User talk:SchroCat/Archive 14

Mistake?
Hi Schro, I just noticed the flurry of edits at Skyfall and noticed this one by you. I am 99.9% sure you reverted the wrong edit there, unless Pierce Brosnan did indeed sneak on to the set of Skyfall and shoot at Daniel Craig. Anyway I haven't reverted you because i) I want to leave it open for you to correct your own edit and ii) if your intent was to revert the preceding editor you can still do that without adding to your revert count provided I don't edit the article in the interim. Anyhow, I'll pop in later anyway to check up on the article. Betty Logan (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Flipping heck, that was quick! Betty Logan (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL - thanks Betty. I was mid revert when you posted this, so we must have seen it at the same time! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Commas
OK. The Wikipedia manual of style, as far as I can tell, says nothing about the this particular use of commas in British and American English.

As someone who has copy-edited professionally in both British and American English for several years, this is not something I've come across in any style guide, though I don't have a copy of the Fowler guide you mentioned (yet). My suspicion is that if it is considered standard British English by some sources, it's archaic. I see it everywhere in British English newspapers and websites, including the BBC, Guardian and Times. I suppose you'll dismiss these sources as "journalistic", but I think that's misguided, because they are respected, influential British English publications and obviously reflect the modern use of British English. Additionally, arguments about style do use newspaper style guides as sources; see the Beatles naming debate. Do you have any further sources that cover the issue?

This is nothing personal (though your clear investigation of my edit history might suggest otherwise!). It might be worth adding this to the manual of style one way or another. Popcornduff (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , as an independent, and quality editor on and off Wiki, could you comment on the comma use under discussion, please? - SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The standard AmEng is to put a comma (illogically me judice) between "In May comma he went home" but not "He went home in May". In normal BrEng we put a comma in when necessary to avoid confusion, e.g if writing about Jack London, "the day after leaving London, London went to Paris", but otherwise we do very well following the Authorised Version of the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The Good Lord, if King James's learned committee is right, didn't feel the need for a comma.  Tim riley  talk   23:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Can I ask for your sources? My personal preferences is to use a comma when it removes ambiguity, as in your London example; this was my logic in the Radiohead and Skyfall articles, though they are less extreme cases. Popcornduff (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I keep the Guardian and Economist style guides, Gowers, Partridge, Vallins etc to hand, and a fortiori all the editions of Fowler, including the current one by the laissez-faire Burchfield, but I cannot see from the current exchanges what the wording is that is under discussion. –  Tim riley  talk   00:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I can't see the ambiguity that is removed with the comma use here: all is clear if it isn't there... - SchroCat (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me for poking my nose in. I think we only need to concerned about this if there is a "when" in the clause. If "when" is used you have to decide whether the date is restrictive or just supplementary information. Using a comma makes the information supplementary; without the comma it is restrictive in that it limits the time to the date given. As there is no "when" in the clause under discussion, a comma is not needed. Graham Beards (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "In April 2012 O'Brien..." - Who is "2012 O'Brien"? I realise no one is likely to take that meaning, but your brain has to work slightly harder to parse the sentence without the comma. In the Skyfall example, a comma in "Instanbul MI6" clarifies that "Instanbul MI6" is not a place or a thing. This is, to use your previous term, gentle clarification; a slightly more readable sentence.
 * The online Guardian and Economist style guides don't mention the "in location/year" example specifically, but they do say some things that seem related.
 * Guardian: "Use a comma to help the reader by inserting breathing space into a sentence: 'When the Dutch reflect on their performance in the World Cup final, they will not find it hard to see why their aggressive tactics lost them many friends in 2010.'"
 * Economist: "It is not always necessary to put a comma after a short phrase at the start of a sentence if no natural pause exists there: When night fell he fell too. But a breath, and so a comma, is needed after longer passages: When day broke and he was able at last to see what had happened, he realised he had fallen through the roof and into the Big Brother house."
 * I have some more style guides at my workplace, so I can check them in two weeks' time. If anyone has faster access than that, I'm all ears! Popcornduff (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned before we do not rely on a journalistic standard of English (especially with those which aim for a bastardised mid-Atlantic version of English), but try to aim much higher than that. A comma has nothing to do with breath: its use is for explanation, not respiration. Your quote from the Economist exemplifies not the example on the Radiohead page, but that outlined by Graham Beards: the use of "when" is the clue. - SchroCat (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "As I have mentioned before we do not rely on a journalistic standard of English (especially with those which aim for a bastardised mid-Atlantic version of English)." Is that written down anywhere? Popcornduff (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want a source for my two cents worth, I've been to my attic:
 * Christ alive – this is an encyclopaedia, not a blog site, wikia, or an American news feed! We aim for high standards, not the lowest common denominator of cheap journalese. There are three people connected to featured content now trying to explain this to you: maybe you should be in receiving mode, rather than trying to argue the toss with all of us...? - SchroCat (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The "breath" guideline is for children; it has no place in professional writing. Graham Beards (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter Sellers
OK. It is actually funny that I did check the talk page for this but not the archives. I had not imagined that it was that old.--The Theosophist (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I sent you an email...
...which you can simply ignore. I've resolved the issue in question, I was being dense... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

