User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 10

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Thomas Paine

If you have time, I wonder if you would mind looking at the most recent edits to Thomas Paine? I think some of them are an improvement, but there are a few I do not agree with such as:

• Over-use of the last name, "Paine" (many edits changed "he" to "Paine");
• a sentence with three verb phrases each beginning with past tense, changed to three participial (-ing) phrases (which I had worked on when I reviewed the entire article a few weeks ago) (perhaps should have been "that advocated" rather than "that advocates"); and
• adding "the" before "debtors' prison". I actually do not like any of the changes made in the section under "Line 21". It was concise before, and now it is not.

There are a few I'm not sure about, including:

• changing the word order of "Thetford, England, in the county of Norfolk" to "Thetford, in the English county of Norfolk"; I tend to prefer the way it was before the edit; what do you think?);

• changing "Britain" to "Great Britain";

• changing "firing" to "dismissal" ("firing" is American English; in Amer. English, "dismissal" generally refers to teachers dismissing students at the end of class or at the end of the day), twice;

• adding a few (what I feel are) unnecessary commas (but I know that's a personal stylistic choice);

If I find any more, I'll add them here. Would appreciate your opinion. –CorinneSD (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I decided to leave a comment on Moonraker's talk page. I added a few more items there. I'm tempted to undo all the edits at once, but will wait. There are only a very few edits that I think were an improvement, mostly toward the end of the edits.

I don't have my on-line dictionary active now; is "debark" a word? I think it is. Is it as acceptable as "disembark"? I also think the addition of a link for "Great Britain" and "schoolmaster" was unnecessary. And "schoolteacher" is American English. Most Americans would be baffled by "schoolmaster". CorinneSD (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not see any reply to the comment I left on Moonraker's Talk page, so I undid all of his/her edits. Then I made a few individual edits, generally reflecting those of his/her edits that I felt were constructive. I have a question: Which is correct: "debtor's prison" or "debtors' prison"?

Are you all right? Haven't seen any comments from you lately. Hope you are well. –CorinneSD (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to deal with this last night but forgot. My mother's presence has been very wearing. Fortunately she will be going back on Wednesday.Rothorpe (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I'm glad you're O.K. I decided to undo all the edits. I then made a few individual edits generally making the few edits of M'r's which I thought were all right. Then, just now, I found a nice comment on my Talk page from another editor who thanked me for doing that. Yay!CorinneSD (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it pays to be bold! I'll assume all the above is dealt with then. In any case, I've put it on my watchlist. Rothorpe (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess you can see the discussion on my Talk page. It is so pleasant to discuss things with courteous editors!CorinneSD (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Burma

I just noticed "One-third" in the first paragraph of the article on Burma. I don't usually see fractions hyphenated. Is that correct?CorinneSD (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's as wrong as 'one-house' or 'one-cat', I'd say. Rothorpe (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC) (One-horse town is right, though.)

O.K. Thank-you.CorinneSD (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Creating next Archive

My Talk page is getting rather full, but I have forgotten how to create the next archive. Can you tell me how to do it? Thank-you. CorinneSD (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's see if I can remember. Create a page called User talk:CorinneSD/Archive 2, then highlight all the stuff on your talk page (there's a shortcut way that gets it all with a click) and transfer that therein, leaving your talk page empty. Good luck!Rothorpe (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know how to create a page, and I didn't want to bother you again, so I asked with "helpme". The reply was only slightly more helpful, but I managed to do it. I wonder if the shortcut for highlighting a page is Control + A. I've used that when working in Word.CorinneSD (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about 'bothering' me, no problem. Rothorpe (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Click on the other button and it says 'select all' for the whole page.Rothorpe (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the other button"?CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The mouse button that you use less often, the right one in my case. (I'm confused as to which is which as I have changed hands due to injuring my shoulder a few years ago by typing too many consecutive apostrophes.) Rothorpe (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

The latest edit to Sri Lanka was an automated editor adding a date to a maintenance tag called "Fact". I wonder if you could tell me what that maintenance tag is indicating. That it is a fact but needs a reference? If so, why not the "citation needed" tag? Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Yes, a citation is needed: it would seem the difference is when it's a bot doing it it says 'fact', and when a person adds ('cn' in the markup), it's 'citation needed'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, I'm confused about when to hyphenate "Thank-you". Is it hyphenated only when it is a noun, as in "It would have been nice to hear a thank-you.", or a noun used as an adjective, as in "I've got to write a thank-you note." but not when actually expressing thanks, as in "Thank you"? Or should it always be hyphenated, or what?CorinneSD (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The former, hyphenated when it's a compound adjective or noun. Elsewhere it's just an abbreviation of 'I thank you'. 15:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Rothorpe(talk)

Thank you!CorinneSD (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that "thank-you" in "a thank-you note" is not a noun used as an adjective but, as you said, a verb used as an adjective.CorinneSD(talk) 19:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Viewing edits

I may have asked you this before, but I have forgotten the answer. Is there a way to see the "before" and "after" version of a paragraph showing the way it was before an edit and then the way it is after the edit, side-by-side, other than the way it is shown in "View history"? – CorinneSD (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In the history, use the 'compare selected versions' button. (More details if that's not clear.) Rothorpe (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

But I always click on "compare selected versions" to see any edit. Then I see the "before" on the left and the "after" on the right. The "before" shows things removed in orange and the "after" shows things added in blue. I wondered if there were a way to see those without the orange and blue highlighting. – CorinneSD (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you could open a separate window and view the two versions side by side---that's the only way I can think of. Rothorpe (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you succeeded in archiving your page. Rothorpe (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I had already made my Archive 2 about two days ago and pasted everything into it. I wondered why it was all still on my Talk page; then I realized I must have clicked "Copy" instead of "Cut", before I pasted it into Archive 2. So I cut what was still on my Talk page up to the new entries.CorinneSD (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, right, I was a little puzzled about that, so thanks for explaining.Rothorpe (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

