User talk:SchroCat/Archive 37

Hi again -- thanks for your helpful comments a couple of days ago. I've pulled together an article on the poisoning, and it's up for peer review with a view to FAC, here. I see you're one of the nominators of Burke and Hare murders for FAC; as it happens, it was the Burke and Hare murders that drove the Margaret Warden case from being the most famous case of those days, and some of the same lawyers were involved. I don't know whether that interests you enough to take a look at the peer review, but I plan to look at Elizabeth Akin anyway as a thank you for your help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mike, no problems: all signed up. It may be worth you listing it at Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get more eyes on it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes, forgot about that. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, hope all's well. I restored my edit on Dirty Dick because placing the {{as of}} with bare=y made it so that it still shows as "as at 2025" but the date is templated. The notes were on changing the wording from "as at" to "as of". Best Metaviva (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The article had a template until this edit by Graham87. If you disagree with it, don’t continue edit warring, but discuss with him. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I had read the whole article fairly carefully and nowhere could I find support for this claim. I have done so again and still cannot. In case I am missing something obvious, please can you identify the part or parts that actually say this. Ttocserp 12:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Works, the second paragraph of Novels. - SchroCat (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello SchroCat, I hope all is well. Thank you for offering feedback during Yoshi's New Island's previous FA nominations. After giving it some time, I'm considering renominating the article (ideally for the last time). If you can find the time, would you mind looking over the article beforehand to see if everything makes sense from the perspective of a casual viewer? There's absolutely no rush. Thanks again. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m not going to have time, I’m afraid. I’m struggling to finish all the things I’ve promised to do and haven’t even been able to write much for a while, so I can’t take anything else on for the moment. Sorry! - SchroCat (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to get Aomori Prefecture to GA and hopefully FA one day. Could you look it over in that GA/FA regards? I think I may have it ready for GA at this point. If you don't have time, that's ok. Thanks. 11:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC) MisawaSakura (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi MisawaSakura, I'll try and get to it shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks, I truly appreciate it !!! MisawaSakura (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

MisawaSakura, where do you want comments? On the article talk page, or are you going to open a PR for it? - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Please put on article talk page. MisawaSakura (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Update-I've gotten the article where I want it now for coverage. After we work your review, I'll list it at GAC or FAC, depending on the situation. MisawaSakura (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Great catches on your first pass! I truly, deeply, appreciate and thank you for all this assistance. I know you're taking time from your busy schedule and I can't thank you enough. I'll work your next passes when you have time for it. I don't mind waiting for your excellent reviewing. Thanks so much again! MisawaSakura (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 70, July–August 2025

• New collections:
  • Times of Malta
  • Africa Intelligence
  • Intelligence Online
  • La Lettre
  • Glitz
• Spotlight: Wikimania

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:SchroCat and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

First, thanks so much for keeping reviewing Aomori Prefecture. I know you're really busy so the review is much appreciated. On the first point of the part you just posted you said change the date from August 17th to 17 August. Other dates in the body are all in the format "September 20, 1868" and all the ref dates are in that format. To be conistent would August 17, 917 be ok? Tks. MisawaSakura (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You edited the Emmy Noether article to remove the link from the Kingdom of Bavaria in the infobox's birthplace field to its article. You didn't explain your edit. Please explain it to justify the effect it has on the article. DocRuby (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't explain my edit? Are you sure about that? Have a look again at where there is normally an edit summary and you'll see the explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, I see the edit summary "Per WP:GEOLINK". Sorry to bother you. DocRuby (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• 1) Left you a question on your last review pass Aomori Prefecture
• 2) When I list Aomori Prefecture at FAC, should I mention that you helped us get it there?
• 3) I posted my first actual critique, albeit extremely short, at FAC, on the Piri Reis nom
• You're doing a great job. I can't thank you enough! MisawaSakura (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • 1 Answered there
  • 2 Yes, you can if you wish, but I actually advise going through PR or GAN first. My opinion on the text is just that: my opinion, whereas FAC will be a team effort of reviewers, so the more reviewers you get before the cauldron of FAC reviewing, the easier the ride when it matters. Ideally any nominated article you be almost an FA at the point of nomination, not still a work in progress.
  • I'll try and have a look, but I'm still snowed under at the moment - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
    • 1)Not a biggie on Piri Reis, it was just a comment about the EFNs.
    • 2)The problem I have with GA is many articles have been there almost a year.MisawaSakura (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

