Jump to content

User talk:SchroCat/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda

Martinevans123 (Santa's Hard Brexit Grotto) ... sends you ...


... warmest seasonal wishes for ...... Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

Merry Christmas Baby... and hoping that you have a good New Year  !!

Who is it that really causes problems at IB discussions?

Bishonen, Worm That Turned, I'm staying out of the voting and to-do at Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement (I made a brief interlude to stop the storm that was raging over the initial BRD kerfuffle, but that's all), but it's amazing how may IB warriors have turned up ("the same old crowd" of pro-box regulars, even the ones who say they "don't take part in IB discussions", etc). To the best of my knowledge none of these have edited the article before and none of them are regular editors of theoretical mathematics articles. Isn't it amazing just how they find these things out. I said all this at the last ArbCom, but no-one paid the slightest attention.
This time not one of the supposedly disruptive "anti-IBers" has turned up, just the people who regularly work the article and on the field of theoretical maths. And yet still the topic has turned into a toxic dump. I wonder where the finger will be pointed this time? A fiver says it's not towards the IB regulars who make the top right hand corner such a battleground in so many places. How many times do we have to see such behind-the-scenes co-ordinated action go on by the same group? - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat. I am one who turned up at this article; no one contacted me behind the scenes and to make such a sweeping statement isn't very fair. I supported you recently because I try to be fair and honest with my dealings with everyone even if I don't always agree with them. I say that not for some kind of credit but because the fact that I watch almost 700 pages means I see a lot of articles, and if I can say something, I feel, is on some small scale useful I say it. I'm sure little of what I say is helpful but I always give it a shot if I am convinced in what I have too say. The IB wars are that way when editors attack other people not because we don't agree. We do not have to agree. And as an educator I feel IBs have place and one of those places is in an academically driven topic area. You don't have to agree with me and that is fine but opinion becomes a war when things get personal. You might look at where the attacks began for starters. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at it, the attacks started when the person who removed the IB (correctly, under BRD), was given such a hard time for doing so, it's quite understandable why he reacted (and still reacts) like someone who came under attack. Such concerted approaches on single articles en masse will always get people's backs up. Is it really worth all the grief just to own that little piece of real estate on the top right hand corner? How many people have to be blocked, banned, driven away for coming to the end of their patience with the slow-moving bulldozer of IB pushing? - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think, in my case, at least, that it's about ownership. It's about accessibility for people who learn in a very specific way- from general to specific. I learn that way, choreograph that way, paint that way, direct that way so I have a sense of what happens when a topic area can feel restrictive simply because of the way my brain functions. And I've learned the hard way through trial and error that people learn in many ways with nuances that can be unique. People do get their backs up when edits are changed and people can be expected to feel attacked. I'm not sure what the answer is but understanding each other or trying to might be a start. I'm working on that myself not always successfully. I don't have any answers but at the moment given my RL stuff I tend perhaps to be less patient when accused. Best wishes. Honestly. No sarcasm meant. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I have heard about the accessibility point before (normally without evidence, just the claim), but that only works (if true) on subjects where the IB is useful and relevant. Looking at the proposed boxes at FLT, none of them actually explain what the theorem is, or provide any basic understanding about the topic. A newbie coming to the discussion for the first time (much like the IB warriors have done) will come away with absolutely no understanding about what FLT actually is, or what it means, or why it is or is not important. For that you need context, and if there is one thing an IB does not give, it is context. There are several places where IBs are excellent and useful, several where they are imperative, several where they are grey areas and several where they provide no assistance whatsoever, but only add to the confusion of what is a complex topic. FLT is one of those where an IB is more harmful to understanding than the absence of one. Context and subtlety are what are needed with theorietical maths, and IBs are the polar opponents of both subtlety and context.
I understand why IB warriors constantly push for boxes on biographies (one of the grey areas where I think there needs to be thought put into whether they are useful or not, as some are, some are not), but this is a(nother) bad place to try and pitch yet another pitched battle over the top right-hand corner, and with so little benefit or gain to the overall IB push.
I understand when you say that this is one of the pages on your watchlist, but I really do think it stretches belief that so many IB pushers "happen" to have that page on their watchlist, despite never having been near it in the past. Funny how these things happen, I guess. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The page wasn't on my watch list but a comment on a talk page I did have watched listed led me out of curiosity to see what was going on. When I saw the RfC I felt I had a position to state. The IB even with limited information can be all that is needed to crack open a door for learning. The IB is the gateway that allows the reader to begin rather than feel turned away. I've been teaching for a long time and have seen first hand how students access information differently. I'm sure many others have teaching experiences as well so I'm not saying I have some insight others don't, simply that this has been my experience. I'm also not saying this is the best place for an IB just that for some readers it can be useful. And if it can be useful to some, why not? I believe I can understand the frustration and the position you hold I also see the other side which has equal validity. I have no idea what the answer is. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Rereading this I may be causing confusion and I don't want to be misleading. The article itself was not watchlisted but a talk page was watch listed with a comment that led to this article. As often happens I see a comment and wonder what its about and so follow it. Anyway I guess the point is I at least was not cooking up something behind the scenes. People disagree and in this case strongly. I don't have time or stomach for back room deals and in the end I don't care much about outcomes. Just doing what seems right at the time. And apologies if my comments were confusing. Littleolive oil (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
