User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Happy Easter

Traditional Easter eggs in Croatia

Happy Easter! – CorinneSD (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you. Just got back from a nice day in Guimarães. Rothorpe (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Loren Eiseley

Hello, Rothorpe! Would you mind looking at this group of edits to Loren Eiseley? [1] I don't think it's an improvment. The next three edits by an IP editor go in a circle and change nothing, so I was thinking about reverting to the version before this edit, but I noticed the addition of the name of the mother. What do you recommend? CorinneSD (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I always see red at "most well known", and agree that the first group of changes smack of edit for edit's sake. And you think all the new stuff is dispensible? (I'd never heard of Eiseley.) Rothorpe (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the picture, Hafs. You guessed right that I thought Loren probably looked a bit like that. Rothorpe (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this, too (after I saw Morus, below). I'll have to look at it again to answer your question. We read Loren Eiseley in high school. CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Rwood128 What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll check in the morning when I have more time and energy. Rwood128 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to revert is probably too harsh as the Josie.jensen09 edit does contain some new information. I think more, and better citations, are possibly needed. Rwood128 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of this edit? [2] Either way, a comma should probably be added before "considering". CorinneSD (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I prefer the earlier version, more direct. Rothorpe (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the earlier version, with the name of the mother added:

• His mother was a self-taught prairie artist who was considered a beautiful woman, but had lost her hearing in childhood. Her deafness often gave rise to irrational and destructive behavior which left Eiseley feeling distant from her, and which contributed to his parents' unhappy marriage.

Before I change it back to this, I just wanted to ask you a few things:

(a) Is it relevant to say that his mother was considered a beautiful woman?

(b) If so, does the contrast indicated with "but" make sense?

(c) I would probably change "which contributed to his parents' unhappy marriage" to "which may have contributed to his parents' unhappy marriage" (a change made by jensen), unless it was demonstrated that it did indeed contribute and is in a source (then the tentative "may have contributed" is not needed). Perhaps Rwood128 could check the source. CorinneSD (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing would seem to be the key to all of this. Beautiful woman = good, deaf = bad, etc = additional bad. If it's not sourced, it's just speculation, as you suggest. Rothorpe (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutral on this one, so no comment. Rothorpe (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Danish cuisine

I was looking at the latest edit to Danish cuisine. The edit seems all right (fixing a link), but I noticed a sentence I wanted to ask you about. It is the last sentence in the first paragraph of the lede:

• Denmark is known for its Carlsberg and Tuborg beers and for its akvavit and bitters, but amongst the Danes themselves imported wine has gained a lot in popularity since the 1960s.

I just thought "gained a lot in popularity" was a little ungainly. I thought either of changing "a lot" to the adverb "substantially" or "significantly":

• ...imported wine has substantially gained in popularity since the 1960s,

or

• ...imported wine has gained significantly in popularity since the 1960s,

or

just leaving "a lot" out:

• ...imported wine has gained in popularity since the 1960s.

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I'd just leave it out. 'A lot' suggests it was just padding. (By the way, I can't get your Gaudioso at FP---link?) Rothorpe (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I should have provided a link. It's Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Saint Gaudioso. If you want to follow the discussion on that (or any other Featured picture candidate), just click on the star at the top of the page. CorinneSD (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll watch that page. Though one masterpiece is as good as another to me! Rothorpe (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate

I was looking at the last few edits to Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate. I was reading the added material (in blue in Revision History):

[3].

In this sentence,

• This is to say that infants respond to different hues of color in much the same way as adults do, demonstrating the presence of color vision at an age younger than previously expected."

I'm wondering if "at an age younger than previously expected" is all right. It just seems a bit odd. Maybe it's because "in infants" is left out.

"...demonstrating the presence of color vision in infants at a younger age than previously expected."

I've also reversed the order of "younger" and "age". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 'younger age' is better. Must say I thought 'hues of color' a bit odd, as the two are synonyms, but I suppose there's a genuine distinction. Rothorpe (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Etruscan civilization

Earlier today, Dougweller changed one word to British spelling, with an edit summary saying that the article seems to be written in British English style. Then an editor changed quite a few (maybe all – didn't check) to American spelling, with an edit summary saying "For full consistency" [4], seemingly based on the "z" spelling of "civilization" in the title. Didn't you tell me once that the "z" spelling is also used in England? If so, then that would not be a sufficient reason for changing the spelling throughout the article from British to American. Also, just the fact that so many words had to be changed indicates the article was written predominantly in British English. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You remember correctly. I think it's called Oxford spelling, the Z in British English. So, yes, very tiresome. Rothorpe (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

told the editor. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I finally decided to join the debate on infoboxes. See [5] at Talk:Laurence Olivier#Infobox. (I refrained from commenting on the disrespectful tone and comments sprinkled throughout the page.) CorinneSD (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What "disrespectful tone" are you referring to? I must be missing something... Cassianto^Talk 19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

See also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw, but I'm still none the wiser. Cassianto^Talk 21:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If I help your wisdom I will have to show up at arbitration enforcement again, - I prefer to write articles, - sadly, the word infobox is a synonym for waste of time. Some love them, some hate them, I find them useful. DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My wisdom is fine, I love to hate info boxes on articles where I see them doing no good. Cassianto^Talk 08:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I love Dreadstar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone has to I suppose. Cassianto^Talk 08:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I reserve love and hate for people and music. More on my talk, look for resurrection, and let's leave Rothorpe alone ;) - Today, we remember a woman who died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahmad Hasan Dani

Hello, Rothorpe! I was just looking at this latest edit to Ahmad Hasan Dani: [6]. Grammatically, it is now incorrect, so my first impulse was just to revert. But I wondered whether saying "Despite being the first Muslim student at...", contrasting it to his academic success, is subtly suggesting that because he was a Muslim, he would not be expected to succeed so well. I wonder whether there were not another way to include the facts but avoid suggesting that, even if faintly. CorinneSD (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps begin with a participial phrase, "The first Muslim student at...., ...."? CorinneSD (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Rothorpe (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Levitation (paranormal)

I skimmed the article Levitation (paranormal), and came across a paragraph that needed copy-editing. Do you feel like tackling it? It's the last paragraph in Levitation (paranormal)#Judaism. CorinneSD (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Any idea how to translate 'abstractual'? Rothorpe (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That was a new one to me. I wondered whether it was really a word. CorinneSD (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not. I checked in Merriam-Webster. What's wrong with "abstract"? CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Snap. I was about to suggest that. Rothorpe (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Boat Race 2012

Hello, Rothorpe -- I was reading today's featured article, The Boat Race 2012, and I have a question for you. It's a sentence in the middle of the long paragraph about The Boat Race 2012#Trenton Oldfield:

• In October 2012, Oldfield was jailed for six months for causing a public nuisance and ordered to pay £750 costs.

In the U.S., we would say, "...and ordered to pay $750 in costs". (I changed it to dollars just for consistency as an example.) Is it correct in British English to say, "ordered to pay £750 costs"? CorinneSD (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is when I read it I noticed nothing odd, so yes. Rothorpe (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Really? You would say, "...to pay seven hundred and fifty pounds costs"? If so, that's really different from American English. CorinneSD (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct BrE, as is including the 'in'. A kind of apposition. Rothorpe (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. CorinneSD (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Gertrude Bell

What do you think of this edit to Gertrude Bell [7] and the edits just previous to it by the same editor? I tried to find what was in the article at its inception and when it was changed, but with not much success. I kind of think "had no children" is a bit superfluous when at that time a respectable woman with a career who was not married would not, generally, have had children. I don't know when the statement (removed in the previous edit) "may have added a depressive state" was added or whether it is sourced. Can you check this? CorinneSD (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The depressive state was never sourced. I think the children bit was re-added because it now goes on to say she had an affair, so, despite 'unconsummated', for the sake of clarity. Rothorpe (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... I understand your reasoning. I still think the statement about no children is unnecessary. It's a negative statement. If she had children, the article would mention it. CorinneSD (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it's unnecessary and can be removed. Rothorpe (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it doesn't need to be there. Graham87 04:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Rothorpe, Graham87 and Rwood128 The editor Tiptoe reverted my edit, then left a comment on my talk page, which I thought was a silly comment because there was a lot of sourced information in the article that supported her being called a spy, then made further edits. (Am I correct in thinking that if material summarized in the lede is discussed in sourced statements in the body of the article, the references don't have to be given in the lede?) Another editor put "spy" back in and added a source. I want to know what you think about the substitution, again, of "knowledge" for "skill". [8] I think an argument could be made for either word. Normally, I would say "knowledge", but this statement has to do with policy-making, and for that, I think "skill" is the better word. Also, contrary to the edit summary, I think "skill" can be improved upon through experience (and she may also have had a natural skill at this type of work). What do you think? Also, in this edit [9], an IP editor added a "fact" template twice in the same paragraph. Perhaps someone could find sources for these statements. CorinneSD (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I have left a response to Tiptoe's comment on my talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

At Tiptoe's request, I have copied what was on my talk page to the article's talk page, at Talk:Gertrude Bell#Was Gertrude Bell a spy? CorinneSD (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been following this, and have to agree with you. Rothorpe (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad to hear that. Have you seen that editor's latest comment on my talk page? After I copied the discussion to the talk page, the editor started his/her own section and requested that I undo my edit (the transfer of the discussion). CorinneSD (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry CorinneSD, you are wrong - look at the diff [10] - it was after I had copied my contribution to the discussion on your talk page onto the article's talk page that you started your own section on the article's talk page containing not only your own contribution from your page but my posts too. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact tags added have gone - I removed them and added a source. Also, I agree the statement about her having no children is not needed - we should mention in articles what people have done, not what they have not done. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield When I read this [11], I immediately copied the entire discussion to the talk page of the article. I did, however, change the heading. I did not see your post above it until later. I moved the discussion – I thought I was doing what you were requesting – but gave it a different heading. Normally, it is the editor on whose talk page a discussion has started who, if he or she wants to, moves the discussion elsewhere, and, if this is done, normally the entire discussion is moved, not just one editor's comments. To move only your comments is to suggest that there had not already been a discussion underway. I don't see anything wrong with including the brief discussion regarding "skills" vs. "knowledge", but if you want to create a new section for that, go ahead. I'm not going to remove what I posted there. CorinneSD (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating

Feel free to comment on the questions I asked Vsmith at User talk:CorinneSD#Radiocarbon dating. (I asked Vsmith since he's a geologist and scientist, but I'd be interested in your perspective, too.) CorinneSD (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

A. C. Bradley

What do you think of this edit to A. C. Bradley? [12] The editor left a word out, but is the editor on the right track, or do you prefer the way it was, or some other way? Regarding the original wording, I'm not crazy about "as lectures". CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I think the editor is right, and it just needs the 'of'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

PS Loved the poem! Rothorpe (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Goliard

What do you think of this edit to Goliard? [13] Unexplained change to content? CorinneSD (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Not to mention the weird hyphen in "ir-religious". Rothorpe (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Martinism

Yesterday I read the article on Martinism and made some minor copy-edits. I think they're in two groups. In the first group, about half-way down, is the following sentence:

• There has been some controversy over whether Saint-Martin himself ever founded a formalised Order of Martinists.

I added "over" before "whether". Before my edit, it read:

• There has been some controversy whether Saint-Martin himself ever founded a formalised Order of Martinists.

I felt something was needed there between "controversy" and "whether". I thought of "as to". Another possibility is "about". I'd like to hear your thoughts about this. (a) Was a word needed there? and (b) If so, what word? (c) If not, why not? CorinneSD (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Over" sounded fine, so I see no reason to change it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Joaquin Phoenix

I was just skimming the article on Joaquin Phoenix. I noticed a sentence that appears in two places, at the end of Joaquin Phoenix#Early life and at the end of the first paragraph in Joaquin Phoenix#Career. Which do you think is the better place? CorinneSD (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be more part of the career story, so I'd keep it for the latter. And shouldn't the date be altered in the heading of that section? Rothorpe (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's related to his family, so I think the details about the brother belong in the "Early life" section, but it's also related to his career, so I decided to shorten and summarize the information so that it is not an exact duplication. Presumably, most readers will read the "Early life" section before reading the "Career" section, so they'll know what the shortened sentence is about. What do you think? Regarding the date (year) range heading at the beginning of the first section in Joaquin Phoenix#Career, I think the reason it went up only to 1989 is because that's the date of the last film that was mentioned in that section, and after that it says he traveled to Mexico and South America with his father and then took off a year because of the publicity about the 9-1-1 call about his brother. Does that mean he did no acting work from 1989 to 1995? That's six years. I wonder. CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the date, too confusing, butI think you've solved the wording problem very well. Rothorpe (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Good. CorinneSD (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

By now you've probably seen this latest edit to the article: [14]. What do you think?

(a) Does the addition make sense?

Yes, better than 'highly acclaimed role', certainly.

(b) If so, does it have to be sourced?

I don't know, probably.

(c) Do we need all those links? CorinneSD (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Surely not. Rothorpe (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkpage archive

So, once in a while you move the entire talkpage, and start a new one? Brilliant! And what a pity of the talkpage-history... I'll try my best. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thank you. Rothorpe (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added MiszaBot, with a configuration for monthly archives. I don't know what it looks like, but we'll see in a day or two. If things get messed-up, I'll take care of it manually. Meanwhile, it might be an option to find out of your archives can be merged, or the talkpage-history, so you've got a running history, instead of bits and pieces? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, many thanks, carte blanche to do whatever you think is best. Rothorpe (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, that looks great, the cat is purring, but why two archive boxes? It's necessary to preserve the old version? Rothorpe (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Two different templates; we'll see which one works with a monthly archive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It works! I'll change the parameter for the number of days after which a thread is archived to a more decent number (at this moment it's 1, to see if it works). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I see you've put it at 14, excellent. I really look forward to not having to do that again. Many thanks indeed! Rothorpe (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Stroma, Scotland

What do you think of this latest edit to Stroma, Scotland? [15] I don't think the parentheses are necessary. CorinneSD (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No, quite. Rothorpe (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Karl Barth

I've just finished reading about half of the article on Karl Barth and making a few copy-edits. I have a few questions for you.

In the second paragraph of the lead, there is a sentence containing an example in parentheses. The examples starts, "e.g.", which I know means "for example". I wonder

(a) does this type of example belong in the lead; and

(b) if so, do you prefer "e.g." or "for example"? I don't often see "e.g." in article leads. CorinneSD (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd keep: without it 'paradoxical nature of divine truth' wouldn't have meant anything to me. And it's quite a long way into a lengthy lead. I prefer 'e.g.' as it's shorter, but if you think 'for example' would be better, no problem. Rothorpe (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I'll leave it. This article, and the one on Martin Heidegger, are written in English but are so dense that it's like reading another language. I guess only another philosopher would understand what they're talking about. CorinneSD (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Life's too short for philosophy. Rothorpe (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Cyril Connolly

I don't understand this edit to Cyril Connolly: [16] What's "fr"? French? CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because there's no article for that person in the English WP. Click on it and you'll see the French. Rothorpe (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you help?

Rothorpe, I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to post a comment here for another editor. If you do mind, tell me and I'll move this to my talk page.

Gamaliel We haven't had much interaction, but I believe you are in charge of the Signpost. I am upset that Hafspajen's feelings seem to have been deeply hurt by being somehow left out of participation in Signpost and no one coming to his/her defense as the problems with P escalated over the last two months. Hafs is a peaceful person, with a great deal of knowledge, much to offer, and a generous spirit. Yes, s/he gets a little emotional at times, but s/he is not mean-spirited or rude. S/He cares deeply about Wikipedia and about making sure the rules are followed and standards are adhered to in articles. I'm sure you've read Hafs' latest post, a defense that is more organized and well-written than what s/he wrote when s/he was upset about ten days ago, and which includes many links and diffs. I've told Hafs s/he doesn't need to defend him/herself with me, but it might make a difference in the minds of others. Hafs has put so much effort into Wikipedia, adding a lot of good material and images, writing for Signpost, fixing images in articles, nominating featured pictures, introducing us to artists and paintings, and being generally helpful. I believe this all started way back in January or February, when P was new to Signpost, and Hafs felt he wasn't doing things right, and tried to tell him what to do so that it would be right, and P wasn't paying any attention, which got Hafs upset. Then P started being rude, and it escalated from there. I didn't see any "redaction" that Hafs referred to, and I don't know if s/he has been asked to stay away, but if so, I think that's terrible. Hafs is being blamed for something of which s/he was only part of. From what I've seen, the other editor is not being criticized or blamed at all. I don't think that is fair. Can't we hit the "reset" button on all this? Couldn't you invite Hafs to participate in Signpost again? S/He is a person, with feelings, and writing for Signpost was an important part of his/her day. CorinneSD (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about why we're talking about this here. Hafspajen is a great contributor to Wikipedia and to Featured Content. We only asked that Hafspajen participate in an off-wiki discussion to help us resolve differences between them and other editors who work on FC and the Signpost. Gamaliel (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel Hafs had one bad experience with Skype and doesn't want to use Skype any more. Hafs is still upset. See his/her talk page and my talk page at User talk:CorinneSD#A few questions. S/He feels s/he has been pushed out of editing at Signpost. I don't know how or why s/he feels that way but s/he does. Isn't there anything more you can do? CorinneSD (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Other people are also upset with Hafspajen, such as those who are mentioned by Hafspajen on their user page. If Hafspajen is not willng to participate in an offsite discussion to attempt to resolve these issues, I honestly do not know what else I can do. Gamaliel (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems obvious to me: do it on-site. As an outsider, I have to say that I think it's odd that unwillingness to participate in an off-site discussion means there is no participation possible. If it were me, I'd be out to: I refuse to engage in Skype communications. Not because Ed isn't pretty, by the way, because I think he looks charming, but I hate Skype and I would feel very uncomfortable--and unlike Hafspajen's, my identity is all over the Internet already anyway. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We only wanted a text chat. We've attempted to address these issues on-site, but they've been hijacked by third parties interested in creating drama or furthering their own ends, especially an incident we jokingly refer to as "kiltgate", but it wasn't particularly funny at the time and some serious allegations and attacks were thrown around. If Hafspajen wants to work with the other editors on FC, I don't think a one-time text chat with them is unreasonable. Gamaliel (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but Hafs is dead-set on not having off-wiki conversations. I can't fault them for that; they communicate with me only via carrier pigeon and birch bark manuscript. If a conversation is hijacked you can hijack it back: off-topic comments can be removed per TPG--"Stay on topic", "Comment on content, not on the contributor", etc--especially if it's on some project page or something like that. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to also consider the feelings of other FC and Signpost contributors, some of whom are attacked by name on Hafspajen's user page, who may not want to have this conversation on-Wiki, or at all. Gamaliel (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"May"--maybe. But I believe Hafspajen has already taken some action in regard to their talk page and I think this concern is not very real. It's not like there's privacy concerns or something like that: sorry, but if the matter is important and discussing it is not a breach of policy or whatever, then it should be done on-wiki. And think about it from a different angle: Hafspajen is, I believe, making an effort--you guys could reach out your hand as well. It's good to have many contributors with Wikipedia's best interest at heart, and Hafspajen is one of those, as I believe you are (and I know Ed is--we go back to when I still had hair). Drmies (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We have had a standing offer to Hafspajen to talk this out for weeks, so please don't try to frame this as us not reaching out. Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you (Gamaliel) are so against having a discussion on-wiki. As Drmies said, you can be strict regarding keeping the discussion on topic. CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, I've only gotten more charming as the years have gone past. To business: Gamaliel has Wikipedia's best interests at heart as well. Bringing the FC team together is difficult. I understand the trepidation against an off-wiki conversation, but at the end of the day Wikipedia's mechanisms are less than optimal for conducting a discussion like this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD, Gamaliel is only good for getting involved in situations that have nothing to do with them in the first place. Cassianto^Talk 10:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

