User talk:SchroCat/Archive 32

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Portland Spy Ring, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thought you might find this blog post from Historic England interesting. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Cheers Harry, that’s good of you. Best - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, but I suggested to a newbie at GAN that you could help him/her with sfn algebraic cuneiform. If you have time and inclination, soothed by Sicilian sun, it would be a kindness if you were to look in here once home: article: and my GAN review. Thine, Tim riley talk 16:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi SC, I'm going through this article because it's listed at the ItsLassieTime CCI. Fortunately her edits are from approximately 2010ish, well before you rewrote it for FAC, but some of her copy-pasted wording remains and has needed tweaked. I'm wondering if you can shed some light on a source that's used that I've been unable to track down? It's the Childs & Tredell (2006) source, looks like you added it here. I'm wondering if maybe there was an error, because the ISBN goes to a totally different book about Dickens and as far as Worldcat knows, C&T have never written a book about Dickens together. They did do one about Ian McEwan in 2006 - maybe some wires got crossed, a GBooks error? Figured I'd see what you remembered before changing the entire cite. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi PMC, I saw your edits from earlier; thanks for sorting those. I have zero idea what happened with the book reference - it’s bizarre, I got the right page, but the rest was wrong ... no idea how that happened! I’ve swapped it over for the right source - thanks for picking up that. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And thanks in turn for your fast response :) Have a good one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The "17–18 June 1919"section has gone bonkers. I commented out the map § Lingzhi (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lingzhi, I don’t see a problem. Can you give me a clue or a screenshot to the issue? Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no problem only because I commented it out. Before that all the wiki code for the map was visible. I'm on my cellphone doing chores so I can't make a screenshot  § Lingzhi (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lingzhi, I looked at the version before your commenting out and I don’t see any code at all, just the map. I’ll have to do some digging as it’s not at all obvious what is causing the issue. - SchroCat (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lingzhi, As you will have seen, I reverted your commenting out temporarily to take a screenshot, and this is what I see... there isn't an issue on the page for me on Edge, Chrome and Safari (the last of which was on iPad and iPhone). Can you drop in a screenshot when you get the chance? It may be a script or some other technical problem, but either way I think we'll have to go to one of the technical boards to get a better answer for anything I can provide. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Now I'm looking at it and there's nothing wrong. But I loaded it twice when I saw that problem. I dunno what happened. Maybe my Internet was spotty, or... some other factors. But it looks OK now. Sorry for the confusion. § Lingzhi (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

That's OK - I'm just glad I don't have to try and make up a map that doesn't use that particular coding to work! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks again for your feedback on the Cherry Valentine article. I hope you can revisit this discussion soon. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Apologies Another Believer! This slipped off my radar, but I will be return there shortly - hopefully this evening. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat, I respect you, and I understand infoboxes are a topic important to you, and that you hold a minority opinion, and the number of editors you could expect to show up and stake out positions in rough alignment with yours has dwindled over time. It's not an enviable position, and I wanted to clarify after rereading my last comment on the VPI thread that what I said about recognising an historical trend was not meant tauntingly. I genuinely wish you well in your efforts, despite my own pessimism as pertains to same. Folly Mox (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Folly Mox, thanks for your note. Don’t worry, I didn’t take it as a taunt. I think you are probably right in your summary of it. Unfortunately any flexibility of approach to IBs that used to exist is now being stamped out by the activists. Never mind ... but I don’t think it’s a positive or beneficial move. Thanks again for your note. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat, I see that you continue to make changes to how I formatted my comment in an AfD, even though I had twice reverted with a note about how the indentation was intentional. To clarify, my philosophy at AfD is to try to avoid personalization and to focus on the sources, so my formatting was an attempt to minimize personalization and help keep the focus on the article and the sources. From my view, comments such as "It's generally considered good practice to ping people when replying to one of their comments" are not relevant to the AfD, and adding my username without a ping after I replied does not, from my view, seem helpful - if you are concerned about my conduct, this is something that can be raised on my Talk page and we can discuss it there. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Beccaynr, Your poor use of indentations meant you were answering your own point, so indenting slightly made it a little clearer who you were responding to, as both SSilvers and I had responded to you, so it was unclear who you were talking to. I trust that you will be a little more careful in ensuring your indents don't make it so unclear in future.

My comment about pinging people is entirely relevant to good practice and was worthwhile including on the page - without it, it often looks like someone is trying to get a sneaky response onto a matter they don't have watchlisted; I'm sure that wasn't your intention here, but I nearly missed your response, only having returned to check my comment.

I added your name after you replied simply to clarify to a closer, or a later editor who I had been responding to - nothing more than that. You may not think the addition was helpful, but a closing admin may do. - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

From my view, I was talking to the discussion generally - that is what I was trying to explain about avoiding personalization. And I realize now that I should not have used the 'reply' feature when initially commenting on the Variety source, because my intent was to respond to how this source was being discussed by multiple participants, not just you. I am not going to edit indents retroactively because the discussion seems to have unfolded at least in part based on this initial use of formatting, but I will be more careful in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Epsom riot, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Hog Farm (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Pasqua Rosée, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that for Legobot to start indexing a talk page, you need to create the /Archive index page with the content <!-- Legobot can blank this --> manually. I went ahead and did so for Pasqua Rosée (congrats on the FA!), but wanted to let you know for the future. Best, HouseBlaster^talk 03:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, excellent, thank you. I never knew that. - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

A very fine article and enjoyable read, well done. Mackensen (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that’s very kind of you. - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain exactly what's the matter with my commas copy editing? There's no tag regarding what wording style it must be used, so I can't know if you're referring to a manual of style that support the current use of commas; however, my view is that they were indeed an improvement in readability. So unless the article is written in a clear style, which prescribes the current commas usage, that is not indicated in any tag (e.g. British English, Oxford spelling, etc.), I maintain that they were improvements. In most cases, it appears there is a lack of commas, which also improve visual aesthetics by having it before a reference. In some cases, such as "The judge, Sir Alexander Cockburn, the Lord Chief Justice", there is a clear abuse of commas, so how exactly is "The judge Sir Alexander Cockburn, the Lord Chief Justice", is not at least a minor improvement in clarity and readability?

