Revision as of 12:47, 12 February 2014 editSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,879 edits Archiving← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:15, 5 June 2015 edit undoEoRdE6 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,008 edits →Infobox: ahNext edit → | ||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
:::*Useful in repeating what can be found by shifting your eyes a little to the left? I've heard others say they find them hugely distracting, so it's really not possible to please all the people all the time. - ] (]) 12:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC) | :::*Useful in repeating what can be found by shifting your eyes a little to the left? I've heard others say they find them hugely distracting, so it's really not possible to please all the people all the time. - ] (]) 12:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::Is there a reason why we need to introduce an infobox? -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 12:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC) | :::Is there a reason why we need to introduce an infobox? -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 12:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
:Ah so I just restored the infobox without reading this... Silly me. But in reality we can argue all day long without accomplishing anything, so lets not. I personally think it adds to the article and helps keep a uniform style with Misplaced Pages. I also object to you using ''vandalism'' rollback to remove the infobox, ''without an edit summary''. Read ] for guidelines on using rollback please. ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 00:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:15, 5 June 2015
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Le Mesurier article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
John Le Mesurier is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 12, 2013. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Latest edit and its issues
Please note:
- Cites are not needed in a lead.
- Where is your source which gives the extension to his middle names?
- Please bear in mind when answering this point that his birth certificate, autobiography and main biography do not mention this name at all. - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Unexplained deletion of information such as "that also starred Richard Crenna, Anne Heywood and Fred Astaire" and "a romantic fantasy musical"
- Paragraphs should not start with pronouns.
- It is good practice to keep paragraphs to equal length to the next.
- "Colleague Bill Pertwee" sounds terrible and would be better as a definitive article.
- This is a featured article and it would be appreciated by all who worked on it for persons not to come along and pin ugly {{cn}} tags on it. If something is questionable (which it's not as they are not required for lede sections). Then you can ask on the talk page and it can be discussed. -- Cassianto 17:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Reply
a) Cites are needed in the lede when something is being disputed (such as birthname, birthdate, etc.)
- I provided TWO reflinks to show the full birthname (here and here); so why was my re-edited version (not a wholesale revert) deleted AGAIN?? Quis separabit? 18:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- You put a {{cn}} tag at the end of a para within the lede, that was my problem. Sure, you have a point about the name, however no one reliable source out ways the other and this should be discussed first. -- Cassianto 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- If that was your problem why not simple remove the {{cn}} ? Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Because there were several issues to revert, not just that one. - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- If that was your problem why not simple remove the {{cn}} ? Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- You put a {{cn}} tag at the end of a para within the lede, that was my problem. Sure, you have a point about the name, however no one reliable source out ways the other and this should be discussed first. -- Cassianto 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I provided TWO reflinks to show the full birthname (here and here); so why was my re-edited version (not a wholesale revert) deleted AGAIN?? Quis separabit? 18:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
b) "Colleague Bill Pertwee" sounds terrible and would be better as a definitive article."
- Sounds mighty subjective to me. But I didn't re-delete (yet), so we can discuss. Quis separabit? 18:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- The definite article is always better from a prose point of view. Also, "colleague" is less preferred over other terms. -- Cassianto 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I get it but it is still a subjective MOS disagreement, which I probably would have conceded had we discussed it.
- Nothing subjective about it: the lack of the definite article is fine in AmEng or journalese, not in quality prose. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well I am American so maybe this is a culture clash. The problem was the overuse of the surname "LeMesurier", which I tried to cut down on, including paragraph beginnings when the preceding and succeeding paragraphs already indicate who we are discussing (the subject of the article). Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's proper English to use the surname for each new paragraph. - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well I am American so maybe this is a culture clash. The problem was the overuse of the surname "LeMesurier", which I tried to cut down on, including paragraph beginnings when the preceding and succeeding paragraphs already indicate who we are discussing (the subject of the article). Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- The definite article is always better from a prose point of view. Also, "colleague" is less preferred over other terms. -- Cassianto 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds mighty subjective to me. But I didn't re-delete (yet), so we can discuss. Quis separabit? 18:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
c) "Unexplained deletion of information such as 'that also starred Richard Crenna, Anne Heywood and Fred Astaire'" and "'a romantic fantasy musical'"