Could you look at the latest edit to Papua New Guinea? Is walking considered a mode of transport?CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems a bit superfluous, doesn't it? Rothorpe (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice fix. Rothorpe (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Richard Proenneke

I just saw an edit to the article Richard Proenneke. The edit is not a problem, but when I looked at the list ("See Also", at the end of the article) to which the edit was an addition, I saw another item (at "Ed Wardle") that contained the title of a television program with no quotation marks and no italics. My question is, should it have some sort of font change or punctuation, and if so, what should it be? Feel free to make an edit if you think one is necessary. – CorinneSD (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, italics for a TV series and quotes for an individual episode (same as for books and chapters, albums and tracks). Rothorpe (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I suppose one-time programs are considered individual episodes.CorinneSD (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Rothorpe (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

But I realized when I looked at it again that it is a series, so I put it into italics. - CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Right. Rothorpe (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Velma Wallis

In the article on Velma Wallis (one of the names in the See also list I spoke of in my question about Richard Proenneke), in the Bibliography at the end of the article, I noticed something. In the first two of the three items, the title of the work is listed twice in succession, with the first in regular font and second in italics. Is that correct format? - CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The first links are to the WP articles, the italic ones to Google books. Clearly the repeated titles cannot be allowed to stand, but I don't know if there's a standard procedure for such cases. Rothorpe (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I want to ask another editor about this. Shall I ask him/her to look here, or shall I post my question (with or without your reply) to my Talk page? –CorinneSD (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As you wish; you're welcome to direct them here. Rothorpe (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do so.CorinneSD (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri

I noticed an edit just now to Dante Alighieri in which the editor added a link to the word "poet" at the beginning of the article. Do you think that link is really necessary? Wouldn't that be considered a commonly understood word? – CorinneSD(talk) 19:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. Seems like editing for editing's sake. Rothorpe (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Great Ayton

In the article on Great Ayton, in the section on "Monuments" -- Monument -- there is a quote. It is the inscription on the monument to Captain James Cook. I read it and saw a number of inconsistencies -- "while...whilst...while"; punctuation (zeal prudence). I didn't touch it because it is possible that these are exactly what is on the monument. But I wonder. Is there a way to find out? Or would you go ahead and fix the errors?

I also noticed inconsistency in the formatting of dates throughout the article. Since it is about a town in England, I think English date formatting should be used, don't you? Also, metric before American in measurements, no? – CorinneSD (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I can't be much help here. As you suggest, it's impossible to tell whether the transcription is an exact rendition of the inscription. There is something in the MoS that says quotations can be adjusted for obvious errors, such as 'zeal prudence', but I doubt that extends to style infelicities. You could certainly standardise the dates. Do Brits use metric now? Certainly feet, not metres: there were definitely miles when I was there recently. Rothorpe (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

PS Use # for linking to sections: Monument.

Jeesh! I find it hard to remember things like that. I would have to go back and find your answer to my question, so I just guess. Regarding metric, I guess I was not sure whether Brits use metric or not; I just thought all Europeans used metric. Sorry. I'mglad they use miles. Then distances in literature will still make sense.CorinneSD (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure what your first two sentences refer to. But I'm glad you're glad about miles. Rothorpe (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant remembering how to create a link to a section in an article. I had put a pipe instead of the number symbol. You just told me a few days ago, and I had already forgotten.

Oh, that, now it's obvious... Rothorpe (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth responded to a question about spacing in Sri Lanka and my question about the double links in Velma Wallis on his talk page. I fixed the bibliography in Velma Wallis; hope I got it right.CorinneSD (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Rothorpe (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Troutbeck, South Lakeland

Just for a change, I posted a few questions about this short article on Troutbeck, South Lakeland on my Talk page, but the questions are for you. If you're wondering why I have been reading articles about small towns in England, it is because I have a set of table place mats with an illustration of a different English town on each one, and I was curious to learn a bit more. – CorinneSD (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Aha! Rothorpe (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Finding earliest versions of an article

How can I find the earliest versions of an article? I want to see the first few versions of Greenland. I clicked on 500, the maximum number of edits, but it only went back to 2012. I know this article was established around 2002 or 2003. How can I see those earlier versions?CorinneSD (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Click on 'oldest', above the 'compare selected revisions' button.Rothorpe (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Cartesian linguistics

In the third paragraph of the lead in Cartesian linguistics, what is the "59" in parentheses after "Romanticism"?CorinneSD (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Forget that. I realized they were page numbers. I should have read a bit more before asking; I had not seen so many numbers in parentheses in an article before. I ended up reviewing the entire article and making minor revisions.CorinneSD(talk) 17:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to say, what a large number of them. Rothorpe(talk) 17:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Frederic William Henry Myers

I just saw an edit to Frederic William Henry Myers in which the editor added a period at the end of what I believe is an image file enclosed in double square brackets. Since I had seen many of your edits removing such periods, I thought I'd ask you if that edit was correct.