As I've just written below in long format, not everything can be broken down into factoids without starting to mislead or confuse, and Fermat's is one of those. (I didn't want to get into the discussion about boxes generally or in the specific - I have had to deny a troll trying to needle me to do just that recently, but as you've raised it, it's a good example to use). I looked at the suggested boxes on the Fermat talk page, and I was more confused by what I saw there than when I arrived. That's a brilliant reason for an IB: confuse the living daylights out of readers so they are forced to read the text to gain a measure of understanding. I'm not sure I'd agree with that! Yes, you are right that people access information differently, but the "information" on Fermat's, for example, is just misleading. It doesn't actually aid the novice trying to find out what it is, nor help those who understand the concept, nor the expert. You have to wonder what the actual point of having it is. But the IB pushers who have managed to drive away one of the editors of maths articles won't care about any of that. As long as that little piece of real estate is in their hands, it doesn't matter how many Purgys have to be forced off the project. - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I did raise this as a response to an accusation. SchroCat as long as I or anyone else I find on Wikipedia is, I feel, treated unfairly I will respond and I will defend myself or them. Its that simple. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Just in case I have to justify how I arrive at an article: I met the discussion on the talk of RexxS, and then Purgy Purgatorio came to my talk page. I gave him some advice, still on his talk page but seemingly not understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure? Purgy's first ever post on Rex's talk page was 08:55, 26 February 2019‎. The thread on your talk page was 11:10, 26 February 2019. Your first input on the page was 15:58, 25 February 2019: the day before either of those postings. Amazing how these things work out.
Purgy is now on an indef block, and aggressive IB pushing claims yet another scalp, while the maths project (and the project as a whole) have lost a good editor in a field we don't have enough editors in already. Can you really not see the cause and effect between the aggressive pushing of the ownership of the top right hand corner and editors being pushed to the point where their patience vanishes? Shabash to the cabal in getting rid of another irksome editor. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
My memory is bad, sorry, so is my reading ability, and my English. I am not aware of "aggressive pushing" - please explain what you mean by that. I will not stop saying that a hint in the top right corner about where and when to place a subject in history is desirable and makes a topic more accessible, and not only for "idiots", See Beethoven. Not about his genius which also the prose can't capture. I am able to bite my tongue when I know authors will not listen (see FACs Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Berlioz, Rossini, "your" horse). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
As I said - amazing how these coincidences that you just happened to look at that page just after the thread had been opened. How lucky it was for you.
Please don't insult my intelligence - or yours - by saying your English is not good enough. Anyone who has written 2 or 3 FAs, as you have, will easily be able to understand something as relatively simple as "aggressive pushing". It's not an excessively difficult phrase to parse. Google translates it to "aggressives Schieben", which you will be able to understand well enough along with the original English. It is what is happening yet again at the Fermat's page, just as it has happened over so many other pages. The "usual suspects" turn up and it turns toxic. Except that here the only "usual" people to turn up are those guilty of aggressive pushing to own that top right-hand corner. It's a group that does not care what it destroys in the process, does not care for the collegiate approach or for gentle consensus building, but in the aggressive push, bulldoze and dominate approach to their pet plan. You don't care that someone is now indef blocked, or that you collectively have caused several people to walk away from the project at your approach. To you all they were the annoyance that got in the way of an inflexible mindset and unbending combative tactics that is prepared to destroy anyone or anything to get its own way. At some point, when the numbers of people you have all driven away get too high someone might take note of it, but with a couple of pro-IBers on ArbCom who are prepared to ignore your collective actions, sadly it will be too late for many, and all that will be left are the boxes that don't help, don't aid, don't provide the right information, don't enlighten or educate to do anything but mislead and add confusion to the readers.
Fermat's is one such box. Too many knee-jerk votes on that page by people who roll up, paste their usual Support vote to include a box who know fuck all about the subject, what it is, or how to describe it. Looking at the suggested boxes on that talk page, I was more confused than when they were not there. At some point the penny will drop that not everything can be broken down into factoids or "data" or however you want to dress it up. Not everything in life can be displayed in a table without leaving readers more confused than when they arrived, but congratulations on driving another editor to the point of anger and upset that he says something he would not have done otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry to have driven you to anger, and don't accept the "congratulations". I have not supported the block of Purgy, although I confess that I disliked some of his comments such as about my attention span. I don't think you and I expect the same things from an infobox, but it seems not the right time to discuss that today in the gentle consensus-building I'd appreciate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I am always angry when a co-ordinated push by the massed ranks of IB pushers ends up with another editor blocked or walking away. I really don't know why the box is worth more than other editors to you and your cabal, but it's a sickening sight to watch - nothing more than pack mentality, isolating one editor who over-reacts and then driving them to the point where an ANI case can be filed against them and they get blocked. Brilliant. And if you get to have what will be a pointless box that confuses much more than it explains, that'll be their epitaph for you, and Purgy will have been forgotten by the IBers as yet another blip that got in their way to ensure boxes proliferate regardless of the inherent faults they have. Con. Grat. U. La. Tions. Well done. The prize for the most disruptive co-ordinated group on WP is all yours: enjoy it while there are still editors around to give a toss. - SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
no --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

