Talk:Lunar Society of Birmingham

message: WP:MOSDATE#Date formatting says simple dates "should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so". So Noisy, if there's a good reason you keep linking these, pls mention it in the edit summary – or, better, here – so that User:Jclerman and the rest of us don't keep undoing your work. Cheers JackyR 14:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They set the historical context for the people and events that are being discussed!  Let me expand.  Thoughtless removal of dates without an appreciation of the article as a whole, and the value that linked dates provide for putting articles in their historical contexts by comparison with other personages and events that were around at the time is tantamount to vandalism, in my book.  Ruthlessly applying a guideline when it is known to stir up passions is reckless provocation, and I can't understand how Bobblewik has got away with it for so long.  Noisy | Talk 15:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that historical context is important. What I've always done is link the first date in an article, and often the last. Then I link selected others, if there is a particular event of that year that is mentioned in the date article, like a war or invention. The MoS deprecates "low-value" date linking, and I agree. So I (usually!) make sure that the destination of my link will specifically add something – and on really competent days say what in the edit summary... JackyR 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In this instance, Bobblewik removed the dates of formation and dissolution of the Lunar Society.  That's plain disruption in my opinion.  I remove subsequent linkings (unless widely separated, and adding value), as well.  Noisy | Talk 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the result, four out of five dates are now linked. I wouldn't do that much myself, and don't think you can reasonably accuse those who disagree with you on this of "vandalism", "reckless provocation" or "disruption". But it's not an issue I feel strongly about per se. I do feel strongly about avoiding pointless edit wars, so I hope that explaining your thinking will have given others at least the chance to understand and perhaps agree. Cheers, JackyR 20:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking dates 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here  -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD]] Tagging

message: It appears that several important members of the Lunar Society were members of Freemasonry, notably Erasmus Darwin, who was also the grandfather of Charles Darwin.  ADM (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Freemasonry

message: The only mention I can find of Levett in Uglow is on page 127, where it is mentioned that Boulton and his wife went to dine with him in Lichfield on a particular Sunday, and that Boulton offered to give Small a lift to Darwin's house in the process. This seems to suggest that Levett was a friend of Boulton, rather than a member of the Lunar Society. It certainly doesn't imply that Levett went to a Lunar meeting, in fact it directly implies that neither Levett nor Boulton attended the "philosophical feast" that Small and Darwin were to have. I'm going to take Levett out of the list until a better source can be found. JimmyGuano (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: John Levett

message: In the section 'Membership and Status', the second paragraph states 'fourteen individuals have been identified as having verifiably attended Lunar Society meetings regularly...' - but only thirteen are listed. Who is the unlucky fourteenth?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septuagent (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourteen or thirteen? 

message: This 2011 Royal Society of Chemistry book, The Case of the Poisonous Socks: Tales from Chemistry by William H Brock talks about a "Lunar Society London-branch chemical society" on p.67. This article is silent on such a concept. Is this something we could shed a little light on? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: London branch?

message: I've created :Category:Associates of the Lunar Society for the "more loosely defined group" of people connected to the Lunar Society, listed in this article. However, many of our articles about them do not mention the Lunar Society, at all. Please join me in correcting that, the applying the category. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Associates of the Lunar Society 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lunar Society of Birmingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630003515/http://www.lunarsociety.org.uk/page/59.htm to http://www.lunarsociety.org.uk/page/59.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214001443/http://www.bmag.org.uk/soho-house to http://www.bmag.org.uk/soho-house
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060308154827/http://www.revolutionaryplayers.org.uk/home.stm to http://www.revolutionaryplayers.org.uk/home.stm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lunar Society of Birmingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514205345/http://www.birminghamstories.co.uk/story_page.php?id=11&type=fo&page=1&now=0 to http://www.birminghamstories.co.uk/story_page.php?id=11&type=fo&page=1&now=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified