User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 16

Amparo (name)

Can you take a look at the comment I posted at User talk:Esoglou#Amparo (name)? I received one reply from Esoglou and another from Kwami, but I still don't know what to do about that "and". I suggested two alternative edits, but received no reply addressing specifically that. CorinneSD (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right: I've commented there. I suggest just changing it to 'i'. Rothorpe (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! That was interesting, to read all those different names of that saint. I love the sound of Catalan, at least on paper. I've always wondered about the few Spanish first names for women that end in "o" instead of "a" such as Amparo, Rosario, and Consuelo. CorinneSD (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume it's like Portuguese, and they're all Marias: Maria do Rosário, Maria da Conceição, etc. So in Spanish, Maria de Amparo, but I could be wrong. Rothorpe (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hafez

Would you mind reviewing the latest edits to Hafez? They look all right (although you know me -- I add commas only where necessary -- but each editor has a different feel for what is necessary). I've got to ask you, is "where" incorrect? Does it have to be "in which"? CorinneSD (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's just say that 'in which' is much better. As for the commas, yes, I wouldn't have bothered to add them, nor would I bother to remove them. Rothorpe (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy Piven

Would you mind reviewing the MANY edits just made to Jeremy Piven? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't a clue about that sort of edit. Tables are not really my scene. But if you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to have another look. Rothorpe (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Lenition

Would you also take a look at the latest edit to Lenition? An editor added "too". I'm not sure it's needed. CorinneSD (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Forget that. I saw a comment regarding this on the Talk page of the article. An editor who appears to know the subject matter expressed approval of the "too". However, upon going through that section and making minor edits for clarity (including punctuation), I decided that "as well" sounded better than "too" at the end of such a long clause. The material was rather technical, and was about a language I'm not familiar with, but I still think I improved the language of the parts I understood. CorinneSD (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I agree. Rothorpe (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Bronze

Shouldn't the latest edit to Bronze be undone? It seems like inappropriate formatting. Just thought I'd check with you. CorinneSD (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've undone it. Did you see the 'getting started' tag? That's carte blanche to revert, means that the robot thinks it's a test edit. Rothorpe (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh... I thought it was an aspect of WP that helped new editors get started as editors. I've noticed that it usually appears with "mobile edit", which I guess is from a cell phone. CorinneSD (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that as well. Rothorpe (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Persian calligraphy

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Persian calligraphy? It is unsourced, and it sounds like original research. CorinneSD (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite right. Gone! Rothorpe (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Good. You're bolder than I am. CorinneSD (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Rothorpe - What's with "Persian calligraphy"? Another silly edit. CorinneSD (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

He just did it so you could click on 'undo' and make it correct again... Rothorpe (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Advice for mediawiki art project

Hi Rothorpe. My name is Faelan (Cjcaesar, if you like). I saw your work on Sealand and did a little more digging... I am impressed! I thought I would introduce myself and ask for some guidance from you, if you don't mind. I have a "model country" at [visitfaeland.com] that runs on mediawiki. So far it has been a one man operation, but I'm looking to start using bots to clean things up, etc. My purpose has always been the content, so I am not so versed in things technical such as that. Can you suggest where I might get started? Or perhaps you know some other users who might be interested in helping me out?

On a personal note, I was just in Portugal in December and loved it. I very nearly decided to stay and teach English there. Small world. Cheers! Cjcaesar (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a fantasy world you have there. I'm afraid I don't run any bots, or know how to set one up. I'm strictly non-technical. But if you click on the link to one in an edit history that should lead to you its controller and you can ask there. Sorry I can't be of more help. (Yes, I like living here too.) Rothorpe (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You can leave a request for help at WP:Village pump (technical), or you can post a request for help on your own Talk page. Put any brief heading in the subject line. At the beginning of your comment/request, put {{helpme}}, and someone will answer you. You can do that for any problem or question you have. CorinneSD (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to you both! I will do just that! Cjcaesar (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good luck with that. Rothorpe (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Reconquista

I was looking at the latest edit to Reconquista (whenever the edit summary says, "Improving English", I look, because it's not always an improvement). This edit, adding "such as" instead of "...", seems all right, but I noticed right before that in the same sentence it says Charles Martel retreated to "Francia". Why wouldn't it be "France"? Is this just because a writer whose native language is Spanish wrote this? Or was it really called "Francia" back then? CorinneSD (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

So it would seem. I'll put in a link. Rothorpe (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh... I should have checked to see if there was an article on it before asking you. At the beginning of that article, it says "Francia, or Frankia,..." Do you think the version with the "c" was pronounced with the "s" sound or the "k" sound? How did the "k" sound ever change to the "s" sound, anyway? CorinneSD (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Palatalisation, see C#Later use. So, yes, originally Francia would have been pronounced with the K sound. When I did Latin at school we were taught always to pronounce C as K. Our first reading book was called Civis Romanus, "Keewis Romanus". Rothorpe (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I took one year of Latin in high school (and am glad I did; wish I had taken more), but I don't remember how the "c" was pronounced. To me, it makes more sense that "c" would be pronounced even in Roman times as "s" before "e" and "i" as it is today in Spanish . I cannot imagine people going around talking "kelebrar", "kentro", "kilantro", "rekibo", etc. Too many "k" sounds for one language. CorinneSD (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

