Jump to content

User talk:SchroCat/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hattie Jacques may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 179–95}}{{efn|The play ran intermittently from 1976 to September 1979 at various places in the UK (including seasons at Torquay, Lincoln, Blackpool and Bournemouth; a UK national tour; and an

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Stella Gibbons

Just to advise you that this article, which you commented on at PR, is now at WP:FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No problems: I'm currently in Baile Átha Cliath, but will be able to undertake a full and final read through in a couple of days upon my return to Blighty. - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Greenclayton

Kindly check back to see my reply to you, and be sure not to leave any replies until you've read everything. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have. This type of edit should not be allowed under any circumstances. Full stop, end of story. No excuses. It is nothing to do with a pattern, or whether he has been obnoxious to others: IT SHOULD NOT GO UNSANCTIONED. It's utterly shameful if you cannot see something that simple. - SchroCat (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm very confused by your response, both here and at the bottom of the ANI section. Have you seen this notice? Either you're unaware of the conclusion of the situation, or I don't at all understand your position. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It was your response before this block which concerns us. This proves what we have been saying all along; it IS possible to retire and then carry on editing. CassiantoTalk 10:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It's an utter no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned, and I'm surprised that calling someone a cunt isn't seen as being worthy of a ban immediately. "Retiring" is nothing: minds change after an hour or two and there's yet one more case of a core pillar that it's pointless to have. Appearance at ANI is quickly forgotten unless even a short block is in place. If the editor does return after 24 hours then there is now at least something on record that he has transgressed, and further transgressions can be built on that initial block. I'm surprised Admins are so forgiving of such a clear-cut infringement and my faith in most Admins being able to make sensible decisions has been fractured further by the overwhelming response of "meh" I received at ANI. I should add a thank you for blocking the miscreant. - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Idiotboxes

Why are you against using "Info Boxes" for actors?Savolya (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Several reasons, not least of which is that they are not necessary, being filled with minor facts which are misleading when they are not surrounded by the context that gives them meaning and value. They end up being over bloated and filled with unsourced, non-neutral nonsense ("Best known for", "influenced by" etc sections). - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Infoboxes are particularly helpful as metadata summaries: they're critical for summarising facts in consistent manner so that their articles can be summarised by automated processes. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Google use their own metadata, so that argument is flawed. They're critical for summarising facts to lazy readers who can't be bothered to avert their eyes to the left of the screen where they will find all the information that they need. Infoboxes are both repetitive and ugly. CassiantoTalk 11:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thought we were Wikipedia, not Google... There's also no consensus anywhere that we have to slavishly and unthinkingly follow any form of meta data provision. Despite that, we still have the person days template in use in most biography articles. - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
This isn't purely a matter of providing data to or through Google — it's a matter of fitting into the Semantic Web, making our information much more easily mineable by anyone. If I understand rightly, data in our infoboxes is microformatted to ensure that information from all articles with said infoboxes is presented equally. If I'm wrong, it wouldn't be too hard to make changes to our infoboxes so that we're using the microformats in question. Pigsonthewing can better discuss the benefits of using infoboxes for metadata presentation. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Not a bloody chance! I've had too many ill-tempered exchanges with Mabbett to want to start another one: even a simply asked question ends up with an infuriating response from him. Again, I'll repeat, there is no consensus for us to change our approach because of vague sentiments of the semantic web or that we should, should or need to provide meta data. I'm fully conversant with all the pros and cons, having taken part in the discussions at ArbCom around Mabbett and his delightful discussion tactics. - SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Mabbett has an unhealthy obsession to idiot boxes and like SchroCat says above, we have clashed with him many times over it before. I don't give a stuff about metadata, Semantic Web or microformat, all I know is I don't like them on 90% of articles. CassiantoTalk 00:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Pather Panchali peer review

Hi! If you have time, could you please have a look into this? Your comments will be highly appreciated in this peer review. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Review reminder

You asked me to remind you. Thanks for your offer MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for the reminder: I'll pop by shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy cast list

Hello. You mentioned that you didn't know what poster I was looking at. If you look at this 1600x1200 version of the poster, you can see that the order you reverted to is the order shown around the top and below the title. However, policy according to the infobox film template is to use the actors as they are listed in the billing block, which is at the very bottom of the poster, and which you can very clearly read with the example poster I've supplied. You'll see that the billing block's cast list order is the exact same as the cast list I've put on the article, and that I'm simply following policy. Hopefully you won't revert me now that I've adequately explained myself. Cheers! Corvoe (speak to me) 05:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Noted. However, when you revert in future, could you please check what you are doing: you also reverted other good changes that had been made. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize the plainlists weren't already there, I apologize. Corvoe (speak to me) 07:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No problems: I think we have a good copy in there now. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Gizmi

Which I take to be the plural of Gizmo. Thus spake SchroCat: "I've gone with Sources: they are all included in the text (I have a script which flashes up any unused ones)". Sounds a most useful device. Could you possibly point me in its direction, please? Tim riley (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I note your TTFN at your message on my talk page. From the same source I offer you NWAWWASBE. Good advice, and it scans rather well to the finale of Mozart's Double Concerto, K365. Tim riley (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It's particularly good advice - and I'll admit to having followed it strictly through life: my windows are, and have always been, entirely egg free! - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

"Christmas Carol" RV

Hi SchroCat - Thanks for your edit summary on your reversion of my re-edit to A Christmas Carol. Another editor has been making wholesale changes to the text of the Plot section (many - but not all - of them good) but without a single edit summary, much less a friendly discussion on Talk. This article has been worked on extensively by a fair number of editors, and as a matter of courtesy at least, revisions to a stable text ought to be explained - as you did. I still like the last sentence, but I see your point and appreciate the explanation. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Email

Hello, SchroCat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

James Bond's drinking.

