User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 19

Cynocephaly

I was looking at an edit to Cynocephaly when I decided to change "it" to "they". I felt the antecedent was "cynocephali", not "image" (and the cynocephaly are referred to in the next sentence as "these beings"). Upon re-reading the sentence, I'm wondering whether the second part of the sentence refers to the image rather than the "Cynocephali"; if it does, then I would change "they" to "the image" -- which would make sense. But if I do that, then is it clear that "these beings" in the next sentence refers to the Cynocephali mentioned all the way back at the beginning of the sentence before it? CorinneSD (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it's clear that the cynos are the subject. Rothorpe (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Good. CorinneSD (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Parthenon

For a laugh, look at the edit undone by Doniago at Parthenon with an edit summary "Er, no". CorinneSD (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. But I don't know what a minbar is, I confess, so I'll see what the blue gets. Rothorpe (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)---Aha, perhaps it was deliberate.

Minbar

I just read the short article on Minbar, and I have a few questions for you:

1) In the second paragraph of the lead is the following sentence:

"While minbars are akin to many pulpits in elevation and structure (in some churches used by readers of the Bible), they have a function and position more similar to that of a church lectern, being used instead by the minister of religion, the imam, typically for a wider range or readings and prayers".

Do you think "typically for a wider range or readings and prayers" should be "typically for a wider range of readings and prayers"? If not, then don't you think it needs something after "a wider range" -- a wider range of activities? functions?

Fixed.

2) A little later in the same paragraph, do you think it should be "only used" or "used only"?

Or perhaps 'used a platform with only'? Or, if that changes the meaning, 'just used'? 'Merely used'?

I think the contrast is between a tower and a platform, not the number of steps, so the word "only" should not be before "three steps". It should be before "platform". Then the question is which adverb is best. I really think "only" is best:

"...used only a platform with three steps".

If we knew whether the platform was fancy or plain, that would help. If it was plain, then "used a simple platform" would work.

Right. But 'used only a' is OK, really.

3) That same sentence starts, "Conversely". I don't think that's the right adverb. I think "In contrast" would be better. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Or 'sunnah, though the prophet...'? Rothorpe (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem with joining the sentence about the tower and steps with the sentence about the platform and steps is the sentence in between. Let me look at it again. CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think the subordination makes the language too sophisticated for the average reader? CorinneSD (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering what you meant and then realised you had already changed it. Yes, a great improvement, very clear. Rothorpe (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Cistercians

Could you look at the latest edit to Cistercians? An editor changed "colour" to "color". I was trying to figure out what the predominant style of English was in the article, but struggled. I did a search and found no other instances of "color" or "colour", and I found one instance of "honour", but it was within a quote (last paragraph of "Engineering and construction" section). I saw one date in the American style, but didn't keep looking for dates. Since the Cistercians were founded in Europe, wouldn't that suggest using British style? Then there's always, why change the spelling at all? This editor also changed "1110s" to "1110's", which is clearly wrong, so the question is whether to change just that back or to undo both edits at once. I'm going to leave it to you. CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

An IP, so I just reverted. Rothorpe (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw. Good. I didn't even see "labour" to "labor". I didn't scroll down far enough. CorinneSD (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Feather

I noticed an edit to Feather. An editor separated some material in the lead and formed a second paragraph. I don't know whether that was necessary or not, but I noticed a sentence in that paragraph that contains some ambiguity:

"They aid in flight, thermal insulation, waterproofing, and coloration that helps in communication and protection".

Is it clear to you that the adjective clause "that helps in communication and protection" refers only to "coloration"? Should the sentence be modified in any way? Any suggestions? CorinneSD (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I liked the split, and didn't have any problems with 'coloration' (rightly no comma after it). Rothorpe (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Paine

See the latest edits to Thomas Paine. Didn't we have a discussion regarding "debtors prison" vs. "debtors' prison" -- perhaps regarding this very article -- a long time ago? CorinneSD (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's in your Archive 10. The discussion mentioned another discussion on my talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That other discussion is in my Archive 2. See the last few exchanges in that long discussion. CorinneSD (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Done, both. Well, I haven't changed my mind! Rothorpe (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean that you don't approve of that edit? Do you want to change it back to "debtors prison"? If so, would you mind making that edit? I don't know what the edit summary should say. CorinneSD (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've put in a link to debtors' prison to avoid any arguments. Rothorpe (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like he wrote the edit summary and then forgot to do the edit. Rothorpe (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Who wrote which edit summary? Where? Are you referring to a recent edit on the article or to the discussion on my talk page, Archive 2? Did you read this:

