User talk:SchroCat/Archive 8

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

TFL on Monday
Hey Schro, until this crusade calms down, I'm going to suggest we postpone the TFL appearance of Flashman, I hope you understand? With tags being added willy-nilly and FLRCs being suddenly opened up etc, it's not ideal for main page... Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem: I know it's out of your hands and it's the right thing to do for the main page. Hopefully this rather bizzare and questionable editing will calm down shortly and we'll go for a relist after that. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Once the FLRC is resolved, we'll reschedule it. Have a good weekend, and stay cool!  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Cheers, RM: I'll take your advice and, like all good Englishmen, spend an evening relaxing appropriately! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have time...
I wonder if you could follow up on Jane Joseph, now at FAC? I'll bet you can't find a missing ellipsis, either! Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I should be delighted to! Let the hunt commence! - SchroCat (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:File:Adele Skyfall sample.ogg
Someone else has sorted it out I see! For reference, samples should generally be no more than 30 seconds/10% of the song (whichever is shorter) and no more than 64 kbps. J Milburn (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * At least it saves me the trouble of getting it wrong! Thanks for the guidelines - much obliged! All the best - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks for your input with this edit. It is always reassuring to see that I am interpreting polices the same way as other editors. Unfortunately it is still the old "episode" template, I would try and hash it out on the talk page, but something tells me it would be a pointless waste of time anyway. Besides, bigger fish to fry and I have no kids to teach for a week! Sun burns await! hahahaha -- MisterShiney    ✉    20:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem - always glad to chip in when I see good editors getting blasted for doing the right thing (and especially when they've been template for it!) You're probably right on the waste of time - these children's programmes seem to generate more heat, hot air and nonsense than Bond does! All the best - SchroCat (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates/The Flashman Papers/archive1 and Talk:The Flashman Papers
I hope you don't think I've stuck my oar in too far, but I've asked for admin scrutiny of these discussions in the hope of getting them closed. Tim riley (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat
I have a query because Skyfall received 92% and an 81/100 score on metacritic indicating worldwide acclaim. How did my edit not make sense and I do not think generally positive reviews fits with the very positive reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niku10 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * See the numerous talk page threads on the articles talk page (and in the archives) about this very point. Please also remember to sign your talk page postings by using four tildes. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

South Pacific (musical)
Please comment on our PR for this important musical at the PR page, here. We are on the way to FAC -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Will be very happy to! Will get onto it shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles/Expanded: an invitation
Greetings, SchroCat. I wanted to follow up on our various conversations regarding the VA/E topic lists from last month. I also want to extend a personal invitation to you to participate in the ongoing discussions regarding films, filmmakers and actors at the VA/E main talk page. There are currently 16 pending discussions regarding specific films to be added, removed or swapped from the the existing list, including 9 film topics proposed for review by Betty Logan. We would welcome your knowledgeable participation in these discussions, too. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Gentle nudge: I wasn't just being polite above; we really would welcome your participation to help pare our movies, actors and filmmakers lists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sean Connery filmography
Started, I might begin working on the Connery article this evening..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it me or does File:Larry Mullen jr cc20.jpg look just like Necros?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL - They could be twins! - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup! Hey DYK that John Clark once starred alongside Ron Jeremy?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * PMSL - There's a film I never want to see! Can't even think what Lemmy is doing in it... they must have promised free booze or something! - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

See this Pause at 5:29 in particular, he looks as if he should be flying a NATO aircraft in Thunderball (Derval) doesn't he!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hehe I wonder if you could find doubles of all Bond characters in the music world, we already have Sanchez the flamenco singer, him as Derval and Larry Mulle Jr as Necros! How about my friend User:Nvvchar as Largo?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

efn note template
Hmm. Deep Luddite suspicion from TR, but I cede prior place to you to go ahead as Ssilvers invites on the South Pacific footnotes. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a WP typeface or template denoting nauseating smugness? I have done the deed using the Stone-age and all seems well in both Exploder and Firefox. If you now find that it turns into gibberish in Google Chrome I do not answer for the consequences. Tim riley (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good grief! Ignore the frivolous remarks above: the same problem arises with your Terry-Thomas article if viewed in Windows Explorer. That is, the explanatory notes are indicated with a letter in the text but a number in the list of explanatory notes. Dontcher just love Microsoft! Tim riley (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Curiouser and curiouser! Yesterday notwithstanding, today both Exploder and Firefox behave perfectly chez Terry-Thomas. I don't propose to fess up to Ssilvers and Wehwalt, who might be forgiven for throwing bricks at me. But, scout's honour, it wasn't working yesterday on either page when viewed through Explorer 7. Ignorant of Islington (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall
Hope you don't mind that I started a GA nom of Skyfall (song) - I spent the day editing it to get it on the best shape possible, even if a review will possibly take long. (and since you removed a previous nom for being too busy, we could both oversee its progress, after all) If you wish to clean it up a bit, feel free. igordebraga ≠ 04:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No problems with it at all: you've done a fair chunk of work on it and I've not had the time to kick it on. I'll give it a good copyedit shortly for you. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for your input, specially after this emerged. igordebraga ≠ 02:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall review
I've begun the GA review for Skyfall (song) and have noted a few initial concerns. Could you comment there when you have a chance? Thanks for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour tristesse (film)
Please see Talk:Bonjour tristesse (film). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