Your GA nomination of Solo (Boyd novel)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Solo (Boyd novel) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Solo (Boyd novel)

The article Solo (Boyd novel) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Solo (Boyd novel) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solo (Boyd novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Boyd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, SchroCat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Fleming

Hi, Thanks for pointing out that the source I was trying to use for the Ian Fleming article was not reliable. To set matters straight, I decided to buy two substantial biographies of Ian Fleming, available on Amazon Kindle, to try to establish the details of his early education more thoroughly: the first, 'Ian Fleming', by Andrew Lycett and the second, 'The Life of Ian Fleming', by John Pearson. In both books, Fleming's time at Durnford School is described at length, but - and you were right to have been cautious here - there is no mention in either book of his having also attended Sunningdale School. Indeed, the author of the first source describes Fleming having worn the Eton College collar, boots and tweed knickerbockers in two weeks of the 1921 Summer Holiday (to please what the author describes as his fussy and over-protective mother, Eve), immediately preceding his entry to Eton, after having just left Durnford School.

I therefore propose to include Durnford School in the description, but to make no mention of Sunningdale School. I hope you regard these sources as reliable, and I await your reply before making any further changes. Many thanks. Zhu Haifeng (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Durnford is already included in article—see Ian Fleming#Education and early life. It's not covered in the lead because it's not important enough, whereas the Eton connection is, which is why it is covered both in the lead and body. Both Durnford and Eton are already covered by the reliable sources. As such, I'm not sure that any further changes are needed. - SchroCat (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. From the two sources I've quoted, Durnford School appears to have had a profound effect on Fleming's later character, in particular his secretive nature and his great caution in revealing his true feelings to others. Both authors emphasise its crucial importance, and I think, in this case, its very brief inclusion at the beginning, with the other educational institutions he attended, is of the utmost relevance. Zhu Haifeng (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There is good coverage of the establishment in the article already. Bloating out the lead with superfluous details does not help the reader understand Fleming's character or background. - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Solo (Boyd novel)

The article Solo (Boyd novel) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Solo (Boyd novel) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Murdoch, clear my throat for me would you?

Deeply tempted though I am to take advantage of your generous invitation to wade into your litter tray, I think for now I'll watch (beadily) from the sidelines. But watch out at PR: I have put it about at the Marine Commando Club, Paddington, and Bona Pedants will be out in force. Tim riley (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Shame you won't be joining in, but it'll be bona to vada you at PR – very dally of you and fantabulosa! - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, when I was in Siddi Barani - but not a word to Bessie about this. Perhaps I may dip in after all. And the next object is? Tim riley (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sellers

I will keep silent in the article and on the talk where they count my edits ;) - A few points: I think the discussion after the close would deserve a subheader. - The template to collapse several sections of an infobox is debatable for several reasons (ask the author). Therefore I would advise to collapse only the single parameter spouse(s). I would link the article of his achievements to "occupation". - Moving forward could mean: discuss parameters, not a black-and-white yes or no ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, but I think we should now leave it alone. We have, I hope, reached the boarders of having an infobox and having no infobox and the identibox thingy should now satisfy both camps. Any further tweaks in either direction will only ignite things again and I don't want this rumbling on any longer. CassiantoTalk 15:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Gerda, I didn't reply yesterday—very remiss of me and I'm sorry! I did have a rather busy day at work, but I should have got back to you. In the meantime the whole shooting match has been archived, which I think is the best for the time being. I think it's a shame that the Identibox idea didn't take off, and I think that this addition by Nikkimaria was a great step: it's a shame that one of the disruptive editors decided to remove it. I like the idea of linking Occupation to the achivements page - now done! Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Portals and film articles

Hi! Have you seen Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Cross_WikiProject_relations_and_decisions_about_portals ? Are you interested in this discussion? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Hi, I'm not sure if you work on cities. Can you spend some time reviewing this nomination as the prose could be immensely benefited. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit pressed on a few things (largely off Wiki), but I'll see what I can do. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Chaplin FAC

Hey Schro, you asked me to let you know when Chaplin was at FAC, which I am doing...now :) Hope you're well! --Loeba (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm very well, thanks! This time, I promise to make it: I'm aiming to complete by Christmas Eve, which should be enough time, I think. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
ps. Cassianto and I have Hattie Jacques at FAC, too, if you have enough time to review, then we'd both be very grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd be interested in reviewing that one...hopefully I'll get a chance, but I do have another review I need to do first not to mention ALL my christmas shopping! There's no rush with Chaplin btw. --Loeba (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hattie Jacques, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page McFarland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings




Christmas greetings for 2013 and best wishes for 2014. Peace on earth and goodwill to all

May you take pleasure in all you do and find success and happiness
Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's very kind of you Brian, and I hope you also have a great Christmas and New Year. Many thanks indeed and all the best - Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas amigo!!! Haha no trolls for a year that would be something!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A miracle...?! - SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If we can reach February without incident that would be something!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Thanks for the kind wishes. A Merry Christmas to you and yours as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong portal removed

Just as a heads up, you said this was underhanded... except that was the United States portal. The debate was about the use of film-related portals relating to WikiProject Film. That edit removed a portal that has nothing to do with the film project whatsoever (Rhett Butler is originally a novel character). This is not a film-related portal either. Betty only proposed control for the use of film-related portals.