From my talk page, Archive 2:

I changed "debtor's prison" to "debtors' prison", but as I made the edit, I realized that I had seen "debtor's prison" many times and "debtors' prison" hardly ever. I decided to do a search on the internet (not just WP), and I found many results with "debtor's prison" and only one or two with "debtors' prison". Now I am completely puzzled. CorinneSD (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Debtor's prison", no contest. Also, "debtors prison" would work, perhaps even better. What you are up against is that as some readers go through the article, no matter what form they see, they will change it to whatever form they think it should be. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 14:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth said it should be "debtor's prison" or "debtors prison". I see the article "Debtors' prison", but perhaps that's wrong, too. Logically, "debtors' prison" makes sense, but I just don't remember seeing it anywhere. That's all. But I guess you're sticking with it. I'm not going to argue. Just wanted to show you the earlier discussion in case you didn't see it. CorinneSD (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The apostrophe, such a menace! In German it'd be one word, the equivalent of 'debtorsprison'. Anyway, I have no preference between the three forms. If you think the article should be moved to Debtor's prison, I shall of course support you. Rothorpe (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if "debtors prison", without the apostrophe, would be the most correct. The possessive suggests that the prison somehow belongs to the debtors, and in actuality it doesn't. I wonder whether we should post a comment on the talk page of the article Debtor's prison, or ask someone like User:Fayenatic london, and User:Paine Ellsworth. CorinneSD (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, put a notice on the page, good idea. I'll happily support the apostropheless version. Rothorpe (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, CorinneSD and Rothorpe – I seem to recall suggesting 1) that "debtors prison" would be the best of the three choices, and 2) that some readers would probably change it to their liking no matter what form is used. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, on 20 November to be precise (see above). Rothorpe (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think that CorinneSD made a good point in regard to the fact that the debtors don't own the prison? that debtor's (singular) and debtors' (plural) both imply possession? – Paine  19:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) User:Paine Ellsworth Yes, I copied the original discussion above so that we could look at it again. I'm glad we all agree, but I don't know how to go about changing the title of an article ("Debtor's prison" to "Debtors prison"). Also, we'd need to justify the change. I'm wondering if there is a source such as OED or writings by or about Thomas Paine that we can refer to. Then, after the article title gets changed, we can change the instance in the Thomas Paine article (and perhaps leave a permanent hidden note to editors).

Paine, I just saw your question. (I only saw it in the confusion of an edit conflict and initially attributed it to Rothorpe). Thank you for the support. My point could be part of our justification for changing the article title. CorinneSD (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD, it is only my personal opinion that the page should be renamed "Debtors prison". When we look at the article's talk page, and when we peruse the reference citations, the vast majority uses the plural-possessive form. I even found one news article that used one instance of the singular-possessive form and the rest of the six instances were in the plural-possessive form. So it appears that there is a little bit of confusion about what form to use. In a case like this, rather than to move the article to its non-possessive form, I would suggest first approaching the rename on the article's talk page. See what the article's custodians (if any) have to say about all this. – Paine  19:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking in google and I'm seeing all three versions.

Here's one without the apostrophe:

http://instruct.uwo.ca/english/234e/site/bckgrnds/maps/lndnmpprsns.html

(in Fleet Prison section).

Here's one with plural possessive:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/bankrupts-insolvent-1710-1869.htm

(3.Insolvent debtor records).

CorinneSD (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've opened an RM at Talk:Debtors' prison#Requested move. – Paine  20:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I hadn't seen this and went ahead and did what you suggested. After saving my comment, I saw your comment and the template. Shall I move my comment? CorinneSD (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, just change the section header to something like *'''Support.''' and use your comments to form a support rationale. – Paine  20:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Rothorpe, see the discussion at the link Paine Ellsworth supplied, just above. Can you think of any plural possessive nouns (or even singular possessive nouns) that have become simple plural nouns over time? That would bolster our wish for "Debtors prison". CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Not outside proper nouns: Teachers College, Champions League, Bitches Brew. Rothorpe (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I take Largo Plazo's point about "women's prison", not "women prison", so I'm happy for it to remain at Debtors' prison. (Irregular nouns have their uses!) Rothorpe (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Cat

I saw an edit to an editor's Talk page and out of curiosity read it. An editor asked him/her not to use the tag "Minor" edit when the edits total a reduction in 800 bytes. So I decided to look at the article in question, which is Cat. At first, they just seemed like the kind of minor copy-edits I make, and I usually click "Minor", too. But then, as I continued to look at them, I saw that there were many, many edits. Most were minor copyedits, but they must have accumulated to a large total of bytes. I don't care about the total or the tag. I'm writing to ask you, when you feel rested and have time, if you could go over all the edits carefully. There are so many that it would be a big decision to undo all of them at once. You (or I) might have to have another window open so that individual edits could be made.

