Jump to content

User talk:SchroCat/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:SchroCat

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 18:46, 18 July 2013 (Robot: Archiving 2 threads from User talk:SchroCat.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

TFL on Monday

Hey Schro, until this crusade calms down, I'm going to suggest we postpone the TFL appearance of Flashman, I hope you understand? With tags being added willy-nilly and FLRCs being suddenly opened up etc, it's not ideal for main page... Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem: I know it's out of your hands and it's the right thing to do for the main page. Hopefully this rather bizzare and questionable editing will calm down shortly and we'll go for a relist after that. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Once the FLRC is resolved, we'll reschedule it. Have a good weekend, and stay cool! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, RM: I'll take your advice and, like all good Englishmen, spend an evening relaxing appropriately! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have time...

I wonder if you could follow up on Jane Joseph, now at FAC? I'll bet you can't find a missing ellipsis, either! Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I should be delighted to! Let the hunt commence! - SchroCat (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:File:Adele Skyfall sample.ogg

Someone else has sorted it out I see! For reference, samples should generally be no more than 30 seconds/10% of the song (whichever is shorter) and no more than 64 kbps. J Milburn (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

At least it saves me the trouble of getting it wrong! Thanks for the guidelines - much obliged! All the best - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for your input with this edit. It is always reassuring to see that I am interpreting polices the same way as other editors. Unfortunately it is still the old "episode" template, I would try and hash it out on the talk page, but something tells me it would be a pointless waste of time anyway. Besides, bigger fish to fry and I have no kids to teach for a week! Sun burns await! hahahaha -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem - always glad to chip in when I see good editors getting blasted for doing the right thing (and especially when they've been template for it!) You're probably right on the waste of time - these children's programmes seem to generate more heat, hot air and nonsense than Bond does! All the best - SchroCat (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/The Flashman Papers/archive1 and Talk:The Flashman Papers

I hope you don't think I've stuck my oar in too far, but I've asked for admin scrutiny of these discussions in the hope of getting them closed. Tim riley (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat

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

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

South Pacific (musical)

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

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

Vital Articles/Expanded: an invitation

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

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

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

Sean Connery filmography

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

Is it me or does File:Larry Mullen jr cc20.jpg look just like Necros?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL - They could be twins! - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

efn note template

Hmm. Deep Luddite suspicion from TR, but I cede prior place to you to go ahead as Ssilvers invites on the South Pacific footnotes. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Skyfall

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

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

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

Skyfall review

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

Bonjour tristesse (film)

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

SPECTRE

I understand that the names i removed from the SPECTRE list were in fact names from, From Russia with Love the movie, and John Gardners books and i understand that they should be referenced. But i feel that the Key People section should be reserved for the original and genuine SPECTRE from the Fleming Novels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEA-VAC (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 June 2013

I think that SEA-VAC accidentally created a category using Hot-Cat when trying to reply to you; this is what he wrote on the category page (now deleted). BencherliteTalk 23:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Those magnificent Men...

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

Well I never...

Thought I would be using our favourite editor as an example, but I just did here. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL - that's a bit of a turn up! Sadly, the discussion on the JLM talk page still rumbles on: who would have thought something this simple could drag on this long! - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear. Sorry to hear that. On a different note, re the above message to the discussion, I have interpreted WP:RED correctly haven't I? Don't be afraid to tell me if I am wrong, you have been around longer than me. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I tend to avoid leaving names red - even if it means just adding a stub that repeats the same info as the article. For actors etc, then the BFI, AFI or Google Books can come up with a few extra facts to start the thing off properly. I think you're probably reading it right, but it's good to err on the side of caution with a supporting stub article. Hope that helps! - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah it does. I agree it looks unmessy, but I tend to leave them because it helps grow Wikipedia. Thanks :) -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall

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

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

From Russia with Love (novel)

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

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

Let me know what you think.

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

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

Reverted edit

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

Also, I merely edited a few words, and none of them were misspelled. --DesignDeath (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It's misleading because there are more than 22 films, so separating out the number of films to Eon ensures it's a subtle error. The misspelling is in instalments, which is the correct spelling for a British English article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

S&M (song)

Hey, can you do me a favour? Would you be able to read through this article and tighten up the prose please? I want to nominate it again for FAC but I've never been successful.  — AARON • TALK 09:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm a big tied up this weekend, but happy to look at it early next week. - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't really know what is wrong with it still as it has had so much input but something with the prose is stopping it from being promoted. For some reason, it just doesn't read like an FA.  — AARON • TALK 09:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Blimp

How can you give a citation for something like a portrait that is used in two films apart from saying "Watch the films"? -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Blimp credits

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

The infobox should have the order as per the poster. The cast list in the article should be as per the credits. If its a US poster, then it should be changed to the UK original and the order taken from that. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the poster info, it suggests it's a UK poster? - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
[Stalker] -- You used to be able to tell which is which by the poster shape: UK posters run from east to west (horizontal) while American posters go north to south (vertical). -- CassiantoTalk 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

FAC

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

Does that happen alot..?

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

No - most editors are fairly honest about their endeavours, as they know it can all be seen in the edit history! I'm always suspicious about people who keep banging on about the number of edits they have done in comparison to others: it always seems to be a rather snide way of asserting some form of superiority over others on a topic, or the thin end of the wedge of ownership. - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely I agree. They weren't getting consensus for their inclusion and were claiming they were making all the contribs when all they were doing was putting back in what was removed by IPs. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
And in this case it comes with one of the more disruptive editors active on Wiki at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Just to say....

