User talk:SchroCat/Archive 17

"Skyfall"
Hey, do you want to improve "Skyfall" to take it to FA? — ₳aron  22:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Aaron, A tempting thought, but it'll have to wait for a while: I have my next four articles to develop already lined up at the moment! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha okay! —  ₳aron  22:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

New user
I just welcomed a new user who seems to come from a Japanese background. I recommend that you address such people on their talk page in very simple English because they may have no idea that article history and edit summaries even exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Gerda, I have no idea what you're talking about, but I can only presume—given the fact that you have emailed me about a bloody IB—that this is also somehow IB related. Please stop posting on my talk page and emailing me about IB matters: I do not care enough to be harassed about the flaming things. If you continue to use email and personal talk pages to try to discuss specific IBs—when the correct place is the article's talk page—I will consider that to be a deliberate attempt to evade the ArbCom restriction, and file a case with them accordingly. I have had an email from another editor about you on this exact same point recently, so I suggest you moderate your approach from now on.


 * Please do not try and somehow play the victim over the ArbCom judgement against you: it was brought in because you were disruptive on talk pages; by using people's personal talk pages and the email facility, you are going way beyond the disruption you caused then. This stops now, please Gerda, before you force me to take a step I don't want to have to take.


 * Gerda, I see you are also accusing me of ownership of the Ketèlbey‎ article for removing an IB: that is an uncivil and contemptible, even for one of the more obsessional members of the IB clique. ArbCom draws nearer if you keep this up, and I strongly advise you strike your rather pathetic insult.