But remember Latin has no K, except in a very few words. When I first went to Italy I tried to persuade my Italian friends of this. A terrible mistake. That's Ladino, they insisted. Greek, too, has changed its pronunciation, with 'euro' being pronounced 'evro'. Rothorpe (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that Latin has no "k", but when I wrote those words, above, with a "k", I knew they would be spelled with a "c" (if they were Latin words at all -- I was using Spanish words that I thought might have come from Latin), but, according to many Latin teachers, would have been pronounced with the "k" sound. That's why I wrote them with "k". I wanted to show you how silly they sound, pronounced with the "k" sound. Do you agree with those Latin teachers, that the "c" was pronounced like "k" in every instance? CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did understand you. I was answering your scepticism about C being pronounced as K. Yes, I swallowed at the age of 12 the idea that Latin was pronounced as its alphabet wrote, and I remain of that opinion 52 years later. Rothorpe (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

But I must plead guilty to obscurity. In Italy I told my friends of my conviction that Latin C was pronounced as K, whereas of course Italians all pronounce it like the Catholic church, which is hardly surprising. So 'civis' is 'cheevis' for Italians, whereas I say 'keewis'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"In all likelihood" vs. "probably"

You might enjoy reading a brief exchange regarding whether there is a difference between in all likelihood and probably at User talk:Chiswick Chap. CorinneSD (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I did, and I find I take the opposite view, that 'probably' is the less likely of the two. À propos, didn't we once discuss the note on my user page about Mike Brown? In all probablility we did... Rothorpe (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I re-read Chiswick Chap's reply, and I understood him to say that "in all likelihood" expresses greater probability than "probably" -- he says about 90%. So it would appear that, rather than differing, you agree with him. But apparently you're not a fan of "in all likelihood" and prefer "in all probability". I like "in all likelihood" and agree that it expresses greater probability than "probably". CorinneSD (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Was your comment about our discussion of Mike Brown provided just to give an example of the expression "in all probability"? I found the original discussion in your archives and read our discussion and didn't see anything pertinent to these expressions. CorinneSD (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that occurred to me afterwards. But thanks for having a look. He (CC) says clearly that probably means there is a 90% probability, but refuses to put a number to the phrase. These things are very subjective. Rothorpe (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more it seems pointless to grade them. That was my point about Mike Brown: he does grade them, but then grading suits his purpose, to express as exactly as possible the likelihood of a star having planets. But for most purposes, synonyms are merely synonymous. Rothorpe (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my god. I just realized that I misunderstood both of your points.

1) I had understood Chiswick Chap's second sentence, beginning "Probably means that there is...", to mean "[It -- ie. the expression "in all likelihood" -- referring to the first sentence and the topic] probably means....", not "[The word] "probably" means...". I thought it was a sentence with the subject left out, and the interpretation expressed tentatively. If he had put "probably" in quotes or italics, I would have understood immediately.

2) This is a different Mike Brown than the father of Ford Madox Brown, an article we discussed fairly recently. Now I remember our discussion of a few months ago. It was probably in an article on astronomy though I can't remember which one. CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ho ho! The internet is a great place for misunderstandings. Anyway, I'm glad you agree after all. So much for the useful archive box! Rothorpe (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Green Children of Woolpit

What do you think of the latest edit to Green Children of Woolpit? CorinneSD (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. Did you see my latest comments above at Persian calligraphy and the other one regarding Latin c? CorinneSD (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, no; will investigate. Rothorpe (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

He's switched them round: presumably the dates didn't coincide with those in the respective articles. Rothorpe (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your note of thanks. I couldn't even remember the edit, so I looked at it again and was surprised to see that the last edit I made was not there (or at least not visible as the latest edit -- I didn't go back further). After I changed "the children" back to "they", I decided that "he and his sister" would be clearer, and I made that change, with that edit summary, but I don't see it now. I don't know what I did. But to me, "they" is clear enough. To me, "the children" created even more ambiguity, suggesting that there were other children. CorinneSD (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the last time I looked, 'he and his sister' was the latest version, but it was restoring the 'they' that I liked: I agree, that's clear enough. Rothorpe (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Changed it back to "they". Rothorpe (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. CorinneSD (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't bothered by the number of "they's", but here's a second editor who is, so I put "he and his sister" back. If you feel strongly it should be "they", and revert, I will support you. CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, no, it's fine as it is. Rothorpe (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Decorative arts

I have read the article on Decorative arts and need your help. I actually spent quite some time on the section Decorative arts#"Decorative" and "Fine" arts. I had felt that overall it was wordy and the sentences did not flow smoothly. When I finished my first set of edits earlier this afternoon, I had a little trouble saving it so was not able to add an edit summary (I don't think -- didn't look at the revision history). When I went back to it a few minutes ago, I was surprised that most of my edits had been saved. I just made one or two more in that section. I took out a lot of words to make it more concise. What do you think?

Then I continued reading the rest of the article. I found the next section really obtuse. (What's "privileging"?) I want to revise it, but don't have the energy right now. The remaining sections all have rather long sentences and sound a bit like it was written for art historians rather than the average reader. On top of that, there are very few references in the article. (I do see two tags at the top of the page.) Feel free to work on the article. It will be a challenging mini-project. CorinneSD (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Your edits look good. Rothorpe (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you approve. Another question: In the first line of the article, do you think the word "traditionally" really needs to be there? I think the changing definitions of what is or is not included in the term can be, and for the most part are, included in the article. I think the word "traditionally" just muddies up the definition. CorinneSD (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite so, & it was badly phrased, so I've recast it. Rothorpe (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! CorinneSD (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article ends:

"which generally have no function other than to be seen".

