Set up by the Victorian-minded and rather strait-laced administrators at the British Museum, the Private Case was the place they stashed the erotica and pornography to keep it away from the lascivious eyes of the hoi polloi. The BM denied its existence to the public and didn't list the works on the main public catalogue until the early twentieth century. As social mores changed in the 1960s, the museum began to liberalise their approach, and the collection is now entirely open access. From being a hidden dirty secret, it is now considered a superb resource to study the attitudes held by previous generations on sexuality, gender, etc. This has been through a good PR recently (with excellent comments and suggestions from KJP1, SN54129, Tim riley and UndercoverClassicist) and any further comments are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note: Schro will take a couple of days to be back here.... Lourdes 09:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
I fixed all the missing US license tags, but in the future try to make sure all the images have them.
The only licensing question would be related to the non-free image. I'm not sure it's useful for "identification" because it shows some pretty nondescript library shelves and I didn't see any sourced commentary in the article related to how the collection is physically organized that the picture would help illustrate.
It's the only picture of the actual collection that I've seen, so as the main identifier in the top right it seems apt, rather than highlighting one of the individual titles. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"unique historic image" is almost never going to be the correct tag to go with. I think there could be a case to be made here, but not with that tag and with a stronger purpose of use statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you both, Buidhe and Nikkimaria. I've swapped out the historic licence for a more generic one (I think this is an OK one, but please let me know) and beefed up the rationale. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not related to licensing but I wonder if there are too many title pages used in the article? It seems like the title page is not necessarily the best way to illustrate the collection's contents.
You're possibly right, but I was trying to avoid illustrating the article so it looked like the one at Fanny Hill, and all the attendant comments and criticism that would generate! - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Buidhe. Noted on the US tags: licensing tags is an ongoing weak spot of mine, so thanks for doing that: I'll try and sort them out myself next time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition to books, this also includes pamphlets": I think the "also" is redundant, given "addition".
"As part of the requirement of being a legal deposit organisation": could this be shortened to "As a legal deposit organisation"?
"Historically, such works are accepted by the library, but some were not released into their general access collections or details of them placed on the publicly accessible catalogue." Suggest "Historically, such works have been accepted by the library, but some were not released into their general access collections or were not included on the publicly accessible catalogue."
"which were known for the output of their pornographic books": suggest "which were known for their output of pornographic books".
The history given in the section "Nineteenth century" follows a paragraph of uncertainty about the date of the case's founding with two definite statements: "Between its inception and 1854"; "In 1865 [Witt's books went] into the Private Case". Given that the possible dates for the origin of the case include later dates, shouldn't these statements be conditional?
Good point. I've connected it to both Harris and Cross: does that suit? - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Cuckold's Chronicle (1973)": is this a typo for 1793, given that this was in the collection by 1864?
Since you use unspaced em dashes in the article, the spaced en dash in "Private Case – Public Scandal" should be converted to an unspaced em dash per MOS:CONFORM, both in the article and the sources section. Similarly "Legal Deposit – The Library of Trinity College Dublin" should be changed, again in two places.
I was going to query this one as CONFORM is about quotes, rather than titles, but some further reading brings us to MOS:TITLECONFORM, which proscribes as you suggest. - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Mike. All attended to in these edits. Please let me know if there is anything else you spot or that needs work on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shall reread carefully over the next few days. From a quick canter-through just now, a couple of points:
I long ago despaired of grasping that shape-shifting monster French capitalisation, but I am pretty sure that in Ma Vie Secrète the third word at least shouldn't be capitalised.
I struggle to see the logic of some of the rules surrounding capitalisation in English, so not knowing the twisted logic of the MOS in French should come as no great surprise! - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, but tangentially, see my lamentations here! Tim riley talk 18:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fretted at the PR about the attribution of Teleny to Oscar Wilde, and though you've addressed my concerns about the text I'm uneasy about the caption to the picture of the title page of Teleny. Something like "… speculatively attributed by some to Oscar Wilde" would convey the facts better than "possibly written by…" I think.