 * Given your inability to remain civil, or even truthful, on this matter, I ask you not to post on my talk page again on any subject, unless it is preceeded by an apology for your unfounded slur, and you striking the comment. – SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not accuse you of owning, you misunderstood completely, perhaps I have a language problem. Did you see who created the article (which I described as "own"). Not you! I didn't mention IB just above, - you did. I am sorry and apologize if I said something that you obviously misunderstood, and I think that I stayed civil, - tell me where not. - I removed the comment anyway, hoping that helps you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking the comment, and for your apology. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You're lucky you even got an apology SchroCat, I didn't even get that!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Mary Celeste
Ghost ship now at FAC. Hope you can find her there. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The Fourteen Infallibles
With my great thanks for your helps, we have applied all the suggestions, would you please again review the article to see whether it has the qualities of the FA?--Salman mahdi (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, There's a few things aI think could strengthen this. Firstly the lead is a bit short and doesn't really tell those of us from a non-Islamic background why these people are seen as something special - or whether there is a longer-term impact they have (I don't know whether they do, but you get the idea!) The closest I can think of from a Christian point of view would be with the Saints, where there are patron saint, saints days, etc, and their names and effect are still felt today. Is there something similar that can be said about the Fourteen Infallible to give a little more context? The second thing I think could be improved slightly is the table. I'm not sure we need the fist column (the number), unless there is something particular about the number and the Infallible. I also think we could reduce the image size by about half, which would ease some spacing concerns elsewhere. Finally, the entries of prose in the table could be tightened in a few places - reducing the word count is alsways advisisble if possible, as the end result will be much tighter than before. Hope this helps! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Euroscar
I've dealt with TRM at both SEWP and here, and both times he's opposed every FL or FA I've done unless an excessive list of demands are met. And, almost universally, he has asked for me to do them rather than actually go to the article and do them himself. That has always rubbed me the wrong way, as it's always struck me as trying to teach a lesson rather than actually improve an article. I have combined the content into fewer paragraphs, but I don't really see why it makes all that difference the absolute number of paragraphs, as much it does what is said in them. I also don't understand why he's pushing me in the direction of a ballooning article when there are actual basketball FLs. p b  p  21:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's right. I never improve articles, not one.  I just sit here and bitch about them.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No reviewer is obliged to make the edits, and their suggestions do not have to be taken on board, but then the reviewer doesn't have to support, if they feel that the standards are not up to scratch. Asking people to reduce the number of paragraphs in the lead is fairly common practice in featured content (articles and lissts): five paragraphs is a red flag to many on having a lead that isn't as tightly written as it could be - and our biggest FAs manage to get it to four. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you consider this lead to be too "loose", what could/should be removed? This somewhat seems disingenuous to me, because TRM seems to be asking for more (or different) content, but fewer paragraphs.  Yes, there are long FAs with only four paragraphs.  That's because they have long paragraphs.  p  b  p  22:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's partly because, as I quoted to you on the FLC, the MoS points to four being the maximum. If you try and put through a five paragraph page, someone will point it out to you. - SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've given you an example of a featured list where we have a decent lead and a decent history section. If you choose to ignore it, that's your call.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * : You might want to check what I've done to the article. p  b  p  23:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Bump. p b  p  17:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Purplebackpack89, I can't say too much about the article itself without becoming conflicted as an FL delegate. I intervene ocassionally (as I did here) to help keep.a review on track, but I try to keep out of the content side of things. – SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me confine in you then that I am still frustrated with TRM; and with the fact that he or any other one editor can hold a FL hostage. It seems to me that he holds far too much power over FLs, and basically wants people to jump through hoops.  I still don't understand why he lists minor fixes for other people to do that would take 2 seconds for he himself to do (and he has done this to me on numerous occasions).  Why is he even still allowed to review articles after his ridiculous behavior?  But I would note that I have done many of the things he wanted.  I even got the lead down to three paragraphs.  But I don't believe that the article should be formatted like the Bennett Cup article when there are FL basketball articles.  p  b  p  22:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Look, you have to try and work with the reviewers: they have the article's best interests at heart. Yes, one editor can make life difficult at FC, but that's the downside of a consensus-driven system. I certainly wouldn't say he holds too much power: to be honest he holds as much as you do, or Bencherlite, or any other editor on the site. He is one voice only, just as we all are. As to him listing fixes, rather than doing them, that's very common: Ive been through FAC and FLC numerous times and I've seen some editors happy to tweak, and others who prefer to list: don't take it personally, it's obviously his personal style. It may be that you are getting too wound up over this. Take a couple days away from the article and do something else, and return when you're refreshed, with the mindset of trying to work with him. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Why is he even still allowed to review articles after his ridiculous behavior?" Is this a joke? It has to be, right?  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, TRM. There are now two other opposes besides yours, and we've all found different things about which to oppose: prose, sources, verifiability... The pity is that, underneath everything, there's probably a decent article waiting to be written, but PBP is going about it the wrong way and annoying reviewers in the process, which is the kiss of death at any review process. BencherliteTalk 15:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bencherlite, personality clashes shouldn't matter in FLs. Part of the inherent problem in this process is that you have asked for sources that are very hard to find.  Some of the things that could potentially be sources are in Italian, and I can't read Italian.  And it doesn't help that you want a single source mentioning Nowitzki winning both the MVP and the Euroscar, rather than one for him winning the MVP and another for winning the Euroscar, which can be easily had (and, in fact, such sources are already in the article).  But, yes, I am frustrated a bit with TRM in the interactions I've had with him, because he doesn't seem to understand that he rubs editors the wrong way.  That is why he got himself an IBAN with Baseball Bugs.  He often espouses an attitude that he knows best and that anything that's even a little different than the way he likes it is awful and worthy of a put-down of people with whom he disagrees.  This was on display in his FL review, and in his comments on his IBAN.  And the fact that he demands that nominators make teeny-tiny changes that he himself could make very, very easily.  That just smacks me as kind of bad faith.  You, Bencherlite, at least are willing to make those changes, so I don't really have any quarrel with you.  p  b  p  18:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do yourself a favour and re-read my opening comments at the FLC. Helpful, polite, useful.  Then continue to read as you get more and more snippy about being told your list isn't ready for FL status.  Add to that this outlandish claim that I should be disallowed from reviewing articles (after all, I've probably only reviewed around 1000, and you're just about the only person who has immediately assumed bad faith and started raging), it's little wonder your candidate is a dead duck.  Try working to fix the issues rather than complain about the commentators.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , you won't attract new reviewers if you take a combative tone with those who have already started to review your article. If you have difficulties with my requests/suggestions, explain them and there may be a way round them. TRM is one of the most experienced writers and reviewers of featured lists that we have. Stop the ad hominem comments about TRM, please. You clearly don't know the full background about that IBAN and it's completely irrelevant to this process. I would listen to anything he says in his FLC reviews very carefully, because he is usually right (unless he's disagreeing with me, of course!) and because he wants only the best for the list and for the process. TRM was in charge of FLs at a time when the whole FL process was having to prove its worth, to prove that an FL star wasn't some worthless bauble but that it denoted something that could be held up alongside featured articles as the very best examples of Wikipedia's work. He doesn't come along and demand changes for the sake of making changes, but for reasons of complying with the FL criteria and raising standards. Every list of mine that he has reviewed (and I have a mere 20 FLs compared to TRM's 52) is the better for his involvement.  And, yes, nominators can be expected to make changes, large or small, in response to reviewers' requests.  That's perfectly normal. Sometimes reviewers will disagree among themselves, or with the nominator, about changes, and so having a record on the FLC page of what changes have been requested and why is a good thing.  It also means that if a nominator is told "Do X, not Y" for this list, then the nominator will hopefully do X not Y for his next list before coming to FLC. I made some of the changes I did because you seemed unable to grasp the point, despite explanation, that you can't have 23 winners in 2 decades because 2 decades is 20 years, not more than 20. I left a hidden comment to that effect in the article; you deleted it without fixing the problem. Rather than repeat myself once more, I made the change. But I am not going to rewrite the article for you. So far you have been slow to accept simple issues such as changing the titles of references is not allowed, that WP:CURRENTLY is not my personal preference but a site-wide guideline on how to write articles, that reviewers are trying to help you.  I hope this state of affairs improves. BencherliteTalk 09:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, I have a deep affection for FLC, and try to get back there wherever I can. I tried to make the community believe FL was serious, I tried to ensure we did the big things like comply with MOS, I tried to make sure we could compete, and get onto the Main Page.  I treat every review the same, I want it to be the best it can be.  If nominators can't see that, that's really their problem.  If they continue not to see after they've been told, that's really their problem and then the help goes to a more deserving cause, as in this case.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Air Mata Iboe