FYI I've pinged Mccunicano about going GA first. My hopefully last concern for the moment is about the IPA at the top. I've seen FAs that have one but no ref for it (see Tiruchirappalli), but we have two. What is ref number 4 is fine, but what is ref 3 is a book with no page number. So the concern is, is an IPA required, if so does it need a ref (ie, why don't the FAs I've seen have a ref for IPA), and how about ref 3, if kept, since it has no page number? A few of us have had talks about this but no resolution. Yes, I know that one sentence runs on. haha! MisawaSakura (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Technically it should, but most IPAs don’t have them. I think they’re next to worthless anyway, given how few people understand or care about them, but there’s a small group who get incensed if you remove them or don’t have one, even if it’s just their OR that provides the output. - SchroCat (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree most don't understand them but I also get the part about a vocal minority. There's also this one: Ngô Đình Cẩn with IPA but no ref. Many FAs I found could have them but don't, such as this one: Luo Yixiu. So what I'll do is rely on precedent, leaving the IPA in, but commenting out the refs in case we ever need them. Thanks! MisawaSakura (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your great kindness, support, mentoring, and copyediting in getting Aomori Prefecture ready for GA/FA! MisawaSakura (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Mccunicano and I have decided to post it at GAN first. It'll be there in a few moments. MisawaSakura (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi! You reverted my edit to Spaghetti House siege as "unconstructive", but I believe at least the first comma is needed because without it, the sentence can be read as either In early December 1975, members of the [...] or In early December, 1975 members of the [...], the latter of which is clearly not the intended meaning. I think my other changes were also slight improvements over the previous revision (or at least weren't "unconstructive"), but that first one is clearly an improvement. 2A00:807:D3:965F:40B4:401C:7B72:5D3D (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The commas are not needed in British English, the language variant in which the article is written. - SchroCat (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Could you please mention that in the edit summary the next time you revert something for this reason, as it wasn't clear from the current one? :) 2A00:807:D3:965F:40B4:401C:7B72:5D3D (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this successful selection has an error. It just says "Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2025", shouldn't that be "Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 15, 2025" ? MisawaSakura (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Done - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. I see you decided not to piss off all the Swiftie fans, bazillions of them. ROFL HAHA. I put USS Saratoga on the pending list for Nov 16, 2027, 100th anniversary. MisawaSakura (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I made Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Christmas Tree Farm for 24 Dec. The article had no free images so I grabbed one from Commons. The question is, does an image for TFA blurb have to be in the article? MisawaSakura (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Medxvo changed it to a photo of Swfit, but I prefer the tree photo, especially since it's up for Christmas Eve. Either way, neither is in the article. MisawaSakura (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, was this intentional or not? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

If you look here: Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/November_2025 for November 22, it's still scheduled. SchroCat will know which one is the honest hiccup. MisawaSakura (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, I didn't see it when it was at TFAR, but I didn't realise it had been TFA on 16 September, so I'm going to have to swap it out. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond. FYI I found your participation via XTools.Czarking0 (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, was this intentional or not? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

If you look here: Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/November_2025 for November 22, it's still scheduled. SchroCat will know which one is the honest hiccup. MisawaSakura (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, I didn't see it when it was at TFAR, but I didn't realise it had been TFA on 16 September, so I'm going to have to swap it out. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond. FYI I found your participation via XTools.Czarking0 (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Linda Anne Hutchison at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Tarrare worth keeping as a nomination? What irks me about this is there are tons of people who post things saying "this needs nom'd for deletion/demotion", "this needs fixed", etc, but they never do it, just pointing it out and not doing anything about it. If this is not worth keeping as a nomination, I'll remove it and try to find something else. As an example, 3 of the last 4 posts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan fall into this category, people posting work needs done but they don't try to do any of the work, hoping someone else will. Pls let me know about Tarrare. MisawaSakura (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s one person’s !vote (based on a dubious rationale): leave it in place and let Wehwalt decide when he’s does the scheduling. - SchroCat (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why your Mountbatten FAC still hasn't been promoted. MisawaSakura (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