Done, although I've omitted "by some", as someone would no doubt add a ((who)) tag on there. - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks: I look forward to anything else you have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent comment from Tim
After a careful crawl through the text the only quibble I can come up with is that although it's in a quotation I raise an eyebrow at "provided the Private Case with a valuable cross section of English erotica ...", where if the source doesn't hyphenate "cross-section" it jolly well ought to have done (OED and Chambers). Otherwise, entirely happy to support, though having to get my sal volatile out after reading about such a shocking topic. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 18:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tim! yes, the original has it as "cross section", but as the MOS allows some small leeway in changing obvious errors in quotes, I've now hyphenated this. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting subject! Sources are all clearly reliable for FAC, formatting is not an issue, links to writers all appear to go to the right people, archives are present when needed. I only have one question, regarding the footnotes: note a appears to only exist as a footnote-within-footnote of note b. Is there any particular reason why this has been set up separately, rather than being incorporated into note b? Vaticidalprophet 06:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Vaticidalprophet. No, no reason for a footnote from a footnote, other than a momentary aberration of reason; now corrected as you suggest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to pass the source review for this excellent and well-sourced article. Vaticidalprophet 07:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - that's very kind! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"According to Cross, the books donated are "of exceptional interest"" - did he say why
Nope. Somewhat frustratingly he changes topic at that point. - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any appetite for splitting the subsection "Twentieth and twenty-first centuries" into two? It's fairly long. (Won't die on the hill if you don't want to)
Let me have a think about that one. The 21st century is only part of the final paragraph, so a split based on date wouldn’t work, but let me think if there’s a different way. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have, this is quite well-written so I really have very little to gripe about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks PMC. All done, bar the last one, which I think needs a little more thought about whether it's the right step and, if so, where to make the break. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Happy to support even if you don't wind up splitting that one section - it's a minor concern at most. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the historian Alison Moore described it as "particularly labyrinthine. - closing quote mark is missing
The move induced the lawyer and writer E. S. P. Haynes to produced - lose that last D
given the book only details the works..... => "given that the book only details the works....."
The other legal deposit libraries in the British Isles covered by the Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries are Cambridge University Library, University of Oxford's Bodleian Library.... => " The other legal deposit libraries in the British Isles covered by the Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries are Cambridge University Library, the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library....."
"The British Museum was formed in June 1753 as a result of the British Museum Act 1753" -- passive voice, maybe just "The British Museum Act 1753 established the British Museum (in London?)" It's not egregious as is, but I might change it, especially as the same thing occurs with "The British Library was created on 1 July 1973 as a result of the British Library Act 1972".
Could "reader's tickets" be linked to Library card?
Disregard if it's a British English comma issue, but should there be a comma after "Legman describes this as a 'legend'" as it is followed by an independent clause?
I think it's OK as it is, but I'll delve into Fowler to see what that says. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I got. ~ HAL333 16:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks HAL. The first two done. The third is right (I think), but I'll check. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support another solid article. ~ HAL333 16:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks HAL, much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments below. All nit-picks and pretty minor; it's a lovely article.
Very happy to support - an excellent piece of work, and the recent polish has only cemented that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
French capitalisation: I'm not an expert, but as far as I know French literary titles generally capitalise only the first word and proper nouns.
I think we have this right now, but please let me know if I've missed any. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Short description: is it accurate to call it a former collection, if the BL still categorises some works as part of it?
Changed. It's closed, fixed and historical, but I guess the BL still use the name to categorise some of the works. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The collection began between 1836 and 1870: do we know when the label Private Case was first used or attached to it? The article implies that this happened from the very beginning, but I'm not sure if that's a justified inference on my part. Likewise the Suppressed Safe title.
There is no record (that I have seen) of when the name came into play, only the collection. I've tried to be careful in describing only the course of when the collection began, and not given any indication that the name was part of it. (No doubt I've not got it right, but it's a tricky point to try and finesse appropriately). - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, the lead implies that obscene or controversial material was separated out into the Private/Suppressed Safe cases from the BM's collections from the beginning, but the BM was founded in 1753; the lead also says that the Private Case first began to exist no earlier than 1836. I'm not sure how to resolve this one.
I'm not sure we do... but maybe I'm too close to the wording to see it. We're clear in the first paragraph that the "collection began between 1836 and 1870", and then in the second para we've clear on the dates when the BM was opened. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is this part: From its foundation in the eighteenth century ... The subversive and libellous material was separated into the Suppressed Safe collection while the erotica and pornography were placed in a locked cupboard known as the Private Case. I've cut out the interceding parts, but they don't change the timeframe of the narrative away from the C18th: we need another chronological marker at some point before that last sentence. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was one of the country's six legal deposit libraries: I know that Dublin was under British rule at the time, but it's a little controversial to describe it as part of the same country as London: we wouldn't do the same for Delhi, for example.
