User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Bauxite

I've been reading the article on Bauxite. I agree with someone who posted a comment on the article's Talk page that the article reads a bit as though it were written for minerologists. I left one comment on the Talk page. I'm going to see if I can find an editor with a background in minerology or metallurgy to review the article (and answer my questions). However, I can ask you about English issues. In the section "Production trends", the last sentence before the table is:

"Increased aluminium recycling, which has the advantage of lowering the cost in electric power in producing aluminium, will considerably extend the world's bauxite reserves."

Generally, I try to avoid using the same preposition twice in close proximity, but before I make any changes I thought I'd ask you for your opinion. Here we've got "lowering the cost in electric power in producing aluminum". My first thought was to change the first "in" to "of". Then I thought, perhaps "the cost in..." is a British idiom. (I have heard "the cost in...", but not as often as I hear "the cost of..." Usually, I hear "the cost in..." with something like, "the cost in lives..." I suppose "the cost in electric power" would be all right, though.) Then I thought about changing "in producing aluminum" to "in the production of aluminum" (but then there would still be two "in's"). Which is best?

"which has the advantage of...

• lowering the cost of electric power in producing aluminum / in the production of aluminum;

• lowering the cost in electric power in producing aluminum (that is, leave it the way it is) / in the production of aluminum".

My other question is at the beginning of another section toward the end of the article. It starts,

"Prior to the Hall--Hénoult process,..." I thought maybe it would be more accurate to place a noun before "the Hall--Hénoult process", something like:

• Prior to the introduction of the H-H process,..."
• Prior to the advent of the H-H process, ..."
• Prior to the invention of the H-H process, ..." What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

1. 'The cost in lives' is an idiomatic usage, perhaps. Your first thought, changing to of, was mine too. Come to think of it, 'in' is subtly different. It implies 'the amount of power you will have to pay for' as opposed to its price. But does that matter? 'Lowering the cost in electric power of producing', perhaps?

2. Or just 'Prior to this discovery...'? Rothorpe (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you think? Is "Prior to this discovery" better? CorinneSD (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I see no need to repeat the name. Rothorpe (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I meant, is your phrase, "prior to this discovery", better than what I put there? If you think so, I'll change it. CorinneSD (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it an invention or a discovery? Or are they the same? Rothorpe (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I read in the article on the Hall-Héroult Process#Independent discovery that it was invented in 1886. CorinneSD (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Ho, ho; it's fine as it is. Rothorpe (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Guyana

An editor added a link to "Atlantic Ocean" to Guyana. Is that overlinking? If so, this is not the first time I will be undoing an edit and referring that same editor to WP:OVERLINK. CorinneSD (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You could try asking why. I mean what would they say?? Rothorpe (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I undid the edit and added an edit summary saying See WP:OVERLINK. Read especially, "What generally should not be linked". That section specifically mentions not to link major geographical areas. CorinneSD (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, very good. Rothorpe (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Aram Khachaturian

I'm involved in a discussion about the pronunciation of (and pronunciation guide for) Aram Khachaturian. I just left a comment on the talk page. In the comment I wanted to put a link to the Wikipedia Pronunciation respelling key that I got to by hovering over the little a in square brackets that appears right after the name at the beginning of the article and clicking on one of the two pronunciations in the box that opens up. There is a whole article there. But I could not create the link. It stayed red, so I left it out. How can I make that link? It's in the middle of my comment. CorinneSD (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, just catching up with this. You want to put in a lnk to Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key? Rothorpe (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did, but now it's not important. The discussion has gone way beyond my comment, and Yerevantsi thinks my comment had nothing to do with the discussion, so I'm going to leave it now, and leave it to Kwamikagami and others to sort out. Thank you, though. CorinneSD (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I decided not to get involved with that; it was always 'Catch a churian' where I come from. Rothorpe (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hm-m-m. If you mention that, you'd really enliven the discussion! CorinneSD (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm controlling myself, but I had to put in a semicolon before a 'however'. What do you think of 'Since 1950 he taught at the Gnessin Institute...'? Present perfect with 'since' but of course he's dead, so my tendency would be to change it to 'From' - but I've often seen this construction on Wikipedia. Rothorpe (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course you are right. I don't like past tense with "since". To me, it's simply not correct. I also don't like "From + date" without a "to + date". I changed it. I also noticed a discrepancy in the year and left a "clarification needed" tag and note to editors. CorinneSD (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

'Beginning in', yes, that's best. Rothorpe (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you following the discussion at Aram Khachaturian? It's getting interesting, now. (By the way, I don't know how to create a link directly to the talk page.) CorinneSD (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, Talk:Aram Khachaturian goes back on my watchlist. Rothorpe (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Molybdenum

I was inspired by the beautiful photos of synthetic bismuth I found (see my User page; I added a second photo of it), and I read the article on bismuth. I then proceeded to read articles about other elements. I'm now at Molybdenum. I skip over the parts that are too technical. I have a few questions for you about Molybdenum#History:

1) In the second paragraph, it says "In the West". I think I remember that you usually change "West" to "west". Should it be lower-case here?

No, not when it means 'Western world', and here it's contrasting with Japan.

2) In the fourth paragraph, would you look at the first sentence? Toward the end of that sentence there is a series of three phrases. They don't seem to reflect parallel structure. I think the middle phrase might need adjusting, but I thought I'd ask you what you think is best.

I know what you mean, but I think it's OK.

3) In the fifth paragraph, I see three phrases that are inconsistent with regard to the use of the hyphen:

• manganese steel plating
• molybdenum-steel plating
• molybdenum-doped steel.

I lean toward preferring no hyphen in the second phrase (matching the first) rather than adding a hyphen to the first. What do you think? I don't know whether the third phrase needs the hyphen or not. CorinneSD (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the second hyphen must go, to preserve balance; the third is needed in the compound adjective. Rothorpe (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Cadmium

In the first paragraph in the section Cadmium#History (the only part I can understand), I notice at least two instances of repetition of information. Do you think I should attempt a re-wording to eliminate the repetition or just leave it? CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean (again). Probably the first 'impurity of zinc carbonate' could go; the second repetition is rather distant, so can stay. Rothorpe (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I left a message at User talk:0x0077BE, who is a physicist (but also part of Wiki Project Linguistics). I noticed an additional problem with that section. CorinneSD (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's one of the hazards of a wiki. Stromeyer was there alone in 2010, and someone added in the unfinished story of Hermann later. Rothorpe (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Good sleuthing. Do you want to add that information to my comment on 0x0077BE's talk page? CorinneSD (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Seahorses

I had left a note on Apokryltaros' talk page about a sentence on Seahorses (I could have asked you, too, but he has a science background, so I thought I'd ask him) a few days ago. I just saw it this evening and realized he had not replied to it. I re-read the sentence and thought maybe it's because it was too obvious. But then I couldn't even find that sentence in Seahorses. (Please read my latest comments on Apokryltaros' talk page.) First, I changed the section in my original comment to "Birth". Then I went back in the revision history of the article for a little while and could not find any change. Now I can't figure out where I got that sentence. I don't know whether I copied something wrong, or whether it's somewhere else in the article, or whether someone made an edit that I missed. Do you feel like helping me figure out what happened? CorinneSD (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but can you refine it down to a precise question? I'm at Seahorse, and I've read Mr Fink's talk page, but I'm not sure, or too lazy to know exactly, what to look for. Rothorpe (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the section headed "Seahorses" on Mr. Fink's talk page, three sections from the bottom? I had quoted a sentence that I thought was unclear. I had indicated that it was in Seahorses#Reproduction. Here's the chronology:

1) i just noticed today that he had not replied to my question, so I re-read what I had written to him. Then I thought, maybe he didn't reply because he thought the sentence was perfectly clear and my question was silly. I re-read the sentence I had quoted and thought maybe it was clear, or clear enough.

2) I went back to find the sentence in Seahorses#Reproduction and couldn't find it. I saw something like it in Seahorses#Birth, so, before reading it carefully I went back and changed the section (in my original comment) to "Birth".

3) Then I went back to the section "Birth" and read the sentence carefully. I realized that it was completely different, and better. I though someone had revised the sentence.

4) I went slowly back through the recent Revision History and could not find anything on that sentence.

5) I left a final note to that effect on Mr. Fink's talk page.