I know this is here because many of the objects included in decorative arts are functional (vase, bowl, lamp, etc.) and objects included in the fine arts are not usually functional in that sense, but I think this clause unnecessarily limits both the fine arts themselves and even the word "function". I think the fine arts have the capacity to do more for human beings than just "to be seen". What would you say to the thought of modifying this to something like, "are not functional in the same sense [as objects included in decorative arts]", or "lack the same type of functionality", or something like that? CorinneSD (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I like it as it is. This is the lead, and it needs to be nice and punchy. The effects of being seen, well, that's a matter for another paragraph. Rothorpe (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. By the way, a little while ago I asked Sminthopsis84 if he could help improve this article. He and Hafspajen (who was really interested in art but who has taken a leave from WP) often discussed art and exchanged pictures, so I thought he might be of help or might know of another editor who could help. Hope you don't mind. CorinneSD (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. Many hands make light work! Rothorpe (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good. Thank you. I heard that expression often as I was growing up. CorinneSD (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wayuu people

I've been reading the article on the Wayuu people and making some edits to improve clarity. There are parts that I think were written by a non-native speaker of English. I'm really struggling with the Religion section. I've done what I can, but now I need your help:

• The first sentence of the first paragraph in Wayuu#Religion barely makes sense to me, but I don't know how to fix it.

• The second paragraph makes very little sense, and I left a "clarification needed" tag. If you can figure it out, feel free to edit.

• The second sentence in the fourth paragraph, "Her existence is...", doesn't fit well with the preceding and following sentence. Can you think of a way to express it better?

• The third sentence of the fifth (last) paragraph starts, "The parents of the dead act in a certain way...." I cannot figure out why a brief paragraph on beliefs about death would focus on the parents of a dead person. A young person dying before his parents would be the exception, wouldn't it? CorinneSD (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Maybe the writer was confusing "relatives" with "parents". Maybe the word should be "relatives". By the way, I also posted a comment with a few questions on Kwamikagami's talk page, if you're interested. CorinneSD (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, 'parents' is a false friend of 'relatives', so that presumably would be the meaning.

Otherwise, I agree with your citation-tag approach, and would be inclined to add more of them, with a view to eventually removing the incomprehensible sentences if no knowledgeable person comes forward to elucidate them; I think that's better than doing guesswork. (No answer from Kwami as yet.) Rothorpe (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Jared Diamond

Do you think the latest edit to Jared Diamond in which an editor added a link to the word "geographer" is overlinking? CorinneSD (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No, but then I'm exceedingly tolerant of Wikilinks. Who knows what motives people have? Rothorpe (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Transhumance

I've been reading the article on Transhumance. For the most part I have found only a few problems, but there are parts where it is clear that a non-native speaker wrote them and I have attempted to put them into Standard English. I have a few questions for you:

1) In the first paragraph in the lead, there is the following sentence:

"Only the herds travel, with the people necessary to tend them."

I wondered whether it would read better, and convey the right information, if it were worded:

"The herds travel with only the people necessary to tend them."

I know what was meant by "only the herds travel". It is making a distinction between transhumance and nomadic pastoralism, described later in the lead. But I thought that phrase was a bit awkward and the revised version conveys the right information. What do you think?

I like it: I think it goes straight to the point. Rothorpe (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I'll leave it.

2) In the large section "Worldwide transhumance patterns", in the sub-section on Scotland, I deleted the phrase "Examples of" from the beginning of the second sentence. I thought the word "includes" was sufficient to show that these three roads were examples. What do you think?

Absolutely, unclutterment. Rothorpe (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Good. Is "unclutterment" a word? I think it's one of your invented words.

Yes, but of course you understand it.

3) In several places in this larger section, I see "placenames" written as one word. It is two words later in the article. I think it should be two words. I've never seen it as one word. What do you think?

Agreed. Rothorpe (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I'll fix all the instances of it.

Thanks.

4) In the sub-section on Ireland, I read "In Ireland transhumance is known as bolleying. Transhumance pastures were known as Booley, Boley,...(etc.)". Reminds me of the song Wooly Bully.

Ah, from the radio days, but it wasn't one of my favourites. Rothorpe (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? I liked it, maybe because it was so different from all the other songs.

Well, I was certainly overexposed to it: always the trouble if you listen to too much pop radio, as I did as a teenager.

5) The sub-section "The Iberian Peninsula" contained the most instances of writing by a non-native speaker of English. I fixed most problems, but I wanted to ask you about a few:

In the second paragraph, it starts, "The exploitation of large herds of pigs and sheep in transhumant style...". I'm wondering whether "exploitation" is really the right word. Can you think of what English word would be more correct here?

I'm on shaky ground here, but why not just 'farming'? Rothorpe (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

How about "raising"?

That's excellent, and it prompts me to ask if you knew that 'to raise' is considered American English when used to refer to humans. But I don't think that applies to animals, as the British equivalent wouldn't be used for them (can't resist a teaser here). Rothorpe (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that. That means you don't say "raise children"? What do you mean, "I don't think that applies to animals"? What doesn't apply to animals? What verb do you use for children, and is there any other verb besides "raise" for animals? You've got me all confused. CorinneSD (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! That we Brits don't say 'bring up animals', while 'raise children' is AmE, at least from the point of view of the pre-internet generation. So people 'bring up' children, but we don't normally say 'bring up animals', as it sounds too much like personifying them. My thesaurus suggests only 'educate' as another synonym for 'bring up'. 'Raise', for 'animals, children, crops', has: breed, bring up, care for, cultivate, educate, farm, grow, look after, nurture, produce, propagate, rear. Of those, 'rearing animals' is ideal for our purposes, even better than 'raising'. Rothorpe (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. We don't say "bring up animals", either. We do use "bring up children", but usually in the past participle: "...the way I was brought up...". "Raise" children is more common. We also say, "rear children", but not "rear animals". We definitely say "raise animals", "raise sheep", etc. I've never once heard "rear sheep", "rear goats", etc. CorinneSD (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, well. That settles it then, 'raising'. Rothorpe (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The third paragraph contains several problems. In the second sentence, beginning "Regulated passes and pasturage...", it continues, "have been especialized...." Now I know that "especialized" is from a Spanish-speaker, but I didn't change it because I couldn't think of the right word to use here. I'm not sure "specialized" is the right word. Perhaps "assigned", "divvied up" (just kidding), "shared", "partitioned", "allotted", "parceled out"....?