I agree with quite a number of the edits, perhaps 60 to 70%. However, I don't like some of them.

I noticed that this editor:

• deleted many instances of the word "that" introducing clauses; I like using the word "that" -- I think it aids in comprehension;

• does not like the "There is/there are" construction and changed almost all of them. Sometimes it may be all right; other times I prefer the "there is/there are" construction;

• does not like the impersonal "it" construction such as "It has been suggested that...", and got rid of them;

• generally took out every last possible extra word, making it very lean meat;

• does not like hyphenated words, and took out the hyphen and joined prefix to root; sometimes all right, but I wonder about a few others;

• changed singular, for example, "mouth", to plural, "mouths"; I'm not sure that was necessary.

Let me know what you think. Feel free to edit. CorinneSD (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It really is very annoying when someone makes so many small edits at once. And he's been told off already on his user page for labeling them 'minor'. I'll certainly help you dismantle some of them. Rothorpe (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

How do you want to do this? Do you want to:

(a) do as many as you feel like until you get tired, or

(b) divide the list above, and you take some of them and I'll take some of them? CorinneSD (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see if my desire to revert the whole lot ebbs away. I note he has meted out similar treatment to many articles. Rothorpe (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you decided what to do about Cat? CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I haven't looked at this talk page much since you've been away. I think tomorrow I'll just have a look at this article without examining the changes, and see if I need to alter anything. Rothorpe (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)

I noticed an edit summary asking editors not to edit while the editor is editing Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River) with Visual Editor. Apparently, if another editor edits during that time, it messes things up. I just peeked at the article and saw a template to that effect at the top of the article, but I noticed that the template said the article was undergoing a major edit. Since I knew the article had been gone over carefully by several editors, including myself, and was reviewed a few weeks ago on the peer review page for FAC, I just thought I'd leave a note on the editor's talk page, which I did. I received a courteous reply, and have been looking at his edits, which are mostly very good. I've left one additional comment about one sentence on his talk page. I'd like to ask you about one of his edits. He changed "From approximately 1840 to around 1900" to "From around 1840 to 1900". Now I know

(a) "Around" is shorter than "approximately", and

(b) the entire phrase is now shorter, but

in the first phrase, it is clear that both dates are approximate. In the newest version, I'm not sure it is clear that "around" applies to both 1840 and 1900. It kind of looks like it might apply only to 1840 and that 1900 is a more sure date. What do you think?

(Don't edit in the article until the editor gives the go-ahead and/or removes that template.) CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your distinction there, and the approximation is lost from 1900 as you suspect. I haven't looked, but two "c."s might suffice if the distinction isn't truly needed. Rothorpe (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I know you like c., but I only like it when it's in a history article, referring to dates way in the past. I prefer "around", "about", or "approximately" for more modern dates. Let's see...I just re-read the sentence in the article, and I've changed my mind. I think the starting and ending points of the period "From around 1840 to 1900" sound approximate enough. Just the round number 1900 sounds somewhat approximate. Also, I don't think it's a crucial thing. CorinneSD (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Right, good point about the round number. Rothorpe (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Tyre, Lebanon

Would you mind looking at the latest edits to Tyre, Lebanon? The first one I suppose is all right, but the second one I don't like. Those activities specifically referred to the nature preserve (I remember editing this article only about ten days ago). What do you suggest? (The editor's user name suggests he/she is a student and this is a class assignment. The edit summary on the first edit is, to me, the wrong justification for that edit, perhaps showing that the editor is a beginner.) CorinneSD (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree & have reverted (only the one edit though). Rothorpe (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

THANK you! I'm glad you undid both. CorinneSD (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

De nada. And two edits in one, I see what you meant. Rothorpe (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. @Student7: is upset now. Perhaps he does have a point about "Tyre Coast Natural Preserve" as a major section whereas it should probably be a subsection of a more standard heading such as "Geography".