My question is, where did I get that original sentence from? CorinneSD (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, on e.g. 02:52, 4 April, my edit, it's in the caption of the diagram in the Reproduction section. Rothorpe (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not your edit. I see, as you pointed out, that it is in the caption of the diagram in the Reproduction section. My original comment had given the correct section but I had neglected to mention that it was in the caption of the diagram and when I went back to my comment today I had forgotten that it could be in the caption of the diagram, and I could not find it. Now Apokryltaros must think I'm an idiot. I still think it is not particularly clear. I think the wording of that information in the "Birth" section is clearer, but I guess if you read both, the caption will will clear enough. Thank you for finding it, though. CorinneSD (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK,'my save', then - I wasn't claiming credit for the edit! I think Apokryltaros will know that it's very easy to mislay things like that in this environment. It may look as if there is a term missing after 100–1000, but if one does a double take (to borrow a theatrical term) I think it becomes clear. Rothorpe (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Isles of Scilly

Didn't we have a discussion a while back about the verb "have" vs. "has" in Isles of Scilly? I think I asked you whether "have" or "has" should follow Natural England. Now an editor -- probably an American who, like me, finds things like "the committee have" odd -- has changed "have" to "has". Is "Natural England" (which, I believe, is a quasi-governmental body or society in England), considered plural in England? Do you want to take a look at this? CorinneSD (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a company or a sports team, so the singular strikes me as natural and correct. Rothorpe (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried using the search function in your Archive box. I put in "Isles of Scilly" and found our earlier discussion regarding "have" or "has". I got to the article on Natural England and saw that the article uses third person singular twice in the lede. So "has" is O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, seems I've got a bit wiser since that discussion: I immediately went to the article this time, to find out what the usage was, and what kind of body it was. American English is much more logical in that regard. Rothorpe (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding search option to your Talk page

A while back, an editor added a search option to my Talk page. It enables one to search for any topic that might have been discussed earlier. In the case of "Isles of Scilly" (see comment just above), you might, for example, have wanted to look at an earlier discussion. If you want to add it, just type, once, at the top of your Talk page (this one) (in Edit mode) what's between the "nowiki's": {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} . CorinneSD (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'll do that. Rothorpe (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's another way of getting an archive box. My old one was ruined, for some reason I never understood. Let's hope this one lasts. Rothorpe (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello R. I got caught up editing other articles so I got to WP:NUMERAL just as you were making your edit with the explanatory edit summary. Thanks for correcting me and for you time in this situation. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Rothorpe (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Bronze

In the article on Bronze, an IP editor added a "citation needed" tag to the sentence that says the Bronze Age was named after the metal bronze. Is a citation needed for that? CorinneSD (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Or possible? Rothorpe (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit has been undone. CorinneSD (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Lesley Molseed

Are you still watching Murder of Lesley Molseed? An editor "moved four categories to redirect". I don't know what that means, so I thought I'd point it out to you. CorinneSD (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I was going to look there, but I'm afraid I haven't a clue what that means. Rothorpe (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Can you help? CorinneSD (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Two ways to find out: (1) Look at the editor's other contributions around that time. (2) Check "what links here" for that article, and look at any redirects to the page. I'm guessing that there is a page Lesley Molseed which redirects there, and that the categories were added to that redirect. This is useful in various cases, see WP:Categorizing redirects. – Fayenatic London 07:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Fayenatic london. Where do I find "What links here"? CorinneSD (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it's under Tools, in the panel at the top left of every page. Very useful it is too. – Fayenatic London 23:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Thank you. I had never even looked at anything in the left margin. CorinneSD (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Bismuth

In the article on Bismuth, an IP editor changed "peptic ulcers" to something else and in the process left out the closing pair of square brackets. Should the edit be undone? CorinneSD (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This one too! Rothorpe (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw, and I was trying to leave you a note, and got "Edit Conflict". Sometimes things happen quickly on WP. CorinneSD (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've been edit conflicted on consecutive days, so I'm trying to be a little more laid back. Rothorpe (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Your attitude

Comments such you wrote in this edit summary, [1], are unconstructive and rather objectionable. Please modify your tone for the future and treat others with respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.169.129.18 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I see someone else has reverted it now. Are you going to make your case on the talk page? Rothorpe (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I too note another editor shares your views on sloppy English, however the reason for my message was your obnoxious edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.169.129.18 (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"He played some 75 roles" is good English, trust me. Rothorpe (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

IP 110.169: Go to Wiktionary.org. Type "Wiktionary" in your search bar. Then click on "www.Wiktionary.org" near the top of the article. Then put in some in the search bar. A window will open up with all the definitions of some. You will first see definitions for some as a Pronoun. Scroll down a bit and you will see the definitions for some as a Determiner, which is a kind of adjective. Scroll down a bit further and you will see the definition for some as an Adverb. In the sentence "He played some 75 roles", some is an adverb that means "approximately". It means "approximately" (or "about"), but is shorter and thus more concise than "approximately", making it a useful word to know. Just because you are not familiar with a word or the way a word is used in a sentence does not mean that it is wrong. It may just mean that you have never come across, or heard, it before.

Rothorpe was not being rude. His edit summary was in response to your edit summary. Rothorpe is one of the politest, most helpful, most knowledgeable editors on Wikipedia. I, with a graduate degree in teaching English and writing, still often ask him for his opinion on matters of grammar and vocabulary. You really need to step back and be a little more open to learning something new, not only from Rothorpe but from the many other very knowledgeable editors on Wikipedia. And before you challenge another editor like that, first check Wiktionary.org or another on-line dictionary such as Merriam-Webster or the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). Look at all the definitions and read all the examples to see how the word is used. You are always welcome to ask an editor a question or suggest an alternative while giving your reasons. You might also read the Wikipedia editor's user page. It so happens that Rothorpe is educated at a top university and has spent his career teaching English. He doesn't have to contribute anything to Wikipedia. He does this to contribute to a free collaboratively developed encylopedia and for enjoyment. We really ought to appreciate his many and continuing contributions. Take a step back, start fresh, and enjoy collaborating (and learning). CorinneSD (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Here, here! Cassianto^talk 22:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Commonweath of Nations

In the second paragraph of the lede in Commonwealth of Nations, I see "mid 20th century" without a hyphen. Should there be a hyphen there? CorinneSD (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked into this some time ago and was surprised to find that 'mid' was a word in its own right, as I was used to seeing it hyphenated (I wonder what my source was). So now when I see it hyphenated I think it's pedantic, and when I see it without a hyphen it looks wrong too. Which would you prefer to be right? Rothorpe (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I never saw it as a separate word. I always thought it should be hyphenated. Does OED say anything about this? CorinneSD (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

OED (1977) says "usually as combination after in"; it is Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (1974) that gives 'in mid winter' and so on as examples. So different rules for them and us. I'll give Collins the casting vote, but will leave you in suspense for the time being. Rothorpe (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It echoes OED in including mid as a word as a poetic version of amid only. Merriam Webster online, though, gives plenty of examples of it as a separate word, mentioning 'often used in combination', with one example, only in the first sentence. All part of the trend against hyphens, I am tempted to say. Rothorpe (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am really surprised about Merriam-Webster. I have noticed that words that used to be written with a hyphen such as "re-worded", "post-operative", etc. are now all written without the hyphen. I like the hyphen. I think it makes the word easier to read, especially when a prefix that ends in a vowel (like "re-") is followed by a word beginning with a vowel: "re-aligned". If it is written "realigned", the reader must quickly choose "re-al" or "real", slowing down reading ever so slightly. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. And you've taught me that there's one in "Merriam-Webster". Rothorpe (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Soapstone

I've begun reading articles on minerals. I just read the article on Talc, and am now reading Soapstone. In the section Soapstone#Petrology, the last sentence reads:

However, this mineral typically does not have such a soapy feel as that from which soapstone derives its name.

I think there is something wrong with this sentence, specifically, the last part. What does "that" stand for? "[This] mineral" or "soapy feel"? The original sentence from which the adjective clause was formed would read: "Soapstone derives its name from -- ." "Soapy feel" would fit better here than "mineral". Is it clear to you? Or is it ambiguous? CorinneSD (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a terrible sentence for just that reason. Rothorpe (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

'...soapy feel as soapstone' I think is all that is needed. Rothorpe (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Malta

In the first sentence in the section Malta#Languages, it says, "becoming official". Should it be "having become official"? CorinneSD (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, in Malta#Demographics, second paragraph, it says "British people". Wouldn't "Britons" (or some other phrase) sound better? CorinneSD (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes to both. Rothorpe (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation perils

If you get a moment, could you pop over to Robey's PR, more specifically "Radio and television debut" where Sarastro has questioned the use of ellipses combined with a full stop. A discussion is now brewing and I thought I would seek the help of my invaluable English tutor for advice. Cassianto^talk 11:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I reckon that's correct. Rothorpe (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Starring and presents

@CorinneSD, @Cassianto, anyone, do you agree with me that a word like 'starring' as in The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson should not be capitalised? I put in a Request for Comment on this here, and got some solid support and some very odd objections, and now it has expired. Rothorpe (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I could not find that discussion. If all non-initial (non-first) words other than short words such as a, the, in, to, of, etc., are NOT always capitalized in Wikipedia article titles, then definitely "No", in my opinion. I believe the name of the show was "The Tonight Show", and not "The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson", and if that is true, then having "starring" in all lower-case letters allows the name of the show and the name Johnny Carson to stand out. Also, capitalizing "starring" makes it look like a book title.

