Talk:Great Stink/Archive 1

Archive 1

Punch

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 and goes against WP:FONTSIZE. 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)

1 That's your preference, and it is certainly not at all true.

2 {{cite journal}} doesn't adequately provide the range of parameters that {{cite encyclopedia}} does, nor in fact does {{citation}}. {{cite Hansard}} is totally inadequate for purpose, as is {{UKhansard}}. Ultimately all cites pass through CS1 or CS2 modules, regardless of their construction method.

3 That is a failing of subscripting within a footnote. The point is the footnote is not dependent on having to change it each year, it has that built in so it doesn't get out of date. Look for instance at Frederick and Pennsylvania Line Railroad Company.

4 Obviously you did not look closely at my latest change, which uses em-dash even though I think they are very ugly.

5 If you revert an edit willy-nilly, without any comment, then that to me smells of fish.

-- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 00:09, wikitime= 16:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Last one first: they were commented on the first couple of times, so don't try and pretend otherwise. You edit warred with two editors to force something on your own way, without bothering with the talk page: that smells of more than just fish to me: it smells of the ordure in the article.

1. You need to look at other quality articles (Pick a couple of FAs and see how the linking works: this article follows their common practice.

2. Cite encyclopaedia is wrong and you are wrong to push it. Either way, they output as it stands is correct, so no readers are confused by the results on the page, which is key..

3. No: such small sized font is bloody awful pretty much anywhere in an article, and the format you provided is poor. If that is in place when this article goes to FAC, it'll be ripped out by any editor who knows right from wrong

4 I don't care if you find them ugly: your personal preference has no bearing. Suffice to say, your last edit did remove some. It also introduced other factual and punctuation errors, removed citations and reverted a stack of changes that had been made in the interim. How on earth is that constructive?

End result: your last edit was partially reverted, as was your first. When you breach the MoS guidelines, don't get uppity when someone else reverts and points it out to you. Use the talk page properly next time, and try and keep a civil tongue on you, rather than throw childish ownership claims at people because you don't quite grasp what our are doing. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, all. Regarding the numbered items above: (1) I agree with SchroCat that it is customary and, among the better editors at Wikipedia, universally preferred, that articles repeat links at their first instance below the fold, as well as in the WP:LEAD. As SchroCat says, if you look at some Featured Articles, you will see that this custom is followed in our best articles. (2) I think the cite templates are limiting and unhelpful, but if one must use them, then obviously you should not use the one for encyclopedias if you are not citing an encyclopedia. (3) I agree that the money inflator method that SchroCat is the common one used in FAs here. I don't find Parsnip's argument about this very persuasive. (4) It is very clear in the MOS that one may use either spaced ndashes or unspaced mdashes. I prefer the former, but it is just disruptive to change from one option to another in an existing article where it is already consistent the other way. And then to simply revert changes without carefully preserving the interim edits is also disruptive editing. (5) Clearly neither Turkey's nor SchroCat's revert were "willy-nilly". Schro is actively editing this article and has opened a Peer Review – obviously he/she is very carefully considering every edit made to this article, and as you can see above, Turkey had a clear rationale for reverting the he articulated in the edit summary. So instead of insisting on one's own editorial preferences, if you suggest some edits and they are rejected, then you should either go to the Talk page and try to persuade others to form a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of your view, or go to the Peer Review and comment. See WP:BRD and WP:WAR. I looked at Parsnip's edits, and except for the ones that SchroCat retained, I did not see any that I thought made an improvement to the article. I suggest that Parsnip review the MOS and also be less eager to change styles, in mature articles that are being actively edited, without any prior discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Small tweak to the lead

I made a ... well, what it says. I'm in the middle of an experiment (no problems so far) of making sure that everything in TFA text is reflected in the lead ... if not, then I tweak one or the other. The TFA for this one is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 23, 2015. Feel free to revert or change what I did, I can always tweak the TFA text instead. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I don't see the difference between the lead and the TFL text, but if something needs to be tweaked, it's the TFL text. Happy for you to tweak that text and I'll drop any comments on its talk page. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Redundant words in lead

SchroChat, I'd appreciate it if you'd be honest enough to simply revert my changes so I get an alert, instead of stealthily reverting them with misleading edit summaries like "tweak"... ;P

Once again I don't understand why you think the extra words are necessary. For example, why is "his actions mean he probably saved more lives than any other Victorian official" better than "His actions probably saved more lives than any other Victorian official"? What is the difference other than extra words? I won't touch the article again, but I urge you and other editors to take another look and ask yourself if the extra words are really helping the reader.

My changes aren't major and the article's obviously in good shape, so nice work. Popcornduff (talk)

Don't try and suggest I've done something underhand - it'll only ever piss me off. Some people complain that reverting is rude, others whine about the way I've done it here, and there is nothing misleading about "twk": that's all it was, to ensure a smoother prose reading. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: The idea of the extra words is that Bazalgette was a Victorian official who can be compared to other officials, and his actions are a separate entity who can't. The sentence is understandable either way, but a FA has to worry about sophisticated details like parallelism (grammar). So, either "his actions mean he was cooler than the other officials" or "his actions were more awesome than the actions of the other officials."FourViolas (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - you're absolutely right. I hadn't caught that. Bad editing.

