Jump to content

User talk:SchroCat/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

DB9

Hi @SchroCat:. Hope I'm not bugging you or anything but could you possibly leave some comments on this peer review about the Aston Martin DB9 article? Thanks (and don't feel obliged to.) Best,  750h+ | Talk  18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi 750h+, Thanks for the note. I'll see what I can do, but it may not be for a a few days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks SchroCat for the response. I don't mind how long you need, I'd just like to make the FAC successful. Best,  750h+ | Talk  13:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
If you're aiming for FAC, I suggest you add the PR to Template:FAC peer review sidebar, which may help get some more eyes on it. I'll review it with FAC in mind, so it may be a bit picky and long, but it's best to get the pain out of the way at PR to ensure a smoother FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, SchroCat, for your swift response. I'm happy to address the comments 😊, this being my first FA-related thing. Best,  750h+ | Talk  13:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Revert on Emily Davison

Hi, could you clarify what in the MOS you refer to? It is quite standard to capitalise when referring to the king or queen. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Output

Hello SchroCat, sorry for this. But would you like to leave your output on the AM DB9 nomination? (The source review and image review have thankfully been concluded). Best,  750h+ | Talk  10:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi 750+, I will do. I'm just leaving it open for others before I come in - partly because I've gone over it too recently and want to read with a fresh pair of eyes, and partly because I have promised a couple of other reviews first. I've got it watchlisted, however, and I will be there at some point (it's going to take six weeks or so to get through, so there's plenty of time!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh okay, thanks for the response.  750h+ | Talk  10:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi @SchroCat:, note that the nomination has three supports 😁!  750h+ | Talk  17:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Excellent. You’ve got a few others lined up to look over it too, and I am waiting for the right point to weigh in, so it’s all looking very positive at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sapper's Wife (H. C. McNeile)

According to birth and marriage records, accessible at FreeBMD, in the third quarter of 1891 Violet Evelyn B Douglas was born; in the fourth quarter of 1914 Herman C McNeile married Violet B Douglas; and in the fourth quarter of 1916 Michael A M McNeile was born to a mother with the maiden name of Baird-Douglas. It seems fairly clear from that information that her surname was not simply Baird, but Douglas, or possibly Baird-Douglas. So referring to her as simply "Baird" is erroneous. What exactly do the Sources you quote say ? RGCorris (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Well that’s a lot of WP:OR you’ve got going on. Exactly, the ONDB says “On 31 October 1914 he married Violet Baird (b. 1890/91)”. It’s possible that, as with some families, there is a difference in the names for sons and daughters. It’s not uncommon in some social circles. My family, for example, has men using double barrelled surnames, but women have the first part of the surname as the last of their forenames, and the second part of the surname as their only surname. It’s possible this is the case here. Either way, the ONDB trumps the OR and referring to her as Baird in entirely correct. - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
ps. Is there a reason we’re having this discussion on this quiet backwater of a page, rather than the article’s talk page, where other interested parties can chip in? - SchroCat (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Second FAC

Hi SchroCat (I deeply deeply apologise for the number of messages I’ve sent) but the DB9's promotion is imminent (eight supports; I pinged the FAC co-ords to ask them if it could be promoted); David Fuchs allowed me to promote another article, and so that shall be this one, the Aston Martin Rapide. Would you mind taking a look at it? Best,  750h+ | Talk  05:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi 750, I’ll try and get round to it. I’ve got a few lined up to do before I can though. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Death of Kevin Gately

Looking at the blurb at WP:TFAR. Collins (at "disorder") mentions "civil disorder", and the Cambridge Dictionary mentions "public disorder" ... do either of those work for you? (I don't like just "disorders".) - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Can we just rewrite the thing once it gets pushed over to WP:TFA? That way the final line can be dealt with too... Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
OK. As to your initial question, "disorder" wasn't right. Either civil or public has a legal definition attached to it (I think, but I may be wrong), so I just want to check that first. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick

Hello there! Thanks for your recent improvements to this page. Just so you know, there is another editor who keeps trying to revert the page back to a very old, outdated state. It doesn't make sense: That editor is trying to use an image from 2008 when there is a newer one from 2023, in addition to rejecting anything related to this guy's new profession (travel, not finance or fashion), according to various WP:RS. The version that you improved is the actual up-to-date one, so I'm re-reverting it to yours now. Please just be aware of the other editor, who is being non-responsive... Doctorstrange617 (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's one example of RS too: https://www.tatlerasia.com/lifestyle/travel/eddy-downpatrick-travel-interview Doctorstrange617 (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, I've asked the question on the talk page, which is always a good step. If he is still unresponsive, he can be dropped into ANI for disruptively deleting valid information on several occasions, but maybe there's a reason he's been doing it, so let's wait and see. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes total sense. It's just weird to insist on using old information that can clearly and easily be updated, based on a quick Google search. Appreciate your input Doctorstrange617 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Whisky_Galore!_(1949_film)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 16 June 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! With Gately you have a back to back TFA!—Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Double showing? Don't think I've had one of those before. Cheers, Wehwalt. - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Piles of stones

Morning Schrocat - hope you are keeping well. You're certainly busy! The Secretum seems to be doing just fine without my two'pennorth, but I shall offer comments re. On Her Majesty's Secret Service. If you've time and inclination, I'd very much appreciate an extra pair of eyes at the FAC for Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century. It's currently enjoying one Support, and green lights from the Accessibility and Image reviews, but comments have now slowed to a crawl. All well here, although the builders are rather distracting. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Morning KJP1, it would be a pleasure: I shall be along there shortly for a look. Great to hear all is good there, and I hope the distractions all have a silver lining! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I had a look too (it's at WP:FLC! We get ignored and/or confused with FAC a lot, and I haven't figured out yet how I feel about that ... probably proud). It looks like you're sailing to victory, but if not, give me a ping. - Dank (push to talk) 11:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Dank - My, unpardonable, error, for which I apologise! And greatly appreciate the offer. SchroCat's comments have sparked a flurry of interest, so it should be alright, but I shall certainly take up the offer if necessary. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Any time. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Secretum (British Museum)

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Secretum (British Museum), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Schro, just a note that the Aston Martin DB9 nomination passed FAC :). Thanks for the comments, I deeply appreciate them 🥰🥰 and I'll try to leave comments on any nominations you have too! Best, 750h+ 00:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Salable

Hey SC! Thanks for your fixes at PaL. In regards to your question about "salable", that's how the source spells it, and OED says that's the American spelling. The ENGVAR page says quotations should be left as-is, but if it's annoying I could paraphrase the quote around it to remove the Americanism. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi PMC, if it's what the quote has and if it's correct in AmEng, then there's no problem at all with it - I've never come across that particular difference before, so I'm glad I asked rather than just changing it! (I thought my AmEng was OK, but my latest rewrite has had to be extensively reworked by a couple of very kind Americans to ensure it's okay!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Upright

Regarding your edits at Kathleen Ferrier: can you explain what the difference is between |upright=1 and omitting that parameter? (Also: You introduced a typo for the page numbers of "Leonard, pp. 74–7, 86"; according to article history, recte "74–75, 86".) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Narwhal (again)

I see you are back to FAC. Sorry if this comment is a bit late, but I'd appreciate a review of narwhal here. Thanks for your time. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 09:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

No problems. I have a couple of other bits to sort first, but I’ll be there in a day or so. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Brighton

  • You'd probably find this interesting. Although it's a counterfactual, some of the authors are professional historians and make sound points despite arguing hypothetically. Unfortunately, in your case, the chapter is by one Simon Heffer, and— because Heffer—the entire piece is a hit job on Hezza. He doesn't look at 'what might have been' in, for example, Ireland or the north, a pretty glaring omission considering it's the basis of the chapter. It's a shame, but yeah, due Heffer, not an RS. Even so, it is good fun, and lots of names that are very much blasts from the past :)

Roberts, Andrew (2010-08-26). What Might Have Been?: Leading Historians on Twelve 'What Ifs' of History. Orion. ISBN 978-0-297-86448-6.