Or what about this: "When they appeared at Bow Street Magistrates' Court the morning after the arrest they were still clothed in the women's dresses from the previous evening"? No comma at all! I think comma in these two latest examples also helps clear ambiguity. Again, I may well be wrong, as English is not my first language, but all the comma copy edit I did—I've seen many good articles here using the same style I adopted. So either this article is using a specific style that, however, is not specified at all, in which case I would adapt myself to it and accept it, or you didn't give a valid reasoning to revert my edits other than "I don't like it".

P.S. How is "the

Thanks for coming here with your comments. Comma use is flexible in many circumstances and differs between EngVar usage, old school/new school and 1,001 other things. It’s one of the areas where if an article has a set style (limited use of them, for example), there is not necessarily a need to add them. The two examples you give above are both correct, although there are other ways they can be framed using either less or more commas. Don’t forget that FAs have been through several reviews by numerous people to judge on—among other things—grammatical precision, clarity and readability, and this article is no exception.

In terms of the ‘sea of blue’, the guidelines are just that: guidelines. They are not set in stone, particularly with such flexible wording as “if possible”. Having the wording in a sensible flow but with two links is better than semantic acrobatics to separate the links, or leaving something arguably pertinent unlinked.

Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

could I ask you for help with something? Lord Midkowitch the first (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure how you landed on my talk page with your first edit, but you can always ask for help. SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

okay good. can you get fandom staff to unblock my IP address cause I was blocked for no reason and I can't get a response from them, I haven't even done anything wrong there. you know what fandom is right? you know the website? Lord Midkowitch the first (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but I don’t know which website and what your circumstances are. I doubt I’d have any pull with anyone on any website in getting blocks lifted. Sorry I can’t help. - SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

it's okay. thanks for responding! Lord Midkowitch the first (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Meant to congratulate you while the Victorian Era’s Hinge and Bracket were on the front page. But, for reasons I can’t bear to go into, I’ve just got home after spending 7 hours in a Morrisons car park in Denbigh. Anyways, well done! KJP1 (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks KJP1. And all from a chat we had in the pub one day! The car park sounds terrible - I hope you had something to help you pass the time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I loved this article Emily Davison. Outstanding and complete in every way. Such an interesting person. Bruxton (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you - that’s very kind of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm worried you think people are out to get you. I don't know one way or the other about earlier participants on that page but I don't think the newer entrants to it are. I know our last interaction was positive.

I do sense though that they may be starting to get a bit exasperated.

If your goal is to see your content ideas prevail, my professional experience in sales suggest you may be best off cheerfully laying low. Note that this should not mean "shut up and go away". Rather, it's me sharing with you my "reading of the room" right now.

You've done a lot of work on this article! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not think people are "out to get me", but there are a couple of people present on that page with whom I have had unhappy experiences - and the passive-aggressiveness and baiting is something I've had to put up with previously. Given the whole thread started by Personman (of which this RfC is just the latest step) now comes in at over 11 thousand words, it is now double the article prose size of 5349 words, and is a complete waste of time. - SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Jim is planning to run this at TFA on 10 July ... if you feel like writing a blurb, put it WT:Featured article candidates/Pasqua Rosée/archive1. If not, I'll take a stab at it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops! Nevermind, Wehwalt just signed up for this one. Hope you and yours are enjoying the summer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dank, good to hear from you, and thanks for the note. I'll leave Gary to do the write up on it - both you and he are much better than I at summarising the lead - if I do it, it only has to be re-written again by someone competent! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Heh, I know the feeling :) I've been semi-away for a bit. Good to see your name so often at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

... and the

today's featured article for July 10, 2023, Gary's blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 10, 2023, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me?

13:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Cheers Jim - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

and David Kelly (weapons expert) on July 17, 2023, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Twice in a month? Who have I annoyed now?! ;-) SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for your comments. I did go back to the article and hopefully fixed the issues you brought up. Although it has been archived, I still appreciate your input and I'll definitely seek other avenues, such as PR, in hopes of garnering more comments before going back to FAC. Best – jona ✉ 19:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Edward Dando, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Great work cleaning up all the areas on the Julian Sands page so it can go to ITN. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:60EB:B0F5:B4CA:DFC4 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I enjoyed A Room with a View so much when I first saw it, that I thought this is the very least he deserves. He's an actor I liked a lot, and it's a shame he wasn't in more - he was certainly good enough to carry most roles. - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

On 30 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Julian Sands, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I thought I'd pop in and ask you to take a look at the post/posts I've made in the talk page! I noticed you reverted my edit and then reverted a reversion of your revert of my edit (mise en abyme moment there). Anyways, I tagged you in the discussion after the first revert, so I'm confused about why you edited the page but did not engage in discussion? I was hoping we could come to a resolution about the phrasing there, and I still do! Thanks! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

On 5 July 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Alan Arkin, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Anarchyte (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as

• Florence Petty at FAC

If there is anyone who fancies commenting on these, I would be grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk)