Uh... so how about the other edits? "Some years" rather than "years"? "People's fears" rather than just "fears"? etc. Popcornduff (talk)

You have a point, Popcornduff. "Twk for better read" is a disingenuous way of saying "reverted the entirety of the previous edit"; it would be more honest and less OWNy to say "rv for smoother reading". Not a big deal, just a Wikiquette suggestion for the future. FWIW I support several of Popcornduff's changes on the grounds of omitting needless words, even though Strunk & White isn't the WP:MOS. FourViolas (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't be so bloody obnoxious as to accuse me of OWN. - SchroCat (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I certainly don't want to add noxiousness to a page which is already so Stinky. Still, it wasn't exactly welcoming to reinstate your version without acknowledging or discussing the suggested changes. WP:OWN says that potentially meritorious edits shouldn't be "ignored or immediately disregarded", even on a TFA. PD promising "I won't touch the article again" ought to be a red flag to you to be gentler in the future.

I understand you've worked harder on this than I've worked on anything on WP, and it's hard to suddenly show off your work to a bunch of quibblers. But please be sure to treat other users with respect and kindness. Describing polite constructive criticism (PD's edit, my Wikiquette suggestion) as "whining" and "bloody obnoxious" is not the spirit of WP:5P4. FourViolas (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Idiotic knee-jerk accusations of ownership are bloody obnoxious - and insulting, and a long way from the spirit you try and claim. Wind your neck in, don't accuse others of ownership when there is nothing of the sortgoing on and take a bloody good read of WP:AGF before you start insulting the approach of other editors again. Try actually reading WP:OWN rather than using it as a weapon: "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack". As to "a red flag": Popcornduff is, very rightly and properly, engaging in BRD rather than edit warring, so there is no red flag there at all - just the sign of a good editor going about things in the right manner. - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

+1. Stop linking to policies that Schrocat is undoubtedly already aware of and actually engage with him. You complain about being insulted, yet you're the one baiting him (incidentally or not).Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest, SchroCat - laugh this off if you like - but you've cowed me. I won't touch the article again simply because I know it's crazy to get into an argument with you in particular, and if I'd known you were a major contributor to it, I probably would have stayed away in the first place. But credit is due - the article really is good. Just a few unnecessary words, that's all... Popcornduff (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not getting into an argument with you, and it wasn't my intention to cow you, but you opened your thread questioning my honesty: how is that ever going to spell the start of something constructive? (and that's after I assumed the mis-spelling of my name was a genuine mistake!) - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If I wanted to insult you, I'd do better than "SchroChat". Popcornduff (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I know - which is why I assumed (and still do) that it was a genuine error - unlike questioning my honesty, which wasn't. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Two senior editors whom I respect are criticizing me, and all I'm doing is trying to respectfully agree that a certain edit summary would have been more courteous if it had acknowledged it was a reversion.

• SchroCat, what did I say that insulted you? "Not exactly welcoming", "could be gentler"? If directly quoting a specifically relevant sentence from a policy page, and linking to it so you can see the quote is fair and in context just in case you don't have the entire page memorized verbatim, is being perceived as a "weaponization" or personal attack, can you tell me how I am supposed to offer behavioral observations when I think I see a problem which needs to be brought to your attention? Also, I have read OWN, and I'm not trying to use it as a weapon, because I'm not trying to hurt you, because as I'm sure you remember I'm not an angry mammoth.
• Ed17, I'm doing my best to engage here. I certainly have no intention to "bait" anyone; I don't have a trap to lure them into, and I don't enjoy being told to respool my neck. I haven't complained of being personally insulted, although even after rereading AGF I have a hard time imagining the constructive value of calling a concern "idiotic" or "bloody obnoxious" instead of addressing it. Can you suggest some yet more courteous way to suggest that "tweaking" another's edit into oblivion is mildly disrespectful, or should I accept that it's not useful or appropriate for me to try to deliver that message?