SPECTRE
I understand that the names i removed from the SPECTRE list were in fact names from, From Russia with Love the movie, and John Gardners books and i understand that they should be referenced. But i feel that the Key People section should be reserved for the original and genuine SPECTRE from the Fleming Novels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEA-VAC (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 June 2013
 * I think that SEA-VAC accidentally created a category using Hot-Cat when trying to reply to you; this is what he wrote on the category page (now deleted). BencherliteTalk 23:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry I’m not sure how to navigate my way about this thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEA-VAC (talk • contribs) 23:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no guidelines that says that we must either stick to the Fleming world, or include them all, so it's something of a judgment call on this. There is no reason not to include the non-Fleming characters on this is there? By the way, I tweaked your other change: Largo was number 2, except for the Thunderball operation, when he was temporarily assigned the number 1 for use in the field. - SchroCat (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that there are no guidelines as to what should be present at the top of the page. All the same I think traditionalist bond fans would appreciate that the official SPECTRE rankings be kept at the top, and the parodies and re-established SPECTRE leaders remain as an after note embedded in the article. And I’m afraid I must correct you again, Largo is Number 1 the entire month that Plan Omega takes place, his title is indeed change as you suggest but that is from ‘deputy Supreme Commander’ to ‘Supreme Commander in the field’. His number remains 1 And Blofelds 2 thought the entire course of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEA-VAC (talk • contribs) 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the difference between the two—and I am a Fleming traditionalist too, by the way—but the SPECTRE organisation runs past Fleming and into the continuation authors. There is no issue over the canonicity of these authors: the books are published by the same company Fleming set up to licence his books, so they are, in some ways, as valid as Fleming's entries. - SchroCat (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Those magnificent Men...
If any consolation, you were absolutely correct as to the grammatical use in the contested sentence, as my edits were too rapid and using a version that was in on another browser that did not show your edit comments.FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I never...
Thought I would be using our favourite editor as an example, but I just did here. -- MisterShiney    ✉    16:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL - that's a bit of a turn up! Sadly, the discussion on the JLM talk page still rumbles on: who would have thought something this simple could drag on this long! - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Sorry to hear that. On a different note, re the above message to the discussion, I have interpreted WP:RED correctly haven't I? Don't be afraid to tell me if I am wrong, you have been around longer than me. -- MisterShiney    ✉    16:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to avoid leaving names red - even if it means just adding a stub that repeats the same info as the article. For actors etc, then the BFI, AFI or Google Books can come up with a few extra facts to start the thing off properly. I think you're probably reading it right, but it's good to err on the side of caution with a supporting stub article. Hope that helps! - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah it does. I agree it looks unmessy, but I tend to leave them because it helps grow Wikipedia. Thanks :) --  MisterShiney    ✉    16:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall
While I appreciate the fact that you were dissatisfied with my edit, it seems like an overreaction to delete my contribution without notifying me about the decision beforehand. And while I agree that a large chunk seemed bloated, I thought that certain bits didn't need to be deleted. For instance, the Aston Martin scene is a memorable scene, so I see no reason why that shouldn't be on the page. User_talk: SlayerDarth 17:12, 5 June 2013 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.204.135 (talk)


 * You made a Bold edit: it was reverted. I don't have to forewarn you of the deletion at all. The Aston scene may well be "memorable" to you, but it isn't a key plot point, and the Plot section is, as its name suggests, about the plot, not about bits that various editors find "memorable". If you still think it should go into the plot summary, I suggest you start a thread on the article's talk page to invite the thoughts of others. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

From Russia with Love (novel)
I think that the bombing of the Russian consulate in Istanbul is a key plot point. After all, Red Grant expressed awareness of the event during his confrontation with Bond, who read about it himself in the papers.

Also, René Mathis and members of the Deuxième arriving at the end is pretty significant, because René Mathis is a relatively key character. He might not have been in the novel for long, but he was already an established character from Casino Royale. It isn't as if he were an absolute stranger.

Let me know what you think.

SlayerDarth (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2013 (GMT)

Neither of these facts affect anything that follows in the plot. The bomb goes off: that's it. No ramifications for Bond, or those involved in the storyline; on that basis it's not a plot point at all. Regarding Mathis, again, the identity of this very superficial mention means nothing. It could have been Mathis, or his deputy, or anyone else from the 2eme bureau: the actual identity means nothing. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edit
Not that it's really that important but I'm just confused by the reason given for reverting my edit on the Quantum of Solace page. Is it not the 22nd (official) installment of the series? I know the series has been rebooted several times but reboots are installments in franchises just like sequels are. There are articles on this website explaining it. If you weren't referring to that then I really don't understand your explanation and the fact that my edit got reverted.

Also, I merely edited a few words, and none of them were misspelled. --DesignDeath (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's misleading because there are more than 22 films, so separating out the number of films to Eon ensures it's a subtle error. The misspelling is in instalments, which is the correct spelling for a British English article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

S&M (song)
Hey, can you do me a favour? Would you be able to read through this article and tighten up the prose please? I want to nominate it again for FAC but I've never been successful. — AARON  &bull; TALK   09:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I'm a big tied up this weekend, but happy to look at it early next week. - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't really know what is wrong with it still as it has had so much input but something with the prose is stopping it from being promoted. For some reason, it just doesn't read like an FA. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   09:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Blimp
How can you give a citation for something like a portrait that is used in two films apart from saying "Watch the films"? -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You find a reliable source that says just that. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Aren't the films a reliable source of what's in them? :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of plot etc, yes, they can act as a primary source. Having the "same" prop in two films needs to be supported. (Is it the same prop, or a second copy, etc) if it's not reliably sourced, then it's original research. - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But a plot is open to interpretation, especially as to what is included and what isn't. Ah well, if them's the rules then they are the rules, no matter how open they are to misuse. Thanks. The paragraph about the painting should be deleted then because nobody can prove it either way -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Most plots are not open to interpretation if written properly. Those that are need to be covered by a reliable source, as per WP:FILMPLOT. - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah well, nothing more to discuss then. Farewell -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Blimp credits
Which takes precedence? The credits as given on the film or the credits as given on a poster? (An American poster for a British film) -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The infobox should have the order as per the poster. The cast list in the article should be as per the credits. If its a US poster, then it should be changed to the UK original and the order taken from that. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the poster info, it suggests it's a UK poster? - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * [Stalker] -- You used to be able to tell which is which by the poster shape: UK posters run from east to west (horizontal) while American posters go north to south (vertical). --   Cassianto Talk   18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