No idea, but hey ho... I'm in no rush. - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

That's good to hear but have been wondering the same thing for weeks. No article is perfectly perfect. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s been at the ‘if I were writing it, this is how I would have phrased it’ stage of comments for a while now, so I don’t know why it hasn’t been promoted. It’s an easy one to promote and slim down the overlong FAC list. - SchroCat (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It's GA now. Yea! But Ganesha811 thinks it should have some more work before we go to FAC. See User_talk:Mccunicano#Your_nomination_of_Aomori_Prefecture_has_passed. MisawaSakura (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I see Mountbatten was promoted. Just waiting for the bot to run. Congrats! Well Done! And about time they promoted it! 👏👏👏 MisawaSakura (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

This is now at FAC. You had said to let you know when it gets there. Thanks so much for helping us get it there! Even if it fails, it'll be better. We think this is the first article on a Japanese prefecture to achieve GA and get also to get to FAC. MisawaSakura (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Good luck! As I've been involved in heavy reviewing already, I'll let a couple of others go ahead of me before I swing in and review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. Makes sense too. MisawaSakura (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to sadly resign myself to the fact I'm never going to have time to try and write an FA again. The last one, Marshlink line was a good effort, but failed because when I went to the local library where I'd got the original books out to source from, I discovered half of them had disappeared because the library facilities had been downsized. And while I'd like to see the gold star on, for example, St Pancras railway station, I can't bring myself to go through the 18 book references in the article (most of which are, again, from the library and not owned by me), fact check everything they cite, add in any further missing information from books (I've seen at least one, possibly two books entirely dedicated to St Pancras that absolutely have to be used to meet FA criteria 1c) and ensure I've got them all to hand when spot checks come up at FAC (which they should do, absolutely). So I'm a bit up the creek without a paddle.

I'll just have to settle for writing good articles, or as I prefer to call them, decent articles. There's still plenty of articles that can be improved to that level. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, There's nothing wrong with avoiding FA to write decent articles, whether taken to GA or just as a decent article. It's a more efficient way to deliver content across multiple articles too, given you avoid the long slow review processes involved.

If you still want to go through FAC, however, and if having hard copies of the books is the bar to cracking it, you can always get the UK Wikimedia chapter to cough up. I've got them to pay for an expensive book before, and I think I'm right in saying Harry Mitchell got them to provide a number of the books he has used for the war memorial FAs. You definitely need the source books to hand to get through FAC, particularly the first one because of the spot checks. Once you've got the first one through, it does get easier. - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Ritchie, see also this about a WMF offer to buy book. Hope either of these options are helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

TP lurker comment. To avoid this problem, I try to use journal articles. Through wiki anyone can get access to wiki library. I mostly use JSTOR. Someone is GA reviewing Aomori Prefecture for me right now and brought up a valid concern today. Part of the way I resolved it was by adding three JSTOR articles. Wiki Library is all online; it's amazing what you can find in it. Of course, if what you want isn't anywhere online, you're back to the old school ways. To illustrate how esoteric the things found in JSTOR etc can be, the three articles I found today were on the changes that occurred in Aomori back in the the late 1800s after the Meiji Restoration. Hope this helps, Ritchie333. MisawaSakura (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey Ritchie, sorry I'm late to the party but I'm glad you're still interested in getting a star for the Marshlink line. I honestly don't think it's far off but you would need the books within reach. I might be able to help with sources for STP, I have a fair collection of books on railway architecture <-- how is that a red link? And people say there's nothing left to write!. Wikimedia UK have been great when I've needed books in the past; they did indeed fund some of the source material for my war memorial FAs, as well as a book for a little background project. I'm sure they'd be happy to help. Book grants are one of the most useful things chapters/WMF can do with their money if you ask me. Btw, I like FAC for its thoroughness and focus on comprehensiveness; I find I don't often get useful feedback at GA and the criteria don't emphasise sourcing enough for my liking (cf. this comment). Happy to chat about it over a pint if you can get to Brighton at the end of November (there's also Portsmouth on Saturday but I know that's another hour or so each way). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hiya! Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Buildings and architecture of Brighton and Hove/archive1 if you have time, please? Hassocks is a friend and I basically browbeat him into getting some feedback to see if it would cut the mustard at FAC but now I feel guilty that he hasn't had any comments yet and between the day job and ArbCom I haven't had as much time for articles as I'd like. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Harry, Of course! I have one other review to polish off first, but I’ll be there shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm obliged, and I'm sure Hassocks will be too! I'll buy you a pint one day. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations, SchroCat! The article you nominated, Elizabeth Alkin, 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) 00:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yea! Now you can submit another FAC. MisawaSakura (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