The London Transport Barnstar
Awarded with appreciation for taking Marchioness disaster and Sinking of SS Princess Alice to Featured Article. Congratulations. DavidCane (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

English understatement

This might be my favorite article ever. --valereee (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Diamonds Are Forever (novel)

Our disagreement started on your persisting in dating the photo, despite the racetrack grandstand not particularly changing over the years. Thus making the date irrelevant. Fleming and Bond are quintessentially 1950's, It throws the reader out of the narrative, too see a 1907! Fleming wasn't even born yet. In any event, the photo doesn't even have a "Bond feel to it" whereas File:SaratogaRaceCourse.JPG does. Regards Broichmore (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Two Bond TFAs in a fortnight! Are they to become almost weekly instalments? Congrat.s and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I do hope not! Still, Eliza Acton has her place up front in ten days or so, which is one to look out for - there's some crumbling ruin the following day, I see. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
KJP1 and his piles again, eh  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 19:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
LOL! - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Mounted police at the 1979 Southall riots.png

Notice

The file File:Mounted police at the 1979 Southall riots.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No longer needed

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Blair Peach

Do you expect to be done with your edits to Death of Blair Peach in time for the 40th anniversary of his death? If so, I'll be sure to include it on WP:Selected anniversaries/April 23, unless the article is planned to appear in another Main Page area then. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 18:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Howcheng, I probably won't be finished, but I will have it to a decent enough standard to pass muster, with what is there cited and free of tags. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Good enough. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 15:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Howcheng, with the exception of the under construction tag at the top of the article, the rest is OK for the front page (please let me know if I've overlooked anything and I'll sort it by the 23rd). I'll be adding more to the article in the meantime, but this will all be up to scratch with citations, sources etc, so it shouldn't be a concern. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Help?

long time, someone are buried in California but they not. can you remove resting place on deaths details name James Ellison (actor)? they found source resting place that hes not in his funeral and service, cremated at the sea. Ryan Pikachu (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Lucy Barfield

Concerns have been raised on Talk:Lucy Barfield. Can you take a look at things please? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Well, at least no-one's questioned her notability yet; that'll be where the real problems start  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I don’t really have much interest in the subject, but I think they have a point: there is way too much non-neutral ‘gushing’ prose. - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Bhagat Singh/archive1

Hello there, SchroCat. How is everything going with yourself? Good I hope. I've nominated this film article about the life of the Indian freedom fighter Bhagat Singh starring Ajay Devgn as the titular character. As always, your comments would be most welcome and beneficial to the overall improvement of the article. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

P. S. I didn't notice you were The Bounder until today and that I had the honour of reviewing your GA nominations of Christmas Carol and Kind Hearts and Coronets. I was really happy to do the reviews for them BTW.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments so far, SchroCat. I've managed to resolve them. As for the last comment, 1 shows it as one of Ajay Devgn's best films while 2 and 3 list it as one of the best films to watch on Republic Day and Independence Day of India respectively. 4 shows it as one of, if not the best movie, on the revolutionary. Should this suffice as I can't find anything on the DVD release.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I've included a paragraph as per your suggestion at the FAC. Do let me know if there's anything else, SchroCat. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Crécy

Hi SchroCat. I trust that things are well with you. Just aeads up. You seemed enthusiastic regarding this, so advance notice that it will be going to GAN later today or sometime tomorrow. Still a work in progress, but it is about there GA wise. If you would like to assess it, let me know and I will ping you. I am not attempting to pressure you, but I anticipate an unusual, and possibly unseemly, rush to assess this one so let me know if you would like to be front of the queue. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog, Thank you very much for the offer, but I have something of a backlog of work to deal with this week, so I am not sure I'll have enough time for a good review. If you could let me know if/when it goes through to PR or FAC, I'll certainly be able to oblige you on that score. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) A rush at GAC?!—there wouldn't be a rush there if Legobot started renting out rooms by the hour, contraceptives supplied :D ——SerialNumber54129 10:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

article talk page comment

Your Title TK talkpage comment about changing page ranges is unwarranted. No such edits were made in that article. Moreover, your concern is ill-founded. WP allows for varieties of page citations, so long as the formats are consistent in each article. This is IAW WP:CITEVAR. If I see articles which contain mixes of the page ranges (111–2 and/or 111–12, and/or 111–112) I go for the format which looks most established. As the Chicago Manual of Style recommends the two-digit format (111–12), I generally go with the CMS. Accordingly, please remove your comment from Title TK talk. (As a WP:GNOME it is easiest to have a set routine.) Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It's entirely warranted and no, I will not remove it. You are working on out of date information and you'd be best to read MOS:NUMRANGE. I don't care what the CMS does or doesn't say: that is not our style manual. - SchroCat (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Happiness

Rejoice, rejoice, rejoice, to quote St Francis. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018)/archive1