Not yet transcluded? JennyOz (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Your edit "Too detailed for someone that isn't the subject" rather misses the point, which is that your preferred "a serviceman in the British Army and later the Royal Air Force" is misleading - there is a big difference between a "serviceman" and a commissioned officer. It is clarified later, so some detail is there already, but in the wrong place. I was just adding a London Gazette reference when I got an edit conflict. Moonraker (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The London Gazette will correct the mistake about a "flight lieutenant", as Jaques was in fact commissioned as a Flying officer. Moonraker (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s still too detailed and Ancestry is not a reliable source. I’ve changed the description per the Merriman work, but it’s not that necessary: “serviceman” refers to officer and other ranks. - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Private Case, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Not yet transcluded? JennyOz (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Cheers JennyOz! It’s worrying the simple steps I miss sometimes! I hope you’ll have time to pop along there at some point? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Me again; I've got a question for both you and LittleJerry before I create a rough draft of the schedule for the October TFAs. One of your 2016 FAC noms, Walt Disney, is showing up at WP:TFAP for October 23 (LittleJerry added it), with the reason "100th anniversary of the Walt Disney Company". But The Walt Disney Company says several times that the founding was on October 16. (The financing changed on the 23rd.) Anyone have an objection to running it on the 16th? - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh okay. Fine by me. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Great. I looked up the citation and it seems to support the 16th, so I'll go change it ... SchroCat, let me know if that doesn't sound right. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Fine by me. I don’t think the FAC version had a concrete date for it (and I haven’t looked at the article for a few years), so that sounds ok. - SchroCat (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Dan for the above. - SchroCat (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks much. Hey, no one told me this was going to be hard work! - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here .
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat! Just seen that I've undone an edit of yours. It wasn't my intention, but I seem to have been caught up in an edit war. However, on reflection, it does seem unnecessary to state the age when the year is given. Regards, Technopat (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Kindly discuss on the talk page why you are insisting on the edits you currently have? There are countless errors; glad you see it's good faith.Inthefirstplace (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as

Thanks for the heads up, Wehwalt. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Florence Petty, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

hello, SchroCat! i had a quick question regarding this article. the article lead mentions that mcmaster was a former blacksmith, but i was unable to find a citation for this statement, either in the article lead or the body. did i somehow miss it? i found two sources for you, here and here, in case you need them, though i assume that the assertion is made in one of the offline sources you have already cited. dying (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks dying; now added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

looks good. thanks, SchroCat. dying (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The article says eight men were charged. The extra man appears to have been called Tait. He isn't mentioned in the piece about the inquest or the trial. Do we know what happened to him?Spinney Hill (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC) There was another man charged called Porier. Do we know what happened to him? Technically the inquest would not decide who would face trial but the coroner could have recorded a verdict of unlawful killing by named persons I think which would suggest that trial would be appropriate. Between charge and the first appearance at Bow Street there would have been committal proceedings at the Magistrates Court and (in those days) a hearing before a Grand Jury before the Assize trial took place. At either of those hearings Tait and Porier could have been released or the Prosecution could have dropped their cases or the trial judge could have directed not guilty verdicts.Spinney Hill (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

hello, SchroCat! i had a quick question regarding this article. the article lead mentions that mcmaster was a former blacksmith, but i was unable to find a citation for this statement, either in the article lead or the body. did i somehow miss it? i found two sources for you, here and here, in case you need them, though i assume that the assertion is made in one of the offline sources you have already cited. dying (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks dying; now added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

looks good. thanks, SchroCat. dying (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The article says eight men were charged. The extra man appears to have been called Tait. He isn't mentioned in the piece about the inquest or the trial. Do we know what happened to him?Spinney Hill (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC) There was another man charged called Porier. Do we know what happened to him? Technically the inquest would not decide who would face trial but the coroner could have recorded a verdict of unlawful killing by named persons I think which would suggest that trial would be appropriate. Between charge and the first appearance at Bow Street there would have been committal proceedings at the Magistrates Court and (in those days) a hearing before a Grand Jury before the Assize trial took place. At either of those hearings Tait and Porier could have been released or the Prosecution could have dropped their cases or the trial judge could have directed not guilty verdicts.Spinney Hill (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Seven men appeared at the Assizes, which was the final court appearance. The sources (both contemporary and modern) don’t cover what happened with the changes in personnel of those who appeared, but it was on,y seven who faced trial, not eight. - SchroCat (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I have put a modified version of my question on the article's talk page. There is another inconsistency. Seven men were tried, two acquitted on both counts but six released from their sentences. Do you want to put your reply above on the talk page as well and we can see what anybody else can add? Otherwise it might be a good idea if one of us can modify the article to remove some of the unknown bits. Spinney Hill (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, SchroCat. I'm just posting to let you know that

Cheers Giants2008, thanks for the heads-up. I hope you're keeping well, cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Great work on Epsom riot, per usual. I'd never heard of that before and very much enjoyed reading the article. Thanks a lot for the efforts! Mr Ernie (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Cheers Mr Ernie! Glad you enjoyed it. Sadly, as is usual with front page appearances, silliness ensues, with people all sense than needs to be dealt with. One of the downsides of the high profile position of articles! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. Lovely piece of (local-ish) history for me to read. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Carcharoth - glad you enjoyed it! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I also enjoyed reading it. Had no idea of the troubles caused by the delayed repatriation. One vocabulary suggestion: «  police headquarters » in Winnipeg sounds odd to me, but I don’t have access to the Knight text. It could have been either the municipal police force or the RCMP. Does the text give any indication? Personally, I think « police station » is more idiomatic. Just a suggestion. (Note that’s the same usage as « station sergeant », the rank of poor Green.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, with regard to the RFC, I’m reminded of the quotation from Pope: « What mighty contests rise from trivial things, » 😀 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SC. In case you didn't know, I've opened a PR on Liz Truss's article. Feel free to have a stab, if you have the time and inclination. I see you've got the potential FAC PR sidebar, so I apologise if I've just told you about something you were already aware of. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I’ll find some time to have a look. Is it written as comedy, tragedy or farce? - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't rely too heavily on The Guardian—so it won't be a comedy—same goes for The Telegraph—not tragedy either—and as for farce, that's history's decision. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello SchroCat, a friendly note to wish you well. I think we both could have handled our interactions with each other better and there are things I shouldn't have said, which I regret, and so please accept my full unreserved apologies for any offence caused. Regarding our dispute, we are in agreement that the source is not reliable for detailed interpretation. Whether or not it is suitable for sourcing factual statements seems undecided but other users have put it better than me. If we remain in dispute then my suggestion is to simply aim to replace with a better source, particularly if the article is to be expanded with a view to becoming GA or even FA (both cases would require a lot of work). In anycase, I dont want to be in dispute with you anymore and want to thank you for your contributions here in expanding local history articles. All the best Polyamorph (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Polyamorph, for your kind note. I hope any friction between us has not evaporated and we can move on. - SchroCat (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Jessie Murray, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Happy to see this. Congrats! — Golden ^talk 08:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Golden. She was an interesting one to write - I just wish there was a bit more about her I could have added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you've already done a good job providing a substantial amount of information about her. There are many women like her who don't get the chance to have an article written about them, like Julia Turner, for example. As I mentioned in the review, I'd love to see an article about her in the future. — Golden ^talk 13:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Does a