No, it's wrong. Sentence fragments do not have periods, full stop. Or full stops, period. I've removed many of these, but I've never seen anyone deliberately adding them before! If you wish to remove it (I'm going to spend some time investigating the following) you might like to seek out chapter and verse in the MoS, shouldn't be hard to find. Rothorpe (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit followed a series of edits by the same editor which I read. (I had spent some time on this article about two months ago.) I am not an expert, but, unless I missed something, this editor removed a paragraph which I thought was kind of key. On the Talk page, I asked the editor why he/she had removed it. I also noticed that in some of the material added in the edits, the syntax is not so great, so I will wait for a while and then go through it. What do you think about those edits?CorinneSD(talk) 00:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I see you've put some judicious comments on the talk page. The edits are drastic additions and removals, and I would have expected some consensus-seeking first. Hard to know what to do, since neither of us are experts. Rothorpe (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Rothorpe there's 100s of articles on Wikipedia with full stops in image file descriptions, the reason I added one is because I thought it was the correct thing to do, I got the idea from other articles. I apologize if I have made a mistake. Fodor Fan (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to be an expert on the subject. Myers was duped by the tricks of fraudulent mediums. Check out Walter Mann's The follies and frauds of spiritualism[1] for a good introduction, Myers is discussed in detail on pages 116-130. He was duped by the medium Eusapia Palladino. Fodor Fan (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You were correct about sentence fragments not having full stops, I apologize for the mistake. Fodor Fan (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the apologies---both of them! As for the content of the article, I'll let you get on with it. I shall, however... Rothorpe(talk) 02:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You are sometimes cryptic. Shall what?CorinneSD (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I did, change the 'however', though to a 'though' this time instead of the more usual 'but'. Rothorpe (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand. I saw that you had changed "; however," to ", though", which I thought was excellent. But what did you mean by "I shall, however...." at the end of your last comment, above?CorinneSD (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

'I shall, however, change the "however"'. Sorry, I must cut out this habit of hinting in fragments, and ending with ellipses... Rothorpe (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Mining

I've been reading the article on Mining and have made a few edits. I have come across a section in which I have a few questions. It is the section "Ancient Greece and Rome" in the larger "History" section. After reading the section "Ancient Greece and Rome", it seems to me that the material in it is not about mining in Ancient Greece and Rome but, after a brief mention of mining in Greece, about mining in Europe, most specifically in Britain and Spain, by Romans. I think the heading is misleading. Also, I think the material in the section is not organized very well. It seems to jump around, geographically. I wonder if you feel like working on organizing it better, or giving me your ideas about it.CorinneSD (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd change the heading to 'Ancient Romans' or something like that. Yes, the Greeks only get a brief mention as precursors. I wouldn't worry about the geographical oganisation, though, since it is mainly about techniques used by the Romans, and as such I think it's OK. Rothorpe (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

How about "Ancient Greek and Roman Mining"? Or "Ancient Roman Mining in Europe"? (I'm actually surprised that there is only a brief mention of mining in Greece.)

Well, if you keep the mention of the Greeks, someone might come along sometime and fill the gap. Rothorpe (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

O.K. re organization. I'll leave it as is.

I have three more questions about the section "The Americas":

• In the first paragraph, about two sentences in, there is a pair of close-quotes just before Note 14 (in parentheses). I couldn't figure out where the opening quotes should be.

See the gap before the footnotes after the first sentence in the paragraph? That's further evidence that someone has removed the first part of the quote. A look in the history will probably reveal it, though that could be time-consuming.Rothorpe (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't we just add the opening quotes there? I notice that the first sentence of the paragraph has Note 14 (that is, reference 14), which is the same as for the second sentence. I don't suppose we can consider both sentences part of one quote. Or is the best course to find the original quote and put it back in? What do you advise?CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• In the middle of the third paragraph, a quote ends, "....;" Gold Rushes...." Besides the fact that the semi-colon is inside the quotation marks (which I understand is not WP style), the presence of the semi-colon there seems odd. Maybe it's because of the capitalized "Gold Rushes", but perhaps a period is better there. What do you think?

Of course you're right, and that's further evidence of cavalier tampering with a quotation. Rothorpe (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So, again, add a period, or find the original quote and put the missing words back in?CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in the mood for detective work at the moment, so, yes, you could just correct the mistakes. Rothorpe (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Also in the third paragraph, the first sentence begins,

"Mining in the United States became prevalent in the 19th century". I just feel that the word "prevalant" to refer to mining is perhaps not the right word. Since I don't have an on-line dictionary/thesaurus right now, I can't search for a better word. I think it should be something more akin to, "Mining in the United States began to pick up in the 19th century", or "Mining...really got underway in the 19th century". Or, "Mining activity...increased..." Can you think of a verb that would express that?CorinneSD (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

My thesaurus has many suggestions, of which I like 'widespread' the best, though 'increased' would be fine if you want a verb---and looking up that gives 'proliferated' which is also quite good. Rothorpe (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Thank you!CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Making editing easier

I recently discovered Wikepedia:Village pump/Idea lab and have been following the discussions. The last discussion started with a poster who wished things like references and hidden messages to editors could be in a different color text from the article text, which I think would be wonderful. Then, the last comment suggests adding Wiked (in the Gadgets section of, I think, Preferences) which might make editing a lot easier. You can read about it in WP:WIKED. I suppose if one tried it and didn't like it, one could undo it. Just thought you might be interested.CorinneSD (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, things like Wiked make my eyes (or is it my mind?) glaze over.Rothorpe (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been editing since 2006 (my user page tells me) and I like things just the way they are. But it's great that there are so many options for so many different people.Rothorpe (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Normally, for me, too, especially just hearing about them, but I enabled it (by clicking just one small box in a long list of editing options under "Gadgets" in "Preferences"), and I like it. I haven't yet used any of the editing shortcuts (one can easily ignore those), but I like the contrast in color between actual article text and references, etc. I can concentrate on the text and ignore the references (but you, who like to review the references, would easily be able to read the references; the color is a light blue-lavender). Before, I had really found it difficult searching for the end of a reference to continue reading (in edit mode). I notice that there is now a small box in the upper right-hand corner which I can click to disable Wiked if I wanted to. Why don't you try it? The page doesn't look that different.CorinneSD (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'm switching it on now. (If I can find...) Rothorpe (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, I now see lots of colours where there were none. However, I have had to change to Google Chrome, as Explorer doesn't allow it (as explained on the page). But I stopped using Chrome for wikis after a short period a while back because it was impossible to paste and copy. Still is, unfortunately. Rothorpe (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

