User talk:SchroCat/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome!

Hello, Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Shirt58 (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Cat
Yes it is, because it's also dead. --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 07:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Turramurra High School
I've reverted your reversion of the IP's blanking of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award section from the Turramurra High School article. I presume that the section was blanked because the section is inappropriate for inclusion on a school page (being that it essentially replicates information given elsewhere). The IP should have given an edit summary, so... Heh. :)

In any case, this is just a courtesy so that you understand why I went back over you. - danjel  (talk to me) 14:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Aluminium, caesium and sulfur
Their spelling was fixed on wikipedia per IUPAC conventions (see WP:SULF), i.e. if you see sulfur (aluminium) it does not mean the article is written in US (UK) spelling. Materialscientist (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad - I thought the first use had been in UK spelling.--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

NPP
Hi. Thank you for patrolling  new pages. I have changed a CSD tag you  recently  placed incorrectly. Smokey joes fc is clearly not  a G1 nonsense page, it  is a blatant G3 hoax, and should be tagged as such  so  that the creator receives the appropriate warning. If you are still  not  sure how to  patroll  pages, please now take a moment  to read the new updated page at  WP:NPP before tagging  any  more pages, and don't  hesitate to  ask  me for help any  time  on  my  talk page. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up - I've had to use the same tag on Bc madrid too. I'll have a look over WP:NPP now and stick to it - I may be back to you for clarification!:)--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bc madrid was not a hoax, just a non notable youth team. I have deleted it as an A7 group without indication of importance. Fram (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Please do not change the spellings of articles per WP:RETAIN, as you did in Cigar. There is a Manual of Style, edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
wintonian  talk   edits  11:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not observe this kitten...
 Shirt58 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}.

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
Thanks for your edits on Falkland Islands, anyone fixing my dyslexic edits is always welcome. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * lol - my pleasure! I'm always happy when someone sorts out my gibbering rubbish, so happy to help when I can!--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
wintonian  talk  10:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr. No
It's good to see someone is interested in returning this article to GA status. As the first Bond film, it could definitely use a better article. The main issue I see with the article right now is the lack of sourcing in some areas. Go through the article and for any statements that may be challenged by a reader, add a citation. The images being used in the article are also somewhat of an issue since they are non-free. We can probably justify using the image of Honey Rider (although it will need to be moved to the related section that discusses the caption), however, the image of Bond just shows him sitting and looking off to the side (something that doesn't convey his catchphrase). The citations also need consistent formatting, many of them only have the url. Ideally they should include author, work, title, date, etc. It could probably use more book sources, but if it's sourced by other means that will work for GA. I'd recommend addressing these issues first, and look to some of the other WP:FILM GAs for examples. Once you've addressed these points let me know and I'll be happy to copyedit the article and provide more specifics on areas for improvement. If you have any questions on any of the above, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great - many thanks. I've made a start on updatting existing citations (now largely done) and I've added a couple of new ones.  I've identified some of the other points that need confirmation and am working on finding references to add in support.  I'll get back to you once I've gone through that lot and the WP:FILM GAs too.  Cheers.--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a closer look at it this weekend. Good job so far in further improving the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's going to have to be later this week. The internet's out at my apartment and I can only do limited editing from my phone. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try and get to this tomorrow. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave the article a copyedit and rearranged some of the sections. I'd recommend finding one or two other editors to give it another copyedit. Then, feel free to nominate it, it looks to me like it meets the criteria. It would definitely benefit from more expansion and additional sources, especially if this heads off to FAC at some point. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the barnstar, although, you should be the one commended for your extensive work in improving the article. I look forward to seeing how it does at GAN, and if you need any assistance during the review, let me know, and I'll be happy to assist. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Third Man/Graham Greene
In point of fact, it is the way Greene usually worked when it came to screenplays — he said many times he needed to work everything out prosaically before recasting it for the eye. Usually these "treatments" (Greene's word) went off to a desk drawer and oblivion, but because TTM was such a huge hit, he was prevailed upon to release something, so he blew the dust off his treatment and called it a novella. I still disagree that this well-known fact needs a cite, but you displayed indications of stubborness when you tagged it a second time and I acquiesced rather than do battle over it. Likewise for the position of the theme song on 1950 music charts — it does not need a cite, but I provided one. Somewhere deep in the MOS for film, it is suggested that leads not be overwhelmed with footnotes — that cites down in the body of the text suffice, and that if the issue is not covered in the text, then it shouldn't be included in the lead. With that in mind, I think the three footnotes make a clunkier, more awkward lead, although not as clunky as your tags made it (Were you ever tempted to find the cites and insert them, rather than just plunk down tags?). I do apologize for the snotty tone of my edit summary, but I don't have enough hours left in my life to be wasting one of them because someone decides that items that don't need cites, do. Cordially, nonetheless — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Spelling change on Pig
I'm not interested in edit warring, but since it is clear you are still following my edits, I am politely asking that you revert your recent systematic spelling change edits on Pig. Edit #4 introduces the spelling 'labor' which is the first variant spelling. While it may appear to be in a proper name, it is not because either spelling can be used in that name depending only on the speller's chosen spelling style. The speller chose US English. BTW, I think you, just as I did, missed a few on the military uniform article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr. No GA
Hello, I have reviewed the article and placed it on hold. Comments to improve the article has been placed on the article's talk page. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 13:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Matthew. Many thanks for taking the trouble to undertake the review on Dr. No.  I think that I've covered all the points you raised, but if you feel that there are still issues to be addressed, please us know.  Thanks again.--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Matthew. Thanks so much for the quick - and positive - review.  Great news to have it back where it belongs!  Thanks again.--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work in the article! I wanted to regain GA status, but I kept on postponing... still, after seeing your nomination I went to fix/expand all I could! Was that a standalone project or you're willing to help more of the blanks here? igordebraga ≠ 15:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a stand alone, but I'm not sure just yet which article to look at next, although it will be Bond related. May have a look at the novels or possibly the broader character sweeps of Bond, or may just plump for another film to look at!  Will keep you posted.--Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent work in returning this article to GA status, it's good the GA review went so smoothly. I hope you continue to bring articles up to GA, whatever the topic may be. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Next target selected... Goldfinger. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs has kindly agreed to give it a quick once over to highlight any specific issues, but it looks in a none to dissimilar state to Dr No when we first started.  Anyone who wants to help out, please fell free to jump in and add relevant tages / sort links / add sources / beef up sections or suggest new areas to research.  Cheers! - Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Goldfinger
I'm kind of busy at the moment, so it might take me a day or two but I'll try and give my comments on the talk page. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you see if anything else is needed in the article (particularly the lead)? igordebraga ≠ 05:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a lot needed everywhere - way too soon to nominate as it's still quite weak in places. - Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Goldfinger GA
Hello, I have reviewed the article and placed it on hold. Notes for improvement can be found at the article's talk page. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 10:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping the article - and also the barnstar (I'm usually an "invisible contributor" - sometimes people thank me, but that's only my second award!). Warn me if you have more Bond projects (I consider doing some others, but I'd probably focus now on keeping the GT status of this...). igordebraga ≠ 15:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion
I apologise for challenging you over the plot in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I see now what you are doing. I will give you a hand in promoting the remaining. What more could one ask for than the help of the Count de Blofeld himself.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at the dvd sleeve later. I'm currently reading the Sean Connery biography, I aim to get him up to GA like I did with Clint Eastwood but needs a huge amount of work. Hey if you are researching these films you might want to search in Google books for info or even scraps which could provide a more comprehensive article. All you have to do is simply paste a book url into here and click load. Hope this helps.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure - I'm mostly focused on Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (I have a deadline to push it to GA level), but have started to rewatch the OHMSS DVD extras, and, like Blofeld above said, searching in Google Books for sources. igordebraga ≠ 14:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I hate the Angels of Death section. The table looks ugly. I am tempted to remove that section, unless it can be converted to prose layout like the above cast and then move down Ruby and th other angels which have been mentioned previously?♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I've made the first move and will update the individual actresses in due course. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine now. You might want to check the "Singaporean girl" though. An ip changed it from Chinese to Singaporean. BTW I've looked through google books and haven't really found much more than plot summaries and what has already been said. I think its just about GA quality now. Happy editing!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I saw the change - I've changed it back because the listing on the BFI site shows her as Chinese. I think the amount of information that it covers is certainly GA standard, although there is still a large amount of citation work to be done before we're up to GA standard, I think. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What else you think OHMSS needs before the GA nom? (also, there's only one thing that worries me if you're going chronologically... unlike those three we've been working on, The Man with the Golden Gun is so bad that I don't know if I can bring myself into researching it deeply :). igordebraga ≠ 00:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know - I´m dreading starting on that one! Licence to Kill is also in pretty bad shape too!  I´m sill looking at one of the "biggies" too - like James Bond (character)‎ or James Bond (film series)‎, or even Ian Fleming.  We´ll see once we´ve got this one finished off! I think we´re fairly close now - a bit of a polish needed on the cast, work something up about the Bond & Angels image (or get rid of it entirely) and a couple of dead links which need the cites to be re-sourced - once all that is done I´ll re-draft the lead to make sure it matches the balance in the rest of the article and we should be good to go.  3 or 4 days should do it, I reckon. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