On 23 October 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Linda Anne Hutchison, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Linda Anne Hutchison performed as a leading soprano of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, including during its first visit to continental Europe since the 1880s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Linda Anne Hutchison. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Linda Anne Hutchison), 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 nominate it.

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Shine by Gwen Stefani was on the TFAP list for a Jan nomination, so I created it here: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Shine (Gwen Stefani song). There is no free image in the article, so I grabbed one from another article on her that is PD because I know images are preferred in TFA. Should I add this PD image to the Shine article or is it ok as is? MisawaSakura (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be on the page, but it's a little odd not to have the artist's image on the page - you may as well put it on there and see if anyone objects. - SchroCat (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. FYI, if you ever want me to nominate one of your FAs at TFAR, just let me know.MisawaSakura (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

God no - I hate "my" FAs being on the MP - way too much grief and silliness attached to it! - SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I understand and I won't put yours up anymore. MisawaSakura (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh don't worry: it's not fair to leave "my" FAs out and they need to appear just like everyone else's. I've never not run anything I've worked on without good reason. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, ok. MisawaSakura (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello. To a complete stranger, are you not alive please to the tone you're employing ? Surely a greater sense of personal responsibility suggests itself to you ? But, if I overlook that for now, and ask you to reflect on what's due from you, as an editor, and from everyone to another, the right bearing, I can concentrate on the matter in hand. Fine, we disagree. Using I'm sure our common interest in a consistency of approach when writing on all the subjects on Wikipaedia, I feel I must point out that the " Slopp[iness]" you mention surely includes how one person speaks to another. Anyone who reviews your former reply shall see what I mean. But again, the more important point is the edit itself. If for whatever reason of your own a vigilant ' night watch ' on some subjects is essential to you, it's fortunate in this case that I personally feel no such attachment. I truly don't wish to provoke, but for your own peace of mind I'll advise you that what comes across as a need for some over-lordship might encounter the same, one day. It's not going to help enjoying what you do. It's enough for me to say that peremptorial acts are to me not persuasive; there's nothing intellectualy persuasive about them; so no, that leaves me simply happy to know that I still feel right. Please try to add anything further if you like. I'm very willing to listen. But for me, to be convincing I think you'd need to leave on the recrord more than the current impression that what you write is right because the writer of it is persuaded by himself. I'm quite relaxed about it, though really. I feel that I've been of more use here than if it hadn't occured. And I am, truly, happy to read any new thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I've not seen such a long screed that says so little for a while; maybe I'm just not intelligent enough to understand what you've written. Perhaps you could boil down the salient points of your complaint to a couple of short bullet points to make it easier: if you could avoid comments about me or my approach and focus on what you want to say about the article, that may make it clearer for me. Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

No, thanks; I see the potential it has. Thanks all the same. Heath St John (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

One wonders 'was it all worth it', but thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

On 27 October 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aileen Davies, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Aileen Davies sang roles on the first two D'Oyly Carte Opera Company recordings using the new electrical-recording technology? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aileen Davies. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Aileen Davies), 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 nominate it.

