User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2013/March

Wailing and gnashing of teeth scheduled I think
I came across a reference to the Manchester City News earlier today, a newspaper I'd never heard of, but which seems to have been quite influential in its day. There was no Wikipedia article, so I decided to write one, but even the basic facts proved to be rather elusive; I still haven't discovered when it closed/merged for instance. But what I think may cause some complaint is that all the sources I've found so far are subscription only, so Randy from Boise won't be able to find any of them in a Google search, and thus will be convinced I've made the whole thing up. I haven't looked at your gruesome FA nomination yet, but I will do later this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Offline citations make things easier tbh. I've never heard of that newspaper either, today it would probably be assumed to be something to do with the football club. Parrot of Doom 19:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is. If you do a Google search on "Manchester City News" all you get is web sites offering news about the football club, which is partly why it's so hard to track anything down. I agree with you about offline citations; you don't have to worry about them ever going dead. Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The newspaper is mentioned by Alan Kidd in his "Manchester" book when referring to a 1890 article involving anti-Semitism. He says anti-Jewish feeling surfaced "even in the most respectable of local newspapers, the Manchester City News". Just the one mention I'm afraid. J3Mrs (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's all rather tantalising, as I've seen other vague references to the relationship between the newspaper and the Jewish community, but it's pretty much forgotten now. If I can find out when it ceased publication I'll probably leave it at that. Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Manchester City Libraries have copies from 1864-1958. J3Mrs (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Has Central Library re-opened? Parrot of Doom 20:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Next year I think. J3Mrs (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, strongly implying that the newspaper closed in 1958, which is later than I'd been searching for. Thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And your nudge has slotted another piece of the jigsaw into place. Checking the British Library archives it seems that the Manchester City News became the City & Suburban News in 1955, and it's that newspaper that went on publishing until 1958, after which it changed its name on a fairly frequent basis, ending up as the now defunct Lancashire County Express in the early 1960s. I think the British Library's archive will be enough to piece the story together until 1960 anyway, which is a step in the right direction. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * With a little bit of help I think we now have the best article on the Manchester City News available either online or offline, even though it's still pretty sparse; collaboration can work. What's surprised me is how often articles from the paper have been quoted, yet how little is known or has been reported about it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think your graverobbery article looks great, although I'm not particularly fond of that "wherefrom" in the lead. But that's a small thing. Good luck at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I suspect the reason the topic hasn't been covered better is purely because those who did it tended to stick to the shadows. I'm not completely happy with the ending but it's all I've got. Parrot of Doom 10:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What don't you like about the ending? It seems fine to me. It's a little abrupt perhaps, but you can only go with the sources. BTW, I very much like how you've restricted the scope of the article to the UK. A mistake too many make here is to try and cover the whole world, so you end up with sections entitled Grave robbery in Armpit of the World, Grave robbery in Bollockstan ... nonsense; remember that ridiculous wife selling article? Malleus Fatuorum 14:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just the "last instance in 1844" thing, I'd like to find what that instance was but the source I used doesn't elaborate. I think I'll search through my online news sources to see if I can track it down.  I'd also like to know what the grave robbers went on to do, but it was a mysterious trade so I don't suppose anyone alive knows.  There is quite a lot to be said for the same practices having occurred in the US, but that's someone else's job tbh. Parrot of Doom 17:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Grave robbing wasn't a full-time job for many, so I suppose they just kept at their day jobs or bought a hoodie and took up mugging. The whole area of jobs disappearing, and workers fighting to keep their increasingly irrelevant and uneconomic jobs is quite interesting. Stagecoach drivers trying to race railway trains and cotton workers smashing machinery spring immediately to mind. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you want to expand on workhouses, there's a great deal to be said about how the workhouse dead were given over to anatomy. The Richardson book I have is full of that kind of stuff, it helps explain people's fear of those institutions, that you might not even come out in a box... Parrot of Doom 21:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Might be worth adding something on that, but I found that workhouse article really difficult to work on for some reason, so I'm in no hurry to go back there. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a multi-faceted topic which to do any kind of FA justice probably requires a great deal more work than the very significant effort you've put in so far. Just think of Ealgydth (argh can never spell his/her name) 's work on Middle Ages and weep.  When I have a spare day, I'll see if I can add something from Richardson's book. Parrot of Doom 23:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not afraid of work, but it took a long time before a clear narrative emerged for me (if you recall, the original article was based around the various Poor Laws), so I'll be interested to see what you come up with. As for Ealdgyth, I'd never even consider tackling something like Middle Ages, so more strength to her elbow. I tried last year to do something with information technology, but I soon got bogged down with Mr and Mrs Wally arguing interminably over capitalisation, so I gave it up as a bad job. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't looked at that IT article for a while until I just mentioned it here. Just look at that fucking ridiculous lead! Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It hurt my frontal lobes to read the first two paragraphs of that lead. Compare it to the OED's definition - "The branch of technology concerned with the dissemination, processing, and storage of information, esp. by means of computers".  Clear, simple, understandable. Parrot of Doom 23:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My lead tried to be equally succinct, and to provide a way into the mess that is IT and all its associated acronyms like ITC, largely created by teachers trying to create jobs for themselves. But what do I know? I've only worked in the field for 30 years. I've got a good nose for bullshit though, and that lead is full of it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Your FAC
I don't agree with the comment that all the 10-digit ISBNs should be converted to 13-digit ones, but I've done it all the same, for the sake of giving you a quiet(er) life. Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw, thanks for that. I can't keep up with the way formatting changes around here! Parrot of Doom 17:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've evolved a way that works for me, and I stick to it. Any objection to me "updating" your harvnb templates to sfnp? Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * None whatsoever, as long as it looks roughly the same as other articles I've expanded then I'm quite happy. I think I've just settled into a way of doing things, it works for me.  Gives me more brain time to think about the content. Parrot of Doom 18:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It'll look better. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do I just move the article as suggested, and copyedit grave robbers out? Or is there a procedure? Parrot of Doom 23:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just move it, and someone will sort out the rest. (Except for copyediting out grave robbers of course, which you'll have to do.) Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok I've done that. To be honest I'm surprised nobody's noticed the lack of the usual bold type in the first sentence of the lead, but I prefer the way it is now. Parrot of Doom 00:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few articles without a bolded title in the first sentence, and there probably ought to be more. I get so pissed off seeing stuff such as "The XYZ Canal is a canal ...". But now that the title has changed I'd prefer to see a more prominent explanation of "resurrectionist" in the lead, so I think a little bit of rejigging of the lead may be in order. Would you mind if I had a little go at it? Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Parrot of Doom 09:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've redone the first paragraph, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Corpses and their component parts became a commodity, but although the practice was hated by the general public, bodies were not legally anyone's property. What practice are we talking about? Disinterment, dissection, both? Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Both disinterment and dissection were hated, nay, despised.  I was referring to the former though. Parrot of Doom 16:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me as well. One final question: "Although it did not make body snatching illegal, the resulting Act of Parliament effectively put an end to the illicit disinterment of bodies by allowing anatomists access to the workhouse dead." In what sense was it illicit if it wasn't illegal? Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not illegal per se, but certainly judged on occasion to be a crime against public mores. Parrot of Doom 17:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we just drop the word "illicit" then? Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Scrub that, I think I've found a better solution. I'll get out of your hair now. Malleus Fatuorum 17:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it's a relief to watch other people work on it :) I always get to a point where I think "right, I've had enough of this"! Parrot of Doom 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, it's always good to have someone walk around kicking the tyres a bit. Maybe this article shows FAC at its best, as I think there's no doubt it's been improved somewhat during the process. Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Workhouse
Hi POD, I just left a note with Malleus thanking him for the excellent work on the above, so thought it only right to extend it to here. I would love to see this one at FAC, but please ignore the current itch you have by way of OWN accusations made by certain editors on the talk. I will relay a phrase a left with your esteemed co-writer --   Cassianto Talk    09:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)