Talk:Munich Mouser

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Nelson (cat)
• Munich Mouser

)

• ... that the Munich Mouser, Neville Chamberlain's pet, and Nelson, Winston Churchill's pet, had a rivalry during World War II? Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/forget-larry-palmerston-original-number-10-cat-rivalry-revealed/ "However there was already an occupant – Mr Chamberlain’s cat, dismissively nicknamed 'The Munich Mouser' [...] In the end, Nelson – Sir Winston’s cat – triumphed. The Munich Mouser was chased out of Number 10 and he moved in alone"
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Albert Bahhuth
  • Comment: Munich Mouser is a 5x expand, not a GA promotion. Last week it was at 114 words, and is now at 585. For that article, I did Template:Did you know nominations/Running Out of Time (Paramore song)

Improved to Good Article status by Tim O'Doherty (talk). Self-nominated at 22:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Nelson (cat); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Tim O'Doherty: Good articles. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Not quite a 5x expansion for Munich Mouser. I'm seeing 670 B (115 words) expanded to 2725 B (461 words) of "readable prose size". Note that block quotes aren't counted per A2 (I'm using prosesize.js). gobonobo ^{+ c} 17:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@gobonobo Right. I used a manual word count checker for that article. I'm going on holiday tomorrow—in fact, I was packing my bag when I got the notification—and I thought that it was a fivefold expansion. Could you please do a IAR here, as I'm a bit pushed for time and I still think the article counts as "new enough". If not, I'll see what I can do. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty I have no problem with waiting until you've returned from vacation. Or, if you want to just proceed with DYK for the Nelson article and the same hook, the only difference is that Munich Mouser wouldn't be bolded. gobonobo ^{+ c} 18:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gobonobo - Thanks for that. I'm planning to take Munich to GA after I come back; might we wait until then? I'd quite like it to be a joint-article hook. If that means waiting a bit longer, I'd be game. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty I'd have no problem with that. Happy vacation, gobonobo ^{+ c} 18:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Tim O'Doherty and Gobonobo: Its been almost a month now, is this ready for a new look? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll nominate Munich in a week or two. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Munich Mouser is now expanded past 5x. Everything checks out for DYK. gobonobo ^{+ c} 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks, gobonobo. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of cite news titles

Hi @Tim O'Doherty:, I saw your edit concerning the capitalization of "cat" in a cite news title The Cat of Downing Street. You prefer "cat", I believe that "Cat" is correct and would enjoy discussing this. The original source has "Cat" capitalized. Template:Cite_news seems to have example titles that have title case, which would suggest that "Cat" is correct. Help:Citation_Style_1#Titles_and_chapters says "Use title case unless the cited source covers a scientific, legal or other technical topic and sentence case is the predominant style in journals on that topic." MOS:TITLECAPS I think also prefers title case, though it is a bit confusing What are your thoughts? Cxbrx (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I remember reading something in the MoS regarding news articles being in sentence case, although I can't recall where. I notice that the "News" section of the FA Edward Dando also uses sentence case for its newspaper sources, and I've seen similar sentence case refs in other articles which cite newspapers as well. It looks like when made manually, editors prefer sentence case, but the "automatic" tool for ref-building generates in title case. As long as the style is consistent across the whole article, it should be fine, I think. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that consistency in the article is key. Please let me know if you find a MoS source for news articles being in sentence case. As an aside, I use LaTeX for publishing academic papers, which uses BibTeX which uses sentence case. Cxbrx (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

OK. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cxbrx - I know it's been a while. Found it: MOS:TITLECONFORM. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty:, Thanks! Good to know. Cxbrx (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Chief Mouser"

This discussion was created per WP:BRD in order to find consensus and prevent an edit war.