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

A favour

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

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

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For being a Wiki Buddy and making sure I don't get too big for my breaches and just generally being approachable about stuff. MisterShiney ✉ 20:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Reply

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

There is an email and phone number shown on that image: you need to get them removed straight away. As to the rest, find a reliable source and the information can be moved to the right section, not removed from the article. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I could use some help having the image removed, I have no idea how to do that. And I don't see a phone number on there.... Anyways, again, sorry for the confusion, I'm in the process of finding a source that does deny that there is aa 12" vinyl record containing "Skyfall" remixes. Best regards. ---Tsu'tey♫ (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The telephone number is number below the signature. I have tagged the file for deletion. - SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ellipses and all that...

My latest offering, Harold Davidson (the archetypal naughty vicar) is up for peer review. I will give you an enormous barnstar if you can gind even one ellipsis that is not preceded by a no-break space. That's how confident I am (but I'd like you to check anyway). Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course he was a naughty vicar: his title of "Rector of Stiffkey" could have come from any of the Carry on or Confessions of smutfests! I'll pop along shortly to see what I can spot. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

You've got mail!

Hello, SchroCat. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

 — AARON • TALK 22:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

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

World War Z

Just wanted to stop by and state my appreciation for you starting a discussion rather than re-reverting as is too common these days.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No probs. It's all too common and I'm as guilty as the next man, but not re-reverting does take the immediate heat out of any discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Davidson peer review

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

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Naughty vicar at FAC

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

from HMS Troutbridge

Shall have much pleasure in looking at Die Forelle tomorrow. Am up at the ancestral shack near Derwentwater this week, and might possibly spot a trout or two in the river nearby. (Bony buggers, river trout, though. Give me sea trout every time.) Tim riley (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Back in London with my books to hand. Shall plunge into the trout pool again tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks indeed! It's still in a rather parlous state, and I haven't touched the lead yet. The mercy of it—for reviewers at least—is in its brevity! - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments

I'm putting my comments here, but by all means move them to the article talk page if you prefer. The Lied is not my strong suit (though I'm anybody's for a Fauré mélodie) so I offer these few comments from the commanding heights of sheer ignorance:

  • I think it may be worth mentioning other famous songs from the same year: Graham Johnson lists Der Tod und das Mädchen and An die Musik. (Notes to Hyperion CD "Schubert in 1817–1818", CDJ33021 (1994) – one of the few CDs of Lieder on my shelves.)
  • Date: Johnson says "early 1817", not summer. Reed (p. 159) says that the earliest copies date from the spring of 1817.
  • Also perhaps relevant that though Schubart's last stanza makes it plain that the narrator is male, in the verses Schubert set it is not possible to say from the text whether the narrator is a man or a woman (see Kramer). Thus the song has been sung by many famous singers of both sexes. Elena Gerhardt comes to mind just as much as Fischer-Dieskau, for example.
  • I see Reed's one-line music example bears the tempo direction "Etwas lebhaft", which is worth mentioning, perhaps. A good pianist keeps the brook babbling in a lively way throughout.
  • Tangentially, I have just played through a CD of the Coriolan Overture and I'm blest if I spotted anything that Schubert might have unconsciously pinched. Do any of your sources say which bit Ebner was referring to?

That's my lot. Much enjoyed. – Tim riley (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That's great: many thanks indeed. I shall carry on tinkering! - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Neutral Notice

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

Terry-Thomas

My thanks and kudos to you (and Cassianto) for you guys work on Terry's page. You guys put a lot of time and effort into the research and expansion, Terry deserves it. Now more people (including me) can read and enjoy his story and appreciate his life. this man who brought so much laughter and joy to many of us when we were kids in the 60s and 70s. Thank you guys again for doing this for Terry. Peace be with you.Koplimek (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed! He was certainly worth all the trouble getting him sorted: an iconic screen presence who never fails to amuse. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Message received. Shall PR the article with (I confidently expect) great pleasure. Tim riley (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Paris

What's the unsourced material I'm supposed to have added? And I've already opened a discussion on the article's talk page. What that editor did was remove 80% of the content of the demographics section (80%!), while at the same time adding 20 superfluous subsections about the landmarks of Paris (as if the article was a tourist guide), 20 subsections which took way more space than the demographic content removed, and to top it off, he/she dumped all that demographic content in the Demographics of Paris article without even making any effort to arrange the information properly or avoid doublets and repeated information (like posting twice the same table). How am I supposed to call such a behavior? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Try WP:GOODFAITH. Try also looking at the fact that a disorganised, bloated and unsupported article is now rated as a GA-level article. Rather than trying to shove all the pointless information back onto the page, cheapening the standard of the article, why not work constructively on the Demographics article to improve that so that it also reaches GA standard? As to the sub-sections: the amount of space you're concerned about is neither here nor there: completeness and the sourcing of information is what is of importance. Why not raise your issues constructively on the article talk page and see if you and Dr Blofeld can agree on the areas for further development, whether that is in the main Paris article, or one of the other more specialised articles? - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat/Archive_8&oldid=564826097"