John Barrymore
Hi SchroCat, just letting you know I dropped a message commenting on Jack's article at his article's talk page. Happy Holidays. Koplimek (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * Many thanks Koplimek - very much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Skyfall/MI6/SIS
Dear SchroCat,

In truth the term MI6 is not correct as the proper term for the real-life organisation; SIS acknowledge the popular use of 'MI6' but, if you read their website, they clearly do not view it as the correct or official term, understandably, as the term MI6 only had a brief official usage during WW2. It is, and remains, a misunderstood populism that has unfortunately assumed wide currency, as these thing often do. However, I take your point about its use in the film, as there it's being used in a purely fictional/popular context, so that's fair enought in that instance to let it stand.

Lewvalton (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I know it's fair enough to let it stand: that's why I reverted you. However, if you look at the SIS website, you'll see MI6 is part of the logo, and the service states (twice on the front page) that they are "often known as MI6". I'm not sure what it "unfortunate" about the common term here, and it certainly wasn't just in official use during the Second World War: it's use pre- and post-dated the conflict. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree with SchroCat's comments above. I suggest that Lewvalton drops the pompous tone, that is not the way we operate on Wikipedia. Regards,David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat, I was simply taking the time to acknowledge, in what was meant to be a friendly way, your revert and your reasons behind it: my apologies if it didn't come across that way. By 'unfortunate' I meant when it subsumes the official preferred usage, particularly here in an encyclopedic context. The Service's website in its choice of words does, it seems to me, stress the hierarchy of the two terms (the SIS and Why MI6 sections here: https://www.sis.gov.uk/our-history/sis-or-mi6.html), also reflected in the subordinate position of MI6 within the logo.

David, I had no intention of pontificating, simply trying to engage in the discussion over these points. If I came across as 'pompous', then it was unintentionally, and I'm sorry. However, your own response equally reads as both aggressive and proprietorial, automatically assuming the worst intentions in someone else's argument. If we've both got off on the wrong foot, then I apologise for my part in giving a wrong impression. I was simply trying to engage over a reasonable edit question.

Lewvalton (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Lewvalton, My response to you was neither "aggressive" nor "proprietorial", but if you come to my talk page to lecture me, I will respond robustly, especially when you admit that your edits were in error. Furthermore, to accuse me of being "aggressive and proprietorial" is a personal attack: I suggest you move on from here. I also suggest you don't call me David, or at least be slightly more careful when you cut and paste your attacks on numerous talk pages. - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
SchroCat,

I wasn't directing that comment about tone of response at you whatsoever; if you look back, I was responding to David J Johnson, who posted to this talk section at 14.34, telling me to "drop the pompous tone", immediately following on your comment at 14.22. Nothing cut and pasted by me at all, let alone to numerous talk pages, I assure you. As for the article/discussion in question, I accept the differing point of view on it and will leave it at that. All the best.