Does this mean I'm not supposed to add any portals anywhere for any reason? Or does this mean this is an attempt to restrict usage of non-film portals from all-Gone with the Wind related stuff? (which affects the project Novels and United States as well: remember GOTW was originally a novel).

If the intent of the film project is also to remove non-film portals from anything related to a film, I'm going to make a proposal myself on the film project's behalf, stating what I believe the members of your project want, and post it to the village pump and have this issue resolved quickly. I'm interpreting these removals as overreach because Scarlett (Ripley novel) has nothing to do with the film project. While Rhett Butler might be considered a part of the project, the US portal is not a film portal.

I found I did add a "Film in the United States" to Scarlett_(TV_miniseries) so I removed it myself, awaiting the discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

We have an entirely different issue here in that you added Portal:United States to an article that doesn't really come under the topic of the United States. What's next? Adding Portal:Ireland and Portal:France to Scarlett O'Hara? I don't agree that you were underhand since this involves a non-Film portal, and a portal that lies beyond the scope of the Film project and the discussion there. However, I do support Schro's removal of the portal in this case simply because I don't think the portal is a legitimate inclusion here: the categorization of Rhett Butler principally relates to fictional characters and Gone with the Wind characters, and the article is well served by Portal:Fictional characters and {{Gone with the Wind}}; neither does the article come within the scope of Wikipedia: Wikiproject United States, so I'm failing to see its relevance in this particular case. Betty Logan (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so if it's a different issue, that's fine. With works and fictional characters I go by the nationality of the series/book (if a French series like Code Lyoko, tag WikiProject France, if a Chinese series like Pleasant Goat and the Big Big Wolf, tag WikiProject China). A fictional American character appearing in a German work or a Japanese work AFAIK would not fall under WikiProject United States. With WikiProject US I'm checking to see whether its scope includes novels considered "American": Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Do_American_novels_and_characters_appearing_within_American_novels_fall_within_the_scope_of_WikiProject_United_States.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not really a debatable issue, at least at my end. As per WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN, if a project decides an article is in their scope then that is that. But if that is the case they should properly "claim" it and add their project banner to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Generally if I see a lack of project tags I often judge the situation and ask myself "would this article fit the project's scope?" I add or do not add the projects based on my judgments, since I believed members of most projects are too busy to go around tagging articles within their scope. 99.99% of the time I haven't seen challenges to this tagging. I think going around and asking the members of the projects to tag articles themselves and relying on them wouldn't work because they have too much to do. AFAIK the best way to discuss is when a Wikipedian disputes such tagging, so discussion can be focused on disputed cases. Projects do have people monitoring additions to their project tags. An anime/manga project wouldn't object to someone tagging a new anime under the project, but they would remove an "Original English-language manga" because their project explicitly doesn't cover that. Likewise, I think WikiProject France would untag a fictional French character appearing in an Argentinian work since the work has to do with Argentina, not France. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
To build upon that, one of the core principles behind Wikipedia to to BE:BOLD but not reckless. I, as some people do, learn by doing, and based on doing time and time again, adding WikiProject and portal templates across Wikipedia, I "learned" that this action is being BOLD and not reckless. If edits aren't challenged, they typically stay. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Linking a country project to one film really is overkill and stretches relevance way too far for comfort. As to project members being "too busy", I'm never convinced. Project members are edtors, just like anyone else and have as much or as little to do as anyone else. Just because a book is written by an American (or French, or British of Outer Mongolian) author doesn't mean it automatically falls into the country-wide project, and even less so the characters of the novel, or its subsequent film and television adaptations. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Adaptations don't necessarily belong in the same projects the mother work belongs to. I tagged State Fair (novel) not as WikiProject United States but as WikiProject Iowa because the work is set in Iowa, the author is from Iowa, and reliable sources described it as an "Iowa book". However State Fair (1962 film) is set in Texas and it was only tagged as US-film. For smaller level country projects I don't think there's a controversy with tagging a Japanese film under WikiProject Japan. Howl's Moving Castle is a novel by a British author (I'm not sure how reliable sources categorize it, as I think a US company published the book first) but Howl's Moving Castle (film) is under WikiProject Japan/film and the anime and manga project as it's a Japanese anime film. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Schro here. Some country projects may include films in their scope (Indonesia, for instance), but for the US that is just too darn wide. That is why there are task forces in different Wikiprojects, for the specialised overlap. Now, as for the portal... I'd keep the number of portals limited to those of direct relevance to the article, and if necessary fewer than the number of banners on the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
For the American films, the US Wikiproject explicitly supports Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/American cinema task force (the page describes it as a joint task force between the US and Film Wikiprojects). The project template for WikiProject United States has the parameter "USfilm=?" so based on the existence of this parameter the project WikiProject United States includes American films. The same template also supports American animation, American music, etc. As for the broadness of WikiProject United States for articles about novels, etc. I often use state-level projects to compensate for that. State Fair (novel) was written by an author from Iowa and is set in Iowa, and an RS called it an "Iowa book" based on the state's influence, so I tag it WikiProject Iowa. It is not tagged WikiProject United States. I often tag in general WikiProject United States when it's unclear which state-level/city-level project would prevail. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor responded about US novels here, saying they are a part of the WPUS scope: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Do_American_novels_and_characters_appearing_within_American_novels_fall_within_the_scope_of_WikiProject_United_States.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
One IP editor with little edit history responds after five days? Hardly a resounding consensus... - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
It's the project page too, so there's relatively little participation. User:Kumioko characterized the project as dead, but the IP editor says it should be semi-active. I reminded the IP editor that queries should be responded to swiftly. Honestly I expected a bigger turnout considering over 50% of the English Wikipedia's editors come from the United States. However, nobody on the page has spoken against the inclusion. If it's two people, and nobody on the page challenges it, the two people can set a consensus until someone opposing comes in. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there is little participation if it's the project page: that should ensure the reverse. I'm also not sure that two can form a consensus if I am opposing. There is no automatic reason for a novel,to fall into a country-wide portal: that's just overkill. - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I think part of the problem has been a decline in overall editing rates. It's making some parts here "dry up" such as the Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard (See the last comment by Piotr here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Noticeboard#Comment_on_closure). Anyway, are you interested in stating your reasons for the opposition on the project page? That way it's clear there is opposition. The other way I can do it is link to your talk page and state on the project page that there is opposition. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Since on the project page 76.65.128.112 had suggested that other editors may have not been interested in the discussion, which is his belief why there were few responses, I mentioned that you were opposed to always tagging novels identified as being "American" with the US WikiProject because I had to answer why I brought up the discussion to begin with. Feel free to participate if you like. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Chris Gualtieri made an interesting post on this matter: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Future_of_the_wikiproject_system - He addressed the notion that trying to tag every aspect related to the USA is "too damn much and a completely unreasonable interpretation of the purview of the Project.", but his argument is that WP:USA needs to have a mechanism of cross-checking what is actually in the USA or what is actually relevant to the country and he states that alternatively one would either have to have many projects doing the same work or having "a national type article alerts and tracking category". WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Then tag appropriately on the Talk page, rather than clutter the article page with portal links. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Good, so there is an understanding about the number of WikiProjects. Now, portals: I do agree that portals should be, as much as possible, condensed compared to the WikiProject tagging. That is actually one of the positives of Portal:Film in the United States because it's a portal specifically just for American film. If that is the only portal on the page, I wouldn't say it's "cluttered". If need be an RFC can be opened on which portals are appropriate for "Gone with the Wind" series articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, could you please not build up an answer on a talk page by going through 8 or more separate edits? (I think 10 is your record on my page to leave one answer). Not only does this lead to needless edit conflicts, it also lights up my email with notifications, with the associated noise from my phone to tell me about it. Please in future could you draft separately if necessary (in Word or a sandbox) and use the "Show preview" button to check for errors etc. There's no rush to reply, so you can take your time to formulate a considered response to things. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep my # of edits to the minimum and make drafts. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Thank you for the Christmas wishes and for all the support that you've given us with the Chaplin article! Hope you have a very merry Christmas!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

A Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you as well, and I hope to see more of your work at the featured content processes next year. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)



Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2014!
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Gone with the Wind and film portal

Hi again. Re: Talk:Gone_with_the_Wind_(film)#Is_Portal:Film_in_the_United_States_tangential_to_this_article_or_not.3F I am still interested in adding this portal but I want to list it on the village pump for proposals and get some additional input on it. What are your thoughts on that matter? Perhaps it can clarify when and how it's appropriate to use that portal. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

RfC

Hi, SchroCat. This is a neutral notice that since other editors at In a World... are inserting their views in boldface ("Include"; "Oppose Inclusion"), it's possible you might want to do so as well for visual consistency and so that your view here is not misinterpreted or misconstrued. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Filming of James Bond

Hi! I've just run across a Walled garden of articles related to the filming of James Bond. A disambiguation article, Filming of James Bond links by decade to five separate articles, which don't appear to have any real value, as they don't say anything not already mentioned in the individual film articles. I noticed the conversation about these articles under User talk:SchroCat/Archive 6 where another user implied he'd be developing these articles, but looking through their history, they're evidently unmaintained. Given these circumstances, would you agree that these articles should be deleted? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you run it past the main editor of those articles first? We may be able to link into them appropriately from other articles and bring them into the Bond fold more appropriately. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Walpole

No, not Hugh Jampton, kindly concentrate. I have Sir Hugh up for peer review, and if you have time and disposition to look in, I shall be in your debt. Quite understand if not, naturally. – Tim riley (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I certainly shall! Not a writer I'm familiar with (no boy's own tales of daring-do seem to appear in the books section), but that will make it all the more interesting. I'm tied up with family stuff for a day or two, but will get there soon. From my side, the battle of the Horne progresses nicely (apart from the festivities getting in the way!), but the original offer to you still stands, and if you'd like to join in the fun, please feel free. Pip pip! - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