——Serial Number 54129 13:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Cheers SN - I've read a couple of the 'what if' books, and they're always a bit of a chuckle. The biggest laugh, however, is how Heffer is described as a "Leading Historian"! - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Indeed I had to to rewrite my message a few times so as to avoid BLPVIO etc... ——Serial Number 54129 13:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Some people don't make it easy to avoid BLPVIO! - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of On Her Majesty's Secret Service (novel)

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, On Her Majesty's Secret Service (novel), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

'Murder of Yvonne Fletcher' page

Good day.

You just reverted the edit made by DiddyOwnsYa, which I think is fair enough based on its content. I just wanted to ensure that you did not consider my subsequent edit, which has been struck through with DiddyOwnsYa's, to be disruptive, as all I did was correct that user's mistakes. I consider myself to be a very careful editor, although not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, and a strike-through edit can look as though an innocent user is at fault, especially if not explained in the edit summary.

ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

And by 'mistakes', I mean spelling and phrasing, rather than facts. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
DiddyOwnsYa is a trolling vandal who stalks me from time to time using different throwaway accounts. If you look at their history you'll see all they did was revert a series of my edits. There was nothing wrong with your edit, which certainly was not disruptive at all. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming. I'm sorry that people like that feel the need to ruin it for decent editors.
Best wishes. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Arthur Conan Doyle bibliography

I am still plugging away bit-by-bit at completing the bibliography. As always, any comments you might have on my edits there are welcome.

One question for you: ordinarily, we are told not to overlink by inserting repeated wikilinks to the same article. However, I'm not sure whether that rule fully applies to lists and tables. For example, The Strand Magazine is linked dozens of times, as are Sherlock Holmes and lots of other things. Is this desirable, in which case I'll add a bunch of links, or undesirable, in which case I'll remove many?

I'm also grappling with a more substantive question about the bibliography, dealing with the fact that many of Conan Doyle's works were published in both the UK and the US— and often around the same time in both countries. (This was especially true from 1891 to 1909, when the US copyright laws essentially required near-simultaneous publication to retain a valid US copyright.) The bibliography as currently formatted gives primary to the UK publications, which is understandable, but there are many instances in which the US version of a story or article appeared before the UK version, and others in which it's somewhat difficult to tell which publication was first. I'm still thinking through how that might best be addressed, and would welcome your thoughts on this as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi NYB, thanks for the note and I hope you're keeping well.
In terms of the links, the rules banning multiple links are normally not followed in tables (same as in IBs, etc) as they are used differently than article text is - much more about looking up singular pieces of information, rather than reading through, so the links are useful in different places. It's definitely not followed in sortable tables, as the first link will change whenever the table is re-sorted, so it's important to link them all to ensure that whichever sort is chosen, the first reference is a linked one.
There are a few different approaches you could make with the publication. One is to only list the known first edition, regardless of publishing location - this is fine if the sources are clear on which was definitely first. The other main alternative is to follow what I did with Agatha Christie and list both UK and US publications - this only works if the works are more or less parallel, as they were with most of Christie's output. If there is sufficient parallel output, then it sounds like this may be a possible option for ACD. I quote like the way the Christie Novels section looks and feels - it covers both countries and has all the relevant info that anyone could want. That may be your best bet by the sounds of it? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for a review

Hi, SchroCat! I'm Pbritti and I've nominated Free and Candid Disquisitions as my first FAC. It has two supports from both full reviewers and all image concerns have been addressed. However, given that most FACs appear to have at least a couple more supports, I'm reaching out to a number of FA regulars to ask if they have the time for a review. I'm asking you since you have experience with books (even if my FAC's subject is a much older and less narrative one than your most recent FA). I totally understand if you don't have time or interest, but any tips you can offer first-timer are more than appreciated. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that was greatly appreciated! Thank you for your comments and remedying the dashes! ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
My pleasure. Interesting article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