Hey, I pinged you about a week ago regarding Carlotta, saying that I was going to continue on. I just wanted to make sure that you hadn't forgotten about it. Thanks, NoahTalk 23:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hurricane Noah, sorry, you're ping didn't get through to me. I'll put it to the top of my list. I'm a bit snowed under in RL this week, but I've bookmarked the review and I'll find time at the weekend or early next week. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I have addressed everything. Someone else made some changes after me, so please let me know if anything else needs adjusted. Thanks, NoahTalk 00:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, I’ll be there in a few days. - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Petits Propos Culinaires

Far as I can see, there's 1 (one) good source, the brief article in the Daily Telegraph. That the journal's founder and editor referenced articles from PPC in books that he edited is to be expected, but does not contribute to notability. The other three references (not counting the link to the magazine's homepage) are only in-passing mentions. This does not seem to meet GNG, but given your edit summary, I am apparently missing something? --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I've quoted various articles quoted on the talk page; (there is also book published with a selection of some of them); and there are 60+ articles on JSTOR that reference the PPC. Given all that, I'm not sure its notability can really be questioned. If you think it can, please feel free to nominate it for deletion, but I'm not sure that will work out well. - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Have a look at WP:NJournals. That articles are cited is normal (even though 60 is not very much, but it's only JSTOR, so there may be more elsewhere), but even for peer-reviewed journals that is not taken as a sign of notability. Most of what you posted on the talk page appear to be more in-passing mentions. I can't find a link for the April 2014 article in The Observer, is that one more in-depth? That would make two acceptable sources and notability would not be a problem any more. --Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
A non-notable journal has a book of its best articles published by a Random House imprint? Earth calling! Tim riley talk 17:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
T&F and JSTOR have numerous articles; the journal is also mentioned in the mainstream press (broadsheet, not tabloid), and some of the most notable food writers and food-related academics have written for it. There is also a book of selected articles from it. It passes either WP:NJOURNALS or WP:NMAG, whichever you think more appropriate. Given all that, if you still think there are problems with its notability, please do not hesitate to file an AfD, otherwise I think we're done here? - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Peter Sellers scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Peter Sellers article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 24, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 24, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi Jim, Of all the articles I've worked on, that would be the one I'd least like to see on the MP (It's something I said to Dank some time ago too). I don't really have anything to do with it nowadays, so I don't know what state it's in; I don't know if Cass keeps an eye on it or not. I'm not sure it represents our best work any more, but if it is decided that it should run, I'll not demur. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with SchroCat, Jim, Sellers, unfortunately, has been one I lost interest in quite some time ago, and I unwatched it. It has been the most fucked about with article (all infobox related) I've had the displeasure to watchlist. I would lay my last breath on there being a whole heap of more fighting on TFA day; sadly, it is one I shall not be monitoring. CassiantoTalk 16:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was my thought. Don't want to see a why the collapsed box" argument on the day. Not worth it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, leave it with me, @Cassianto: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yeah, look, I do have it on my watchlist, and I'd like to think it hasn't degraded too much, but the thought of it being on MP fills me with inertia... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cassianto: I see that it's at WP:TFARP for the same date in 2020. Do you want to remove that? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
You may as well, Jim. I doubt either Gavin or I will feel differently next year. CassiantoTalk 18:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
OK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

TFA late notice

Just letting you know that Shergar will be TFA on 24 June. Must have missed reviewing that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Your statement

Most excellent, but do you mean "spurred" rather than "spurned"?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you want to nominate "Marchioness disaster" for August 20's TFA?

Hello SchroCat! I was just messaging you since you were one of the primary authors and FA nominators of "Marchioness disaster". I was wondering if you'd want to nominate this page of yours at WP:TFA/R for August 20, 2019 (the 30th anniversary of the tragedy), as you suggsted at WP:TFARP. Marchioness disaster is a great, well-written article, and it would be a nice TFA on that day - would you want formally nominate that page? Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kal Ho Naa Ho/archive2

Hello there, SchroCat. Been a while. How's everything with yourself? Good I hope. BTW, I've nominated this film article about a poignant yet funny love triangle starring Shah Rukh Khan in the lead. As always, your comments would be most welcome and beneficial to the overall improvement of the article. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Shergar