 * Well, I finally gave it the (very little) push it needed. I'll not be doing a formal peer review, but I'd appreciate if you could drop by the talk page (Talk:Air Mata Iboe) and give comments if possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. The antibiotics I'm on are now taking a bit more of an effect, so thinking is no longer painful for me (well, no more than it usually is!) I'll be there is a day or two. – SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Bouts's The Entombment
Almost looks like Jimbo there :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The Tower House
Hi, any chance you and could take a look at this and comment at the PR before it heads off to FAC?♦  Dr. Blofeld  13:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep - and sorry - I know I promised this some time ago, but it completely slipped my mind. – SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Thanks, understandable, hope you're feeling a bit better.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your input into the peer review (hopefully your points can still be addressed!). The article is now at FAC. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:London County Council Sewer Map, November 1930, showing Bazalgette's sewers.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:London County Council Sewer Map, November 1930, showing Bazalgette's sewers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Bondfield
Last year you kindly contributed to the above article's peer review or or FAC or both. An issue has arisen from yesterday's TFA appearance, and is under discussion on the article's talk. Briefly: an editor added into the text the cited information that Bondfield's was privately known as "Maggie", and then incorporated this into the lead so the subject appeared as Margaret Grace ("Maggie") Bondfield. I have removed the nickname from the lead, and stated my position on the talkpage. I would be pleased if you could visit and briefly comment there. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Narcissus horticultural divisions/archive1
Hi. I was just about to finish promoting this list but it doesn't have your closure note, could you please add it? Cowlibob (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not sure how I managed to forget that, but it's all now in place. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC).