An excellent example of derailing a conversation. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A conversation I might add that has no place on Rothorpe's talk page. Cassianto^Talk 20:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I guess I should have begun this on my own talk page. I didn't want to involve the editor who upset Hafs, and I was surprised so many people have joined in here. Rothorpe has assured me he doesn't mind, but if anyone really wants the whole discussion moved to my talk page or any other page, just let me know and I'll copy and paste it there. Cassianto, Gamaliel is involved because I pinged him/her, and I addressed my comment to him/her because I thought s/he was in charge of the Signpost. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I thought. Regarding a conversation off-wiki, is Skype really the only way to have a group discussion on-line (but off wiki)? Also, could somebody please explain to me why a conversation on-wiki would not work? CorinneSD (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"I didn't want to involve the editor who upset Hafs" -see: http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/LynchMob - that is what's really going on here. talk→ WPPilot  14:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Corinth

Do you consider this edit to Corinth an improvement, or not? [17] CorinneSD (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, reverted. Rothorpe (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Richard Francis Burton

I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding the possible deletion of a sentence regarding baptism in the article Richard Francis Burton along with deletion of time of birth. See User talk:Rwood128#Richard Francis Burton. CorinneSD (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll let Rwood decide. Rothorpe (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Henry William Stisted

What do you think of the parenthetical phrase in this sentence, which appears in the middle of the second paragraph in the section Henry William Stisted#Biography?

• He commanded the advanced guard of Havelock's force at the relief of Lucknow, 25 September 1857, when (on Brigadier-general James George Smith Neill being killed) he was appointed to command the first brigade.

Is that correct English and/or good style? CorinneSD (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC) If it is used that way at all, shouldn't the name be in the possessive? CorinneSD (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a very unusual name, isn't it? Stisted? It's not even easy to pronounce. I wonder where that name comes from -- Scandinavian languages? German? Old Celtic? CorinneSD (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I once met a person called Plested, presumably of similar provenance, Germanic-looking, but I can't say further. I prefer without the 's, though it's just a matter of taste. 'Brig ... having been killed' would be an alternative. Pity one can't say 'on the killing of'. Rothorpe (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

How about "upon the death in battle of Brigadier-general J G S N", or "following the death in battle of Brigadier-general J G S N"? CorinneSD (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I think I prefer 'upon'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri

Do you think this group of edits to Dante Alighieri is an improvement to the article? [18] The rewording changes the focus of the items in the sentence. CorinneSD (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, an improvement, I'd say. Rothorpe (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I re-read the entire paragraph carefully, and I felt it was better before the re-wording. The overall organizational principle of the paragraph is the progression of time and Dante's changing situation as time passed, not what the Pope did. (I also thought the introduction of "Dante's condemnation" was unnecessary; it's not completely clear to what it refers. The determination by the Black Guelphs that Dante was an absconder was only one in a series of difficulties. I don't think it was the main focus of the paragraph.) I'm sorry to have had to disagree with you on this one, and for having had to "be bold". I made a few more minor changes. I hope you approve of it now. CorinneSD (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, that was a superficial judgment on my part, based on wording alone; I'll have another look. Rothorpe (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see you've moved it on now, so I'll leave it. Rothorpe (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm still interested in your opinion and reasoning. CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Reasoning? Me?! I suppose I was going for the increase in brevity overall. Perhaps the banishing of the evil misspelt Geulphs was an unconscious influence. Rothorpe (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

John Muir

An editor just made two edits to John Muir. Here is the earlier of the two: [19]. I know that "emigrate" means to leave one's country to go somewhere else, and "immigrate" means to come into a country to settle there, but since the material just before this word describes how Muir was born in Scotland and then left Scotland in 1849, when he was about eleven or twelve years old, to travel to the United States, where they settled, wouldn't "emigrated" make more sense here? I don't know about the next edit, particularly the blockquote template. I couldn't find the first half of the template, so maybe it didn't belong there. CorinneSD (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it should be reverted to 'emigrate' for exactly the reason you give.

The other edit looks good. Rothorpe (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating

Hello, Rothorpe - On this one, I'm going to give you the sentence first and ask you for your reaction:

• It was quickly apparent that the principles of radiocarbon dating were valid, despite discrepancies the causes of which were then unknown.

It's fine!

This is from the first paragraph in the section Radiocarbon dating#Impact in the article on Radiocarbon dating. Normally, I don't mind using this construction, but something about "...discrepancies the causes" is awkward. What would you think of changing "the causes of which" to "whose causes"?

• It was quickly apparent that the principles of radiocarbon dating were valid, despite discrepancies whose causes were then unknown.

or, add "certain" before "discrepancies", and a comma:

• It was quickly apparent that the principles of radiocarbon dating were valid, despite certain discrepancies, the causes of which were then unknown. CorinneSD (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too fond of 'whose' when its referent is inanimate, so I prefer the second. Rothorpe (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

George Santayana

I just started reading the article on George Santayana, and I have a few questions for you:

1) The last sentence of the second paragraph in the section George Santayana#Early life is the following:

• Sometime during this period, Jorge's first name was anglicized as George, the English equivalent.

Shouldn't it be "Some time during this period,..."?

Oxford accepts the one-word form, Wiktionary has 'adverbial sense', and I think it's fine. Rothorpe (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

2) The second sentence in the section George Santayana#Education is the following:

• He was founder and president of the Philosophical Club, was a member of the literary society known as the O.K., was an editor and cartoonist for The Harvard Lampoon and helped found the literary journal, The Harvard Monthly.

I didn't like the sound of the repeated "was", so I'm trying to figure out the best way to re-word this without changing too much. I was just going to remove the second and third instances of "was", add "and" before "an editor and cartoonist", and then add a comma after "Lampoon" and add "he" before "helped found":

• He was founder and president of the Philosophical Club, was a member of the literary society known as the O.K., was and an editor and cartoonist for The Harvard Lampoon, and he helped found the literary journal, The Harvard Monthly.

But then I wondered whether I could change the last one to a noun phrase. If he "helped found" the literary journal, then could he be said to have been a co-founder of the literary journal? Does "co-founder" necessarily mean one of two founders, or could it be one of several founders? If it could be one of several founders, then I can use "co-founder". If it means one of two, then I would have to check the source. If I can do this, then it becomes a simple list of noun phrases:

• He was founder and president of the Philosophical Club, a member of the literary society known as the O.K., an editor and cartoonist for The Harvard Lampoon, and a co-founder of the literary journal, The Harvard Monthly.

CorinneSD (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 'co-founder' is one of two or more, so that's fine. Rothorpe (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

3) The last sentence of the first paragraph in George Santayana#Later life is the following:

• His romantic life, if any, is not well-understood.

I remembered reading something in the Manual of Style that when "well" modifies a participle, there are some fine points. I found the right place in the MoS. It's the section MOS:HYPHEN, #3, the fifth bulleted item. I'll copy it here:

A hyphen is normally used when the adverb well precedes a participle used attributively (a well-meaning gesture; but normally a very well managed firm, because well itself is modified); and even predicatively, if well is necessary to, or alters, the sense of the adjective rather than simply intensifying it (the gesture was well-meaning, the child was well-behaved, but the floor was well polished).

I think "His romantic life...is not well understood" is more like "The floor was well polished" than "the child was well-behaved", isn't it? If so, then no hyphen is necessary between "well" and "understood". CorinneSD (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, off with the hyphen. Rothorpe (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

4) In the first paragraph in George Santayana#Man of letters is the following sentence:

• He wrote books and essays on a wide range of subjects, including philosophy of a less technical sort, literary criticism, the history of ideas, politics, human nature, morals, the subtle influence of religion on culture and social psychology, all with considerable wit and humor.

To me, there is a bit of ambiguity in the last items in the list. Is it

• ...politics, human nature, morals, the subtle influence of religion on culture and [on] social psychology, or

• ...politics, human nature, morals, the subtle influence of religion [comma] and social psychology,... (with "social psychology" merely the last item in the list)?

If the latter, I would add the comma after "the subtle influence of religion on culture". To make it even clearer, I would re-order the last two:

• ...morals, social psychology, and the subtle influence of religion on culture, all with considerable wit and humor.

