Any chance you and page stalkers could give this a read and post some feedback on the talk page. It gets over one million hits a year and I really think it would be good to get up to FA status. It needs to be treated as fairly as other articles, I think we can get it up to FA status with some decent input.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
When you have a moment free perhaps?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, sorry doc – a couple of outbreaks of foolishness got in the way, but I'll be there shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Another list of Somerset scheduled monuments at FLC
As you have previously commented on one or more of nominations of the lists of scheduled monuments in Somerset, I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look at the List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset which is now nominated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset/archive1?— Rod talk 21:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey. I'm worried that Crisco isn't actually up to par for reviewing FLCs, judging by how contradictory and misinformed he has been on my nomination. I think it's really worrying that an FLC delegate doesn't read comments and makes contradictions as a result. — ₳aron 00:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Aaron, I'm going to give you the same advice I give to all people who have issues with their reviewers: try to work with them not against them. They also have the article's best interests at heart. Crisco is an experienced FL writer and reviewer, not some newbie on his first edits who doesn't know the ropes, and it is worth you considering his points carefully. Have you considered that, for example, the lead may actually be too long? I look at some of the bits I've done and I see that The Smiths discography (four studio albums, one EP, one live album, ten compilation albums, twenty singles, one video album and fourteen music videos) was covered in a 354-word lead. John Gielgud's eight-decade career was summarised in 291 words, so nearly 600 words to deal with less than 40 songs in four years could be seen as being heavy. That's just an example. Try to look at it from a neutral point of view (always difficult, I know when it is your own work under the microscope): if someone else had provided this length of lead for such a short career, what would be your impression? I've worked with you both, so I consider myself a neutral honest broker here, but I do think that the lead comes off as too heavy: it's supposed to summarise the list that follows, not nearly replicate it. If it helps, take a day or two away from the article and the review and come back and read it with a fresh mind on Sunday evening or something. Try and look at it neutrally, taking into account comments that have been left in the best of faith, and ask yourself for each sentence or phrase if it is really needed. This may not be the response you hoped for, but I hope it is of assistance. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I'm fully aware of who he is and what he has done, but the fact is that I can't work with someone who isn't paying full attention to what I'm saying and getting his facts wrong. Just because he is an experienced FL writer and an FLC delegate, it doesn't mean that I have to take everything he says as gospel and agree with him. As far as I'm aware, we write lists on very different subjects, so we most probably have different ideas of how to best write an article for the topic we are writing for. I am trying to take a neutral stance, but I genuinely don't see what he is saying. I don't a think a "one size fits all" approach can be applied to all leads in lists. — ₳aron 09:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Aaron, I'm sorry, but I don't think you're paying full attention either, so I'll be more clear. I agree with Crisco: the lead is about 150-200 words too long for my liking. – SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Have another look. — ₳aron 09:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015
Arbitration case request declined
Hi SchroCat, the Arbitration Committee has declined the Infoboxes II arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 06:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. It was a spurious and vexatious case request, based on a falsehood, and the committee have consigned it to an appropriate fate. - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Schro, since you nominate so much, wonder if you ever read this here.... We had issues for long time - lack of people voting and good nominations never getting promoted because of lack of interest in voting. Still, I notice a tendency of only nominating but not participating in voting on others nominations. It would be nice if you, who nominated so many great pics lately could do that, like take a round like every third day or so, check out what's up... It looks like we are still having about the same issues as than. Hafspajen (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I do vote, but tend to do it in batches every week or so (although not always - I managed to do this one(!) this morning). There's no need to do it more often, as they noms are there for 11 days at a time, so weekly means I get to cover most of those I feel suitable. - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- That was nice. Once a week is a god start... Later you can go maybe twice a week? Until you get addicted... Hafspajen (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:VW-Vincent.jpg ... you won't get a next chance... Hafspajen (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
||The Photographer's Barnstar
|For your efforts to increase our resource bank of quality paintings. Thankyou Sir! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost, 1 April 2015
Spectre (2015 film) See WP:SPOILERS: we do not censor things, especially minor details.
I understand current Wikipedia policy on spoilers, but can you take a look at my comment here:
What about just moving possible Spoilers at the Very End for Recent Released Movies?
What would be wrong with just including spoilers at the very end of an article instead of at the very beginning in this case at the very top in the Casting.
Should the Casting info just be about the cast anyway and not about what happens to them?
Just my opinion on the matter and curious on your thoughts on the matter too.
Have a great day!
Brian DavisKbdavis07 (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- My answer on the Spectre talk page stands: there are lots of reason why this won't work, not least of which is that we're an encyclopaedia, and have formats for laying out articles that does,not,mean dumping "spoiled" information into a generic trivia section at the bottom of,articles: it goes where it's most appropriate in an article. – SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)