User talk:SchroCat

Do not leave the ‎DS alert for infoboxes on this page.
I am aware of the requirements and restrictions and need no "reminding". Any placing of the note will be reverted, probably with an appropriate response.

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 15 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

infoboxes

Thank you for your comment about using the correct process during discussion about infoboxes.--MerielGJones (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MerielGJones, it is so refreshing to see you deal with this in this manner. As has been pointed out on your talk by PackMecEng, this subject is very contentious and infobox discussions usually end up at a noticeboard somewhere. The courteous and professional manner which you have displayed will set this discussion apart from all the rest and will be a note to all those who force boxes onto a page through edit warring and incivility that they are approaching it from the wrong way. Let's hope this discussion is used as an example of how to do things properly. Cassianto^Talk 10:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

The article Ennio Morricone has been vandalized, and needs a rollback. Grimes2 (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grimes2, do you mean that something needs to be WP:OVERSIGHTed? If so, I can't: I'm not an Admin (thankfully). - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Love Island (2015)

Hello SchroCat, it's me, ya boi. Just wondering, do you think it's right that the intro of the Love Island page has been purged of all mentions of the controversies it has caused because of the suicides linked to the show? A admin who is a fan of the show has removed the small paragraph about it, saying it shouldn't be there. I'm not convinced this is right, what do you think? AmSam13 (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that interested in the programme, but neither WilliamJE or ThisIsDanny are admins, and both have been here long enough to know that they should not be edit warring in this manner. Both WilliamJE and ThisIsDanny also know how to find the article's talk page where I have opened a thread about the matter. I hope that ALL parties stop edit warring, leave the information in place and discuss further instead of reverting once again. Some of the edit summaries giving a reason for removal are just plain wrong, so if you could ALL make sure your comments are in line with the relevant policies and guidelines, then it will make a consensus easier to arrive at. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. I have added to the talk page discussion in the hope of discussing further.AmSam13 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Florence Petty

The article Florence Petty you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Florence Petty for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Walpole revert

Hi SchroCat, would it suffice to include "Walpole was a descendant of Horatio Walpole, 1st Baron Walpole"? Not including any such detail seems quite an omission given that so many of his direct line of ancestors are notable enough to have articles here, particularly given the name "Walpole" is a fairly uncommon one and someone reading the article may well wonder about a link. Thanks for your feedback 78.144.69.56 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it was of no relevance to Walpole's life and career, and should be omitted. The ancestor is, of course, notable so far as his own article is concerned, but not here. Tim riley talk 08:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Later: I spoke too soon. Walpole ancestry is of passing relevance, and in fact, is already mentioned at the appropriate place in the article. We don't need it twice, though. Tim riley talk 08:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting; based on other articles that's not the impression I would necessarily have had, so thank you for clarifying that as it will colour my future contributions. Best regards. 78.144.69.56 (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]