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I read it as 'the subtle influence of religion on (both) culture and social psychology', no problem. There would as you suggest have been a clarifier if the other meaning had been intended. Rothorpe (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. Regarding my fourth question, the last one, I actually read it that way, too, but then, since "the subtle influence of religion on culture and social psychology" is the last item in the list, shouldn't it be preceded by "and"? CorinneSD (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I'll get to these edits tomorrow. I'm tired now. CorinneSD (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course it should, so how come I didn't notice? Probably because I was approaching it from your question; it also occurs to me that I'm rather used to seeing prose lists with omitted ands on WP, perhaps an unsurprising result of team-editing. Rothorpe (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Rothorpe I hope you don't mind if I ask User:Cassianto for his/her opinion on this last item, Item #4. I'm still wondering to what "the subtle influence of religion" is meant to apply. Cassianto, do you agree with Rothorpe? CorinneSD (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it's just a matter of a missing comma. Rothorpe (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Yes, I'm inclined to read it that way now. Having said which, there's no escaping the fact that it's completely ambiguous. Rothorpe (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Possessive apostrophe

Hello Rothorpe, I hope that I'm finding you well on this bank holiday. I'm stuck with a possessive apostrophe question. I'm sure I've asked you before, but I'm buggered if I can find it! Anyhoo, what is your preffered style surrounding the use of a possessive apostrophe on the end of a noun or a proper noun which ends with an "s"? For example: "Mr Harris's bike" or "Mr Harris' bike". To me, the former looks correct as the latter strikes me as being the sort of format a tabloid newspaper would use. Still, having said that, I noticed the other day that The Sun formats the date as May, 5 2015. A mistake, I'm sure, or is it the result of a billionaire Aussie owner doing what the hell he wants because he can despite it being wrong in the UK? Cassianto^Talk 14:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I welcome Corinne's comments on this, but to answer your question, my preferred style is definitely 'Mr Harris's bike'. That Murdochian date is wrong. If there's a comma, it should go between the day and year. Enjoy your bank holiday. None of those here, but we are having the weather, intermittent drizzle, which I now have to go out in... Rothorpe (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can never remember, either, so, I searched in the WP:Manual of Style and found just brief mentions of the use of the apostrophe for possessives, but I saw that for a thorough treatment of the possessive apostrophe, I should look at the article Apostrophe. I did that, and am glad I did, because it's a remarkably well-written article. It clearly lays out all the possibilities and rules. See in particular the section Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe. Within that section, see in particular, about three paragraphs down, the bulleted item in Apostrophe#Basic rule (singular nouns) that begins, "If a singular noun ends with an s-sound...", and, toward the end of that paragraph, there is a link at the word "below" that takes you to a more detailed discussion later on of the various styles used, at Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an “s” or “z” sound, which I haven't read yet. CorinneSD (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I read that some time ago, and I remember it was very good. I'll have another look tomorrow. Rothorpe (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The Green Craig(')s picture and caption are puzzling, though. Rothorpe (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Also, and this is as much for CorinneSD too, what are your thoughts on starting a sentence with numerals and conjuctions? Somehow, they both seem wrong. i.e.,

"1967 was the year in which..." and "But Mr Davis wasn't there, he was in a local shop..." Cassianto^Talk 03:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So what are the objections? Starting with a numeral forfeits the capital letter that helps to signal a new sentence: that seems to be the main problem with that one. Starting with a joining-word that joins to nothing seems to be the other. Neither objection seems to me powerful enough to outlaw such constructions. In the latter case, especially, a conjunction beginning a sentence can be quite a good contrasting/intensifying device. And now here are Corinne's thoughts on the matter. Or maybe you have a reply first. Rothorpe (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I took part in a recent peer review and noticed an editor say that starting a sentence with a numeral was wrong. I must admit, it doesn't look right, but yeah, why not, aside from the fact it lacks a capital letter. I've always been neutral with the starting a sentence with a conjunction, despite being taught at university not to. Cassianto^Talk 18:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Then we agree, good. The objections are worth keeping in mind, but we don't have to always be guided by them. Rothorpe (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! I think both, starting a sentence with a numeral and starting a sentence with a conjunction, are stylistic options that are just part of the toolkit of a writer, but are most effective when used sparingly. Regarding starting a sentence with a year, in this particular example I think it is unnecessary because more elegant wording exists: "It was in 1967 that...," or "In 1967...." I think starting a sentence with a year might be appropriate when the whole focus of a paragraph or essay is on what happened during that year: "1967 was quite a year," or "1967 was a year unlike any other," or something like that. (I'm kind of old-fashioned with regard to numbers, though. I'd love to see "Nineteen sixty-seven was quite a year," but I know no one writes like that anymore.) Regarding starting a sentence with a conjunction, I was taught all through school that it wasn't to be done, but I've realized that variety in sentence structure and length can add interest to a piece of writing. I agree completely with Rothorpe on this. However, I think the key is to use it sparingly and in just the right place. I have The New Oxford Guide to Writing by Thomas S. Kane, and he gives many examples of the best writers "breaking" the normal rules of grammar, punctuation and sentence length to great effect. CorinneSD (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Colin Renfrew, Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

I've just started to read the article on Colin Renfrew, Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn. Shouldn't there be a comma after "Hertfordshire" in the first sentence in Colin Renfrew, Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn#Biography? If so, should it come before or after the parenthetical phrase? CorinneSD (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after. Rothorpe (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses

You might be interested in the questions I've posed at User talk:Vsmith#Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses. Feel free to weigh in, either here or there. CorinneSD (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow! That was fast. Kwamikagami has already re-written the lede. CorinneSD (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of this sentence in the last (large) paragraph of the section Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses#Anatolian hypothesis?

• However, the procedure to infer from the lifespan of some words upon the lifespan of a language remains at least questionable.

I was wondering about the use of the infinitive "to infer" after "the procedure". I was thinking perhaps "of inferring" or "that infers" would be better. What do you think?

• However, the procedure of inferring from the lifespan of some words upon the lifespan of a language remains at least questionable.

• However, the procedure that infers from the lifespan of some words upon the lifespan of a language remains at least questionable.

CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I confess I have never before seen or heard 'infer (...) upon', so my impulse was to rephrase completely, as I assumed that was the problem: 'However, judging the lifespan of a language from that of some of its words is a procedure that remains at least questionable.' Is that the meaning? if so, why not rephrase it thus? Rothorpe (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Kyzyl

I was reading the article on Kyzyl, and I came across the following sentence in the second paragraph in the Geography section:

• Most development is south of the river and follow the curves of the river, with the highest development centered where the two headstreams of the Yenisei, the Bii-Khem (Russian: Большой Енисей), and the Kaa-Khem (Russian: Малый Енисей), meet.

I was about to change "follow" to "follows" when I thought I'd better ask you whether in British English the word "development" can have a plural sense. If not, "follow" has to be changed to the singular form.

Also, in the caption to the image of the obelisk, at the left, I wondered whether "renewed" was really the right word. I wonder whether it shouldn't be "renowned". CorinneSD (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, change both. 'Development' is only singular. What words differ in that way? Companies and the like, BrE: 'Penguin are publishing...' Any others? And 'renewed' does look like a straightforward error. Rothorpe (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Orchestra, committee, family, maybe community, maybe BBC, etc. If I find more, I'll let you know. CorinneSD (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for refreshing my memory. All concepts that have members. Club is another. Rothorpe (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I find that difference between AmE and BrE quite interesting. BrE focuses on the individual members, collectively, and AmE focuses on the organization as a unit, so when we say, "The committee meets on Thursdays," we're not thinking of the individual members, whereas Brits would say, "The committee meet on Thursdays," and when we say, "The committee has approved the measure," we understand that a sufficient majority of members has voted to approve the measure and that the statement applies to the entire committee, and Brits would say, "The committee have approved the measure." CorinneSD (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, but don't forget that in all those cases BrE allows both. I think I would usually say 'the committee meets' actually, though either 'the committee has voted' or 'have voted', depending, as you say, on which emphasis I wanted, consciously or otherwise. I wonder if once the difference was indeed more marked. Rothorpe (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that BrE allows both. When you say you wonder if once the difference was...more marked, do you mean the difference in Br and Am English usage, or the difference between the two alternate forms in BrE? I assume you mean the former. I was wondering how the difference evolved. Perhaps both were acceptable in AmE for a while, and then one form became predominant. CorinneSD (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the difference between Am and Br usage. Has Br been influenced by Am here, as in so many other respects? Yes, probably there were greater restrictions on usage in both BrE and AmE in the past -- but just speculation. Rothorpe (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Danish cuisine

What do you think about this edit to Danish cuisine? [20] I'm not sure I like either phrase. Can you think of a better one? How about:

• in the surrounding area,

• in the immediate area, or

• in close proximity to it [the farm], or

• in close proximity, or something else? CorinneSD (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought of 'nearby' but any of those would be good; 'in close proximity' would do nicely. Rothorpe (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I decided to use just one word: "near". What do you think? I don't know why I didn't think of it yesterday. Is it too concise? CorinneSD (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's very neat. Rothorpe (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought so, too, but a non-native speaker undid my edit, then undid his/hers. See the discussion on the article's talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fair enough, I've put it in my watchlist. Rothorpe (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Metonymy

Do you agree with this edit to Metonymy? [21] CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No, probably vandalism, reverted. Rothorpe (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Timur

Do you agree with this edit to Timur? [22] The way it was before the edit wasn't grammatically incorrect. The sentence was long, but a comma before "with" would have fixed it. I think two separate sentences like this is a bit choppy and unnecessary. Which do you prefer:

• one sentence, with a comma before "with"

• one sentence, no "with", two clauses separated by a semi-colon

• two separate sentences, as it is now.

CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitely what the semi-colon was invented for. Rothorpe (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Jutland

I was looking at the latest edits to Jutland. There are several in a row by the same editor, and they all look good, but I was surprised by this one: [23]. Since the editor checked the OED, it must be right, but I've never heard or seen "conterminous". American English uses "coterminous". Have you heard "conterminous" before? CorinneSD (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

See Geology of the Conterminous United States USGS for an example. I would have looked ascanse (tilted me head and muttered, Eh?) had that "n" not been there. Vsmith (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've only heard of 'coterminous' too. Or 'askance', for that matter. Rothorpe (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting: I looked up both words on merriamwebster.com. Coterminous gives definitions and examples, but nowhere mentions "conterminous" as an alternate as an alteration of "conterminous". Conterminous gives similar, but not identical, definitions and examples, but has "coterminous" as definition and provides a link to its definition.