Divided up? Rothorpe (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to think about this one.

Also, the rest of the sentence sounds like it was translated from Spanish: "due to the seasonal range of exploitation and community (I changed it from "communities") jurisdictions". Can you make head or tail of this?

I haven't finished. After this, I just lost interest. Maybe I'll come back to the rest of the article later. Maybe you'd like to work on it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Since I retired I've become increasingly impatient of incomprehensible wording (as I have with incomprehensible pronunciation). If it's not quickly obvious I tend to give up. So only if you decide to return to it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe with another look I'll be able to figure it out. Thanks for all your feedback. (See my brief responses, above.) CorinneSD (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Good luck. And I hope you won't be afraid to remove the most egregiously incomprehensible bits. Rothorpe (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few more edits. I complete revised the section on Ireland, removing duplicated information and re-arranging sentences. I also worked on the section on the Iberian peninsula. I think it makes more sense now. I have two questions:

1) At the beginning of the first paragraph in the section "Iberian peninsula", I added "Iberian" before "peninsula" in the first sentence. Does "peninsula" have to be capitalized?

No, it's not an official name. Rothorpe (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

2) At the beginning of the second paragraph in that same section is the following sentence:

"The exploitation of large herds of pigs and sheep in transhumant style was established by the early Middle Ages, as evidenced by highly regulated laws in documents of the Mesta."

My question is: what are "highly regulated laws"? Does that mean laws which government overseers make sure people adhere to closely? It just seemed to me that "regulated laws" was a bit redundant. What do you think? Don't forget to read my reply re "raise", "bring up", and "rear", above. CorinneSD (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt, most necessary.

Indeed 'highly regulated laws' is a tautology so, yes, change to 'strict laws' or some such. Rothorpe (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC) - Just reread your first observation there. No, from the quote I don't think it means 'laws that were strictly enforced'. Rothorpe (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of the revisions I made that I mentioned just above? CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, fine. I don't need to examine them in detail. You don't make mistakes. Rothorpe (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In the second paragraph in Transhumance#The Iberian Peninsula is the following sentence:

"It may have an even longer history based in classical methods developed through an earlier politically and legally unified peninsula during the lower Roman Empire:..."

I have two questions:

1) Should the verb be: "may have had an even longer history"?

Some might prefer that, but it's not necessary, as the history still exists in the present. (By the way, could you use subheadings, please? It takes a long time to find typos that I spot in the preview. Or I'll make them myself before replying, if you prefer. Just so the sections are shorter.) Rothorpe (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

2) What is "the lower Roman Empire"? Is that a correct term for the southern tier, or Mediterranean area, of the Roman Empire? I've never heard that before. Or is it really "the later Roman Empire"? Is this about geography or time? CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It says 'during', so I imagine it's time.

Also, in that heading, "The Iberian Peninsula", should "Peninsula" be capitalized? (My question earlier was about the phrase in the first sentence after that.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Consistency, so no capital. Rothorpe (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! And of course I'll use sections. Shall I make new sections such as "Transhumance 2" (as you suggested a long time ago) when it looks like it's getting too long? CorinneSD (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably best

to use subheadings, like that, the ones with 3 =s on each side, with numbers, or words that you needn't type again. So, for example, your first question above, about 'may have had', could have been fitted into a heading alone. That's an extreme example, but you get the idea. Rothorpe (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And I think "later Roman empire" makes sense because the Visigoths were barbarians who came down from the north and ransacked what is today Italy, and that was in the late Roman empire. CorinneSD (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You can always type 'lower roman empire' in the box and see what happens. It doesn't look like a typo, perhaps a linguistic error? Or an unknown (to us) term? Rothorpe (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Googling suggests a typo, however. Rothorpe (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I had also asked Dougweller what he thought, and another editor answered. Then Dougweller just today said he was sure it was "later". CorinneSD (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad that's settled. Rothorpe (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Augustine of Hippo

I just started reading Augustine of Hippo and came across a sentence in which something didn't sound right. It is in the middle of the second paragraph in the lead:

"After his conversion to Christianity and his baptism in 387, Augustine developed his own approach to philosophy and theology, accommodating a variety of methods and different perspectives."

It's that last bit, "a variety of methods and different perspectives", that didn't sound right. I think it should be either:

• "a variety of methods and perspectives"; or

• "a variety of methods and several different perspectives",

or something similar. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Both are fine, but less is more, so I'd go for the first one. Rothorpe (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Decorative arts

What do you think of the latest edit to Decorative arts, creating a new definition? See also User talk:Sminthopsis84#Decorative arts. I'd just like your opinion, too. CorinneSD (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fine. His comment about the use of 'the term' is interesting. Rothorpe (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sminthopsis84: and @Bhny: I don't like the new definition. I think it's wordy. I don't mind the use of the phrase "the term". I don't like the use of "concerned with", and I don't think it should say "arts or crafts". It should say "arts and crafts". Also, I disagree that the decorative arts are the arts and crafts that are concerned with the design and manufacture of beautiful objects which are also functional. Not all decorative art objects are functional. (Unless one includes adding beauty to a location as being "functional".) Many, but not all, decorative art objects are functional. Perhaps just the addition of the word "often" -- or even "usually" -- after "also" would suffice.