- That is because this is unnecessary; anyone who wants to know more about the movie can just hit on the wikilink and learn what the movie is about, who was in it, etc. Again, I didn't re-delete that (yet), so we can discuss. Quis separabit? 18:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Why force readers off our articles to find out information that can easily be given in the first place? This is harmless and, IMO necessary as it shows the kind of actors who JLM was appearing with at that time in his career. -- Cassianto 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Again, re " readers off our articles to find out information that can easily be given in the first place", I just think it's a space wasting, often intentional name dropping, and therefore unnecessary. I may be wrong here but removing trivial text to make an article clearer and easier to get through seems preferable. Again, this would seem to be an editorial disagreement, not changes to the text or the meaning of the text. Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's an editorial dispute, but the status quo remains unless there is justification for changing: there is no justification here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Again, re " readers off our articles to find out information that can easily be given in the first place", I just think it's a space wasting, often intentional name dropping, and therefore unnecessary. I may be wrong here but removing trivial text to make an article clearer and easier to get through seems preferable. Again, this would seem to be an editorial disagreement, not changes to the text or the meaning of the text. Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Why force readers off our articles to find out information that can easily be given in the first place? This is harmless and, IMO necessary as it shows the kind of actors who JLM was appearing with at that time in his career. -- Cassianto 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- That is because this is unnecessary; anyone who wants to know more about the movie can just hit on the wikilink and learn what the movie is about, who was in it, etc. Again, I didn't re-delete that (yet), so we can discuss. Quis separabit? 18:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
d) I hope SchroCat's wholly unjustified last deletion does not cause me to be seen as violating WP:3RR. Quis separabit? 18:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I hope you drink from the same cup then in that case and adopt your own advice. SchroCat had a reason to revert as you were seemingly ignoring your own advice to go to the talk page in the first place. -- Cassianto 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Again, as you made the wholesale revert, initiating this chain of events, then IMO you should have gone first to the talk page to explain this action, not leave a meaningless edit summary. Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I hope you drink from the same cup then in that case and adopt your own advice. SchroCat had a reason to revert as you were seemingly ignoring your own advice to go to the talk page in the first place. -- Cassianto 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing unjustified about it at all. Your edit introduced errors and degraded the quality of the article. The revert was entirely justified on those grounds, let alone the fact you decided to ignore WP:BRD and try and force your version on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Unjustified. I did what all editors do from time to time, i.e. be BOLD. What errors???? I see MOS disagreements. Did you even check the links I added regarding the full name of birth? I bet not. Quis separabit? 18:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Entirely justified - and your second set of edits were not bold, they were edit warring, as you should have come to the talk page following Cassianto's rv of yesterday. Regarding the name, see my comment above, where the main biography, autobiography and birth certificate itself all trump whatever dubious sites you want to try and look at. - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Unjustified. I did what all editors do from time to time, i.e. be BOLD. What errors???? I see MOS disagreements. Did you even check the links I added regarding the full name of birth? I bet not. Quis separabit? 18:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Did you even check the links I added regarding the full name of birth? I bet not." -- so I was right about that. Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I did check, but as I know the superior sources poo-poo the extra name, it was a pointless move on my part, especially as neither of the sources are in any way, shape or form WP:RELIABLE. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Did you even check the links I added regarding the full name of birth? I bet not." -- so I was right about that. Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have no problems taking things to the talk page but as Cassianto made then wholesale revert, initiating this chain of events, then IMO heshould have gone first to the talk page to explain his actions. As far as "your second set of edits were not bold, they were edit warring...", I am not sure what you're referring to. The response to Cassianto was to revert his unexplained wholesale revert when SchroCat stepped in. The third time, I tried to address both your concerns, only updating certain parts and providing what I believe are valid reflinks, whcih you didn't even bother to check. Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think you need to look at WP:BRD: you made a Bold edit, which was Reverted: you should have Discussed, not re-reverted, or expected others to go to talk. I'll also add that, as I've clarified above, yes, I did check the source, but neither were reliable. - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The Pink Panther (1963 film)
The original Blake Edwards film, The Pink Panther, premiered in West Germany on 19 December 1963, Finland on 20 December 1963, and Sweden on 26 December 1963. Accordingly, references to the film in this article have been updated to reflect that. Please refer to the discussion at Talk:The Pink Panther (1963_film)#Release year. — Quicksilver 23:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Infobox
Is there any reason why we cannot introduce an infobox? GiantSnowman 12:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why bother? There's no pressing need, and it's not overly helpful, given the fullness of the lead. There is no requirement to have one, and the consensus was not to include one here. SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I just find them extremely useful. GiantSnowman 12:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Useful in repeating what can be found by shifting your eyes a little to the left? I've heard others say they find them hugely distracting, so it's really not possible to please all the people all the time. - SchroCat (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why we need to introduce an infobox? -- Cassianto 12:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I just find them extremely useful. GiantSnowman 12:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah so I just restored the infobox without reading this... Silly me. But in reality we can argue all day long without accomplishing anything, so lets not. I personally think it adds to the article and helps keep a uniform style with Misplaced Pages. I also object to you using vandalism rollback to remove the infobox, without an edit summary. Read WP:ROLLBACK for guidelines on using rollback please. EoRdE6 00:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Actors and filmmakers work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- FA-Class Comedy articles
- Low-importance Comedy articles
- WikiProject Comedy articles
- FA-Class England-related articles
- Low-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- FA-Class television articles
- Low-importance television articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- FA-Class Kent-related articles
- Low-importance Kent-related articles