• coterminous [24]
• conterminous [25]

This is the first time I've seen words that look like alternative spellings but show slightly different definitions and examples. Is it possible that there is a slightly different meaning or usage custom with regard to these words? CorinneSD (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC) I looked again at the definition of "coterminous" and saw a note that "coterminous" is an alteration of "conterminous", so you'll see I amended my comment. The usage of the two words seems different. CorinneSD (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC) By the way, after my first look at the definitions, when I went back to look again, I started having problems with the website. It would freeze, then seem to be changing to a different page but never get there. I finally gave up. If you do look at it, maybe just look at it quickly and then close the window. CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the spelling challenged replies :)

Dug out my print OED and dusted it off. From p. 1040:

Coterminous a. [Improperly formed: cf contemporary.] = Conterminous.

From p. 900:

Conterminous a. having a common border or boundary,

bordering upon (f. con- together with + terminous

boundary, limit) + -ous

1. Having a common boundary, bordering upon (each other)

2. Meeting at their ends.

3. Coincident in their boundaries, exactly co-extensive

b. Exactly coextensive in time, range, sense, etc.

ref: The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, V. 1 A-O; Oxford University Press, 1971

Vsmith (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I know the sort of thng that you mean, but I've never had that problem with MW. Actually I suspect that as far as actual usage is concerned, they are real synonyms; MW has to be true to its research though. Rothorpe (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you look in some other on-line dictionaries and see what you find? CorinneSD (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Oh, I see you did! I only saw your last comment. Now will read what you found. CorinneSD (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The OED is nice and sensible, co = con; thanks to Vsmith. Rothorpe (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Gian Lorenzo Bernini

What do you think of this edit to Gian Lorenzo Bernini? [26] I'm all for conciseness, but there may be an important difference between these. CorinneSD (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There may indeed, I don't know. Conciseness for conciseness's sake? Perhaps you should mention your suspicion on the talk page. Rothorpe (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. See Talk:Gian Lorenzo Bernini#A metaphor or a metaphorical device?. CorinneSD (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Precisely, thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of this edit? [27] The edit summary doesn't match the actual edit. CorinneSD (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and I think the 'later' is needed. Rothorpe (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Congo Free State

After seeing this edit to Heart of Darkness, [28], I decided to see if it was correct. I'm reading the lede of the article Congo Free State. Technically, the editor is correct, but I'll come back to this. I have a few questions:

1) The second sentence of the lede is the following:

• Leopold was able to procure the region by convincing the European community that he was involved in humanitarian and philanthropic work; through the use of several smokescreen organizations he was able to lay claim to most of the Congo Basin.

Do you sense a certain amount of repetition here? I think this could all be said more concisely, particularly since it's the lede.

You're welcome to try. Rothorpe (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

How about this?

• Leopold was able to lay claim to most of the Congo Basin by convincing the European community that he was involved in humanitarian and philanthropic work. CorinneSD (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, goodbye to the smokescreens. Rothorpe (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

2) The last sentence of the lede is the following:

• By 1908, public pressure and diplomatic manoeuvres led to the end of Leopold II's rule and to the annexation of the Congo as a colony of Belgium, known as the Belgian Congo.

I know that today, it is not called the Belgian Congo anymore, but it was the Belgian Congo for quite a few years (1908 to 1960). I'm wondering if it would make sense to add the word "thenceforth" before "known as the Belgian Congo". Later the article will, I'm sure, explain subsequent name changes. Or does "thenceforth" by definition mean right up until now?

How about putting the BC's dates in after its mention? And 'thenceforth' (or even 'henceforth'?) would not go amiss either. Rothorpe (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I prefer 'henceforth', as it sounds more temporary (a very long temporary, but nonetheless). Rothorpe (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Henceforth" means "from now on" and "thenceforth" means "from that time on". I checked in Wiktionary. CorinneSD (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

3) Back to the initial edit that prompted this. I think the country has been known in our lifetime mainly as the Belgian Congo. It was the Congo Free State only from 1885 to 1908, and the Belgian Congo from 1908 to 1960. Heart of Darkness was published in 1899, so the editor was technically correct. I'm just wondering whether it would be better to use the name most commonly known, and say "the country then known as the Congo Free State, and later as the Belgian Congo", or something like that. CorinneSD (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, especially since its now the (ironically named hellhole) DRC. That's what wikilinks are for, I think. Rothorpe (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

O.K. I added "thenceforth" (see my note above), but I didn't added the years because I think someone would come along and remove them. CorinneSD (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong about that: 'henceforth' would mean 'from now on in the article'. Rothorpe (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Silk

I tried to undo both of these edits to Silk [29] with an edit summary that says, "The article is written with British English spelling. See WP:ENGVAR," but for some reason it's not working. Maybe I'm not doing it right. CorinneSD (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The article mixes up 'fiber' (22) and 'fibre' (7). Rothorpe (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If you tried to undo the last two, it was impossible because the second is an undoing of the first. Rothorpe (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't notice that. I think I've spent too much time on the computer. I noticed "colour" twice in the article, but I really don't care which spelling is used. CorinneSD (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I too have become inured: earlier today there was an American spelling in an article on a British subject, where edits were being made and changed---possibly one you alerted me to---and I didn't notice until someone changed it. Rothorpe (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Citizens (Spanish political party)

Is C’s, not C's. Look at the logo--Digmin3 (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Look at MOS:QUOTEMARKS, which I included in my edit summary. Specifically, MOS:QUOTEMARKS#Reasons to prefer straight quotation marks and apostrophes. Rothorpe (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Alentejo

I was just skimming the article on Alentejo, Portugal, having gotten there from the most recent nomination of a photo at WP:Featured pictures. In the last sentence of the lede, what do you think about changing "compared to" to "similar to" (assuming that's accurate)? CorinneSD (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that must be what is meant, so I'd change it. Rothorpe (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree with the removal of the gallery in that article? Rothorpe (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Amur River

In the section Amur River#History and context#History and context in the article on the Amur River are the following sentences:

• The Amur River is an important symbol of—and an important geopolitical factor in—Chinese-Russian relations. The Amur was especially important in the period of time following the Sino-Soviet political split in the 1960s.

(1) Regarding the first sentence, I'm wondering whether "and" is really needed, and whether you think a pair of commas would be better than two em-dashes:

• The Amur River is an important symbol of, and important geopolitical factor in, Chinese–Russian relations.

Could the second "important" also be left out?

I've changed (here) the hyphen between "Chinese" and "Russian" to an en-dash. Shouldn't it be an en-dash?

• The Amur River is an important symbol of, and geopolitical factor in, Chinese–Russian relations.

(2) Regarding the second sentence, couldn't "of time" be left out?

• The Amur was especially important in the period following the Sino (hyphen or en-dash?) Soviet political split in the 1960s. CorinneSD (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes to both. And an en-dash. Rothorpe (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Old Turkic alphabet

Hello, Rothorpe! I have two questions (so far) about the article on Old Turkic alphabet:

1) The third paragraph in the lede begins:

• This writing-system was later used within the Uyghur Empire.

Do you think "writing-system" needs to be hyphenated?

Remove the hyphen, I screamed, before I got to your question...

2) The fourth paragraph in the lede is the following:

• Thomsen characterized the script as "Turkish runes", and it is still occasionally described as "runic" or "runiform" by comparison to the Old Germanic alphabet that were used during roughly the same period.

Besides the awkward "it" following "runes" (I know "it" refers to "the script", but I think it's still awkward), I see the plural verb were following "the Old Germanic alphabet". Could "alphabet" ever be considered plural?

- CorinneSD (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

...Similarly with 'were', but I didn't react to 'it'. However, it does jar a bit after the plural 'runes'. So, yes, I agree with all your objections. Now I'll go and have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed the hyphen and re-worded the other sentence. I'm wondering - does "by comparison to" sound all right to you? I don't hear that very often. How about

• by way of comparison to, or

• through comparison to. CorinneSD (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Problem is, 'comparison' suggests difference, whereas what is meant is 'likening it to', isn't it? Rothorpe (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Or possibly 'in a comparison to'. The 'a' is important. Rothorpe (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It's gone! Rothorpe (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, so we don't need to worry about it anymore. Thanks for catching my cut-and-paste error. CorinneSD (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Richard Maack

In the section Richard Maack#Biography in the article on Richard Maack is the following sentence:

• He also participated in a Russian Geographical Society's first expedition (1853–55) to describe the orography, geology and population of the Vilyuy and Chona River basins.

If it was the RGS's first expedition, shouldn't it be "the" instead of "a"? CorinneSD (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Rothorpe (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Corinth

Hello, Rothorpe! - Would you mind undoing this edit to Corinth? [30] I don't want to interact with this editor. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Claude Monet

Would you mind reviewing this edit to Claude Monet [31] and those just previous to it by the same editor? This editor seems to like commas. I don't know if all of the ones added are needed. I thought, when the date is in the British style, day + month + year, a comma is not needed after the year as it is when using the American style. CorinneSD (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct, though the American second date comma is very often left out on Wikipedia, much to one's annoyance. They're all the same, these ones, correct but unnecessary, sigh. Are you going to remove them?! Rothorpe (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I did, but put one back in. CorinneSD (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Easily forgotten, that one. Rothorpe (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

To split or not to split

We may have discussed this before, but what is your feeling about splitting infinitives? I don't like splitting infinitives, but some say it's all right. See User talk:Vsmith#δ18O and feel free to weigh in. I clicked on the link to Grammar Girl and read that splitting infinitives was acceptable, but then my screen froze and I got a lot of images unrelated to the topic, so you might skip clicking on that link. CorinneSD (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning: you're right, I would have clicked. Indeed, 'to indirectly determine', no problem, but many will prefer your unsplit version. Rothorpe (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you see the one Vsmith slyly added in his response? CorinneSD (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I read it; I suppose I don't notice split infinitives. Rothorpe (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Peterhouse, Cambridge

Another lover of commas. I don't think either of these commas are necessary, but since it's your topic, I'll leave it up to you. [32] CorinneSD (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Rus (name)

1) In connection with a discussion at User talk:Sca#Kievan Rus', I am skimming the article on Rus (name). I saw a sentence about seven short paragraphs from the end of the Rus (name)#Early evidence section that starts, "Quite tellingly,..." I'm wondering whether "Quite" is really necessary. The word "Tellingly,..." is strong enough by itself, isn't it? CorinneSD (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, though strictly speaking 'tellingly' is a commentary and shouldn't be there either. Rothorpe (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I've reworded it to something more neutral. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

2) In that same section, just a paragraph or two above it, is the following sentence:

• When the Varangians arrived in Constantinople, the Byzantines considered and described the Rhos (Greek Ῥῶς) as a different people from the Slavs.