On Her Majesty's Secret Service is actually one of the best articles on a Bond film we have now! Between us and Betty Logan its come a long way. Man with the Golden Gun is my favourite Bond film, well at least location wise. I obviously think Dr No, From Russia with Love and Goldfinger are superior films, but I just love the location and Christopher Lee and Nick Nack and the evil knievel trick and flying car even if ridiculous.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

MWTGG
It's a good idea doing the series or the character next, such "core" pages deserve better articles (particularly the series, which is the main article of the possible topic you put in your userpage). Well, you can nominate TMWTGG as long as you don't ask someone to review it soon like you did with the previous ones - the backlog is so huge that by the time it gets reviewed, you'll might be able to fix unsourced statements, references that'll never pass WP:RS and such in the meantime... But maybe I'll put myself into watching the thing with the commentary, research some more and such when I have the time (at least I'll have less problem with the next non-GA one chronologically, since the movie is actually good!). igordebraga ≠ 17:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're probably right - I'll hold off for a while until we've cleared up a bit more. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Third Man
Thanks for your very significant help in getting the plot summary down to a suitable size! Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! it was a bit of a brutal cut, but the plot is all there and if people want to add a word or two to soften it, then there is now space available without going over the limits!- SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, well done! It was a clever couple of snips with the scissors! Invertzoo (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars!
(I'll give some final touches on For Your Eyes Only, then will help you on Licence to Kill. Afterwards, will you go for the series or NSNA? I even asked if the latter is required!)


 * I'm thinking of getting all the Eon films done first, then NSNA and then onto the series - hope that sounds like fun for you! I've taken Casino Royale '54 out of the equation - it's not a film, it's only a TV dramatisation and so doesn't qualify. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Dr No
Glad to know my comments were useful. The article White bikini of Ursula Andress is short but well sourced - seems like these would be refs to check out for inclusion in the Dr No article. It also has a quote from Anress that the film made her a star (a legacy of a sort). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That article was authored by me. Do you have any plans for featured article with any of these? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not with the bikini article, no. Dr. No is currently going through a peer review process to try and sharpen it up a little further, even though we recently got it back up to GA status. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ )

Hi SchroCat. Your diligence at your FAC review is admirable, but might I suggest you read the instructions at the top of the WP:FAC page, particularly "Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as ✅ and ❌) is discouraged"? I don't particularly care about them so long as they're signed, but the delegates tend to get annoyed when you use those templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up on that: I've amended them to a non-graphic form now. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 06:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