Maybe I'm missing some history, maybe valuable editors like you have had the book thrown at them in the past for acknowledging they might have done something slightly unwelcoming once and promising to do better in future. Whatever's going on here, I hope SchroCat can find enough humility and AGF someday to reread this discussion and take my and PD's words as sincere, respectful suggestions rather than whining, obnoxious idiocy. Thanks again for the great article. FourViolas (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I have quite clearly pointed this out, (and it's a little disingenuous to quote the non-relevant parts of your post whle claiming ignorance): you accused me of ownership of this article when there is none. I have even gone so far as to quote the relevant secion of the guidelines of WP:OWN ("Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack". I suggest you take that on board before you needlessly and incorrectly accuse people of such a thing again. When two people turn up to accuse me of dishonesty and then of ownership when I there is none, then I, like most people, are always going to end up being slightly bloody testy in my responses. I did not think the original edit was in the best interets of the article. That's why it went back to the version that a number of people at PR and FAC thought was passable. If I was trying to OWN this, I would have reverted all the edits that were made: I did not, and those edits that improved the article remain in place. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this is all because I said it was "OWNy" to call a "rv" a "twk"? In that case I sincerely apologize, because I truly didn't mean to imply there was any kind of systematic ownership issue. I still think that, as the actual policy says, "immediately disregarding" someone's good-faith efforts looks possessive as an isolated action, but as long as it's not representative of your typical interactions I'm happy to activate my neck winch and drop the issue, along with PopcornDuff's minor stylistic proposals.
If in future you can slow down and verify that you're being accused or attacked before responding as if you are, you might economize on expletives and testosterone. Perhaps WP:AAGF is worth a reread. In any case, I'm very sorry to have upset you, and I look forward to seeing more of your excellent articles on the main page. FourViolas (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

How bad the smell

I see an editor keeps changing "bad" to "horrendous". The latter is a flabby word. It is true that it is recorded in the OED as occasionally used from 1661, but "bad" is a strong word and "horrendous" is not. Let us stick to Plain Words. Tim riley talk 21:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed proposed move

This is a great article, many thanks to all the authors and especially SchroCat for a great read. However, when I got to the end and scrolled back up I was surprised to reread the title. The article is about the events surrounding the initial construction of the modern London sewer system, of which the Great Stink was only the catchiest and the last straw. Without opening a formal move discussion, does anyone want to kick around alternative titles, convince me that "Great Stink" is a fair description of the article, or consider spinning the article into "Great Stink" and "History of London sewer construction"? FourViolas (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is about the stink and its ramifications, (ie the sewer construction), the common name for the event is Great Stink, and the histories deal with the event in the same way we do here. – SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the two are inextricably linked and it would make no sense to separate them.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, having actually bothered to look through the sources as I should have before bugging you, it seems standard to consider the Great Stink and its Epic Defeat at the hands of Modern Ingenuity to be one unified event and to refer to them as the Great Stink for short. It would still be nice to find a way to ease the dissonance between the assertion that "the Great Stink was an event in central London in July and August 1858" and an article with detailed treatment of events which culminated in 1875. FourViolas (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No, because the Great Stink was the three week event; its aftermath and ramifications were just that. It's not unusual to name articles in such a way as it reflects the correct historiographical approach and, in this case, the common name. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that John Snow (yes, that was his name) should also be mentioned. He connected the dots, linked poor sanitation to outbreaks of cholera, fought the miasma theory (miasma is mentioned in the article) and convinced medical and other authorities that much better sanitation was a top priority. He is as much a hero as the builder/designer of the sewage system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.167.123.37 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Stink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Dus2kPHo?url=http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/listing/listed-buildings/ to http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/listing/listed-buildings/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Ministries

The ‎Local government section is incorrect in reference to the Palmerston and Derby ministries. The first Derby ministry lasted from February 1852 to the July general election, the second Derby ministry followed thereafter and remained the government till December the same year. The third Derby ministry assumed office in February 1858. With respect to Pam, the first Palmerston ministry lasted from 1855 to the 1857 general election; his second ministry was formed following the election and endured for another year. In British parliamentary politics, ministries are either renewed or replaced following an election, regardless of whether the leader is the same. This might be rather confusing, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.--Nevé–selbert 22:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Neve-selbert, thank you for the explanation, and I have edited accordingly. Although what was there reflects the source I was using, it is obvious that they looked at the overall dates, rather than taking into account the election breaks. (The only thing I will say is that if you had posted the explanation a little earlier, per WP:BRD, then we could have ended up at the right place without an extra circle of reversions; still, all is now as it should be and no harm done, I hope). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Great Stink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/listing/listed-buildings/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218004321/http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-london/sir-joseph-bazalgette-and-londons-sewers to http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-london/sir-joseph-bazalgette-and-londons-sewers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213114830/http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/archives-highlights/archives-parliament-and-the-thames/ to http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/archives-highlights/archives-parliament-and-the-thames/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Page preview vandalism?

The page preview for this page appears to have been vandalized, when you hover over links to this page, the following text appears The Great Stink was an event in the Lounge, NUSU in September 2019 during which something crawled up Hannah Finney's arse and died. Not having much experience with editing Wikipedia, I don't know how to edit the page preview or I would fix this myself so would somebody who does know please fix this? 146.113.104.24 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This was reverted less than a minute after it was made yesterday. - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I am still seeing the vandalized version of the page preview when I go to other articles, such as the one on the River Thames, and hover over the link to the article on the Great Stink to see the page preview. How long does it take for changes like these to go into effect? 146.113.104.24 (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. I've mentioned it on the technical noticeboard. Thanks for pointing it out. I've made a null edit which appears to have sorted the problem here, but the problem will be looked at for the future. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)