Rothorpe, I'm not sure, but I think if you want to "ping" another editor, you need to put "ping" and then a pipe + name enclosed in double curly brackets (as I have done here) @Cassianto: (I added triple quotation marks so that it stands out). Then the "@" + name will appear. I usually use the word "ping" and a pipe. I've also seen a capital "U" and then a pipe + name in curly brackets. CorinneSD (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support, and for explaining the ping thing. The discussion is to be found via the table of contents, lucky number 13, after clicking on the blue 'here' in my post above. Rothorpe (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I just read the discussion. I agree that it's mostly support with a few strange opposes. I just think you have to check to be sure that "starring" is not part of the actual, official, title of the show. There is a very popular Tonight Show still running on television these days, but I think it's still worth checking to see what the official title of the show was when Johnny Carson was the host. If "starring" was not part of the title, then the next question is whether you could get away with leaving it uncapitalized, perhaps with a hidden note to editors, even if the MoS has not been changed. At the same time, you could work to get the MoS changed. You could write a note to (or ping) an admin such as Fayenatic london or Dougweller and ask about that. CorinneSD (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I really want the MoS changed. Ad hoc won't do. Thanks for the suggestions, I'll sleep on it. Rothorpe (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No, starring should not be capitalised in my opinion. I can't quite believe that there are some who think it should be! Cassianto^talk 08:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it is surprising. Fayenatic london, Dougweller, do you agree with my proposition at the beginning of this section, that words like 'starring' and 'presents' next to titles within titles should be lowercased? Rothorpe (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As an Englishman my instinct was not to capitalise these words, but they are mostly American productions, and the Americans do capitalise them. All page names that include "Starring X Y" are quoting the formal name of the show, not just disambiguating it with a qualifier as if it was an alternative to e.g. "Tonight Show (Johnny Carson)".

TV.com capitalises these words and so does IMDb. However, these don't matter to our discussion as they have their own style guides; Wikipedia has its own style, which is what we are debating.

"Presents" is used as the last word in the title of many shows, famously Alfred Hitchcock Presents, see Special:Search/intitle:presents. It's rightly capitalised when it is at the end, and I think this weakens the case for changing the rule when it's in the middle. I'd quite like to make that distinction, but do not feel that there is a solid case for change. There's even a third situation when "Presents" is in the middle followed by a colon, in which the capital still looks right because it's following the old pattern, see e.g. those listed at Komiks_(TV_series)#See_also.

There is more of a case for Special:Search/intitle:starring. However, not all the "Support" comments at the RFC actually support a change, e.g. Littleolive oil's comment actually goes against what you want because "starring" is part of the title.

TTFN, must go – Fayenatic London 15:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply.

The Americans didn't capitalise 'starring' on Johnny Carson's title card, so I reckon that's the official name of the show.

Your points about the many last-word cases, such as Alfred Hitchcock Presents, are well made, and may be what Littleolive oil's "part of the title" caveat refers to, but I was only referring to cases of title within title. Brian Wilson Presents Smile looks idiotic to me (and the sleeve suggests lower case). Rothorpe (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah well, that's American taste for you. US broadsheet headlines look babyish to me; they remind me of a Bear Of Very Little Brain. However, it's best not to accuse people of lacking common sense over that!

The official name of the show is the set of words e.g. <the tonight show starring johnny carson>, however capitalised. We are not driven either way by how the producers capitalise; we make our own policy and capitalise accordingly.

I wouldn't put much weight on the title card, because it might change over time. Indeed, it has! [2] has "Starring" and [3] has only that word in all-caps. – Fayenatic London 07:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Both use a mixture of normal capitals with small capitals: the first reads THE TONIGHT SHOW Starring JOHNNY CARSON, and the second THE TONIGHT SHOW STARRING JOHNNY CARSON, both downplaying "starring". But thanks for your replies. Rothorpe (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention CHARLES MINGUS PRESENTS CHARLES MINGUS! Rothorpe (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, yes, you're right. – Fayenatic London 22:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Did you see the original discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Titles within titles: "starring" and "presents"? Rothorpe (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Harold Arthur Prichard

I have just finished reading the article Harold Arthur Prichard. I made a few minor copy-edits, but I now have a few questions for you. This is going to take time:

1) In the section, "Does Moral Philosophy Rest on a Mistake?", I would like to add a noun before that title. I thought it might have been a lecture or a book, but when I clicked on the title at the bottom of the article, I saw that it was only about 16 pages long and concluded that it was an article in a journal. (It says JSTOR, but I don't know what that stands for.) So I thought about adding, "...in his article "Does Moral Philosophy Rest on a Mistake?", or "...in his essay "Does (etc.)?" What do you think? Shall I add "article" or "essay" (or neither)?

(JSTOR is a digital library, it sez ere.) I'd choose 'essay' over 'article', if only because the latter suggests a journal, while 'essay' doesn't, and we don't know if it appeared in a journal. It is unlikely to have appeared in a children's comic, but you know what I mean, we mustn't presume. Rothorpe (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, though, in this field, the use of inverted commas over italics is enough to indicate a short piece of writing, and calling it essay or article isn't necessary. Rothorpe (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

2) I found that entire section to be rather obtuse/dense (even for philosophy), particularly the first sentence. Do you have any suggestions for making it more readable/understandable?

Indeed that was my immediate impression. I'll see if I can make sense of it but will first get to your next point...

...That section makes much more sense to me now that I've read the chipmunk example lower down. But I'll do some tweaks if I think of anything to make it clearer. Rothorpe (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

3) My next question is about the use of present tense vs. past tense, particularly in the two sections "Criticism of Utilitarianism" and "Deriving moral obligation". (I'm not talking about what's in the block quotes.) I thought that, when discussing what some says in a book or article, it is acceptable to use present tense regardless of whether the writer is alive or dead. However, if the statements are not specifically describing what the person says in a book or article, and the person is no longer living, I thought the past tense should be used to describe what he/she said, did, or thought. I noticed a lot of present tense in these two sections and the sentences did not seem to be describing his ideas from a particular book or article. I changed a few verbs to past tense (you can see them in the edit summary), but left some in present tense since they seemed to be about general truth(s). Then I saw a lot more present tense later on. That's when I decided to ask you what to do. Awaiting your thoughtful reply, CorinneSD (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good question. I'd change back to the present just for consistency. I think we can use the present tense even when not referring to specific writings, since we can assume the thoughts can be found written down somewhere, even if reported by someone else; that's what the sources are for. Rothorpe (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

All right. I'll change them back. But I find the present tense strange when it's a person who is no longer living (except when discussing what the person says in a book or article). Thank you for your reply. CorinneSD (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for changing them back. I think present historic is quite common when discussing philosophers, even when not referring to exact words. Rothorpe (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Mt. Everest avalanche

I just read the new article 2014 Mount Everest avalanche (and got side-tracked reading the articles on Sherpas, Tibeto-Burman languages, isolating language, synthetic language, etc.), and I have a few questions for you:

1) I noticed that in "Overview", height is given as feet first, then metres in parentheses, and in "Victims", height is given as metres first, then feet in parentheses. Shouldn't those be consistent? What do you recommend?

• I'm not sure we ought to change things like this: it may be that the first measurement is the one in the source.

2) A sentence near the end begins, "While more than 200 people have died whilst climbing Mount Everest,.." This is the first time I have seen while and whilst in the same sentence. Since we don't use whilst in the U.S., I wasn't sure how it was really used, and, judging from this sentence, it seems that whilst is used when it means "at the same time", kind of like "during", and while is used when it means "although" or "even though". I have two questions:

(a) Is whilst limited to the meaning it has here, "at the same time"? and

(b) Do you think using both while and whilst in the same clause like this is acceptable stylistically? As always, please feel free to make any necessary edits. CorinneSD (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Both Collins and Oxford equate them (Oxford Learner's even giving an American pronunciation!) so probably this was an attempt at elegant variation, which, like many such attempts, fails, I think. Why not just omit 'whilst'? 'Died climbing' is much more direct. Rothorpe (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. A couple of years ago I read a review of a book by Michael Palin (whose TV travel programmes were very enjoyable) which, though otherwise favourable, scoffed at his use of 'amongst' and 'whilst'. It has stayed with me, and if I ever used either, I certainly don't now. Rothorpe (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think someone should scoff in an article at the way an educated person speaks. Perhaps "whilst" and "amongst" are used more in some parts of Great Britain than others, or even in some towns than others. I didn't look at the article (or even my watchlist) yet, but it sounds like you did some editing. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary

Do you think the latest edit to Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary adding a wiki link to the word "dinosaur" is an instance of over linking per WP:OVERLINK, or not? (I've also left this same question at User talk:Vsmith since he's been editing the article. CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. Even though it's a common word, some readers might feel like looking at it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I see you answered my question about "dinosaur".

Did you notice Vsmith's edits? He fixed some links but also changed some lower-case words (like "period" in "Cretaceous Period" and "era" in "Mesozoic Era") to capital. I know you usually lean toward lower-case unless capitalization is really necessary and appropriate. Would you consider these instances of capitalization necessary and appropriate? I think they are because they are recognized as kind of "one of a kind" geologic periods and eras. I just thought I'd ask you what you thought. CorinneSD (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

See Vsmith's comment regarding this on his Talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. Though I do like it when they miss out 'era'/'period' altogether. Rothorpe (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Billboard 60's Yearly Top-One Songs

Hi Rothorpe. There's not a template for the Billboard 60's yearly top-one songs. --Ernestogon (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. You could have put that in an edit summary. Rothorpe (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you should sign your posts using 4 tildes (~). Let me know if you need any help. Rothorpe (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday you have reverted an edit on the I Want to Hold Your Hand article related to this this non-existant template. --Ernestogon (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because you didn't explain your edit in an edit summary. Rothorpe (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri

What do you think of the latest edit to Dante Alighieri? The edit summary says "for parallelism", but it was parallel before the edit, minus the definite article and minus the plural "s". The Franciscan and Dominican [orders] makes just as much sense as "the Franciscans" and "the Dominicans". CorinneSD (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Rothorpe (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I love your one-word edit summary. CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Umberto Eco

I should learn to ask you first on nearly everything...