Thank you so much for helping the war memorial over the last few hurdles to FA status! I really appreciate it. Apologies for the radio silence, real life got busy and Wikipedia had to take a back seat. If you're ever near the south coast, I owe you a pint or two. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Harry, No problems! The article deserved it, and it's great that we have people like Ian who are prepared to be flexible and take a common sense path to keeping it open. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I've now taken Liz Truss to FAC; apologies about the quick close of the PR. Any help improving the article would be greatly appreciated, although I understand you're busy with Eddy Oxford at the minute. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tim, Thanks for the note. Sorry I was too late to help at the PR - I'll make sure I definitely get to the FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Don't apologise about the PR; it was me who opened it far too late, but I'd put off the rewrite for too long. I am a chronic procrastinator. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi SC, I trust that things are going well with you? I am looking at scheduling Jessie Murray for TFA on 3 November. Do you fancy having a go at a blurb? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gog, the 3rd isn’t a great day for me - are you able to bump it to any time after that weekend? (Not a problem if you can’t though). No probs on the burb, although I haven’t done one for a few years, so it will probably need some extensive copy edits afterwards! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Would the 15th suit? And I would be happy to reduce your prose to drivel for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, Gog, that’s great - thanks very much. I’ve done the burb, but feel free to tweak, hack or entirely re-write the lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, looks good to me. Putting blurbs in the main TFA schedule out of chronological order sometimes breaks things, so I have left your draft alone, but copied it here and lightly copy edited it. Feel free to make any changes you feel appropriate or comment as applicable. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What he said ... I took the liberty of deleting that page at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 15, 2023 ... for one thing, I think it would have broken TFAR if it had stayed up, by changing the notice to tell people that they couldn't nominate anything prior to the 15, and I think it would have confused the bots as well, but I could be wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Dan, Gog, I did say it's been a few years since I've done one of these! Apologies for the breakages - and thanks very much for clearing up my mess! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate your doing the blurb. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat, i had three questions regarding this article and the associated blurb.

• the article notes that le sac "had a basement that, the group calculated, was at the same level as the bank vault". i assume this means that members of the gang began digging from the basement of le sac. however, the diagram featured in the blurb and article lead does not appear to show le sac's basement, and has the tunnel beginning from the ground floor instead. am i missing something here?
• is there a reason why the diagram shows measurements only in metric while the article uses imperial units first and metric ones second? to be clear, i don't think it really matters; i was just surprised and wanted to know if there was a reason for it.
• how was the range "between £1.25 and £3 million" determined? nothing in the footnote with the reported estimates suggests to me that any of the estimates were given with any level of certainty. also, i thought it was unusual that the lower bound of £1.25 million in the estimate was actually lower than the minimum value of £1.5 million that appears to have been used at the trial.

dying (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dying,

1. No - it's just the way the image was drawn up - possibly based on inaccurate sources used for the model

2. No reason - that's the way whoever did the image did it.

3. The information is in the body (the final paragraph of the Burglary section) with a strong of citations - further details in footnote i)

Hope this helps. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

yes, that was the footnote i was referring to. i had only asked because, without access to what the cited sources said, i personally would have concluded that the value of the stolen property was probably between £1.5 and £4 million instead, as i was unable to determine why the upper limit of the range reported in the article body was £4 million, while that for the range reported in the article lead was £3 million. in any case, i am assuming that you have good reason to use the range that you did, so i will trust your judgement. thanks, SchroCat! dying (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dying, there was only one source I found at the time that referred to “Nearly £4 million” (and I think the “nearly” is carrying doing quite a lot of weight here!), whereas the rest of the sources were all more conservative. As the “Nearly £4 million” was a tabloid, I think it was an outlier from the rest of the sources, so I went with what the weight of the sources said. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

oh, that completely makes sense. i had no idea that the cited source for the value of £4 million was referencing a tabloid. personally, i'd discount it too. thanks again, SchroCat! dying (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Please stop sabotaging the page on Nelson's Pillar and removing accurate and cited information.Financefactz (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

1. You duplicated the same field twice

2. There is no sabotaging, and I suggest you wind in your neck and discuss civilly on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think your post here says the opposite of what you meant it to say? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria - Apple’s constant change away from my default is v annoying! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Edward Oxford, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Just saw. Congrats on another excellent article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, that’s very kind of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Just read it. Looks excellent. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! - SchroCat (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Schrocat, I saw your edit summary and had a question: what are the "IB warriors" you mention? Just curious. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The infobox warriors who relitigate the same question over and over until they get the answer on the vote they want, regardless of the effects on other editors. It could also be applied to any of the regular aspects of WP that get relitigated until someone gets their own way, but this is the one that sprang to mind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Have never run into that. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Count your blessings... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		For teaching me how to properly use infoboxes. Thank you. talk ) 14:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you,

