Jump to content

Talk:Fanny Cradock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Memory

[edit]

I removed the phrase that said that Cradock "seemed to be having problems with her memory" when she listed her age on her last marriage certificate as 55 instead of 68. The cited source (http://www.scotsman.com/news/fanny-cradock-1-1139496) doesn't make such a claim. Another explanation could have been that Cradock was simply trying to make herself seem younger than her actual age, as many people (both celebrities and not) have been known to do. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph dates

[edit]

< a column under the pen name of "Bon Viveur"[13] which appeared in The Daily Telegraph from 1950 to 1955 >

but the column was still going strong in the 'seventies; it made frequent references to Chateau Belair 1970!

When did the column finish?

86.148.153.255 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Works of Fanny Cradock

[edit]

As people can see, I've split off the various works of Cradock (all books, television appearances etc) and hived them off to a new and separate article. This means that this article can be better developed to cover her life in prose form, without the long lists that break up the texts in several places. I'll be re-working much of the article over the coming few weeks to ensure it actually covers all aspects of her life, rather than focusing on a narrow area. - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tal1962. Can you explain why you keep putting in the information that is now all at another page - Works of Fanny Cradock? There is no point in having it in two places, particularly when this is incorrect, incomplete, poorly formatted, and unsupported by reliable sources. If you don't wish to discuss, but just keep reverting, or if you keep referring to this as "vandalism", I'm happy to open an RfC for wider community input. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the placement of her television appearances

[edit]

Is it preferable to have a long list of every programme Cradock appeared in (as it appears in this version, or even this version), or is it preferable to have the information separated into Works of Fanny Cradock, along with all her other professional work? – SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove lists and keep them on the Works page As it stands (with this version), readers are left to wade through too much pointless listy dross. it's badly done, poorly sourced, awfully formatted and leaves the reader completely bemused as to what "Score with the Scaffold (28 August 1970)" actually is (much less to they care). I have taken all this out and put it all into Works of Fanny Cradock (properly referenced and formatted), and hoped that would leave the article clear to be re-written with the reader in mind. I have been reverted in my changes, with the steps being referred to as "vandalism" (on several occasions). I have asked the editor concerned, Tal1962 to actually look at what was done, and to comment on the talk page, but further accusations of "vandalism" have made, with no effort to discuss on this page. I am now opening this up to a wider RfC for community comment. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove lists to their own page. This would be compliant with WP:SS and remove an eye-glazingly long list from the text of the main article. As well as respecting WP guidelines like WP:SS we also ought to consider our readers and not just dump a ton of unsorted information, much of it trivial: is a reader likely to be interested in the fact that Cradock once appeared on Larry Grayson's Generation Game or Juke Box Jury? If any one is, he or she can go to the sub-article: if it turns out to get a massive number of hits we might reconsider, but that's for the future. For now, let's be rid of this huge list from the biographical article. Tim riley talk 14:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Claim

[edit]

I notice the claim that she popularised the Pizza in the UK following her book Common Market Cookery: France in 1973. I am a little worried about that claim since Pizza Express opened in 1965 and the mass market Pizzaland opened in 1970. Indeed, the first Pizza restaurants opened in the 30s. Also, I am trying to find her actual recipe. If anyone has the book I would be interested to see it. But I suspect it might be for Pissaladière, which is made with a high-fat pastry rather than a bread dough. Joss (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

Neilinabbey, You may prefer to use a comma after a date as a personal preference, but that is all it is: a personal preference, rather than a requirement. Fowler makes no recommendation to use them and Orwell and other writers omit them. There's no point in trying to edit war over your personal preference, so please don't do it again. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irony? You've reverted four different editors on these commas since 21 December. Are you not the one edit warring a "personal preference"? DeCausa (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RETAIN. Just because people are wrong to think it a requirement, when it certainly isn't, that's something they can work on. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If something is unnecessary, I'm not sure how the number of editors reverted, or even the number of instances reverted, is relevant. I raised the issue, some time ago, at this thread. I also believe that a comma is not required after a two-term phrase, like "In 1976". I also think this usage is more common in American English, although I don't see it mentioned at WP:ENGVAR. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that DeCausa is not well acquainted with the King's English. I suggest that s/he should consult the current edition of Plain Words, p. 249, from which in this context: Some writers put a comma here as a matter of course. But others do it only if a comma is needed to emphasise a contrast or to prevent the reader from going off on the wrong scent, as in: A few days after, the Minister of Labour promised that a dossier of the strike would be published/Two miles on, the road is worse. On the principle that stops should not be used unless they are needed, this discrimination is to be commended. Unless one swallows the superstition pedlled by dim American beaks it's wise to heed Gowers (and also Fowler in all four editions). Tim riley talk 18:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wholly agree. A comma may be used after an introductory clause, of whatever length, in order to avoid ambiguity or misunderstanding. But in many other cases it is just superfluous clutter. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're both confusing me with someone else. Where in my post do I argue for the commas? I pointed out the irony of someone complaining about someone else edit warring over a personal preference when they had done exactly that. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where in my post do I say that you argue for the commas? I'm disputing that the use of commas is necessarily just "personal preference". I haven't gone back to check whether SchroCat's edits were just single reverts per WP:BRD, or were real "warring". But I guess you have. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Maybe not in your post, but your edit summary from 21:57, 21 December 2024 reads “It's a time phrase preceding an independent clause: standard grammar is to include a comma”. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good. It appears that there is now no longer any obstruction to the BrE text as it stands. Tim riley talk 20:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God a grammar absolutist that doesn't realise that it's an artificial and liquid construct. And SchroCat, I had asssume that Tim riley hadn't dug through my edit summaries to discover my true purpose. Now I am unmasked. DeCausa (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have that in English? Quite apart from the poor grammar I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. I just hope, to reiterate, that there is now no opposition to the text as it stands. Tim riley talk 21:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zut alors, mon Dieu, un absolutiste en grammaire qui ne réalise pas que c'est une construction artificielle et liquide. Et SchroCat, j'avais supposé que Tim riley n'avait pas fouillé mes résumés d'édition pour découvrir mon véritable objectif. Maintenant, je suis démasqué. DeCausa (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, well said, mon brave. Wiki grammar, don'tcha just love it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Laudate hominem qui veritates aeternas intelligit. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah dude, whatevs. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who doesn't, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hoc modo sûrement un ανόητος – See Pygmalion, Act 3: "He can learn a language in a fortnight – knows dozens of them. A sure mark of a fool." – Tim riley talk 22:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Oooh, worra bitch!" -- see The Rovers Return, Episode 2479, (mid 1980s)... Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: In British English there are times when a comma after a date helps avoid ambiguity such as "In January 2004, 29 British soldiers were wounded in Iraq."
I've noticed that various articles on BBC News Online have included commas after dates, but that might be because BBC News Online is for an international readership, not just a British readership. In American English the comma is commonly used, such as "On January 20, 2024, "
My understanding of the issue in British English is that a comma may be used after a date, but it's not essential either. In other words, a comma after a date is generally not regarded as "incorrect English" or "poor English". Although the commas are not necessarily required in British English, I think they may still be used.
Commas after dates have become so widespread that as Martinevans123 said on a different thread in 2022, the task of removing all the commas viewed as unnecessary is too daunting. For many American or Canadian editors they might view the commas as being the correct grammar to use. Commas after dates are in many thousands of Wikipedia articles in British English. Personally I accept them and don't remove them, but if some editors feel they should be removed then I respect their views as well. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the words in green, above, for authoritative guidance. Tim riley talk 08:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fanny_Cradock&oldid=1267261925"