User talk:SchroCat/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Smile and the world smiles with you

See File:SchroCat happy.jpg (a bit blurred, but definitely happy) Brianboulton (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

He got us with the wine on board. Hopefully he was merciful to Tim!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I was certainly feeling a bit blurred after the wine! Thank you very much for the reminder, and the pic. - SchroCat (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks to be a thoroughly enjoyable occasion indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It certainly was – and we must do it again sometime! If you're ever passing through London, drop me a note and we'll see if we can sort out some similar festivities! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing FLC

I want to withdraw a FLC Akshay Kumar filmography. I don't know what's the procedure for doing so hence I am troubling you. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No problems, Skr15081997, and all done. I hope to see it back again after a little work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I've closed this FLC on your behalf, hope that's ok. The nominator has put it up for peer review and the bot over there will refuse to acknowledge it until this is closed. Cowlibob (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

Noye's Fludde

This is to advise you and other peer reviewers that the article has been nominated at FAC, and that any further comments should be raised there. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks: I'll pop along there shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice paraphrase

Eh, this means the same as what I had--except that you introduced an incorrect comma and a confusing set of pronouns, with "he" and "I" in the same sentence referring to the same person. I'll not revert, since I think you and your friend are allergic to that. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No, they are quite different:
"The editor involved has stated he is frustrated with being reverted without explanation ("These arbitrary reverts are a real slap in the face") and says that, since the end result is the same anyway, that responding viciously is more satisfactory than responding politely."
Your version says that 'as the result is the same I may as well respond viciously', which is misleading and not what was said. His version (below) says 'I'm going to respond viciously, and the result is the same. In other words, you are ascribing justification that he hasn't claimed. (If he had said "as the end result is exactly the same", then your version would have been fine, but not as he wrote it).
"The editor involved has stated he is frustrated with being reverted without explanation ("These arbitrary reverts are a real slap in the face") and says that he gets "more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same".
I hope you see the difference. Could you also tell me who "my friend" is here? I find your comment "I'll not revert, since I think you and your friend are allergic to that" to be unnecessarily pointy: I don't know you, and I'm pretty sure you don't know me, so to pre-judge how I may react if you edit something I've written I find a bit odd, to be honest. - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinging you in Film/Wolverine

You sounded a little annoyed in being pinged in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#The_Wolverine "Despite trying not to return". I know I am not the only one who has done it, but I have done it when speaking about you and I have also done it as a general "fyi" which may have been too much given your stated preference to not bang your head against a wall. If I have annoyed you with my pings, I sincerely apologize. I probably should not have included you in the general "call for comments" and if you want I will stop doing so in this post. I will also try to NOT refer to you directly, but if I feel I need do I will ping you since I believe it is common courtesy to do so to inform someone that they are being discussed in some manner. If you really would prefer not to be pinged by even this (in that thread) I will respect it, but will do so in other posts (when needed). Again I did not mean to offend or annoy in any manner and I apologize if I caused any offense. Take care.AbramTerger (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi AbramTerger, No problems at all, and I wasn't annoyed about it: as much as possible I try and keep away from long, tendentious threads, especially where I come up with editors I have had dealings with before. Nothing against them, per se, but our respective discussion styles never bring out the best in each of us! Life is too short, sometimes, to keep trying to explain the same point when someone obviously isn't listening, and to avoid further drama I stay away (especially when others try to force me away!) You're rule of thumb above for when to ping is a good one, and you should stick to it, even if it includes me. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir John

The John Gielgud Barnstar
For your marvellous list of Gielgud's roles and awards, and now for digging me out of the Slough of Despond with his biography (see below), I award you this special barnstar. – Tim riley talk 12:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I am almost bursting with gratitude for the polishing you have been giving the article. As you know, I have unaccountably felt unable to face getting back to grips with it after the peer review, and I cannot tell you how much I value your work on it. So far I am heartily applauding every one of your changes. You will hear quickly enough if I don't, of course. Please press ahead, and if you feel up to steering the old boy through FAC I am perfectly content to be co-pilot through that process. – Tim riley talk 12:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed (although I understand if you want to rename it the "nagging fool star")! - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Bollocks, dear boy! I am getting quite excited about the article again thanks to you. Tim riley talk 14:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

QAing

On the other hand, are you really concentrating, I ask myself. I see your recent edits as:

  • John Gielgud
  • John Gielgud
  • George Formby
  • John Gielgud

which worries me. Are you getting them muddled (easily done):

I starred as Romeo and Lear
I got a fine for being queer
But I'm still champion in Shakespeare
When I'm cleaning windows

Sir John was rubbish with the uke, of course. But I'll let you get on for now, Tim riley talk 15:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


Dear Johnny G was a talented soul
Who effortlessly reached every goal,
But one place he fell short,
Though he strove and he sought,
He only ever made a din
On the thinking man's violin!

