| Revision as of 09:16, 20 February 2015 editSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,907 edits →What is this?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:50, 10 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,081 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (84 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Peer review|archive=1}} |
|
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
| ⚫ |
{{WPLondon|class=start|importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
{{WPThames|class=start|importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
It would be nice if someone could get hold of one of those ] cartoons from the period to illustrate this article - I've seen a few in the past that would do the job - does anyone know how one could get hold of one, and what the copywrite status would be? ] 22:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action1date=2015-03-12 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Great Stink/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=promoted |
|
|
|action1oldid=650302838 |
|
|
|maindate=23 June 2015 |
|
|
|action2=PR |
|
|
|action2date=15:41:42 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Great Stink/archive1 |
|
|
|action2result=reviewed |
|
|
|action2oldid=941456800 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA| |
|
|
{{WikiProject London|importance = Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject River Thames}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Environment |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management |importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Ecology |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Great Stink/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press | author = Isha Bassi| subject = article | title = 24 Weird AF Misplaced Pages Pages That'll Make You Say, "Wait, This Actually Exists?!" | rg = ] | url = https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishabassi/weird-wikipedia-pages | date = 27 March 2018 | accessdate = 27 March 2018 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Another mention in media == |
|
== Grammar improvement == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"solutions for the problem" should be "solutions to the problem". Page isn't editable at present. ] (]) 18:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
The Great Stink of 1858 contributes to plot development in Jill Paton Walsh's ''Thrones, Dominations'' (1998). <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
:Hi IP, both are correct. ] (]) 19:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Embanking up Future Problems? == |
|
==What is this?== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In "February 1864 Bazalgetsectionsn building three embankments along the shores of the Thames". ..."He ran the sewers along the banks of the Thames, building up walls on the foreshore, running the sewer pipes inside and infilling around them. The works claimed over 52 acres (21 ha) of land from the Thames". |
|
{{ping|SchroCat}} Do you have a history with Unbuttered Parsnip? I mean, ] ] 05:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, all well and good - or is it? For what is not mentioned is that - by narrowing and confining the Thames - the river is now far more at risk of flooding. Given this, is it possible to mention something about the risk of flooding caused by the 'improvements' to The Embarkment/s? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
Shit other than yours. -- ] (]) mytime= Fri 13:48, wikitime= 05:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
⚫ |
:No. Or not here, at least. Maybe on the page for the Embankment. - ] (]) 14:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Down/upriver== |
|
... and one is not even allowed to respond on this talk page -- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"discharged their sewage half a mile (800 m) downstream from their reservoir: the sewage was being carried upstream into the reservoir on the incoming tide" should read instead "downriver" and "upriver". The sewage could be carried upstream but upriver by the incoming tidal stream. ] (]) 09:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
:CT. not that I know of, and was as bemused as you by the edit and the non-standard results we ended up with. |
|
|
:UP, please do not edit war to your preferred version. Please see ] and discuss your proposed changes here. - ] (]) 06:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Well, I'm proud to be the new co-OWNer of an article to which my sole contribution is the Don't forget to run any changes by me before you dare to implement them. ] ] 07:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::PMSL! - ] (]) 07:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: For instance, Only a pigfucking moron doesn't understand the difference between a "constrution" and a "construction". Revert now, and seek my permission next time before you blemish this article further. ] ] 07:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
| ⚫ |
::::My apologies! I'll flag all changes for you prior to making them next time! - ] (]) 09:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
:Amendments made. ] (]) 10:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
Unbuttered parsnip, There are a few problems with your edit, which is why it was largely but only partially reverted: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Ageing== |
|
# '''Deleting links'''. You have removed links to items at their first mention in the body of the article, leaving only the link in the lead, claiming ]. Please note that the guideline states {{tq|"Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated ... at the first occurrence after the lead"}}. The "lead + first use" is common across the majority of articles, I think, and the use here is well within that guideline. |
|
|
|
{{u|SlyGuyFox}}, can you please stop edit warring and discuss your changes please. As a start, I will point out again that “ageing” is the correct spelling in British English (the variant in which this article is written). - ] (]) 07:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
# '''''Hansard'''''. '']'' is '''not''' an encyclopaedia. It is the official transcripts of Parliamentary debates in Britain. It is arranged chronologically, not by subject matter, and {{tl|cite journal}} is the correct template to use while referencing it, not {{tl|cite encyclopedia}}. |
|
|
# '''Inflation'''. "'''£'''<sub>1875</sub> 6.5 million is equivalent to '''£'''<sub>2015</sub> 530 million" is non-standard formatting and I have to agree with Curly Turkey that the effect is "horrible". It is also confusing for people who have not seen it before, and the small text fails our ] requirements. The current form "£6.5 million in 1875 equates to approximately £535 million in 2015" has the benefit of being readable and understandable. |
|
|
# '''Dashes'''. There is nothing in the MoS against the use of the unspaced em dash (see ] for explanation), so please do not change this for no reason |
|
|
# '''Uncivil and petty claims of ]'''. There is no ownership here: your edits were reverted because of the reasons above, not because anyone claims ownership (and certainly not Curly Turkey who made only one edit to the article prior to deleting yours). |
|
|
|
|
|
If you wish to discuss this further I am happy to do so, but not if you are just trying to force your preferred version onto the article, regardless of the guidelines provided by the MoS. – ] (]) 09:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
In "February 1864 Bazalgetsectionsn building three embankments along the shores of the Thames". ..."He ran the sewers along the banks of the Thames, building up walls on the foreshore, running the sewer pipes inside and infilling around them. The works claimed over 52 acres (21 ha) of land from the Thames".
So, all well and good - or is it? For what is not mentioned is that - by narrowing and confining the Thames - the river is now far more at risk of flooding. Given this, is it possible to mention something about the risk of flooding caused by the 'improvements' to The Embarkment/s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.163 (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
"discharged their sewage half a mile (800 m) downstream from their reservoir: the sewage was being carried upstream into the reservoir on the incoming tide" should read instead "downriver" and "upriver". The sewage could be carried upstream but upriver by the incoming tidal stream. 217.41.2.97 (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