JuniperChill (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I've watchlisted this already! —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

May be a while! I've got a couple of people going through to Americanise it properly and I'll probably drop this one into PR first as I'm not fully happy with the copy that's there. But it will get to FAC at some point! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

ps. I'm in the midst of review a mammothly long (but beautifully written) article at the moment, but I'll be round to John Fressh soon after. - SchroCat (talk)

Good catch about USEng, would want to offend the colonies  ;) I'll watchlist this instead. I'll have to give Gimme Shelter another watch; sublime to the ridiculous sums it up. One minute complaining about people climbing up the scaffolding, and the next...

Thanks for thinking about Fressh. Only if you want—don't feel pressured. CU17  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Great news about 17—will be good to catch up. Very much looking forward to Fressh: just the sort of subject that tickles me. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Very interesting. I've often read of how this concert got out of hand. One comment..."Then chased into the crowd." This is a fragment; not a complete sentence. MisawaSakura (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Typo now fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm thrilled to let you know, FYI, Noleander supported, saying "Support on prose and MOS. I have not checked images "free to use" status, or validated sourcing. Great article!". Note Nikki reviewed the images in the FAC page, and Ganesha811 went through them thoroughly, but that was at GAN. MisawaSakura (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

After Noleander saying it was a great article, Nick D blew it to smithereens. I've posted a withdrawal request on Gog's page. I don't see the sense to participate in FAC anymore with this nor any other article. I want to deeply thank you for all your kindness and support towards me. I will always cherish it. MisawaSakura (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure the comments are as bad as you think them. Most relate to dated sources, which should be fixable by you or some of the other people who have been editing the page. Failing that, asking at the relevant projects could elicit some assistance in finding more up-to-date material. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I hope that you don't mind, but I've added a sub-heading to separate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evacuations of civilians in the United Kingdom during the Second World War/archive1 from mine. Please delete it if you'd prefer. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to get some clarification on a few points regarding the FAC. Could you clarify your hyphen issue on the article? I'm not sure which exact points you feel need em dashes, since I don't believe there's many sentences in the article where I'd need to use them over hyphens. I also wanted to at least point out that some of these mistakes were not on my part; the earlier copyedit left in a few typos and though I tried to remove all of them some of them got left inside. Could you clarify any "clumsy wordings" as well? Not sure how many you saw or how much of the article you reviewed but I'd appreciate some clarification on what your gripes are. I'd also appreciate some clarification on the "back catalog" quote and what your issues with that are. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

For a start it's not a question of who put in the mistakes: you are the one taking it through FAC, so you need to make sure that it is as close as perfect as you can make it. There were several examples, but these were sorted a few hours before your post. In terms of the wording, Roy left some examples in the review and I see Gog has left further examples on his talk page; I'll only add that the Reception section is tedious to read: the repeated format of 'Joe Bloggs of Publication Name said "needless quote"' is a bit grating. Organising paragraphs along thematic lines and being more selective in what is quoted would alleviate the issue. In terms of "back catalog": it's a dictionary term and doesn't need quoting, but it can just be reworded a lot more smoothly and without the need for American spelling in a quote of someone who is English. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. Admittedly I tried my best but there's clearly a few points I've overlooked, so I appreciate whatever advice you can give here. Thank you in advance, by the way, for your response.

In terms of particular points: This is how I learn "catalogue" was the British spelling and "catalog" was the American spelling and I've had them mixed up for years. It's being quoted here because it's a direct quote from Moffat, but it seems a misspelt it on accident when copying the quote. I'll get on that shortly, though if you feel the quote is unnecessary I'm open to changing it to just something easier to understand.

Could you give me an example of an article that uses the more streamlined, thematic organizational style you're talking about? The style I use is the style that's been suggested to me the most historically for both attribution and writing terms, and is what is used most frequently for fictional characters in my experience, so I'm not super familiar with the one you're referring to. I've tried to sort the paragraphs by topic focus, but from the others' comments it seems like that was unclear, so I'm open to anything regarding how to make that clearer. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I’ll try and dig out a good example for you, but there’s a good essay at Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections which should help. Sometimes an introductory sentence is the easiest way to focus the reader’s mind on the paragraph’s subject. SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