I really should finish of GF's article soon too, or Cass will be sending dark thoughts my way! – SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

FAC

No, not that one. Jules Massenet, the second greatest composer born in 1842, is now at FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, it will be esteemed a favour. Tim riley talk 21:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This isn't the right place to discuss it: that's for the article's talk page. I've copied the text over to there and will comment further shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat, I've looked back at this whole QOS issue earlier, and the question came up: was this issue all for nothing? - Theironminer (talk), 12:00, 12 August, 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well as no consensus was reached to change the article, I'm not sure what else you were expecting? – SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've looked at the reviews on Metacritic, and Metacritic can't help because not all the reviews are included to make a clear percentage like Rotten Tomatoes. RT, on the other hand, has more (and probably all) critic reviews and a fine percentage to show for. Also, the percentage on Metacritic is 58, which is acceptional for a mixed-to-positive rating, like Daniel Craig's other movie Defiance, (57%) and the first Transformers movie (57%). I strongly suggest that you check these sources, and respond respectfully so no other issue will start up. Thank you. - Theironminer (talk), 12 August, 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request and comment

  • If possible, would you be willing to do a talk page review of Oriental Film in preparation for an FAC run (after the GAN is over, of course)? It's about as far as I can get it, and looks pretty darn good. BTW, I'll try and go through the FLC list later today and review those with two supports, so that we can promote some more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be my pleasure; I should be able to get there either later today or tomorrow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I ended up promoting three lists, as I'm sure you noticed . — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Something may have drawn my attention to it...! - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have made a few notes offline and watchlisted the page, so once GA strikes, so shall I. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you right kindly for the review. Now just to wait for Kedok Ketawa to finish its run. I've left comments at Gielgud's FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Nearly missed this comment! I'll pop along to KK first thing in the morning: about to send George Formby to FAC before I toddle off to bed, Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Formby is on his way? I'll be sure to stop by once free time presents itself (grad ceremony in... 3 hours). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • He is indeed - slowed up on his progress because I was distracted and lost energy! Enjoy the ceremony! - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I popped along to comment, and seen I'd already supported it! Too tired to remember last night, but at least its another thing off my list! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That's what I thought, LOL. Sorry, didn't have the mind to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Fleming

My mistake. I sincerely apologize. As I read the article, I noticed the non-British form in a few places and decided to edit the page for consistency's sake. Please feel free to revert the changes. TuffGongster (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. - SchroCat (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 15 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Vittorio Storaro filmography

A consensus to delist seems to have formed at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Vittorio Storaro filmography/archive1; can you close the discussion? Thanks. Seattle (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks Seattle, I've got an eye on it (looks like the original nominator is now inactive), and I'll delist in a few days. - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Louie awards FLC

Is Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Louie/archive1 being promoted or just archived? -- Wikipedical (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

As per the note on the page, this has been archived, I'm afraid: there just wasn't a sufficient consensus to promote, despite having being listed for two months.. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
So what's the next step? It certainly meets all the FLC criteria, one editor reviewed the article with slight changes, which I made. Do I renominate it? -- Wikipedical (talk)
Wikipedical, you will have to re nominate. It's not through any fault of your own, but it simply didn't attract enough editors. Far be it for me to advertise WP:CANVASS, but maybe a little note on some trusted FLC reviewer's talk pages may push a few buttons and get people to review your FLC. Don't go begging though; just a cursory nod in your direction should suffice. Cassiantotalk 18:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I renominated at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Louie/archive2. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

El star de barn

The Original Barnstar
For your on-target comment in the reader section of the Signpost: ...We are no longer interested in creating an encyclopaedia, full of ("allegedly") high-quality content. Instead we are now more interested in a nice fluffy environment when we spend so much time stroking each others egos or drawing up a Black Book of people who don't think fluffy thoughts, that nothing ever actually gets written. I felt decidedly uncomfortable watching the video stream: despite intentions, or the claims to the contrary, it does create a climate of fear, a toxic environment for people to work in. Incivility I can ignore or laugh at: a reign of fear whereby good editors are 'encouraged to leave' is a depressing and worrying development.'' Carrite (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Carrite. Most of the people on this site just want to carry on putting out content and stopping the worst excesses of (largely) good faith additions by (largely) drive-by IPs. Having some super cadre of thought police differentiating between editors who see red in defence of quality, and those who are permanently grumpy is nothing but divisive, and is possibly the worst thing that can happen to a consensus-driven, collegiate project such as this. It will do more harm than good, divide not unite and ruffle, not smooth. The only thing that will get stronger is the power of WMF over editors, and the only thing that will properly suffer in the long term is the project, which will become irreparably damaged for no substantive gain. – SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Variety story that might be of interest

Variety August 1907, page 8 George Formby, Sr. tells of how he walked 8 miles to Hull without shoes or socks through a snowstorm, asking fellow entertainers for help. All refused to give him a hand, but were happy to know him after he made it big. The experience put him off entertaining to the point where he built looms for two years.