• Nearly...

I left a note a day or so ago under the heading User talk:Dougweller#Umberto Eco regarding the name of a college and the name of a university department in Italian in Umberto Eco. I received a reply which kind of said, "Go for it", but since I don't know Italian, I hesitated to guess at a translation. I replied, and have not yet received a reply. I know it might be simply because both Dougweller and the other editor are busy, and I hope it's not because they thought my questions were stupid, but perhaps in the meantime you can answer the questions and help me formulate an accurate translation. CorinneSD (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I hope you don't mind, but I inserted a section heading for that editor who neglected to sign his/her post, just above, so it is separated from Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. CorinneSD (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it looks better than the blank space I added. I have to go out now, so a dopo... Rothorpe (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Your translations are all correct, and I don't have any preferences between them, so I'm afraid you'll have to decide!!! Rothorpe (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:Billy Eckstine

Thanks, it's been a while since I worked on any Eckstine related stuff, but I could take this on, I guess. I'd have to read up on him first though. Looking at Amazon, I see there's now quite a decent sized biography that wasn't available in 2008/09, so the article could be more informative. Might see if I can get hold of a copy from the library, or failing that perhaps buy one. This is Paul (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Cinnamon

Would you mind reading a comment left on my Talk page yesterday regarding "that" versus "which"? Then read the comment I just left on User talk:Dougweller's Talk page. I need your opinion on both the point of grammar and on the appropriateness of Risssa's comment. CorinneSD (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a false accusation of vandalism, so you are justifiably indignant. And 'which' is the right word there. But at least she has not reverted your edit. I've put it on my watchlist. C'est la wiki. Rothorpe (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you read Dougweller's reply on his Talk page? I am looking at those earlier edits (Dougweller provided a link), which followed a long series of edits made by Risssa. Perhaps he/she felt insulted by my edits back then. CorinneSD (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for your support. CorinneSD (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, a bee in bonnet, I fear. But at least you know what is going on. And so do Dougweller and I. Rothorpe (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I decided to leave a note on my Talk page. (I've heard that expression, a bee in a bonnet, but not for quite a while. Does it mean feeling angry about something and you've got to get it off your mind?) CorinneSD (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so much so that you go on and on about it. Rothorpe (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you went to a lot of trouble there: hope it works. Rothorpe (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hafez

I have just started reading the article on the Persian poet Hafez. Right at the beginning of the article is a sentence beginning:

"His collected works composed of series of Persian literature..."

Something doesn't sound right here. Do you have any suggestions? CorinneSD (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the editor was intent on providing a link to Persian literature, so I've tried to smooth it over. Rothorpe (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds much better. CorinneSD (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ford Madox Ford

This is a minor issue, but could you look first at the latest edit to Ford Madox Ford (which is fine), then at the two back-to-back notes to editors there regarding the spelling of "honor" vs. "honour", then read my comment at User talk:LukasMatt, and give your opinion, either there or here? I just do not understand the issue that required any note to editors there. CorinneSD (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but as he says, removing them could cause someone to complain. Unlikely, though. 'Maybe they won't bother anybody' - but they bothered you. Then again, perhaps they would be useful to a new editor who's wondering. Rothorpe (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you've already seen my response. I still wonder about the reason for the first note to editors. I think the two comments create unnecessary confusion. I like things as neat as they can be. But I'll leave the notes. CorinneSD (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, since we all seem to think it would be better to remove them, I'm willing to do so. It's not as if one routinely comes across such hidden discussions. Rothorpe (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I like your translation of "you and me" to "we all":) Thanks for the edit. CorinneSD (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

W. H. Auden

Earlier today I noticed that an IP editor changes "Britain" to "England" in quite a few places in W. H. Auden. Then just now another editor undid that series of edits. I'm not disagreeing with that. I just want to learn the reason, and I thought you would be able to explain it to me. CorinneSD (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the English v. the British, the continuing civil war! And I can take sides: I prefer to think of myself as English, but others may feel differently. Is that enough of an explanation? I doubt it's relevant to Auden. Rothorpe (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page of the editor User talk:Macspaunday. I'm just curious about his/her reasons. I prefer England/English myself. I hope I didn't reveal too much ignorance when I described my understanding of the various terms. CorinneSD (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Your "Northern Ireland (I think)" reservations were justified: NI is not part of GB, which is a geographical term, though it is part of the political UK. And he's wrong that 'revert' doesn't let one give a reason, isn't he? Anyway, a straightforward reason for the change. So I was wrong about Auden. Rothorpe (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I learned something new. I did not realize, until you told me, that Great Britain is a geographic, not a political, term, and that Northern Ireland is thus not part of Great Britain. I also didn't realize there was a difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Sigh... History was my least favorite subject in high school (too much focus on battles), so I avoided it in college. But I got interested in it later just from reading. But there are many things I don't know, obviously. Re Mac's reply: maybe he meant that he had clicked "Save" before adding an edit summary. I've done that a few times. CorinneSD (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If I had a euro for every time I've explained that... I agree about History: I was just too stupid for all the politics and gave it up at 13 (along with the even-more-intimidatingly-reality-based Geography) to do Greek!

I also found geography boring in high school; history and geography kind of went together then. Now I find geography fascinating; it's visual, and it's tied into so many other things. I think it's all a matter of the way a subject is taught. CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that certainly makes a difference. Crop yields and precipitation, zzzzzzzzzz. Rothorpe (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that's what he means, and Undo rather than Revert, assuming he's not an administrator. Rothorpe (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant to write "rollback," not "revert." "Rollback" is available (for some editors at least) for the most recent change on a page, and does not include an option to explain the reason for the rollback, as explained in the description on the Wikipedia help page about Reverting. (I now see from that page that Rollback is mostly used to undo vandalism, so I'll use "Undo" in the future, which does allow for an explanation.) - Macspaunday (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, many thanks for explaining. Rothorpe (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Gibbons v. Ogden

I was reading the article on Thomas Addis Emmet, and I clicked on the link to Gibbons v. Ogden and I've been reading that article. I came across a sentence where I think the word is not the right word. It is in the second paragraph in the section "Case". It says "confusing and contradicting", both words used as adjectives. I think it should be "confusing and contradictory". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, so from 'ing...ing...ory' it now reads 'ing...ory...ory', which I suppose is no worse. Rothorpe (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I hadn't noticed the "regulatory". But I think it makes more sense now. CorinneSD (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Gibbons v. Ogden again, could you take a look at the (very long) first sentence of the second paragraph in the section "Importance of the case". The sentence begins, "However, Strict Constructionists" (and I wonder whether that really has to be capitalized). I made a few very minor edits, but hesitated to make any more on this sentence because it is approaching legal language that I only barely follow. But toward the end of the sentence something doesn't sound right. Perhaps it is the two adverbial clauses "because....as.....". I don't understand the relationship between them. I was kind of looking for a constitution law person on WikiProject Law, but could not find an active editor, so I'm starting with you, which I should have done to begin with. CorinneSD (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean. That's legal language for you: jolting but the construction is necessitated by the meaning. I think it's okay, in so far as I understand it, which isn't much. Rothorpe (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Corsica

I'm reading the article on Corsica and have come across a sentence I've got to ask you about. It is in the first paragraph in the section "Modern Corsica". It reads:

"Prior to its use as an aircraft base to attack German-occupied Italy, it was liberated by Italian and Free French Forces shortly after the Italian armistice in 1943."

You really need to read the sentence in its context first. Then, I wonder if you agree with me that the sentence is backward. I think it would make more sense if it were turned around as follows:

"After being liberated by Italian and Free French Forces shortly after the Italian armistice in 1943, it was used as an aircraft base to attack German-occupied Italy."

or, to avoid two "after's":

"Following its liberation by Italian and Free French Forces...." What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Will you do it? You deserve the credit. Rothorpe (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. What do you think of my subsequent edit in which I consolidated that and the next sentence? CorinneSD (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that edit is now before another, latest edit, which I just saw. What do you think of that? I'm not sure it's an improvement. There's something not quite right around the beginning, around "region". CorinneSD (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, but I've got used to it, and I now think it flows better. Rothorpe (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I made a few more small edits but am still not happy with the whole paragraph. I think it is too wordy. It starts by saying that it is one of the 27 regions of France, but is a t. collectivity. Then it says it enjoys more powers than a region but is called a region in common speech and is "almost always listed" as a region of France. That "is almost always listed as a region" both contradicts the direct statement "Corsica is one of the 27 regions of France" (because of the "almost always") and repeats that it is a region of France. Also, the connection between the end of the first sentence, saying that it is a t. collectivity, and the fact that it enjoys more powers than a region, is not made. It should say something like, "Because it is a collectivity, it enjoys more powers than a region." I put some of this into the edit summary (for the other editor), but I'd appreciate your input, too (of course). CorinneSD (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I made a small edit on the basis of your summary, though before I'd seen this... Rothorpe (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Of interest