NSNA
Maybe I'll do something - after all, the closest I got to watching the movie was this, and I have no DVD for reference (sidenote: the pic is from before I got QoS). But I must say you did a fairly good job yourself, my input should be minimal. igordebraga ≠ 15:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problems if you can't - I'll see what else I can put in there. Betty Logan is going to have a look over it too to see what mistakes they can find!  Cheers -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Template
Well, we could move WikiProject James Bond/Films/Template to WikiProject James Bond/Novels/Template after we turn that into a Good Topic (we could outright create the latter template, but after the promotion there wil be a dedicated Topic page and it won't need the template anymore!) Anyway, are you only waiting for LTK and NSNA to pass before doing the series article? And just for curiosity... have you edited with another name before? (I ask it specially after seeing this edit...) igordebraga ≠ 16:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you started the nevel - I even thought you'd restore the former GAs (Live and Let Die (novel) - which should be the next anyway... and The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)) first, like with the movies (then again, the former GAs were the first and third...). Anyway, hope that one goes well too - and put more references on the section regarding the TV adaptation of CR, it's lacking compared to the others in "Adaptations". igordebraga ≠ 01:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers for that - I've referenced it slightly better now and added a new section on Characters and Themes, which was the only missing bit in there. I'll make a start on Bond Films too at some point, but it looks like it's going to be a big project - it took me a couple of hours to sort the date formatting alone - and as for dealing with this lot...!  I've made a start trying to sort the images out and we've had to lose a few, after advice on the NFC side, but we'll try and keep the remainder on board if possible. I might spend a day or so having a quick edit of Live and Let Die (novel) and then get to work on it... -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Seminal
Have you ever read WP:PEACOCK? I think "iconic" is awful too. --John (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Iodized_salt
As the nominator of the move of Iodised salt to Iodized salt made in May, I would invite your input here. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker
Why have you removed the paragraph about Bond's cars from the article ? Fleming usually made a point of describing the cars Bond drove in each book and they are a relevant part of the book's article. RGCorris (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Partly because there were no sources used in the section and partly because it doesn't run with the MOS:NOVELS guidelines which are needed to get articles up to GA status, for which this is now nominated. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The source was, fairly obviously, the novel; links were provided to the Wikipedia pages for the cars concerned. RGCorris (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't alter the fact that, fairly obviously, there were no sources used and the section does not run with the MOS guidelines which need to be adhered to in order to get the article up to GA quality. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Never Say Never Again
The article Never Say Never Again you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Never Say Never Again for comments about the article. Well done! Deadly&forall;ssassin 08:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * that's great - I'm away and on apatchy mobile signal at the moment, but will re-write the odd sentance when I'm back. Cheers! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. Can you drop a note on my talk page when you've had a chance to look at my suggestions? -- Deadly&forall;ssassin  07:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(also, besides the series and possibly the '54 CR, I'm trying to fix The Spy Who Loved Me (film)- and maybe later The Living Daylights - since maintenance templates are denounced by the book report and could be a point against us...)

GoldenEye 007
Thank you for your help with GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game) and for the barnstar. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bond films list
I've created the article List of James Bond films as you asked - which means both rewrites on that and the series article to make it justifiable... and giving an insight here. Can you give me some help? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 02:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep - I'll see what I can do today and for a little bit tomorrow, but I'm out of contact after that for the rest of the week, but we should be able to do enough to justify. I've started another page too - Motifs in the James Bond film series - as I think it's justifiable as a page in its own right and will help keep the page size of James Bond (film series) down to a manageable level. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Bond novels at GAN
Hi mate, feel free to ping me when you've had a chance to look over and tweak (if necessary) one of your current novel GANs per our discussion at the Casino Royale GA review, and I'll be happy to review that one as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hiya, Cheers for that - I'm away until next weekend, but I need to go over them again properly: I've done a quick sweep along the lines of your suggestions, but need to do a full sort and a proper coy edit too. once I've done that I'll come round and hassle you again. ;) -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of License to Kill
The article License to Kill you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:License to Kill for things which need to be addressed. GRAPPLE  X  13:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Article has now passed, with help from Igordebraga. Well done! GRAPPLE   X  23:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

(let's see if the '54 Casino Royale TV episode passes as well, before anyone complains on its absence - it's not the first time!; also, if James Bond (film series) seems to need too much work to get to GA status, we can instead turn List of James Bond films into a Featured List and turn that into the main article of the topic)
 * If you're working on getting the last few articles together for a Good Topic, ping me about any reviews still needing done and I'll try to get them done in a timely manner for you guys. GRAPPLE   X  00:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Had a look at Casino Royale (Climax!). It's on hold now too, though it should be a pretty quick job to pass it. GRAPPLE   X  03:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we can remove - but if anyone at the Good Topic Nomination says it's a gap, like the one linked above (a Batman films GT that fell because people thought the unrelated Adam West film should be there!), we put it back. And now, what will be the main article of the topic, the series article or the list of films? igordebraga ≠ 22:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Leading with a list makes more sense, although it wouldn't hurt to include the series article in there as well, listed before the first film. Also consider how it should be ordered - strictly chronologically, or EON films first and non-EON after? GRAPPLE   X  22:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, we'll go with the list to head it up and get it up to GA status as a priority. The list and articles will cover both the Eon and non-Eon films - in that order and not chronologically, but the TV episode will not be included. (As it's GA anyway there is no need to worry too much about it). Once we've got the List up to GA we can start on the "Bond in film" article, as the suggested name change seems to be getting approval at the moment.  Sound OK? I've amended the films template accordingly - hope you think it's OK, but feel free to alter where appropriate! Cheers -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the list is too simple/straightforward to count as an article - WP:FL should be the place to go instead. igordebraga ≠ 17:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As always Igor, I agree. I've started the process with the Peer Review process, which may take a while, but we need to get over that as the first step before we proceed on to the applying for FL itself. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Live and Let Die (novel)/GA2
Good, well written article. On hold for a couple of quibbles. Ping me when done.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well done.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  19:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Bond 23
I've reverted your edits to the James Bond in film page. I feel that making a subsection for the name of Bond 23 marginalises it. It feels like you do not want to include the content because it is speculation, and you are only doing so because you have to. If you want a separate section for naming, then perhaps it is time to make a Bond 23 article. The entire section on the film at the moment could be cleaned up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you move it all to a new page then. To split two unsubstantiated rumours on the names seems bloody stupid to me until there is confirmation from one of the official sources.  There is no official confirmation in this instance and the news report from the mail is full of supposition and guesswork.  -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quoting the Mail. The entire Baz Bamigboye article that everyone is putting so much faith into is written in such a way that he says things without actually committing to them (ie Javier Bardem "will cause a lot of grief for Bond" - that's what every Bond villain does!). But my issue here is the way you keep slipping words like "purportedly" into the text. You clearly think very little of these stories that the title will be "Skyfall", so when I'm reading your edits, they read like the Bamigboye article - like you're trying to say something, but refusing to commit to it because you think so little of it. I'm not against what you're doing, I just think you could do it better, and perhaps use a wording that has a less-disdinaful connotation to it. Right now, the entire section makes it pretty clear that "Skyfall" is only speculative, but because you need to reference this speculation in every sentence, it's starting to lose both its meaning and its encyclopaedic tone. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm reflecting what the various articles are saying. MarkMonitor have registered the domains, no-one else. They will have done so on behalf of a third party, but the identity is unclear (Eon, Sony, MGM?) and none of the official sources have confirmed that this will be the new name. Additionally I still think having the two naming rumours separately within the article is still a damned foolish thing: they should be together, not spread out - it looks at the moment far too random and un-encyclopaedic, as if they have been added when they arose, without any thought being given to the whole. Your call, I'm not going to get into an edit war over something you feel is your territory. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 05:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've edited it to be something something a little more neutral that still makes things quite clear that it has not been verified by anyone and rather has been reported a particular way. The sentence now reads like this:
 * "On 3 October 2011, fifteen domain names including 'jamesbond-skyfall.com' and 'skyfallthefilm.com' were reported to have been registered on behalf of MGM and Sony Pictures by internet brand-protection service MarkMonitor."
 * As for the separation of naming rumours, I'm still not sure how to approach that. I think the "Skyfall" stories have more credibility than the "Carte Blanche" ones (because of the precedent in finding the domain names like last time, where as the "CArte Blanche" rumours were started by someone wanting to get a little attention), but I think that putting them together at the end of the subsection will marginalise "Skyfall" reports, but putting them together at the start will only place a renewed focus on the "Carte Blanche" rumour. That's why I think starting a new page for Bond 23 is a solution, because it will enable us to create a subsection within the production details dedicated to the name of the film without adding or subtracting undue weight to either story. The problem is that I'm hesitant to create a page to Bond 23 without the film actually having a title. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But to a large extent there is no difference apart from YOU think there is more credibility. POV, surely? Putting them together until suchtime as an official source confirms of denies the fact puts both rumours on the same footing. It's a holding strategy only, but the way you have it gives it more credence than the facts as we know them actually deserve. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 05:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

But it's a question of where you put them together. If you read the articles mentioning "Skyfall", a lot of them describe the way the Quantum of Solace title was discovered the same way. Therefore, there is more weight attached to it because of an established precedent. Yes, it is partially POV, but it's a lesser evil than grouping them together, because by doing so, you automatically attach a certain weight to one, so it's an article bias. That's why I think an article for Bond 23 is the best way forwards - we can add a naming subsection, recall the events chornologically, and avoid both POV and article bias issues. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already agreed that the new page is the best way forward, but forgot to take into account WP:NFF, which means we can't for another few weeks. I don't agree with the article bias point at all: splitting them goes against the whole POV argument, which I find to be the bigger sin, in this case. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, on reflection, I think we can remove the "Carte Blanche" rumour. In the grand scheme of things, it's inconsequential - and I think it was only really included in the first place to respond to constant edits adding the rumour in. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenation of "well-known" and "well known"
Per WP:HYPHEN, "Many compounds that are hyphenated when used attributively (before the noun they qualify: 'a light-blue handbag, are not hyphenated when used predicatively (separated from the noun: 'the handbag was light blue')." Also, "A hyphen is normally used when the adverb well precedes a participle used attributively ('a well-meaning gesture'; but normally 'a very well managed firm', since well itself is modified); and even predicatively, if 'well' is necessary to, or alters, the sense of the adjective rather than simply intensifying it". In the case of "blah blah was well known", well does not alter the sense of known, and is not necessary to it, it just intensifies it, so no hyphen is needed, and when no hyphen is needed, a hyphen is undesirable. Chris the speller   yack  21:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, well done. However, well-known is adjectival in the sense it is used in this article. In BE (which is the chosen language of the article) there is a slightly different nuanced use to the use as well. To avoid any confusion for you I've re-worded the section. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, believe me, I wasn't confused. Happy editing! Chris the speller   yack  15:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you were. Either way, it is a rather moot point now. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:James Bond 007, Gun Symbol logo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:James Bond 007, Gun Symbol logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sir Armbrust Talk to me  Contribs  22:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

For your eyes only
Hi, can we come up with a better choice of words for the opening line of the article as it is a little bit repetitive: James Bond - MI6 agent 007, sometimes referred to as simply '007'.

Could you suggest a better line for the article???

Please let me know if you think of one.

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Is this better? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Much better - Roll on Bond 23 and hope that it was better then the last effort after Casino Royale!

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Naomie Harris/Miss Moneypenny
I've undone edits claiming that Naomie Harris will be Miss Moneypenny in BOND 23. The news articles might say "confirmed", but I don't see a single quote from Harris herself or EON supporting this. A couple of publiactions like /Film and Empire are claiming Albert Finney has been "confirmed" for BOND 23, but they're all written of the Baz Bamigboye tabloid article, which only quotes an executive that is anonymous as they are enthusiastic, which I find to be a very questionable source. So Finney is by no means confirmed, and using that logic, neither is Harris. The article now reads that producers have met with her, which we know to be true. I know it's conservative, but it will only be for three days - if Harris is Miss Moneypenny, she will no doubt be announced at the press conference in three days' time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * According to MOS and WP:RELIABLESOURCES it isn't needed. However, as you seem to think that this is your own private article which you don't accept other people edits, I'll not bother editing anything further on the page. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is my private article. I just dispute the references as being reliable stories because they can be traced back to tabloids, rather than anyone who can actually confirm her involvement in the role. Should I perhaps like to this article - http://www.people.co.uk/celebs-tv/celebrities/2011/10/30/megan-fox-to-be-bond-girl-102039-23524556/ - then? It's a tabloid. It quotes someone saying that Megan Fox will be in the film, just as other tabloid articles have said that Harris will be Moneypenny. Therefore, it must be reliable; the only difference is that respectable publications picked up on the Harris story. I'll get right on editing Megan Fox in, then. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks as I was just about to correct that one myself!

