Talk:Secretum (British Museum)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pop culture section

Said that the Secretum "may be" the inspiration for a similar (though not identical) concept in LXG comics. This is just a guess. Unless someone can find a Moore/O'Neill quote that supports the guess, I'll remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecorinthian85 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"The Secretum may be the inspiration for the "secret annexe" of the British Museum, the base of operations for "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" in the eponymous series of comics. Exhibits there include a yahoo skull (from Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels and given the scientific name Homo gulliverus) and statues labelled "Cult of Ayesha" (from H. Rider Haggard's She), continuing the high game of literary allusions throughout the series." << removed this bit twl_corinthian (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

My call to the Department of Greek & Roman Antiquities a few moments ago informs me that this collection no longer exists and that everything that used to be in it has been dispersed to other departments, so the article is slightly misleading User:Carfax6 - talk 12:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed all the tense to past to reflect this. Neddyseagoon - talk 14:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal research is no reliable source for Wikipedia. For further information WP:OR. As of Dec. 15, 2008 Cabinet 55 and 54 is still existent albeit very much reduced. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/welltraveled/features/2008/the_perverts_grand_tour/in_search_of_the_secretum.html --Dia^ (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Notes and references

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.

---

@SchroCat You changed the "Citations" heading back to "References". Shortened footnotes are not in themselves references. This is an incorrect interpretation of "Notes and references". "Notes" refers to both the explanatory footnotes and the sfns; it does not only refer to the explanatory footnotes. Your edit summary said "correcting", but I'm afraid you've made that incorrect again —Alalch E. 07:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Either piece of terminology is correct and these terms are used on countless other articles - and are used outside WP in the same form too. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. See George S. Patton (a random example of an article with correctly laid out end matter, from the top of my head). Subdividing "Notes and references" into "Notes" containing only explanatory footnotes and "References" containing only footnotes is incorrect organization, it is misleading, and is not used in countless featured articles. —Alalch E. 07:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It is used in many, many FAs. There is no single way that these have to be labelled, and this is as correctly done as the example you have provided.

According to the relevant section of the MoS, "Notes and references (this can be two sections in some citation systems)" (my emphasis), which they are here, and in the numerous other FAs I've given as examples. The guidelines go on to say "Heading names: Editors may use any reasonable section and subsection names that they choose.". Those used here are by any definition "reasonable" and are well used in FAs.

I don't see much point in prolonging this discussion over personal preferences. - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It isn't about how many level-two sections there are. All those FAs have it wrong and they're in the minority. This is not a personal preference. Elinor Fettiplace funnily contains "Notes, references and sources" because once you apply backwards logic to "Notes and references" to infer that it comprises sections "Notes" as in explanatory footnotes and "References" as in citation footnotes, what do you do about the list of works cited? MoS doesn't say which heading corresponds to which content, It just says which headings are used. See MOS:NOTES. Citation footnotes as short citations and full citations are the references. It is incorrect to name only the citation footnotes heading as the references. —Alalch E. 08:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're going round in circles. The seven examples I provided (and there are a host of others too) and this article are in line with the guidelines. That's all there is too it. I think we're best bringing this to a close now before any more time is wasted. - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Noting my disagreement. —Alalch E. 08:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What on earth is this nonsense? The existing titling of the refs is entirely in line with the Manual of Style. The editor wishing to change it is indulging his/her personal whim, and would do better, in my view, to find something useful to do instead. Tim riley talk 10:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Your initial remark and your overall tone are less collegial than desired. When an edit is reverted, it is excellent to start a discussion to see where the disagreement lies. The choice of words used in the titling is in line with the Manual of Style, but what the titles have been assigned to is hardly correct, as I have discussed above, with reference to MOS:NOTES. Nothing to get excited about. —Alalch E. 11:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Except there is nothing out of line with the current version. You've been shown a number of FAs that follow this and there are others: are all the reviewers who passed this format wrong? Is everyone who saw the articles on the main page when these articles have been TFAs all wrong? Is every user who follows this format wrong, but only you are right? 'No' is the short answer to this. Your personal preferences have been noted, but the flexible guidelines we have are still being followed, despite it. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat, I don't think you're going to get anywhere with this editor. We are all obviously out of step except him/her. If he/she can gather a consensus in favour of the proposed alteration, so be it. If not, I repeat, there are better things on which to spend our time than this profoundly pointless crusade. Tim riley talk 11:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Tim riley, there's no need for such ad hominem remarks and to label my starting a talk page discussion about a single specific edit as a pointless crusade. If you would retract, that would be nice. —Alalch E. 12:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It would have been nice not to have to get into this whole pointless thread altogether, particularly given the widespread use of this format and it's permissibility under the guidelines, yet still you push the point beyond any reasonable point. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

My remarks were neither ad hominem nor ad feminam, but simply ad rem. I don't know the Latin for passive aggressive, and will let that go. Tim riley talk 12:31, 25 October 2024 (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.

I don't know why the above was closed so fast, but I must disagree with Alalch. The MOS does not specify how to arrange and label the headings for notes, references, citations, footnotes, sources, bibliography, etc. Different editors do it different ways, and they are largely interchangeable. There are many acceptable ways to do it under the MOS and FA convention. See MOS:VAR and MOS:CITEVAR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Entirely concur with Ssilvers. For instance, I rather dislike "Bibliography" as a heading, at least in articles about writers (does it mean books about them or by them?), but I don't presume to impose my preferences on other editors or would tell them flatly they are wrong if they had the temerity to disagree with me. Tim riley talk 16:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Tim riley, after your telling me to "to find something useful to do", I have made a number of edits in various places, whereas you are still mostly only here, making repeated remarks "ad rem" in your reinterpretation of ad rem, that is, remarks about me. How do you explain this? —Alalch E. 20:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)