You might like to read my note to Kwamikagami on his Talk page, then the exchange at the article. CorinneSD (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting. Anything you wanted me to comment on? (My longer reply was edit conflicted.) Rothorpe (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Just wanted you to know. I'd love to hear your longer reply. CorinneSD (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was impressed that you know Persian and then I started reminiscing about how I taught Persians in the pre-revolutionary days. By the way, do you know what to do when there's an edit conflict? I may have worked it out once, but this time I lost what I had written again. Rothorpe (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There are instructions on what to do right at the top of the page when you get "Edit conflict", but I'll tell you here: scroll all the way down to the second editing area all the way at the bottom of the page. Highlight what you wrote (left click once at the beginning of what you wrote, hold down the button, and move the mouse so that you highlight everything you wrote, including the four tildes) then right-click on your mouse and click on "Copy" (or "cut") and then scroll up the page to the first editing area. Type "Edit conflict" and then paste your comment and click "Save". If there is still an edit conflict, you might have to repeat that once or twice, or you can copy what you wrote (as I explained), then get out of the page completely and start fresh by clicking "Edit", then paste your comment, and save. CorinneSD (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if you have written a comment and want to be sure that you don't lose it, you can keep a blank Word document open, and when you copy what you wrote (to paste later), you can paste it onto that blank Word document temporarily so that you never accidentally lose it. You can continue the steps I explained above. I'm pretty sure that you can paste something more than once in a row (by clicking "Paste") so you can paste it in the upper editing area as I explained, but if you lost it somehow, you can go to that Word document you have open (but which had become minimized at the bottom of your screen), maximize it so you can see it, highlight the comment, then paste it in the upper editing window (click "Paste as plain text"). CorinneSD (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. This computer has problems with Paste though. But I'll refer to your advice next time to see if it works. Thanks again. Rothorpe (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Re Persian (or Farsi): I found it quite easy to learn. It's an Indo-European language, and simpler than Russian or German; no masculine-feminine-neuter on nouns, and easy-to-remember verb case endings; fairly easy pronunciation, both vowels and consonants (for example, the vowels represent very few different vowel sounds; "a" is either a as in cat or a that is something like the "aw" in "awful" or the "o" in "more"; most vowels are written; there are just one or two that are not, so it helps to know the word before you learn how to read the word. The language is pretty regular; there are not a whole lot of irregular verbs and nouns; only one third-person-singular pronoun. Many words have a familiar ring; they are similar to the same word in other Indo-European languages, either the Romance languages, Russian, German, and English, such as dokhtar (girl), like "daughter"), "baradar" (pron. bah raw dar) (brother), like Engl. "brother" and German "bruder", "pedar" (father), like Latin "pater", German "fater", "modar" (mother), "khak" (dust) (khaki came from it), albalu (apricot), badenjan (eggplant), like "aubergine", and many loanwords from French. You could learn the language by ear. Then learn the alphabet. Then it's not so difficult to learn to read. Or you could learn by reading a grammar/textbook, then listen to recordings and dialogues.

Indeed, shame about the Arabic alphabet. Never felt the slightest desire to master that. Rothorpe (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Persian would be easier (for us) to learn if it were written in the Latin (is that ours?) alphabet. But I was surprised to find out how easy it was to learn the Persian alphabet (Arabic with a few changes). I also like the aesthetic element of it. CorinneSD (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Right. I recall WP distinguishes between (has separate articles for) the Latin (for Latin), English (for English) and Roman (in general) alphabets. Rothorpe (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Re cutting and pasting, it might help to delete your computer's browsing history every so often, perhaps every two to three weeks. If you don't clear your browsing history, it can slow down your computer and might interfere with cutting and pasting, too. CorinneSD (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that the same as clearing out the cache, or whatever it's called? Rothorpe (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. CorinneSD (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, missed these answers earlier on. So how do I clear the browser's history? Rothorpe (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Go to your Control Panel > Internet options > General tab. About 2/3 of the way down the window you'll see "Browsing history". Click on it. Another little window opens up. You'll see about eight or nine things with a little box at the left. Click in the ones you want. A check will appear in the box. I click on the first four. The first one is to Preserve the connection/cookies to your favorite websites. The next three are to delete 1) temporary internet files and website files, 2) cookies and website data, and 3) browsing history. (You can also click on Downloads, but if you have downloaded a file or picture -- from a website, from an e-mail attachment, or from a smart card with pictures from a camera -- and have not yet saved it in one of your documents or pictures files, you'll lose it, so I don't usually click that one.) When you have these four checked, click on "Delete". Then wait. It only takes a minute or two. When it's done, click O.K. to exit. You'll see that your computer will speed up after you do this. CorinneSD (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. It was all in Portuguese and somewhat different. I hope that its having four boxes checked and the rest left blank when I arrived wasn't just a coincidence. Anyway, I'll let you know if it makes any difference! Rothorpe (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not. It's so long since it worked, that I've forgotten, which one do you hold down to copy: AltGr or Ctrl? I can move text but it won't duplicate itself. After you went to all that trouble, alas alack. Rothorpe (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Dari (Persian dialect)

I'm reading the article on Dari (Persian dialect). I've made quite a few edits, trying to put things into Standard English. I'm up to the section "Differences between Iranian and Afghan Persian". Right at the beginning there is a sentence that mentions Scottish English and Cockney. I added a note to editors (but I doubt that anyone will see it for a while), and I thought perhaps you could help me figure it out and clarify the sentence (and thus be able to delete the note to editors).

Definitely the difference between them. Rothorpe (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well...O.K., but the next sentence says, "Although educated speakers" can understand each other, and (at least judging from "My Fair Lady") Cockney speakers are not usually educated, are they, making it not a very good analogy. Or is that irrelevant?

Well, it's just a pronunciation really, and nowadays being an educated one is not unlucrative. (Technically I am one myself, being born within the sound of Bow Bells; signs of the prounciation were stamped out.) Rothorpe (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Besides that question about Scottish and Cockney, I have two other questions:

1) Is "on par with" correct, or should it be "on a par with"?

On a par with.

Fixed it.

2) Is it clear to you that the clause mentioning educated speakers -- "Although educated speakers...." -- refers to educated speakers of Dari, not educated speakers of English? I thought there was a smidgen of ambiguity there. Thanks in advance. CorinneSD (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No, must be Dari speakers. By the way, it's pronounced Darry. Shouldn't it be written thus? I want to rhyme it with 'sari'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that clause is referring to educated speakers of Dari and Farsi. Regarding the pronunciation of "Dari", I am really puzzled. I spent some time searching for someone who knows both Farsi and English. I found Lysozym (not sure if he/she knows Farsi, but he/she has edited the article on Persian language, I think) and have posed a few questions on my Talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I got a long and detailed reply from Lysozym. I feel vindicated that I was right that there was an error in the table at Persian vocabulary, and I learned quite a bit from Lysozym's comments. CorinneSD (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Laodicea on the Lycus

What do you think of the latest edit to Laodicea on the Lycus? I'm not crazy about sentences that end "it". CorinneSD (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I've changed it back, more stylish before. Rothorpe (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting user name

I just saw something with the user name "DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered". I thought that was a clever user name, so I looked at his user page. It's got some clever things on it. The talk pages (looked at Archive 2) don't have much, but a lot of references to cities or counties in England like Yorkshire. Just thought you might enjoy seeing his user page. CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC) I saw it on user talk VSmith. He abbreviates it DBaK. He's been editing since 2002 but I hadn't seen his user name before. CorinneSD (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I read that a long time ago - so it was quite fun seeing it again, thanks. It's the kind of username that grabs attention. Did you see the remarks on punctuation, 3 May 2013? Interesting, confirmed my suspicions. Rothorpe (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

John Cowper Powys

I was looking at all the edits made by an editor to John Cowper Powys with an edit summary saying "regularised", most having to do with the format of referencs. I noticed this one at the bottom (with apparently no new changes):

"*Thomas, Dante. A Bibliography of the Principal Writings of John Cowper Powys, Ph.D, State University of New York, at Albany, 1971, by. Published as A Bibliography of the Writings of John Cowper Powys. Mamaroneck, NY: Appel, 1975."

I was just wondering if the word "by" all by itself after 1971 is correct. Also, the "Ph.D." right after the title of a book. Is that correct? CorinneSD (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I never bother with the format of references, but I agree that this one is distinctly odd. Presumably both refer to Mr Dante. Is there a regular way to do that? Rothorpe (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about formatting references although I guess I should learn. CorinneSD (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft

I first read the article of the day, then re-read the article on Mary Wollstonecraft. In the middle of the section Mary Wollstonecraft#Legacy is a sentence that says Elizabeth Barrett Browning read Wollestonecraft's book "aged 12". I think it should read "at age 12" (or "at age twelve"), not just "aged 12", don't you? CorinneSD (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a British-American difference, and I'm slowly getting used to 'at age 12'. A compromise would be 'at the age of 12' (presumably), but that would be a lot of words if applied all over Wikipedia. Rothorpe (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Really. Well, I learned something new. Just "aged 12" in the position in which it appears sounds distinctly incomplete to my ears. "At the age of 12" is all right, and even, "Elizabeth Barrett Browning, aged 12, read....." would be fine, but "E. B. B. read .... aged 12" sounds like the book itself was twelve years old. I had never even seen that construction before. What do you suggest?