I suggest:

The decorative arts are those arts and crafts that involve the design and manufacture of objects which are beautiful and often functional.

The decorative arts are those arts and crafts that involve the design and manufacture of beautiful objects which are also often functional.

CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I like your suggested edit[s]. I also wasn't keen on "concerned..." even though that is the wording in Websters. Basically I read a bunch of definitions and paraphrased. Bhny (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject. It's a pity that of four main text sections on the page (excluding the lead), three have no citations. (And I don't at all mind the use of the term "the term", but remember seeing people going through contortions to try to remove it.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Seleucid Empire

I'm almost finished reading the article on the Seleucid Empire, and I have a question for you:

The first part of the section Seleucid Empire#Seleucid rulers is just one paragraph. However, it looks like one long, run-on sentence. Can you figure out where to punctuate this with a period or two? CorinneSD (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There's only one needed, but the question is where to put it, before or after 'starting from the 2nd century BC onwards' (and either 'starting' or 'onwards' must go)? Rothorpe (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, since Seleucus I Nicator, the founder of the Seleucid Dynasty, lived from ca. 358 BC – 281 BC and became king (when he named himself king) in 306 BC, then the time phrase "starting from the 2nd century BC onwards" must apply to something else, so probably goes with what follows the phrase. Regarding which word to delete and which to retain, do you have a preference? I re-read the paragraph, such as it is, and I think "starting from the 2nd century BC" is not only more elegant than "....onwards", it makes more sense: the information that follows refers specifically to ancient writers, and if the word "....onwards" is used, it creates ambiguity as to how far into the future it goes, and I don't think it was meant to apply too far into the future. CorinneSD (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Those were the choices I was tending towards, so I've made the edits. Rothorpe (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article

You might be interested in this:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-04/Op-ed. CorinneSD (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Good speech there from our friend Paine Ellsworth. Coincidentally, earlier I was reading an exchange at the Citizendium forum touching on such matters, in a discussion about why that wiki is not attracting more contributors (to put it politely). It prides itself on not allowing anyone to be a dick, hence the real names policy. But I have long felt that it inhibits people. I want to be free to be polite, not have it forced upon me. Rothorpe (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely. CorinneSD (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Rothorpe (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Manuel de Falla

Weren't we just talking about "best-known"? Perhaps it wasn't in connection with Manuel de Falla, which I edited a few days ago. I was thinking you had added this best-known, but I guess not; I'm sure you would have put a hyphen there. CorinneSD (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would on an energetic day, but it's a long time since I visited Falla. Rothorpe (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Edmund Wilson

I had read and made a few edits to Edmund Wilson a few days ago, and even discussed the formatting of the large block quote near the end of the article. Just now, I looked at an edit in which an editor changed the double quotes around "panel" to single quotes. I wondered why, so I looked, and saw that there were quotation marks around the block quote and that the text of the block quote was in italics. I think that, before, it had no quotation marks and was in regular font, which is the way I think block quotes are supposed to be, no? And if there are no double quotation marks around the block quote, the word "panel" should be in double quotation marks rather than single, right? CorinneSD (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the edits just before this and saw that an IP editor put the block quote into italics with an edit summary saying that "it looks better" with italics. I checked again at the Mos at WP:Blockquote and it said that block quotes should not be in quotation marks. It said nothing about italics, so I think that means block quotes should be in regular font. So I undid everything the IP editor did. CorinneSD (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Without looking, I'd say that's exactly right. Block quotes don't need anything else to make them stand out, and large chunks of italics are very unpleasant. Rothorpe (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. (I think some new editors don't realize that there is a style guideline in Mos.) CorinneSD (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Cistercians

What do you think of the point I was trying to make at Talk:Cistercians#Constitution and rule? Daniel the Monk is a very knowledgeable editor who writes well. CorinneSD (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

'They soon came to distinguish themselves'? I think it reads all right: they adopted the different habit to make a point about the overall difference. Or am I missing something? Rothorpe (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel the Monk: @Rothorpe:I just thought the change in the color of their habit was an outer signal of a more important change, or group of changes. I guess "They soon came to distinguish themselves" (from the unreformed Benedictines) makes me think of important differences. I think it should say something like, "After the Cistercian monks decided to adopt a different path from the Benedictines, they decided to distinguish themselves by adopting a habit of a different color: white, as opposed to the Benedictine black." Something like that, but perhaps less wordy. CorinneSD (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Or: "In order to distinguish themselves from the Benedictines, the Cistercians adopted a white habit in contrast to the black of the Benedictines". CorinneSD (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Part of my point was that, apart from distinguishing themselves from "run-of-the-mill" Benedictines, the adoption of white had a particular significance in that culture, which reflected their self-image. In contrast, consider the Sylvestrines who simply used blue to indicate their differences. Daniel the Monk (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Pyrenees