But I'll remember that for when I'm editing an article with a lot of references - then it'll be worth it. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol

Upon looking at a recent edit to the article on Symbol changing the class of the article, I saw two comments I had left on the Talk page of the article Talk:Symbolback in August. I wonder if you saw them, and, if not, if you had time to look at them. Perhaps you could help me with the first of the two, if not both.CorinneSD (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't see them. I'm not sure which paragraph you're referring to - the one about the woman Jean...? Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at the last two comments on the Talk page of the article on Symbol? The first one is headed "Psychoanalysis, rhetoric, and archetypes" and the second one is headed "Context".CorinneSD (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's where I got Jean from. Rothorpe (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I see that I was referring to the second paragraph in that section, not the third. I made a few more small edits, including some "clarification needed" tags, but I feel the paragraph still needs work. It's just not clear to me. I added a note below my original comment in which I corrected the paragraph.CorinneSD (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a muddy piece of writing. Best of luck! Rothorpe (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

putin

why doesnt anyone remove the "mafia state" from the putin article, most users disagreed with that and why must most of the intro be criticsm? why is the critisim in the intro already there not enough? anyway can you or someone else remove that it is not WP:NPOV and is a dirty slur 90.129.67.25 (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

please answer the request 83.180.215.208(talk) 18:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.180.166.57 (talk)

I've just had a look at the lead, and it seems quite balanced to me. 'Mafia state' is sourced, with five refs. Rothorpe (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

FA Nomination

I noticed you were on of the contributors on the Article of George Washington. So I just wanted to drop you a message to let you know I have nominated the article forFA status, you can see the nomination here. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Rothorpe (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Bead

If you don't mind, could you look at the latest edit to the article on Bead? The editor merely moved a bit of material (one or two sentences) about a type of bead called "Heishe" beads, from "See also" to the body of the article, in the section "Miscellaneous ethnic beads" within the larger section "Place or Period of Origin"; it had just been added in the edit before that one. My question is, in the phrase, "Kewa Pueblo People", should "People" be capitalized, as it is now, or lower-case?CorinneSD(talk) 15:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not capitalised, as e.g. Hopi people. Rothorpe (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Synesthesia

I just noticed an edit to the article on Synesthesia in which an editor added material to the article, with a reference. It seems like a good addition to the article, and is generally well-written. We'll have to wait and see if those who know about the topic let it stand, but in the meantime, I wanted to ask you what you thought about "Miren Edelstein et al ..." in the first sentence that was added. I know "et al" is used in references, but is it correct to use it in the middle of text? You will see that all the authors' names are given in the reference. I would think it would be better style to say, "Miren Edelstein and his colleagues", or "Miren Edelstein and his fellow researchers", or something like that. Or do you think the "et al" is all right? –CorinneSD (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's quite common - at least in Wikipedia - though perhaps better in italics. Your alternatives are certainly more stylish. Rothorpe (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Antonio José de Sucre

I just saw an edit to the article on Antonio José de Sucre in which an editor added a photo of what looks like either two sides of one coin, or two coins, on which is the outline of a bust of de Sucre. I was puzzled by the caption under the photo. I don't it it is quite right. In the Revision history one can see the entire file name, and I see "Dos decimos...." (I guess the name of the coins). Do you want to take a look at this and see if you can fix the caption? I don't really know what the caption should be.CorinneSD (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It'a a 2/10 sucre coin, the sucre being an old currency of Ecuador, and that's presumably Sucre's head, but really citation needed. I could write a caption along those lines, though it's using WP as a source. Rothorpe (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, '2 centimo coin of Ecuador' would be nice and cryptic...Rothorpe (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind making the edit? I'm not that comfortable editing captions and image file names. (Why would you want to be cryptic? I guess that's another one of your jokes/quips.) By the way, does de Sucre's name have anything to do with sugar?CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's French for sugar, yes. I'll make the edit. Rothorpe (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I decided to go for blatant translationism. Rothorpe (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Solomon Islands

I just saw an edit to the article on Solomon Islands in which an editor removed, rightly, a chunk of text that was added about five days ago and that was unencyclopedic and very poorly written. I had seen that material. I cannot remember now whether I chose to undo it with an edit summary saying "Unencyclopedic" or whether I just left it for someone else to do. I see the edit just prior to this one was my edit, with an edit summary saying "Unencyclopedic". I don't know what happened, whether I didn't undo the right edit, or whether I hit the wrong key, or what, but I am chagrined that anyone would think I had added that material or even missed it in an "undo". It was absolutely the poorest writing I've seen thus far in any article or in any edit on WP. What did I do wrong?CorinneSD (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been fixed, a bit of advertising - you got rid of some of it, another editor has removed the rest. Don't forget you can see what you did by clicking 'prev' next to the edit in the history. Rothorpe (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Amer/Brit English differences

In the process of editing, I have picked up two things that I think are differences between American and British English that I wanted to share with you. One, I was just reminded of upon reading a recent edit. I realized I had seen this several times before in other articles. While we generally use the same prepositions, it seems the English say "in the mainland" or "in the island" while Americans would invariably say "on the mainland" or "on the island".