How does one explain that "kept it under their rule", while longer than "ruled it", is the better wording? It has to do with the meaning. It's kind of like "held onto it" or "kept control of it", which suggests that it was no mean feat -- it was not an easy undertaking. CorinneSD (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You've explained it very well. Why don't you mention it on the talk page? Or direct him here. Rothorpe (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think he'll see it because I put his user name as a link, above, but I'll change it now to a ping. Even apart from possibly moving the entire "Tyre Coast Natural Preserve" into a sub-section under a new "Geography" section, do you think the lines about the activities one can do in the preserve are all right, or are they too much like a tourist brochure? CorinneSD (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you could start a new Geography section. The activities bit jars indeed. There is Wikitravel for that sort of thing. And Wikivoyage. Rothorpe (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River) 2

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River) looks good now. That editor is a very good editor.

But now, I just saw an edit changing "BC" to "BCE", once. I think the editor is the creator of the article, but I saw before that he/she is either a non-native speaker of English or just not a very good writer; that's why I made so many edits earlier. But that has nothing to do with changing "BC" to "BCE". Maybe he changed it to be consistent with other dates, but WHY do the dates have to be "BCE"??? Can you discover any justification in the article history we can use to put them all back to BC? CorinneSD (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I impertinently asked the editor on his talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Received a reply. Don't know what to say. CorinneSD (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Secular my foot. Speaking as a non-religionist, it fails to be secular for me, as I always see it as 'Before the Christian Era'. Common Era? Common to what? It just looks fussy, as if someone has pedantically tagged on an E. You could say something like that. And CE is even worse, if he wants to be secular, compared with AD (avant ou après Dawkins?). Rothorpe (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, for me AD and BC have never been "religious", but since they come from the phrases "Anno Domini" and "Before Christ", I can understand how some people, including some scholars, feel they are religious terms from a tradition they do not feel a part of. To me, they have been in use for so long that they have lost whatever religious connotations they may have had. We prefer AD and BC, but, I guess, if WP permits both, we have to acquiesce to the preferences of the editor who has initiated the article. I guess the world would be a dull place if everyone agreed on everything. But, do you feel strongly enough about this to leave a note on his talk page? You can use "they have been in use for so long that they have lost whatever religious connotations they may have had", if you want to. CorinneSD (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

We're passing the buck to each other! I've changed them and left an invitational edit summary. Rothorpe (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I was I who made that edit. I'll be happy to defer to you two, but now the article uses BC and BCE inconsistently. For the record, I didn't create the article; I've just done most of the work on it. I'm also a native English speaker (though perhaps not a very good writer :p). --Jakob (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The article seems to me to be very well written. Thanks for your gracious response! Rothorpe (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

That's because I and a number of other editors worked on it a few weeks ago (don't you remember?), and Dank worked on it yesterday, and Jakob graciously accepted most of our edits. I just want to point out that it would be "we two" against a lot of other editors, not just Jakob, who prefer BCE and CE. Should we go with what the article started with? CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed that was my only edit, I hadn't realised. No wonder it is so good. Kudos to all! Rothorpe (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Skyliners, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Four Seasons. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"How do I look" vs "What do I look like"

Hi, Rothorpe. Ask yourself these two questions and you will see the difference - 1. "How do I look?"; 2. "What do I look like?". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Madeleine McCan - Title

Hi Rothorpe. Firstly, let's forget about the "look like"/ "how look" incident. I normally don't revert a revert, but when I suspect that people are calling in their buddies to gang up, then my blood boils. I see now that you have NO ties to the original reverter and that you are in fact a major if not perhaps even the main contributor to the article. So my apologies. (for what it is worth, the reverter did in fact call in his buddies, who within seconds were commenting on the talk page, people who have never made an edit on Madeleine McCann, but who frequent each other's edits and talkpages). What brought me to the article in the first place was to check a few things. The article in Portuguese was flagged on a community page and I came here to see if I could find the information that would corroborate some of the claims, and to compare the title. It strikes me as odd that the title refers to the disappearance and not to the person. I would have thought it would be called simply "Madeleine McCann". Is there a reason for this? In the other languages that I checked it is the same, propably (I hazard a guess here) taking their cue from the English. I understand that the disappearance is the most significant event in this poor child's life, but are we not reducing her to the event and denying her the status of an individual and a person? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is about the event, not the person, hence the title. To see how the decision was arrived at, have a look at the early talk pages. I'd also like to deny being the main contributor to the article (main copyeditor, possibly). Rothorpe (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I just don't like the sound of "an impression of how she may have looked", but I guess that's just a difference of opinion. CorinneSD (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've long been used to it. Rothorpe (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Rothorpe. And CorinneSD, thanks for understanding what I was trying to say. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Webster

An editor just made a few edits to Daniel Webster. Most of them are fine, but I wanted to ask you what you thought of this one:

The editor changed the position of the word "only" in the sentence, from:

In United States presidential election, 1836, Webster was one of four Whig Party candidates to run for the office of President, but he only managed to gain the support of Massachusetts.

to:

In United States presidential election, 1836, Webster was one of four Whig Party candidates to run for the office of President, but he managed to gain the support only of Massachusetts.