Hi there. I'm not really up for fisticuffs over this but would you mind please telling me what you thought was not in BrE? I don't really speak another dialect so I'm suffering slight bafflement here ... thanks and best wishes 2A01:4C8:100F:648A:681E:2606:49FF:53BC (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • The "that" is not needed and "coordinate" is more commonly American than "co-ordinate". Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The "that" is not AmE in your view then? You just removed it because you did not like it? Seems odd - I find it sloppy writing without it and more formal and perhaps more encyclopaedic with it. Thanks re "coordinate"; personally I think you're wrong but I'm looking at a few sources and I certainly won't change it without some evidence. Best wishes 2A01:4C8:100F:648A:681E:2606:49FF:53BC (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Type ("co-ordinate" or "coordinate") into Google and you'll get the gist. As to "that": it's not sloppy to remove it (so you added it because you did not like it without? - if you want to spin the table a bit) - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
        • What a horrible, pompous prick you are. Google is not a fucking dictionary - perhaps you could try a look at one? You don't like IP editors is your main and obvious problem; I hope you have enjoyed your afternoon's bullying session. Twat. Fuck off. 2A01:4C8:100F:648A:681E:2606:49FF:53BC (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
          • I was actually trying to be helpful (given several dictionaries and grammar sites come up in the results), but I guess there's no helping some people. Thank you for stopping by and sharing your wisdom with everyone. - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
            • How very odd! As a personal friend IRL I know you to be nearly as horrible and pompous a prick as I am, but you couldn't infer it from the above exchanges. It's odd what preconceptions people cling to. The idea that you boggle at helpful changes by IPs makes one smile (though the adjective is key here). I'm not sure what a fucking dictionary is. Perhaps some form of sex manual? At my age I'm glad Wikipedia isn't one; I don't think I could cope with the excitement. Tim riley talk 19:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you both for your additional comments. A little digging shows this to be a logged out editor who has said they're on a Wikibreak. It's a shame they didn't stick to their break, or bother to log in! - SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I had a fucking dictionary once. I soon learnt that A is not for apple. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost

I'll take this off the Arb page, as it's not really directly relevant, but I disagree that the Signpost is not a newspaper. In fact, according to our GA-rated article on the subject, it is exactly that, and cited by 3rd party sources as such. You may choose not to read it, but it has long been accepted that while it is subject to the same broad policies and terms-of-use as the rest of Wikipedia, it does operate under editorial independence. For it to be barred from investigating and presenting the facts on the central issue facing the community right now would, in my view, be to neuter its ability to operate at all. Again, perhaps you'd support disbanding it or forcing it off-wiki, but that's a move that would have to be suggested and voted on separately, not just through selective culling of articles. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Amakuru, Looking at the three refs from the lead (the three which support the "newspaper" claim), at least one of them calls it "a weekly newsletter"; the second one is in French, and I'd rather not base such a claim from a non-English source. (and I'd not believe what a GA says either!) Despite that, the Signpost newsletter is still under the remit of WP:BLP: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." (Emphasis in the original) There is nothing in the BLP policy that gives any leeway on the words "any Wikipedia page". However much those that claim it's a newspaper try and twist and turn, they are still held accountable to basic policies.
The "central issue", as you call it, is not an attempted half-arsed hatchet job from rank amateurs on another editor. The various issues are: 1. The balance of power between WM and WP (the constitutional crisis); and 2. Harrassment - how we deal with it properly going forward. The people who edit Signpost are not experienced journalist or newspaper editors (and by "newspaper", I actually mean a proper newspaper). Neither do they have any knowledge in how to handle harassment, how to set up policies, pathways or a mechanism for reporting and investigating it, and how to support the real victims, rather than those that just cry wolf. (Here I make no judgement on any of those involved in the current Fram matter - I don't know who they are, and I don't want to know, but the point is that investigation - through, fair and sensitive - has to take place, and Signpost is the very, very worst place to do that - as the dross of an article showed. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Nudge

Good morning SchroCat. Just a nudge that you can nominate Marchioness disaster for TFA now as noms are open for August. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gog - I've added it now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 7 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Stalk-lite

G Arendt, as you don't seem to be able to stop following me around, please take this page off your bloated watchlist and stop. - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

  • Partnerships
  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

minority of one two,

Not anymore.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not like seeing volunteers blocked from participating in something, but there are cases where there is just too much dramah, too much wrongdoing, and an inability to take on one's shoulders the blame for one's actions. This is such a case, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Eddie Gerard FAC

Hey I've re-nominated Eddie Gerard at FAC. As you had looked it over the first time, I was wondering if you'd want to take another pass through it. Any comments would be much appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

With thanks

The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the ridiculous amount of high quality reviewing. Among the quantitative measures, I note that you usually top the monthly tally of regular reviews for FACs. "Impressive" doesn't even start to describe it. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No doubt you already have a drawer full of these. But here is another; it is well earned. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Why, thank you Gog. That's very kind of you indeed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Marchioness disaster scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Marchioness disaster has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 20 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 20, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Head spinning

Oh dear. Eric baited by Scottywong, but doesn't react and is now brought to ArbCom?

My head is still spinning. I hoped that @Eric Corbett: wouldn't rise to the bait, was pleased to see that he did not, and there's still a case request? Unbelievable! --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like MJL is more upset that Eric does not hold the project in some likeness of a holy icon, or trendy social media site (I don't know, I'm only going by the evidence he's posted). But the sooner people realise this is an encyclopaedia, and that different people interact in differnt ways, that there is no need to go 'full snowflake' if you don't like something, then the better this place will be. There will always be an anti-Eric crowd, and if it isn't him, it'll be somone else. I think it's human nature: we have to have some pantomime baddie to react against, and if it isn't Eric, it'll be.... Jimmy, or Fram, or whoever else says or does something mildly contentious that causes the usual feeding frezy we all know and love. - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
That's what always happens in the Real Housewives shows...every season some of or almost all of the leads gang up on one member of the group. Shearonink (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately for Eric, his 'season' is constant and consistent. I see one poster at the case request trying to drag in a comment from 2014 and for "his aggressive nose-thumbing when he was sanctioned for violating a topic ban": again there seems to be more anger that Eric has a Steptoe approach to Wikipedia, not a Stepford one. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Since you asked...