I just noticed an edit to Pyrenees in which an editor reworded a sentence with an edit summary saying he/she had reworded the "awkwardly worded" sentence. When I compared the previous version to the new version, I have to say that I prefer the previous version. To me, it is succinct and accurate while the new version is wordy (and I don't like the plural before "endemicism" or the "s" version of "toward"). Would you support my reverting this? The only thing that I can think of that might remotely make a reader think the sentence is awkwardly worded is using the possessive adjective "their" (to refer to the Pyrenees') before the noun. To me it's clear, but to some readers it might not be. To remedy that, it could be written, "The fauna in the Pyrenees present...". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's horrible: I think just a straightforward revert, 'I like 'their'. By the way, I don't see 'towards' here: are you confusing it with 'regards'? Toward/s is an Am/Br distinction, purely, I think. Rothorpe (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I forgetfully made a minor edit ('Pyrénées' is not English), so, in order to preserve that, I'll make the revert we've discussed, then you can add any finishing touches. Rothorpe (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

...Which turned out unnecessary; one never knows. Rothorpe (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It was "as regards", not "towards". That comes from not having a second window open, so I was going by memory. Thank you for reverting that sentence. I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "Which turned out [to be] unnecessary; one never knows". By the way, Hafspajen is back. See his humorous description of a trip he just returned from. CorinneSD (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do. I meant that it was after all unnecessary to do the edit immediately, as it didn't undo the Pyrénées change as I had expected it to. Rothorpe (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh. O.K. I just want to ask: even if a name has accents in another language, like French or Spanish, the accents are not to be used in WP articles? CorinneSD (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

'Pyrenees' has an English pronunciation, it is entirely assimilated, so the accents are inappropriate. The opposite extreme would be a person's name, where unless there's a policy of no-diacritics-whatsoever (as BBC Television has, to judge from appearances), it's normal to include one (e.g. if a person is named André); WP mandates these. And of course if you're quoting from a foreign language, they must be included for accuracy. Have you seen the article I created, List of artworks known in English by a foreign title, by the way? Quite a few accents there, and they would all normally be included in an English context. Rothorpe (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting list. Good work! Re Pyrenees, how does one know if a place name is "entirely assimilated"? Just from one's own experience hearing and seeing it? CorinneSD (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, just from experience. Rothorpe (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Out of India Theory

I just finished reading the article on the Out of India theory and I made quite a few edits. Along the way, I changed "Civilization" to "civilization" about twice. Then I saw it capitalized in "Indus Valley Civilization" quite a few times, so stopped changing it. Now I'm wondering whether I should change those two instances back, or change all the capitalized ones to lower case. What do you think? If you do a search ("Find"), you'll see how many of them there are. CorinneSD (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization is the name of an article, so it's the norm. But not to worry, I only counted one that you have to change back. Elsewhere, no capital, of course. Rothorpe (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, only one: I've changed it back. Rothorpe (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

George Vancouver

I've just started reading the article on George Vancouver, and I have come across a sentence that just doesn't sound right. It's in the first paragraph in the section George Vancouver#Early career and reads as follows:

"He also accompanied Cook's third voyage (1776–1778), this time aboard Resolution's sister ship, Discovery, and the first European sighting and exploration of the Hawaiian Islands."

If you take out the middle part, you get:

"He also accompanied Cook's third voyage (1776-1778)...and the first European sighting and exploraton of the Hawaiian Islands."

Can one accompany a sighting? Can one accompany an exploration? I suppose it's all right, but I would prefer a different verb before "the first European sighting and exploration of the H. I.". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree: it reads badly. There should be another verb or verb phrase in the middle. Rothorpe (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw an interesting word: manoeuvring. I was surprised to see the vring at the end. In American English, the verb is spelled maneuver, and the present participle maneuvering. On Wiktonary, I see that the British spelling of the verb is manoeuvre, with the -re ending as in centre and theatre. I knew about the nouns, but was less familiar with a -re -ending verb. So the -ing form is formed by removing the final "e" and adding -ing. Does that mean the -ing form of the verb to centre would be centring? I'm not familiar with that. Manoeuvring would then have one less syllable than American English maneuvering (4 syllables), right? CorinneSD (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

All 100% correct! Of course in rapid speech, there's not much difference between the two mnoovrings. Rothorpe (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting.... Regarding the first item, which do you prefer for the verb/verb phrase before "the first European sighting and exploration of the Hawaiian Islands":

• was present for

• participated in

• aided in

• experienced

• assisted Cook in

CorinneSD (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, how about a relative clause, 'which included'? Rothorpe (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Normally, I think that would work, but because of the phrase about the sister ship in between, it sounds awkward. I think it's too far from "Cook's third voyage". Here it is that way:

• He also accompanied Cook's third voyage (1776–1778), this time aboard Resolution's sister ship, Discovery, which included the first European sighting and exploration of the Hawaiian Islands.

We could move the phrase about the sister ship to the beginning of the sentence:

• Aboard Discovery, Resolution's sister ship, he also accompanied Cook's third voyage (1776–1778), which included the first European sighting and exploration of the Hawaiian Islands.

Here it is the first way, with "and was present at" added:

• He also accompanied Cook's third voyage (1776–1778), this time aboard Resolution's sister ship, Discovery, and was present at the first European sighting and exploration of the Hawaiian Islands.

Here it is with "and was present during" added:

• He also accompanied Cook's third voyage (1776–1778), this time aboard Resolution's sister ship, Discovery, and was present during the first European sighting and exploration of the Hawaiian Islands.

I think I prefer the second way, starting "Aboard...." Which do you prefer? CorinneSD (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I had forgotten that. Actually, I think the last one reads best. Rothorpe (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I think you're right. Starting with "Aboard..." doesn't sound so good. CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Good. Rothorpe (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Olympias

I had read and worked on the article Olympias yesterday or the day before. Today, an IP editor fiddled with a sentence. In the course of trying to determine whether the edit was an improvement or not, I realized several things:

1) A link is created at the name "Alexander" several times throughout the article. I think only once -- the one at the beginning of the article -- is enough, don't you?

