Talk:Isabella Beeton/Archive 1

WP:CP discussion

 * Mrs Beeton from . Ben-w 00:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence that www.mrsbeeton.com existed before before 22 September 2005, when the link was added to Wikipedia. According to Google, we are the only site that links to www.mrsbeeton.com is Wikipedia. Looking at the history, this page evolved into its current form. All indications point to www.mrsbeeton.com copying from us.--Prosfilaes 00:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My revert
Why link to History of England? - History of the United Kingdom would have been more more relevant, but in any case both are inappropriate to the context. The link to United Kingdom was fine. I see no reason to unlink Germany which gives context to Heidelberg. Jooler 08:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What's helpful about British? I don't see any reason why anyone would be helped by clicking on British and being taken to a page about the United Kingdom. It doesn't help at all. Germany gives context to Heidelberg, but that doesn't mean it should be linked. If you're looking for context on Heidelberg, look at Heidelberg. I think both these links are overlinking, since neither of them link to anything even close to being useful in the context.--Prosfilaes 18:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Cookbook"
As an Englishwoman, I have always heard "Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management" simply referred to as "Mrs Beeton". "Cookbook" is, as far as I am aware, American English, and as such would not, I think, have been used in Victorian England (nor indeed nowadays by mother-tongue English speakers). Chambers English Dictionary. E.E.Thornburn (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why the categorisation of Mrs Beeton as a chef?
Why is it the case that this article categorises Mrs Beeton as a chef? I always understood that she was quite adamant that she should be classified as a "home economist", not a chef. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nationality
Mrs Beeton's nationality was British subject. There was no such thing as "English" nationality.122.59.167.152 (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * An incorrect statement on many levels, as England is a nation, English is a nationality. There is no English citizenship or statehood, which I think is where you have confused the definitions. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Mrs Beeton's bad advice
The article portrays an overly positive view of Mrs Beeton's main work which is not warranted. Her advice on first aid and the addition of boracic acid to milk is diabolical. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25259505 And https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy7iUoWi_-U and https://comestepbackintime.wordpress.com/tag/mrs-beetons-advice-on-household-remedies/ Yet the controversy is completely omitted from this entry and the separate work on the book itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.27.188 (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction?
There seems to be a contradiction here. The article cites a dictionary with a tribute to Beeton that clearly implies (pretty much states) that she's dead. Then how could Ward, Lock and Tyler have pretended that she wasn't? Brutannica (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No contradiction. After Beeton's epitaph to his wife, the next publishers tried to ignore the death to keep up sales. That's not a contradiction – just an unsympathetic marketing policy. – SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But how could they ignore the death if it was already publicly known? Brutannica (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By not mentioning it and by continuing to publish further editions under her name and with a preface 'signed' by her – SchroCat (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Links
For what reason does this article need to be an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE? Surtsicna (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * These are two guidelines that should be treated with common sense and flexibility, not set-in-stone commandments from on high. ALL articles can be an exception to any guideline - that's why they are flexible guidelines in the first place. - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course. So why should these two guidelines not apply to this article? Surtsicna (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They do where they are useful, they don't when they are not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How is it not useful to eliminate the pipe in puerperal fever ? In other words, how is beneficial to retain that pipe? Surtsicna (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The main point of not piping the links is to gauge how common the term is and to see if there is reason to have one name for an article over another. We will not rename "Puerperal infections" as "puerperal fever" as puerperal fever is the old name. As I said above, where there is no need to have the pipe, they have not been used. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the main point. It is one of several points which are listed at WP:NOTBROKEN. Others include the difficulty of reading the page in source form. Puerperal fever being the old name of the article does not mean that WP:NOTBROKEN should not apply. (Nothing prevents articles from being moved to a previous name anyway.) And in this case, there really is no need to have this pipe. Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the main reason, and other lesser ones are given. Your opinion is noted, and it doesn't chime with min. This really is too petty to keep going back and forth over, tbh. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If it were the main reason, one would expect it to be listed first; in reality, it is listed third last. And even if it were the main reason, it would still not explain why this pipe (or the others) should be retained. You are reverting sensible edits with no explanation at all. I expect to be told how my edits harmed the article or why the guidelines should not apply in this case, but I am getting nothing but blank reverts and "your opinion doesn't chime with mine". Petty is exactly what it is. Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Trying to understand the question: The article linked to is Postpartum infections, no. I confess that puerperal fever would tell me nothing but fever. Why pipe to a redirect, I think that is the question. If piping, you could pipe to the article name, and actually post partum would tell me more than puerperal. I guess mentioning childbed, in the sentence or the link, is too ordinary? - Sorry if this language question is petty, - after having typed and 2 edit conflicts, I am still curious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not understand either why one would insist on writing "puerperal fever" and on linking to "puerperal infections" when both redirect to "postpartum infections". Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not what you were saying before. I have now tweaked to postpartum infections - the target article has been moved since this one was written. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I still do not understand why the article has to say "puerperal fever" but link to "postpartum infections". Why puerperal fever instead of puerperal fever or postpartum infections? Surtsicna (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Still...? I've already explained most of this above, but: "puerperal fever" is what her death was described as and how it is referred to in the sources. Modern medicine now calls this a postpartum infection. We pipe the link to the right page because the postpartum infection page will not be renamed puerperal fever, so the need for the direct link is lost. I think we've wasted quite enough time on something that readers cannot see, don't understand and won't care about. - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You cannot know that the article Postpartum infection will not be moved again to Puerperal fever, and that is irrelevant anyway. WP:NOTBROKEN lists several other reasons not to bypass redirects such as this one, and I have mentioned one above. It also lists reasons to bypass redirects, none of which apply here. You have also reverted my removal of pipes here and here, and I honestly cannot wrap my head around this. In fact, it appears that two users can't. It's entirely unreasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for edit warring on Acton. That's a real great way to approach things. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am getting the impression of slight ownership issues, and that is not a good way to operate either. I cannot imagine how something this small and mundane can be controversial, yet it was reverted in two articles without explanation along with every other edit I made. Surtsicna (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to the edit warring, thanks for not bothering with AGF and ignoring CIVIL - that's always lovely to see. I cannot imagine how something this small and mundane is being dragged out so pointlessly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And stalking too. How nice. Not at all chilling. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How am I stalking you? Surtsicna (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

First name or last name
Can we assume that WP:SURNAME and the consensus regarding the use of the subject's first or last name reached at Talk:Josephine Butler apply here as well? Or should we have another request for comment? Surtsicna (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Rather obviously they are two separate cases (and nice that the strings are being pulled here by one of the more disruptive infobox warriors who continues to carry a petty grudge). The problem we have is that she and her husband worked closely together through their married life. One or t'other of them has to be referred to by their first name to avoid confusion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems rather obvious that the subject should be referred to by her last name and the other person by his first name. She is far more notable than he is, yet it does not seem to have ever crossed anyone's mind to refer to him as Samuel in his own article. Surtsicna (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are comparing apples with a circus clown. Samuel's article is a short piece of nothingness: this is a much longer article. If you are insistent that we change over to satisfy you, then so be it, but a little flexibility in your approach to the opinions of others would not go amiss. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We've both been inflexible, which is why I suggested that we defer this to the community. If we can avoid further ado, all the better. I hope to read more articles on which you worked. The prose is very engaging. Surtsicna (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? I have said in the comment above that "One or t'other of them has to be referred to by their first name to avoid confusion", and grudgingly (half) offered to change it over. I'm not sure that's being entirely inflexible? - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)