...I wouldn't have used the term "strawman" to characterize an argument offered in good faith, alongside other arguments also offered in good faith. That's not what a strawman is. We're also speaking of two different things: the quick answer from Google, and then the individual search results. For the individual result for Hitchcock, metadata is displayed along with the result (such as "Born" and "Education"). These are driven from the infobox. The point is secondary to my main one concerning how people read articles, but I do some work in the SEO field and the interplay between web pages and search engines was on my mind this morning so I mentioned it. All the best, Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe strawman was the wrong word. Maybe I should have said "deeply flawed" or something along those lines. Google draws from Wikidata, not Wikipedia, and the IBs don't have anything to do with it: Hitchcock is an indication of the error in your initial argument. As to the rest, yes, people's eyes are drawn to IBs and images, and the trite factoids thering are therefore given more weight than than the points than information and explain. People will walk away remembering how many wives he had and that he died in the UK, and still have no idea about his impact or why we have an article on him. Please don't reply here: I don't like wasting my time on IB discussions at the best of times, but if I have to, it should be in the right place, which is the Kubrick article, not here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

I took "He’s a friend, and he’s been through a shit time recently." as an explanation why I should have considered reaching out to Ritchie333 off-wiki. If that's not what you meant, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. I'll strike the relevant part of my comment. Huon (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, that's good of you. I should also apologise for this; it doesn't alter the fact I fundamentally disagree with you block, but my wording was ridiculously uncivil, for which I am sorry. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Passport to Pimlico

Enough. We have BFI sources and others that state the dates we have. You are trying to guess based in when newspapers didn't have adverts. It's time to move on - SchroCat (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2019 (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, not started a talk before (is this the right place?). About Passport to Pimlico, the release date of the 28th of April 1949 has been researched. You mention there is more than one source pointing to the 26th of April - what are these? The first cinema listings for the film are on the 28th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 286blue (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, The articles don't have publicly available or verifiable citations which is why I've added citations to links online whereby people can see for themselves. It may well be to a selling site but they reference the correct newspaper cinema listings. The actual cinema listings are behind paywalls so impossible to link to.

I've had a look at the newspaper listings personally since you edited the dates to incorrect ones and the citations I provided are correct regarding cinema dates. Kind Hearts & Coronets did NOT open on the 13th, it opened on the 23rd - likewise Passport to Pimlico did NOT open on the 26th, it opened on the 28th. To double-check, I took a look and I've seen the cinema listings myself on The Guardian newspaper archive as well as The Times Newspaper archive but I can't link to them as they're behind paywalls/registration pages.

I've just double-checked one of the citations for the wikipedia page of Passport to Pimlico and it's completely incorrect. The citation for the date of 26 April 1949 is for an article dated 30 April 1949 called "NEW FILMS IN LONDON" - this is for a short review of the film and does NOT list any release date. The correct release date is the 28th as I've seen in the newspaper cinema listings.

As for the citation used for the release date of Kind Hearts & Coronets, again, this is incorrect. The 13 June 1949 was a TRADE ONLY screening for PRESS and CINEMA distributors - this was not the public premiere of the film which took place on 23 June 1949.

I'm not particularly interested in helping Wikipedia to be correct but thought I'd try to help once I noticed the dates were wrong. Nor am I versed in the ways of Wikipedia with regards to talk/messaging/etc, but I'm trying to help make sure that the correct dates are listed on Wikipedia as they're currently incorrect and you've reverted my edits to reinstate the wrong dates which do not have relevant, reliable, or correct citations. If you're happy to leave incorrect information at Wikipedia, and seemingly intent on removing my correct dates, so be it - I was just trying to help with the facts as a good online citizen but seems that's not welcome. - 286blue

Kind Heart & Coronets

Hi again, the release date for Kind Hearts & Coronets has been researched and is correct from the cinema listings - you've seemingly changed it to an arbitrary date 10 days earlier without a citation. Do you have a reference for this new date you've added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 286blue (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi there, The articles don't have publicly available or verifiable citations which is why I've added citations to links online whereby people can see for themselves. It may well be to a selling site but they reference the correct newspaper cinema listings. The actual cinema listings are behind paywalls so impossible to link to.

I've had a look at the newspaper listings personally since you edited the dates to incorrect ones and the citations I provided are correct regarding cinema dates. Kind Hearts & Coronets did NOT open on the 13th, it opened on the 23rd - likewise Passport to Pimlico did NOT open on the 26th, it opened on the 28th. To double-check, I took a look and I've seen the cinema listings myself on The Guardian newspaper archive as well as The Times Newspaper archive but I can't link to them as they're behind paywalls/registration pages.