Now, normally, I approve of getting the modifier close to the word it is modifying, but here, I think the earlier placement is more normal speech. What do you think?

True, but I was liking all the edits, and that one seemed to fit in well. Rothorpe (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

On another issue, you might be intrigued by the back-and-forth edits at Xiaolongbao. CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm firmly in the dumpling camp there. Yum yum! Rothorpe (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Lace

I fixed some mistakes in the captions of photos in the article on Lace. Do you like this caption? --

"An example of the use of lace in clerical garments"?

I'm second-guessing myself. I wonder whether it should be:

• Lace trim on clerical garments.

(but it's more than just trim, isn't it?)

or

• Lace as part of clerical garments, or

• Lace as part of clerical robes, or <-------------------------------------

• Lace on clerical robes.

CorinneSD (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That's the one! Rothorpe (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Done. CorinneSD (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Conus

Which word do you like best, at Conus? CorinneSD (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing for editing's sake by an IP: I've reverted. Rothorpe (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Metonymy

Do you think the link added to "verb phrase" in Metonymy is necessary? CorinneSD (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought not, but perhaps he doesn't know what it means. Then again, previous edits suggest he doesn't know what Western culture or advertising are either. Rothorpe (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Runes

I'm back....! Would you mind looking at the second-to-latest edit to Runes? An editor removed "but" in an effort to make the sentence clearer or more correct. It was bad before "but" was removed, but I'm not sure it is really right even now. Add "with"? Change "being" to "having been"? Put "but" back in and change "being" to a verb in present perfect? Any ideas? Feel free to edit/experiment. CorinneSD (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Rothorpe (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of "the" before occupation plus name

Can you recall where in your archives is the discussion we had regarding the use of "the" before an occupation plus name? CorinneSD (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite early on. I can't think of an easy way of searching for it automatically. Rothorpe (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul Kurtz

When you have time, would you look at the latest edit to Paul Kurtz? An editor added "born into a Jewish family" (with a link at "Jewish") and made the information about his parents into a separate sentence. Unfortunately, now it says, "He is the son of....." and he is no longer living so if anything it should be "He was the son of..." However, I wonder if the information about his family being Jewish is necessary. First of all, it is unsourced. Second, judging from his career as a secular humanist, the family may not have characterized itself that way. Third, there is no more discussion of his ethnicity in that section. I'm not saying it has to be removed. I just wonder whether that is the best place for the information, given what it does to the sentence. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I always like to know if people are Jewish or not, given their history. But I agree it may not be best placed there... Done my best. Rothorpe (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why I couldn't have done that. I think I must have been tired last night. It's fine now. CorinneSD (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Cinnamon

I am dismayed by several (if not all) of the edits to Cinnamon. I don't understand removing "that". To me, the word adds clarity. And I don't mind an occasional sentence starting with "But". Also, do you think there was a particular reason for using the word "cattle" instead of "beef"? What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Another wholesale case. It's an IP who gives no explanation, ZAP! Rothorpe (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Good! CorinneSD (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Good morning! Despite coming from an IP address, the edits appear valid. Regarding Corrine's comment above and speaking as a professional in the editing business, the IP editor was correct in removing the word 'that'. (You'll find many references to this in editing and writing web sites.) Also, outside of fiction, it is almost always bad form to start a sentence with a conjunction such as 'but'. I plan to tweak the 'but' sentence and correct a missing parenthesis, but otherwise I believe the IP editor acted in good faith (as everybody here has). My apologies for the RV, but redoing the edits by hand would be a lot of work. Kind regards, --Unicorn Tapestry ^{say} 11:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you and Corinne (sic) then. Rothorpe (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Mae West

I undid some edits by an IP at Mae West. However, I have a question about a sentence (which is back to the way it was before those edits):

"When her cinematic career ended, she continued to perform on stage, in Las Vegas, in the United Kingdom, on radio and television, and recorded rock and roll albums".