Wouldn't it sound better if the last part were worded:

• ...as a people different from the Slavs. CorinneSD (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a subtle difference, isn't there? The latter already accepts that they have a different identity and suggests they are different in some observable way. Rothorpe (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess you're right. I guess it's just that, to me, "a people different from the Slavs" sounds a bit vague. If the two groups have two different names, to me it means the two groups are a different people. I would have preferred a bit more of an indication of the kind of difference that is meant (ethnically, racially, linguistically, etc.), but I'll leave it as it is. CorinneSD (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Saxons

What do you think of this sentence in the Etymology section of Saxons?

• The Elizabethan era play, Edmund Ironside, suggests the Saxon name as deriving from the Latin saxa (stone).

I don't like the construction of the last part of the sentence: "suggests the Saxon name as deriving from..." CorinneSD (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, I've made some adjustments. Rothorpe (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme. Requesting you to add your opinion. Regards Thanks. M.srihari (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Thanks. I'm watching. Rothorpe (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Russia

1) Would you mind reading my first query at User talk:Vsmith#Russia? Before I change the verb, I want to be sure I'm right. The singular doesn't sound right to me. CorinneSD (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the subject 'most' (uncountable in this case, like 'most of N & S Dakota') or NS & R (plural)? The problem would go away if we said 'Most parts of ... have...' Rothorpe (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

2) In the fourth paragraph of the section Russia#Tsardom of Russia is the following sentence:

• The death of Ivan's sons marked the end of the ancient Rurik Dynasty in 1598, and in combination with the famine of 1601–03 led to the civil war, the rule of pretenders and foreign intervention during the Time of Troubles in the early 17th century.

This is the first time the "civil war" is mentioned in the article. I think it should either be "a civil war":

• The death of Ivan's sons marked the end of the ancient Rurik Dynasty in 1598, and in combination with the famine of 1601–03[59] led to a civil war, the rule of pretenders and foreign intervention during the Time of Troubles in the early 17th century.

or, it could be "the civil war" if a few words are added before "during the Time of Troubles" to clearly identify it (and "the" is added before "foreign intervention"):

• The death of Ivan's sons marked the end of the ancient Rurik Dynasty in 1598, and in combination with the famine of 1601–03[59] led to the civil war, the rule of pretenders and the foreign intervention that occurred during the Time of Troubles in the early 17th century.

Which do you prefer? Any other ideas? CorinneSD (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not just 'led to civil war'? Rothorpe (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you watching Sca's talk page? Do you want to weigh in at User talk:Sca#Russian Winter? CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Carl Neilsen

I made a few edits to Carl Neilsen yesterday and now I see that many more edits have been made to the article! I've only looked at the last edits [33], and I thought, "Oh, no, not again!" Do you remember our discussion with this editor a long time ago about this very same issue, I believe it was in the Ferdinand Magellan article. This editor felt that "While" is ambiguous because it can also indicate time, and we argued that the context makes it clear that it does not mean time, and that it is a synonym of "Although" but less heavy-handed, and we were unable to persuade this editor.

In this case, I feel that two sentences beginning with subordinate clauses starting with either "While" or "Although" is not the best style for the lede. I'm considering changing one of them to a "X, but Y" construction and am leaning toward the second one. Any thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, what do you think of this edit? Do you think "years old" is necessary? [34] CorinneSD (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the latter and I was about to do the same with the former when I remembered you had a plan. Well do I recall: such a pity; otherwise a very good editor. That would be an excellent solution. Boa sorte! Rothorpe (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I was delighted to see that User:Ian Rose changed the second one to the X, but Y, construction. Upon re-reading the first instance of "Although X, Y", I still feel that "While" is preferable to "Although". "While" represents a lighter touch, not such strong subordination. Ian Rose and Rothorpe, what do you think? Or is it not worth getting into an argument over? CorinneSD (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, 'although' is too heavy. Rothorpe (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Tks for the ping, Corinne. You must've sent a telepathic message to me about the "X, but Y"...! Re. "While", I get the time argument but agree that in context it was fine. In short, I didn't feel strongly enough about it to revert the "Although" but would have no problem with it going back to "While". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose and Rothorpe, I found two earlier discussions on "while" and "although": User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 13#Bangladesh and User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 13#Kuiper belt. CorinneSD (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus

Shall we revert? [35] and the previous edit by the same editor. (This user name seems a bit intimidating, doesn't it?) Besides the fact that "East Indies" is probably correct, this editor incorrectly left out "the" on the second of these two edits and left in "the" on the first. CorinneSD (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's (to use a suitably intimidating word) unacceptable. Rothorpe (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I just used rollback so didn't have a place to provide an edit summary. If you want to revert the revert, you might refer the editor to Indies#History. CorinneSD (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I see Vsmith took care of it. CorinneSD (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Kamchatka Peninsula

Rothorpe and Vsmith, I added a hyphen between "34,400" and "ft", but shouldn't there be a hyphen after both "meter" and "ft" since they are used as adjectives?

Kamchatka peninsula, lede:

• Immediately offshore along the Pacific coast of the peninsula runs the 10,500-metre (34,400-ft) deep Kuril–Kamchatka Trench.

CorinneSD (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that would look pedantic. How about:

• Immediately offshore along the Pacific coast of the peninsula runs the 10,500-metre-deep (34,400 ft) Kuril–Kamchatka Trench.

Rothorpe (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems all right. CorinneSD (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ainu people

What do you think of the last sentence in the second paragraph in the article on Ainu people? Does it sound right to you? CorinneSD (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No, seems like a case of EFL. Do you want me to tackle it? Rothorpe (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I had a go. Rothorpe (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's very good now. CorinneSD (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab

ibn Marjana means the son of Marjana. So shortening "ibn Marjana" to "Marjana" changes the son of Marjana to Marjana. That seems a good reason not to shorten it.

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab means "Muhammad the son of ʿAbd al-Wahhab". Please self-revert.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Rothorpe (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. (It would help if it were all one word, e.g. IbnAbdalWahhab, à la FitzWilliam, McDonald, O'Brien, etc. So it goes.) Rothorpe (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Jewelry wire gauge

Do you feel like doing some sleuthing? See my post at User talk:Vsmith#Jewelry wire gauge. Before I change it, I wonder if we can find out how the gauge of wire is usually measured in England. CorinneSD (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Too hot for sleuthing, but I agree with Vsmith's approach. Rothorpe (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Cartesian linguistics

You might like to comment at User talk:Snow Rise#Cartesian linguistics. Of course, as always, I welcome your opinion. I posted my comment there because Snow Rise had edited that article recently. CorinneSD (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 'anticipates' is more precise. Rothorpe (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

George Kennan (explorer)

You might like to read my comment at User talk:Vsmith#George Kennan (explorer), and give your opinion or make edits. CorinneSD (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wigger

The article Wigger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article appears to be coat rack and synthesis. Renominating since no noticeable improvement since last AfD in 2010

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nowa (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Eponym

Hello, Rothorpe! I've just started reading the article on Eponym (for the second time, but the first time was a while ago). I paused at the first sentence:

• An eponym is a person or thing [citation needed] for whom something is named, or believed to be named, or the name itself.

Shouldn't this be,

• An eponym is a person for whom, or thing [citation needed] for which, something is named, or believed to be named, or the name itself.

'Whom' doesn't go well with 'thing' as the antecedent, but 'which' and 'person', I think, are OK, so how about:

• An eponym is a person or thing [citation needed] for which something is named, or believed to be named, or the name itself.

About two paragraphs later there is a similar sentence regarding the adjectives eponymous, etc., and if the first sentence is changed, that one probably ought to be changed as well.

Yes, I think it's OK there too.

I actually wonder why a citation is needed after "thing". Is it because usually an eponym is a person?

Yes, probably.

I've been reading and editing Kurgan hypothesis, and the word eponymous appears toward the end of the first paragraph in Kurgan hypothesis#Cultural horizon. That particular sentence illustrates an eponym that is a thing rather than a person: a kurgan. CorinneSD (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, that's a good example. Rothorpe (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Look at how Merriam-Webster deals with the problem of person or thing: [36]. Would this be a sufficient citation for "thing" so that the "citation needed" tag could be removed? I know external links don't belong right in the text of an article, but could it be added as a reference? CorinneSD (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, with a reference 'for whom or for which' would be excellent. Rothorpe (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert

I am bemused by the edit summary of your revert, specifically the claim that "singular is established; too soon to change to plural" as the plural is the first usage in the first sentence. Number 57 21:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Which first sentence? Rothorpe (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I meant "as the plural is the first usage in the sentence". It's far too hot to think straight today... Number 57 21:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I hear it's extremely hot in my native England, my sympathies. Cool enough here in Portugal, however. Er... which sentence? Rothorpe (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The sentence that began "Although they were excluded from Golda Meir's government..." Number 57 21:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

But that's what I've just changed in the revert, to "Although it was..." Rothorpe (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to point out. You seem to be claiming that the singular is established in the sentence and it is too soon (further on) to change it to plural. But the first time anything is used in the sentence, it is the plural – therefore the singular is not established. Number 57 21:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is only one word old: 'although'. If you mean the paragraph, then the antecedent is 'the party', which can be singular or plural, but on second mention it has already become 'it', so singular is established. Rothorpe (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You yourself said that "styles can be mixed". Number 57 21:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I also said "too soon to change to plural". There should be a forgetting interval. Rothorpe (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Like your comments about jarring (which I agree with the concept of), what constitutes an interval is a personal judgement. To me, the sentence reads perfectly well. Number 57 21:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

...