I've just double-checked one of the citations for the wikipedia page of Passport to Pimlico and it's completely incorrect. The citation for the date of 26 April 1949 is for an article dated 30 April 1949 called "NEW FILMS IN LONDON" - this is for a short review of the film and does NOT list any release date. The correct release date is the 28th as I've seen in the newspaper cinema listings.

As for the citation used for the release date of Kind Hearts & Coronets, again, this is incorrect. The 13 June 1949 was a TRADE ONLY screening for PRESS and CINEMA distributors - this was not the public premiere of the film which took place on 23 June 1949.

I'm not particularly interested in helping Wikipedia to be correct but thought I'd try to help once I noticed the dates were wrong. Nor am I versed in the ways of Wikipedia with regards to talk/messaging/etc, but I'm trying to help make sure that the correct dates are listed on Wikipedia as they're currently incorrect and you've reverted my edits to reinstate the wrong dates which do not have relevant, reliable, or correct citations. If you're happy to leave incorrect information at Wikipedia, and seemingly intent on removing my correct dates, so be it - I was just trying to help with the facts as a good online citizen but seems that's not welcome. - 286blue —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


  • (edit conflict) The date (for both films) is not arbitrary: they are both sourced in the body (and you should know that, as you've edited that part which has a citation next to it. The source you've used is a commercial site and therefore a no-no. It also wouldn't be considered a wp:reliable source. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, As somewhat of a Wikipedia novice, I was concerned after your comment that I shouldn't be linking to commercial sites, even if they have helpful citations, so looked up the wiki policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest which states "Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited".

It is a reliable source as it's licensed the films we're discussing, as well as referenced the cinema release dates with screenshots, so will have had access to the actual film archives.

The dates (for both films) are still currently incorrect on their Wikipedia pages, arbitrary or not. The Passport to Pimlico citation for example is to a film review which does NOT list ANY date, correct or otherwise, as it's a review, and the citation for the Kind Hearts and Coronets date refers to a TRADE ONLY screening for Press, not the public premiere. So they are sourced incorrectly and currently incorrect.

BUT, like I previously said, I was only trying to help get the correct dates on Wikipedia once I spotted they were incorrect. I was just trying to help with the facts as a good online citizen but if you're intent on removing my correct dates, so be it. Let Wikipedia remain incorrect. 286blue (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have all my sources to hand, but I do have the following:
Kind Hearts and Coronets by Michael Newton, published in 2003 by the BFI. Page 26: "watching the film at its premiere on the very hot night of 13 June 1949..."
The same BFI series also gives the correct date for the Whisky Galore release. I think there is enough doubt cast on the artandhue website with these two dates not to rely on it to only heavily. I see that unfortunately you've amended a great many dates for films based on what it says. Do you not think it might be best for you to revert back to the previous dates until a source is used that knows what it's talking about?
The guidance you've linked to is the one for External Links: that's about the section at the bottom of the page. It matters not in this case, as the information they are publishing is very, very wrong.
Editing comment to add the PtP information:
"Passport to Pimlico at 70", published by the BFI. "First released 70 years ago, on 26 April 1949..."
I hope this helps clarify things. - SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The full quote from the Kind Hearts book starts "Yet for the reviewers watching the film at its premiere on the very hot night of 13 June 1949…" - this was a trade-only screening for press. and cinema distributors, not open to the public, so the writer should have not have called it a premiere. The first cinema listing in multiple newspapers was the 23rd.

There is no doubt about the dates on that site as far as I can see - I have double-checked the cinema listings in the actual online archives of The Guardian and The Times sites, and, for my own peace of mind, have verified they're correct. I would recommend you do the same.

The date for Whisky Galore is the same for a start, 16th, and the differences here are just your interpretation for Kind Hearts:

- You are maintaining that a trade-only screening for Kind Hearts, which was only open to the press, and not the public, is the official premiere date, which was actually the 23rd when it opened to the public.

- As for Passport to Pimlico, as much as I hate to contradict the wonderful BFI, the date of the 26th is wrong. Had I not delved deeper into the archives, I would have taken that at face value a couple of hours ago, but the first cinema listings in the newspapers were for the 28th. It may be that the BFI are referring to a possible press/trade-only screening on the 26th but the film was definitely not listed in cinemas on the 26th. Would recommend you go through the newspaper cinema listings for the 26th 27th and 28th yourself so you can see with your own eyes.

BUT, like I said previously, let the wrong dates stand. I'm a film buff who was trying to be helpful, not a full-time wikipedia editor, so let Wikipedia remain incorrect. 286blue (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The BFI have called it a premiere, and it took place on a Friday evening (the traditional days of premieres back then). It's a very reliable source, certainly much more so than the absence of a newspaper advert! There is nothing wrong here: you are trying to argue against very solid sources. If you come up with a better source, please let me know, but otherwise there is no point going round in circles.
Can I suggest you revert your other changes to dates, if you've used the artandhue website as the source of your information? It's obviously very wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a leap to say it's very wrong because you are choosing to stick to incorrect sources. Firstly, the screenshots on that site match up with the cinema listings I've double-checked for my own peace of mind at the newspaper archive sites.