FAC

@SchroCat Hope you are having a wonderful day and are in good spirits. I, alongside Keivan.f, have listed the article Catherine, Princess of Wales at FAC. It would be greatly appreciated if you could leave a few comments to help further improve the quality of this already GA-class article. I assure you it will be a great read. Looking forward to your response. Regards and yours faithfully. MSincccc (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi MSincccc, thanks for your note. Sorry, but I find the topic of the royals about as tedious and meaningless as any other pointless modern pseudo-celebrity, so I'm going to have to pass on it. Good luck in your review, though. - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@SchroCat Do you know any other user(s) who might be interested? You could recommend the nomination to them. In return, I would be happy to leave comments at any future FACs in which you are involved. Thanks for letting me know of your opinion though. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@SchroCat I have pinged multiple users whose names were mentioned on the FAC mentors page. However, most of them seem to have ignored my mentions and requests. Do you have any advice or solution for me? Looking forward to your response. It would be greatly appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, have patience. FACs take up to two months, sometimes longer. Continually pinging and pressing for reviews only annoys the regulars and makes it less likely that people will spend their limited online time in reviewing your nomination. Spend your time reviewing other articles - not only will it make people more likely to return the favour, but you'll learn a lot about both quality writing and how the FAC process works. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Should I leave my comments for the article Ann Cook (cookery book writer) on its Peer Review page or on its FAC once it has been nominated? I have read it and would like to provide a few suggestions, even though Tim riley has already made excellent recommendations. It’s a good article, especially considering it comes from an area outside my expertise (cooking). However, it was an interesting read. Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The PR would be great thanks (I prefer to get everything ironed out pre-FACfor an easier and quieter process there). Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Good to see the royals getting the same respect at FAC as they get from the rest of the country! :) ——Serial Number 54129 14:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129 I know that was going to happen. If you have any suggestions, please do let me know? Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Suggestions? Well, I think Bert Baxter suggested moving them all to a council estate in Milton Keynes, which seems a good start. ——Serial Number 54129 19:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I was a little short with you

I stand by what I said and did about erasing my words on a talk page if you say I can't put them in the spot in which they're meant, but I would've said it gentler - I read your username too fast and thought you were the other guy. So, sorry. Anyway, have a good night Wikipedian339 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but you need to understand that while you have an opinion on the point, other people have the opposite but equally relevant and pertinent views. Threads on talk pages are discussions to (hopefully) come to an agreement or consensus. Discussions, therefore, need to be kept together for other editors to view. You cannot start a new thread separate from an existing one where you get to plead your point of view. It gives the impression - whether you meant it or not - of trying to stack the deck in your favour by being the only voice in the discussion. Discussions stay in the same thread. And please do not delete threads or comments on article talk pages: that is forbidden. Of use may be the policies and guidelines, which can be found at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and wikipedia:Etiquette. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

On Her Majesty's Secret Service at TFA

Recenseo, tueor: I'm guessing edit or review, and the other one I had to look up ... protect? Anyway, is this a good time for a TFA run for On Her Majesty's Secret Service? How about July 3? - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dan, Sounds OK to me. Do you want me to run up the blurb? (and yes - it means 'I write, review, protect') Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes please! - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Good time for Secretum (British Museum) as well? Say, on the 22nd? - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Yep, no problems. - SchroCat (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Changed my mind on Secretum, I need a Byzantine empress this month instead, but I'm sure we'll run Secretum soon, it's too good to pass up. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
No problems. At least a draft blurb is ready for next time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of John F. Kennedy document hoax

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, John F. Kennedy document hoax, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Elinor Fettiplace

@SchroCat While I have taken a considerable interest in the article (especially after going through your work at Ann Cook and Hannah Glasse, I am presently busy with a GA review and schoolwork. Hence would you mind me leaving comments at the FAC itself (when you list it there) ? Looking forward to knowing your response to the above.