BFI Top 100 British films

You're going to hate me for this, but have the BFI granted permission to reduplicate the list? Lists with creative aspects (i.e. selection criteria, particularly "best of" lists) are copyrightable. AFI has granted permission to reduplicate their lists, but Rolling Stone hasn't... hence why Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time doesn't have the actual list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Yeah - you've probably save me a huge amount of work on digging around! I've asked MRG for a comment, and I'll ditch my draft after she's (probably) told me that the BFI have given no such permission. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I'm not familiar with any permissions from BFI on this, and the use of their list is really iffy. :( NFC forbids the reproduction of such lists where the lists have been created in a selective manner - Wikipedia:NFC#Text_2 . Note especially footnote 2, which addresses surveys. As of the entry of that note in 2011, the case law was not firmly established, and I haven't seen anything new on the subject since then. We used to recommend truncating them to the top 5 or top 10, but our attorney pointed out that this could be legally questionable, as those are often the "heart" of the work - the ones most people would want to read. Now I'm never sure what to advise. I tend to stay away from list articles myself unless they're very clear in terms of copyright (a complete list of works cited - no chance of copyright; a personal best of? Obviously is). If they show up at CP, I truncate them, regretfully, in accordance with the advice we were given. You can read a whole lot of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright in lists. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks MRG. I've dropped my workspace copy, but I'm not sure how to deal with the main article, given your comments. Maybe just trimming down to the top ten (despite the attorney's comments) may be the right way to go. It's a real shame, as I don't think this is a problem here in the UK, especially as the full list is available in the media. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

PR request

Hi, can you find some time reviewing this article. This might interest you! —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Archiving. This isn't the right place for such a discussion. Neither is the chosen venue, where the sought for neutrality will never be found, and the ridiculously intemperate language (e.g.: "anti-infobox militancy of the WP:Classical music projects, particularly opera, and their total conniption fit that some editors wanted infoboxes") is evidence enough of its unsuitability. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi there, please would you explain why infoboxes have suddenly fallen out of favour? SE7Talk/Contribs 23:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing sudden about it: the MoS has said that there is no necessity for an IB for a number of years. - SchroCat (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but how have I managed to edit since about 2006/7 or so and never come across anyone removing an infobox until you now? SE7Talk/Contribs 00:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Lots of people have added IBs, lots have taken them out. No idea why why you've never noticed before. - SchroCat (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but presumably there being "no necessity for an IB" doesn't make it wrong for there to be one? In the case of Stanley Wells, it stops the photo looking out of place, and doesn't detrimentally impact upon the page in any way I can see. It doesn't seem wrong to me that he should have an infobox. SE7Talk/Contribs 01:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Your personal opinion of whether it looks good is all very good, but not a basis for inclusion of a box. - SchroCat (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) - Generally in the case of a controversial edit (i.e. one that is reverted) the place to reach a wider consensus would be the talk page, likely with a section titled "Is an infobox preferable for this article?" or similar. Then other editors interested in the topic can comment. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
@ SE7 and Crisco 1492. Exactly right. And, if there is no general necessity for an infobox, and no proscription on using one, then the decision to add an infobox or not would be with an individual editor whose view might be different to another. As this is the case, it would be just plain courtesy to ask an article's creating editor, the editor who added the infobox, and those who have been major editors of an article, to contribute their views in the article Talk page for a consensus before any removal. This concern is best taken to Infobox Projects - I shall do so, and post a link. Acabashi (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
@Acabashi:, Right level of indignation: wrong target. This is less about the removal of an Idiotbox than SE7's addition of one (in an article that has never had an IB since it was first written in 2005), so perhaps you could have a look at the history next time you want to have a go at someone. Perhaps you should also direct your comments about discussion of the box with interested parties to SE7, as he is the one trying to alter the status quo that has existed since 2005. Still, now you've decided to canvass the project most interested in promoting the spread of the infernal things, I'm sure we'll end up with a nice, balanced and neutral discussion... - SchroCat (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It's just a matter of how we go about things, whether there are guidelines on the addition or not of Infoboxes, and whether or not there is a method of resolving contention. If an article hasn't had an Infobox since 2005 doesn't mean it isn't valuable enough to add one now - articles develop. If the things are infernal - then this should be taken up with the Infobox Project to limit them somehow. I understand that some are very sparse, and I can understand if this is your objection in the case of this article, but there are no guidelines as to how long they should be before inclusion. But fair does to you - your view might be right - a wider discussion might shed some light on this, and like you, I hope it is balanced and neutral. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I have added a discussion request here, and linked it to other MOS Project pages, so we might get some kind of consensus overview which will help us all. If it doesn't I suppose we'll just have to muddle along :) Acabashi (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXUSE does not seem strong one way or another, but, from what I've seen, generally Infoboxes always are used if possible and consensus is required to remove an infobox. On the other hand, if an infobox is placed as part of WikiProject Infoboxes and someone removes an infobox from a particular article that was placed there as part of WikiProject Infoboxes , I'd leave the infobox out and have a talk page discussion if desired. You might find more discussion on the use of infoboxes via whatlinkshere. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Acabashi, adding an infobox is NOT "development". Whether an article has an infobox or not is not a sign of that articles quality. You say "develop", develop into what? Improvement? No way! Jreferee, you say "generally Infoboxes always are used if possible and consensus is required to remove an infobox." If you want to play that old game then consensus should also be used to add an infobox in the first place. What works for one, should work for the other. -- CassiantoTalk 05:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that consensus argument could be used for any article addition or removal. @Jreferee: Thanks for this. It does seem that adding Infoboxes, or not, is a moveable feast depending on the type of article, probably length, and editor preference, with one of your links, Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes, generally discouraging them. But the overall feel seems to be that once they are there, there should be some kind of discussion over removal - a big job for those who with good faith think they should go. Not an ideal situation. My view - more specific guidelines to quote, but I bet all this has been discussed many times. Acabashi (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
No, not all things. Infoboxes are controversial and should be discussed on the talk page prior to removal or adding. CassiantoTalk 06:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I more or less agree with Cass: the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox, if it is already an established status quo (i.e. stable for a reasonable period of time... a month, maybe?), should be discussed on talk pages first. This did, after all, end up at Arbcom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This is genuinely interesting to me Crisco - can you provide a link to the Arbcom conclusions ? - if the whole thing was decided per your point, I would go along with it and start deleting with a purpose, especially if an Infobox has only just been added. The problem might be if a rogue Infobox has been added and has been there for a month or so, so becoming status quo - again I think there should be Infobox Project guidelines. Acabashi (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Here it is: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Also this link has also been added within the Talk link I gave above - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles. The problem with both of these results is that on hundreds (thousands?) of articles we could wait a lifetime before enough editors, if any, swing by to agree on a proposal to add an Infobox, and the same for removal - more explicit Project guidelines are needed. Acabashi (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pretty much it... I think that's why Arbcom decided to let consensus be established on an article-by-article basis. Any sweeping judgments would get really nasty reactions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PR request

