funnily enough, I was thinking about you this morning as I walked from King Street West through to Manchester Piccadily. Bencherlite^Talk 21:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I trust you were thinking good thoughts. I can't even pronounce the names of these bloody churches – is there a tax on vowels in Wales? Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was composing editing restrictions for you as it happens (not being allowed to write more than 3 FAs per week, not being able to copyedit more than 1 article towards FA or GA status every minute, being subject to petty ANI reports every Thursday or twice on Friday, etc). The Welsh language "cheats" by counting more vowels (a, e, i, o, u, w and y)! Bencherlite^Talk 21:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that may explain it. I'm reminded of a comment I saw some years ago from a group representing French lorry drivers. They were protesting that it was unfair to punish them as severely as other drivers for driving while under the influence of alcohol as they were on the road for far longer and more frequently, and were therefore more likely to be caught. Typically French of course, but it does seem to me that the more you do here, especially without the protection of the admin shield of invulnerability, the more trouble you tend to find yourself in. But I can think of honourable exceptions like User:Peter I. Vardy who keeps his head down and very productively ploughs his lonely furrow. It would be a boring world if we were all the same. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, I understand that "y" is pronounced like "uh" in English (?), but what does "w" sound like in Welsh? Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "y" is one of the few letters where the pronunciation varies depending on its position in the word. This site explains it slightly better than I can at this time of night (and anyway I am a mere learner, married to a native...) Your next task will be to learn to pronounce "wy" (egg)... Bencherlite^Talk 23:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake! Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Close, but not quite.... (And thanks for the two GA passes tonight, much appreciated). Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sssh! Everyone will be wanting one now. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm convinced the Welsh language was constructed to be deliberately confusing. During a pub quiz the tie breaker was how many letters are there in the Welsh alphabet. The Welshman in our group got it wrong. As he was a good friend we reminded him of it frequently. Sure, we were all a bit worse for wear by this stage but you should know your own alphabet. Nev1 (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

According to some, there is no "J" in the Welsh alphabet, which must come as a shock to Mr Jones when he's putting "jam" on his "tost" (toast) in the morning. So some will tell you there are 28 letters, others 29. Some of those letters look double to the English eye (so "ch", "dd", "ll", "ph" and some others are actually 1 letter and if you are doing a crossword in Welsh you have to put "ll" in one square not two...) Remind me again why I'm learning this language? Bencherlite^Talk 00:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that the surname "Jones" was chosen by the Welsh as a sign of resistance to the English conquest of Wales? Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Haven't heard that before. Is it a fringe theory? Runs off to hide under his pillow before MF jumps through the computer screen... Bencherlite^Talk 00:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My personal theory is that the Welsh slaughtered more than their quota of missionaries before conversion, and the monks imposed their orthography on them as a penance. Choess (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So today's test for the Welsh language students is - how on Earth do you pronounce Eglwyswrw? Actually I just spent a week in Pembrokeshire and I was amused by how, with the recent resurgence of the Welsh language, there has to be a Welsh equivalent for every road sign, so 'bus' has become 'bws' - not very imaginative is it? As 'bus' is an abbreviation of 'omnibus' you would think they could have come up with something based on the translation of the full word. Richerman (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not charabanc? That would sound nice in a Welsh accent. Charabanc fach for a minibus. A chara banc for the friendly bus. Ning-ning (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, 'bws' is a fairly long-standing translation - Cardiff Bus have been displaying "Bws Caerdydd" in addition to the English for several decades at least. And most of Wales' buses are run by companies based in Scotland, Germany, France and Scotland again. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Robert Plant, taking a brake from Welsh incantations

I finally accepted the rumors that Led Zepplin's members were adepts in the Black Arts after hearing an interview by singer Robert Plant, where he described his pre-Sudoko mental gymnastics during the 30-minute solos by Jimmy Page or John Bonham. Whereas the other members of Spinal Tap would visit a French restaurant with 2 Michelin stars or check into a spa for a "facial"---not that kind of "facial"--- during the "guitar pyrotechnics" of Nigel Tufnel, Zeppelin's Plant would conjugate Welsh verbs.