There have been OR concerns raised about those intro sentences, hence why I've neglected to use them in this article. I remember a while ago there were several discussions about it, particularly in regards to Wikipedia:VGCHAR, which is one of the more active fictional character projects, though I'm not sure if the essay you linked above is indicative of a pre-existing standard, or if there's a specific way to do it to avoid OR, or what have you. I'd appreciate some clarity on that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Please desist from adding unsupported content to the article Death of Kevin Gately. The content you insist on adding is opinion, pejorative, non-NPOV and is unsupported by any reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31260-57 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It's supported by a reference. The term is one used by Scarman and other sources. STOP EDIT WARRING AND USE THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE. - SchroCat (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Please do not make false claims. Please stop edit waring with unsupported opinion content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31260-57 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing false in what I have written. And I certainly won't listen to the rubbish posted by an IP who can't be bothered to use a talk page, but only edit wars out of ignorance. And learn to sign your posts like everyone else. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Yet again I polite request you to stop making false claims. Also, the statement 'rubbish posted by an IP who can't be bothered to use a talk page, but only edit wars out of ignorance' is far from civil, and edit war part is hypocritical.

Again, learn how to sign your posts. The material is cited: get over it. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

A pity this editor insists on edit warring. A pity too that he/she appears (wrongly?) to be semi-literate, but that is a secondary problem. Tim riley talk 18:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone blocked that user for 72 hours. MisawaSakura (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

One should not suppose that every FAC should catch every instance a WP:MOS guideline was overlooked. Why even have guidelines? Because they simplify the process of building a better encyclopedia. They replace individual ignorance and bias with sensible guidance that editors can implement without too much hesitation or worry of offending the main writers of articles. In the case of MOS:OVERLINK, New York City is specifically called out as one of the three examples of settlements too well known to be unthinkingly linked, along with New Delhi and London. Moreover, User:Ohconfucius' script removes it as a matter or course. Just something to consider... Abductive (reasoning) 21:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, a guideline, something that guides, something that is inherently flexible and not a writ that must be followed. The MoS is built on flexibility and something that should be used with a degree of common sense. The rationale for retaining in the TFA blurb was provided by two independent editors and the same rationale can be applied to the lead too. In 99 per cent of cases, yes, it shouldn’t be linked, but occasionally the link is beneficial and useful. As for saying we should do it because a rather blunt instrument is preset to do it...? Nah. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

There are a rather large number of articles on buildings in Manhattan, and they are not all as integral to the fabric of their city as, say, the Empire State Building, which should have a link to New York City. One way of considering this is, what incoming links should New York City have? Chrysler Building? Yes. Broadway theatre? Yes. Ellis Island? Yes. Saint Luke's Lutheran Church? No. Brookhaven National Laboratory? No (not even in the city). Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I saw your usual warning against people who support infoboxes at an RFC, and then this comment:

No. so far I've not seen any good reason why one should add a box.

Now I am curious: Have you ever seen a good reason to add an infobox to any article about any person? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I dislike having to discuss idiotboxes on articles, and that goes doubly when dealing with hypotheticals in other venues, but yes, there are lots of good reasons for adding them. I’ve added a lot of IBs to articles (probably more than most editors), but only when there is good reason, and I’ve said several times in previous discussions what those reasons are. - SchroCat (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I might occasionally wish for a long moratorium on infobox RFCs.

Were any of the IBs you added to articles about people? Or only about other subjects? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

To repeat: I dislike having to discuss IBs at the best of times, and being pressed here while you are also pressing multiple people elsewhere isn't a good move.

To answer your question - and to bring this to a close, I have added them on a range of articles, including biographies. Now that's answered, I'd prefer to keep this page (and the rest of my day) free from having to discuss one of the most boring topics on WP. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Just had to document Pevsner's amazing survival! Lovely article, as ever. Hope you're well. KJP1 (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Ha! Just been leaving a note on your talk page about the very same thing. Nice piece of work, particularly given the speed it went up. All is good here - I hope the same can be said of you. I was thinking about you on Wednesday - I was up in Manchester on a flying business trip. I was unsurprised to find it raining there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, nice and interesting article. Perhaps one tweak...the first known owner was in 1085, about 110-120 years before construction, so how could he have owned the manor? He could have owned the land but not the manor house built over 100 years later. Perhaps clarify? MisawaSakura (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Point taken. He owned the manor, that is the estate, rather than the existing manor house building. It is a bit confusing, as in England the terms manor/manor house are frequently used interchangeably. I shall see if I can make it clearer. KJP1 (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)​ ...and of course he didn't own the manor, he held it  :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed! Manorialism is hard! KJP1 (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