FAC
Your issues are resolved. Please, talkback at the Chopra FAC. Prashant  10:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Does that happen alot..?
An editor comes a long claiming to have done all the work when all they did was redone what other editors had put in...? -- MisterShiney    ✉    17:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No - most editors are fairly honest about their endeavours, as they know it can all be seen in the edit history! I'm always suspicious about people who keep banging on about the number of edits they have done in comparison to others: it always seems to be a rather snide way of asserting some form of superiority over others on a topic, or the thin end of the wedge of ownership. - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely I agree. They weren't getting consensus for their inclusion and were claiming they were making all the contribs when all they were doing was putting back in what was removed by IPs. -- MisterShiney    ✉    18:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And in this case it comes with one of the more disruptive editors active on Wiki at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to say....
You're a stalker and you know it. :p -- MisterShiney    ✉    17:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A favour
Hello, would you mind commenting on my FLC, Featured list candidates/List of songs written by Emeli Sandé/archive1, as progress has completely stalled and hasn't been very active recently. Thanks. — AARON  &bull; TALK   22:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No probs: all done. Fairly easy because I couldn't see any issues with it! - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   13:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, are you going to move your sandbox into the article? I'd like to nominate for FAC. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   13:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Aaron, I'm still doing a little tinkering on it and asked someone else to also have a look over it too. There's no rush on sticking back into FAC and a gap may help the dust settle on the last few FACs. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
You're too kind: thank you for this, it's very much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Okay, look... I will have the image removed, but I could use your help because I don't know how to have the image removed. But you also need to realize that I emailed these people through the XL Recordings website and that is the email they are using, first of all, and second of all, there was no phone number listed in that email. Okay, now, thank you for your advice, and I'm sorry about all this, but I know for a fact that the "Skyfall" Remix CD was never released anywhere. I have contacted the writer of the article which states that, but the other source you guys have written down, which says is the CD booklet or something, is false because... 1. I've found the CD booklet from the "Skyfall" single - the back cover, as well - and the track listing only has the original version of the song and the instrumental version. 2. If it's a booklet, then it can't be a vinyl record. They don't come in booklets, they come in sleeves..... I just want you to take that into consideration. I'm a huge Adele fan, and I'm pretty sure that I would know. I'm sorry for all this confusion, I'm in no way tryiing to start a feud, and I'm not agressive or looking to start something; I'm not the type of person that has to be right and I'm not trying to be right, it's just irritating when you are right and you can't prove it, and no one believes you. I'll look for a source that clearly states it is false being that this clearly isn't enough for you, but I can assure you that this is false. Thank you for your time. ---Tsu&#39;tey♫ (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is an email and phone number shown on that image: you need to get them removed straight away. As to the rest, find a reliable source and the information can be moved to the right section, not removed from the article. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I could use some help having the image removed, I have no idea how to do that. And I don't see a phone number on there.... Anyways, again, sorry for the confusion, I'm in the process of finding a source that does deny that there is aa 12" vinyl record containing "Skyfall" remixes. Best regards. ---Tsu&#39;tey♫ (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The telephone number is number below the signature. I have tagged the file for deletion. - SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ellipses and all that...
My latest offering, Harold Davidson (the archetypal naughty vicar) is up for peer review. I will give you an enormous barnstar if you can gind even one ellipsis that is not preceded by a no-break space. That's how confident I am (but I'd like you to check anyway). Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course he was a naughty vicar: his title of "Rector of Stiffkey" could have come from any of the Carry on or Confessions of smutfests! I'll pop along shortly to see what I can spot. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
— AARON  &bull; TALK   22:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
Project opera has a new option, infobox opera, DYK? We try to install samples of how it can look, you took part in reverting, why? Please see User talk:Nikkimaria, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

World War Z
Just wanted to stop by and state my appreciation for you starting a discussion rather than re-reverting as is too common these days.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No probs. It's all too common and I'm as guilty as the next man, but not re-reverting does take the immediate heat out of any discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I ask you not to respond to Niemti any further. You are both enabling each other. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't fear, Erik, I've already walked away. He's crossed over from the point where he had one adequate (but very poorly expressed) point to needless trolling and stirring for an argument. Life is too short to deal with people who start a conversation from a point of mindless and combative arrogance! We all get wound up now and again (and some of us overstep the mark from time to time), but he is one editor who starts way over the line. - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Davidson peer review
Could I ask that you briefly revisit Peer review/Harold Davidson/archive1, to comment on an issue I have raised concerning the use of this image. Many thanks Brianboulton (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Naughty vicar at FAC
You asked me to let you know when Harold Davidson made it to FAC. Well, it's there now – in a petty crowded field, but I hope it will get some attention. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

from HMS Troutbridge
Shall have much pleasure in looking at Die Forelle tomorrow. Am up at the ancestral shack near Derwentwater this week, and might possibly spot a trout or two in the river nearby. (Bony buggers, river trout, though. Give me sea trout every time.) Tim riley (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Back in London with my books to hand. Shall plunge into the trout pool again tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks indeed! It's still in a rather parlous state, and I haven't touched the lead yet. The mercy of it—for reviewers at least—is in its brevity! - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm putting my comments here, but by all means move them to the article talk page if you prefer. The Lied is not my strong suit (though I'm anybody's for a Fauré mélodie) so I offer these few comments from the commanding heights of sheer ignorance: That's my lot. Much enjoyed. – Tim riley (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I think it may be worth mentioning other famous songs from the same year: Graham Johnson lists Der Tod und das Mädchen and An die Musik. (Notes to Hyperion CD "Schubert in 1817–1818", CDJ33021 (1994) – one of the few CDs of Lieder on my shelves.)
 * Date: Johnson says "early 1817", not summer. Reed (p. 159) says that the earliest copies date from the spring of 1817.
 * Also perhaps relevant that though Schubart's last stanza makes it plain that the narrator is male, in the verses Schubert set it is not possible to say from the text whether the narrator is a man or a woman (see Kramer). Thus the song has been sung by many famous singers of both sexes. Elena Gerhardt comes to mind just as much as Fischer-Dieskau, for example.
 * I see Reed's one-line music example bears the tempo direction "Etwas lebhaft", which is worth mentioning, perhaps. A good pianist keeps the brook babbling in a lively way throughout.
 * Tangentially, I have just played through a CD of the Coriolan Overture and I'm blest if I spotted anything that Schubert might have unconsciously pinched. Do any of your sources say which bit Ebner was referring to?
 * That's great: many thanks indeed. I shall carry on tinkering! - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Notice
Hello, as an editor with an interest in film artcles I would like to invite you to a discussion taking place over here in the Man of Steel (film) talk page. Thanks.