Lewvalton (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Participate the discussion please
Please participate the discussion. I would like to see you there. Mhhossein (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Betj etc
Congratulations on the promotion of the works list. If you do decide to work on the Betjeman article, let me know – I'll happily ride shotgun on that one. In the meantime, I have put A Handful of Dust on peer review, here. I'd be gratful for any review comments. Brianboulton (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Brian, and I certainly will be in touch on Betj's main article: he's one I've wanted to tackle for a while, and is slated for mid-2015 at the moment. I'll be along to make Waugh shortly - and I'll be asking for a returned favour next week on Barrymore (John, not Michael), once I've proof read it a few more times. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Colleen Ballinger and Miranda Sings
Colleen Ballinger will be on the Did You Know section of the Main Page starting at noon London time. Would you please watch both articles for vandalism tomorrow? Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problems - I'll keep an eye on them. - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising
Thanks a million for your FAC support of Temperatures Rising. Unfortunately a consensus was not reached and the article was not promoted. Although it had your support along with three others there were two reviewers who opposed the article. I addressed all the concerns of one of them (Nikkirama) but he (or she) never acknowledged this. The other opposition came from Graham Beards, who complained about the article not having a production section. Alas I cannot add this section at present time as I have no valid sources of information about the modus operandi of the series. Temperatures Rising is not available on DVD so there are no audio commentaries or "behind-the-scenes" extras, nor are there any books or websites devoted to it. Graham Beards also kept harping about the prose being "unprofessional" and "not engaging" even though I had a copy-editor plus two published authors look over the text. Beards was at times rather vague about what he thought was wrong with the article. Maybe I'm over-reacting but I found much of his criticism to be done in a seemingly smug and condescending manner. At current time I will leave the article as it is but in the near future I will post it as a good article candidate. Again thanks for your FAC support. Jimknut (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi JimKnut, Sorry to see it didn't get through, but I'm sure you'll bring it back again in an even stronger state. In terms of the missing production info, aside from the obvious steps of Google book searches etc, have you tried media searches? I've done a few film and TV bits that have good news/magazine coverage which can be pieced together into something useful. It may also be worthwhile putting a call for help on the WikiProject Television to see if anyone can help. There's also a research request page somewhere, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
 * Jim, I know you're upset about the article not getting through, but can I advise you to temper your comments on people like Nikki and Graham a little? Both are highly experienced editors, know more about Featured content than most of us will ever learn, and only ever act in good faith in trying to ensure standards are kept. It's funny how people see things in different ways, as I revisited the nom and didn't see Graham as being smug or condescending, but he was pointing out where he saw that there were issues. Both Graham and Nikki keep Featured content at as high a standard as possible and I'd take their words as being helpful, and germane to the aim of improving the article. Anyway, I hope to see it back there at some point in the future. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If there's ever been a home release, that sometimes has commentary that you can use. Star Trek usually has useful commentary... maybe TR would too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Tables
What ho! May I tap into your expertise on tables, please? I have added two tables to Kenneth MacMillan, and it would be very pleasing if the first col of the top table and the the first col of the bottom one were of equal width and so on for all the other columns. Do you know if this can be contrived? I've tried fudging it by putting in codes in the top left cell of the first table, but that's neither elegant nor very effective.  Tim riley  talk   20:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do – I'll pop over there tomorrow to have a look. - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Tech problems
In the past you've identified solutions to various small problems that I've had in my interactions with the WP site. Now I've got something that looks to be a more daunting prospect. Basically it's this: whenever I try to use the WP search box to go to an article, I get "Connection interrupted" and have to log in again. The same thing happens when I click on a TOC heading to find a section, or if I click on a citation number to locate the reference in the text. But other wikilinks are working perfectly normally, and there are no problems with external links. Having to find ways round these constant interruption is time-consuming and annoying, makes article reviewing difficult and source reviews impossible. It's hard to understand so selective a disfunction – have you any ideas as to how I might overcome it? Brianboulton (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Brian, I'm stumped on this – and a Google search has not shown similar cases that we can use to learn from. Instead of helping directly, I've posted a query at Village pump (technical)/Archive 132, which may prove fruitful in providing an answer. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Brian, Can you let me know which browser and which browser version you are having these problems with? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spending time on this. I use Firefox – uncertain which version, but I thought, per this, that it updated automatically. I could be wrong, though. Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Brian, it should update automatically, but that may be part of the problem (i.e., if Wiki doesn't work on the more recent version). If you could click the menu button, click help and select About Firefox. The About Firefox window will appear. The version number is listed underneath the Firefox name. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't mind me gate-crashing the discussion, but this very much sounds a cookie problem. You can check these settings by opening Tools->Options. Select the "Privacy" tab. Make sure that under the "History" setion the option is set to "Remember History". If it isn't, select this option and restart your browser. If it is already set to that, you can try setting the history option to "Use custom settings for history". This will bring up more options: make sure that "Accecpt cookies from sites" is checked, then restart the browser. This will either fix your problem or at least eliminate cookies as part of the problem. Make sure you record the default settings so you can set the browser back in the event neither of these solutions work. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Betty! - SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * They will need the actual version that you are having problems with: if you could click the menu button of Firefox, click help and select About Firefox. The About Firefox window will appear. The version number is listed underneath the Firefox name. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Bond 24
Hi SchroCat,