Another list of Somerset scheduled monuments at FLC
As you have previously commented on one or more of nominations of the lists of scheduled monuments in Somerset, I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look at the List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset which is now nominated at Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset/archive1?&mdash; Rod talk 21:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande/archive1. Concerns about comments by delegate.
Hey. I'm worried that Crisco isn't actually up to par for reviewing FLCs, judging by how contradictory and misinformed he has been on my nomination. I think it's really worrying that an FLC delegate doesn't read comments and makes contradictions as a result. — ₳aron  00:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Aaron, I'm going to give you the same advice I give to all people who have issues with their reviewers: try to work with them not against them. They also have the article's best interests at heart. Crisco is an experienced FL writer and reviewer, not some newbie on his first edits who doesn't know the ropes, and it is worth you considering his points carefully. Have you considered that, for example, the lead may actually be too long? I look at some of the bits I've done and I see that The Smiths discography (four studio albums, one EP, one live album, ten compilation albums, twenty singles, one video album and fourteen music videos) was covered in a 354-word lead. John Gielgud's eight-decade career was summarised in 291 words, so nearly 600 words to deal with less than 40 songs in four years could be seen as being heavy. That's just an example. Try to look at it from a neutral point of view (always difficult, I know when it is your own work under the microscope): if someone else had provided this length of lead for such a short career, what would be your impression? I've worked with you both, so I consider myself a neutral honest broker here, but I do think that the lead comes off as too heavy: it's supposed to summarise the list that follows, not nearly replicate it. If it helps, take a day or two away from the article and the review and come back and read it with a fresh mind on Sunday evening or something. Try and look at it neutrally, taking into account comments that have been left in the best of faith, and ask yourself for each sentence or phrase if it is really needed. This may not be the response you hoped for, but I hope it is of assistance. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I'm fully aware of who he is and what he has done, but the fact is that I can't work with someone who isn't paying full attention to what I'm saying and getting his facts wrong. Just because he is an experienced FL writer and an FLC delegate, it doesn't mean that I have to take everything he says as gospel and agree with him. As far as I'm aware, we write lists on very different subjects, so we most probably have different ideas of how to best write an article for the topic we are writing for. I am trying to take a neutral stance, but I genuinely don't see what he is saying. I don't a think a "one size fits all" approach can be applied to all leads in lists. —  ₳aron  09:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Aaron, I'm sorry, but I don't think you're paying full attention either, so I'll be more clear. I agree with Crisco: the lead is about 150-200 words too long for my liking. – SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have another look. —  ₳aron  09:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan
Any chance you and page stalkers could give this a read and post some feedback on the talk page. It gets over one million hits a year and I really think it would be good to get up to FA status. It needs to be treated as fairly as other articles, I think we can get it up to FA status with some decent input.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

When you have a moment free perhaps?♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, sorry doc – a couple of outbreaks of foolishness got in the way, but I'll be there shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined
Hi SchroCat, the Arbitration Committee has declined the Infoboxes II arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 06:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was a spurious and vexatious case request, based on a falsehood, and the committee have consigned it to an appropriate fate. - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Spectre (2015 film) See WP:SPOILERS: we do not censor things, especially minor details.
Hi,

I understand current Wikipedia policy on spoilers, but can you take a look at my comment here:

What about just moving possible Spoilers at the Very End for Recent Released Movies?

What would be wrong with just including spoilers at the very end of an article instead of at the very beginning in this case at the very top in the Casting.

Should the Casting info just be about the cast anyway and not about what happens to them?

Just my opinion on the matter and curious on your thoughts on the matter too.

Have a great day!

Brian DavisKbdavis07 (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My answer on the Spectre talk page stands: there are lots of reason why this won't work, not least of which is that we're an encyclopaedia, and have formats for laying out articles that does not mean dumping "spoiled" information into a generic trivia section at the bottom of articles: it goes where it's most appropriate in an article. – SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

.
Schro, since you nominate so much, wonder if you ever read this here.... We had issues for long time - lack of people voting and good nominations never getting promoted because of lack of interest in voting. Still, I notice a tendency of only nominating but not participating in voting on others nominations. It would be nice if you, who nominated so many great pics lately  could do that, like take a round like every third day or so, check out what's up... It looks like we are still having about the same issues as than. Hafspajen (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do vote, but tend to do it in batches every week or so (although not always - I managed to do this one(!) this morning). There's no need to do it more often, as they noms are there for 11 days at a time, so weekly means I get to cover most of those I feel suitable. - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That was nice. Once a week is a god start... Later you can go maybe twice a week? Until you get addicted... Hafspajen (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