Terry-Thomas
My thanks and kudos to you (and Cassianto) for you guys work on Terry's page. You guys put a lot of time and effort into the research and expansion, Terry deserves it. Now more people (including me) can read and enjoy his story and appreciate his life. this man who brought so much laughter and joy to many of us when we were kids in the 60s and 70s. Thank you guys again for doing this for Terry. Peace be with you.Koplimek (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much indeed! He was certainly worth all the trouble getting him sorted: an iconic screen presence who never fails to amuse. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Message received. Shall PR the article with (I confidently expect) great pleasure. Tim riley (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I plan on stopping by as well (although I actually haven't seen any of his work) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Paris
What's the unsourced material I'm supposed to have added? And I've already opened a discussion on the article's talk page. What that editor did was remove 80% of the content of the demographics section (80%!), while at the same time adding 20 superfluous subsections about the landmarks of Paris (as if the article was a tourist guide), 20 subsections which took way more space than the demographic content removed, and to top it off, he/she dumped all that demographic content in the Demographics of Paris article without even making any effort to arrange the information properly or avoid doublets and repeated information (like posting twice the same table). How am I supposed to call such a behavior? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Try WP:GOODFAITH. Try also looking at the fact that a disorganised, bloated and unsupported article is now rated as a GA-level article. Rather than trying to shove all the pointless information back onto the page, cheapening the standard of the article, why not work constructively on the Demographics article to improve that so that it also reaches GA standard? As to the sub-sections: the amount of space you're concerned about is neither here nor there: completeness and the sourcing of information is what is of importance. Why not raise your issues constructively on the article talk page and see if you and Dr Blofeld can agree on the areas for further development, whether that is in the main Paris article, or one of the other more specialised articles? - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey
So what's the progress with "S&M"? PR looks like it is coming along well. — AARON  &bull; TALK   18:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Aaron, It's going well. I've had my overhaul of it and Cass is doing the PR: he's one of the best on Wiki, so if he thinks it's good enough, then it's good enough. Once he's had his say I'm going to drop a line to a few people who turned up at the last FAC and get their input. If we can get them onside with the re-worked effort, then we'll be a big step forward come FAC. I think it's good enough, we just need to work a few others into the right place! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay cool. Did you see what I said about the charting? —  AARON  &bull; TALK   19:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did: thanks for clearing up my cock-up! - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, are you going to amend it in the article? —  AARON  &bull; TALK   20:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, the PR looks pretty much done now. Can it be nominated? —  AARON  &bull; TALK   21:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just asked a couple of those who opposed last time to come and comment at PR. If we can get them onside with the re-worked effort, then we'll be quite some way down the path at FAC. It takes a little longer doing it this way, but it's worth it in the long run and will only ever help the standard of the article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Never ceases to amaze me...
That so many editors demand civility on their talk pages and yet are deliberately antagonistic and troll themselves. -- MisterShiney    ✉    20:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw your recent visitor: sadly I am becoming less and less surprised by some of the things that go on around here! - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have had 3 this month alone lol. Must be the weather. lol -- MisterShiney    ✉    13:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Connery Filmography
Hi Schro! I am willing to work on updating Connery's filmography table. It would be a big job, so if you have an issue with this, (ie: if you have already started) then please let me know before I begin. I will look for you reply here. Cheers. -  thewolfchild  21:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This one? Help yourself! It's on a list of things for me to do, but the list keeps changing and getting longer and I've not really had much time to do much on it really, so please feel free. - SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK then. I'll give it a shot. I did a major re-vamp of the George Clooney filmography awhile ago, breaking one unwieldy table into five separate tables. I also recently fixed up Matthew Vaughn's filmography table and created a small one for Timberlake. I'll see what I can do with Connery's. I'll be in touch. -  thewolfchild   22:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

PR
Just a heads up, cuz you and Cassianto asked, I've opened a PR here for Djaoeh Dimata in case you want to review it. Good luck with TT! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No probs: I'll be round shortly to have a read through your always-interesting subject! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Any word on how much longer TT will be? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We've had three excellent sets of comments, so I'm going to close the PR today. Just going on what Brian has said, Cass and I need to give it another run-through and I we'll go to FAC after that, so I suspect it'll be in a day or so (I hope)! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to it. If I ever get off my butt and order an archive copy of Tempo review for Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI, I'd like to take that to FAC. Quite a significant Indonesian film from the 80s (now that's an area we have very poor coverage of!), used as a propaganda vehicle for over a decade. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Bond 24
Dear SchroCat, I can see you are a big Bond fan. But I cited what I have written regarding a sequel to Skyfall. If you would like, I will mention it in other articles. Please let me post it. It is quite important.

From, Crazyboy279 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.97.6.169 (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's pointless rumour and a 90% likelihood of being complete bollocks, whatever the blogsites and trashy newspapers say. What the "sources" fail to take into account is that if Eon use the plot from one of the novels, they pay a large amount for it, which is why they tend to avoid it and write their own stories (with Casino Royale being a notable exception). There is a secondary point that Logan is writing a two-part story to appear in two films (Eon have already confirmed that): Devil May Care is a one-film plot, max. The best thing to do is wait until there is a statement from Eon: they tend to wait until the stupid rumours build to a ridiculous level and then issue a denial, so it probably won't be too far away. - SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