Don't you think she was performing on stage in Las Vegas? And also in the United Kingdom? Performing on radio and television is different. Shouldn't the phrasing and/or punctuation be changed a bit?

"When her cinematic career ended, she continued to perform on stage in Las Vegas and in the United Kingdom, [and?] on radio and television, and to record rock and roll albums."

If we remove "on stage", then it makes it easier:

"When her cinematic career ended, she continued to perform in Las Vegas, in the United Kingdom, and on radio and television, and to record rock and roll albums."

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, a nice thorough pruning of ambiguity. Rothorpe (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot

I was looking at an edit to Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot. I couldn't figure out what was going on. It's not worded well either before or after the latest edit. I went back step-by-step in the Revision History to see when it was added. There's a minor edit on 19 July that doesn't really help much, and saw that the whole paragraph was added just before that also on 19 July. That's one issue.

If you think the source is okay, it could just be copyedited, no? Rothorpe (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Will look at it again later. CorinneSD (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Then I went back just a little before that and saw another chunk of text about Sadi Carnot's religious beliefs added on 16 July. It contains one error ("believed"), but I wonder whether all of it is appropriate. I tried to find the material in the reference to read it but couldn't find it. I found the article but not the Appendix. Any thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'll have to leave this one until I have familiar surroundings & computer. Rothorpe (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Cinnamon

Toward the end of the third paragraph in Cinnamon#History, does "Temple" have to be capitalized? CorinneSD (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought not, especially given that it's not in the preceding sentence. Rothorpe (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearer view of edits

Hi, Rothorpe! I just discovered something, and I don't know whether you have seen it or not. I had already enabled Twinkle, so it might have something to do with that -- I don't know. But anyway, I noticed a small green triangle right above the "before" and "after" views in revision history. When I clicked on it, a clearer view of the latest edit shows up. I think this would be particularly helpful on those occasions when it's hard to find the edit because it's so small. CorinneSD (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2014

Thanks for this suggestion. Are there any drawbacks to allowing it life, would you say? Rothorpe (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't remember if that triangle was there before I added Twinkle, but I think it's been there all along. I don't know if you have enabled Twinkle, but if you haven't, then you will be able to see if the triangle is there. I just think it's there if you want to use it. To go back to regular view, you just click on the triangle again. It's not a permanent change. CorinneSD (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

North American Phalanx

I just made a few minor copy-edits to North American Phalanx. I removed a period from the caption under the photo of the commemorative plaque because it's a sentence fragment. (Now I know why you're always removing periods from captions!) I just wonder whether the word "Current" is needed in that caption. If it is removed, the entire caption will be on one line, which is nice. CorinneSD (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't mention earlier ones, so I've removed it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, do you know how to remove spellcheck squiggles? They're an annoying feature of this computer. Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you using Microsoft Word? That's what I have. This is what I think you should do:

1) Open up Word.

2) Click on "File" (upper left-hand corner).

3) In the list of items at the far left, where it says "Save as", "Save", "Open", "New", "Print", etc., click on "Options".

4) A window will open up. It will be on the General tab. In the list of items at the left, click on "Proofing".

5) You'll see two sections regarding spelling. You can uncheck whatever items you don't want done as you type. I think you want to focus on "When correcting spelling and grammar in Word", and probably would want to uncheck "Check spelling as you type" and perhaps one or two of the other items.

There are other things in AutoCorrect that you can look at and uncheck. Click on the box in that window that says "AutoCorrect Options" and you'll see more items. I usually leave those checked, but you can uncheck what you want to.

6) Be sure to check "O.K." at the bottom of the window to save your changes.

I would hope those changes carry over to when you are editing on WP. If not, then I'll have to search a bit further or ask someone. CorinneSD (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for going to all this trouble. It still squiggles here though, but not in Word. I tried changing the idiom from Portuguese to English, but that hasn't worked either. Anyway, back to Esposende and desktop on Thursday! Thanks again. Rothorpe (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

New Amsterdam

I was just looking at an edit to New Amsterdam, and I saw this caption. I wondered what you thought of it:

The Fall of New Amsterdam, by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris, showing Peter Stuyvesant (left of center, with wooden leg) standing on shore among residents of New Amsterdam who are pleading with him not to open fire on the English who have arrived in warships waiting in the harbor to claim the territory for England.

While I can understand the desire to mention the warships since they are visible in the background of the picture, I wonder about the phrasing. "Who have arrived in warships waiting in the harbor" is a little odd. Any thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems the choice is '...English who are waiting...' v. '...warships [in the harbor] and are waiting to claim...'. Rothorpe (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

H. L. Mencken 3

Hello, Rothorpe! I wonder if you could look at the latest edits to H. L. Mencken.

