Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 00:06, 12 January 2025

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 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes the Troubles They should not be given alerts for those areas.

New FAC and PR

To any friendly talk page watchers, I have:

	Article	Process
	Whipping Tom	@FAC

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

In appreciation

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For the line "Trying to wade through the Maps, music, manuscripts and literature section is like being mugged by a gang of particularly aggressive blue links" at the British Library GAR. Gave me a hearty chuckle. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Martha Bradley scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 25 February 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/February 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/February 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Durrell blurb

Here's a draft; if I remember the rules rightly a few more words need to be cut? If so please cut at your discretion.

Gerald Malcolm Durrell (7 January 1925 – 30 January 1995) was a British naturalist, writer, and zookeeper. He was born in British India, and moved to England in 1928. In 1935 the family moved to Corfu, but the outbreak of World War II forced them to return to the UK. In the 1940s he began animal-collecting trips for zoos, and published well-received accounts of these, starting with The Overloaded Ark. His account of the years in Corfu, titled My Family and Other Animals, appeared in 1956 and became a bestseller. He founded the Jersey Zoo in 1959, intending it to be an institution for the study of animals and for captive breeding. Durrell and his second wife, Lee McGeorge, made several television documentaries in the 1980s, including Durrell in Russia and Ark on the Move. They co-authored The Amateur Naturalist, which became his most successful book, selling well over a million copies. He was diagnosed with liver cancer and cirrhosis in 1994, and died the following January. He was cremated, and his ashes were buried at Jersey Zoo.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. The blurb is at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/January 7, 2025 should you wish to check (it's 95 per cent the same as yours, but I've trimmed off part of the end to get it within the word count). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That looks great. Thanks for doing this on such short notice, and sorry to have booted one of your own articles! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. And the fact it was one of 'mine' makes it easier - at least I don't have to try and persuade someone else and have them get upset about it! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Commas after years

To say "Then you are wrong" to someone simply because they disagree with you, especially when they are a professional in the industry, is incredibly arrogant. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them wrong unless you are under the delusion that your are infallible. You are also dismissing the entire editorial and proofreading team of eight people with whom I work, all of whom agree that the usage of commas in the way discussed is correct in British English. Moreover, as someone who has lived in the UK and used British English for 62 years, I am not going to take such arrogance from someone who doesn't even use British English on their own profile page. I suggest you learn a little humility and drop the arrogance. Neilinabbey (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I say! What an outstanding example of ignorance of the King's English! I suggest that Neilinabbey should consult the current edition of Plain Words, p. 249, from which in this context: Some writers put a comma here as a matter of course. But others do it only if a comma is needed to emphasise a contrast or to prevent the reader from going off on the wrong scent, as in: A few days after, the Minister of Labour promised that a dossier of the strike would be published/Two miles on, the road is worse. On the principle that stops should not be used unless they are needed, this discrimination is to be commended. See also all four editions of Fowler. I was going to add that User:Neilinabbey could be excused as a non-native speaker of English, but I see from his/her talk page that that isn't so, rather sadly. Usually one can blame the superstitions of dim American beaks for such error, but that excuse doesn't apply here. I hope we can work together with less friction for an improved Misplaced Pages. Tim riley talk 18:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Neilinabbey, Next time you want to post arrogant nonsense to someone's talk page, make sure you know what you're talking about. When you claim such commas are "required", I will repeat that you are wrong. As a self-trumpeted "professional in the industry", you really should know that they are not "required" by any measure. Maybe you should consider that just maybe you are the one "under the delusion that your are infallible". In the meantime I suggest you learn a little humility and drop the arrogance. - SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Wodehouse page edits

I am not edit warring. The change you have objected to was obviously made in good faith - as all edits to the page *clearly* have been. Rather than summarily reverting it without explanation the appropriate thing to have done would have been to cite the MOS establishing grounds for the reversion. That would have been the end of it. I may think that the MOS is stupid here (and do), and including the name in the link is utterly unnecessary, but defer to the MOS (assuming it has been appropriately cited). It's all part of WP:Civility.

In that regard, thank you for providing the clarification in your second revert, which indeed obviates any nascent edit conflict. Yours, 2601:196:180:DC0:D58C:FCE0:52AA:9D31 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

You made a bold edit which was reverted: you then re-reverted. That's very much the definition of edit warring, so it's difficult for you to say you weren't. No-one has said your edits are not in good faith, but there were some MOS fails, which is why - in my first revert - I pointed out it was in breach of the MOS. The usual practice is to go to the talk page and discuss (per WP:BRD), rather than start an edit war. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Moving a town name out of a link is not a "bold edit". It was a common sense edit that evidently is (inexplicably) at odds with the MOS. I did not know that. And, in point of fact, did not see that you had cited the MOS in your initial revert: all I noticed was the tag "manual revert". My error. Things would have ended there if not for that oversight. Thank you for pointing this out. And restoring a good faith edit is not "edit warring". Persisting in it in the face of countervailing information is, or certainly may be. I did not do that once I understood the "standing" for the revert, albeit belatedly. I have simply complied. Yours, 2601:196:180:DC0:C82B:3819:C2B3:EE29 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

'And restoring a good faith edit is not "edit warring"': Yes. It. Is. It doesn't matter if it's made in good faith, or whether you were right or wrong, it is edit warring. Please read Misplaced Pages:Edit warring to understand what it actually is. (The sub-section on the page about what is not edit warring is here: good faith or thinking you are right is not one of the exemptions). - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 66

The Misplaced Pages Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024

• Les Jours and East View Press join the library
• Tech tip: Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of Octopussy and The Living Daylights