Hope you have enjoyed your heady holidays. I have an article up for PR here, and I'd appreciate it if you could look into it. We don't have any FAs on Indonesian women yet, after all! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly will do! It may take a few days, but I'll be there some point soonish... - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep: on it this morning. I may have nothing further, but I wasn't happy with the review I did first time round as I wasn't able to concentrate on it enough first time round, so I'll have another spin. With you shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings!

Happy New Year, 2014
From Amandajm (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wells Cathedral, Somerset, photographed by Rod on a December morning

Many thanks Amanda, and the very same to you: I hope you had a good and relaxing holiday and I hope you have a great new 2014! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Mitford

Your wit and wisdom would be much appreciated at the current peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Both are in short supply in SchroCat Towers, but I'll try and get the grey cells moving in the morning for you. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
For another successful FAC with Hattie. Your efforts and determination have made it all possible. CassiantoTalk 11:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You're too kind! (and the same very much applies to you too!) - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

FAC

Hugh Walpole, fresh from peer review, is now at FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, it will be esteemed a favour. – Tim riley (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Tables

Aha! Caught in the act. I accuse you, SchroCat, of being technically competent. I therefore ask if you know how to stop the left hand column defaulting to the equator, rather than the north pole, of each cell. The rows for the short story books look very odd to me with the left hand col starting an inch below the right hand one. But perhaps you disagree? Anyway, any further adjustments you care to make to the table will be most welcome. Tim riley (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Guilty as charged, m'lud! I'll have a look at it tomorrow with a fresh pair of eyes. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
All sorted and OK now, I think... Let me know if you need some more work or tweaking done on it and I'll see what I can do! - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
That's excellent. Thank you so much, SchroCat! Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The "Hitler" comma

Happy New Year! I see you've kept busy over Christmas and I am wondering if you can do me a small favour. On Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism an editor moved a comma in the sentence about Theodor Morell. I reverted at first because it looked plain weird, but after reading it back to myself several times I have convinced myself the other editor is possibly correct. I have googled but couldn't find a definitive answer so would welcome a second opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks Crisco. Damn, I hate being wrong! Betty Logan (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep, Sorry Betty: Dub8lad1 and Crisco have called it right there... - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Lol, thanks! Betty Logan (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Lom

Hah, watching The Ladykillers now. I just realized why like a Never Say Never Again Connery and Herbert Lom always had such fine fringed hair. A toupee. Lom was virtually bald by the mid 1950s like this and he has rather less hair in 1955 than he had in the Pink Panther films! In remembering Bob Monkhouse as an older guy too, he had the same sort of hair, a toupee too I'd guess! Never something which really occurred to me. Obviously I've know for a while that Connery often wore a wig, but it's not something that is really that obvious IMO. Unlike Michael Angelo Batio...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Ladykillers is awesome! Good choice Doc! Bob is my all time favourite stand up. Forget Bob "the gameshow host" Monkhouse, his stand up was something like I have never seen before! CassiantoTalk 15:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
It is, such a great film! Did Monkhouse ever wear a wig later on though? Lom kinda looks like Yul Brynner in The Ladykillers, his foreign accent was prominent still at the time too and he had that sinister look about him back then!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Katie Johnson died not long after that film. The ending was perfect, Johnson walking off down the street to the background music of Tristram Cary. As you will probably know, William Rose wrote the screenplay; he did some great films of the 50's including another of my top 5 Genevieve. I don't know if Bob wore a wig. I don't think he did as he did go grey in the late 90s. If you have never seen him, give this a watch. On the Bond matter, would you consider Never Say Never Again a true Bond film? Broccoli wasn't involved, Connery looked too old, rehash of Thunderball are a few reasons as to why I don't. CassiantoTalk 15:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't no, but I was simply referring to his hair in it which looked a lot like Lom's in the Panther films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Gong

The Tabular Barnstar
In the absence of a specific medal for persistently rescuing superannuated librarians grappling hopelessly with tables, this will have to serve instead. Bless you! – Tim riley (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You are too, too kind! It's the very least I can do to repay all the excellent PRs and FACs you have done for me and many others. - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kenneth Horne may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Coleman Hawkins]] and his Orchestra, "[[Body and Soul (1930 song)#Coleman Hawkins version)|Body and Soul]]"; Terry Saunders, "Something Wonderful"; [[Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky]]'s ''[[1812
  • England United Kingdom. One of the most recognized and luxurious hotels on the planet. Enjoy! ) (4579989922).jpg|thumb|[[The Dorchester]], where Horne suffered his second, fatal heart attack.<

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Thanks!