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as

Hi, I saw the excellent article you wrote on the above and have a detail that might be of interest. I've just started a page on Joey Pyle, more to follow, and the Davidson book on him, really my only source, says that the reason Pyle dobbed Drury in it wasn't because of the firearms charge but because he was angry at his friend Stevie Murphy's son Pat being framed on a murder charge. Please add anything to the Pyle page if you've the time, interest and info. Ericoides (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ericoides, Many thanks for the note. I'll try and dig out my sources to see if I've got anything on Pyle I can add. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Sir William Gordon-Cumming, 4th Baronet, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey SchroCat, I noticed you were working on Dorothy L. Sayers, who came up with the Guinness toucan. I've been working on the article toco toucan for a while and wanted to add some information about the ad campaign, but unfortunately have access to none of the better sources on that topic. Could you email me the relevant pages from the sources you used at DL Sayers? AryKun (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi AryKun, the main ones we used on Sayers about the toucan are available online: Guinness is Guinness and Drink Talking, which contain better information on this tiny bit of Sayers's life than the main biographies do. If there's anything else you want on this, please let me know and I'll dig out what you need. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, very helpful! AryKun (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as

Cheers Wehwalt - thanks for the heads up. - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

== RfC Close? ==

Hello, I was seeking an explanation on why the RfC for Georges Feydeau was extended? It seems it was a unilateral decision by a user. Is there any update on the closure request? Barbarbarty (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It was a unilateral decision, and there’s been no update on the closure request. Nothing surprises me on IB discussions anymore, I’m afraid. I’m dragged to ANI for not attacking someone, and had a comment censored, but the following charming statements (much stronger than anything I’ve said) are directed at me and others, yet no brave administrator has censored these, warned others or taken any steps:

• "The hatred against infoboxes per se, however, exhibited openly by some contributors, as I've witnessed in the past, is amusing, though it verges on the pathological"
• "your obsessiveness here is pathological and disruptive"
• "SchroCat is acting obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive"

From a different talkpage:

• "The anti-infobox camp is unrelentingly aggressive and insulting" (ironic, this one too!)

It’s almost like the ArbCom hearing on civility in IB discussions never took place, or that it should only be applied to some editors, not all, as those comments above are disgusting, yet no {{rpa}} tag was used to remove them, no warnings were left for users and no action was taken. It’s almost like there are double standards being used but, as I’ve said, nothing surprises me on IB discussions anymore. - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Barbarbarty, I see the close has now happened, with reference to the unilateral attempt to extend the discussion. Hopefully that brings an end to it and the baiting that took place, but something tells me it'll all be coming back round again (and again and again) before long. - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry that ANI closed before I had a chance to weigh in; I wonder if many like me aren't weary of the situation and would not have spoken up had the ANI run longer. I'm unclear why the second arbcase didn't deal with the driveby aspect. But I didn't really follow the second arbcase, and had forgotten it happened until the posts from the last few days here on your talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, No problems. I don't think there would be many half-decent admins who would be so minded as to block someone for not making a personal attack on someone, and it's probably best it was closed quickly before the boomerang came into play. I know there are many like you who avoid the discussions at all costs, despite their own flexible approaches to the use of them; many people have been pointing out the problems on some articles for over a decade and are just too tired to keep trying to point that out against the activists who go from article to article to force the argument. We all know it's disruptive, but when ArbCom ignores the ongoing problem and the baiting and insulting that goes with it, it's hardly surprising the most experienced editors avoid the timesink arguments! Anyway, I hope you're keeping well. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

A community-wide discussion is needed. Curiously, the articles on which the IB installations seem to have focused aren't the most problematic examples of where IB issues can or most often occur.

In my editing area (medical), real problems can be introduced by trying to summarize into one parameter that which can't be summarized into one parameter. So we have to have long discussions about how to get rid of faulty summaries of medical content to IBs; since the Med arbcase, that problem has largely gone away, as it was mostly one or two editors, who wanted articles basically to be only leads and infoboxes.

In other areas, IBs are an invitation for POV (I won't link to the example for the BEANS factor). If POV warriors can shove POV into an infobox, they can get even less readers to understand the nuance and what they've left out-- quicker and dirtier POV.

And too often in areas like Chemistry and the combo of history/MilHist, they render articles ridiculously unreadable.

None of the cases I've seen of late where editors want to add infoboxes so our readers can see how many children someone has (seriously good reason for an infobox, not) seem to have brought this focus on IBs to bear on any of the really problematic issues that infoboxes can cause. I can't understand the focus on adding trivialities to artists, musicians and writers when there are real problems out there that aren't being addressed.

So, the take-home message on all of the cases I've seen (including those above), is that unless one has been in the trenches on a given article, writing content to the level of our best work (or cleaning it up when it no longer is), they simply haven't grappled with the real problems in a given topic area and aren't in a position to be opining on what issues might arise in an infobox. Two of the examples I give above are very old FAs; cleaning up the content alone will be a mess-- imagine the infobox matter. All of the older medical examples I had were FAs, where non-content experts wanted to shove faulty simplistic summaries into infoboxes, and it took long explanations and delving into sources to educate them about where they wrong (being a doctor does not make one a specialist in neurology). And all of the POV/tendentious editing examples I'm aware of are examples of editors who have never written articles that have been vetted in content review processes, aren't accustomed to writing articles for neutrality, and infoboxes provide the quickest-and-dirtiest way to spread POV to as many readers as possible. And yet, it appears to me that all the second arbcase has done is make it harder to address that kind of tendentious editing, where the first arbcase provided more teeth.

I realize all of this goes off the subject of the original thread here, which is the behavior of a small group of editors in this area; I do wish that had been dealt with at ANI, as that bludgeoning behavior certainly chased me off of an FA I maintained since 2006. And one thing clearly evidenced in the Medicine arbcase was that, by taking the very small handful of editors who are causing problems out of the game, the problems resolve without the need for contentious topic designations. Arbcom should stop letting the tails wag the dog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with absolutely everything you've said here. Pointing out how misleading information is doesn't seem to worry some !voters (or just voters): there seems to be a need to have a box on every biography, without critical thought on the problems. This is where the drive-by problem is at its most acute: having no grasp of the subject means those voting don't understand what problems are forcing onto the page. Unfortunately, none of these are ever likely to put the article on their watchlists, so problems begin to heap up and an article degrades (I know I'm not alone in becoming so sick of an article because of the IB bludgeoning and disruption, that I take the article off my watchlist and just walk away from it entirely) - I've been told by several editors (at GA, FA and general article development level) who just drop the article: the damage the IB discussions do goes beyond just misleading readers. So not only does an article have a POV magnet that misleads readers, it loses knowledgeable stewardship - a double loss that the IB activists don't take on board or don't even care about.