There was a difference between Ireland and India in the 1830s. Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so Dublin was a city in the UK. India never was part of the UK. we've got in in the past tense, and the lead isn't really the place to try and explain the historical background to the terminology, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about It was one six legal deposit libraries in automatic receipt of all works published in the UK? Agreed that a complicated explanation isn't right here, but also good to avoid taking a side in a controversial question (Ireland may legally have been part of the UK, but a sizeable number of mostly-Irish people would regard it as occupied territory and so that law as illegitimate). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as such was in automatic receipt of all works published in the UK; among all other works, this included pornographic or salacious material: suggest deleted among all other works (I'm not sure what it means here: simply inter alia?)
Yes, I'm trying to convey inter alia, but if I include that in the lead of an article, it will be deleted by the 95 per cent of the population who don't know what it means and are confused by the outdated term! (If was in a legal article, I think it may be a little more acceptable, but not one of general/historical interest). - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just axe it here: I think you've covered that base with this included. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Private Case collection was never a fixed entity: minor, but I don't think the term quite fits here: we'd expect any library collection to change over time, and I don't yet see how the composition of the Private Case was any less fixed than that of the BL as a whole.
Yes, good point. Slightly reworded. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why Dingwall is introduced in the lead but Ashbee and Dawes aren't?
Laziness on my part, I suspect. Now changed. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As at 2023 there are about 2,500 volumes still classified by the library as being part of the collection: suggest an edit for concision to As of 2023, about 2,500 volumes are still classified by the library as part of the collection.
Is it worth briefly explaining - perhaps in the footnote - how it's possible to be a legal deposit library without the automatic right to receive all new books?
It's slightly outside the limits of the article, but I've got it in there, as it may be a question thought of by others too. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This section discusses how the BL receives all kinds of media, and then specifies that the books they receive are sometimes obscene. Did the Private Case ever contain non-books (e.g. journals and pamphlets)? Either way, I'd suggest resolving the discrepancy here somehow.
Good point. Altered to "works". - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some publishers of pornographic material did not forward their works to the British Museum Library. A boom in such material was seen in the 1850s, much of it generated from the publishing houses in Holywell Street, London, which were known for their output of pornographic books: I'm not clear from this whether the boom was in the publication of pornography, or in pornographers refusing to forward their work.
The last two (perhaps three) paragraphs of this section would seem to better belong in the History section, since they describe the creation, management and access of the case itself.
There's a lot of pronouns (especially it) in the first paragraph with shifting antecedents: this sometimes gets a little unclear.
OK, a slight tweak done, which should clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
translated from the original by Pietro Aretino: was there, in fact, an original, or is this a literary conceit (cf. The Name of the Rose)? If so, do we know what the original language was?
Added - and the name of the translator, "Richard Head". - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At its largest, the collection comprised some 4,000 works: any idea when this was?
Sadly not. The BL say this was the size, but no further info, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd suggest moving it out of the clearly-chronological section, perhaps to the beginning of the final paragraph in History. In current position, it's strongly implied that this figure was reached around 1885. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This section is quite inconsistent as to whether to introduce new characters. I'd personally suggest that they should all have a brief introduction on first mention ("the Marquis de Sade, a French eroticist"). However, I appreciate that many of the supposed authors can't be introduced, not least because they probably didn't exist.
This is a tricky one. Aside from some working behind pseudonyms, for some of the others, there is no information known about them at all. For some of the others, it's only very scant background, which would mean we'd have a plethora of "the writer" or "the author" scattered about. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a strong case for de Sade, as a reader who knows who he is will understand this sentence far better than one who doesn't, so it's in our interests to level the playing field. Equally, fully agree with the pseudonyms or the authors otherwise unknown. For people who have a known biography greater than what's said about them in this article, I think an introduction is generally the right call, but it may have to be case by case. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added for those about which things are known (Cleland, de Sade, the two Italians); as far as I know (and my ignorance really is boundless), I don't think there is anything known about the others. I've ignored those that are obvious pseudonyms as the sources I've seen have not clarified many of those, except where we've got them already. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the segregation of books could do with some expansion: it sounds as if Haynes' problem wasn't that the BL divided its collection, but that it made access to 'obscene' publications so difficult.