That's one. The other one I'm not sure about and I wanted to ask you what you thought. I've noticed here and there the placement of an adverb after "been" in verbs such as "has been completed": "has been already completed", or "had been quietly sold". Americans would be more likely to put the adverb between "has", "have", or "had" and "been": "has already been completed", and "had quietly been sold". (I'm not sure these are the best examples; they are all I can think of at the moment.) My question is, do you think this is another example of British style, or an individual preference that has nothing to do with differences in British and American style?CorinneSD (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In the first case, I'm happy to say you're wrong. Please continue to change 'in the mainland' to 'on'! It's a mistake I've noticed from time to time, foreign-language interference presumably. In the second, that's true, though not in the case of 'already'. 'Had been quietly sold' would be unusual in BrE too, but would be used to emphasise the adverb. So these would be individual tendencies. Rothorpe (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I'm glad to know "in the mainland" is wrong. I just saw one a few minutes ago and will correct it. Can you think of an example of an adverb that you would put after "been"? Or, if you can't, perhaps when you come across one you can add it here.CorinneSD (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Had been hastily completed. Swiftly... Rothorpe (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, those sound right to me. Maybe it's just adverbs of frequency like "already" and "frequently" that would more often go before "been". I don't know. The next time I come across one, I'll ask you about it. I changed "in the mainland" to "on the mainland" in the article on Tea. I had just seen an edit and was reading the text just before and after the edit. Since it had to do with Wales, I was surprised.CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

'Frequently' would be unusual in that position, but 'been frequently occupied', yes, OK. Sorry, what's that about tea & Wales? Rothorpe (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the Revision history in the article on Tea, you will see my last edit. Right before it were two small edits that seem all right. Just below the http website address just after that edit you will see "Pembrokeshire", and, before I made the edit, "in the mainland".CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing. If it's in Wales, (and it if is, shouldn't it say so?), is "on the British mainland" really necessary?CorinneSD (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite so, and I have replaced it with 'England' (let's hope there aren't too many Cornish nationalists reading) and 'Wales'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! It's not confusing now.CorinneSD (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Paine

Would you mind taking a look at the last few edits to Thomas Paine? I cannot judge regarding categories, but just before the edits changing categories, there is an edit by the same editor with an edit summary saying "unsourced, misleading". The problem with that edit is that what is left, "Although.....", a single adverbial clause ending in a period, is ungrammatical. What was there before, "While....." makes more sense. Also, in that same edit, a lot of material was deleted that was not placed there by the previous editor. (I have no way to judge whether it is "unsourced" or "misleading".) Probably someone else will revert, but if you feel confident it's all wrong, you could go ahead and undo the edit, or let me know and I'll do it.CorinneSD(talk) 15:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It was unsourced, so removing it is OK, but he has left a fragment with a footnote. I'm not sure if the note supports the contention that Paine never described himself as a deist. Perhaps remove that too? Rothorpe (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where the note is, but I see that the material deleted December 6 by Bladesmulti as unsourced was, in fact, unsourced; it is a collection of quotes, and each quote ends with "citation needed". I tried to go back in the edits to see when they were added, but I couldn't find it. I think I'm just going to leave it.CorinneSD (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A bad job, right. But I shall have to alter that sentence fragment.Rothorpe (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind – I went ahead and changed your sentence to an adverbial clause in order to show the contrast between his words in the block quote and how he described (or did not describe) himself.CorinneSD (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, so I saw, excellent. Rothorpe (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Merton

Do you know anything about Thomas Merton? An editor just added two categories but also removed one, ie., Christian humanists. I wonder whether that should have stayed in the article. Do you have any idea?CorinneSD (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No! All I can say is that in cases like that, a shoulder-shrug is the best response.Rothorpe (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Frederic William Henry Myers

Would you mind explaining the last edit to Frederic William Henry Myers to me? I don't understand either part of the edit summary, which is,

"rename venn to acad; remove deprecated parameters".

Thanks.CorinneSD (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that an edit was made with the same edit summary to Ralph Vaughan Williams.CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it would appear that 'venn' is a parameter that has been deprecated in favour of 'acad'. So all 'venns' must be thus banished and replaced. I hope that is clear.Rothorpe (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, only slightly. I always that "venn" was part of "Venn diagram", which was named after someone named "Venn". I'll leave those in charge of deprecating venns to their work. What is meant here by "parameter"? Isn't a parameter a set of guidelines that indicates the limits of a subject or project?CorinneSD (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Normally, yes. I'm afraid the inner workings of footnotes are a mystery to me.Rothorpe (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Trivia

I see that you are in favor of "trivia" (as am I). I would like your opinion on some aspects of that.

As you probably know, while there are policy discussions that "discourage" trivia, it is not "outlawed" in any way, as evidenced by the existence of the "trivia" maintenance tag.

I believe that for the most part, article sections people are calling "In Popular Culture" are in fact trivia, and that the title "In Popular Culture" is a (disingenuous) subterfuge to get around the perceived negativity of trivia. I think that "In Popular Culture" and "Trivia", in the way that they are used at Wikipedia, are in factsynonyms.

I believe in "truth in titling" and that most "In Popular Culture" sections, being for the most part trivia, should be titled "Trivia", and if appropriate the section marked with the "trivia" maintenance tag.