Here is the paragraph worked on by the IP editor:

The name Olympias was the third of four names by which she was known, taking it probably as a recognition of Philip's victory in the Olympic Games of 356 BC, the news of which coincided with news of Alexander's birth (Plut. Alexander 3.8).[5][self-published source?] She was finally named Stratonice, which was probably an epithet attached to Olympias following her victory over Eurydice in 317 BC.[4]

2) Since it is made clear at the beginning of the article that Olympias was the mother of Alexander the Great, I don't think the link at the point later in the article where it says that the news of his father Philip's victory at the Olympic Games coincided with Alexander's birth, repeating that he is Alexander the Great, is necessary, do you?

3) In that sentence (the one worked on by IP editor), the word "news" is repeated twice. I don't think the second "news" is necessary, do you?

Agree with all your points so far. Don't forget you can quote WP:OVERLINK in the edit summary. Links should be repeated only if they're distant. Rothorpe (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

4) Isn't "taking it" a "hanging participle"? The subject -- who is taking the name -- is not really mentioned. There's "the name Olympias" and "she". The reader has to assume that "she" is Olympias and the subject of "taking it". Perhaps "having taken it" would be a little clearer. Any thoughts?

I'd start a new sentence: She took it probably... Rothorpe (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Or just: It was probably....

5) I am puzzled by that "self-published source?" note to editors. It ought to be pretty easy to substantiate whether Alexander the Great was born at the time of the Olympic Games in that year. So if that source is unacceptable, there must be others that would be considered reliable sources. Shall I just leave it, ask someone else, or search for another source? CorinneSD (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your guess is as good as mine. Rothorpe (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked at User talk:Dougweller#Olympias and received a reply from another editor. CorinneSD (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Good, I'm watching. Rothorpe (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Today's featured article

I just read the beginning of today's featured article. A few sentences after the beginning, it says the band broke up acrimoniously and reformed in 2004 (I think). I felt there was some ambiguity in "reformed" -- as if they made up and turned over a new leaf as far as their behavior was concerned. Then I realized it meant "formed again" or "formed anew". I'm wondering whether it would be clearer if it were written "re-formed", with a hyphen. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just checked and 're-formed' is standard bandspeak. There's a way to survey this sort of thing: type 're-formed' in the search box, then click on the little magnifying glass. Rothorpe (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh...Interesting. Thanks. When you say it is "standard bandspeak", you mean that it is commonly used by musicians when referring to bands, don't you? Just want to be sure. If so, then I guess you approve of adding the hyphen, if you haven't done so already. CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That's right. But don't bother to try to add the hyphen: there's no sign of 'reformed' any longer in the actual article, only in the featured bit. Rothorpe (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The article was there a few minutes ago. I guess it's after midnight in Greenwich and what I would call tomorrow's featured article is now there. I wasn't able to edit the article -- there was no option to edit it. I left a note on the talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right that the featured article has changed here, but I edited the previous one. I'll get back to you... Rothorpe (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I meant that the article had changed here, too. It's just that for me it's not tomorrow yet. On the talk page there was a section for editing "today's or tomorrow's featured article". I was a bit puzzled for a moment as to how one could edit tomorrow's featured article. I left my note (for "today's" featured article). Then only after reading your post above and going back and looking at it, I realized that "tomorrow's" article is up already. CorinneSD (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Anyway, the article is Bam Thwok, or at least that's the one that had the Pixies in it, and there's no sign of 'reformed' in it any more, so that's that. Rothorpe (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

So where did you leave your note? Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, yesterday, when the article was still there, I clicked on the Talk page, and the first section below the general information was for reporting errors in "today's or tomorrow's featured article", and that's where I left my comment. A little while later, everything had changed.

Just now, I went to the talk page that goes with the Main page where today's featured article is, and at the right is a tan-colored box that says Main Page Toolbox. In the upper left-hand corner of that box it says June 15, 2014, and TFA. I clicked on TFA and found the Bam Thwok article. The word "reformed" is still there in the first paragraph. But now there's no talk page associated with it, so I didn't see my comment or the others that were left in that section (although they're probably there somewhere). It doesn't really matter if we can't find my comment. The question is whether we can edit the article. I think you'll find the article at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 15, 2014. CorinneSD (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a problem because the article has been edited (including by me). Once it's been transcluded on to the main page, the text there can't be edited. I still can't find your note though: which talk page is it on? Rothorpe (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't find it, either. But that's all right. I found the article. It is different from the way it was yesterday, and I didn't see "reformed" at all. If you want to read a humorous exchange of puns, read Talk:Main Page#Fish on MainPage!. I don't know why I can't create the link properly. It's a section on the Talk page associated with Wikipedia's Main Page. How do you make the link? CorinneSD (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Talk:Main Page#Fish on MainPage!. Yes. Roe does it again! Rothorpe (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Caviar to you. I finched it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Rothorpe Didn't you see my puns? CorinneSD (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, made me smile. Rothorpe (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Though I'm not sure about 'caviar' - 'kudos'? I'm not very good at this. Rothorpe (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that one wasn't really a pun. I just wanted you to know I had gotten your "Roe" pun (it took me a few seconds to realize it was a pun). It's also a little like saying "Kudos to you", or saying that, even more than roe, you deserve caviar. CorinneSD (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, I thought it must be something like that. Rothorpe (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Corsica

I was looking at the latest edit to Corsica and reading the informative edit summary. One of the edits has to do with the fourth paragraph in Corsica#History. Here is the paragraph:

"In the 5th century, the Western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, and the island was invaded by the Vandals, the Ostrogoths, the Byzantines, the Lombards and the Saracens. Pepin the Short, king of the Franks and Charlemagne's father, expelled the invaders and granted Corsica to Pope Stephen II which act was the starting point of the temporal power of the Papacy."