That very much is the case (excuse the pun); clarified to make that more obvious. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and it was only in 1962 that the library stopped asserting that all its holdings were on the main general catalogue: this would be clearer phrased in the positive: e.g. acknowledged that it held a collection of books not included in the main general catalogue.
The British Library is not the only research library that holds large amounts of pornography ... the Library of Congress housed the Δ (Delta) collection (merged into the general collection in 1964). The sequence of tenses seems to have gone a little awry here. Is the Δ shelfmark/term still used? If not, suggest merged its pornographic works, previously designated as the Δ (Delta) collection, into its general collection in 1964.
Minister for Justice (not of in Ireland) and head librarian: see my comments on MOS:PEOPLETITLES above.
We already have "Minister for Justice" capitalised; "head librarian" now capitalised. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which was founded in 1938 to look into sexual behaviour: is that the Kinsey Institute or its specialist research collection?
The collection (which pre-dates the clinic): now clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part done for now. Some excellent stuff here, but an institute reception this evening means I have to leave it for now; I'll be back. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks UndercoverClassicist, I've covered all of those, doing nearly all, with one or two exceptions (explanations above). Many thanks for these: they're great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting topic, will have a read through soon. Anarchyte (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that in comparison with other people here, I'm still quite new to FAC, so apologies in advance if I miss anything :) Anarchyte (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions from anyone are always anyone is always welcome - and these are all on point! - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
"Access to the material was restricted, and the catalogue of Private Case material was not released to the library's general readership." — repetition of "material". Consider "Access to this collection was restricted, and its [or the] catalogue was not released to the library's general readership".
Tweaked in a slightly different way - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before "There have been no new entries", it could be useful to include the fact that it took until 1983 to finish liberalising. Also, a passing mention in the lead of why this process started would be useful.
Yep, good point. Both done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background
"Some publishers of pornographic material did not forward their works to the British Museum Library" — was not doing so illegal at this time?
Yes, but given the BM didn't complain about it (as far as we know), blind eyes would have been turned. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think including this in the article would be of benefit. Can a source be provided? Anarchyte (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can find. I've been through all the current sources and done some new searches on the point, but it's all skated over. I think the whole subject would have been beneath the BM to deal with, so they just ignored it - I can't imagine the rather strait-laced Victorian administrators making a fuss to get their hands on porn! Unfortunately that's my surmising and reading between the lines, rather than anything the sources have overtly stated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"when this was confirmed" — perhaps better as "if this was confirmed", given the previous paragraph gives the implication not everyone was sending their material.
"This practice lasted from the inception of the case until the 1960s." — I understand it's detailed in the History section immediately below this, but a quick mention of the relaxing of censorship during the 60s would remove any ambiguity that this process was stopped for any ulterior reason.
I've moved the whole paragraph into the History section now, so the next para is all about the liberalisation, which works better, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nineteenth century
What was the reason for this order of the early list? For example, it's unclear why Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies, which appears to an untrained eye to be the most notable, is neither emphasised by being first nor last.
I've rearranged it to be chronological. I think if I tried to do it by some measure of "importance", I think the cries of "WP:OR!!" would be sounded! - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've redone the other list too, so that this is mostly chronological. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"At its largest, the collection comprised some 4,000 works" — "During this period, the collection comprised some 4,000 works at its largest." Makes it clear this number refers exclusively to the nineteenth century.
I've moved this out of the chronology section and into background. The only source for the number (the BL itself), gives no indication as to when that was, so it was a bit misleading having it where it was. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's now only appears in the lead. Anarchyte (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was sloppy (I was working on an offline version and moved it there, then moved parts of the paragraph around and it got dropped at some point.) Now back in the body. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments
Unsure if this is done in other articles, but translations of foreign titles could be useful (if available, rather not use Google Translate). If it's too much for the prose, a separate translation notelist could be used (like note e). Just an idea.
I've run the first three foreign titles through various databases and search engines and not found any translations, unfortunately. I'm not sure this is going to be a viable step. - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will continue tomorrow. I realise you're currently blocked, so I'll aim to get this done before that expires. Anarchyte (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Twentieth and twenty-first centuries
"with any duplicates disposed of" — "disposing of any duplicates".
