Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SchroCat (talk | contribs) at 09:16, 20 February 2015 (→What is this?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

London Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	River Thames (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames

It would be nice if someone could get hold of one of those Punch 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? Mammal4 22:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Another mention in media

The Great Stink of 1858 contributes to plot development in Jill Paton Walsh's Thrones, Dominations (1998). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.124.61 (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What is this?

@SchroCat: Do you have a history with Unbuttered Parsnip? I mean, what is this shit? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Shit other than yours. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 13:48, wikitime= 05:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

... and one is not even allowed to respond on this talk page --

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 WP:BRD and discuss your proposed changes here. - SchroCat (talk) 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 deletion of a superfluous word. Don't forget to run any changes by me before you dare to implement them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

PMSL! - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

For instance, this. 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. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies! I'll flag all changes for you prior to making them next time! - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Unbuttered parsnip, There are a few problems with your edit, which is why it was largely but only partially reverted:

1. 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 WP:OVERLINKING. Please note that the guideline states "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.
2. Hansard. Hansard is not an encyclopaedia. It is the official transcripts of Parliamentary debates in Britain. It is arranged chronologically, not by subject matter, and {{cite journal}} is the correct template to use while referencing it, not {{cite encyclopedia}}.
3. Inflation. "£₁₈₇₅ 6.5 million is equivalent to £₂₀₁₅ 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 WP:ACCESS requirements. The current form "£6.5 million in 1875 equates to approximately £535 million in 2015" has the benefit of being readable and understandable.
4. Dashes. There is nothing in the MoS against the use of the unspaced em dash (see MOS:EMDASH for explanation), so please do not change this for no reason
5. Uncivil and petty claims of WP:OWNERSHIP. 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. – SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Requests for peer review
• Start-Class London-related articles
• Mid-importance London-related articles