User talk:Parrot of Doom

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

RfC on Philip

Hello, Parrot of Doom. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello again

Hello. Could you tell me what needs to be done to Pink Floyd article to become FA? It is currently being copyedited, so I suppose only Musical style section remains to be written about. Hope you'll help me with that. TGilmour (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it's do-able—David Bowie made it—I'll warn you that it will be a lot more than just getting the prose style tidy. The new wording of WIAFA 1(c) ("it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature") heavily skews the process against topics which have been the subject of a large number of significant works, and after the Beatles PF are probably the most written-about band in history. – iridescent 19:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with that, which is why I no longer have any intention of taking Margaret Thatcher to FAC; just too much to read. Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gong farmer

Remember that? As the resident shit expert I thought I'd ask if you have a few moments to glance over it and see what you think. I know there are still a few holes, like the trend for tradesman during the 18th century to offer clearing out services almost as a side-line, and I need to smooth over the transition from digging out cesspits to waste collection. There's an obvious limit though as to what can be said about a job that requires you to climb into a hole full of shit and dig it out with hand tools, so I've got no intentions of going anywhere near FAC with this, but GA would be nice one day. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching, I can't help but feel that somewhere, some dusty old historian has written something more concrete on this subject. It reminds me that midden closet, surely an important subject, has no article - I might rectify that.

It's certainly lacking content but I know how difficult these things can be to pad out. One sentence stood out as a bit lonely - "The foul odour from cesspits was a continual problem, and they had to be cleaned out every two years or so. It was the job of the gong farmers to dig them out and remove the excrement, for which in the late 15th century they charged two shillings per ton of waste removed" - I think you need to say why the odour was a problem, and see if you can clarify how large these cesspits were - a tonne sounds like a hell of a lot. Also, since pamphleteers and artists were so scathing on matters that the upper classes would rather not discuss, are there no old bits of art, or old publications that rip into the local corporations responsible for maintaining these cess pits? Parrot of Doom 20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I've looked. Cockayne's appears to be the most academic of what's available. One striking problem is that "gong farmer" is a Tudor term, but shit needed to be dug up and taken away well beyond the Tudor period. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if this article has the wrong title, and it ought not to be more general, although I'm struggling to think of a better one. I've tried to focus on those whose job it was to actually clear out the cesspits, rather than, for instance take away the buckets from pail closets, and I'd like it to retain that focus if at all possible. It's amazing how difficult it can be to write about shit. Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Dan Cruikshank? He's written some excellent books on life in England. Also, try this (Jstor picks it up as mentioning cesspits). Parrot of Doom 21:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have a look around for references to "house(s) of office", a term much in use during 17th-century England. Parrot of Doom 21:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions that I'll check out. But I do want this article to focus on the job of lumping out cesspits with handtools, rather than the broader issue of sanitation. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. As an example of how I'm not against in popular culture in general, just "In popular culture" sections, I think that the Blaster Bates story fits in quite nicely. What's your view? Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I think its more relevant to other articles. Looking at his own article, what on earth is a Cheshire accent? Parrot of Doom 22:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's staying. :lol: Like Blaster, I was born in Crewe, so I don't see your problem about a Cheshire accent; I heard it every day for years. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know about Crewe but my experience of the Cheshire set is that adults call their parents "Mummy and Daddy". Someone here described it as "a camp scouser trying to sound posh" - nice! Actually, as one of the respondents says it varies a lot across the county. Richerman (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of an area of England with a less obvious accent than Cheshire. Unless "footballer" is an accent :) Anyway, Malleus have you heard of the elephant part of this? Seems quite interesting. Parrot of Doom 08:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The elephant story sounds quite likely. My first job way back in the 60s was as a Lab Technician in the Zoology dept. at Manchester Uni. On one of the flat roofs there was a dead giraffe from Belle Vue that was being left to rot down so they could retrieve the skeleton, clean it up and reassemble it. I expect they'd removed some of the meat first to get it up there but its much easier to let the maggots do most of the work for you. Richerman (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Side of the Moon - reviews template

Pity this Wikipedia project is marred by assholes like you, who are convinced that they always know best. Bye bye for now. 81.83.132.137 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]