Since you're one of the more prominent James Bond editors (I still remember your work on the Skyfall article), I thought I should let you know that I have put down some basic infrastructure for Bond 24 in anticipation of tonight's press conference. I have also put in an RFP to try and pre-emptively stabilise the article, but whether the admins agree with that remains to be seen.

I should also warn you that I'm playing with one hand tied behind my back this time, since I'm editing from a mobile device. I'm as good as useless on highly active articles, and the press conference is on at a later hour for me since I'm Australian. I'll assist when and where I can, but I'm limited in what I can do. Ideally, I will sweep through early tomorrow morning and tighten up anything that needs attention. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi PM, I saw the info go in - good to have a marker down ready for a page move later.I have a somewhat manic day today, and will be spending a chunk of it meeting a group of other editors in the pub, so I may not be best-placed to do any editing later! Still, I'll see what I can do when the time comes. It may be that if lots of IP editing is going on I leave it for a day or two until things have calmed down, then come in and knock it into an MoS compliant shape, but let's see. I've already had to do a fair amount of sweeping up on other Bond articles to get rid of the various rumours that have been circulating, so I'll be glad to have something official to work on at last! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Spectre
You should have provided a justification for your reversion in one of your edit summaries.

The name of the organization that the movie is named after is capitalized. --Alien Putsch resistant (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The justification is as per the Mos. The capitalisation you talk of is based in the books, which were left behind a long time ago. Skyfall was announced in the same capitalised format, so have a look at that article before you decide to edit war in future. (And next time, take a spin over WP:BRD. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alien, this organization does not tolerate failure!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The difference is that the word "skyfall" is not an acronym.
 * Lol! --Alien Putsch resistant (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Did the press release say that Spectre is an acronym? The Craig Bond has re-written much of the original Bond back story, and we have no idea whether this is also true here. Until we have any more information we go with the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Alien Putsch resistant (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added my argument to Spectre (2015 film) talk page. 007.com calls it SPECTRE JCRendle (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Marketing copy and trade mark use tends to capitalise, and there's no abbreviation shown as yet. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If it's not an acronym then there is this fun to come: Specter? Betty Logan (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Complete with its own XKCD cartoon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I saw a spectre at your shoulder. The spectre of defeat, - That your luck was due to change!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Works of John Betjeman
The list itself looks great, but the copyright on the lead image is really dodgy: Follow the source links back to flickr and you get an error page, and the copyright tag is just a generic "Flickr says it's fine."

I'd strongly suggest fixing that.