Belated thanks for tactfully reverting my over-enthusiastic edit on the Kenneth Williams article re Rambling Syd recordings; my memory recalled the specifically-done-for-album version, but didn't allow for the various compilations. Gusworld (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Mitford

Courtesy call - the article is now at FAC. Many thanks for your help to date. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Kenneth Horne

Discussion moving camp from my talk page to yours for convenience. There is honestly nothing much wrong with the article. I suspect you have spent too long with nose to grindstone on it, and the article has simply gone stale on you. We all fall into that trap sometimes. Leave it for 48 hours and you will, I suspect, like it better when you come back to it. You have my candid opinion as a WP regular and a Horne fan of nearly 50 years' standing that the piece is clearly on the way to GA and possibly FA. (I have a sudden unnerving vision of the Jules and Sand version of our project, "Bonapedia", with GA replaced by Bona Article and FA by Fantabulosa. But I digress.) What you might add to give it some extra pep would be an extract or two from the scripts of Much Binding and Round the Horne which would (i) make your readers chuckle and (ii) illustrate the very different radio personas adopted by KH – the stolid, dim C-in-C looked after by the scatty Murdoch, and the benign authority figure unfazed by the galère of grotesques orbiting round him in BoK and RtH. Plenty of RtH sources available, and I can dig out a few Much Binding ones if needed. – Tim riley (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A huge relief! Many, many thanks for taking the time to go over it and I'm glad you see a possible future for it at both Bona Article and Fantabulosa! I like the ideas os selected extracts: I'll have a look at a couple of the Took books to see what he can provide us with. Failing that, I'll come knocking for yet more favours. Pip pip - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Citing radio programmes: I have a tape of a 1970s or 80s tribute to KH by Murdoch with excellent Much Binding stuff in it. I can find the date of original transmission and (with a fair bit of pushing and heaving) send you a mp3 of it, but is it admissible as a WP:RS? J Peasmold Gruntfuttock (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
A good question! I'm not sure about the transcription and whether that would be questioned. Maybe Crisco would have an opinion on the reliability? If not, there is something in Took's Laughter in the Air that may be of use. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
ps. I've added an extract from RtH here - I need to do a bit of supporting text, but the idea is there to start. - SchroCat (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the sort of thing I had in mind. Glad you agree. Covers both fronts: illustrating KH's role as imperturbable ringmaster and also making your readers laugh. You might find a place somewhere to add that he played all sorts of character roles in the film and melodrama spoofs but always sounded exactly like Kenneth Horne. Murdoch definitely said just that, though it may have been on the radio tribute, so perhaps tricky to cite. Tim riley (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Excellent to have confirmation from a third person! Thanks for that, Crisco. Tim if you can manage to send something over I'd be delighted to drop it in to the relevant spot. I think we can also use the Murdoch comment on the same basis. - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Fawlty Towers. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please remember to adhere to WP:SYBIL and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. :-] ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

eh? - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Doh! Been very slow in all quarters today - Brain working at quarter speed.... - SchroCat (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hehe. Just I saw somebody brandishing the civility stick somewhere and they actually seemed to be nagging like Sybil!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reassurance

I just want to reassure you that the Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day plan calls for us to solicit the feedback of more and more people over time, culminating in a notice on every editor's watchlist. This isn't something that's gonna happen with six people on Jimmy talk page. If the proposal gets enough support to be seriously considered, we'll want everyone to weigh in this. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Abe Waddington

If you have the time or inclination, I'd appreciate your thoughts on Abe Waddington. Another cricketer, I'm afraid! He had a peer review quite a long time ago and has changed a lot since then thanks to some useful sources. I'm wondering if it is worth having a stab at FAC. Any comments on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Always happy to read over cricketers from God's own county. Should be there in a day or so. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Abe is now at FAC here, and any further comments would be gratefully received if you have the inclination! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Thank you!

Wow! I never thought I did enough here to be awarded a barnstar. Thanks! I guess categorizing articles and fixing up sentence structure is pretty helpful after all. BTW, most of these movies I haven't even watched in quite a while; I've really just been editing based on good memory of them. I wish I could do something to help promote more of these articles to featured articles. Some of them look like all they need is a little bit of sentence improvement. Can you think of any other improvements they could use? I'm probably most interested in fixing up Die Another Day and Quantum of Solace since the more recent films are my personal favorites. Anyway, thanks again for the barnstar! Survivorfan1995 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

FLC closure

Hi, this nomination was closed ages before, but since the bot stopped working a while ago the page is yet to be archived. —Vensatry (Ping) 16:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vensatry, Yes, the bot is being problematic at the moment. I'll see what I can do. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for review

Hey, thanks for your feedback at featured list candidates, really appreciate that. If you're interested in helping me improve the list, I would be glad if you could drop by at:

and help me do a peer review. I know you're a very busy person, but if you have the time to help me out, I would really appreciate it, thank you.