David Niven
I notice that your upload is quite ravishing, but I note that there is some jpg artefacting here. Are you using the highest possible setting on your scanner, then saving with the highest possible setting in Photoshop (12) or GIMP (100)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This one? It's an absolute corker and I love it! I'm an absolute idiot when it comes to images and associated actions, so I missed most of what you've said there! I'll check when I get home what the scanner setting is (1200 springs to mind): anything higher and the software I have can't cope with editing the results. The import is an automatic thing - partly because I don't have wither Photoshop or Gimp.... Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the one. What are you editing with, then? If its at 1200 DPI, then there shouldn't be much wrong with your scanner! I think you are saving it in a low-quality JPG, leading to lossiness and then artefacting. (GIMP is free and (somewhat) easy to use. It's also not all that big; I think the whole program is under 100 mb. Photoshop is... definitely not free. What is it now, several hundred dollars?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Something like that - waaay too expensive! I use the Windows standard Live Photo Gallery and a couple of the other standard office bits, as well as the standard HP scanner software. I'll have a look at GIMP and see what I can do with it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is there. Live isn't meant for professional quality editing and likely saves more lossily (sp?) than it should. I think we should be able to cut back on artefacting issues if you go from scanner to GIMP right away, then do the editing in its native format (only exporting to JPG once you're done). Of course, for in-article use what you've got going is certainly enough... just in case you wanted to go for FP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that: I'll have a play around with GIMP and probably come back to you with a whole stack of idiot questions about how it works! ;) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Best of luck! (There is a manual, of course!) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Art in Medieval Scotland/GA1
Hi, I advised the author of this not to bunch and replicate books in the notes section and put them underneath. I began converting them to sfn notes and thought he'd be happy to continue but he seems rather upset with beginning to overhaul the references. Sfn isn't compulsory but isn't it ill-advised not to replicate books in the notes and also underneath? Care to comment? Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 19:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got there too late! Horrible as it stood, and your efforts certainly improved matters immeasurably, but it looks like not everyone agreed. I'm hugely in favour of the sfn style, as you know, and find some of the points people raised to be very debatable! The current refs look, to my mind, horribly cluttered and pointless (repeating the same title in fns 14, 15 and 16, for example). People keep banging on about their academic style in referencing, which I can always understand, apart from the fact that this is a webpage that changes: most of those people (and I too) would happily use Ibid to stop the repetition, but that is strictly verboten for very good reason, and the more spare style of sfn compensates for the over-wordy ref section as it currently stands. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article The Flashman Papers know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on August 5, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Today's featured list/August 5, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors, or , or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  18:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 

The first instalment of The Flashman Papers by George MacDonald Fraser was published in 1969. The series of novels and short stories centre on the exploits of the fictional protagonist Harry Flashman, a cowardly British soldier and cad who is placed in a series of real historical incidents between 1839 and 1894. While the incidents and much of the detail in the novels have a factual background, Flashman's actions in the stories are either fictional, or Fraser uses the actions of unidentified individuals and assigns them to Flashman. During the course of Fraser's novels, Flashman goes from his expulsion from school into the army. Although he is a coward who tries to run away from any danger, he is involved in a number of notable military episodes from the 19th century, often taking actions that cause or affect subsequently infamous events. Flashman is a minor character in the 1857 novel by Thomas Hughes, Tom Brown's School Days; a bully who is expelled from Rugby School for drunkenness. The character was then developed by Fraser, and appeared in a total of eleven novels and one collection of short stories featuring the character. Although chronology of the main series finishes in 1894, Flashman lives on until 1915 and he is also found in his late 80s in another Fraser book, Mr American.


 * Brill! --  Cassianto Talk   19:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

PR or just talkpage
Hii! Shro, since the flc is officially withdrawed, I want to open a PR but, I'm thinking what will be best a PR or just comments on the talk page. Tell me soon so that I can start. Thanks. — Prashant 15:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Prashant, you may as well go for a PR, rather than a talk page. For a start there is a better log kept of the suggestions on an archived page, and there is also the possibility of a passing reviewers dropping in to give advice too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay! I will go with a PR. So, could you pls tell me when to start the PR? Right now or in few days??— Prashant 15:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * May as well start it now. I'll get there either today or tomorrow with some comments on it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Here we go, Peer review/Priyanka Chopra filmography/archive1. Post your comments. Thanks.— Prashant 16:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

S&M images :)
Hi SchroCat, i have left you 2 comments on my talkpage. If it's OK for you, i would like to wait a bit with a full review, until the Commons copyright check for one image was done. Of course, if you can get a hold of better replacements for the two mentioned images, that would solve it too (other images look OK on a quick glance). GermanJoe (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers GJ - I'll have a look at them shortly. Thanks very much as always! (and I bet you don't get to write "S&M images" in FA reviews too often!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really rooting for you guys here, Schro. (Glad Aaron and you worked out your differences) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers Crisco - and for your diplomacy work some time ago on the Skyfall matter too! - SchroCat (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Any chance this could be uploaded? Would be great in the article. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   14:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's clearly the wrong license. 90% of Indonesian Wikipedia users don't understand basic copyright, and the source the uploader cites is some URL shortening service or something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the fair-use rationale for the video image, please check the diff []. Some tips for future fair-use images (i know, fair-use is a pain sometimes): I'll try to add a full review in the next days, but there should be no major issues left. GermanJoe (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Avoid writing all fair-use points in "purpose", only the purpose (point 8) belongs there. The other required points all have separate parameters.
 * Don't use "n.a." or "none" for any fair-use parameter - all NFCC-criteria must be met for fair-use. Most standard arguments like "replaceable" can be copied from similar non-free images. "Purpose of use" should not be copied from anywhere, but stated as detailed as possible in your own words.