The lack of input from readers is a key one for me. Things like this entirely miss the point. 346,944 readers a year access Ravel's article, but only one reader asks for an IB; 452,378 readers a year on Noel Coward, but only three of those: the claims that "readers want them" or "readers find them useful" are false claims based on wishful thinking. The nonsense about the research I've seen misrepresented multiple times, but still the same lazy interpretation is trotted out, despite the research not showing anything of the sort. - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh good grief... - SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Arb case 3; really, it's just like ARBMED, which was completely resolved via individual editors. If they don't take out of the game the individuals causing the problems, the problems will continue. Why are some editors allowed to go around articles they've never edited only to impose an infobox? Makes no sense to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Me neither. Nor does the instant aggression on questioning why there isn't an IB and the accusations its obviously about ownership, some semi-secret "anti-infobox possee" (sic) and all of the rest of the baiting that tends to kick things off (by way of example). I'm not saying either side is any better than the other on this, but when a thread is opened like the example, is it any wonder it goes downhill fast. And yet this disruptive behaviour is not picked up on. The RFCs opened recently are down to a small number of editors who are not involved in article development before or after the RFC, but insist that the article is forced to go a particular direction and get insulting even before a discussion gets going (and then get really upset when it goes against them!) It's funny (or not): if I went round removing IBs on articles I've not worked on, or starting RFCs at the drop of a hat because people working on an article disagreed with me, I'd be dragged to ANI and blocked in a heartbeat for being disruptive), but when a small number of people are disruptive in endless timesink discussions based on insults, aggression and running off to ANI because a comment is called a name, they walk away scot-free and another article is left as a POV magnet and with no stewards to watch over it. Plus ca change, and ArbCom have got a lot to answer for in not stopping the mess sooner! - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm very confused about why one, much less two, announcements at VPR for an individual infobox is appropriate. Looking at the contribs history, it seems to a frequent occurrence, and could explain a lot. I know plenty of editors who can and will game that all day long as not-even-thinly veiled canvassing and allowing them to "ask the other parent" until they get the desired result. There's a troubling pattern to all these discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I find it completely odd that they would cite the fact that new voted were coming in after October 30 as something that shows that the discussion was not stale, and completely ignore the fact that those comments came after the VPR notice, which came AFTER the same user unilaterally extended the RfC. I am not too familiar with Wikipedia bylaws but the intent seems pretty apparent to me. Barbarbarty (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

And yet, it's lost on others. If VPR can be used to repetitively ask the other parent until one gets the desired outcome, then that means

WT:FAC can also be pinged the next time someone wants an IB on a featured article. The intent behind noticing has been gamed, and the opening of that door has been endorsed. This is going to extend POV disputes well beyond the IB territory. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 12:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Bluntly put: they shouldn't. An attempt to use

WP:RFCTP to justify doesn't stack up (RFCs should only be used there if it's a related topic to a Village Pump topic - not for general content disputes). That's a misuse of the resource. We have the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for a reason - and it's to stop policy boards from being clogged up with irrelevant calls to arms. - SchroCat (talk

) 13:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I just can't help but notice the effect on those discussions because FA-process people don't crosspost to FA-process pages even when an IB is being imposed on an FA, as doing so was viewed as a breach of the intent of the canvassing guideline. But my worries about this trend being endorsed are much broader than infoboxes; it's about general POV warrioring and spreading of disputes, and opening the door to extend RFCs indefinitely as long as proponents keep cross-posting to new fora. By definition, that can pull in editors with little knowledge of the topic, or the nuance, or the preponderance of sources, but who have a shared POV. And all too often, visitors to RFCs don't read the whole background (if there is even one given). The Infobox issue is only the tip of the iceberg if VPR is to be used to announce every RFC, even repetitively. And if that's to be allowed, why isn't there just a separate noticeboard for RFCs? Oh, that would be because we already have a feedback service and posts to relevant wikiprojects, and numerous other ways of advertising RFCs ... but now I'm going in circles. This spreading of disputes beyond those knowledgeable on a topic, following a topic, or with an interest in a given topic is an invitation for future arb cases. The tail keeps wagging the dog; the first IB infobox case addressed that-- the second one seems to have gone backwards, and opened the door for the disputes to continue, and now we're opening the same door for disputes in other areas. I guess my views on the intent of Wikipedia guidelines is outdated and old-fashioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and the second arbcase said a community wide discussion should be held. Was it? Did I miss it? Why allow repetitive posts to VPR, and why not tell proponents to drop the stick until/unless they hold a community-wide RFC and gain consensus to require infoboxes on all articles, as that is the fait accompli movement that has been in place since the first case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No, there was no wider discussion (as far as I can remember). I think more than one of the ArbCom cases - it was in the civility (the one that Admins seem only to use against certain people). - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

My mistake, there was one: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_143#Infobox_RFC: which was closed with '"Infoboxes are neither included or omitted by default" is the rough consensus choice.' That's the same as the last attempt to change things a couple of months ago. - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel some on the admin board request to reopen are missing the point. The point is that the only reason the conversation hadn’t remained stale was because of an improper notice on VPR. It stretches the reign of credibility that eight new comments just so happened to pop in after October 30 after a period of zero activity for over a week and it had nothing to do with an improper notice that would have alerted a number of uninvolved users to the RfC. Barbarbarty (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

In other words, my issue is that if there is a precedent to simply allow continuous notice on boards on RfCs of any type if they are about to expire with no consensus, then why even have the option of having “no consensus” at all then. RfCs would just have to continue indefinitely until a consensus is reached one way or another. Again, I am not as familiar with bylaws so I do not know if it would be useful for me to participate in the other discussion but I think others on there have shared my concern as well. Barbarbarty (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended litigation and relitigation has always been one of the downsides of WP. We're used to having 'no consensus' decisions at any type of discussion, particularly regarding IBs, which are not standard ("neither required nor prohibited for any article"), but it now seems that is verboten, so allowing out-of-processes advertising to take a position is now deemed allowable. I suspect that if some people tried to advertise in other related fora, it would lead to more double-standards and punishment being applied. It all smacks of gaming the system, but there is enough poisoned honey being dripped into 'the right ears' in whispering campaigns, that some people in positions of power are being twisted into allowing what shouldn't be allowed.