Looking at a Welsh dictionary gave me nightmares for a week .... And, having been teased as a Hobbit" because of my hirsute toe-knuckles, I'm half Welsh!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For your sins...

Geoffrey (archbishop of York) or William de Chesney? Geoffrey's probably easier... William will need some help and will probably have a bunch of questions... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I wondered who'd be up next. Geoffrey it is then. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I generally pull from the first couple of entries in the GA section on my user page. Baldwin of Forde is awaiting a few books on his writings (I'm so thrilled at the thought of dealing with theological writings...) and the ones further down will probably get shuffled once Geoffrey gets promotoed, eventually. I've also got Thomas Becket and Norman Conquest of England which I need to get back to... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Becket and the Norman Conquest? You're a glutton for punishment. One day perhaps I'll do something important, like what you're doing. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

About six months ago (maybe more, I forget) I whacked hard at Becket, cleaning up a lot of junk that was there. It's pretty much stayed at the slimmed down but accurate version I left it at since then. I started sourcing Norman Conquest a bit further back, and other than the usual annoying vandalism, it's stayed pretty clean to where I got in the article ... so neither are hotbeds of POV pushing, at least... of course, that never keeps someone from later seeing your good work and deciding to make a crusade out of some petty detail (ala wife selling) but ... one can only do so much. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling! I'm about ready to give up on that hopeless case. Have you seen some of the proposed additions to the article? And to tag a law as misogynyst is something beyond my comprehension. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Women's studies or gender studies. Heck, we even have gender history... which basically seems to consist mainly of throwing our values back on ancient societies... which isn't a wrong POV, but it's not exactly going to help you understand THAT time period if you persist in seeing it only through modern POV. Yeah, a modern POV is needed, but you need to keep the time in historical perspective also... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a child of my age I guess, I treat everyone the same. I don't care what colour you are, what you believe in, what you wear, what gender you are, all I care about is what kind of person you are. I put myself in the position of a 17th-century husband or wife locked into a loveless marriage and think, yeah, why not go for it? It's got to be better than this. That's not sexism or misogyny. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But, and here is where I put on my "keep an open mind historian hat" ... did folks of that time and that class expect a "lovefilled" marriage or were they looking for something else from marriage - like support/help/children? We don't know necesarily what they were looking for in a marriage - so you are projecting your culture back on theirs. Obviously, the custom fulfilled a need, and we should look at it through the prism of what the people of the time wrote about it. At least that article there are some sources for the custom... most medieval social customs of the lower classes are complete and total bits and pieces as far as historians are concerned. I do strongly strongly recommend Ties that Bound by Hanawalt (sp?) ... which looks at medieval English peasant communities without perverting it through our societal values ... it's an excellent book and a very easy read. I think you'd enjoy it. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

PoD and I tried very hard to keep our account of this custom neutral. The facts are presented, let everyone make up their own minds. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think the article is quite well done .. don't ever think that. I was just commenting on your comment above about "I put myself in the position of a 17th-century husband or wife locked into a loveless marriage and think, yeah, why not go for it? It's got to be better than this." .. that's not how a historian approaches the issue (or at least not how they SHOULD). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we're talking about different stuff. PoD and I wrote an article that I believe to be a neutral account of the custom. Others subsequently complained that it was sexist or whatever. I simply offered my opinion. I'm not a historian, or ever likely to be, but I can smell dishonesty and revisionism. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem is probably on my end, I"m high on sinus pills... no worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the misunderstanding is in thinking that I put myself in the position of those 17th-century guys and gals when writing the article. But my comments were to do with imposing our 21st-century views on a 17th-century custom. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that calling the custom misogynist/sexist is putting our values on the past. We may be okay in stating that "by modern values, the custom would be sexist" ... which is indeed true. However, baldly calling it sexist, when the time period had no real concept of sexist as we understand it, would be imposing our values on the past. And calling it misogynist, unless contemporary records state it that way, is the same. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the object on Wife Selling is simply to bore us to death. Have you read the latest tripe on the talk page? No, neither have I, I don't have a spare six months to get through it. Parrot of Doom 15:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just the same old tripe being endlessly recycled isn't it? Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Curiously, the user in question states that "English is the only language in which I am fluent". I beg to differ. His posts are almost hilariously incoherent, verbose and impenetrable. (Why not simply, "I am only fluent in English", anyway?) Geometry guy 21:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC) PS. He has also now decided that Marriage is sexist after all