 * That's great: many thanks GJ. I get lost on the fair use points normally and tend to give as many as possible: I'll try to reduce down to a more focused one in future. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Hey Schro!, your your comments were resolved at the PR. Thanks.— Prashant 03:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

More Bond look alikes in music
Hehe pause at 9:39 the guitarist could almost pass for the guy in Goldeneye Famke Janssen "squeezed" in bed screaming "yes". Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 08:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He he - nice one! - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the most irritating films I've ever seen. The drone of the car engines and the constant screaming girl, and the super lame ending in which the car falls off a cliff, somehow survives and comes back for more then does it again and the second time lands on a building in the middle of nowhere which happens to be an explosives building. Add the dramatic choir like music for such a lame scenario and it really is one of the most annoying films I've ever watched! Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 16:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi! Schro, I used your suggested template but, it is still not working. Also, I have modelled her filnography like Christian Bale filmography and it is also a long and FL. But, I have trrimmed some parts as per your suggestion. Please, talkback.— Prashant 14:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I still don't know how to do. I don't know about those templates. I think we should use only number like 1170000000. But, then it will be hard to understand if it was not cover into $. What to do?— Prashant 23:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Well, I have replaced conversion template with raw figures. I hope everything is okay now. Continue the review for prose and other necessary things. Thanks.— Prashant 18:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Why the revert?
Just wondering why did you revert my edit on On Her Majesty's Secret Service (novel) article? I understand if you felt the sentence was too long, but the synopsis didn't explain why James Bond felt he was discovered. Christianster94 (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence
Thank you for your infobox evidence, please sign it. Perhaps you want to modify after looking at mine: infoboxes are frequently removed WITHOUT any talk, as rollback (like vandalism), or edit summaries such as "cleanup" or "rm". Life is not too easy if you like them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Life's bloody easy if you like them: there is a cabal of people forcing them into the project regardless of how advisable it may be on a particular page, and then edit warring and being abusive while they do it. I'm not talking about you doing this Gerda, but I both think we know who it is that indulges in such a pleasant approach. I am only giving my viewpoint Gerda: I've not seen anyone doing what you are suggesting, but if you've got the diffs the Arbs to look at, then that's all well and good. I suspect they'll look at all these closely and see if the removals were justified at all, and whether it was against a long-standing box or a new one etc. I'm happy to leave it to the to come to a decision. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey
I've been editing "Rockstar 101" the past few days and I have nearly finished it. I want to nom it for FAC. When I'm done, which should be in a little while, would you mind reading it through and correcting anything please? — AARON  &bull; TALK   12:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No probs. Drop me a line when you're done and I'll take a spin through it for you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've done it now. I've tried to follow "S&M" where possible as a guideline. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   12:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you comment on Featured article candidates/Rockstar 101/archive1 please. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   10:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, certainly will do in the next 24 hours or so - just trying to clear some decks here and in RL. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