Furthermore, congratulations on yet another successful FAC nomination. Regards MSincccc (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat Are articles related to cookery one of your major interests here on Wikipedia? Apart from it, which other categories are you interested in? I would be glad to help (though I am myself very much unfamiliar with cooking in real life until now). Looking forward to your responses. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
It’s one area I’m interested in, yes. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Template for converting historic monetary values into present-day values

Hi Schrocat - I know I've seen articles where you've used the conversion tool that takes, say £50,000 in 1956, and gives a present-day approximation of value. But can I find the bloody tool! No I can't. Can you remind me where to locate it. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi KJP1, The details are all at template:Inflation/year. I've got one at note A of the first paragraph here with all the other wording. It's not always necessary, but I think it better to identify it's the CPI measure rather than anything else. There's a separate template at Template:Pounds, shillings, and pence for anything in LSD. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
¡Muchas gracias! - just what I needed. I shall try and make a note, so that I don't forget again. KJP1 (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Ann Cook (cookery book writer)

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Ann Cook (cookery book writer), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Private Case

Reading James Pope-Hennessy's, blessedly brief, biography of Lord Crewe, I find this reference to his father's library; "Not unnaturally, [Crewe] omits to mention the large and famous collection of pornographic and sadic literature which old Lord Houghton had lovingly assembled. This portion of the library Lord Houghton's heir made haste to sell". Our article on Monckton Milnes says he bequeathed his porn to the BM, but he obviously held back a bit! Might be worth a mention? All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this, KJP: I'll have a dig around and see what there is that we can add. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi KJP1, I’ve done some digging on this, and I can’t find any reference to him giving any part of his library to the British Museum. The information isn’t supported by the citation in the article either, unfortunately. He did hold an extensive collection of erotic works, there’s ample proof of that, but it doesn’t look like the BM was the recipient of any of it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Bernadette Peters

I'm not sure this edit is necessary -- Playboy regularly featured non-nude celebrities. But I'm not strongly against it. What do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s possibly worth leaving it there. There will be a fairly large number of people who have never read Playboy and don’t know that it also featured non-nudes. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy document hoax scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 23 August 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog. - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

OHMSS

Great work on the novel for FA! I have not read it-- I've read Casino Royale and Live and Let Die. Seen all the films and OHMSS (1969) is my favorite. Cheers, Jip Orlando (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks! If you enjoyed the film, you'll enjoy the book: the film is the closest adaptation from the book of all the Bond films. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

The guide you cited (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Countries_and_multinational_unions) literally says: "Using United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style, and is an opportunity for commonality." Ippantekina (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I've replied on the article's talk page, which is where the discussion should take place, rather than this quiet backwater. The fact you've just copied here what you've already posted at the talk page is a bit bemusing, but maybe just let the conversation proceed there. - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Elinor Fettiplace

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Elinor Fettiplace, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Email

Hi, can you resend the email - it didn't get through but it worked for me. Graham Beards (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Graham, resent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh

Hi, thank you for reverting my flawed edit just now. I had tried and failed to reinstate the correct musical notation, which your recent extensive edit (very good work in most respects) overwrote with the wrong version. I will edit one more time to display the correct version Much_Binding_theme_song.jpg ... please would you not revert that. If in doubt, please find an audio recording of the show, and compare my version with that. Thanks! Ptelford (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear, I should quite possibly stfu at this point instead of sticking my oar in but here is my unsolicited and possibly unwelcome offering:
  1. I think that Ptelford is broadly correct about the rhythm
  2. I think that Tim riley's older version, whilst rhythmically erroneous, is mostly more nicely typeset. Ptelford's, with the greatest of respect, does not look so good in terms of its musical layout, its greater accuracy notwithstanding.
  3. I don't understand why we've typeset it in 2/2 rather than the perhaps more obvious 4/4. Can you hear that? I cannot, though I was always pretty rubbish at ABRSM aurals. It can go at a not unreasonably fast ~144 in 4/4 or a somewhat languorous ~72 in 2/2. Why is the latter preferable? Or has someone (Tim??) seen a published edition in this time sig? Clearly we would defer to the composer's intentions ...
  4. Isn't there a dotted rhythm on the last beat two notes in the bar, on the words "in the"? I've listened to it rather a lot since I saw this conversation and I am sure I can hear it.
What this is all leading up to is a feeling that I could have a go at it and offer you something which I feel improves on what we have in the above respects. Shall I? I don't want to be annoying but it's just the sort of thing that interests me. DBaK (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Please do. It is well over 60 years since I was taught music theory, and I shall be v. happy to have my amateur effort replaced by something more professional. Tim riley talk 09:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Tim! I already know about your generosity of spirit but that's a very nice reply. I might have a bash at it. Further assumptions:
  1. leave it in C, actual key notwithstanding, for a spectrum of good reasons;
  2. I might do versions in both time sigs then others can debate;
  3. I could nail it down further by buying the sheet music but I feel that the expenditure is a bit OTT for a rather marginal matter.
Cheers, DBaK (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I've had a go. The one I have put in initially is in 4 and has the dotted rhythm. All four variants are, however, available as:
In the nature of things, and what with all life being a disappointment, these files are also not as good as I would like them to be! Gah. I had forgotten what a Royal Pain ITA it is doing lyrics in Sibelius, and I have spent years now failing to learn Dorico. despite my belief that it might eventually make things easier. Nevertheless, here they are as a try. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
That's excellent - many thanks DBaK! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Glad you like it. DBaK (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Hi SC, just as a friendly warning, I'm hoping to have Corleck Head ready for a PR in early September and would be most appreciative if you could give some feedback. I badly need a skilled copyeditor to fix all the brogue-isms, and to spot gaps in coverage, and stuff. Just also, DBaK, I'm also going to tap you for help if thats fine; you always have intelligent things to say, with charm and wit, and hope this might interest you. Yes I am shameless. Ceoil (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

LOL! Shameless is sometimes the only way to go. I'd be delighted to help out - just let me know when it's good to go and I'll be along. Tim can normally be cajoled into helping out too in a worthy cause, so I'll nag him to join in too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks am delighted; now have the potential of 3 heavy weights. Frankly, with my spelling ability, and, lack of understanding of, punctuation I, need it. Ceoil (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Ceoil – I'm certainly a heavyweight ... just not intellectually, but ho hum. I will nevertheless try to have a look in and see if I can blunder around causing as little damage as possible. Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I clicked on the link, expecting to find an article about a feature of the coastal landscape. But it's not that sort of head! Looking over the prose now and will report back on the article talk page. Tim riley talk 14:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing removed

Token of appreciation: vandalism content removed
A small, but big appreciation for reverting vandalism on my talk page so quickly. Thanks for that :) 
Tonkarooson (discuss). 05:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You're very welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

P. G. Wodehouse

Hi SchroCat I had exactly that ("retaining his British one"), but then the use of one sounded a bit odd to me at that moment. So thanks, this confirms that one is okay in such a case. Keep up the good work. Cheers from a freakishly cold Johannesburg! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No probs, and thanks for the tweaks. Cheers from a freakishly hot London! - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Murder of Yvonne Fletcher

Hi SchroCat, you said the sentence I added "raises more questions". Which ones ? And thanks for the reworking, sorry English is not my native language. Rob1bureau (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Mostly they will ask about the guesswork involved. You said that that the delay was "Wholly or partly accountable": was it wholly or partly; what other factors would have led to the delay; does GCHQ not have night staff (given spying and eavesdropping is a global, 24-hour business); do computers not work overnight; what is the credence of the information? All these went through my mind straight away and none of them are answered. - SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Troika (1969 film)

I would really appreciate your view on this FAC. As a disclaimer am totally a fanboy of this type of horror, so perhaps biased...although I contributed nothing to the content I have been advocating; shameless and brazenly. Know you are always busy, but asking all the same. Ceoil (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, No probs. I'll add it to my list to review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for John Gardner (British writer)