1) The last one removed the name of the neighborhood of Baltimore where Union Park is located. Granted, the park is located in a neighborhood that has the same name, so it sounds a bit redundant, but it is the name of a neighborhood and it may have an article attached/linked. I'm not arguing either way. It sounds more concise without the neighborhood. What do you think?

2) The edit just before that changed the punctuation from quotes + comma to comma + quotes, with an edit summary saying "punctuation rules". I read the section on this at WP:MOSLQ, and it said, basically, if the material in the quotes is a complete sentence, it should be period + quotes, and if it is just a word or sentence fragment, it should be quotes + comma. "Known as...." is just a participial phrase. I searched in the examples for something similar but didn't find anything. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree & have reverted. Rothorpe (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Lucy Madox Brown

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Lucy Madox Brown by an IP? The very last edit is fixing formatting, but the one right before that changed her name at the beginning of the article with an emotional edit summary. I don't know what is correct for the lead, but if it had remained that way (Lucy Madox Brown Rossetti) for a while, it suggests that it was stable and probably correct or someone would have changed it a long time ago. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I follow your reasoning. I was inclined to revert, but will investigate tomorrow. Rothorpe (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Stroma, Scotland

I'd like to ask your opinion on the latest edit to Stroma, Scotland. An editor removed the word "today" with an edit summary saying it was redundant (because of the word "still", I suppose). While this editor has years of experience editing on WP, his/her main field is botany. I want to ask you, as an expert on the English language, whether you think that was a good edit or not. I think one could argue either way here. "Still" and "today" are not synonyms. I believe they convey different information, so could both be used in a sentence. I really am interested in your opinion on this. CorinneSD (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, as one expert to another (or connoisseur?), I have to say my taste is to retain the 'today'. More stylish, better flow. Rothorpe (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Post-structuralism

I don't understand the latest edit to Post-structuralism. An IP editor added a category, "Pseudoscience", to the article. Post-structuralism is a movement in literary criticism and modern philosophy. How could it ever be considered a pseudoscience? CorinneSD (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Rvd. Rothorpe (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Old Turkic alphabet

I think we talked about this recently. An editor changed "2nd century" to "2nd-century" in the article Old Turkic alphabet, presumably because "2nd century" is used adjectivally. To me, it looks ridiculous.

(a) If the word "second" were written out in full, and it was being used adjectivally, would it always require the hyphen: "second-century..."?

Yes, usual rules apply.

(b) If it is being used adjectivally, doesn't it look better written out rather than abbreviated with the number? CorinneSD (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. Your call. Rothorpe (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It was done using AutoWikiBrowser, whatever that does exactly. Rothorpe (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Pseudonym

A editor changed "he or she" to "they, "him or her" to "them", and "his or her" to "their", at Pseudonym. I'm old-fashioned and like pronouns to match subjects. Shall we change the subject to plural? CorinneSD (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I was inclined to revert, but, yes, your solution is the sensible one. Rothorpe (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Mae West 2

In Mae West, an editor made two edits:

1) moved the reference -- I can't judge the correctness of this change, and

2) removed "and". Do you remember we discussed this, a few comments above this at User talk:Rothorpe#Mae West? The text before I added "and" said that she performed on stage in Las Vegas and in the U.K., and [performed] on television and radio. Removal of the "and" makes it sound like she performed on television and radio in Las Vegas and the U.K. What do you recommend? CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Rvd. Rothorpe (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I moved the citation to the end of the sentence for flow and removed mad commas next to "and". Is this so bad?Keith-264 (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Keith, I'll let Rothorpe respond regarding the placement of the reference. Regarding the other edit, you not only removed a comma but you removed the word "and", which was necessary. You'll see that this is three prepositional phrases following the infinitive "to perform":

"she continued to perform in Las Vegas, in the United Kingdom, and on radio and television, and...".