Secondly, the incorrect date you're referring to at the BFI website of April 26th was not a Friday but a Tuesday in 1949 - not a typical release or premiere day so was either trade-only or a BFI typo.

Thirdly, it's incorrect that Friday was the traditional days for premieres back then. It was/is Thursdays. Whisky Galore opened on a Thursday, as did Kind Hearts and Coronets, and Passport to Pimlico.

If you check the calendar for 1949, you'll see that the CORRECT release dates of 23 June (Kind Hearts and Coronets), 16 June (Whisky Galore) and 28 April (Passport to Pimlico), are all Thursdays, the traditional British day for new film releases.

The newspaper cinema listings exist online for reference and research, albeit behind registrations/paywalls, and are not absent. Unfortunately they aren't publicly available for viewing for use as citations so I can't link to them directly for you to see for yourself that Passport to Pimlico was not released on Tuesday 26th April 1949 but rather on Thursday the 28th, but there is a screenshot of one publication at the original citation link I provided which states the film opens on the 28th. 286blue (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Look, we have dates that are provided by the BFI. You are relying on WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is what we don't do. As a tertiary source, we reflect what the reliable sources say, we don't make it up. It's time to move on. As you are sticking to your guns on this, I presume you're not bothering to change the rest of the film dates you've altered to reflect an incorrect source, which means someone else will have to work their way through to pit them back to the correct dates. - SchroCat (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2019 (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.

Since you asked...

...I wouldn't have used the term "strawman" to characterize an argument offered in good faith, alongside other arguments also offered in good faith. That's not what a strawman is. We're also speaking of two different things: the quick answer from Google, and then the individual search results. For the individual result for Hitchcock, metadata is displayed along with the result (such as "Born" and "Education"). These are driven from the infobox. The point is secondary to my main one concerning how people read articles, but I do some work in the SEO field and the interplay between web pages and search engines was on my mind this morning so I mentioned it. All the best, Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe strawman was the wrong word. Maybe I should have said "deeply flawed" or something along those lines. Google draws from Wikidata, not Wikipedia, and the IBs don't have anything to do with it: Hitchcock is an indication of the error in your initial argument. As to the rest, yes, people's eyes are drawn to IBs and images, and the trite factoids thering are therefore given more weight than than the points than information and explain. People will walk away remembering how many wives he had and that he died in the UK, and still have no idea about his impact or why we have an article on him. Please don't reply here: I don't like wasting my time on IB discussions at the best of times, but if I have to, it should be in the right place, which is the Kubrick article, not here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Open Here

Hey SchroCat. I just wanted to check if you had anything to add about Open Here beyond your initial comments at the FAC? Even if it doesn't get promoted this time around, I'd welcome any feedback for improvements for the future so I could try to renominate it later if necessary. Either way, thanks in advance! — Hunter Kahn 03:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hunter Khan, thanks for the message. I'm not sure FAC is the right place to sort the article as it currently stands – FAC should be for polishing off the final rough spots, not doing the heavy lifting work first. If you go through WP:PR and ping me, I'll be happy to chip in at that point. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Calais (1349)

Hi SchroCat.

I wonder if I might impose upon your goodwill? If the answer to that is "no", please feel entirely free to say so. If not, I have been expanding Battle of Calais (1349), which I recently took through ACR. (I know that it is a bit rough, but it is still being worked on.) My issue is that it has bloated. Rather than just being about the 1350 battle (yes, the title needs to change) it is now as much an essay on knightly behaviour in the mid-14th century wrapped around various incidents in the vicinity of Calais and Guînes.

I am unsure whether to trim it - which IMO would be a shame - and if so where. Or split it. Or whether it is fine as it is, give or take. Or whatever. I would much value your opinion on this. In any event the title needs to change, and I am probably too close to this to be objective. (Some Interesting Tales Concerning the Adventures of the Knight Geoffroi de Charny in the Pale of Calais in the Years 1350 and 1352 probably isn't going to cut it.) Any ideas?

As I write, it also occurs to me that it may - heavily rewritten, and assuming that it passes FA - be a candidate for Wikijournal. What do you think?

Thanks in advance. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog,
No problems; I shall be there shortly. I can't advise on WikiJournal, I'm afraid, as I know absolutely nothing about it, and didn't know such a thing existed until last week! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
It's fine. Context is important. Or as your French sources would doubtless say, le contexte est important :p ——SerialNumber54129 07:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with SN: it's fine as it is. Most people who read about this won't really grasp the knightly behaviour, and I think you've got enough context in there to help them along, but not so much that it overwhelms the main story. As to WikiJournals, I think it's worth floating it by the nominations process to see what they say. If it's got to FA, then it should be good enough (there or thereabouts) to get to WJ, as far as I can see. (although I've not done the process and don't know much about it, so take all I've said with a pinch of salt!) - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat and Serial Number 54129: Thanks for that. I was worried that I had over-larded the chivalric stuff so as to overload le contexte. I appreciate the reassurance that the thread of the plot supports the weight of the various bits I have hung off it. I shall work on tidying it up and make it my next FAC up once the current one finds an image reviewer.
SC, I shall have a look at your dubious cook. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_27&oldid=979558639"