As you may know, I don't insert erroneous coordinates into Wikipedia. The coordinates in Killing of Meredith Hunter were drawn from the over-rounded and incorrect coords given for Altamont Raceway Park. However, the stage, and the killing, were in a low area to the NE of the track. Abductive (reasoning) 10:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you pop your bad faith accusations elsewhere? Did it not enter your mind that I reverted your change for a good reason? Your bad faith accusation would be akin to me having the bad faith to consider what a coincidence it is that since I reverted your delinking of NYC, you've cropped up on two other pages where I've been active. Amazing how such coincidences occur isn't it. Let's hope this isn't a pattern - not that I would ever assume there was any bad faith behind this coincidence.

The reason I reverted the change in coords is that the article is now showing different coords in different places, which is incredibly sloppy, particularly as you edited all the coords, but changed some of them to something completely different. Now, which of the two different sets of coords are you going to edit war over, or do you just intend to leave them so they're different from one another? - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I adjusted the map back to avoid the line of the northern border of California showing, I assume that whoever did it wanted it that way. I was thinking of adjusting it again so that 'Los Angles' wouldn't overlap the little bar scale. I put the coordinates visible to readers to the correct location, and rounded them to the specifications of the WP:OPCOORD guideline. I put the non-visible coords to the Speedway, since that is what the label says. If you like, those can be made the same as the killing coords. Abductive (reasoning) 11:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

So no mention of the coincidences? I thought you may try to duck that one, but I sincerely hope that comes to an end.

It's just sloppily done to have two different sets of coords for the same thing. I don't know why anyone would do that. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Earlier you said that once an article has gone through FAC, WP:Guidelines are insufficient reason for any changes to be made. I care about articles having correct coordinates that also follow WP:OPCOORD, so I looked through all the articles listed at FAC, saw one with an error, and corrected it. I did not notice that you had worked on the article, so you can imagine my surprise at your near instantaneous reversion of my edits. Abductive (reasoning) 11:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Firstly I did not make any such claim: that's completely untrue. What I said was that it was "Probably best to be discussed". That's certainly preferable to the edit warring you engaged in on a TFA.

Secondly, I truly doubt you have looked through the FACs and miraculously only decided to intervene at one I had nominated - and so soon after you were at the Formby RfC too: that's just too much of a coincidence to be truthful. I hope this further involvement—indeed this conversation here, too—comes to an end now. The only point I'd like to hear from you is providing the reliable source for the location of the stage. I'd hate to think you were edit warring at that article based on your guesswork of where something happened, particularly given the map doesn't pretend to show that, just the location of the racing track. If you can't provide the reliable source, maybe this can come to an end and hopefully I won't see any more coincidental appearances either. - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to correct incorrect coordinates, follow guidelines and to advocate for following guidelines, and to advocate against article ownership, and I hope that you will come around to those positions someday. Abductive (reasoning) 11:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Utter bullshit.

The coords were correct before you edit warred. They showed the location of the the track. You have used your WP:OR to guess where you think the stage was and you edit warred to force in your guesswork: that's second rate, sloppy and against policy.

I already follow the guidelines, particularly the ones you have listed. I also follow the guideline about not stalking other editors, which is something you need to take on board quickly because any more miraculous appearances and I'll drop you into ANI without a second thought. Take this as your final warning.