PR
Thanks for the sorting. If you want other changes in prose, then I'll be happy to resolve your comments at the PR.— Prashant 17:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comments were resolved at the PR. If you have further comments, then continue the review. Thanks.— Prashant 17:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Before I think which Bond article\list deserves attention (after all you got so many GAs\FLs that a "overview topic" of sorts, for the films or the whole franchise, seems possible), can you take a look at a PR I started? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 01:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem - I'm snowed under with a stack of stuff here and in RL, but I'll get to is as soon as I can. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have resolved your comments. cited nes sources for the claim. Thanks for the review.— Prashant 07:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No probs. See if you can get another review for a good ce on the lead – and drop me a line when you go to FLC. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Bond 24
I view this as one of the rare exceptions to WP:NFF. There's good content and if you redirect or even merge it, I fear it may be swamped. Also I am nomming it for DYK, so... While I appreciate your best intentions, we can't just keep on citing "No future films". I hope you will allow it as an exception and our work can resume again. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 12:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There was the same issue with Skyfall, which went through the same process of not having an article until the official release of the name, which marked the start of production. There was exactly the same amount of hype (actually more, since there was a long build up to the release). If it happened with Skyfall, there is no reason why the next film doesn't go the same route: no article until the official launch. - SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
What a bloody good day for all bounders and cads! Pip pip, old chap! - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!
Lol - that's very kind of you... and very true too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I don't think he ever tires of us copying his format (Chairil used it, and that list just passed too) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You're both very kind: thank you! (and Jacques to come in the next month or so too!) You're right, Crisco: although I do enjoy seeing "my" lists do well, I'm even happier to see the format spread wider, and I hope others will pick up on it too in time! Congrats on the Chairil list - another great piece of work from you! - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will be doing the Jacques lead over the next few days, I promise. --  Cassianto Talk   10:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no rush at all: I still have to finish off the television section, and the theatre one is very messy to try and sort out, so I'll be a good 2-3 weeks yet! - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Danke. (Looking forward to another one). BTW Schro, did you figure out GIMP? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Still slowly working my way through it - way too many distractions at the moment both on here and in RL, but I'll get there!! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Best of luck then! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Superb work, well done!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright on book covers
Greetings, SchroCat. I wonder why and how you can appropriate all of these book covers? Here is the image I'm asking about: File:Fraser's paperback Flashmans.JPG. Doesn't Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia have rules governing copyright that would include this work? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The spines are not covered under US copyright laws, so this is acceptable. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That's really interesting. Here I asked that exact question and got the opposite answer. Can you please point me to your source? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to go with the Wikiproject here. Those spines pass the threshold of originality (look at those portraits!). The James Bond spines, if I recall correctly, didn't, because they only had bare text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Scary, because the spine of the book I used for an example in that question was only text. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it (dead link). This is Schro's old upload. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about James Bond being safe. This is the book I asked about. And no, while I thought I did, I don't remember the spine, sorry. SchroCat, can you please find a source? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Try the helpdesk at Commons, which is where I think I got my original answer. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Though to be honest I think that cover is safely within TOO (if Theory of Literature was, that should be too). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea in my opinion, to send me away to the help desk.
 * Theory of Literature is all type, Crisco 1492.
 * Google found nothing for: schrocat help desk spine copyright inurl:wikipedia.
 * Best I can do is say that I think you are stretching this way too far, but I'll give you a pass until it's off the main page. Best wishes, -SusanLesch (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * TOL has some squiggly shapes and a grey box, which is not entirely different than the "Happier" book (they've got two circles and text). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would guess that those squiggles are type ornaments. But I could be wrong. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not "sending you away" to the help desk, I'm pointing you in the direction of people who will be able to help, as they are fairly good on points of copyright and are extremely helpful. I suggest you ask them for their advice on the copyright status of spines. I am sure they will be very helpful. - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Different interests
To not have another "infobox in general" discussion where I wanted a comparison between the opera side navbox and an opera infobox, I suggest to continue here. Different readers have different interest, do we agree? If I like to see at first sight title, subtitle and composer, not some set designer (example Rite of Spring), why do you keep arguing that I should look for it in the lead? Sure, it's in the lead but not highlighted (nor should it be there), - why not have an infobox also, for me and others. Nobody wants to take away the lead, so you and others will still be served. Also repeating: if you go to an opera, a program will tell you when and where the action is. That's what I expect from an infobox, actually not much more, keep it simple. My favourite example is Duino Elegies, for several reasons: it looks nice, we got a template improved to accept sources in many languages and forms, and I didn't get banned for disrupting the TFA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gerda, I find infobox discussions soul-sapping and pointless: you will not convince me that they are needed on every article. I stress "every" because I seem them as useful and beneficial on many articles, and crucial and vital on others. It is the evangelical nature of the "infobox-on-every-page" proponents that I react against the most. The pro-infobox lobby seem to categorise all those with minor criticisms against them as being against all infoboxes: we are not, we just do not think them appropriate on every page. I have created 21 pages on wiki and on seven of them I have provided infoboxes (Solo (Boyd novel), 13 Lead Soldiers, List of works by H. C. McNeile, James Bond filmography, The Black Stiletto, She Lover of Death and Motifs in the James Bond film series). The others that relate to individuals all have the hidden persondata templates. My point about the Rite of Spring is that title, subtitle and composer are in the first line. I'm not sure how much more of an "at first sight" you need if you cannot see the first line. They are all lain out clearly, neatly and supported by the minimum of text. With such a professionally written article an infobox is not helpful: it is a distraction. Gerda, I really don't want to carry on talking about infoboxes: they are a monumental distraction of very little significance in the grand scheme of things. The information they offer is (or should be) available in the first few sentences of the lead and any metadata that is provided to our so called "partners" can be equally well provided through the use of hidden templates which will not distract readers with dumbed down and often misleading gobbets of fact. - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013
<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
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi. You're invited to participate in a peer review for the Mughal-e-Azam article at Peer review/Mughal-e-Azam/archive1. I hope that constructive input from several people can better prepare it for FAC. It probably needs several pairs of eyes who don't know much about Indian film to comment on as much as it needs experts to comment..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll get round to it sometime soon (ish!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Happy 126th
Hello SchroCat. As one person who has always appreciated your username I wanted to stop by and say happy 126th Birthday to Erwin Schrödinger and Schrödinger's cat. Google has a nice doodle in his honor and, on the slim chance that you haven't already seen it I thought I'd let you know about it. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi MarnetteD, I hadn't seen it, but it's nice to see the old boy—and his cat—being given the nod by Google! Cheers for dropping by and letting me know. - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out, even cuter than Kafka, and that worked miracles ;) - I like the cat alive, Schro, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Live ones are always better than the dead ones, even if the dead ones are more useful! - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, happy not to need it ;) - here's one I found today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Scanning
While in Hong Kong for Wikimania I talked to Adam Cuerden, and we discussed your "scanning problem". He said he'd be happy to show you the ropes if the two of you don't live too far apart. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's great, many thanks Crisco. I'll drop him a line and see whereabouts he is and what we can do. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Best of luck! As you're getting ahold of quite a few nice promotional pix, a good scan could work wonders if we want to go for FP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just arrived home from Wikimania. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hope you had a safe trip. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"S&M"
Shouldn't be too long! I've waited 2 years for this lol —  ₳  aron  16:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not! I think it's got enough to get through - all the checks are done etc, so it should just be a matter of time... - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Having added my twopenn'orth earlier I was about to add my support, but, lo!, the article is promoted already. Well done to all concerned! Tim riley (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Tim! Your work was the final key to unlock the tenth review it's been through. I was the lucky one to only be on the last one: Aron has manfully struggled through each and every one of them! - SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IT'S BEEN PROMOTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —  ₳  aron  20:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats to all of you. A well-deserved promotion after a somewhat rocky road ;). GermanJoe (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Curious though, what happened to the German lawsuit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's odd that one: no mention on the websites of any of the parties involved, not trace on a LexisNexis news or case search and no general internet references. It could be pending, but that seems unlikely after all this time, or they could have settled out of court, but normally even that is publicised somewhere... very odd! - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Odd indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Casino Royale setting