John Gardner (British writer) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It might have been better if you'd have left a message here before opening the GAR. A fifteen minute blast has added relevant citations, which kind of makes the whole reassessment a bit moot. - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of 1858 Bradford sweets poisoning

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, 1858 Bradford sweets poisoning, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Brighton hotel bombing

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Brighton hotel bombing, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cerro Panizos/archive1

Greetings, since you took part in the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Hudson/archive1 I was wondering if you had any thoughts on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cerro Panizos/archive1, especially the disagreement between me and David Fuchs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Inquire

Hi. I went here instead at UC's talk page since I will set up a peer review again maybe next month and ping UC, Fuchs, and also you. But, I wanted to let you check if the reception section has improved or are you satisfied with it? Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Ken "Snakehips" Johnson TFA

Thanks for all of your work on the Ken "Snakehips" Johnson article and congratulations on it being today's featured article. It's an extensive article on a very interesting man. —  AjaxSmack  15:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! It was an interesting and enjoyable one to write too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Re

Re: this, I did not know there was a bot tracking that! Thanks for reverting the edit and sorry for the trouble. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

No problems at all - it catches us most people at some point! It popped up on my watchlist as I'll be leaving comments in the next day or so. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Elizabeth David & Charles Gibson Cowan

Re your edit of [[1]], many thanks, but not referencing GC’s two books somewhere is surely an omission (even if cited in the biographies); no one wanting a deeper insight into ED’s early Med experience will want to overlook the former book, and the latter is significant for GC’s obvious continued affection for her. Perhaps these refs can fit in another footnote? Can I also mention that Note 4 makes a ref to GC’s ‘memoir’ but I can’t find it cited anywhere? Thanks again.Riga-to-Rangoon (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, there are MOS breaches and too much WP:original research to include in any article, let alone a WP:featured article. It also does not help readers gain any understanding of ED. - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with SchroCat. The two biographies of ED run to 364 and 484 pages and can accommodate peripheral information of this sort, but in an article of 10,000 words we have to focus as strictly as we can on the essential narrative. Tim riley talk 19:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

What's FAC like these days?

Coming out of seven years of "retirement", I've got a couple things in the pipeline for a potential FAC – right now, The Great Mecca Feast and The True Record. What's FAC like these days? Based on the two reviews I've done so far, it doesn't look like it has changed, but standards can change a lot in a decade.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I don't think there's been any major changes in that time - although it's difficult to judge if there have been a lot of incremental changes that all add up to anything major. Maybe it's fair to say that it's much as it was, but just "more so": a slight ratcheting up of standards here and there across the board without anything fundamental to affect things. Best thing to do is to pick the stronger of the two and pitch it in to see how it goes. I'd be happy to do a pre-FAC PR if you're up for it, and I'm sure I can rope in Tim to assist too, if that sounds okay? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Yeah. I'm not in a rush - I just pushed them to GAR, and I'm seeing that some articles are waiting there for six, seven months. I know that DYK has been cracking down on quality issues, and it appears that POTD has put more emphasis on article quality than it did before. I'm still a decent writer, even with my new job having nothing to do with writing (government clerk :/)... it's just the access to sources that has changed massively in the past few years.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Peter Jay (diplomat)

On 24 September 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Peter Jay (diplomat), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of You Only Live Twice (novel)

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, You Only Live Twice (novel), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Maggie Smith

Dear SchroCat, I have blocked ‎Spectritus for 24 hours for edit warring. Without wanting to sound patronising, it takes two to tango. Should they return to the page, please do your utmost to engage them on the TalkPage. If the problem persists, please contact me if you think I can help. Graham Beards (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Graham. I opened a new thread after the last revert in an attempt to stop any further disruption. I hope he joins in to discuss, rather than trying to force the issue. - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth I agree with you and will go and say so on the talk page later but it's not a hill I would pick to die on. Graham's words are wise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Cheers Harry. (And Graham's words are always wise!) - SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Gao Qifeng/archive1