Optimally, it would be good to avoid repeating "in", but that would involve adding a third "and" to the sentence:

"she continued to perform [on stage -- this was in the original sentence] in Las Vegas and the United Kingdom and on radio and television, and..." -- Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It was the mad commas (either side of "and") that I wanted gone. If your heart's set on it I will give way. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the ref looks nicer at the end of the sentence, but in most cases I've seen the ref goes after the dates if it is to confirm those dates, and of course the flow is already interrupted by the parenthesis there. Rothorpe (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Keith, by "the mad commas (either side of "and")", do you mean "the...commas either side of the phrase beginning with the word "and"? I didn't see commas either side of the word "and" itself. And I didn't see anything wrong with commas either side of the phrase. CorinneSD (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

David Lloyd George

I don't understand the wholesale revert by User:Snowded at David Lloyd George, nor do I agree with the edit summary. Perhaps the geographic information regarding Lloyd George's place of birth is a little much -- I can't judge whether it is or not -- but:

• I don't understand the reason for capitalizing County and Council;

• I think the linking is not excessive; some of the added links make sense for readers not familiar with England; perhaps one or two of the added links are unnecessary; the links can be unlinked selectively;

• the IP editor removed unnecessary spaces and added commas in a large number where they should be, and the revert re-added the unnecessary spaces and removed the needed commas;

• the IP editor added an identifying phrase for an American, and the wholesale revert removed that. I think Snowded's edits should have been done more selectively. It is clear that the IP made his or her edits thoughtfully, not all at once.

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, a mixture. I suggest working on it point by point. I'll help out, but I'll let you go first. You can refer to here in your summaries, of course. Rothorpe (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Will get to it shortly. First, though, I need to ask whether there is something special about County and Council that they need to be capitalized, and whether you think the additional geographical information about L G's date of birth is, as Snowded says, too much unnecessary information. CorinneSD (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the following about County Council. Rothorpe (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @CorinneSD: for mentioning this thread to me. I made some of the edits reverted by @Snowded: and have had a rather "robust" discussion about his revert on his talk page. I don't agree with the caps for County Council (this is about the 1902 Act and church schools) - I don't think we generally do this unless naming a specific one (e.g "Kent County Council is responsible for roads in Kent", but "county councils are responsible for roads in their areas").

I (not the IP) added the link and identifying phrase for the (otherwise unexplained) "Adams" who has such a good opinion of LG's work at Munitions. I also added some more links in an attempt to clarify for the less well informed reader just who some of the people are. I'm sure that overall there are links in the article which could come out, but I feel it's best to get the "link at first mention in text" done before removing subsequent links, if that makes sense.

I'm not a fan of the "surnames throughout" thing - at least at first mention we should give the forename, initials, or title, most commonly used for the person. e.g. H. H. Asquith at first mensh, Asquith thereafter. We have at least two "Geddes" in the article so need to be especially careful about them.

Not got a huge opinion either way about the geographical info for LG's birth - I incline to prefer that we give county etc as it was at the time (with an explanatory note if necessary) but not enough to get into a faff about.

Good to see some thoughtful editors keeping an eye on the article :) DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I agree with you on every point. Regarding the issue you had with Snowded on mentioning not only Adams' full name but also the fact that he was a historian (American or not -- I'll leave that choice to you), I don't know if there is a strict injunction in MoS regarding mentioning the name of a source in the body of an article if the issue is not contentious, but if it is important information that adds something of interest to the article, I don't see why his name and occupation should not be given. I think the fact that Adams was American adds some interest to the article -- an American historian full of praise for a British prime minister. CorinneSD (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It seemed important to me to note that this was something a historian, and one we have an article about, had said - not just some random chap called "Adams". As the article already had a mention of "British economist John Maynard Keynes" - if just about the most famous economist ever needs introducing (and linking) then I thought a rather less-famous historian needed similar treatment! Hey ho. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei

An editor just added links to words like "astronomy", "philosophy", and "mathematics" in the infobox at Galileo Galilei. I searched for other links to these words in the article. They all have links in the table of contents at the left. Some have links further down in the article. What do you think about the additional links? Now it looks like every single word in the infobox has a link. CorinneSD (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Very nearly. I don't think it looks bad, though. Rothorpe (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Seleucid Empire

I was looking at the last few edits to Seleucid Empire, and I saw this edit summary by LlyewelynII:

"it doesn't matter what they called themselves: if the state has been called SYRIA since the 2d century BC and was in English through the EBs, then it goes in the lead in bold".

I was just wondering if you knew what "EB" stood for. I don't want to reveal my ignorance by asking L directly (unless I have to). CorinneSD (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

My efforts continue in vain, I'm afraid. Rothorpe (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Millet

I've been working on the article on Millet, and am now making further edits based on Sminthopsis84's responses to some questions I had, at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Millet. I don't think "per capita" needs to be in italics, does it? I think it has become part of the English vocabulary by now, hasn't it? CorinneSD (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Rothorpe (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)