Hi! I noticed that you like to do work on James Bond related articles. A few weeks ago, I added Casino Royale (the 2006 movie) to the "Films set in Pakistan" category and I noticed that you reverted it fairly quickly. At the time, I wasn't familiar with how to use these talk pages and I did not want to risk starting an edit war by changing it back. But I think that this one may be open to debate, so I just wanted to ask you about it before I did anything else. During the opening scene of the movie, when it flashes back to Bond fighting the long-haired guy in the bathroom, the sequence is mentioned to take place in Lahore, Pakistan. However, the part where this is mentioned has been deleted in the final cut and is only visible in the extended cut. The extended cut can be watched here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNvzNWuzI9Y and the part where Lahore is mentioned is at 1:31. On the DVD, however, this cricket scene has been cut out and the scene jumps directly from Prague to the bathroom scene. So I was just wondering, would it still be acceptable to label the film as taking place in Pakistan or do you think that the article should be left as it is? I'm open to any suggestions you may have. Thank you for taking the time to read this post. 108.95.130.150 (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * HI IP, thanks for dropping a line. As far as I am aware, if something is not in the final film (or debatably in a directors cut) then it shouldn't be included as a category as it'll be confusing to the overwhelming majority of people who see it, and also be misleading. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you have been causing trouble again.
I leave for a couple of weeks and you cause trouble again :p -- MisterShiney    ✉    19:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I know - sadly its an ongoing and demoralising situation and I just hope that the editor in question drops the stick and moves on at some point! - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Word choice in Casino Royale article
Hi! I see that we have had a little disagreement regarding a choice of wording used in the Casino Royale (2006 film) article. Basically, I believe that it is helpful to refrain from using different names for the same person interchangeably, because it could easily be misleading. As for this article, using "Bond" and "007" interchangeably does not present a big problem for fans of James Bond, but someone unfamiliar with the series could find this a little confusing. Also, the actual place where "007" is used as a substitute for "Bond" appears to be the only place in the plot summary that does so. Everywhere else, "Bond" or "James Bond" is used, so suddenly using "007" in this one particular place does not really make sense to me. Taking these things into consideration, is it possible that my edit could be reconsidered? Thanks for your time. Sincerely, 108.95.130.150 (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The name "Bond" appears a whopping 25 times in a 600 word plot, which is way too repetitive. If anything there should be a couple more uses of 007 or other terms to refer to him. - SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013
<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
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Trench, Sylvia trench
I think it is important to have the line in the entry, since the inference can be made that Bond got the idea from her. At the very least, it's interesting that it's a woman who uses that form of intro first.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Flc
Hey Schro! An user had some problems on the flc, I really don't know how to handle. Please look at it as its very demolarising.— Prashant 15:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As the comments are all in relation to the budget and box office, I'd take his advice and remove them all: they are not needed when dealing with a career history. (I'd also change the one rogue US spelling in there (theater) to the IndEng equivalent, or better still, to cinema, which I think is the more appropriate name in India. (Correct me if I'm wrong - IndEng isn't a strong suit of mine!) - SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing US distributor and release date info
Hi SchroCat, I just noticed that you removed the US distributor and US release date from the Private's Progress article, as well as inserting what you claim is a British poster. All with reference to WP:Filmrelease and a notice to me that I should discuss at the talk page not jut "mindlessly revert (as per WP:BRD)." However, you haven't bothered to discuss this on the talk page yourself. And as for the WP Filmrelease notes, those are highly unclear. First of all, the instructions for the film infobox talks about distributors in plural, so obviously more than one is regarded a possibility. Secondly, the release date instructions are equally ambiguous, and if they were to be followed strictly, most release dates in Wikipedia should be removed. But the arguments for this are extremely vague. "For space reasons" is a usual argument. However, if we limit the release dates in English Wikipedia to those in English-speaking countries, plus the original country in situations where the film originates in a non-English country, that list can't be very long.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopaedia where everything that may be of reasonable interest can be found. If we say, for instance, that articles about James Bond films may only display the UK release dates, where should readers in Ireland, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa go if they want to find out the release date for a specific film in their own country? Or where should any English speaking person go if he/she wants to find out when Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries was released in his/her country? I think such info should be available in the English edition of Wikipedia. Best regards, Thomas Blomberg (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. BRD: When you are reverted, you need to start on the talk page, not just revert back to your preferred version.
 * 2 WP:FILMRELEASE specifically states that "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film". I'm not sure exactly what is ambiguous there? I'm certainly not sure how that means that we add listing information for all other countries we want - that would certainly fall foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
 * 3 Listing distributors for non-domestic markets also fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and is fairly pointless. Why on earth do we need to know superfluous details about truly trivial matters? Unless there is a good reason for including it then the infobox should be kept as slim as possible - see MOS:INFOBOX: "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, our opinions differ. What you claim to be "superfluous details about truly trivial matters", I find extremely interesting. Identifying only the local market distributor could be regarded just as trivial. On the infobox talk page, someone claimed that the local distributor is also the worldwide distributor. That is only true in a few cases: modern film distribution often consists of one company handling local distribution in the original market, while a totally separate company sells the distribution rights for other countries. Sometimes, there are several companies involved in this, handling different regions of the world. In other cases, the production company handles all international sales itself, while a totally different company takes care of the distribution in the producer's country. Even when it's a film from a Hollywood major, international sales are often handled by a totally different company within the organisation, than the company handling the US distribution, so which of these companies should be listed as distributor? And unless the infobox specifies it, how will people know which country the distributor name refers to?
 * I'm currently updating a lot of articles about films from the 1940s and the 1950s, and find it fascinating to notice that even during the war, US films often premiered in the UK only weeks after the US release, while it often took several years for British films to be released in the US even in the late 1960s. Some of those UK release dates you probably can't find anywhere else on the net, as I've retrieved them the Times via Digital Times when I've realised that neither IMBd or BFI have them, and Digital Times is only accessible for those who have a subscription. If people are just going to remove such release dates because they regard it as "superfluous details about truly trivial matters", I will of course stop spending my time with this.
 * Finally, as you seem so keen on referring to various Wiki guidelines, perhaps you should also read WP:ROWN and WP:DRNC. And, by the way, nowhere in WP:BRD does it say that someone who has been reverted should discuss the matter on the talk page before re-reverting. What it does suggest is: "Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person" (i.e. the person who has done the revert). To me, that means discussing it on that person's user page, as that's the surest way of getting a discussion going - which is why I'm doing it here. Good night! Thomas Blomberg (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you considered adding the non-domestic dates to the main body of the article? As the infobox is supposed to reflect what the article says, it shouldn't really reflect standalone "facts" – and especially not unless the information has a reliable source in the article body. No-one is claiming that there is only one global distributor (apart from the sadly mistaken individual you refer to), which is why most articles will put a territory along side the company, but that is certainly no argument to add the names of yet more distributors.
 * As to the release dates, WP:FILMRELEASE really is quite clear on this: first showing (if at a film festival etc) and/or the home territory. If the first release is not the home, then that should be included. Adding other non-notable territories just isn't right and bloats the infobox to the point of being overbearing, useless and a distraction.
 * I am aware of WP:ROWN, but what you added cannot be improved by refinement, only by removal. The point of WP:BRD is that when your Bold edit is Reverted, you Discuss, not revert back because you want to; the location is slightly immaterial, but the talk page of the article in question is certainly going to encourage others to join in, rather than the dim and murky backwater of my talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)
I noticed that you made a few minor (though helpful) edits to this article, currently undergoing peer review. Are you intending to comment further? If not, I will probably close the review in a couple of days or so. Don't feel under any pressure, there have been plenty of useful comments thus far. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope so! I've got it on my watchlist and have been trying to get along there for a few days, but keep getting side-tracked! I have free time this evening and tomorrow and I'll make a start and see what minor bits I can find. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)