Variety has a British section and there are more mentions of him in their older copies. The easiest way to access them is through the University of Wisconsin's "Lantern" search. Lantern-George Formby search. The story about his walk seemed interesting, so I thought I'd pass it on. ;) We hope (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fantasic! Thank you so much, We hope: hugely appreciated and extremely useful! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Doing the double

Two FAs in one day! Pretty good going. Bravo! Tim riley talk 08:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have two FLs on the cusp as well, and if they go today then I may have to open one of the 'special' bottles of red I have knocking around! - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I have been suitably rude about you on Cassianto's talk page. (But Bravo just the same!) Tim riley talk 17:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Um..

So how come the Phil Collins page has no comma, like this one does (Peter Sellers), in the lead? Tinton5 (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it was written by someone who did not know better? (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). - SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This and that

Thank you for your support chez Jules Massenet. I know you will sympathise when I tell you that despite much research I was unable to establish any link between Massenet and Chopin's girlfriend, and have consequently been unable to have a section headed Jules and Sand. On a less whimsical note, would you, as an expert on lists, be so kind as to take a vade at the Terry family article as it now is and give me your candidest opinion on whether it has the makings of a Featured List or a Good Article or neither? – Tim riley talk 17:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure it would categorise as a list page according to our criteria, but it's borderline, partly because most of FLs are more list than text. @Crisco 1492:, can you give a second opinion on this? - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Excellent: there you go, Mr R—a potential FL for you. - SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Good. That's very helpful, and I'm much obliged. I'll consult Ssilvers who has been working extensively on the page, and we'll decide if, when and how to proceed. Tim riley talk 08:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Let me have a further look over before it goes: as delegate I try not to !vote one way or 'tother as it leaves me free to close later without a COI, but it doesn't stop me helping out before the process kicks off. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it should go to PR and see what people think of it. In particular, I'd like reviewers to comment on how much information from each family member's own article should be summarized in the list article, and whether any of the family members without their own WP articles ought to have them now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hi. Hope you're well. I was wondering if you had some time to review a filmography I've been working on (Tom Hanks filmography) as a future FLC. I would really appreciate your input especially given your work on similar featured lists. Thanks. Cowlibob (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cowlibob, on it now for you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

Paddington

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing off: this isn't going to be in any way constructive or useful to continue. - SchroCat (talk)

Understand the argument, just watch the language buddy..... Quentin X (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you consider "shitty" to be the depths of profanity, but it was such a shitty edit that I had to call it as such... - SchroCat (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
It's obviously not the depths of profanity but I was always under the impression that Wikipedia was a site where people could argue without succumbing to swearing. If you feel the need to, then that is obviously up to you. Stay frosty. Quentin X (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't realise there was any argument, just an edit summary that stated why I was reverting what was, in all honesty, a rather shitty edit that introduced a large number of errors. The description of "shitty" is neither here nor there: the larger question is why you thought reverting to such an error-strewn state was an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paddington (new section)

I see what you mean. I hadn't realised that I had left it in a state like that. My bad. Not the first time for anyone I guess. I blame the time of day that I did it. Toodles. Quentin X (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Peter Sellers

Hi SchroCat - just to let you know I've given the IP a welcome notice, plus a 3RR notification. Hopefully he'll stop edit-warring. I thought I should let you know in case he/she claims they're not the only one: I'll do the next revert if necessary. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let's just revert my perfectly valid edit instead of discussing the edits on the talk page.

92.8.22.63 (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Alfie, but sadly the IP's considerations are obviously much more important than everyone else, as we can see.
IP, we work in a consensus-led, collegiate way that tries to avoid edit warring by discussing. See WP:BRD, and see why your edit warring is a big, big mistake. We discuss to change the consensus that exists, not edit war to protec tiny nationalisticly-driven edits. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

More FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of John Gielgud and George Formby to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR (specific and non-specific date slots) and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks.

What a busy and productive summer you've had! The mind boggles at the thought of these two giants having a conversation... I've pushed back the TFA for George a couple of days, as you've probably seen, to squeeze in a Pacific War battle. Hope you're keeping well. BencherliteTalk 13:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to have seen the couple in a duet of "Mr Wu's a Window Cleaner Now"! Thanks for the front page placement – fingers crossed on a quiet day! Hope you had a good holiday. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You reverted the edits on Mother's Day (1980 Movie) page

Will you please assign the reason why you reverted the edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripleyscool (talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I did, in the edit summary. "Not improved by this—and no grammatical errors were 'corrected'." On re-visiting I see I did revert one improvement, which I have corrected: the remainder is better in the previous version. – SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Ripleyscool, While we're on the subject of reverting dodgy edits, maybe you could explain this questionable edit? Cassiantotalk 11:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring one of the edits and yet it is surprising to witness that the content still exhibits an inconsistency hinging on the word 'woods'. To be precise in the wording, if you give a careful look at the content the words 'woods' and 'wood' are visible at different sites. Can you explain this observable fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripleyscool (talk • contribs) 12:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Both are correct. – SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

my mistake

I was reading the plot in the article while watching the movie. I didn't realize she would be lying about that, but I guess it makes sense (as revealed later on). She really screwed him over. Enigmamsg 02:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification

This is to inform you that George Formby , which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 17 September 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here ; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Brian. - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