I think the current version is a little stronger, grammatically, although I could be persuaded. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Any duplicated erotica was destroyed and the remainder put into the Private Case" — reorder this so that the sentence prioritises preservation over destruction: "Any non-duplicated erotica entered the Private Case collection", or something similar. Can't think of a good way to word it at the moment. It's unclear whether "disposed of" and "destroyed" are being used here synonymously or whether "destroyed" implies a harsher action. If it's the latter, distinguishing this would be useful. Note that by removing the word "reminder", the following sentence ("the remaining") would become a non-sequitur unless also changed.
Yes, the sentence reversed. There was a difference in the approach between the pornography and 'normal' literature. They would have disposed of the 'normal' works by sale, donations to other libraries, possibly destruction if in a really poor condition; duplicate pornography was destroyed, never passed on to third parties. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"as well as various editions of Fanny Hill by John Cleland and the works of the Marquis de Sade" — would benefit from a serial semicolon. I note the article chooses not to use Oxford commas etc, but this on first read was more ambiguous than the other lists. Alternatively, change "works" to something else (could be interpreted as "Various editions of Fanny Hill are the works of the Marquis de Sade").
That's all from me. Fantastic article. Anarchyte (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Anarchyte. All duly attended to. I think I've demurred on one of your comments, but explanation above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll give it another read over (probably tomorrow) and report back. Anarchyte (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All my concerns have been addressed. Support. Anarchyte (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Anarchyte. Your comments have helped a lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SchroCat, an interesting read. One tiny typo and a few minor questions from me...
The process was continued by Panizzi's successor - that was a tad puzzling but assume you decided his intro was a better fit later?
Sorry, I don't follow what you mean here (still fairly early and not had enough coffee, obviously!) Can you elaborate a bit? - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't explain myself well, bad habit! When I first read "The process was continued by Panizzi's successor John Winter Jones," I wondered who was Panizzi. He is introduced (full name, link and position) in the following sentence (ie not on first mention) so it's not a problem. JennyOz (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah: got you! That was as a result of some reworking earlier in the FAC when the order was changed and I forgot to move that part too. That's now changed around a little more and should all now make sense. - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the works Dingwell acquired for - typo Dingwall
for "shelf-mark P.C. The" and "shelf-mark S.S. They" - are the second full stops not part of the shelf-marks, ie should be included in markup?
No: I think MOS:CONSECUTIVE applies here, unless I'm misunderstanding the guideline there (which is possible!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, my reading of CONSECUTIVE has always been simply not to add a full stop if the ending word of phrase already included one (per the Sammy Davis Jr. example). The way the shelf-marks are formatted (with the full stop outside the italics) seems the opposite to me. Not that we have 2 terminals, but it is removing the punctuation from the shelf-marks and naming them as P.C and S.S
But I'm not 100 per cent sure either. It's such a tiny thing in this situation. JennyOz (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100 per cent sure, so I've moved them inside the formatting and I'll have to wait and see if anyone complains about it! - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
except for some volumes which are in a fragile condition. - because of/due to their fragile condition?
That's it from me, thanks JennyOz (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks JennyOz! I've done all but two of these. I'm not sure what you mean from the first one (if you can explain, that would be great), and the punctuation follows what I think the MOS says (but I'm never 100 per cent sure I always understand what the MOS says. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I've tried to better explain my 2 questions above. Do they now make sense? Neither is obviously a deal breaker but I'm interested in any replies as I'm always keen to learn more. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JennyOz - The first one is now cleared up (I hope) and I think I've done the right thing with the second. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SchroCat, Looks great! Re the MoS dots, luckily they render identically in italics, but if one of those lovely co-ords reverses them, so be it, I'll have learned yet another thing. I'm very happy to s'port and thanks for yet another fine article. JennyOz (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jenny - I'm much obliged as always! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The British Museum Act created the British Museum in June 1753. The Act provided for the purchase of the collection of the physician and collector Sir Hans Sloane; the Cotton library, assembled by the antiquarian Sir Robert Cotton; the Harleian Library, the collection of the Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer; and the King's Library of George III.[1] " As George III did not come to the throne until 1760, this seems unusually farsighted of parliament.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! The BM source is slightly poorly written, which is why the confusion, but stripped back to the proper version now. - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looked through the rest of it didn't see anything to comment on. Interesting topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment here and your support: I am much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