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure - good to see some tidying of these articles - I should get round to it myself sometime! Cheers! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Just for laughs...
Guess who this reminded me of? igordebraga ≠ 04:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PMSL - yeah, that's about right! You should see me when I get really pissed tho! lol - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Schrodinger&#39;s cat is alive, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Schrodinger's cat is alive/James Bond (character).


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

JB Films list
A Featured List "has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly." So, we might need an image... perhaps something like this? (it's copyrighted, but I see those frequently in video game lists) igordebraga ≠ 16:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Still got the same issues of copyright on the logos, unfortunately. They may be okay for a normal (or even a GA listed) article, but not FL, I guess. It's a shame as I thought we'd get the 007 logo through. There are enough other examples of FLs we could show which use similar(ish) artwork, but there are also enough other FLs which have none at all! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 23:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, on the search for those VG FLs I came upon imageless ones. But still, wouldn't an image of the Bond DVDs be a good illustration for a film list? It's copyrighted, but has precedents and should fit the NFCC perfectly. (though I don't know if my collection is the best for the pic due to titles in Portuguese - as the image above shows, Cassino Royale) igordebraga ≠ 01:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a question on the review page asking why other FLs are allowed the same type of images, but this isn't... we'll know how we can proceed once we see the answer to that. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, it's defendable, and I admit it's a good enough image - the problem is dealing with all the copyright neurotics (and I don't understand that guy's claim for "needs 7 FUR" - at maximum I've seen two pics with FURs for game cover, book cover, DVD cover and CD cover because they use varied media). I had only left two because I was uncertain about taking mine and leaving only Blofeld's one. But how long before someone actually supporting/opposing the FLC appears, instead of just this debacle on the images? igordebraga ≠ 14:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On the table: that's the problem with editing the article in two separate tabs, one supersedes the other... Returned the one per the suggestion in the FLC. igordebraga ≠ 23:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've seen many FLs without images... it's only the offer is so big here (the 007 logo, Bond DVDs, actors dressed as Bond, a Bond premiere) it's kinda underwhelming to see it without any. (specially as I commented above that the FL criteria expects an image!) But yeah, now everything's right in the table. (though I thought the Actuals/2011 rows were better above than below, as they're now... but I don't know if it's possible to do so!) igordebraga ≠ 15:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree - I don't like seeing articles without images at all, but if we have to go in without an image to get the FL, then we'll have to take that step (although not without an argument! Personally I think the table looks worse now with the top rows reversed, but I'm not sure how else it will work without the current version, so again I guess we have t bow to pressure. Either way, if we're not given the FL status, I'm changing the table back AND putting the damned image back in there too! Lol - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

2 supports, think a promotion is on the way. We now need to remove the cleanup templates that the book report denounces that'll be a point against us in the GTC. Can you fix the [citation needed] parts of The Living Daylights? igordebraga ≠ 23:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. There is one problem, however: Skyfall. This can't go for GA until the release of the film. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Unreleased movies only need a PR for inclusion (criteria 3c)- think I'll start it just in case. igordebraga ≠ 10:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Saw you started the PR - think there's a couple more steps to do before it starts properly. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

People take so long to post on any review things (PR, GAN, FL/FT/FL candidates) that it won't be much of a problem. igordebraga ≠ 14:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding MI6 -> MI6, Look at the original text. There was no Stella Remington link, so the text implied that Judi Dench was the fictional head of MI5, which is clearly incorrect. If you write ambiguous or misleading sentences, they are liable to be corrected. You surely must be aware that when writing about fiction and reality at the same time, you have to be extra careful to express clearly which one you are referring to. Best Wishes, 109.153.202.233 (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The link was always there, you just missed it. Check the edit history. And, yes, I'm aware of the guidelines of writing about fact and fiction, thanks. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Goldfinger (novel)/GA1
Good read! Meets GA criteria apart from the Lead. I had a look to see if it could be done quickly so I could do it myself, but I think there's a significant amount of information missing, so there's probably at least an hour's work or more. I've put on hold for the regular initial seven days, but if you do it before then, just give me a ping and I'll wrap up the review. Good work.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Another GA. Keep up the good work.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Related articles
I saw you are working on James Bond. There appears to be a piece of vandalism (something about Skyfall) hidden in the "See also" section somewhere in the "Links to related articles" templates. I couldn't figure out which template (or article) it is originating from. Are you able to see that? maclean (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've caught it.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OHMSS
I've reviewed the article, as I enjoyed the last one so much! I've placed it on hold for the moment, but no major problems. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for doing the review - a nice smooth process! I've addressed your comments and hope that I've completed what you had in mind. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review for Octopussy and The Living Daylights
Hi, SchroCat. I have reviewed Octopussy and The Living Daylights. Overall, it's very good, although there are a number of smallish issues that need to be addressed before it can be passed. I am placing it On Hold. Take care, Moisejp (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, nice work with your changes. I have passed the article. I did have a concern about your solution regarding Blanch Blackwell, so please read the end of the review, where I have a few suggestions—I'll trust you to resolve it as you think best. Well, I quite enjoyed the process of working with you on that. I think I will review another one of your articles next. So, I'll be talking to you again soon. Moisejp (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Bond topic
No doubt the FL promotion is good news. igordebraga ≠ 18:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Spy Who Loved Me (novel) GA review
Hi Schrodinger! The GA review for The Spy Who Loved Me (novel) is done. I have listed a number of concerns and put the article on hold. When these are resolved, I will pass the article. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Thanks so much for doing the review again - much appreciated! I've dealt with your comments, I hope, but if there is anything that needs looking into again or anything new, please let me know. Thanks - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It all looks very good. I've promoted it to GA. Now that you've got pretty much all of the Bond movies and Fleming novels to GA, what's your next project? Perhaps the non-Fleming novels? Or maybe some of the GAs to FA? Moisejp (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great: thanks very much indeed for doing the review - it's much appreciated. There's still a few other Bond related articles that need some work on them and I've madea start on Ian Fleming, which is next in line for an upgrade.  Once I'm done with Bond, we'll see: possibly into the world of George Smiley or Flashman....or maybe not, I'll see! -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Random comment in appreciation of your username
I would just like to say that you have possibly the coolest username I have seen. It made my day a little brighter to see it on my watchlist. PrincessofLlyr royal court 00:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Aww - thanks very much! And from a Princess too! ;) - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Man with the Golden Gun (novel) GAN update
I copyedited it myself, and left a few questions for you. Betty Logan also left a few questions for you. Once you address her and my comments, I'll be prepared to certify it as a GA.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  09:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All now addressed, with comments on the review page. Thanks very much! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll re-read it with fresh eyes in the morning, just to make sure there's nothing more that needs looking into, but I'm thinking this is about ready for it's green circle of honor. BTW, I have FT watchlisted, and I saw the other Bond stuff over there. I'll post on your GT nom soon too.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great - thanks very much indeed and if there is anything else that crops up, just let me know and I'll go over it. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