Request

Hi Schro, I was wondering if you'd be willing to have another look at Oriental Film. The FAC is up and running, but it's been essentially crickets for the past two weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly will do in a day or two. Didn't realise you had something in the go, or it would have been there a while ago. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think next time I'll stick to PR before FAC . Do you have anything needing review? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not at the moment – too many needless distractions in other quarters are slowing up Formby Snr, but I'm hoping to have him in rough draft form in the next few weeks, and I'm definately going to come knocking as pretty much all the images in there are new ones that will need looking at! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright. Just ping as needed! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request

Schro, if you can and want to, I would love to see what you think for Wikipedia:Peer review/Robert Downey, Jr. filmography/archive1. You certainly don't have to, I know you probably have a lot on your plate, but you gave such good advice on the Lauren Bacall article I did that I'd love to get your take on this. :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lady, No probs: I'll pop along in the next day or so. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard Kiel

Nooo! We've lost a Bond icon. My tribute to him came a bit early with Rio de Janeiro cableway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame: another one bites the dust, sadly! - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
"Bites"...I see what you did there! Cassiantotalk 20:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Just something for you to get your teeth into... - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if he ever met Steve Irwin? "No boitin"..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
So unfortunate that even though Jaws survived many misfortunes, ranging from an Egyptian structure's collapse on top of him, being hit by a van, being thrown from a rapidly moving train, a car crash, a battle underwater with a shark, and the destruction of Stromberg's lair, he could not escape this time :( Kailash29792 (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen him in interviews and he came across as a really sweet man, quite sensitive and reserved.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Auguste van Biene

Leave Cassianto on his own for five minutes and he creates a much-needed article that should have been there years ago. I have added to his original version and included two references to Albert Ketèlbey which by my reckoning makes it mandatory for you to look in. No need to add, unless you feel so moved, but a fresh eye over the Cass/TR prose would do no harm. No rush, naturally. Tim riley talk 16:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I will certainly be there! Don't exactly know how soon, but I will make it! - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification of another user's wish to withdraw a nom

Hi. Hope you're well. I was looking through the FLCs and this nominee seems to want to withdraw his nom. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leader of Alderney/archive1 Cowlibob (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cowlibob. I'll be on a computer later, rather than the phone I'm struggling with now) so will do it later, unless is beaten to it. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
All sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

Any interest in stories from Newspapers.com re: Formby, Sr.?

A few stories turned up which I'll be glad to clip and post the links to if you think they might be useful. There's a report that he was signed by the Ideal Film Renting Company in 1916. They were trying to produce British films because mainly US ones were shown during the course of WWI. They called the US films crude and vulgar--boy, they hadn't seen anything yet in 1916! :) I see no "follow up" in the news stories re: what films Formby Sr. made for them; also see nothing at IMDB.

There's also a story that the tie pin presented to him by the King and Queen in 1913 was worn by his son at his Royal Command performance in 1937 for luck, and a Vancouver, BC news note about his death and his talent. We hope (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi We hope, That would be great, thanks! I've struggled a bit with sources on this, so anything additional would be great! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
OK--the only thing you need to remember is that the "tag ends" that say "Newspapers.com" and "Open Access" have to go with the refs. :) We hope (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

[1]

[2]

[3]

  1. ^ "Native For American Humour". The Times (London). 21 September, 1916. p. 21. Retrieved 13 September 2014 – via Newspapers.com. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)Open access icon
  2. ^ Bronner, Milton (14 February 1938). "Formby Ranks Eighth as a Box Office Star". Shamokin News-Dispatch. p. 10. Retrieved 13 September 2014 – via Newspapers.com.Open access icon
  3. ^ "Over The Footlights". Vancouver Daily World. 12 March 1921. p. 12. Retrieved 13 September 2014 – via Newspapers.com.Open access icon
  • Fantastic! Thanks very much for these. I'll wait for the PR to finish and weave in the bits and pieces before going to FAC. Thanks again - a massive help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Another one-who says protests started in the 1960s? :) We hope (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

[1]

  1. ^ "King George Guarded Against Suffragettes". Santa Cruz Evening News. 7 July 1913. p. 2. Retrieved 13 September 2014 – via Newspapers.com.Open access icon
Precious again, Formby as TFA, the unlikely star, "too stupid to play the bad guy and too ugly to play the hero"! Simple question: I saw the honorific without a comma, - both right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, Gerda! On the honorific, I'm not sure if there is a wrong way to do it, but WP:POSTNOM uses a comma in its examples (even though it doesn't discuss the use of the comma itself), so I went with that one. Thanks again! – SchroCat (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

TFA - Today's Formby Article

A gentlemanly slap on the back for today's front page. Hopefully by the end of the day it would've turned out nice again? Cassiantotalk 09:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's hope so! I'm trying not to look at it too much, as it's normally a magnet for "corrections" that introduce errors! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

