User talk:MichaelMaggs

This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any sections older than 120 days are automatically archived.

Subscriptions are at User talk:MichaelMaggs/Subscriptions

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

British English edits

Hi. Not sure if this was a script failure, but your edit to The Gentleman's Magazine this morning updated the datestamp of the British English template to March 2026 without changing any spellings, when there were (at least according to the dictionary that User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB uses) a couple of words that should have been changed. Belbury (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't using that script or checking spellings, I was just replacing the deprecated EngvarB template. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. Should you be changing the date when doing that? I thought the date field was meant to track when the article was last checked for spelling - that if it's a decade ago, it probably needs another sweep by now. Belbury (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Over the last couple of days I've just been updating the date to reflect the date of change to the Use British English template, but having just re-read the template instructions it seems you're right and that a date change really calls for a full spelling review at the same time. I'll have a look at the User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB tool and see what I can do. Unfortunately, the talk page suggests there's a long-standing bug which (sometimes?) ignores WP:ORDER and puts the English variant template right at the top of the page, above Short description . That's definitely to be avoided. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Character lists on novel pages

Thanks for the correction to my edit to Murder Must Advertise and for not reversing (at present anyway) my deletion of the character list. I've been wondering whether it might be worth discussing inclusion or deletion of such lists as a matter of policy on a talk page somewhere. Personally, I think there might be more useful approaches that might be applicable to MOS:Novels. Would you be up for that? Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for commenting here. I'm on holiday and don't have too much time just at the moment, but I do agree that it would be very worthwhile to have a community discussion on the current text of MOS:CHARACTERS. It hasn't been reviewed in quite some time and no longer seems very well aligned with accepted practice. If you're available, perhaps we could tackle that on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels when I'm back, in early April? In the meantime, I'm afaid I am going to have to reverse your second deletion of the Characters section in Murder Must Advertise; per WP:BRD, that should have gone to a talk page discussion when I reverted your initial bold edit, rather than being deleted again. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand...

I'm fine with you removing the phrase from the Mondegreen article, but I just want you to know I had that in there because Pinker's view is quite contrary to Steven Connor's view explained in the previous paragraph. I strongly disagree with Pinker, but he deserves to have his say on the matter. Bloodyviking (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that Pinker's view should be covered. No dissent there. MichaelMaggs (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Khartoum (1966 film)

Not sure what happened here but please make sure it doesn't happen again. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And Then There Were None

Please reconsider this revert. If Lombard were the killer, he would know that Vera was not, and thus "each concludes the other must be responsible" would not be true. That is only something we can infer once we know the ending. ~2026-29236-16 (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited it to avoid saying anything about his state of mind. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday (to me)

20 years on Wikipedia today! MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the charge of the light brigade reference

Hello, i recently added a reference to the poem "The charge of the light Brigade" which is found in the novel the sell out to the formers list of cultural references. however, i see that you have reversed that addition as it is too trivial.

I do not have a lot of experience with editing wikipedia articles. However, i have seen articles of other poems which feature cultural references that are just as trivial, and anyhow i don't see an issue with including cultural references even if they appear trivial, especially as it would make the article, and the list of cultural references specifically, more comprehensive. Yet again, im not the most experienced wikipedia editor, so im not the most familiar with what makes a reference pass the bar of being trivial, and would like to know what in your opinion passes that bar Azizalk (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Azizalk, thanks for the query. If you have a look at MOS:CULTURALREFS, you'll see the requirements for a cultural reference to be significant enough to include within the encyclopedia. This is part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style, a formal Guideline which sets out best practices that are supported by editor consensus. Editors must attempt to follow guidelines, though there may be occasional exceptions.

As you'll see, cultural mentions – such as the one you added – should not be included merely because they exist. Secondary sourcing is required, and if nothing is available other than a brief mention, and then the cultural reference should not be included in the article at all. We don't aim for comprehensiveness in the way that a fan site might; rather, we are looking for items that contribute significantly to an encyclopedic understanding of the main topic.

You've no doubt noticed that we have many articles with trivial references that don't comply with these guidelines. That's partly because in the early days of Wikipedia lists of trivia were quite common, and it is only more recently that standards have been tightened up. With millions of articles to be curated, and the continual addition of trivia by new editors who may not yet be aware of the guidelines, there is indeed quite a lot of material that, strictly speaking, should not be here. However, the fact that some articles contain problematic content cannot be used as an argument for supporting the addition of similar content in other articles - see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Gradually, trivia is being weeded out and articles improved.

I hope that helps. Do ask if anything isn't clear. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this response, this has been immensely helpful, and i strongly appreciate that you wrote such a comprehensive response to my query. I Thank you once agaim Azizalk (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I appreciate your taking the time to ask! MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]