Hi Schrocat! Guess I'm on the Peer Review board sooner than I expected... I didn't think I'd get the one English-language source I wanted, and have the GA review, in the same day. As we were discussing a couple weeks ago, I'd appreciate it if you could have a looksie at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gao Qifeng/archive1. This will likely be my first attempt at an FAC since my unretirement.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chris, no problems: I'll try and get round to it today or tomorrow - please ping if I forget! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick

Hello there, it looks like the disruptive editors are back to this page now? Why was the more recent image removed? That makes no sense... Doctorstrange617 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The more recent image was deleted at Commons unfortunately, so I put the old one back as it's the only option there is. The disruptive editor you see on there wasn't targeting the article, but was targeting me - they appear every so often, revert a stack of my edits and leave obscene edit summaries. Petty, pathetic and sad really! - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, no! I'm sorry to hear that. So annoying there are editors like that out there... Doctorstrange617 (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
For getting two articles promoted to FA within less than 12 hours. Nobody I know of has ever accomplished such a feat before! FrB.TG (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks FrB.TG! Just checking back, it’s (somewhat surprisingly) only the third closest pair of promotions I’ve had. I’ve had a sixteen minute gap when John Gielgud was promoted at 23:12 on 19 August 2014 and George Formby at 23:28, but even that pales compared to Laurence Olivier being promoted at 22:25 on 14 February 2015 and Casino Royale (novel) a staggering two minutes later at 22:27. All three of the pairs have included a co-nom with the wonderful Tim riley, which is the key to much of the success. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
The Barnstar is appropriate even though SchroCat doesn't live in Barnes. I've co-nommed over the years with several superb editors, notably with the beloved and achingly missed Brian Boulton, but SchroCat is my most frequent co-nom now and I count myself lucky to work (and have lunch) with him. Tim riley talk 21:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure lunch with the two of you would be entertaining. Do let me know if either of you ever venture to the south coast. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Definitely! And let us know if you're ever up in London too - it would be great to meet up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I second that motion. Tim riley talk 18:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Hmmm... I was toying with the idea of going to the London meetup on the 13th if either of you are around. I've been trying to get a semi-regular meetup going in Brighton as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
That's my brother-in-law's wedding that weekend, so I'm expected to attend various bits and pieces throughout. I'd rather be down the pub though... - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Another time then! I'm sure I can find an excuse to nip up to the big smoke. While I'm here, are you able to access the ODNB online? My library access isn't working (although it might be because my address for it is a couple of years out of date). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Harry, Yep - I can get that: let me know what you're after and I'll ping it through. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Could you send me Lutyens' entry please? And that for Sir Charles Monro, 1st Baronet? Thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Harry, both sent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Much obliged! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Littlehampton libels

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Littlehampton libels 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Secretum

Please see my reply to your message on my talk page. Zaslav (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Brighton hotel bombing

Congrats on the main page appearance today. A difficult article to get through FAC...was and remain impressed. If we had Wiki in the early or mid-90s it would have been a brutal review haha; the article and its review remind me once again how much the two countries have reconciled since the Good Friday Agreement. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree - I don't think I could have done this back then - far too many keyboard warriors would have jumped on it. As it was, there was only one bit of nationalistic vandalism yesterday, which I was surprised about - I thought it was going to be a bumpy day with complaints we hadn't called Magee a terrorist or put in condemnatory language about the IRA or the bombing - again a sign of changing times, I hope! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I was also surprised at how smooth its ride on the front page was. It gives hope that one day we might be able to write dispassionately about thing like the Arab-Israeli conflict. And it encourages me to write more articles on the Troubles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Balcombe St is still on my list to do - probably early next year, although I'm flexible on it! - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
It's still on mine. I'm in the market for a project but I have a few smaller things lined up so early in the new year could work well. I've always thought there's scope for a broad article on the SAS's role in the Troubles as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_34&oldid=1251903866"