P.S. Krøyer's paintings of Marie

You might want to hold off the GA review for a while as there is a bit of work going on as a result of a dust-up between Dr. Blofeld and me (these normally end badly: piranha food, bullet through the windscreen; brainwashed to be a delivery agent for biological warfare; but such is life for a woman in a fictional archvillain's world) Belle (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Belle: LOL, who me?... I'm glad you're familiar with my evilness!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Despite the request for withdrawal from Dr. Blofeld, I think Belle should be given an opportunity to comment on the current version when she returns from holiday in a week or so.--Ipigott (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ipigott, Sorry - slightly bad timing on both our parts I'm afraid. Having said that, it's not much of a problem, as a new Nom can launched at any time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
If Belle is really keen on promoting it to GA then it shouldn't be to difficult to come to an agreement and renominate when you're both happy with it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

FLC review request

Hi. Hope you're well. I was wondering if you had some time to review the film accolades list I have up for FLC? List of accolades received by Blue Jasmine. Cowlibob (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cowlibob, No problems; I have two FACs I have to do, but will pop along shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

Margaret Bondfield

Ellipsis alert! The above article is now at WP:FAC and I am sure that there are some ellipsis loose ends (and maybe others), if you are able to take a look. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure: I'll be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
For clarification: did you intend to "sign off" the sources review on Bonders? If so, could I bother you to make this a bit more explicit on the FAC page? Thanks very much. Brianboulton (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem: now clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Formby Snr

Congratulations on the star! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed, both for your note here and for your invaluable assistance on the article: it was all very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Table question

Hi. Hope you're well. I've been recently updating some Indian parliamentary constituencies. Often elections have over 40 candidates and I was wondering if you knew a way I could include a collapse within the table of results so that only the top three are shown to aid navigation of the article. The whole info was still retained and available to the reader if they wanted with just a click. Amethi is an example of the kind of tables I'd like to condense down. Cowlibob (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cowlibob, Have a look at Help:Collapsing#"innercollapse" and "outercollapse", which has the info I think you're looking for. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Indent

Friendly request to indent the discussion. Just a bit of OCD of mine, but it does really make things easier to read. Cheers.I know you are frustrated and I honestly me nothing more by this request. I'm not trying to annoy you, though I felt it might seem like that so thus this small text. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I am always frustrated when edit warring admins start throwing warnings around, but thank you for the reminder about indenting, about which I was neglectful. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Award

The Music Hall Barnstar
Congratulations on Formby Snr who is now flying the flag at FA. A great effort and one you should be proud of. Cassiantotalk 04:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
That's hugely kind of you: many thanks indeed! Nice to see the father and son both up at FA now! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well done! Seems nobody else picked up on my concerns with it being like Sellers ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

Books and Bytes - Issue 8

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
  • Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
  • New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
  • Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Live and Let Die

Please explain why you insist on using non-canonical spelling of "drug lord" in the Live and Let Die (film) article. You say it is British English, yet Oxford English Dictionary (OED) shows "drug lord", not "drugs lord. — QuicksilverT @ 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And the OED al;so shows US English; indeed, the example they give is from an American organ. Try a search of The Times, the BBC or The Guardian. - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Online news outlets are inferior sources for authority on writing style, spelling and punctuation. — QuicksilverT @ 17:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The Times, Guardian and the BBC?? PMSL! The Times has been published as a newspaper since 1785; The Guardian as a newspaper since 1821; the BBC has been broadcasting since 1922 and is the world's oldest national broadcasting organisation. To try and claim these three carry no weight on the use of English is, I'm afraid, laughable. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC statement for Peter Sellers

I would like your input on the RFC statement for Peter sellers at Talk:Peter_Sellers#WP:3.--RandomLittleHelpertalk 19:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool it

Please. Can you play nice with Caden (talk · contribs)??--RandomLittleHelpertalk 16:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If he stops throwing round stupid and childish little insults, I will play nice. If he continues to claim a non-existent consensus, insult others and behave like a five-year-old, I will treat him accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
And, lo and behold, RandomLittleHelper, Caden lies and edit wars once again. Play nice? With someone that dishonourable? There isn't much chance of that happening while such a divisive figure is determined to be so obnoxious and untruthful. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
RandomLittleHelper, why, is Caden some kind of Saint or something? Cassiantotalk 17:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Check my contributions Special:Contributions/RandomLittleHelper I'm just a little helper that wants everyone to respect each other. I couldn't give a flip on who is *right*, but I do care if there are personal insults flug at each other.--RandomLittleHelpertalk 18:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
And in an ideal world that would be the case, but when an editor edit wars, lies and starts throwing insults around, they will quite often reap what they have sown. - SchroCat (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there a more accepted wake up call to editors to "keep it real"? I've been off of Wiki for a while now.--RandomLittleHelpertalk 18:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
RandomLittleHelper, there is about as much chance of me respecting Caden as there is of Peter Sellers starring in next weeks Coronation Street. Cassiantotalk 20:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

Discussion on the admin noticeboard about 'Best known for IP'

I've started a discussion on the admin noticeboard about the Best known for IP, which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Skyfall sequel

I didn't go in search of a better source, but you seem to be saying this is wrong.