Indeed, I didn't notice that. 'Browning, aged 12, read...' would be fine, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Going back to what you wrote, above -- do you mean that "at age 12" is not used at all in England? It's so very common in the U.S. I decided to put "at the age of 12" after the book. I think the sentence was kind of pointing to the unusual fact of reading such a book at such a young age, and implying that the book had influenced Browning. If "aged 12" in a pair of commas is placed right after E.B.B.'s name, it minimizes the importance of the age itself. CorinneSD (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, that's an improvement. No, 'at age X' still isn't used in Britain as far as I know. Rothorpe (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think "at age X" is just a shortened version of "at the age of X", for people who are in a hurry. CorinneSD (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It certainly gives that impression. That reminds me that I've stopped putting the definite article before 'novelist Mary Shelley' etc. Can't be bothered any more, it's everywhere. Rothorpe (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That decreasing use of "the" reminds me of something I read in a book about English and linguisitics -- can't remember the title now; it was written a while ago and so is a bit out of date, but because languages change so slowly, a lot of it is still correct -- in which the author explained that, because English had lost all of the verb case endings except third person singular "s" and all of the noun endings except plural "s" and possessive 's, and many English words can be a noun, verb, adjective or adverb depending on how the word used and without a change in form, that English was becoming more and more like Chinese. I thought that was very interesting. CorinneSD (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, those three versions of -s are a distinguishing characteristic, as is silent -e. But don't forget the -ing and -ed forms, we're not as simple as Chinese yet (not that I would wish to struggle with tones). Rothorpe (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, toward the end of the second paragraph in the section Mary Wollstonecraft#"The first of a new genus" is a sentence containing:

"Godwin had come to hear Paine, but Wollstonecraft assailed him all night long...."

Is it clear to you to whom the pronoun "him" refers? CorinneSD (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it must be Godwin, as he is the subject of the first clause. Now I'll go and see. Rothorpe (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I think it's clear from context that it was Godwin whom she inconvenienced. Rothorpe (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Inconvenienced, and later married. (I'd guess that many relationships begin that way.) I had an image in my mind, though, of M. W. standing or sitting at the back of the room while Thomas Paine was speaking, and arguing with him. But I guess not. CorinneSD (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's not without ambiguity. Rothorpe (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's clear enough. CorinneSD (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Windpump

I know I should have asked you first, but sometimes I ask Dougweller when the issue has to do with an entire article (or with a questionable edit that is not mainly regarding spelling or grammar). This one has to do with spelling, but for an entire article. You might want to weigh in, or at least follow. I left a note for Dougweller under the heading Windpump. CorinneSD (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look: User talk:Dougweller#Windpump. Rothorpe (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Lindow Man

I've just finished reading the article on Lindow Man. It is well written, and I only made a few minor edits. I found a paragraph, however, in which the word "however" appears twice in fairly close proximity. I was trying to figure out a way to avoid using it twice, but I didn't see one offhand. The sentences are a bit long to be using "but". Do you want to take a look at it? It's the third paragraph in Lindow Man#Remains and investigation. CorinneSD (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I would have changed the second one to 'but' without hesitation! Rothorpe (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you see my additional comment in the middle of the discussion regarding Mary Wollstonecraft, above?CorinneSD (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I did, but I got sidetracked. Rothorpe (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I changed the second "however" to "but" (and changed the semi-colon to a comma). I think I was just too tired last night to see that. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That's good, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ferdinand Magellan, or, The apostrophe after Columbus

Hello, Rothorpe. If you have time, would you look at the latest edits to Ferdinand Magellan? An editor changed "Christopher Columbus" followed by an apostrophe, to "Christopher Columbus" with apostrophe s inside the link, to "Christopher Columbus" with apostrophe s outside the link. Also, the format of the dates was changed slightly, ending up inside parentheses with a hyphen. I don't know if apostrophe only after a name ending in "s" is acceptable on WP (I like it, myself), and I don't know about the parentheses around the dates, but I know that the hyphen should be an en-dash. CorinneSD (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the S because I pronounce it Columbuses, not Columbus. Or does just adding the apostrophe get the extra syllable, Columbuses, to AmE eyes? I've often wondered about this, so look forward to your answer. Rothorpe (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. We were always taught that, on names at least, one did not have to add the "s" after the apostrophe if a name ended in "s". But the "es" sound is added when it is said. The Jones' children is pronounced "the Joneses children". Columbus' voyages is pronounced "Columbuses voyages". So, to me, the extra "s" looks silly and unnecessary. I'm surprised that British English is different. You were taught always to add apostrophe s, even if the name ended in "s"? CorinneSD (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. the "s'" ending is for plurals only, and pronounced as written, "the birds' eggs". I'm relieved no-one says "Columbus voyages". Sounds like a holiday outfit. Rothorpe (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I think we were given the option of "Columbus' voyages" and "Columbus's voyages", and that both were considered correct. (But it has been a while.) So I can accept the s's for Columbus's. CorinneSD (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Good! I suppose we must have been taught "the Jones's children", but I don't remember. Rothorpe (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense! Who is 'the Jones'? The Joneses' children (= parents) or Jones's children (father). Rothorpe (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, and had even typed a response, but then thought I'd be dragging the discussion on too long, so didn't save it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

And the result: a BBC newsreader today pronounced the possessive form of Pistorius just like that, without adding the extra S sound. I've often heard this kind of thing, American spelling influencing British pronunciation, what horror! Rothorpe (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry. I actually think the real reason is that it is a bit difficult to say: "Pistoriusus house", for example. "The Jones's house" is easier to say. Even "Columbus's ship" is easier to say. CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Or a bit pedantic. Yes, it's a grey area. Rothorpe (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you pronounce "Edmunds' 1978 solo album"? Edmunds or Edmundses? Or is there a choice? Rothorpe (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. I would say that I would pronounce it "Edmunds". But that would sound exactly the same as "Edmund's". But actually, "Edmund" is usually a man's first name, so, unless it is a very unusual first name, the only reason it would have an "s" is if it were either an also-unusual last name or a real plural, as "all of the Edmunds" (the Edmund family), but then it would have "the": "the Edumunds' 1978 solo album". It would help if the person's first name were there, as in "John Edmunds' 1978 solo album". Then it would be clear that it's a last name. Honestly, even if it turns out to be correct, I think "Edmundses" sounds ridiculous. CorinneSD (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's Dave, from the article on his band Rockpile. I thought of linking it, but decided not to bother. But a paragraph or two further on, I found a lone example of "Edmunds's", which I too thought ridiculous. Tomorrow I think I'll alter it. Now what about, say, Reynolds? Reynoldses too sounds ridiculous, no? Yet Joneses and Davises...a matter of length, letters or syllables... Rothorpe (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

List of Irish poets

An editor added a name and a year of birth to List of Irish poets, but I think the brackets are wrong. It ended up looking like it is in a bluish-gray box. Of course, I don't know whether Gary Allen is really an Irish poet or not. CorinneSD (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what happens when a line is not justified to the left. In this case there was a bullet-producing asterisk missing. But it was a red link too: probably someone adding themselves. Rothorpe (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

H. L. Mencken

I've just started reading the article on H. L. Mencken. I have a question for you. What do you think of the use of present perfect tense ("has had") to refer to Mencken, who died in 1956? If not simple change in tense, I think the sentence should be re-worded. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's pushing it; a simple 'had' unless you can think of a rewording. Rothorpe (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius

What do you think of the latest edits to Marcus Aurelius? Before taking a while to get the double square brackets for a link right, he or she completely changed a sentence in the article, eliminating two pieces of information about Marcus Aurelius's father, including a link. CorinneSD (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Without an edit summary, it's almost vandalism; I reverted. Rothorpe (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin

I'm reading the article about Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin. The last sentence in the second paragraph in the section "Doctorate" contains the word "thus" twice. I'm trying to figure out whether one could be removed, and, if so, which one. Alternatively, the second "thus" could be changed to "therefore". I'm not crazy about the location in the sentence of the first "thus": "Her thesis thus...". I realize that it's A. Thus B, thus C, but I still think there must be a way to avoid two "thus's". Any ideas? CorinneSD (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to omit the first one, as it is more or less implied. Changing the second to 'conequently' would be a bit heavy. Rothorpe (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Relationship between religion and science

I've been following a discussion on the talk page of Abiogenesis at Talk:Abiogenesis. I've been thinking about adding a comment (haven't decided yet), to challenge Really Fat B., but I decided to look for articles about scientists who believe in both evolution and God to see if I could find one that would convince that editor (although I think he's not open to new information). I found one or two on the internet, but one linked right back to a Wikipedia article, Relationship between religion and science. I see it's a long article, and have just been skimming it, but I found a sentence that doesn't sound quite right. It's in Relationship between religion and science#Independence, the third sentence after the block quote. Do you want to see if you can fix it? CorinneSD (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the discussion at Talk:Abiogenesis has now been closed by Apokryltaros (Mr. Fink), who added a succinct and well-written final comment. You can read the whole discussion if you want, but you have to click "Show". It was between a creationist and a whole lot of intelligent editors who believe in evolution. But that sentence in "Relationship between..." still needs attention. CorinneSD (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm on the case. Rothorpe (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed? Rothorpe (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you've got it right, but because I find the whole paragraph a bit difficult to understand, I can't say for sure that that's what Habgood meant. It's at least grammatically correct and understandable now. In sum, good edit! CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper

I'm working on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. If you have the time and are so inclined I would appreciate your help there. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, see you there. Rothorpe (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Peter Warlock

Do you feel like reviewing the latest edits to Peter Warlock? CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The second is OK, but the first seems 'pointy'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "pointy". I decided to ask User talk:Macspaunday what he thought. Do you remember our discussion regarding the same issue on W. H. Auden at User talk:Macspaunday#W. H. Auden? (Hope you don't mind I asked him.) CorinneSD (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you saw I originally qualified 'pointy': 'as they say here'. 'More interested in making a point than choosing the right word' might be a definition. No, of course you can ask anyone you like. I'll go and refresh my memory. Rothorpe (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Britain and England, I'm glad you traced that. And changing one to the other can be pointy sometimes. Rothorpe (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I had never heard that adjective before. But it makes sense. Regarding "English" versus "British", sometimes, as Macspaunday pointed out, one might be factually correct and the other just plain wrong. But when either one is correct, then I wonder why someone would think one is better than the other. CorinneSD (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, 'pointy' is very colloquial. Perhaps it's a British tendency just to add a -y to almost any common short word, choosy, dodgy, potty (= crazy/silly), etc. No, it never occurs to me to change English/British unless there is an obvious matter of accuracy. Politically pointy, perhaps. Rothorpe (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you see this? Just pointing it out. CorinneSD (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC) You're too quick for me! I hadn't even noticed that you had already replied. We use "choosy", but not the other two. Well, that's good to know, that sometimes "English" and "British" are interchangeable. CorinneSD (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Chocolate

Would you mind reviewing the recent edits to Chocolate? Some might be an improvement, but I don't think all are. For example, I don't like the substitution of "with" for "and there are". CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and 'backyards' is not two words. Rothorpe (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless you think none of the edits are an improvement, I think that, since this editor is clearly going through the article and making edits in a good faith effort to improve it, I think the edits deserve careful review and selective undoing rather than a wholesale revert. I'll defer to your judgment regarding which to do. If you agree that the second course of action is best, would you mind going through them? I'd be glad to discuss them with you if needed. There were some edits I didn't like, like the one I mentioned and the one you mentioned, but on others I couldn't decide. CorinneSD (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, indeed I think we've already started on that basis. Rothorpe (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a rather daunting hotchpotch of good and bad. Rothorpe (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no rush. And I thought it was "hodge-podge". Is "hotchpotch" British? I left a note on the editor's talk page (again, hope you don't mind). And reading about chocolate and seeing the pictures makes me want some chocolate. CorinneSD (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I do hope you have some handy. Yes, Americans voice the hotchpotch, I'd forgotten that. Very wise to leave a note; I shall go and read it. Rothorpe (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, how patient you are! Rothorpe (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Free access to on-line libraries

I don't know if you noticed, but at the top of your Watchlist page is a notice that free accounts to several on-line libraries are available to qualified editors. You can just click on the links, read about the on-line libraries, and, after scrolling down a bit, submit an application to one or more of them. It's quite easy. I applied to two of the libraries. CorinneSD (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I really can't find this. Rothorpe (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If you click on the word "Watchlist" at the top of your page, your watchlist opens up. At the top of the page, you should see:

• There is an active discussion about whether or not the opt-in requirement should be removed from the edit counter for the English Wikipedia. [dismiss]
• The Wikipedia Library is offering free journal access for active editors for: Oxford University Press, Royal Society journals, Questia, and HighBeam. Sign up now. [dismiss]

It's the second item I was referring to. Then you can click on the links to the different journals, read, and apply on the same page. CorinneSD (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, I know where you mean, but I don't have anything there at the moment, having clicked away the edit counter thing yesterday. Probably the library thing is US only. Thanks for thinking of me anyway. Rothorpe (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Nickel

I'm reading the article on Nickel (I skim over the parts that I don't understand -- the chemistry, etc.). I wanted to ask you about one sentence. It's in Nickel#History. It reads,

"Bronzes from what is now Syria had contained up to 2% nickel."

I'm wondering whether past perfect tense is necessary here. Presumably, if modern archaeologists found these bronzes, the bronzes still exist (somewhere -- in a museum, in someone's home, etc.). I suppose past perfect would be all right if an unwritten subordinate clause is understood:

"When archaeologists discovered ancient bronzes from what is now Syria, the scientists who studied the bronzes realized that they had contained up to 2% nickel."

But I think that's stretching things. I still think that, if the bronzes still exist (and I don't know why they wouldn't), past perfect is not necessary and past tense would suffice:

"Bronzes from what is now Syria contained up to 2% nickel."

I wonder whether a re-wording would be the solution:

"Bronzes from what is now Syria have been found to contain up to 2% nickel."

What do you think? Which do you prefer? CorinneSD (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's as if the writer really meant 'have been found to contain', but it didn't quite come out right. Rothorpe (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed that. I went over this article with a fine-toothed comb (except for the chemistry parts). I found a few sentences that were confusing. I left a detailed note at User talk:Vsmith if you're curious. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, I'm watching. Rothorpe (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Vsmith only responded to one item before going to "zzzz". Maybe the list is a bit daunting. If you have time, maybe you could look at the list. Some of them might need a scientist to figure out, but others might be easier. CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the list is too daunting. I'd suggest making some changes instead if you feel like it. Rothorpe (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I persuaded Apokryltaros to tackle it, and he made some good edits (Vsmith had already made one good edit), so the items are all taken care of. CorinneSD (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good. Rothorpe (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Metalloids

@Vsmith: Rothorpe and Vsmith: Would you mind reviewing the latest edits (quite a few) to Metalloid? If you recall, I had spent some time on this article a few weeks ago. While it is true that neither of us is a scientist, and we must defer to more knowledgeable editors on the science, we can judge the clarity, succinctness, and cohesiveness of the writing. I notice in these edits that this editor seems to prefer more participial phrases than direct, declarative sentences. (I sometimes use participial phrases, but I try not to overdo it.) I also notice an error, or at least an awkwardness, toward the end of the second paragraph in the section Metalloid#Definitions#Criteria-based, around the word "vary". I look forward to your opinions. CorinneSD (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be 'varying', but that's a participle. On the whole, I prefer the earlier version. Rewriting for rewriting's sake, all in one edit, the bane of Wikipedia. Rothorpe (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather not be the one to undo all those edits in one revert. I hate to cause such dismay to a well-meaning editor that he or she gives up editing on Wikipedia. Perhaps one of us could post a comment on the editor's talk page to the effect that in the future/in future, it would be better to make just a few edits at a time before saving them. I'll leave it to you to decide whether to undo all the edits or just make a few changes. CorinneSD (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're the tactful one around here. If you're willing to do the talk page, I'll make a few changes. Rothorpe (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I left a note on the editor's Talk page. You might enjoy looking at his User page. CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made a grand total of two changes. Nothing else seemed worth changing back, no better, no worse. Rothorpe (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I'm not going to both with it any more. CorinneSD (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri

I am puzzled by the latest edit to Dante Alighieri. I don't know whether Favonian is correct in saying (in the edit summary) that "aged...." is the common way that a person's age is give at the time of his/her death -- Favonian may very well be right regarding WP policy, but I realize that "aged about 56", or even "aged 56", sounds odd to me. "Dante died in 1321, aged...56." I think Americans would be more likely to say, "Dante died in 1321 at the age of 56." I know it's probably correct, but to me, "X..., aged 56" makes me think of aged cheese or aged wine. A shortened form of "Dante died in 1321 at the age of 56" would be "died 1321 - age 56", not "aged 56". So, I would guess that the editor whose edit was undone was American. Of course, it says "aged about 56" so it would be "died 1321 - at about age 56". I'm not going to argue with Favonian, or make an issue of it. I just thought I'd share this with you and see what you thought. CorinneSD (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've copyedited a lot of biographies, and in the process I learnt (learned) about this, and your description is exactly right. 'At the age of' is the only neutral way. While 'aged 56' suggests a cheese and wine party to the American eye, 'age 56' looks like shorthand to the British. Rothorpe (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good. I was right. But, I can understand using "aged 56" for a person who is still living, as in "Mike Brown, aged 56, was appointed chairman of the Department of...". It just looks odd for a person who is already dead. CorinneSD (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ford Madox Brown

If you have time, would you look at the latest edits to Ford Madox Brown? An editor added quite a bit of material, but I don't see any references. CorinneSD (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

s everywhere? (I did spot one reference, actually.) Rothorpe (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Is that enough, considering how much material was added? CorinneSD (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No. I was being pedantic/fair. Rothorpe (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I used your figure of one reference in my comment to Omnipaedista. See his/her reply on his/her Talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, puzzling. Looking in the wrong place. perhaps. Rothorpe (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Boron

I've been reading the article on Boron (sorry to say I couldn't get to the end of the article; it's not a very exciting element). At the end of the second paragraph in Boron#History and etymology is the following sentence:

"Boron compounds were relatively rarely used chemicals until the late 1800s when Francis Marion Smith's Pacific Coast Borax Company first popularized these compounds and made them in volume and hence cheap."