... you won't get a next chance... Hafspajen (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Doc, that's very good of you (even if I am only standing on the shoulders of artistic giants while nominating their work)! - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Extra s
Holy Jesus, on this day of all days.... An "'s" on a plural noun ending with an "s"? Modern times, eh? You're on my assassination calendar..... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry! I'm not a great fan of it myself, but I've been wrapped over the knuckles for it a few times before - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record
Fair enough but what about the references in the "Film" column, I had moved them to the "+Filmography of Terry-Thomas" header about the tables, would that be ok? LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I did that in one of my earlier lists and I was wrapped on the knuckles by a couple of reviewers about it. I thought it was more logical, but it's against the MoS, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well rats, I would agree that that is more logical but don't want to be wrapped on the knuckles for it ;) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

-

 * Ahem, Schro, your uy is not the African. It is Gaudentius of Brescia... Whoever made that mistake. Check. here. You should move that paintinhg to the right article. Hafspajen (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good spot - now altered - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Castell Coch
Hi. I'd be very grateful if you could give Castell Coch a read and comment at Peer review/Castell Coch/archive1. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do! – SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about The Fourteen Infallibles List
Hi, SchroCat - did you get a chance to see what came up with regarding the table format for The_Fourteen_Infallibles? Thanks Atsme &#9775;  Consult  04:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahem
Listen, Schro, I was trying to find arguments; as much as I could to save that nom, and because I think that an artwork depicting a man from the 5-th century should not be asked upon any real likeness with the subject, but it would be nice if you would follow a bit that nomination. Maybe this should be discussed. Hafspajen (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been following, and I agree with you entirely, as I've already said in the nom, but I do not think that anything either you or I say on the subject will change the minds of the other two editors, just as we are unlikely to be swayed by their arguments. Both argument are equally valid, and it comes down to a mattr of opinion and taste only. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not sure about opinion - only. One can't really judge artwork like this. But the point is that one doesn't want a precedent -starting judging artwork if they are depicting enough likeness or not. How about Picasso, Mondrian, Matisse? Those artist's works bear with almost no likeness with depicted persons either. One have to be careful about what criteria is risen. This is not really about photographic likeness at all. --Hafspajen (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ursula Andress in Dr. No.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Ursula Andress in Dr. No.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations
Indeed, well done Schro!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Congrats from me as well! Snuggums (talk / edits</b>) 13:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks to all of you for thoughts and comments during the PR/FAC – it was all mcu appreciated! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Ismah
With thanks for your previous helps, may I ask you to help and guide us to make this article a FA? Salman mahdi (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, It's a bit out of my usual area of expertise. I will have a look over it shortly and see if there is anything I can suggest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations to all the contributors to today's featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a interesting and wonderful article.
 * <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 11:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's very kind thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Peer Review
I know you're busy with a thousand things but I've always trusted your input on peer reviews and featured noms. If you could, I'd love to see what your thoughts are on this one. Thanks so much. :) <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">LADY LOTUS • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 12:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Lady, No problems - always happy to look over PRs, especially yours, as they're always fairly close to FL quality already! I'll be there a little later today, hopefully! - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Records and achievements of Madonna
Hello SchroCat, since you are a FL director and deal with lists, would you care to browse your eyes on the above article and give some feed back as to whether its structure is fine, or it needs major restructuring for satisfying the WP:FLC criteria. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat  ] 04:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, At a brief glance, I'd say ths needs some fairly heavy duty work doing to it before it goes near FLC. The lead is too short, the opening sentence is cumbersome, there are several disambig links in there, some of the referencing is problematic - and that's just from a very quick glance. It's also a massive piece. I appreciate that this makes it comprehensive, but it does make it something of a mountain plough through! Sorry this probably isn't what you wanted to hear, but best you know the bad news up front. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No no, that is exactly what I wanted to hear. I know this is a mountain of work, but this feedback is very very helpful. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat  ] 13:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in
Hello SchroCat,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
 * Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips.
 * Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran FAC 2.0
I have opened the 2nd FAC for the article. Please do let me know if you would like to make any comments. Thanks. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 02:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ssven2, I will try and get to this shortly. I have a couple of things to clear up first, but I'll try and make it. Please nudge me in a week if I've not made an appearance! Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do, SchroCat. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 08:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's the nudge. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 00:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a week yet!♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