Your opinion? =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Is that what you mean by 'maintenance tag'? Yes, 'In popular culture' is definitely a euphemism that WP can do without, so I'll be happy to support you there.Rothorpe (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the tag... =//= Johnny Squeaky 06:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, please put There's No Business Like Show Business on your watchlist (for some reason the song occupied my head). Rothorpe (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That article also raises the question: Where does the main text end and trivia begin?Rothorpe (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Village Pump Idea lab

If you have nothing else to do :) , you might like to read the latest comment on WP Village Pump Idea lab about useless proposals. I had to resist my impulse to add "the world's longest run-on sentence" or "Are you serious?" in reply. I actually cannot tell for sure whether the writer was serious or was writing tongue-in-cheek. I suspect the latter, but you never know....CorinneSD (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Deadly serious, I fear. He/she (Bbc) seems to specialise in that sort of talk, and as far as I can see has added no actual encyclopedic content, which is probably a good thing. Rothorpe (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Bangladesh

I've posted a comment on Bangladesh on my Talk page, hoping to get help from either you or Paine Ellsworth, or both.CorinneSD (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it, and am about to investigate. Rothorpe (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join

I think you should join the Guild of Copy Editors as you like to copy-edit articles. - Rahat (Talk *Contributions) 16:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the invitation, and also for your thanks just before. I've thought about it but didn't join as I don't want to edit any old article, only those that I am interested in, or those that I am personally asked to look at. Which means of course that if you have any requests, I'll happy to help out. Cheers! Rothorpe(talk) 17:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

In the latest edit to Papua New Guinea, an editor changed the dates of the Cretaceous Period, with an edit summary. However, he/she also added space around an "en-dash". In a sentence, there should be space around an en-dash, but when it separates two dates (two years), there shouldn't be any space, should there? I didn't want to change it until I checked with you. You can go ahead and change it.CorinneSD (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I just have. Quite an epidemic, this space craze. Rothorpe(talk) 19:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Vanuatu

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Vanuatu? I don't see it as an improvement, but I thought I'd ask you what you thought. I don't think the actual name of the place, Espirito Santo, needs to be in quotes, even though it is a Spanish phrase, do you? And I think "is the Spanish term for" is just slightly more elegant than "is Spanish for". I don't know whether "Holy Spirit" needs a link or not.CorinneSD (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think you need quotes after 'named' or 'called', though they're often used. As for elegance v. brevity, I'm inclined to agree in this case too. But I'll leave you to think of a suitable edit summary... Rothorpe (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I left a comment on the editor's Talk page.CorinneSD (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea 2

I just saw your last edit to Papua New Guinea. How in the world did you know that the coat of arms was non-existent?

Also, how do you manage to notice all those unnecessary and misplaced periods and spaces in and around references? You must have very good eyes.CorinneSD(talk) 01:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment; it suggests my glasses are still okay. Did you look at what I changed the coat of arms bit from? It was quite a puzzle, actually. I didn't mean that no coat of arms actually exists, if that's what you mean; I don't have any knowledge of that. Rothorpe (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw in the "before" (in the revision history of the edit) what you deleted (coat of arms and emblem, in two separate lines), but I didn't know what they were. Was there something there, in the article? How would I see that? (I might have asked you this before, but don't remember the answer).CorinneSD (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

In the history, click on any edit's date before my last one and you'll see what looks like a red link in the info box. I had to get rid of it. Rothorpe(talk) 14:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Frit

I saw an edit to the article on Frit, and immediately saw a few grammatical and syntactical errors, so I went to that section ("Modern uses") to correct them, which I did, but I also felt some things were not clear to the non-expert reader (like me), so I added "clarification needed" tags with notes. Was that all right, or am I an idiot for not understanding "frits...their own entities", "sinter", and "frits can be used as biomaterial" (alone, with no examples or further details)? (I glanced at the rest of the article; will read it someday; this article seems to me to be one of the most difficult to understand of all the articles I've come across.) – CorinneSD(talk) 02:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Never heard of frits, and the opening sentence, 'Frit is a ceramic composition...', gives one no confidence. Wikipedia is not supposed to be for experts only. I hope you get a sympathetic response. Rothorpe (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I provided clarifications for two out of the three "clarification needed" tags in the "Modern uses" section. Regarding the third tag, I'm not sure what the author means by "their own entities," so I left that alone. Also, I gave words with links for some chemical formulas and vice versa. H Padleckas (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You must have been writing this while I was writing a note to you on your Talk page. Regarding "their own entities", couldn't we guess that the writer meant something like "frits on their own", or "frits not joined, or blended, with anything else" (you could probably choose the best word)? If not, then we'll do as you said, just leave it alone.CorinneSD (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Rothorpe, I just remembered, in the section "Modern uses" in the article on Fritor Frits, there are two sets of quotation marks that don't look like the quotation marks I usually see. Can you look at them?CorinneSD (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they're what you get if you write in Word and then paste it in. I've substituted them. Rothorpe (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Fermi paradox

Would you mind looking at the most recent edit to Fermi paradox? I know that people often confuse "disinterested" with "uninterested", but I see "uninterest" so rarely I wondered if it were even a word, but I see it is in Wiktionary (see below). I just wondered if you agreed with this edit. I thought "disinterested" usually meant not having any vested interest in an issue, but I see from the definitions below that it can it also mean "lack of interest; indifference; apathy"? The paragraph is imagining we humans in the near future who get so caught up with our technology that we lose interest in space exploration.

Wiktionary gives the follow definitions for "uninterest":

uninterest (uncountable)

Lack of interest; indifference.

and for "disinterest":

disinterest (uncountable)

1) A lack of interest; indifference; apathy.

2) The absence of selfish bias or self-interest; impartiality or detachment.

3) (obsolete) What is contrary to interest or advantage; disadvantage.