I will not be around until tomorrow for your response as I have a lot of other stuff to do.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much what I'm saying yes. Wrong, or just monumentally lazy in their choice of words. I'd also point out that as the answer on the page is one sent in from a reader via email, it fails WP:RELIABLE. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
You didn't read that carefully. The formatting on the page doesn't work right in the online version. The person who asked the question sent the email. Director Sam Mendes "confirmed" this, the writer said. I trusted her and didn't go further with it, figuring others would fill in the details later. With this wording I found it very surprising nothing was said in the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The formatting isn't too clear on the screen and the email details drop down into the answer. Either way, it's not backed up by a number of other sources, and it may be that these people have their wires crossed with what others are saying, which is that they are making two films, both two parts of one storyline. – SchroCat (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The wording seems pretty clear. She thinks Sam Mendes said it was like that Harry Potter book that was divided into two movies. I don't see how she would make a mistake like that. I've been reading her newspaper column for years.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
There are a large number of other sources that don't back this up, so I'd rather go with one of those that has a track record of being more reliable on this matter than a small local paper that won't have approached the primary sources (Eon, Mendes, etc). - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, but she said Mendes said it but didn't say where she got it. And she's syndicated. If I had used her web site rather than one of the papers she runs in, you would have called her a blogger. King Features distributes her column and I just happened to find it in that paper.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I suspect she's misread a different source somewhere. There has only once been a sequel in the Bond series (loosely from Casino Royale into Quantum of Solace), so it would be a major thing for this new double film to be a sequel. I suspect she's using the term in a very loose, journalistic way saying that there is another film on the way. Pretty much every other source I've seen that discusses the two films makes it clear that they will be a two-parter, not that the first film is a follow on to Skyfall. As there is no rush to have detailed info on any of the pages, we can afford to wait for reliable sources to give the story before we go ahead with this. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be the best thing. Still, you are referring to a "double film" as if it is something true and I'm confused as to how the second part of a "double film" is not a sequel.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the next film is not going to be a sequel to Skyfall, but (probably) the first part of a two-part storyline. We know that Craig has signed up for two films. Initially John Logan said he was going to write a two-part storyline to cover those two films; he has now been replaced by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, so there is a little less clarity on what there is now. What hasn't ever been mooted by anyone is that the next film is a sequel to Skyfall, with some continuing story arc to tie them closely together. - SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so what Cindy Elavsky thought was happening is that the next film was going to be the second part of Skyfall. That makes sense. And you're saying she's wrong because the next film is the first part of two.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That was certainly what the initial press reports said. With the change in writers it may change to some extent, but there has not been any update yet, as the new writers are still working on it. - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • On a completely unrelated note, I loathe the concept of a "double film". Cash grab and padding: a film which has a fixed storyline that can be told in one sitting is stretched for two... or three (Peter Jackson, looking at you!). Damn you, HP-verse, for cursing us with such abominations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree totally: the films never fit together properly, and it never works terribly well. It's fine to do something along the lines of the previous Bonds, or Indiana Jones (a slight connection, with a nod from one film to another), but not sppread the storyline so thinkly that the holes appear! I hope the writers have got rid of that idea after their initial thoughts on it... - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd say here's hoping, but there's not much of a chance of that. Dollar/pound/euro > story integrity, in their view. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Bernard Lee on stage and screen

Why did you changed "(1908–81)" back to "(1908–1981)"? Per WP:NUMERAL it should be "(1908–81)". Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Because NUMERAL doesn't cover individuals: MOS:DOB does. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

Questia

Am I right in remembering that you have access to Questia? If you do, would you be so kind as to send me a copy of "Film Melayu: Nationalism, Modernity and Film in a Pre-World War Two Malay Magazine"? I'm finally getting ready to write another FA, but sadly the wall is blocking me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No problems. I'm out and about for the next couple of hours, but I'll gt it to you after that. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Antz

No, not the film. Was wondering how you feel about closing the List of ant subfamilies, either for promotion or archival. I'm willing to do it, but since you seem to still have been in discussion with the nominator, I'm not going to jump in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I need to check out the status of the twe[[Category:]]ak to the licence to see it all points in the right direction, but I don't think it's got enough in the way of a consensus to promote. Happy for you to close if you're in the mood to do it, but I'll get round to it this evening if you haven't done it first. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll let you do it, if you're satisfied. Had to archive two others, and I've commented on one which has almost hit the minimum (but is stuck). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Cheers - I have a glance over and action a little later. - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • All sorted. Sadly it's damned slow on the reviewing front at the moment—there just aren't enough people chipping in to review to get some of the pages over the line at the moment. – SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Been like that all year, sadly. Way too many are being archived for the lack of commentary. Forcing people to have a single nomination won't help either, as the nominators are already limiting themselves to one. Might have to discuss this at WT:FLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I would hate to have to go down the compulsory quid pro quo route, but I think we should suggest to all nominators that it would be a good idea if they took time to look at one or two others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't think QPQ will fly. Too many people consider the way DYK did it a failure to consider implementing it elsewhere. You've seen the resistance at WP:GAC, right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't see the GAC kerfuffle, but I'm not surprised: 'I'll support you if you support me' is never going to give us quality content. Suggesting a review of others may help one or two more pass, but at the moment I'm seeing noms there that have been six or seven weeks active with no comments. - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Perhaps its fear that such suggestions would be considered canvassing? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ralph Richardson