You can stop posting on this page from now on: take this as an official note to do so. Do not return here again. - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I've seen some FAC reviewers want photos to be on both the left and right of the article. Is this a valid oppose reason if you don't do it? For me, I like them all on the right as switching sides makes the reading flow awkwardly. MisawaSakura (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The MOS advises the general rule is for them to be on the right, but some people don't like the rather boring look that gives articles. The MOS is flexible on the point, as it says that "Most images should be on the right side of the page" (my emphasis). That's not an opposable position however as it's just personal choice. There are circumstances where alignment to the left is advised: people facing to the right, for example should be on the right so they face 'into' the article. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

So if someone wants some on left and I don't do it they can't legit oppose on that basis alone. Left photos are one of the things Nick D listed on his oppose to the Aomori FAC. MisawaSakura (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

No on that basis alone, no. - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Recently I saw that League of Nations has a 80th anniversary of dissolution on april 18 2026 but it was todays featured article 20 years ago (2005) so I cant just nominate it in 2026. So how exactly would I be able to rerun it? it says a general discussion with the tfa nominators but i dont know how to do that. thanks. also do I have to do a featured article review for it? how? ~2025-33683-07 (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

It can be nominated at WP:TFAR, just as any qualifying FA can. (“Qualifying” meaning any FA that has never been on the MP, or any FA that has only been on the MP once, but not within the last five years; all requested articles must still be at the usual high standard with no issues.)

There are several problems with the League of Nations article that suggest it is not in a fit state at present to go on the MP. These include unsupported citations, one section in need of updating, disambiguating links and several of the listed sources not being used in the article (which suggests the article may have further problems around being comprehensive, although I haven’t looked into that aspect). The good news is that there is still time for people to update the article to get it into a fit shape before it’s too late. - SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

So, I knew about the 5 year rule, but you said they can only have been on the MP once before, if over 5 years ago. So...if on MP in 2010, then again in 2018, it's not ever eligible again? This twist I didn't know about. MisawaSakura (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep, that's the current community consensus by which we have to abide at present. There could possibly be an exemption under very special circumstances, but that would have to be something discussed in advance as a special case. - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I will try to fix the issues with citations, however, i'm not sure exactly how you are able to see if a citation is used within an article. Also, i'm unsure what it means for a citation to be 'unsupported' I assume that means unsourced statements? also sorry if my temporary account number keeps changing. i don't know why. ~2025-33541-20 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear with the clumsily worded 'unsupported citations': you're right that I should have said 'unsourced statements' instead, which is what I meant. In terms of seeing which sources are and are not used in the article, I have a script installed that highlights the unused ones, of which there around 23 (at a very quick count). If you want, I can cut and paste the details onto the talk page so you know which they are. Many of these will need to be examined to see if they are worth using, rather than just removing them from the sources list - FAs are supposed to show "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", so they need checking to see if they contain information that should be included in the article. (Don't worry about the changing numbers - the new temporary accounts are likely to be a bit glitchy and they're confusing everyone a little at the moment). - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Edward Lloyd (coffee house owner) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Edward Lloyd (coffee house owner) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 71, September–October 2025

• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref 2025 in Nigeria
• Frankfurt Book Fair
• Tech tip: Wikipedia Library access template

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 15:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:SchroCat and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Hello, SchroCat. I'm AUC2012 and I'm a new utent on English Wikipedia. I noticed you that you edited Roy O. Disney due to a family link. I don't wanna starting an edit war, but why did you edited the article? What is the family link you cited? I wanna revert the edit you do. AUC2012 (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

See . MisawaSakura (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, it more accurately reflects the numbers people need to work within—or it does now I've tweaked it to take into account the "<space>(full article)"—so any newbies looking for instructions will know what parameters they need to work within. It's not a change I would have made, but it's something I can probably live with either way. - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I see your point, kind of, but now it conflicts with WP:TFAR which says "between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" MisawaSakura (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there and thank you for addressing my FAC comments. I also have a FAC running for the article above. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi CNF, Thanks for your comments - all most useful. I'll try to get to Despre tine soon: I have another review I've just started and need to get the TFAs sorted for January, but once that's done, I'll be round. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your work on my TP. :) Kvinnen (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Well deserved! Congrats! MisawaSakura (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this has been listed at pending for a TFA in February. I have tentatively reserved a date for it, but if you would still like it be considered you will need to nominate it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, which is now open. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Similarly St Scholastica Day riot. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Gog, Done! - SchroCat (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)