Cheers,

Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Adam. Any smart suggestions? As far as I can see, it's only good for removing from the page and tagging the file for deletion? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have rather questionable internet connection just now, try User:Crisco 1492? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't find it on Flickr either. Was it verified by someone when it was uploaded? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not altogether sure. The main image on Commons doesn't look like someone has verified it, but it's a bit difficult to tel... – SchroCat (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Blast. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Grimsby trawlers and All That
I'm looking for press accounts from the summer of 1936, relating to the disappearance and later discovery of the Grimsby trawler Girl Pat. Most coverage will be in the June-July period, but there may be further stuff relating to the subsequent Old Bailey trial in October. Also, any more recent mentions of the boat, e.g. what happened to the boat long-term, would be much appreciated. I have all the Pro-quest stuff from the MG, but would welcome anything from the Times or Telegraph, or from a popular daily such as the Express or Mirror. If you can help in any way, I'd be most grateful (I'm leaving a similar request with Tim). Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I certainly will! I'll liaise with Tim to divvy up the jobs and set to work over the weekend. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oberhauser
His name wasn't even announced at the press conference, but both it and his role as a villain came out in the subsequent press junket. I had a source from The Evening Standard in there, but I don't know how reliable it is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Sea Beast
I added a bit to this having seen it recently. Do you have any production info on it in your books?♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I should do: let me have a hunt through the sources - I'll email over the scans of what I find. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Spectre (2015 film)
Since there's been confirmation of a new James Bond film, that means that Featured topics/James Bond films will need to have a Supp Nom for the article to be part of it. So for the time being, Spectre is going to need a Peer Review to be part of the topic. GamerPro64 21:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Film articles don't affect the topic until after the launch of the film, I seem to remember from Skyfall? - SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember that. I also remember Skyfall not being a Good Article when the topic was made and its Peer Review was closed during it. So I think a Peer Review is warranted on this one too. GamerPro64  22:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The situation is the same as it is here: the topic was passed before there was even an article, and the peer review was opened after the film was released. It's pointless to clutter up the Peer Review process with an article that cannot reach GA status until it is released. - SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All right fine. Guess we'll wait till the movies out then. GamerPro64  23:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's stored here anyway. igordebraga ≠ 02:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Waugh's Handful
This is to thank those who peer-reviewed A Handful of Dust and to advise you that the article is now at FAC, here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Re:Barrymore
Am at work right now re: the Grand Hotel stills--see PR comments. Let me try to pull something together for that one as far as replacements go because it looks like most to all of the other Grand Hotel Commons files may not be OK. Off the top of my head, I can also get you a Grand Hotel colored lobby card if you want it. Then after I've checked out of there :), will have a crack at the others. We hope (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! There's absolutely no rush on this: there's still some mileage on the PR, and I'm happy to wait for it all to be sorted before it goes to FAC, so whenever you have the time, that would be great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!
Have some information about the Clair De Lune photo and some about the True Confession lobby card. Paramount used a copy of the still in an ad for the film before it was released. There was also a copy of the still used in a fan magazine's March 1938 issue; there was no Paramount request to print a copyright notice for that still. The magazine is out of copyright and the ad wasn't copyright-marked. Because of this, it might be possible to either keep the card or use the film still from it.

