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

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

Articles seeking peer review
before featured article candidacy

October 31 Hogwarts Legacy
January 12 Gaetano Bresci
January 18 William L. Breckinridge
February 10 Born to Run
February 17 Idris Bazorkin
March 3 Not Strong Enough (Boygenius song)
March 3 Muckrach Castle
March 6 Nezak Huns
March 27 February 1983 North American blizzard
April 2 Rain World
April 3 BP Refinery v Tracey
April 5 Narwhal
April 11 Ann Cook (cookery book writer)
April 13 Charles the Bold
April 24 Nestory Irankunda
April 25 Ethics
May 3 Aishwarya Rai Bachchan
May 14 Knives Out
May 17 Bonn–Oberkassel dog
May 21 DJ Kool Herc
May 26 Igor Stravinsky
May 27 Vegas Golden Knights
May 27 Tapir!
May 30 Chinese characters

Unanswered peer reviews here.

New FAC and PR[edit]

To any friendly talk page watchers, I have:

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

'Murder of Yvonne Fletcher' page[edit]

Good day.

You just reverted the edit made by DiddyOwnsYa, which I think is fair enough based on its content. I just wanted to ensure that you did not consider my subsequent edit, which has been struck through with DiddyOwnsYa's, to be disruptive, as all I did was correct that user's mistakes. I consider myself to be a very careful editor, although not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, and a strike-through edit can look as though an innocent user is at fault, especially if not explained in the edit summary.

ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And by 'mistakes', I mean spelling and phrasing, rather than facts. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DiddyOwnsYa is a trolling vandal who stalks me from time to time using different throwaway accounts. If you look at their history you'll see all they did was revert a series of my edits. There was nothing wrong with your edit, which certainly was not disruptive at all. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming. I'm sorry that people like that feel the need to ruin it for decent editors.

Best wishes. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

@SchroCat Hope you are having a wonderful day and are in good spirits. I, alongside Keivan.f, have listed the article Catherine, Princess of Wales at FAC. It would be greatly appreciated if you could leave a few comments to help further improve the quality of this already GA-class article. I assure you it will be a great read. Looking forward to your response. Regards and yours faithfully. MSincccc (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MSincccc, thanks for your note. Sorry, but I find the topic of the royals about as tedious and meaningless as any other pointless modern pseudo-celebrity, so I'm going to have to pass on it. Good luck in your review, though. - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat Do you know any other user(s) who might be interested? You could recommend the nomination to them. In return, I would be happy to leave comments at any future FACs in which you are involved. Thanks for letting me know of your opinion though. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat I have pinged multiple users whose names were mentioned on the FAC mentors page. However, most of them seem to have ignored my mentions and requests. Do you have any advice or solution for me? Looking forward to your response. It would be greatly appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, have patience. FACs take up to two months, sometimes longer. Continually pinging and pressing for reviews only annoys the regulars and makes it less likely that people will spend their limited online time in reviewing your nomination. Spend your time reviewing other articles - not only will it make people more likely to return the favour, but you'll learn a lot about both quality writing and how the FAC process works. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a review[edit]

Hi, SchroCat! I'm Pbritti and I've nominated Free and Candid Disquisitions as my first FAC. It has two supports from both full reviewers and all image concerns have been addressed. However, given that most FACs appear to have at least a couple more supports, I'm reaching out to a number of FA regulars to ask if they have the time for a review. I'm asking you since you have experience with books (even if my FAC's subject is a much older and less narrative one than your most recent FA). I totally understand if you don't have time or interest, but any tips you can offer first-timer are more than appreciated. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was greatly appreciated! Thank you for your comments and remedying the dashes! ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Interesting article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Conan Doyle bibliography[edit]

I am still plugging away bit-by-bit at completing the bibliography. As always, any comments you might have on my edits there are welcome.

One question for you: ordinarily, we are told not to overlink by inserting repeated wikilinks to the same article. However, I'm not sure whether that rule fully applies to lists and tables. For example, The Strand Magazine is linked dozens of times, as are Sherlock Holmes and lots of other things. Is this desirable, in which case I'll add a bunch of links, or undesirable, in which case I'll remove many?

I'm also grappling with a more substantive question about the bibliography, dealing with the fact that many of Conan Doyle's works were published in both the UK and the US— and often around the same time in both countries. (This was especially true from 1891 to 1909, when the US copyright laws essentially required near-simultaneous publication to retain a valid US copyright.) The bibliography as currently formatted gives primary to the UK publications, which is understandable, but there are many instances in which the US version of a story or article appeared before the UK version, and others in which it's somewhat difficult to tell which publication was first. I'm still thinking through how that might best be addressed, and would welcome your thoughts on this as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NYB, thanks for the note and I hope you're keeping well.

In terms of the links, the rules banning multiple links are normally not followed in tables (same as in IBs, etc) as they are used differently than article text is - much more about looking up singular pieces of information, rather than reading through, so the links are useful in different places. It's definitely not followed in sortable tables, as the first link will change whenever the table is re-sorted, so it's important to link them all to ensure that whichever sort is chosen, the first reference is a linked one.

There are a few different approaches you could make with the publication. One is to only list the known first edition, regardless of publishing location - this is fine if the sources are clear on which was definitely first. The other main alternative is to follow what I did with Agatha Christie and list both UK and US publications - this only works if the works are more or less parallel, as they were with most of Christie's output. If there is sufficient parallel output, then it sounds like this may be a possible option for ACD. I quote like the way the Christie Novels section looks and feels - it covers both countries and has all the relevant info that anyone could want. That may be your best bet by the sounds of it? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]