Never mind. I expect to be summoned at AE or ArbCom at some point in the near future, even though I am not the one going round with the charming descriptions of others as "pathological", "obsessiveness ... pathological and disruptive", "obsessive, hypocritical, and disruptive" and "aggressive and insulting" - indeed I've not even responded to most of insults thrown at me, but double standards and involved adminning/arbitrators have always been part of the IB disruption. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I was shocked during ARBMED at the offWiki coordinated editing that was allowed and that would have been viewed in the prior decade as unacceptable. In this particular matter, I now feel partly responsible for how FAs have been affected, because I didn't realize to speak up sooner at FAC, when I knew FAs were being targeted. I honestly viewed that as canvassing; I guess I'm not with the times anymore, but major stakeholders were left out of the fait accompli. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've also never posted a notice at FAC, considering it would either be construed as (at worst) canvassing or (at best) gaming the system. It seems that all sorts of trickery is allowable now. 'Allowing' out-of-process advertising is wrong - and posting at VP is out-of-process: that's a forum that should not be used for content disputes. Despite attempts to frame IB's as not being 'content', they very much are - they've always been considered as such and are categorised as such at the MOS, so it's a mystery to me why there is a free pass for allowing open gaming. Actually, it's wrong to say it's a mystery: I think we can all guess at the reasons, but it's a rather shameful set of circumstances, even if it's no great surprise. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been pondering when and how this canvassing change happened, and all I can come up with is that damn pingie-thingie. Perhaps after it was invented, and we no longer needed to specifically go to a talk page to actually talk to each other (which brought about many other negative effects, but I digress), maybe that contributed to the blurring of the canvassing line. It is so easy for people to sneakily ping other people now in canvassing ways (I'm seeing this constantly with tendentious editors) that canvassing just stopped being viewed in the same way it was in decades past. And on gradual changes like that, well, anyone can get through RFA these days because we need admins to combat all the other crap that goes along with Wikipedia's growth, and so the admin corp is increasingly editors who don't write content, and editors who mightabeen toddlers back when the rest of us had different views of what was considered canvassing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• The comment "The hatred against infoboxes per se, however, exhibited openly by some contributors, as I've witnessed in the past, is amusing, though it verges on the pathological" was made by me and I fully stand by it. It was not directed personally to Schrocat - and it was not possible to be since I'm almost entirely unaware of Schrocat's past contributions, not just on infoboxes but in general. The words "in the past" should have made that obvious. After an RfC on infoboxes in the not too distant past, I checked the links offered for background and my comment quoted above is what jumped out of the whole mess quite evidently. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk)

• ScottishFinnishRadish, Given your willingness to remove something that wasn't a personal attack by me and leave a message on my talk page about it, are you willing to do the same to this rather disgusting message? Ditto to Barkeep49: despite the poisoned honey being fed to you on your talk page: this is the sort of thing you seem to want to ignore happen on both RFCs and on people's talk pages. It's just not good enough. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• As
  WP:ADMINACCT I would expect a response and explanation. - SchroCat (talk
  ) 15:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• The Gnome, this is a disgusting message and sentiment. Do not post to my talk page again under any circumstances. - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

While that AN discussion is ongoing I do not plan to take any administrative action in the infobox topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT to answer a rather simple point. I am still waiting their response - even basic courtesy would suggest some form of constructive answer on this. I'm really not expecting much of a constructive outcome from this, but it does, as always, seem the admin actions are not evenly handled when it comes to IB discussions, and I expect you'll probably drag me to AE, as you were merrily claiming you wanted to do with someone who was - let's face it - shit stirring on your talk page; I find that thread on your talk page a little odd for an Arb. - SchroCat (talk

) 19:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't aware that I was on the clock. The opportunity cost of dealing with this is too high for me to bother with right now, but I'll try and look into it later. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

As relates to FA process

I am wondering if you understand how issues like this (and the ARBMED case I reference, because behind that case was a drive to reduce medical articles to leads and infoboxes and was the end of medical prominence in FA growth) relate to my long-standing concerns about leadership directions in the FA process? The FA process-- once viewed as the model of Wikipedia's best work, and where best practices were defined -- has worked itself into obscure irrelevance, occupying a walled garden where few venture any more, losing along the way any stake in important directions content takes. And every time I tried to start or further discussions about that issue, I was beaten back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think it's any secret among the FA old guard, like ourselves, that FAC has, sadly, slipped into oblivion. I went there a short while back and there are some people there who know nothing about how to write a decent article and everything about how to ruin and politicise them. WP, on the whole, cares little not about Featured Articles anymore, and hasn't done for a while. Cassianto^Talk 17:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That is the alarm I have been trying to raise, in vain, for several years. And here, in this example, we can see all the consequences of everything I've been concerned about. As Wikipedia has grown, and taken on more roles for editors who have literally never written or improved an article, if the FA process isn't proactively staying ahead of those who can't or don't write, it's losing ground (along with prestige, as the standards are so surprising now).