''' PROMOTED! ''' Congrats!  S ven M anguard  Wha?  07:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's great - thanks very much Sven - very good of you! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A little less public

 * "Please be civil"?? Could you please point out where I have been uncivil? SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 00:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well how was I supposed to interpret "and yet still you revert" under the circumstances? Besides, calling my point "sheer and utter POV" is not only dismissive but rude. I am sure you are capable of greater consideration and politeness. Alfietucker (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * p.s. On reflection I thought this exchange was better moved here, since it's not furthering the process of editing The Third Man. Just wanted to add here that I'm not interested in a fight, and I would rather we could talk calmly about this or any other issue. Best wishes, Alfietucker (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest we draw a line under this conversation as I think messages are being taken out of context. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 00:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Bond
The article James Bond you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James Bond for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fantastic news - thanks very much! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 23:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:ROALD
silly billypiggy ''¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE! 17:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bond topic
I think it's viable - there are topics that cut to specific parts (such as Featured topics/Nirvana studio albums instead of Nirvana discography, which would required EPs/compilations/live albums). The lead, my first thoughts were James Bond (novels) or Ian Fleming. igordebraga ≠ 14:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes... and this time there aren't even objections like in the FLC! It will take so long that after people start responding, I'll be able to get 180 points out of that topic! (in the meantime, see if D.P.O. can finally pass) igordebraga ≠ 13:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High, while for quality the scale goes from Low  to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk: undid my revision
Please check it again. I have included the Bond product placement in good faith and for two reasons: 1) Probably the most Bond films have product placement, and it is a part of budget. 2) We all known that product placement is often criticised, and I also don't like it. But in Bond we had two ways of product placement - like the Martini, and Aston Martin, which is not so bad, and so related to Bond that everyone thinking about it, thinks about this, with most people "like it". And secondly the Bond "bad dream" placement like watch discussion in 2006 Casino Royale.

-> Just by having it near the rottentomatoes opinion, You can try to compare if it was negative/positive for film. You can also easily compare it with budget, and try to ask questions, why they still use it, if most Bond films at least earns twice than budget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.70.254 (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't need to check it again: it's not the right place for the info. For a start the list is at Featured List standard and therefore has to be kept at a high standard. secondly the info would be more appropriate for James Bond in film rather than the list of film. I suggest putting it in there. It would probably also be beneficial if you are going to edit articles, to register a profile and not use your IP address. It will give you more anonymity if you want it and will mean other editors take your edits more seriously. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Shiloh (novel)/GA2
Thank you for reviewing Shiloh (novel). It's unfortunate that good article reviewers in the past have forced you to remove links from footnotes. The Good article criteria for the Manual of Style does not include overlinking, so their refusals to pass your article on this point have no merit. In addition, the featured article reviewers likely don't consider multiple links in the footnotes to be overlinking. For example, the Today's Featured Article, McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink, links The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune many times in the article.

