User talk:SchroCat
Add topic
"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" Jean Cocteau
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics:
|
A question of sources and differing information
[edit]Hello my friend, Working on fleshing out the article for Stephen Richards, I have been using a combination of newspaper articles and book references. From that, I have noticed the tendency in news outlets to get some of the facts wrong while some get them correct. I am not sure if i should remove the incorrect ones or use that as information on the media frenzy on Richards and his horrific murders. I am also trying to find the best way to cite newspaper articles with no author (a common practice at the time) and whether the current one i have is good enough to pass muster for FA in the future or another one is needed. Just want to hear your thoughts on the matter due to your impeccable FA on the London Monster. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Jack, Good to hear from you, and I hope you're keeping well. What I normally do with these is keep the correct info in prime position in the text, but add a reference to the incorrect version in a footnote (See Note A here, here and here or Note H, here.) As long as you have a superior source (or a strong weight of sources) or, best of all, a source that proves the others are all wrong, (as Note A does here), then it should be okay. I always add them as there is a possibility that someone sees one of the wrong facts and tries to change the article to the incorrect version. At least this way stops these editors, makes them think and hopefully use the talk page to discuss the 'correct' one. Hope this all helps! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
- It helps a lot, thanks. Newspaper articles are always tricky when citing in sfn format, which is my style. however, I am not sure "article title". newspaper name|date|page number(s) looks good. I might be wrong about that. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
- I've never really bothered about how the sfn output looks - it's the default way it's supposed to be, so I've never sweated it, as long as the right information is there and it's clear what it's supposed to be directing people to, that's all that really counts, I think - well, to me at least. I have had one other person say the same thing about the aesthetics of anonymously written newspaper details before, so you're not alone (although that person did say it about ten or twelve years ago!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
- Your imput is always appreciated. Would love to see you return one day to the world of historical crime. May your current endeavors be as fruitful as they always have been. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks Jack. I’m still low on motivation to do anything, but that could change at some point, I guess. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
- Your imput is always appreciated. Would love to see you return one day to the world of historical crime. May your current endeavors be as fruitful as they always have been. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
- I've never really bothered about how the sfn output looks - it's the default way it's supposed to be, so I've never sweated it, as long as the right information is there and it's clear what it's supposed to be directing people to, that's all that really counts, I think - well, to me at least. I have had one other person say the same thing about the aesthetics of anonymously written newspaper details before, so you're not alone (although that person did say it about ten or twelve years ago!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
- It helps a lot, thanks. Newspaper articles are always tricky when citing in sfn format, which is my style. however, I am not sure "article title". newspaper name|date|page number(s) looks good. I might be wrong about that. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
Women in Red
[edit]Hi there, SchroCat, and a hearty welcome to Women in Red. With all your experience, it's great to see you are ready to collaborate, especially as you have recently written a number of interesting women's biographies. By coincidence, yesterday Irène Joliot-Curie was promoted to GA. I was wondering whether you think it has a chance of reaching FA and if so how it needs to be further improved. You are of course welcome to work on it yourself. If you have time, you could also look through our essays, especially our Ten Simple Rules and our Primer. You might be able to improve them. In any case, I now look forward to more women's bios. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks Ian. I’ve sort of shadowed WiR for a while and have had the ONDB ‘missing articles’ page on my watchlist for some years (I’ve found it invaluable from time to time when I’ve picked off a name and started a new article). But I thought it time to nail my colours to the mast a little more firmly — and to start getting the newsletter too. I’ll certainly have a look at the pages you mention. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2026 (UTC)