I don't care either way (I'm disinterested), but I think "uninterest" sounds odd. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I just saw your edit to Fermi paradox changing "likely" to "probably" with an edit summary saying "unrepeat". What does "unrepeat" mean? I looked for another instance of "likely" to see if you meant "removed repetition", but I didn't find one, so then I thought that it was another example of your wry humor, but I don't get it. Does it have to do with "uninterest"?CorinneSD (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's 'like', which follows shortly afterwards, that I'm unrepeating---though really it's an excuse to get rid of the imperialist* adverb 'likely', which I dis, er, like. Rothorpe (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC) *Been editing Jang Sung-taek, sorry.

I think I read somewhere that "likely" in the sense of "probably" was distinctly American usage. I think that, even though I sometimes use "likely", it is too informal here anyway. CorinneSD (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget my question, above, about "disinterest" and "uninterest".CorinneSD (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They say it is American colloquial, yes, and I'm glad you wouldn't use it there. Actually I was going to put a verb in front of it and then I noticed it was the adverb, otherwise I probably wouldn't have bothered. (Forgot to sign.Rothorpe (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC))

I went back and looked at the "before":

" some of these stars likely have Earth-like planets" (very informal)

and realized that we would be more likely to say (and write):

"some of these stars are likely to have Earth-like planets", which, although close to "probably have", has a slightly different meaning, even feeling. Also, sometimes the adverb "very" is added: "are very likely to have" (or any verb). Do you ever use "likely" in this way?CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, at first I misread it as 'some of these stars likely to have Earth-like planets', so went to insert the 'missing' are. It's mentioned on my user page, by the way. Rothorpe (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

...Under 'things I try not to alter', though perhaps it is too colloquial and I ought to go back to altering it. What do you think? Rothorpe (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the way it was, "some of these stars likely have Earth-like planets" is actually colloquial in American English, but I would guess that it is really a shortened form of "are likely to have", and, of course, "are likely to have" is more complete and thus a degree more formal. If "are likely to have" does not make sense to British ears, or does not sound right, then we ought to leave it "probably have".CorinneSD (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

'Are likely to have' is what I originally thought was intended, and I was going to alter it to that. As an adjective 'likely' is normal in BrE; it's the adverbial use that is problematic, as you say too colloquial, and I shall alter it in future, and my page accordingly. Rothorpe (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I haven't forgotten your question. Rothorpe (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does sound odd, but I don't mind that too much. However, there is a ref following, and it appears to be a quotation from a book, so, a bit reluctantly, I've changed it back. Rothorpe (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Anji Bridge

If you want to see a picture of a beautiful, very old bridge, go to the article Anji Bridge. Be sure to click on the photo to enlarge it.CorinneSD(talk) 22:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a lovely bridge, and very old. Reminds me of England, actually. (I didn't know you could enlarge those infobox pictures by clicking on them.) Rothorpe(talk) 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you saw it. I save some of the pictures I find in WP articles. Then I see them in a continuous slide show on my desktop (the screen you see when you log into your computer, behind the desktop icons).CorinneSD (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice, but I prefer an abstract desktop so the icons don't interfere with it. Currently a blue ray on a green sky. Abstract? Well, you know. Rothorpe (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Castle Combe

Another one of my place mat villages... I have a few questions for you:

In the first paragraph it says The Times'... Shouldn't The Times be in italics? Isn't it a newspaper?

Yes.

Ah, look what's happened. The italic apostrophes have collided with the real apostrophe creating a mass of bold italic. There is a way of fixing it, but I don't remember...Rothorpe (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

In the middle of the section on "History" in the article on Castle Combe I came across the following sentence:

"He promoted the woollen industry, supplying his own troops and others for Henry V's war in France."

Does this mean that Sir ... supplied his own troops (soldiers) and other troops (or should it be "others'", meaning "other nobles' troops"?) with woolen (Am.)/woollen (Br.) clothing during Henry V's war, or does it mean that he promoted the woollen industryand supplied (that is, lent) soldiers to fight in the war? To me, it is not clear. Is it clear to you that "supplying" means supplied woollens to the soldiers?

Sounds like it. Rothorpe (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I notice that twice, once in "History" and once in the caption to one of the photos at the bottom, "church" is not capitalized in "St. Andrews church". Is that correct? I've always seen "church" capitalized in the name of a church.

Yes, you're right. Usually there would be an apostrophe too. (More later.)Rothorpe (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

In the first sentence in the section "Popular culture" is the following:

"at the producers' arbitrary modifications of the area for shooting that was severe enough..."

Which shall I change, "modifications" or "was"? It should be "modifications....that were" or "modification....that was". I'm inclined to keep "modifications". What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's 'irritation...that was'. Rothorpe (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my gosh. You're right. I think I'm getting tired. I'd better stop editing for today.CorinneSD (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Help! Along with a few small edits, I tried to change "The Times'" to italics, and saved it. When I looked at the article, the whole first line is now in bold italics, and "The Times" is in just bold. I couldn't figure out how to change it back. I guess I could undo, but then I don't know how to change "The Times'" to italics. I tried just highlighting it and clicking the "I" for italics, and I tried putting in two single quotation marks before and after it. Neither way worked (after I messed it up). I think the problem is that with the single possessive apostrophe, two more makes three, and that makes it bold. Can you fix it?CorinneSD (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a way, but I've forgotten (see above). For the moment, I'll just undo.Rothorpe (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have another question about Castle Combe. I clicked on the photos at the bottom to look at them. When I clicked on the photo that says "Market Cross", I saw a small pile of stones in the middle of the road, and a larger construction under a small pointed roof just behind it. Which one is the Market Cross? I don't see any cross at all. And why does it have to be capitalized?CorinneSD (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the mysteries of Olde England! I suspect the 'Cross' is short for crossroads, but you never know. Rothorpe (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the cross is mentioned at the beginning, I see. Well, you don't expect English crosses to look like crosses, do you? Rothorpe (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, 'the remains of the buttercross', it says. Rothorpe(talk) 03:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I should have clicked on "buttercross" when I saw it. I thought it was something different from Market Cross. You didn't answer my question about "modifications", above.CorinneSD (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now! (Before you wrote that.) Rothorpe (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits just made to your user page

If "likely" in "a likely story" is an adjective, then isn't the synonym "probable" rather than "probably"?