Anyway, thank you again for your detailed review of Shiloh. The wait since 31 August was well worth it since I got Mm40 at Talk:Shiloh (novel)/GA1 you at Talk:Shiloh (novel)/GA2. ;) Best, Cunard (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, would you be able to fix my "invalid time" error in the article history box of Talk:Shiloh (novel)? Cunard (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My pleasure - it was a very well written piece and an easy one to review and pass so quickly. I agree with you entirely over the linking in footnotes - it's the type of place where, because of its nature, I think everything should be linked. As to the Error code: I've had a play round and don't know why there is an issue, so I've asked one of the Review Admins to have a look and get it sorted - it's probably something I've not done, but could also be a Bot issue. Either way it should be done soon - I'll keep an eye on it and make sure it's sorted out for you. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It was the third person who looked at this that managed to sort it, but we're not sure what it was! All done now. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice! Thank you for contacting someone who knew how to fix it. Best, Cunard (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High, while for quality the scale goes from Low  to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A new day
SC, the effort here in your litterbox is a worthy one, but a well developed RFC will take an extended effort, and should involve a broad audience. I'd advance an idea for how to reform Coord selection (think roughly along the lines of crat chats, but before RFA, not after), but adding anything else now to WT:FAC will add to the overburden. The page is is still dealing with deferred housekeeping issues (the FAC/FAR line hasn't been done yet for example on the Mathglot archiveN problem that surfaced in the middle of everything else), and DKW fallout, and getting alerts working, and advancing content contributors for Arb candidates-- that is, all of the things that inconveniently came at once and overwhelmed the page, with 60% of my edits there being to deal with housekeeping and coordination issues unrelated to the DKW situation. Could we let things settle for a bit, and then just start a subpage of FAC for community-wide RFC development, and announce it at FAC? There's no hurry, and the page needs to settle; the premature RFCs advanced yesterday added to an already overburdened page. If you create a subpage, and we take our time, those who are bothered by the level of traffic don't have to follow, and we can finish up the old housekeeping work first. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC) SchroCat, maybe add to 1.2 a second option for coords to cap resolved comments (with cot and cob)? I've seen some say that they prefer to have the entire discussion in one place, and I don't know of any issue these templates cause. Something along the lines of "Coordinators are allowed to enclose resolved comments within collapse top and collapse bottom." FrB.TG (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was dismayed to see the proposal open on the page loading issues, particularly as there is so little clarity on the background from the previous threads. We have to find out what the problem/s is/are before trying to crowbar in a solution that doesn't necessarily bring the answers we need. I've asked that it be closed, but I guess it probably won't be (it's a 50/50 split on the vote at the moment with low turnout because, I think, people don't know what they are voting for).In terms of timings, I'm easy as to when the above two run. It may be as well to get them up later next week when a couple of the other threads have withered away, just so we can get them underway, but we can leave it a little longer if the Talk:FAC is still as busy as it is now; if the volume of comments die off by mid next week, it may be better to start them running, while the topics are still fresh in people's minds. I sort of like the idea about the subpage, but there is a danger that the message about it and links to it get lost on the page, but we can cross that bridge when the trigger time is closer.In terms of the Co-ord selection, I absolutely agree that the discussion needs to come before the RFC - my point was more about starting that discussion after the two RFCs above are well advanced or reaching a consensus. There's no enough current discussion on that point to start an RFC anyway, according to the WP:RFCBEFORE process. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, the absence of RFCBEFORE there has exacerbated the two-fold problem: 1) that there was already too much old housekeeping/bookkeeping/behavioral stuff happening on talk, and 2) RFCs need to be well discussed pre-launch to avoid GIGO.  I haven't looked at the page today-- still too painful to see the decline and the consequences as discussed at User talk:Mike Christie that you and I were discussing before I re-engaged to seek ArbCom candidates-- but if RFCs are advancing with the absence of RFCBEFORE, that's not a good thing. Generally, I don't think running an RFC at all until after the holidays is a good thing.  People are busy, arbcom elections are coming (upsetting that the DKW issue surfaced just as I was hoping to recruit content candidates), and there is an urgent need for more indepth discussion all-round. But I do appreciate your efforts :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Good thought, and I suspect one that people would prefer, but we'll see when this is made active. The instructions currently only explicitly allow it for off topic threads, so it's enough of a change to merit an inclusion in the mix. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments
For #1, I was planning to add a support for Ian's wording to the existing discussion some time today, but I can see that this is a clearer reformulation. I assume you'll hat the earlier discussion when you start this one, with a note pointing down the page to the RfC? The only change I might suggest is to repeat the blue box with the existing instruction wording. Since I'm OCD I might point out that editors can support both options if they wish, but perhaps that's too obvious to say.

For #2, I think it would be worth digging up more history first, since I know this has been discussed before. I can try to find those discussions if you like. I know there have been previous discussions about moving comments to the talk page, but I don't recall the most recent outcomes. I *think* the current situation is that a coord is within their rights to move clearly offtopic discussions to the talk page, and reviewers can move their own comments to the talk page if they wish. (Personally I don't like the latter because I don't want to go to the talk page to see the commentary, but that's an opinion about the practice, not about whether the coords should be allowed to do it). Also, since fewer opinions have been expressed in the last couple of days about this idea, it might be best to just run #1 and wait and see if others chip in on #2. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike. I've tweaked the first one as suggested and will do as you suggest re: hatting.
 * I'll do some digging on this. I seem to remember it coming up at least once before, so I'll check to see what they say and link them into the preamble too. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive89 May 2022
 * Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive88 December 2021
 * Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive88 November 2021
 * Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive87 November 2021
 * Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive85 March 2021
 * Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive84 January 2021