OK, how about a request for comment, then, to see what others think? Rothorpe (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see the point to be honest; this is simply a matter of personal preference rather than right or wrong. The article should have simply have been left with its original wording per WP:RETAIN. Number 57 15:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Number 57 You are simply wrong. Once a singular pronoun (it) or possessive adjective (its) has been used, the singular should continue to be used, even into subsequent sentences, until another subject (noun or proper noun) has been introduced and the focus is now on that other subject. Then, if the original noun is mentioned again, the writer is free to change to a plural pronoun or possessive adjective. One quality of good writing is that it is seamless. One thought leads smoothly to the next (within a paragraph anyway), with no awkward interruptions that slow the reader down and make the reader wonder, even for an instant, "To what does this word refer?" Keeping to the singular – or the plural – to refer to the same noun or proper noun eliminates awkward or rough patches in the sentence. It may very well be common enough in ordinary conversation in England, and even in informal writing, but good formal writing is another thing altogether. Good writing is precise. CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD: I'm not wrong, and neither are the editors who have written Featured Articles in the same style. I'm sorry that you are unable to appreciate differences between different dialects of English. Number 57 11:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"...the party won only 1.4% of the vote, though it retained its two seats. Although they were excluded from Golda Meir's government..." I too am unable to appreciate it. Rothorpe (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you've been living overseas for too long ;) Number 57 12:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It's an exciting new style, are they? Rothorpe (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Robin Maugham, 2nd Viscount Maugham

Which do you prefer? [37] CorinneSD (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding and makes it sound rather glib and reviewish, I think. Rothorpe (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. How does one explain the subtle difference to one who does not see it? CorinneSD (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No explaining required. Just revert and say 'better before'. Rothorpe (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Last, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German. 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) 09:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ringo Starr

I'm reading today's Featured Article on Ringo Starr. I have a question for you:

In the third paragraph in the section Ringo Starr#940–56: Early life is the following sentence:

• His lack of education contributed to a feeling of alienation at school, which resulted in him regularly playing truant at Sefton Park.

Do you see an error in this sentence? CorinneSD (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The preposition? Or the apparent contradiction? Rothorpe (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No. The "him". CorinneSD (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I didn't notice that at all. I remember reading once that it's a British usage, and Americans would put 'his'. Correct? Rothorpe (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't heard that it was a British usage, but you're right that I would have put "his" there. I believe there are times when "him" would be correct – and maybe this is one of them – but it struck me as wrong. I suppose I ought to do some research, but I'm too tired right now. It will have to wait until tomorrow. CorinneSD (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Dorothy L. Sayers

I'm reading the article on Dorothy L. Sayers. In the section Dorothy L. Sayers#Childhood, youth and education is the following sentence:

• The Regency rectory is an elegant building, while the church graveyard features the surnames of several characters from her mystery The Nine Tailors.

I don't see that the two clauses in this sentence really have any direct connection, except the physical proximity of the rectory and the graveyard. Do you think the two clauses should be connected, and, if so, do you think "while" is the best word to use? Any ideas? CorinneSD (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, rather guidebookish. Is the elegance of the rectory relevant to Sayers? If not, the clause could be omitted; if, so, 'while' could be changed to 'and'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Mindanao

Hello, Rothorpe! Would you mind reviewing these edits to Mindanao and the ones just previous by the same editor? I don't agree that the "whereas" clause needs to be set off by commas (since it follows an independent clause), but actually, upon reading the entire sentence, I think it goes on and on too long. (I also wonder whether, in spite of the apparent source from Human Rights Watch, it does not sound too – what's the word? – partisan, biased toward one point of view, etc.

Regarding the edits previous to this,

• I don't think commas are always needed after initial prepositional phrases, but I know that's a matter of style.

• I'm not sure "land-grabs" and "settler-populated" need to be hyphenated or are good writing.

• I don't think the sentence that starts "90%" is well written.

What are your thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I wouldn't have put a comma before 'whereas'. In 'settler-populated townships' I support the hyphen because it's a compound adjective, but there's no need for one in 'land grabs'. The sentence does go on a bit, but I'm a fan of Proust, I have to remind myself, and I think it reads OK. As for the politics, I agree with the NPV policy, but I'm well used to seeing it flouted. I'll be interested if you want to try a more neutral rewrite. 'Used to' after '90%' can go, certainly: simple past will do there. Rothorpe (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Indigenous Australians

Hello, Rothorpe! - I've been reading the article on Indigenous Australians. I have a question for you. The first sentence in the section Indigenous Australians#Belief systems is the following:

• Religious demography among Indigenous Australians is not conclusive because the methodology of the census is not always well-suited to obtaining accurate information on Aboriginal people.

I was looking at "well-suited", and I remembered that this construction is treated at MOS:HYPHEN, #3, fifth bulleted item. It said that "well" with a past participle is hyphenated when it is used attributively, but when used predicatively it usually is not hyphenated unless it changes the meaning of the word, and these examples are given: the gesture was well-meaning, the child was well-behaved, but the floor was well polished. In the floor was well polished, "well polished" is not hyphenated because "well" merely intensifies "polished". It does not change the meaning of "polished" nor create a kind of new word as in "well-meaning" or "well-behaved".

I'm just wondering whether you think, in the sentence from the article, "well-suited" is more like "well-meaning" and "well-behaved" or more like "well polished". (I know "suited" does not mean dressed in a suit; it means fitting or appropriate to someone or something, and that's one meaning of the transitive verb to suit.)

You might also like to read my comment at User talk:Florian Blaschke#Indigenous Australians. CorinneSD (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's 'well suited'. Test: try taking the 'well' away and see if it changes the meaning of the participle. Chez Florian, I thought it read well enough, but your version is clearer and '...to be related neither...' might be even better. Rothorpe (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the "neither...nor" version, too, but it means something different, and I don't know whether it is correct. "Has not been shown" is not the same has "has been shown not to be".

• Could you look at the last sentence in the section Indigenous Australians#Inclusion in the National Census? There is a quote, and toward the end, an ellipsis. Are the extra quotation marks on either side of the ellipsis right? CorinneSD (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I hope it's OK now. Rothorpe (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Giorgio Moroder

Thank you for providing WP:THECAPS, the MOS is daunting so it was helpful when you pointed out the specific article. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad it worked. Thank you! Rothorpe (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Horse

I first read a comment on the talk page of Rui Gabriel Correia in which an editor complained about the tone of an edit summary. Out of curiosity I looked at the recent edits to Horse and saw this and previous edits: [38]. I tend to agree with Rui Gabriel Correia, but before I post anything on the article's talk page, I thought I'd ask you what you thought. I think the specific vocabulary used in discussion of an animal is the kind of detailed information that belongs only in the main part of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't wait. I added a comment. See Talk:Horse#Recent deletes and reverts. CorinneSD (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Not helpful in the lead. Rothorpe (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

King Arthur

I'm reading the article on King Arthur, and I have a question for you. In the fifth paragraph of the section King Arthur#Debated historicity is the following sentence:

• Neither the Historia nor the Annales calls him "rex": the former calls him instead "dux bellorum" (leader of battles) and "miles" (soldier).

I noticed that the words "rex", "dux bellorum" and "miles" were all in italics and enclosed in quotation marks. I don't remember seeing that combination before. I know they are Latin words, so I guess that's why they're in italics, but do they need to be in quotation marks also? CorinneSD (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the justification would be the verb 'call', in contrast to the Latin, which requires the italics as you say. But the quotes are unnecessary, I think. Rothorpe (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Eponym

What do you think of these edits to Eponym? [39] I think we talked about this just a few months ago. See the version right before this. I prefer distinguishing person for whom or thing for which something is named, rather than including person and thing with "whom", and I prefer "for which" to "after which". I don't know about the citations. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

First thoughts: 'for/after' is a BrE/AmE thing, I think. 'Refers' is ungrammatical and should be changed back. Rothorpe (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

'Many genericized' is not an improvement on 'genericized ... may', which is more elegant as well as more accurate. Rothorpe (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. What about those dictionary references? Are they needed? If not, the whole thing can be reverted. CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert away! Rothorpe (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

So, you're urging me to be bold, eh? I like to be sure before I remove added material that has to do with referencing since I don't know much about it. I will revert if you're pretty sure those added references are not needed. CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wise. I'll have another look. Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There are references to Dictionary.com removed by the latest edit but I don't see any added. (Sorry, I should have checked that last time.) Rothorpe (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The references removed were three identicals, so we can get rid of two of them. Rothorpe (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll get to this tomorrow, unless you want to go ahead. Feel free to make the edits. I've just discovered a place where people can request someone to copyedit an article. I've just finished copy-editing three or four articles and I'm tired now. See the first link at the upper-right-hand corner of my talk page. If you then look for "special requests", you'll see what I was working on. CorinneSD (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I had a look, but I'm not tempted by anything. Rothorpe (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

serieses / series's / series'

Which is correct? Cassianto^Talk 16:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The last, presumably (it'd help to know the context). Rothorpe (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

