Talk:Fanny Cradock

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fanny Cradock article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

Memory

I removed the phrase that said that Cradock "seemed to be having problems with her memory" when she listed her age on her last marriage certificate as 55 instead of 68. The cited source (http://www.scotsman.com/news/fanny-cradock-1-1139496) doesn't make such a claim. Another explanation could have been that Cradock was simply trying to make herself seem younger than her actual age, as many people (both celebrities and not) have been known to do. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph dates

< a column under the pen name of "Bon Viveur"[13] which appeared in The Daily Telegraph from 1950 to 1955 >

but the column was still going strong in the 'seventies; it made frequent references to Chateau Belair 1970!

When did the column finish?

86.148.153.255 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Works of Fanny Cradock

As people can see, I've split off the various works of Cradock (all books, television appearances etc) and hived them off to a new and separate article. This means that this article can be better developed to cover her life in prose form, without the long lists that break up the texts in several places. I'll be re-working much of the article over the coming few weeks to ensure it actually covers all aspects of her life, rather than focusing on a narrow area. - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tal1962. Can you explain why you keep putting in the information that is now all at another page - Works of Fanny Cradock? There is no point in having it in two places, particularly when this is incorrect, incomplete, poorly formatted, and unsupported by reliable sources. If you don't wish to discuss, but just keep reverting, or if you keep referring to this as "vandalism", I'm happy to open an RfC for wider community input. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the placement of her television appearances

Is it preferable to have a long list of every programme Cradock appeared in (as it appears in this version, or even this version), or is it preferable to have the information separated into Works of Fanny Cradock, along with all her other professional work? – SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove lists and keep them on the Works page As it stands (with this version), readers are left to wade through too much pointless listy dross. it's badly done, poorly sourced, awfully formatted and leaves the reader completely bemused as to what "Score with the Scaffold (28 August 1970)" actually is (much less to they care). I have taken all this out and put it all into Works of Fanny Cradock (properly referenced and formatted), and hoped that would leave the article clear to be re-written with the reader in mind. I have been reverted in my changes, with the steps being referred to as "vandalism" (on several occasions). I have asked the editor concerned, Tal1962 to actually look at what was done, and to comment on the talk page, but further accusations of "vandalism" have made, with no effort to discuss on this page. I am now opening this up to a wider RfC for community comment. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove lists and keep them on the Works page. I agree with User:SchroCat that the more concise version is better, with the works moved to their own sub-article. This is what summary style is for. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove lists to their own page. This would be compliant with WP:SS and remove an eye-glazingly long list from the text of the main article. As well as respecting WP guidelines like WP:SS we also ought to consider our readers and not just dump a ton of unsorted information, much of it trivial: is a reader likely to be interested in the fact that Cradock once appeared on Larry Grayson's Generation Game or Juke Box Jury? If any one is, he or she can go to the sub-article: if it turns out to get a massive number of hits we might reconsider, but that's for the future. For now, let's be rid of this huge list from the biographical article. Tim riley talk 14:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove lists and keep them on the Works page, even though I generally tend to love pointless listy dross and find it quite intriguing that Cradock once appeared on Larry Grayson's Generation Game! (... Juke Box Jury, not so much) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove lists per WP:INDISCRIMINATE; and report filed at WP:AN/EW 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove lists per Ssilvers. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove lists and keep them on the Works page per SchroCat Idealigic (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Claim

I notice the claim that she popularised the Pizza in the UK following her book Common Market Cookery: France in 1973. I am a little worried about that claim since Pizza Express opened in 1965 and the mass market Pizzaland opened in 1970. Indeed, the first Pizza restaurants opened in the 30s. Also, I am trying to find her actual recipe. If anyone has the book I would be interested to see it. But I suspect it might be for Pissaladière, which is made with a high-fat pastry rather than a bread dough. Joss (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Neilinabbey, You may prefer to use a comma after a date as a personal preference, but that is all it is: a personal preference, rather than a requirement. Fowler makes no recommendation to use them and Orwell and other writers omit them. There's no point in trying to edit war over your personal preference, so please don't do it again. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irony? You've reverted four different editors on these commas since 21 December. Are you not the one edit warring a "personal preference"? DeCausa (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RETAIN. Just because people are wrong to think it a requirement, when it certainly isn't, that's something they can work on. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If something is unnecessary, I'm not sure how the number of editors reverted, or even the number of instances reverted, is relevant. I raised the issue, some time ago, at this thread. I also believe that a comma is not required after a two-term phrase, like "In 1976". I also think this usage is more common in American English, although I don't see it mentioned at WP:ENGVAR. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that DeCausa is not well acquainted with the King's English. I suggest that s/he should consult the current edition of Plain Words, p. 249, from which in this context: Some writers put a comma here as a matter of course. But others do it only if a comma is needed to emphasise a contrast or to prevent the reader from going off on the wrong scent, as in: A few days after, the Minister of Labour promised that a dossier of the strike would be published/Two miles on, the road is worse. On the principle that stops should not be used unless they are needed, this discrimination is to be commended. Unless one swallows the superstition pedlled by dim American beaks it's wise to heed Gowers (and also Fowler in all four editions). Tim riley talk 18:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wholly agree. A comma may be used after an introductory clause, of whatever length, in order to avoid ambiguity or misunderstanding. But in many other cases it is just superfluous clutter. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're both confusing me with someone else. Where in my post do I argue for the commas? I pointed out the irony of someone complaining about someone else edit warring over a personal preference when they had done exactly that. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]