SC, I'd like to see the next RFC contain some ongoing re-ratification of Coords who have served longer than five years. I don't believe in nor endorse any sort of pre-defined term, but ten years is too long, and several of the Coords may no longer enjoy the trust of the community. Term limits can be gamed, and would be problematic on any number of counts, but when two Coords are self-perpetuating their views, ignoring codified instructions, and alienating reviewers and nominators, it's time for their reign to be ratified by the community. Perhaps there is a reluctance to allow the Coords the discretion I enjoyed for good reasons, including having Coords serve both at FAC and TFA, or serve for more than ten years. We should hear from the community on that, but only after ample pre-discusion to formulate the questions optimally. I'd also like to see a new RFC include some discussion of the need for a director, to re-unify all three pages (FAR, FAC, TFA), but that has not yet been well discussed at FAC either (that is, any RFC should be very well discussed in advance). I also hope any RFC won't be launched during a period of discord, as happened last time, rather after more voices have been adequately head (I bowed out as I was predominating, and maybe with me aside, more will weigh in). This is a relevant question that is rudely pushed aside very time I raise it; how are we not to see a decline in review if reviewers can't even load hte page because Coords flaunt the instructions ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to see us discuss something to end the flat-out absence of any transparency in selection of future Coords. It's fine that the ultimate decision is made back-channel (although it's not fine they've reduced dramatically the number of people consulted from what Raul did), as elections could lead to all kinds of debacles (popularity contest affecting reviews), but before any slate is proposed by the existing regime, there should be a public pre-vetting of those willing to serve, which includes some discussion of their views on FAC functioning, their preparation for the job, what skills they bring, feedback from the community, and the like.  Others will argue this is done when the new slate is proposed, but that has never been anything but a fait accompli that goes ahead and is closed by the same regime that proposed them, even when there is opposition.  If there is a pre-vetting that involves the broader community and takes into account their views, then can go back-channel and discuss all they want, and put forward their decision for ratification, but the rest of us will have had a chance to vet the candidates and ask questions before a pre-defined slate is imposed.  What is happening now is far more "dictatiorial" than anything Raul ever did or contemplated or would do, and yet we "fired" him (during a period in which three sockmasters were disrupting FAC), for being a "dictator" (that is, for crossing three sockmasters who had support from FA regulars).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 1. As Harrias pointed out, you need to lose "a coordinator considers that" from option 2. Possibly Option 3, retain the status quo; Option 4, something else, feel free to specify?
 * 2. Looks good to me.
 * Given that it has been strongly raised, I would suggest adding 3. Coordinators are prohibited [or "strongly discouraged"] from reviewing articles at FAC: Support/Oppose? or similar. To let us find out what the community actually thinks, and hopefully put this one to bed one way or the other.
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 3. "Oppose both". That would be oppose both from three then? ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Re, "Coordinators are prohibited [or "strongly discouraged"] from reviewing articles", that concern was already put to bed in that thread when I responded to Ian and "moved on", so there's no need to spend time on strawmen. The issue remaining is not whether Coords should review, but rather, whether they are doing that at the expense of Coord tasks that aren't being done, or perhaps better stated as a question about the role overall. I don't see anyone else raising the concern that you shouldn't review, so don't know why that would need to be included.   Some examples of tasks  to further the overall functioning of and perception of FAs and the process are 1) answering concerns on talk about the page setup raised by  (which has come up multiple times over the years and needs to be dealt with), facilitating article alerts for FAs, reminding reviewers not to use templates that slow down the page, and maintaining accurate page archiives with the help of, or seeking candidates for ACE2020 -- all of which I spent the better part of my last three days and hundreds of edits doing. I note that instead of acknowledging those hundreds of edit I spent on those chores, you decided to ignore them and take a jab at me; your reply indicates a problem counting contributions without bias and could be the kind of behavior that impacts reviewer willingness to engage. You're welcome. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You were bludgeoning the page. The fact that even after stepping back you don't see this is perturbing. One reviewer has posted that your posts made them less likely to review. I suspect that they speak for many. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're welcome for the hundreds of edits to clean up a page in disarray which you ignored when you took that jab. And I stepped back because I do take constructive criticism from people who have earned my respect and saw it was time. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the selection of any new co-ords, it's probably a good time to do something: we've just had two new people appointed and there are no rumours of people stepping back, so a question over the future model is best done when the process is stable and calm. I've looked back at the most recent threads on this (October 2023 and July 2022), in which there's criticism from some of the current model, but not enough alternative approaches to be able to run a decent RFC. Once the above RFCs are coming to an end (or have ended), I'll open a focused discussion in the hope that there will either be clarity on what people want to see, or if there are any proposed processes that we can put up against the current model in an RFC. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. The least helpful thing now would be another RFC launched too quickly, and particularly at a time when two new Coords are obviously looking capable to overcome the growing problems (evidenced for starters by Fuchs closing that FAC, and FR engaging talk constructively), and when a nominator is throwing F bombs. I strongly urge to let more discussion come forward before launching any RFCs, on the GIGO principle.  I've stepped back to allow others more room to do that, as I acknowledge my pace of editing can be hard to keep up with, without mentioning my characteristic repetitive verbosity.  (Also, I appreciate the close above; I hope my point registered.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Re: Co-ords recusing to undertake reviews
The question of the circumstances under which a co-ord should recuse to review a nomination has been raised and discussed here. There are currently no guidelines as to whether, when or how often a co-ord can recuse

Option 1. Coordinators are strongly discouraged from reviewing articles at FAC; Option 2. Coordinators are discouraged from reviewing articles at FAC except under certain circumstances, including conflict of interest, or if a nomination is in an area of their expertise or particular interest; Option 3. Retain the status quo

Oppose all three
If you are minded to oppose all three, you are invited to leave a reason in the discussion section, although you are under no compulsion to do so.

Two RFCs relating to the FAC process
There has been a lot of comment on this page recently, with several new threads and a lot of commentary. Many of these discussions have become intertwined with other topics and suggestions, which means they are unlikely to be settled. These RFCs are about trying to hone the FAC process and allowing nominators the ability to manage the FAC process as effectively as possible.

Please keep comments and responses within the Discussion sections where possible, and please keep all comments limited to the point of each RFC in question.

A. Re: Ability of coordinators to close unprepared nominations
Currently, Template:FAC-instructions, appears at the top of Featured article candidates. It states that there are four grounds on which a nomination can be archived by the coordinators: Per this discussion, there are two options to alter this that found traction. (We also have a 2010 RFC that states "Allow FAC delegates to quick fail unprepared articles" which passed 44-0). It is, of course, possible to !vote for both of the first two options if you think it would be advantageous, and to reject all three proposals if you think a fourth option would be better.

Option 1. Amend the wording to the fourth bullet point from "a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn" to
 * "a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has opposed it, and/or suggested it be withdrawn.";

Option 2. Add the wording "a nomination is too unprepared for FAC review" as a fifth bullet point; or Option 3. Retain the status quo

Oppose all three
If you are minded to oppose the above suggestions, you are invited to leave a reason in the discussion section, although you are under no compulsion to do so.

B. Re: Moving comments to the nomination talk page
The question of whether co-ords should be able to move threads from a nomination page to a talk page has been raised periodically, but never really settled. Over the last few years this has been raised at least seven times on this page:


 * in November 2023
 * May 2022
 * December 2021
 * November 2021
 * November 2021
 * March 2021
 * January 2021

There are two suggested options to alter the status quo. It is, of course, possible to !vote for both of the first two options if you think it would be advantageous, and to reject all three proposals if you think a fourth option would be better.

Option 1. "Coordinators are allowed to move lengthy threads of resolved comments to the nomination talk page, leaving the "support" or "oppose" in place on the nomination page and a note that comments have been moved."; Option 2. "Coordinators are allowed to enclose resolved comments within collapse top and collapse bottom." Option 3. Retain the status quo

Oppose all three
If you are minded to oppose the above suggestions, you are invited to leave a reason in the discussion section, although you are under no compulsion to do so.