Would you object putting an info box on his page? Savolya (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It certainly doesn't need one there. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I heartily concur with SchroCat. Sheer waste of space in such an article. Fine for cricketers etc where quick statistics are wanted, but not here, where it would be merely a rehash of what's in the lead. Tim riley talk 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree, no info box please. It would be wasted on this article. Cassiantotalk 08:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
No infobox, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

James Bond big picture
Thank you for quality articles and lists around James Bond, achieved in collaboration and precisely timed on today's Ian Fleming, also for fighting vandalism with cattle prod and flamethrower, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 282nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Much deserved! 👏👏 Cassiantotalk 08:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
You are both too kind! Thank you very much!. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't

Let someone else do it. Seriously. Doc talk 07:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a pointless and silly thing to do Doc (and even more silly and pointless in reverting my good faith edit). The thread has been archived and warnings given. Trying to kick it all off again is pointless and will onlyg enerate more silliness - some of which may well boomerang back on you for the insult of calling him a liar. And it's especially questionable when you are equally guilty of the comments. - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much.

You're a lifesaver this week. I'm working on it a bit more now, did a couple descriptions; will also add the side images. One hint: annoyingly, we can't link to both the article and the picture at the same time, so it's often a good idea to try and find somewhere to link to the relevant article in the FP's description. If you have a good idea for how to work around this, please tell me; this comes up so very often. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure! I'd forgotten totally about the article link, but I'll tweak the ones I've already done a little later. I should be able to tidy stuff up this afternoon. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I've ploughed through a few more. Just Grace Hopper left to do, and I don't see issues there. Note that FPs will drop back to the bottom once all the descriptions are done, but with so many FPs, and you having finished the other sections, I didn't see any real reason to scroll. Rather unwillingly lost the parrot image, by the way: all the images were portrait orientation except the most amateur, and I was worried about them pushing into the galleries below, or creating big gaps of space on the larger monitors. I've recently had my widescreen break, so I'm being cautious for now, and even the best of the parrot photos weren't so good to be worth the risk or to be worth substantially downscaling all the other images to keep the height down. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I've copyedited slightly to add a couple links - mainly just rearranging things a bit to make it flow with explicit titles - and think we're good now. I'll just see if I can find a widescreen user to check that there's not too much whitespace. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, good news, at least: Far fewer FPs next week, it would appear. Mind you, there's still two and a half days before the lists close, but probably won't have this week's nightmare. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent stuff - I pop back to trim and tidy, and see you've done it all already! Is there anything left to do, or have you sorted it all now? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Think we should be done. Looks very good, I think. One of the best we've done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Goldfinger

Really the sentence is very confusing in the context of the film. There is both Chinese and U.S. forces in that scene. Goldfinger kills his ally the Chinese Mr. Ling as he was about to reveal Goldfinger wasn't an actual U.S. soldier and Goldfinger then kills his actual enemies the U.S. militaries. As it is actually written, it sounds as if Goldfinger killed the Chinese troops led by Mr. Ling. There is really no reason to remove an adjective ("U.S.") which avoids this confusion. Jeangabin (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-10-29/Featured content

If you want to help with this week, I thought I'd best start it early, so that work can be spaced out over a few more days. I've documented everything, and started describing (although haven't yet done much). I'll update every day or so until Sunday morning, when the list closes. I wouldn't choose images yet, that's a bit unfair on anything that's promoted in the next couple days. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No probs. I'll try and cover the FA and FLs at least. Glad it's looking like a shorter list this week! - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Nearly done. Just the new list to go. Going to be fun massaging images to fit, though. Might end up trying to find the rodent image with the highest width to height. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
We passed the widescreen test! =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Just doing a couple of minor copy edits here and there. There is a broken link on the "Telamonia dimidiata" text that needs looking at (I don't know where the close should be) - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello SchroCat:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Hafspajen (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
  • Cheers, Haffy! Much appreciated, and the same to you. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Louie FLC

Hi SchroCat, somehow I missed that comment– I will address it presently. Thanks for the notification. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • And the issue has been addressed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have time...

...can I ask you to take a look at Ellen Wilkinson, peer review here? (I really must start writing on topics with a bit more kerb appeal!) Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A pleasure! It's already on my "to do" list, alongside Poulenc, after seeing the requests for help elsewhere. I hope to be there later today. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

On Her Majesty's Secret Service cast

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing off: wrong place to do this, especially when you post on the article's talk page simultaneously. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Really, you're just removing well known and sourced info from pages. It is well known Zaheera debuted in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. You just have to search for "On Her Majesty's Secret Service cast" to see her on the Google special cast result. BFI isn't the ultimate source for everything, they in fact probably don't list her because she has a minor role. Za"hee"ra has even probably been mispelled "Zara", both have in fact the same pronounciation. And no matter all this, BFI doesn't say Zaheera isn't in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and plenty of sources list her as part of the cast. Jeangabin (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because you provided two unreliable sources, and I advise you to learn how to tell the difference between the two if you don't want to be reverted again. I will search the sources I have a little later to see if there is any more clarity. Failing that, as you've pointed out her role is so minor, we can always remove her, as per WP:FILMCAST. - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Then I'm counting on you to find sources and restore info. Thanks. Jeangabin (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
No need: we'll go with WP:FILMCAST and leave it out Wikipedia is not a collection of useless facts and fluff. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Newcastle for you!