I wonder about the word "cheap". I wondered whether it should be "cheaply" -- the company made them in volume and [made them] cheaply. But I know it means "was able to sell them cheaply" or "was able to sell them at a cheap price". What do you think? Is it all right as it is? CorinneSD (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think the emphasis is on the fact that they were cheap to buy, so the contrast with the perhaps-expected 'cheaply' is effective. Rothorpe (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Kathleen Kenyon

I wonder if the latest edit to Kathleen Kenyon is the type that you said a while ago was all right just to undo. CorinneSD (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Tea

I wanted to ask you about something regarding the latest edit to Tea. An editor removed Canada from a phrase with a detailed edit summary and added "over" before 80%. However, the reference is a television program, so I doubt the editor got the idea of "over 80%" from watching the program. Also, even though it sounds like this editor has personal knowledge of the relative popularity of iced tea in Canada versus hot tea, he/she presented no source to back up that idea. So, I have two questions:

(a) should the edit stand, just on the assumption that the editor is correct about Canadian taste in tea, and

(b), if so, is the word "over" necessary? I think "80%" is probably a round number as it is, and there is nothing to support the idea that it was "over" or "more than" 80%, so I think "80%" is sufficient. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, authoritative tone suggests knowledge of the tea situation, and yes, the 'over' is overdoing it and should go. Rothorpe (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn

I just happened to notice a discussion on the talk page of the article Black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn, so then looked at the article. I am surprised there's an article on a dress. But anyway, I'd just like to ask you about this sentence which appears early in the "History" section:

"Audrey Hepburn was a close friend of French designer Givenchy, referring to the designer as her "best friend" while he considered her as like a "sister"."

It struck me that there was something not quite right with the last part of this sentence:

while he considered her as like a "sister".

I'm not sure, but I think "as like" doesn't normally follow "considered". I thought of:

• considered her as a sister,

• considered her like a sister,

• considered her his "sister",

• thought of her as like a sister,

• thought of her as his sister.

(I think in all but the third one, the word "sister" does not need to be in quotation marks.)

Which do you think is best? CorinneSD (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The third, with, and perhaps because of, the quotation marks. (Though I was tempted by the last.) Rothorpe (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Did you see how much the dress sold for at auction? CorinneSD (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No. Lots of noughts? Rothorpe (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Noughts are zeroes, right? Well in December 2006 it sold for £467,200 ($923,187). CorinneSD (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Only a couple then... Indeed, MW online doesn't have 'nought' except as a variant of 'naught' (and in the BrE name for tic-tac-toe). Rothorpe (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation question

Watcha! Should, or rather can, a comma separate two verbs of a compound predicate? For example: "Charles Wade moved the family to Germany in 1880, and Robey attended a school in Dresden." Robey is apparently littered with them and they have up until now, gone unnoticed. What with Robey's very lengthy peer review, which I know you watched, I am somewhat confused as to why nobody picked up on it. There is now some confusion at the FAC as a reviewer has mentioned it. Thoughts? Cassianto^talk 00:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Unnoticed, because correct. It's not a compound predicate: indeed, the clauses could be separate sentences. I've left a note there. Cheers! Rothorpe (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Grateful Dead

I'm thinking there was a specific reason that you didn't just revert the major edit by User:Brookeok that was marked as "minor?" Just curious and thanks! Best wishes Learner001 (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought it better to revert it with an explanatory edit summary, as it's true that it's not standard practice to list a lyricist, a non-performer, as a member of a band. Not everybody knows what a minor edit is, unfortunately. Rothorpe (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Stellar classification

I made some edits to Calcium. I had a few questions about some sentences, so posted a comment at User talk:Apokryltaros#Calcium. He answered. Since neither of us knew whether the Sun was a low temperature star, I looked for, and found, someone who knows a little about astronomy. He/She gave a quite informative reply on User talk:KylieTastic's Talk page (I don't know why, but I haven't been able to create a link to his/her talk page.) In the process of skimming the material to which he/she posted links, I came across one sentence that I thought needed some work, at Stellar classification. I posted a comment on the article's Talk page and pinged both Kylie Tastic and Apokryltaros. Kylie Tastic responded and suggested a slightly modified sentence. I wonder if you would take a look at it. In spite of less-than-perfect spelling in her comments, this sentence seems to have no flaws. Even though it is about science, I think you will be able to understand enough of it to be able to evaluate it and/or suggest changes. I was going to suggest eliminating the word "thereby" and leaving the rest. I wanted to know what you thought about that. I thought of another possibility, which is changing all the verbs to past tense so there are three verb phrases beginning with a past tense verb: X, Y, and Z. CorinneSD (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, omit 'thereby', but replace the second 'in which' with 'whereby'. (By the way, I remember there used to be W stars before the Os.) Rothorpe (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Perfect. You studied physics? CorinneSD (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I managed to pass Physics ordinary level without understanding very much, but the star thing comes from my childhood passion for astronomy. Rothorpe (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I took Intro. to Geology and mineralogy, but I avoided physics. It seemed too difficult. Now I wish I had taken it. Where you are, I'll bet the sky is clear. Why don't you get a telescope? CorinneSD (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had one since 195?, but it's not much good. You really need to invest, or build one, à la Patrick Moore, so that rules me out. And it rains a lot here, but the twilit sky is good at the moment, and Sirius will soon appear outside my window. Rothorpe (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	To my dear teacher Rothorpe. Whilst flicking through your user page, I was horrified to see that I have never given you a star, especially when I think of the many times you have helped me and my FAC's, such as here. Thank you for all you do and for correcting my many mistakes. Cassiantotalk 11:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

From a real tireless contributor! Many thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I realize that I, too, have not thanked you enough for all the kind, courteous, and thoughtful help you have given me. It is such a pleasure to edit articles with you. I always learn something new. Here is a piece of apple pie for you.

A piece of apple pie for you

CorinneSD (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yum, yum, thank you. It's always a pleasure to work with you. Volta sempre! Rothorpe (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

South Africa

I've just been skimming the article on South Africa, and I came across two things I wanted to ask you about:

1) In the first paragraph in South Africa#Science and technology, I wonder whether "Yellow Fever" and "Computed" in "Computed tomagraphy" need to be capitalized (I think "Computed Axial Tomagraphy" is the source of "CAT" in "CAT Scan"); and

2) in the first sentence of the third paragraph in South Africa#Religion, I think there's something wrong. Unless this is a dialectical variation in the use of the verb "comprise", I think the combination of "comprise" and "mainly of" is not quite right. Do you want to tackle it? CorinneSD (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Axial, yes, sounds right. I've made the lower case changes. The question is whether the Muslims include most Coloureds and Indians or whether the Muslim population consists mostly of Coloureds and Indians. That word 'comprise' causing problems again. I suspect the latter; do you agree? Rothorpe (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, definitely the latter. I think the problem was just the verb. I think "comprise" can be used as an active verb: X comprises Y, or X and Y comprise Z -- the word "of" is not needed when it's used this way. But I think the passive "is/are comprised of" is more common, isn't it? I don't often hear or see "comprise" used as an active verb. I just changed the verb to "are comprised of". Then I think the sentence makes more sense. But if you prefer, I can change it to "...Muslims comprise mainly...." (without "of"). CorinneSD (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I had a feeling we had discussed this before, but clearly not. For where I come from the 'of' version (though indeed common) is despised, and only the active acceptable. We were taught that if you want to use 'of', it comes after 'consists'. Ho hum. Rothorpe (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear, is right. "Is/are comprised of" is very common in the U.S. "Comprises/comprise" is unusual. But, since the active voice verb is more concise, we ought to go with it. CorinneSD (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

So it's a Br/Am thing, then; I didn't know that. But, as you say, concise is better. Rothorpe (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "axial", I don't know if we should add that word. Who knows? Maybe it's some other kind of computerized tomagraphy. CorinneSD (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You could try with a suitably humble edit summary. Rothorpe (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I found the article by searching CAT (there is a long list of items on the disambiguation page, but I found it). It goes to an article entitled "X-ray computed tomography", and the South African scientist Allen McLeod Cormack is in the "Mathematical theory" section in computed tomography#History. I don't think "axial" is necessary. I wondered why, in the S. Africa article, only "computed tomography" has a link and the preceding "X-ray" doesn't, but there must be a reason. It goes to the right article, anyway. CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC) (Even now, in this comment, I put "X-ray" before "computed tomography" and it was a red link. When I took off "X-ray", it changed to a blue link.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

X-ray computed tomography works OK. The reason 'x-ray' wasn't included is probably that when the link was created the article name didn't yet have the 'X-ray' bit at the beginning. Rothorpe (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you fixed that. I think the reason the link (in my comment, above) was red was because I had written "tomograph" instead of "tomography". I only noticed it and added the "y" after I had added the "X-ray" and saved it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)