Let me post what I have at the PR and let's see if we can't get these two taken care of. Many thanks once more! :) We hope (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Bond girl
I don't know if Bond girl is on your watchlist, but it has just been dramatically overhauled. There is a quite a large chunk of the previous article missing so I was just going to do a straight revert, but there are some improvements too which might be salvaged. Anyway, I thought I would wait and see what you make of it first before doing anything. Betty Logan (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not on my list - although I popped in there recently as a result of the Spectre announcement. There are a lot of errors in the new version (certainly formatting - 15 circular links, a couple of disambigs, shouty caps in the refs...) It'll take some time to sort through and correct the errors back to a clean version... - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I took the plunge and reverted most: looking closer there were other problems that had been introduced into the content too. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I was about to suggest the same thing. There hasn't really been a "content" improvement; it's basically all formatting and some rewording and now it seems like we're going to have to fix a lot of the formatting. It seems to have "lost" the post-Fleming section too. Betty Logan (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep - Too much work for too little gain in doing another re-write to incorporate the two, and as for the deletion of a large chunk of the article, I just don't see the logic there! Thanks for flagging it up. (Still needs a lot of work on it tho - way too many tags dotted around. Will have to try to get round to it someday... - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Another FLC
Thanks for your comments and support at Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset/archive1. The FLC director has given me permission to open another FLC, using the same format etc at Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset/archive1 and I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look at that one and let me have any comments?&mdash; Rod talk 14:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Bond girl
Hi, I couldn't understand this edit shes not Brazilian. MachoCarioca (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Provide a source; 2. If you're going to change it, point it to a proper page, not adisambig. - SchroCat (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Provide a source" - I dont think so.... none of all nacionalities out there have a "source". Her article here says shes from Aruba and theres a source on it. So, I'm changing again, she's not Brazilian, it's a wrong information. Thanks. MachoCarioca (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As above: use a reliable source if you want to change something. And our own articles are not deemed reliable enough for this - the article you are basing the information on uses a fansite, which makes in inherently unreliable. Search for a source and don't be so lazy. - SchroCat (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit in Great Stink
I linked effluent because I didn't know what "effluent" was, so I reasoned that if I didn't know, there may be plenty of readers who also don't know, and a link would be helpful. "Effluent" is not a commonly-used household term where I'm from. As an afterthought, I also linked 1858, so curious people could learn more about what happened in 1858. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If people want to know what happened in 1858 they can search for it. Similarly, London does not need a link, or an explanation. See WP:OVERLINKING. - SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kenneth MacMillan
What ho! Bad Sir Brian B has kindly done an informal peer review of my efforts on this article, which I undertook after a Wikibash at the Royal Opera House a couple of months ago, despite my almost perfect ignorance of the topic. BB hints at a possible GAN, and I shall take advice on that in due course from a fine Wikipedian who co-ran the Covent Garden editathon, but GAN or no, what think you of the presence of the list of MacMillan's ballets in the article? Do you think, perhaps, I should hoik it out and create a separate article with suitable links, cf your FLs chez Richardson and Gielgud? Thoughts most gratefully received. No hurry at all.  Tim riley  talk   18:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, definately! It's certainly large enough, fulfils all the criteria it should, and would make an excellent addition. If you want me to do anything, or need any help, feel free to ping at any time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Barrymore 1936 photos
Managed to drum up two so far: File:Scene from Romeo and Juliet 2.jpg File:Scene from Romeo and Juliet 1936.jpg. While looking, I found a back story re: Barrymore and the film. Barrymore and Barrie managed to have a bad quarrel which was heated enough for her to go to New York. Barrymore was thoroughly miserable without her and threatened to quit the film (in production) unless Barrie came back to him. Producer Irving Thalberg had the job of begging and pleading with her via long distance so his project could continue. This is on page 32 of the article. We hope (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Got a lobby card with him in it File:Romeo and Juliet lobby card 2.jpg File:Romeo and Juliet scene 3.jpg We hope (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Found this in my travels: File:Arsene Lupin poster.jpg File:Arsene Luipin still.jpg It's nice to be able to see the brothers working together. We hope (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I like that one a lot! I've got an embarrassment of riches there now, and that section around 1933 is looking a little cluttered. I may swap out the Svengali image for this one, as I'd prefer to see the brothers together somewhere. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Gary Cooper
Major actor, just GA reviewed it Talk:Gary Cooper/GA2. Need other opinions on the detail and if possible some further pointers. I personally think it would need a considerable chop before taking to FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Will do: just need to polish JB a bit more tonight, and I'll pop over shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)
Hello Wikimedians! The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:


 * Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
 * Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
 * Pelican Books - ebook monographs
 * Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today! --The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


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

Re:Barrymore-Garbo Grand Hotel photo
After we'd done the PR, I put everything up for DR at Commons that was questionable. is now gone. Will be giving my two cents worth at FAC as soon as I get a bit of the "Daddy" work done. ;) We hope (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Cheers - the bot got to it before me, but I've swapped it out for one of your alternatives. Once again, thanks so much for your help here! - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

 * Many thanks, Brian! The very same sentiments to you for the festive season. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Dear Gavin, a Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones, and a very Happy New Year! Enjoy yourself and have a really great one. Peace on Earth and goodwill to all men. Love from all the Asher household. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  10:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And the very same to you and yours - I hope you all have a lovely time, and look forward to a stress free 2015! - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Christmas wishes
Hi Gavin,

Merry Christmas to you too! Wikipedia is a better place because of your contributions. I hope you return to the James Bond film articles someday; it would be great to see the rest of them get up to featured status, especially considering how far you've taken them already.