Ah, I got that! Must have sensed you were watching. Rothorpe (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding X is daft,.....and punctuation is..." seems unfinished. Isn't it missing "and punctuation is just as daft"? Or were you still in the middle of your edits?CorinneSD (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now. When it's not in edit mode, the word daft is clear, "and punctuation just daft" (as it was before). Sorry 'bout that. I didn't see the word "daft" in edit mode except at the end of the link.CorinneSD (talk)

Oh, good. I wasn't looking forward to explaining that. Rothorpe(talk) 03:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, continuing our discussion of "likely", in "X is likely to have" isn't "likely" an adjective? You could substitute "X is more probable than not to have", couldn't you? It's only an adverb when it is before a verb, as in "X likely has". If it is an adjective, then why wouldn't it be used in British English along with "a likely story"? Just wondering...CorinneSD (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, I think it is finished now. But I'm going to have another look.Rothorpe (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's OK now. Rothorpe (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I just saw the changes you made to your user page regarding "likely". I would like to suggest that you change your example at the beginning from "likely it was" to "it is likely". I've rarely heard "likely it was". If anything, it would be "it was likely".CorinneSD (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

But that would change it back into an adjective; I need an example where 'likely' is clearly an adverb. I'll try to think of a better one. Rothorpe (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not use the example from Fermi paradox that raised the topic to begin with (see discussion above)? "...some of these stars likely have Earth-like planets". If you don't want to take a line directly from an article, just substitute some other words: "...some of these ____ likely have _____ " (fill in the blanks).CorinneSD (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, already! Great minds think alike! Rothorpe (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I was just adding "Earth-like" to the example "some of these stars...".CorinneSD (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Good, well, I don't suppose I need ask you what you think. Rothorpe(talk) 20:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I just read it, and now it's perfect! It is worded perfectly and has just the right examples.CorinneSD (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'm very pleased. Rothorpe (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Theodor Gaster

I just read the article on Theodore Gaster and I have two questions:

• In the sixth paragraph in the section "Life", there is a book title written in italics, followed by the year of publication in square brackets, all in parentheses: (The New Golden Bough [1959]). I have rarely, if ever, seen square brackets inside parentheses like that, and I wondered if it was correct.

Yes, it's correct. I recently saw an example here on WP, after wondering if people had forgotten about the possibility. Rothorpe (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Somewhere, it says he earned a Ph.D., but it is written without periods. I know in England titles like "Mr", "Mrs" and "Dr" are written without periods, but in the U.S. they are written with periods, as is Ph.D. I just wondered if "PhD" is correct. (It looks very odd to me.)CorinneSD (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

PhD looks OK to me. The article thereon drops the dots pretty quickly.Rothorpe (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you, regarding both queries.CorinneSD (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Table of Contents in new archive

I created my next archive, Archive 2, but now in my new Talk page I don't see the box with the table of contents like (as) I do in Archive 2. How do I put that box in?CorinneSD (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It'll be generated automatically as soon as there are sections to list.Rothorpe (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh. O.K. I thought it would start right away since I have one section already.CorinneSD (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Two are needed, I think. Rothorpe (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Tonga

Remember that you said you would review all those edits in Tonga and Niue? (I hope you'll put some of the words back in.) Also, you might enjoy reading the last few edits, and edit summaries, to Tonga regarding statistics. Look at the difference in numbers (and percentage) on the last edit (17,000 vs. 60,000!).CorinneSD (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

'Not in the mood just now, but I'll watch them' means I would review them? That's 'watch' in the technical sense, you know. Right, well, off to Tonga, then...Rothorpe (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess my wishful thinking translated "watch" to "review", and it worked!CorinneSD (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

With editors like that I just want to revert the whole lot and say 'how dare you', but I don't know either subject. If you want to massively revert them, count on my support, but otherwise... Rothorpe (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Had another look, and feel the same way. If you want to attempt these articles, I'll keep watching, but as it is I throw up my hands. Rothorpe (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Quinoa

I just read the article on Quinoa and made a few edits. I have two questions for you. Get to them when you feel up to it; sorry to hear you're "under the weather". Hope you feel better soon. Here are the questions. They're both in the section "Harvesting and handling".

1) There is a photograph of men threshing quinoa to the left of the section. The caption is in Spanish. Shouldn't it be in English?

2) In the section "Harvesting and handling", there are two numbers followed by "t/ha". I believe this is "tons per hectare", but since Americans are not used to hectares, and are thus not used to "ha", "t/ha" means nothing to us. I wonder whether I should (a) put in the convert template to show "tons per acre" after "t/ha", or (b) just write out "tons per hectare". Thank you!CorinneSD (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I translated the Spanish, and the text confirms. I'm not used to hectares or anything like that, so, yes, do put in the convert template if you can. (Thanks, just a chesty cold, ugh...) Rothorpe (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Now I see you've already suggested the best word, threshing. Rothorpe(talk) 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Please do not be shocked at the thank you notification. I do want to send it.Speling12345 (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not shocked, not least because you haven't sent one. But thank you anyway.Rothorpe (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)