You seem to need one. DonQuixote (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Cheers DonQuixote! I'd love to have one of those right now...! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

Once more into the breach...

Up for FC this week? I'll set it up tonight. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to have too much time this week, I'm afraid: work has gone monumentally busy with a coupl of major projects kicking off at the same time, and I find any time is severely limited at the moment. I'll see if I can pop in at some point, but it'll be all too limited to do too much, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

DVD release information

Hi,

You said the Manual of Style is just 'guidelines which do not have to be slavishly followed'. Are you sure? I'm not as experienced as you so I'd really like to know this. Someone removed DVD information from List of Parks and Recreation episodes and when I added it back, thinking that they were just guidelines, like you said, it was removed again and I was told not to add it again because it was a 'rule'. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'd just really like to know how we are supposed to look upon Manuals of Style. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at the top of any MoS guideline. There is a banner that reads:
This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus."
My emphasis added, but it is clear. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that calling them 'guidelines which do not have to be slavishly followed' is the same as 'occasional exceptions'. Is this how you interpret it? Rayna Jaymes (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Obviously. - SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat: The Movie

Stalking your contributions page I was quite excited by this: "SchroCat ‎ →‎DVD release information" but it seems the film isn't a biopic about you at all. Rather disappointing. I had been happily speculating about who was lined up to play you in the film. Cassianto would, of course, be in the Sid James role and no prizes for guessing who'd take Kenneth Williams's part, to coin a phrase. Tim riley talk 17:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If it is my biopic, then I'm afraid it'll be a straight-to-DVD, bargain bucket job. I'm not sure there would be many prepared to play me... perhaps Mr Bean? – SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
yak, yak, yak! Gavin could be Terry Scott? And as for Kenneth Williams, well BrianB looks and acts nothing like him! 😆 Cassiantotalk 21:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Having said that, I see they have made Brian Boulton: The Cartoon[1]. Cassiantotalk 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
You cheeky sod. I'll report you to the police. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Haha! Cassiantotalk 20:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Mind you, if you naughty boys visit the FAC page, where you will find Ellen Wilkinson, I might hold the rozzers off. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
As requested. That should keep the 'ol Bill orf me back for some time... Cassiantotalk 23:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. You're at six supports already, with only the image and source reviews to go, so it may be a record pass at this rate. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ellen Wilkinson

You forgot your tiddlies after your support. I'd have added, but don't know how. Tim riley talk 18:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops! Many thanks for pointing out the oversight, - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

  • DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
  • Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
  • British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
  • Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
  • Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
  • JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

PR request

Hi Schro, I was wondering if you could take the time to review September Morn, which is up for review at Wikipedia:Peer review/September Morn/archive1. As this article has been controversial in the past, I'd understand if you didn't feel up to it. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I will certainly be there. I'm vaguely ignorant on art subjects, but will do what I can regarding the topic. I give not a jot about the "controversy", which is overblown and mnisdirected, as far as I am concerned! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Have anything I can take a look at? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not at the moment, thanks - I'm making woefully slow progress in my current project, but he's a subject with as many personal demons as Peter Sellers had, so it's a question of trying to find the right phrases in too many places. Thanks for the offer, and I'll be sure to ping you when I finally finish! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Seeking to confirm something

According to this source, on 8 April 1968 BBC Radio 4 broadcast an adaptation of Evelyn Waugh's novel A Handful of Dust. It looks plain and straightforward enough, but I've never heard of the source. I would prefer if possible to cite direct to the RT; as you are our light entertainment guru I thought you might have access to a RT archive that could I could use, that gives a page no. No matter if not. Pity your friend Mr Clark wasn't in it. (Please note that I was actually alive at the time of this broadcast, and might even have heard it, but if so it was way over my juvenile head.) Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Evening Brianboulton, The source is a good one - it is the BBC's own project to digitise the Radio Times (a little more information about it here). This is as good as it gets regarding the RT, unless a library visit provides something else (the BL have it all on microfiche, for example). If you use this online version, this will be a better one to use, and shows it was on page 21. If you want a hardcopy version of something to use, The Guardian 8 April 1968, p. 2 also has a brief listing of the same (although with no other details about the production, aside from the basics). Hope this helps! - SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane at FLC

Hi, Thanks for your support of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset at FLC - it has now passed. If you have a minute to take a look at List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane which uses the same format I've just nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane/archive1. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks.— Rod talk 10:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_13&oldid=1136143435"