Adding that category falls neatly under WP:BRD; specifically I've exercised points 2 and 3 of that process. Pedro :  Chat  21:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

English Wikipedia may be approaching the intellectual standards of the Swedish humanities and social-studies, where gender studies (including history/herstory) are/is pursued with the heartfelt zeal and rectitude of "Apocalypse studies" at Liberty University (sic) or a Jehovah's Witnesses think tank.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: The Author's Farce

This is a note to let the main editors of The Author's Farce know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 5, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 5, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Author's Farce is a play by the English playwright and novelist Henry Fielding, first performed on 30 March 1730 at the Little Theatre, Haymarket. Written in response to the Theatre Royal's rejection of his earlier plays, The Author's Farce was Fielding's first theatrical success. The first and second acts deal with the attempts of the central character, Harry Luckless, to woo his landlady's daughter, and his efforts to make money by writing plays. In the second act, he finishes a puppet theatre play titled The Pleasures of the Town, about the Goddess Nonsense's choice of a husband from allegorical representatives of theatre and other literary genres. After its rejection by one theatre, Luckless's play is staged at another. The third act becomes a play within a play, in which the characters in the puppet play are portrayed by humans. The Author's Farce ends with a merging of the play's and the puppet show's realities. The play established Fielding as a popular London playwright, and the press reported that seats were in great demand. Although largely ignored by critics until the 20th century, most agree that the play is primarily a commentary on events in Fielding's life, signalling his transition from older forms of comedy to the new satire of his contemporaries. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wanted your advice

...on a usage about which I have a question.

"It is the people of this country who have defined this nation..."

"Those are the people of this country who have defined this nation..."

As your command over English is quite credible in my opinion, I wished your inputs on which statement of the above may be (more) appropriate... Thanks and kind regards. Wifione ^Message 15:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't they mean different things? The first one says that all people of this country have defined this nation, the second refers to a specific group of people from this country who have defined this nation. Ucucha (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. And for the first meaning, why not simply say "The people of this country have defined this nation". Or even (assuming "country" and "nation" are synonymous here): "This nation is defined by its people". Geometry guy 17:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite sensible suggestions. Thanks Ucucha, Geometry guy. Wifione ^Message 17:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

have or has?

"The couple have two homes" is, to my mind, the correct use. Only another editor (who I suspect is from the US) insists that "The couple has two homes" is correct. The sentence is about two people in a relationship. Parrot of Doom 20:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) First, I'm from the US, and it's have. I, personally, would suggest switching it to own. Buggie111 (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who owns the properties. Parrot of Doom 20:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As Buggie says, "have" is correct. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Good, just as I thought. Parrot of Doom 20:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's an Engvar issue. In UK English collective nouns are more often treated as plurals (eg "Pink Floyd are a band", "Liverpool FC are a football team") while American users would more commonly default to singular. There is a broad gray area and it is not a hard and fast rule though. --John (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with John. In England I'd use have; in America I'd use has or people would look at me sideways. It's one of those issues that I always have trouble with because I mix up my Englishes not being entirely an AmEng or BrEng speaker, but some weird amalgamation of both. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense, as "have" is singular, as is "couple". Just look at what TK wrote above: "I always have trouble, not "I always has trouble". Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but have is the singular in the first person and we are talking third person here, where the singular is has and the plural is have, for example he has versus they have. I would argue that a couple has would be more typical of educated US use, whereas a British speaker would more likely say a couple have. No wonder English is such a horrible language to learn. Two other foibles I've noticed since living here are the greater use of the subjunctive mood and the far greater prevalence of "whom" than in any region in Britain. In the context of article use, I would as always argue for a paraphrase to avoid any infelicity. --John (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The American love affair with the subjunctive is, I think, is a symptom of the American love of three words when two would do (who would later vs. who later). A bit like "in order to" vs. "to". But neither of those foibles irritate me as much as the daft "I could care less", when actually what's meant is the exact opposite. But getting back to "the couple have", the logic behind that is that each of the couple has. The implication of the singular would be that the individuals in the couple would no longer have the properties if they were no longer a couple. There a similar distinction in "the family has" vs. "the family have": the question us, are we talking about the collective noun or about the individuals who are members of the collective? Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"American love affair with the subjunctive"? Next, you shall be talking about the American "I will" for future action (rather than volition) or the "American terror of the present tense"!