PC FLC
Thank you for promoting the flc. It was passed within 20 days. Thanks!— Prashant 08:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

5 Seconds of Summer (album)
There's uncited genres in infobox that does not contains any article text. I think bot admin would revert that we're an IP. 115.164.177.121 (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The easiest course of action (especially if you've been reverted) is to add a cn tag in place, which is what I've done. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Boat Race reviews

 * My pleasure to help out at the astonishing feat that you've undertaken. The plaudits really should be aimed at you for this! Cheers -SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And thanks, for about the 162nd time, for all the help with sources. It would literally have been impossible for me to have achieved this without your kind assistance. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015
<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) 15:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ravel
After a thorough and stimulating peer review I have put Maurice Ravel up for FAC. If you care to look in you will, as I hardly need say, be most welcome. –  Tim riley  talk    16:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It'll be my pleasure: I'll be there shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates/List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples/archive1
Hi. Hope you're well. The nominator for this FLRC has not edited for nearly a month. The article content creator has said they've resolved the nominator's concerns. Is it possible for you, Giants or Crisco to check this and close or should we wait for the nominator to return? Cowlibob (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Cowlibob, I don't think we necessarily have to wait for the nominator, but I'll have a look over it tomorrow (hopefully) and see where we are. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , The article looks good, and I'll close the FLRC later today. It's one of those cases where the nominator would have been better to edit the article or use the talk page, rather than use the delisting process, but there you go! - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at it. Reading the nom, it looks like a personal dispute rather than a content dispute between the editors because of a previously unsuccessful FLC, unfortunate. Cowlibob (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Skyfall Trivia
Hi, please clarify your removal of my edit to the Skyfall page. I'm working on an assignment (long story) so I would love some info on your reasons to help me out. Thanks! Edanehy (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As per the edit summary I left, see WP:TRIVIA. - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on this reading of the page, I believe your removal may have been hasty. I was referring not to the quality if the information in the section, but the name of the content. []. I am a relatively inexperienced user, but I do have a source for that material, and was planning on improving the presentation. Edanehy (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is simple: we do not have Trivia sections. This is an encyclopaedia, and the first line of WP:TRIVIA clearly states "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information", which is what you had. The three pieces of information you had in the section were also unsourced, which was another good reason for the removal. Aside from that "The role of Kincade was intended for Sean Connery early on in production": this is already in the article. The Dench /Llewelyn screentime really is trivial nonsense and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia—maybe on a fansite, but not in an encyclopaedia. The references to the other films in the series would be pertinent, but picking on one of the more crass references (and unsourced too) hardly seems the best way to go. There has been discussion on this final point before, with agreement to include something, but it's a question of writing it properly with reliable sources. – SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks! Appreciate the time taken to explain. Edanehy (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Leonard Strong (actor)
Have you seen Back to Bataan? I swear that's where they got the inspiration for Blofeld's voice! Evil! I think they were trying to make him an evil Japanese guy in the film. Strong's speaking voice was just like the disguised Blofeld voice in Thunderball, you know, "My dear Prime Minister, two atomic bombs, numbers, 456 and 457, which were aboard NATO Flight 759, are now in the possession of SPECTRE. flawless diamonds off the coast of Burma etc" .! Strong would have made a great SPECTRE agent n0.3 in You Only Live Twice!♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not seen that one... Will have a hunt for an uploaded copy of it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Arrangement of Best Director nominees in ceremony lists
Quick question. Do you think the winners and nominees for Best Director in each ceremony category should be arranged in alphabetical order by either person or film? Someone changed the order a few days ago.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It should probably be the same as other categories, I woud think: consistency is all. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015
<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) 22:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)