So, it no longer matters at RFA if candidates have engaged content; we can see the effect in the changing standards of enforcing off-Wiki coordination and canvassing. You only need do an analysis of which editors show up in every infobox discussion to understand that all they have to do now is follow VPR, and whether or not they have any engagement with content, or any knowledge of the topic area, editors (with some notable exceptions) who have never written an article are determining the direction of Featured articles, which once set the standards.

And if the new denizens of FAC are those who only care about getting their own stars and their own day at TFA, and can't be arsed to wander through

FAR to make sure overall standards are maintained, then we can expect the prestige of the star to decline. Work at FAR is by definition selfless-- those who frequent the place are maintaining standards without reward. Work at FAC has become about prima donnas-- my complaint over and over about the lack of opposes, and the way Coords are chosen now by a select few. (Raul did not engage in back-channel communication, but I'm fairly confident that the reason he named me the first FAC delegate wasn't related to my then-one FA, rather my frequent useful opposes, that got the duds off the page.)

And dividing the FA process into three feifdoms (FAC, FAR, TFA) has diluted it. No one has wanted to understand the strategic error in allowing that to happen. No one has wanted to understand the consequences of letting WikiCup reward culture dominate FAC. So, the prima donna mentality (as long as I get my star, the rest be damned), and the reluctance to do the hard work to promote the process with things like {{FCDW}} and recognition of those who truly advance the standards, has come home to bite FA writers in the butt, as now we are in a position dramatically distinct from a decade ago where those who can't are calling the shots over those who can. There has been a complete absence of strategic thinking in the division of the FA process into three, with everyone looking out for themselves, and no one looking out for the process overall, as the FA director used to do.

So we should not be surprised that people who quite literally have never written an article are now determining what FAs look like, and increasingly being named admins, who then selectively reinforce their new views of what was once standard stuff. The FA crowd simply and totally lost the gravitas it once had, and I was raising this red flag every step of the way. @Ceoil, Victoriaearle, and Hog Farm: - a few of the FA folk who get it. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 17:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

When and how did we go from the spirit of canvassing that would have absolutely shut down what is happening now, where none of us would dare to post to WT:FAC about an infobox, to what was once considered canvassing now being accepted and the norm? The lack of strategic thinking in FAC leadership has led in so many ways to exactly where we find ourselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm staggered by the canvassing/gaming that is being allowed here - if Cas or I had put a neutrally worded message on Talk:FAC, we'd have been up at ArbCom or AE straight away and accused of all sorts of nonsense. All the guidelines say what VP is for (but are being entirely ignored), and that is worrying on many levels and leaves it open to further abuse. The fact that standards have dropped so far is a bit shocking.

In terms of FAs, it's clear from too many of the discussions I've seen, that there are too many people who just don't care one jot for FAs. They don't care about input from the anyone with knowledge of the subject (thus the practice of not notifying relevant projects or processes), but approach an article from an entirely different angle where the content isn't even considered, which is a bit bewildering.

In terms of the FA set up and process, my institutional memory isn't that long or that good. I tend to avoid the political side of FA - in fact, I try to avoid anything on WP that isn't directly connected to writing, developing, reviewing or protecting articles, I particularly avoid leaving thousands of messages on people's talk pages all about IBs while claiming I don't talk about IBs. I'm a bear of very little brain, so leave the structural and management side of the FA sphere to those far more intelligent than me. The only thing I will say about it is that management side apart, too many people don't care about FA article, process, the people involved, the effort involved, the consensuses of the two review processes or anything connected to FA. I've seen too many dismissive comments about FAs and those involved in them to put the blame onto the structure of the process. I don't know whether it's the right structure now (or even was back then), or what is the best way it should be managed for the process. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The whole situation stinks and the rot is aided and abetted by a clique of corrupt admins. I was sanctioned by our resident

Kangaroo Court a year or so ago for daring to have a different opinion to them on infoboxes and kicking back against the mob. Cassianto^Talk

20:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, I have a lot of respect for you and the work you've put into Wikipedia, especially the FA processes. But you spend a lot of time these days complaining about what it gets wrong and sniping from sidelines, but it's rarely constructive criticism and does tend towards the dramatic. Why not try to help? I'd love to see articles get more scrutiny at FAC and I'm sure a lot of other nominators would. Nobody has the time or energy to review everything all the time but every article that gets that extra scrutiny is one less thing to worry about in ten years' time when we have to start another URFA. Every process will have flaws but simply saying the process is going downhill won't help to arrest the decline. And your comments often come as walls of text; you might get further with pithier remarks. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, the respect is returned. The sentences after your "Why not try to help" seem to be implying several things:

1. I sense you're saying that my non-FAC FA process work is less worthy than reviewing at FAC, that is,
2. efforts to
   encourage work to restore older FAs
   -- aren't valued to the same extent as FAC review, and that
3. if me (or people like me) would review more, that would address the problems at FAC.

And so, well, we disagree, and this comes back to my view of the whole process. I re-engaged heavily at FAC review when I came back after a long (four-year?) absence and my sense was my reviews made not a dent because the process problems weren't addressed, indeed, discussion of them was stifled. FAC and FAR together maintain the standards, and without standards, we've lost prestige and gravitas, while becoming isolated. I've done everything I can think of to re-invigorate FAC, have gotten little help except for a core group active at URFA/FAR/PR, and think more improvement in FAs across the board is to be found these days in saving the older FAs via FAR, as those saves can then also feed TFA.

It's not like I'm not doing anything, and reviewing more FACs will not change the issues I've raised on this page. And I fear that getting off-track into "what have you done to help FAC" misses the points of now seeing where the decline has led; we are where we are now because of ourselves.

Re, my verbosity, I'm sure you probably know I'm too old to hold out hope that someday I'll become a better writer, and brevity has never been the soul of my wit (which doesn't mean I've not tried and tried). That leaves readers the choice to ignore me because reading my stuff is a pain in the neck, or trudge through in the hopes there are good points buried in my verbosity. The choice is yours, but I suspect that if you still hold out hope I can learn to be less verbose, it may be because you recognize there are points worth reading. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)