User talk:SchroCat

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by .

"doing what little one can to increase the general stock of knowledge is as respectable an object of life, as one can in any likelihood pursue" Charles Darwin
"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" Jean Cocteau

Articles seeking peer review
before featured article candidacy

May 30 Chinese characters
June 6 Jenna Ortega
July 29 Beebo the God of War
August 2 Dexter's Laboratory
August 15 1939 Liechtenstein putsch
August 23 River
August 26 Tropical Storm Kai-tak
August 29 Ivan the Terrible (1945 film)
September 3 A Space for the Unbound
September 17 Lock's Quest
September 27 Pearl (X)
September 28 Tesla Model S
September 30 Lake Michigan Monster
October 4 Cisnormativity
October 16 Veiqia
October 19 Virtual Self (EP)
October 21 Crohn's Disease
October 22 Stingless bee
October 23 Austin J. Tobin Plaza
October 29 William D. Hoard
October 29 Andrea Navagero
October 30 Mind
November 3 Bejeweled (video game)
November 5 James Scott (boxer)

Unanswered peer reviews

New FAC and PR

To any friendly talk page watchers, I have:

Caption text
Header text	Header text	Header text
	Martha Bradley	@FAC

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

DYK for Littlehampton libels

On 28 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Littlehampton libels, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the Littlehampton libels, Edith Swan fooled three juries and two judges, had another woman sent to prison twice, and was declared not guilty before finally being convicted? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Littlehampton libels. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Littlehampton libels), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 18,102 views (754.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 01:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, SchroCat. You have new messages at Jo-Jo Eumerus's talk page.
Message added 09:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my H. Nelson link

The MOS is clear on all three parts of my edit and there is an element of an unnecessarily confrontational approach forming, which isn't going to help anyone. Archiving before it goes any further. - SchroCat (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please say, was wrong with my Nelson edit, that needed your attention? Broichmore (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the changes I made, the newspaper should be italicised, 'comma date' is better than 'of date' and linking to a category of paintings on Commons isn't great. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for italicised, comment, I will follow it in future. Even though its not a hard and fast rule, especially within the bounds of a page.

The 'comma date' is better than 'of date' is your opinion.

Why is linking to a sister project, that is a major conrtibutor and an integral part of the community not great? Broichmore (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Because MOS:INTERWIKI explicitly states that "To avoid reader confusion, inline interlanguage, or interwiki, linking within an article's body text is generally discouraged." If you believe that Horatio Nelson is notable enough for an article, a redlink would be preferable over an inter-project link. Creating an article about him first, and then linking, would be even better. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"'comma date' is better than 'of date' is your opinion". Correct, but it's also widely considered a superior manner of phrasing too, including—importantly in this context—by the MOS, which lists ~~'comma date'~~ 'of year' at MOS:DATESNO as an "unacceptable date format".
And yes, italicising publications is a hard and fast rule: see MOS:NAMESANDTITLES. - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC) (Amended SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
This particular case, the use of the comma, is not mentioned. There is nothing wrong, with my use of it. Please pick out the particular phrase in this mad woman's knitting that proves your point.

I gave way to you, I can see the sense about italicising publications, however, there is nothing there, in your link, about italicising them being a hard and fast rule. Again, tell me the particular phrase.

The meaning of generally discouraged, doesn’t mean it’s totally forbidden. If used sparingly, and as, in this particular case, there is no possibility of confusion. This person is not notable enough for inclusion on this project as an article, and never will be. The content on commons, in terms of displaying an artist’s body of work (such as the one mentioned) is quite enough, and every bit as valid as the noted exceptions of Wiktionary and Wikisource. The two mentioned are only examples, as such. Broichmore (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother coming back to this: you are being unnecessarily abrasive and confrontational in your stance for one thing, and ignoring both the MOS and common practice. The links to the guidelines are there for all to see and back up what I've said, which is all that counts. Given the edit was made to an FA, there is a requirement to follow the MOS, which the article does. The image you added is still there, but the supporting text is now MOS-compliant, which is all that is needed, without this extended and unnecessarily aggressive stance. - SchroCat (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotion of Littlehampton libels

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Littlehampton libels, 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, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]