Kornatice, you manually reverted my edit where I capitalized instances of "Chief Mouser", a term that is capitalized as such in its article—which is a featured list. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 20:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I was following the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography for titles of positions, which only recommends capitalization in very limited circumstances. I would say that the Chief Mouser article has many incorrectly capitalized instances. It is wrong to say that an article has no flaws because it is featured. Kornatice (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand now. Thank you! –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 21:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know, CM15, other mouser bios use a similar style; see, for example, Peter III. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:JOBTITLES. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Munich Mouser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 15:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this on for review. I'm always surprised by just how well-researched the articles on the chief mousers are, so I'm happy to have a look at this one. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Lead

• "Sometimes referred to in the press as Joey or Toby" So we have four different names for this one cat. Are we sure that "Munich Mouser" is the common name and that "Bob" is his given name? Why did some in the press refer to him by these other names?

Pretty sure that "Munich Mouser" is the common name, but I've made a redirect from Bob (cat) anyway.

• Do we not have any images of Bob to use in the article?

Not that I've found from the newspapers, no. Given that he was apparently photographed quite a bit in September 1938, I'm a bit annoyed that none in the press decided to publish any images, but I suppose they were costly and finicky in the 30s.

• Think there could be another sentence about his reputation with the press.

Yep, done in "Death".

Under Neville Chamberlain

• "the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporting that he could trace his lineage back to the cat of Thomas Wolsey." Good that this is attributed as it's quite the claim.

It is, and, I suspect, false (but a good detail).

• "owing to his role as a civil servant, he received a salary" I'm assuming "his" and "he" refers to the cat, not to Chamberlain? Might need clarifying.

Done.

• "the daughter of Charles II" Here the link in "daughter" might be considered an easter egg link. Consider being more explicit.

Done by including "the" in the link so it doesn't look like a generic link to Daughter.

• " Winston Churchill "rather scathing[ly]" nicknamed Bob Munich Mouser due to the agreement signed by Chamberlain and the chancellor and Führer of Germany, Adolf Hitler, in Munich, Bavaria" This is quite long. Consider removing "in Munich, Bavaria" and using the more explicit "Munich agreement". Also consider trimming "chancellor", as by this point, Hitler had combined the roles of chancellor and head of state.

Done both.

• "After his death, it was speculated that during the talks Munich agreed more with Chamberlain than with the Nazis" This is referring to the cat?

Yep. Maybe a bit ridiculous, but that's the tone used on these mouser articles; the whole concept of "cats with jobs" is ridiculous.

Under Winston Churchill

• "the two were reported to have a decent relationship" The two being Munich and Churchill or Munich and Nelson?

Clarified.

• "The Daily Telegraph instead reported that Munich had been "chased out of Downing Street"" Any reason why?

Made it explicit that the Telegraph was wrong.

Death

• Side comment: Damn these papers hated this cat, what the hell.

Think it's to do with their perception of Chamberlain, which coloured their view of Munich. The cat really was described as a traitor; you'd've thought that he was the one who invaded Poland or something.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   At times it's unclear who it's referencing, but this is easily clarified.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   A couple of easter egg links, but nothing problematic.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Citations are all complete.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Inline citations provided for every claim.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Article is fully cited to verifiable sources.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig only flags attributed direct quotes.[1]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Seems like this biography is very complete

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   It over-contextualises a little in the first paragraph of the biography, could do with a wee trim. Looks good.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   All non-neutral statements are properly attributed.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No reversions since creation in August 2020. Last major addition was by the nominator shortly before nominating.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Copyright information on image of Churchill is iffy. This should be looked at. Problematic image replaced.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Chamberlain and Churchill are relevant, but curiously there's no image of Munich himself. Alt text has been provided for the images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm holding for now, as I have some comments that should be addressed. I don't think there's any major issues here and my comments should be easily addressed. Overall this is a very well put-together article. Fantastic work researching this cat. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Grnrchst - I believe all of your comments are addressed now. Cheers for the review, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: Ok, thanks for looking at all of this! All of my issues have been thoroughly addressed and I'm happy to pass this now. Excellent work once again! --Grnrchst (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.