Had I not studied Spanish and French, I should have not embraced the proposition that English have a subjunctive mode.

About the "couple" ("beast with 2 backs"). If the couple is a legally fictitious person with (joint) ownership of 2 houses, then "has" would be correct. If the couple's elements have several ownership of the houses, then "have" would be correct.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on the context:

• The [recently married] couple has returned from their honeymoon.
• A couple [of my friends] have decided to come along.

LadyofShalott 01:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice points, LoS and Malleus. Ultimately the best guide is to have a native speaker look at it and see if it makes sense and if it looks daft. The first is easier than the second, and the second is very dependent on dialect. There is also no prejudice in US English against the split infinitive, and it's heading that way in Br Eng as well. One that I always silently correct and haven't yet been brought to Arbcom for is Smith joined the Dongles April 11, 1985 where I really prefer to add "on". It's as Churchill said, two nations divided by a common language. I despair sometimes though at how unaware most users are about these huge stylistic differences between the two variants of the language. --John (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that you correct these. I prefer to split infinitives but our grammar books tell us not to. I hadn't realised that was an AmEng/BrEng issue as well. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to spice things up, try adding Canadian English into the mix, eh? Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Or Australian, or South African, or West Indian, Scottish, Irish... --John (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone happen to notice this? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In re to "Just look at what TK wrote above...": Well you can't quite look at it that way. "I" is a curious pronoun (i.e. "I am", not "I is"), so you can't make the comparison between "I" and "couple". I actually think that "has" would be correct in Parrot of Doom's example. William Chauncey Fowler says in his 1858 English grammar: The English language in its elements and forms that "Collective nouns in the singular form indicate plurality when they refer to the individuals; as 'The committee were divided.'"

Alfred Slater West says in his 1895 English grammar for beginners, "Collective nouns in the singular may be followed by a verb in the singular or plural, according as we are thinking of the aggregate, or of the individuals composing it. We may say, 'The Committee were divided in opinion,' or 'The Committee was unanimous.'" I don't reckon you would trust these ancient publications, but they do shed light on this plurality-vs-singularity issue. In "The couple have two homes", "the couple" refers to the two people not as individuals but as a single unit. Together they own the house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.93.29 (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The couple has spoken. Ning-ning (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Somerton, GAN & prose

Another editor nominated Somerton at GAN (which I didn't think was quite ready), but the reviewer has now put it on hold. I can address many of the issues but a specific comment from the reviewer was "The prose of the article is on the edge of meeting GA criteria; it conveys information, though it is fairly limited, and not a pleasure to read. It is dry and dull - simply stating lists of facts, with little detail, and going from one fact to another. It reads like a series of bare, disjointed notes gathered with the intention of writing up an article - but the article has not yet been written. As part of ongoing development the facts could be fleshed out, and an attempt made to put details in context, so that the information is conveyed in a pleasant manner that encourages the reader to engage with the text." If you could offer any help/expert eye it would be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 15:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Manchester Ship Canal a Featured Article! Please accept this barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Congratulations to you and PoD for this. A real triumph for a not-very-easy subject to conquer. Superb work! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. It's long been an embarrassment that we didn't have something decent on the ship canal. Now it's on to workhouses. Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• .. and it's also nice to do a bit for the Cheshire project along the way. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed; much appreciated out here. And there were lots of workhouses in Cheshire (My three children were born in what I think was originally a workhouse — Chester City Hospital (since demolished)). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Pier