Neelix (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Neelix. Maybe not one of the film articles, but I'm tempted to do one of the books next year! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)



LADY LOTUS • TALK is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Many thanks, Lady! The very same to you! - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

 * Thanks We Hope! The same to you – I hope it's a good year for you in 2015. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

 * Many thanks Crisco: I hope you have a great holiday and 2015. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey
Do you know where the page is that has all of the templates like Holiday, Vacation, etc.? I can't find it anywhere because I don't know what article name to search for. — ₳aron  10:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi ₳aron, have a look towards the bottom of Template:Holiday, there's a Navbox showing all the different permutations. Is that the one you're after? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah I was trying to find the different variations of it. I also quite like all of the other user templates too! But forgot where to find them lol. Merry Christmas! —  ₳aron  16:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne (album)
I think that's happen per WP:BRD. There's questionable and unreliable sources anywhere (even bare URLs including MuuMuse). Can you keep an eye that who would doing the same pattern. 183.171.180.98 (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for things went south..
For whatever behavior I added to the dispute on your FAC, I extend a real apology. While I did reverse my support, I wouldn't oppose because it was already on its way and I couldn't bring my self to actually oppose the excellent work. Thank you for the work on John Barrymore it is truly comprehensive and the images are superb. I did notice one slight mistake in spelling Ethel "Ethyl" but forgot about it. I will check to see if it is still on the article and correct it if it truly is a mistake.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The reference-notes section is also one of the best I've seen.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mark, and thanks for spotting the error too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

GoldenEye
I'm thinking about requesting a peer review for GoldenEye and nominating it for FA status. It had several peer reviews and unsuccessful FA nominations in 2007-08, but nothing since then besides the Bond films topic becoming a good topic. If it gets FA, I plan on requesting it as Today's Featured Article for 13 November 2015 (the 20th anniversary of the LA premiere). This date is currently available at the waiting list, so I wanted to get your take as you're a frequent editor of the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure,it's close to the standard required, unfortunately. The last FACs were back in 2007/08 when the standards were markedly lower than they are now, and I personally think the thing would need a top-to-bottom re-write (including a lot more research around key areas) to get close to the standard. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I think there might be more in books than were available back then.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like even Blofeld himself is weighing in! Thanks to both of you for your feedback. I see that many of the references are also from the 2006-08 period, so perhaps it could use a bit of an update. It would be quite an endeavor to rewrite an article that's already GA, but I could at least spruce it up and fix a few broken links. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Picking your brains again
It's like this: we have an article called Henry Campbell (bishop). In fact his surname was Montgomery Campbell, and I am reasonably confident of getting agreement from the Anglican project folk to change the page name. In anticipation of that, there are two things I'd like to tap your knowledge on. First, as there is a redirect page called "Henry Montgomery Campbell", how would I go about making that the main page and the present page a redirect? Secondly, bishoprics all have lots and lots of succession boxes, e.g this one: Template:Bishops of London. Would I then have to track them all down and manually change his name on each? Grateful for your advice.  Tim riley <font color="#848484"> talk   14:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim, The page move is relatively straightforward: if the automated "Move" doesn't work (sometimes it is possible to move onto a redirect page, sometimes not) then file a request at Requested moves. If you get agreement at the Project level, it should be OK to do as an uncontroversial move. The second point - on the succession box - is more a manual thing, unfortunately. Still, this suggests there are only four templates to worry about. For the others, there will be a redirect left in place pointing to the new page, which will cover any traffic moving through the links. Hope this helps and feel free to ping me if you want me to help out with the move. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Vastly obliged for that. Thank you very much, as usual, SchroCat!  <font color="#0A0A2A">Tim riley <font color="#848484"> talk   21:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. Please drop me a line if you need anything else. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Cheers Bzuk. Not seen you round so much this year, but glad to see you're still with us! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ian Fleming
Hi, I left a message on Talk:Ian_Fleming cagliost (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Philip Seymour Hoffman
Greetings, SchroCat! Hope you enjoyed Xmas Day. As you mentioned on my talk page that you would be willing to look in at the FAC of this article, this is to let you know that it is now there.  <font color="#0A0A2A">Tim riley <font color="#848484"> talk   16:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tim doing the job for us, thanks! --<font color="#CC0O66">Loeba (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to you both – I'll pop along there shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Indonesian National Revolution
If you are online during the holidays, could you keep an eye on this article? An IP and a recently registered user have been edit warring to change the infobox outcome to "Indonesian victory" without any discussion. I'm at 2RR today, and probably 4 RR this week. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. I think it's probably worth opening a talk page thread on this; if the IP ignores it and carries on warring, it may be worth going for page protection, just to force them onto the talk page, if nothing else? - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Thanks for keeping an eye on this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
--Jakob (talk)  00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded again. --Jakob (talk)  00:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)