-A1candidate (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Will try and get there shortly: I'm a bit tied up with work over the next couple of days, but I'll see what I can do. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Hattie Jacques

This is a note to let the main editors of Hattie Jacques know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 7, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 7, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Blue plaque marking Jacques's former residence

Hattie Jacques (1922–80) was an English comedy actress of stage, radio and screen, known to a world-wide audience through her portrayals of strict, no-nonsense characters in 14 of the Carry On films. She started her career on stage at the Players' Theatre, London, before progressing onto radio, where she appeared in three popular BBC series, It's That Man Again, Educating Archie and Hancock's Half Hour. Her cinematic debut—in Green for Danger—was brief and uncredited, but she grew to have a prolific screen career. Jacques developed a long professional stage and television partnership with Eric Sykes, with whom she co-starred in the long-running series Sykes and Sykes and a.... The role endeared her to the public and the two became staples of British television. Her private life was turbulent: she was married to the actor John Le Mesurier from 1949 until their divorce in 1965, a separation caused by her five-year affair with another man. Jacques, who had been overweight since her teenage years, suffered ill-health soon after the separation from Le Mesurier. She died in 1980 of a heart attack. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

List of works by E.W. Hornung

Hi SchroCat,

I was sorry to see that you withdrew your TFL request for List of works by E.W. Hornung. I hope that I did not discourage you with my recommendations and comments. I would be glad to help with adding links to the article if you are still interested in seeing it go up on the main page.

Neelix (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, I'm in the process of updating Hornung's main article, so the added links and navbox may come out of that process, rather than trying to force them into works that are not notable enough to merit their own page. I'll re-nom the list at some future point. - SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Goldfinger (film) - Reverted good faith edits by ClanCularius (talk): Not really appropriate.

Thank you for your feedback. I would like to suggest that my earlier edit may be seen as appropriate if I add the term "psychopath" to the article's description of the character Goldfinger and support it with a link to the academic study which documented that this character displays authentic psychopathic behavior in the film. Here's the reference:

Leistedt, Samuel J.; Linkowski, Paul (January 2014). "Psychopathy and the Cinema: Fact or Fiction?". Journal of Forensic Sciences. 59 (1). American Academy of Forensic Sciences: 167–174. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12359. Retrieved January 17, 2014. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

If that is acceptable to you, I would like to proceed by making the suggested change in the main body of the article and then re-adding the article's earlier categorization "Category:Films about psychopaths". I'll await your reply - thanks! ClanCularius (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  • If the behaviour is supported by a reliable source, then there is no problem. In this instance you added the category to the article where there was no supporting text or citation on the body of the text, which is why is was removed. I am unable to access the article, but if you could email me the relevant text I would be most interested to read it. - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Copyright concerns dissuade me from duplicating the article for you, but there appears to be an online source for viewing it, and there have been several summaries and reviews of the article in the popular online press recently (e.g., cNet, lovefraud, Quartz).
I will make changes as discussed. Thank you for your help. ClanCularius (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not around the Horne

Well, I've nominated our friend for DYK here if you want to suggest an alternative hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

TFL twice a week

Hi Schro, good news that the discussion on getting TFL twice weekly has been closed as successful. Do you have a timetable now for when you plan to roll it out? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi RM, the sooner, the better, as far as I am concerned, although it would be good to Giant's input on when and which list etc. I have no idea what technical steps are needed before we can run this. Any thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Your last post on my talk page is funny. I was thinking the exact same thing, and almost asked the same question when I posted on TFL's talk page earlier. Since we'll be going through lists twice as fast, that seems like a good idea to me. Let me create a copy of the one TFL scheduled for February and we can delete the old February TFL page and allow for a recoded page to be created. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Mitford-selective-tree1.svg

DYK for Kenneth Horne (writer)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Very cool, 3850 hits (not bad at all! especially without a lede position). I've expanded the article on Robert Farrar, if you have access to any pay sources that I can't find it would be much appreciated (though I'll be the first to admit that his work is well outside your usual area of interest). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No worries, the "deadline" for submitting to DYK is still five days away. Based on the headlining at The Old Grey Whistle Test, I should think The Mystery Girls should have some secondary sources on them, but I can't find anything online. But indeed, focus on Horne the broadcaster first! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Family Guy (season 4)

I noticed that Crisco removed the nomination that I had for the article I listed quite some time ago, but it's still running. After it has been removed, does it mean the nomination is over, because there hasn't been much reviews except for the one that was made yesterday, in which I would respond to, but I thought it would be a waste of time if the nominee is over... Blurred Lines 13:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  • We're having some problems with the bot at the moment, which is why it wasn't archived. I suggest dealing with the comments that were left—assuming they are beneficial—and then relisting the page. If you then leave a neutrally worded note on the talk page of all those who have commented previously, you will be off to a good start for the subsequent nomination. These bot issues are a bit of a pain, I'm afraid, and I've asked the bot people to look into doing something. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • What kind of neutral note do you suggest that I should type? Do I tell people that the problems that were in the article were fixed, or something? The only ones who responded, and gave specific detail about the problems was Maralia, and Dtngo. Also, when do you think it's the right time to re-nominate it? Blurred Lines 15:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If you've got no other noms running, then there is no reason to re-run straight away. For the note, I would simply state that "The nomination for FG4, upon which you commented previously, has been resubmitted. Should you have the time to comment on this once again, I would be most grateful." That should siffice. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Peer (Gynt) Review

As threatened offline, I wonder if I can interest you in a peer review of the article on Ralph Richardson? Quite understand if not, and there is absolutely no hurry at all even if you are interested. If you do look in, please run an eye over the short list of questions at the top of the peer review page, on which I'd be grateful for colleagues' thoughts. – Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_10&oldid=1151014466"