Thanks very much for reviewing St Anne's Pier‎, and for your copyediting work. :) --BelovedFreak 15:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a nice little article, congratulations. Malleus Fatuorum 15:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The Vicar of Bullhampton

Again, many thanks for doing the GA review of The Vicar of Bullhampton. I'm still following up one of your points (the one about the post-Barsetshire works), and will try to clarify that a bit. I assumed too much familiarity with Trollope on the part of the general reader. Ammodramus (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You've written a very nice article, one that Wikipedia can be proud of and one I enjoyed reading. But you have to consider your average reader to be a spotty 14-year-old kid who's never heard of Trollope. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

RfA

You've shown your true colours tonight Malleus. If you do not self-revert, they you are very clearly endorsing the "childish", "stupid" behavior that you take every opportunity to personally attack others for. —WFC— 19:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus seems to be right on with this one, WFC. Perhaps instead of going after him you should stop and explain on the talk page what you're doing, rather than edit warring over it. Right on, Malleus. Dayewalker (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My "true colours" are honesty, self-awareness, and openness. What exactly are your true colours? Censorship and priggishness? You may rest assured that I will not be reverting just because you don't like it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd have been flabbergasted if you had. But you leave me in no doubt that you are endorsing the content. —WFC— 19:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no "content", simply a question that the candidate is quite at liberty to either answer or ignore. How hard is that to understand? Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do remember though that reverting someone multiple times, even if you disagree with their edits, is still edit-warring and might be sanctioned accordingly even if WP:3RR is not breached. Regards SoWhy 19:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The challenges of innovation?

The Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011 moves forward at a slow steady pace. We hit our first snag. Step 6 ... students were requested to make one edit of content with reference to a topic of their choosing. The stand-out edit Erotic asphyxiation. Now think public school - tax dollars - rural community - dancing with snakes and drinking poison. Really raises the issue of censorship and the extent of my control and responsibility as a teacher for their efforts. Note, I did not direct them to the topic; however, in front of the Board of Education it translates to "Teacher project has students contributing to sex related content...". The final irony - I corrected the citation format; although the contribution needs to be moved from the history section ... chalk boards were so much safer!--JimmyButler (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no end to the stupidity here at Wikipedia. And I can't even begin to understand the American obsession with religion. Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to help? Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Butting in - hi Jimmy, so happy to see you're still at it. I fully understand the problems. You need someone to revdel the edits. Do you know any admins to do this for you? If not I might have someone in mind. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That might be the wisest course TK. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't fall under the Revdel guidelines. I'd suggest AN/I...which may make it a higher-profile issue than intended. I would certainly not count this as part of their grade/effort...don't know if that makes it more palatable or not in terms of CYA. Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI is a nightmare! Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No this can't and shouldn't go to ANI. Let's think of something better. I haven't checked the source, but if it's copyvio, then we could revdel. The username is ironic to say the least. Chalkboards rock! Truthkeeper (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm quickly running of patience with Wikipedia, so make of it what you can. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang those hanging hyphens high

What do you think? (Look towards the bottom of the diff.) Actually, I'd be pleased if you have the time to look at this article and even comment at FAR if you can be bothered. Cheers! --John (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done. I was going to say I rarely comment on anything at FAR, but then I noticed you meant FAC. I've got a couple of other articles to finish looking through first, but I'll perhaps be able to get to this one later today. Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry, yes, I meant FAC. --John (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

The community is invited to participate in a request for comment about my editing: WP:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)