Besides the missing comma, I wasn't crazy about "which act...". I know it's probably accurate, but I just think it's jarring. Can you think of another way to express it that is more pleasing to the ear? How about:

• "...Pope Stephen II, becoming the starting point of the temporal power of the Papacy"

• "...Pope Stephen II, which became the starting point of the temporal power of the Papacy"

or something else. CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I'd start a new sentence: ...Stephen II. This was the starting point... Rothorpe (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right again. My real reason was that I didn't like the sound of "which act was", but upon looking at it again, I realized also that the sentence was quite long. What would I do without your good judgment? CorinneSD (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (I did see this too). Rothorpe (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Dorothy Parker

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Dorothy Parker? As you may know, I read this article about three weeks ago and made a few minor edits. It might have been me who added the comma after "Jr.", and an editor has just removed it. To me, there should be a comma after Jr., Sr., Esq., etc., if the sentence continues (even though the name has a link). It's like the comma after a place: He lives in London, England,... or a year: His novel was published on June 17, 2014, by..., if the sentence continues. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course you're right, but this is one of the most common errors/misconceptions on Wikipedia. I'll take a look. Rothorpe (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, 'it's a parenthesis', I said. Rothorpe (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, now it has gone through several metamorphoses. Mega may be correct in his/her edit summary regarding the names of the foundations and centers, but it's interesting that all the examples contain the word "Foundation" or "Center" capitalized (if it had been me who had named them, I would have included the comma) -- clearly those words are part of the name of the organization. It's a moot point now that it ends with a period and is no longer followed by the word "foundation", but, if it were still an ongoing sentence, do you think there would be a difference between, "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., foundation" and "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Foundation"? In other words, does the lower-case version require the comma? CorinneSD (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's that; maybe the capital version does too. Maybe neither do (but I agree, that way one starts dropping commas all over the place). Rothorpe (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As you said elsewhere, some people just don't understand punctuation. CorinneSD (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, me for instance. But I try to be consistent. Rothorpe (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Cilicia

I've just started reading the article on Cilicia and have come across three issues. The first two are about history, so I left a comment on Dougweller's talk page (feel free to read or comment). The third one is more on word choice, so I'll ask you. It is in the first paragraph in the section right after "Geography and nomenclature". The sentence is rather long. It reads:

"Cilicia Trachea ("rugged Cilicia"—Greek: Κιλικία Τραχεία; the Assyrian Khilakku or Khilikku, also sometimes transcribed as Hilakku or Hilikku, classical "Cilicia")[10][11][12] is a rugged mountain district[13] formed by the spurs of Taurus, which often terminate in rocky headlands with small sheltered harbors,[14] a feature which, in classical times, made the coast a string of havens for pirates,[14][15] but which in the Middle Ages led to its occupation by Genoese and Venetian traders."

My question is, right after the numbers 14 and 14 (for references), it says "but which in the Middle Ages...." I wonder whether "but" is right there. Should it be "and"? Is it "but" only because we suppose Genoese and Venetian traders were engaged in an honorable profession as opposed to the shady profession of pirates? It was a completely different period in history. I don't see why the two groups should be opposed or contrasted. Does "but" make sense to you? CorinneSD (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a very political 'but', whereas 'and' is NPV (as they say around here), much better. Rothorpe (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. (I asked Sminthopsis re Mire, next section, since he/she is a botanist.) CorinneSD (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Re Cilicia: I decided to cut out the "which" and some extra words to make the sentence more concise, but I'm troubled by the fact that now the word "harbor" appears twice in the sentence (I hadn't seen the first "harbor" when I worked on the sentence; only saw it after I saved it).

(a) Do you approve of the more concise version? and

(b) Can you think of another word to use instead of the second "harbor" that would be accurate and appropriate? How about "trading station", "outpost", "commercial center", "center of commerce"...? CorinneSD (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Harbrs, centrs, tradrs, that spelling reform is long overdue, but I digress. I was expecting you just to replace 'but' with 'and', but since you're going for conciseness, how about 'a feature which made the coast a string of havens for pirates in classical times and for Genoese and Venetian traders in the Middle Ages'? Or don't traders have havens? Rothorpe (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

As for your suggestions, I like 'outpost' best as it doesn't repeat the 'trader' idea. Rothorpe (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And it was pretty far from Venice and Genoa. CorinneSD (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Right. So: '...classical times and an outpost for Genoese and Venetian traders in the Middle Ages' would br fine. Rothorpe (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I used the word "outpost" but left the word order as it was, adding commas around "in the Middle Ages", so the second phrase parallels the first phrase, with prepositional phrase first. If you think it should be different, feel free to re-order the words. CorinneSD (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, very neat. Rothorpe (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Mire

@Sminthopsis84: and Rothorpe: An editor added the word "the" to the article on Mire. Do you think it is necessary? CorinneSD (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It changes the meaning, so the question is whether there are other types; the IP reckons not. Rothorpe (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The pages on those topics are very confusing. However, this does make the statement that there are exactly two types of mire. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I found the whole section of the lead of Mire wordy and confusing. I re-worded parts and removed some words. CorinneSD (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, very good. Rothorpe (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)