"Was the last of the series' to have taken place..." Also, is "serieses" correct? I only ask because the OED has it as correct: "Inflections: Plural unchanged, (rare) serieses", but my spell checker want to change it to series's? It has been called a greengrocer's apostrophe. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Beckenham, where I grew up! No apostrophe needed then, whether it means the last series or the last one of the series. 'Serieses' is marked as rare, a kind of euphemism for horrendous. In normal usage, the plural is the same as the singular. My computer didn't find the context, if you'd like to point me to it? Rothorpe (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've found the relevant bit in the blue. Yes, series is singular and plural, and series' is possessive singular and plural. Rothorpe (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'm here currently so you never know when this'll come in handy. Cassianto^Talk 17:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you were working on him. I'll be watching. Rothorpe (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In your example, above, I don't see why a possessive form is needed at all. "Was the last of the series to have taken place" should be sufficient. CorinneSD (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Wolfmother discography

At WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, under the section heading "July 2015" there is a request to copyedit just the lede of the article Wolfmother discography. Since you have an interest in music, and it's just the lede they want reviewed, I thought maybe you'd like to undertake this. I have no interest in recordings, so I don't want to do it. CorinneSD (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not interested in music per se, but I made a small change. Rothorpe (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Too Much Too Soon (album)

Hi Rothorpe! Would you be interested in reviewing or commenting on my FAC for the article Too Much Too Soon (album)? If not, please feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, but I'm sorry, the NYDs are not my scene. Regards, Rothorpe (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Alaunt

Here are the last two sentences of the lead in Alaunt:

• The Alans bred their dogs for work and had developed different strains within the breed for specific duties. The breed was further developed in Spain, France, Germany, England, and in Italy.

Regarding the first sentence, do you see any reason why the second verb should be in past perfect tense? I suppose one could argue that it happened before that dog developed into modern dogs, but in that case "bred" should also be in past perfect tense. I think it could just be past tense "developed". What you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been there since the article was created in 2005, would you believe! I'm a great fan of the past perfect, but I agree its usefulness is doubtful there. Rothorpe (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

William C. Clayton

I have just read and copy-edited the article on William C. Clayton, responding to a request at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I have a question. I always thought that clauses beginning "where" were always adverbial and, like other adverbial clauses, should not be preceded with a comma when they follow the independent clause. (I guess that's two different issues.) Can a clause beginning with "where" ever be adjectival? I thought it would only be adjectival if something like "in which", "at which", or "on which" were used. It's been a while since I've read the grammar books, so I'd appreciate your opinion and instruction. See the first sentence of the last paragraph in William C. Clayton. CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to ask you to define adverbial and adjectival clauses, please. I haven't discussed this kind of grammar for decades. Rothorpe (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

But I'm forgetting to answer your question. I would probably regard the 'where' clause as containing extra information, and put a comma, though I'm quite used to seeing such clauses without one. Rothorpe (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been a while for me, too. You mentioned "extra information", but that distinction applies only to adjective clauses, not adverbial clauses. Adverbial clauses give place, time, frequency, reasons, causes, condition, manner, and begin with words like when, where, why, because, since, while, as, although, even though, though, before, after, in spite of, etc. I think they can modify either the verb or an entire clause. Adjective clauses give either identifying (restrictive) or non-identifying (non-restrictive) information about a thing or person and begin with who, whom, which, or that. Generally, adverbial clauses that follow the independent clause are not preceded by a comma.

Here's the sentence.

• Clayton was of Presbyterian faith and was an active member of the Winchester Presbytery where he was a ruling elder.

The question is, can "where" begin an adjective clause? If so, then I guess you're right, that it contains extra information and so can be preceded by a comma. Also, is "where" the best word here? How about re-wording it as follows:

Clayton was of a Presbyterian faith and was an active member and a ruling elder of the Winchester Presbytery. CorinneSD (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course, that's the solution. Now I'll read the rest... Rothorpe (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

By 'independent clause' you mean the main clause? New language for me. Rothorpe (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. To me, "independent clause" and "main clause" are interchangeable. It's independent because it can stand alone. CorinneSD (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Now, why can't I help seeing 'where he was a ruling elder' as an adjectival clause describing 'Winchester Presbytery'? Rothorpe (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a good question. I can't either. I've got to do some research.

Well, here is a link to a basic grammar website that mentions "relative adverbs": [40] It seems "why", "where", and "when" can introduce adjective clauses, and there are examples. However, I have yet to find an example where the clause is non-restrictive and, thus, to be preceded by a comma. CorinneSD (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Here's a site that has more examples: [41]. It's strange that all through the years I was in graduate school and then teaching, I never even heard the phrase "relative adverbs". Maybe it's because we always learned to use a preposition with either "which" or "whom": by which, in which, at which, before which, of whom, by whom, for whom, etc. CorinneSD (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I'd never heard the term 'relative adverb' either, but it seems a perfectly reasonable description. Language evolves, even that of the grammarians. Rothorpe (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hermes

I'm looking at a few edits to Hermes. Is this edit correct, adding a space after text and before the ref? [42] Also, what do you think of the sentence about God and messenger two edits after this by the same editor? CorinneSD (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Another space added here: [43] CorinneSD (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• The chief office of the God was as messenger.

Strange. CorinneSD (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right, there should be no space before the reference. As for the office, perhaps Hermes the messenger was into bureaucratspeak. But these days something less pompous would be in order. Rothorpe (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder whether there is something in MOS that we can point to regarding the spacing. If not, would you mind reverting, or re-adding the space, and just write that "There should be no space before a ref."?

Regarding the sentence, how about:

Hermes' main role was as the messenger god.

I'm a little surprised that this kind of sentence needs to be added to the article at this point. I'm too tired to read the article now, but I should think something like this is already there. CorinneSD (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the MOS is quite specific, so I'll deal with that now. 'The messenger of the Gods' is the phrase I'm used to, so I'd just say 'Hermes was...' if it's necessary to say anything. Rothorpe (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking again, I agree, 'main role' is very good. Rothorpe (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Myotis escalerai

Hello, Rothorpe! - I just glanced at the beginning of today's featured article, Myotis escalerai. I intend to read it later, but I wondered about something in the first sentence:

• Myotis escalerai is a European bat, found in Spain (including the Balearic Islands), Portugal, and far southern France.

What do you think of "far southern France"? I haven't heard that before. Perhaps it would be better as just "southern France" or "in the far south of France". CorinneSD (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's OK, and shorter than the alternative. Rothorpe (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

O.K. I was thinking it would be more accurate to say either on the Mediterranean coast of France or in the foothills of the Pyrenees (or French Alps), unless it's both, but I'm not going to pursue it further. Bats are not my favorite subject. CorinneSD (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

'Far southern France', it has a poetic ring. Rothorpe (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, or northerners describing how far away it is. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

And how lovely and warm compared with chilly Rouen. Rothorpe (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

John Muir

What do you think of this edit to John Muir [44], as well as the two subsequent edits by the same editor? CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting further into hot water! The original is much neater, yes; I'd revert the lot. Rothorpe (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

How did you know I've been editing Bath, Somerset? ;) CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Did I know that? What makes you ask? I've probably followed you somewhere, I don't remember. I had my last job in Bath, but that's presumably a coincidence as it was long ago. Rothorpe (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

When I read "getting further into hot water!", I knew (or thought I knew) you meant that with each subsequent edit, that editor was making things worse, but since I had just finished reading the article on Bath, and the hot baths there, I decided to tease you. CorinneSD (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the power of coincidence! Rothorpe (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate

It's not a big deal, but what do you think of this edit to Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate? [45] I'm not sure the "and" is needed. CorinneSD (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it is for people like me, who had never heard of blonde wood. Rothorpe (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I had. It's very light-colored wood. CorinneSD (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC) If you look at the sampler of wood at the beginning of the article on Wood, you'll see three that you could call blonde: Spruce, Aspen and Linden, or at least Aspen and Linden, but sometimes maple can be blonde, too. CorinneSD (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I was aware of the fact, but I don't think I'd ever heard the phrase. I think I'd have called it 'pale'. (Sips non-blonde tea, as the milk is off; interesting that the default spelling is the feminine. [Pace the article on the word, Blond, where one can find the expression "blond women", which looks incorrect to me.]) Rothorpe (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, "blond" is the adjective and "blonde" is the noun when referring to a person: She's a blond woman, but She's a blonde. When referring to wood, "blonde" is an adjective. A little confusing. CorinneSD (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Well, I'm not sure about that. Perhaps it should be "blond wood". I got confused by your initial comment, above. I'd have to look into the use for wood, but I'm too tired now. CorinneSD (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, I'd never come across that distinction. Awaiting your researches. Rothorpe (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Mendip Hills

Hello, Rothorpe! I'm copy-editing the article on the Mendip Hills, and I have a few questions for you.

1) In the fourth paragraph of the lede is the following sentence:

• A wide range of outdoor sports and leisure activities take place in the Mendips, many based on the particular geology of the area.

I would have thought the verb, "take place" should be in the singular because the subject is "a wide range". However, I thought perhaps this was one of those words which in British English could be used in a plural sense. If not, I've got to change the verb.

I think I prefer the -s version. Rothorpe (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

2) Just a little below that is a word, "hillwalkers", which I've never seen before. I suppose it is an acceptable word in England or it wouldn't be there, but I wonder whether it should be a single unhyphenated word, a hyphenated word, or two separate words.

No problem, BrE.

3) A little below that I see "the Mendip Way and Limestone Link". Do you think "Limestone Link" should be preceded by "the"? CorinneSD (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Rothorpe (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sexton's Burrows

Hello, Rothorpe! In Sexton's Burrows, what would you say is the subject of the verb in the adjective clause? CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I've added the -s. Rothorpe (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for a 3rd opinion

Hi! Since you are (or have been) one of the main contributors/maintainers of the Abba article, I'd like to request your opinion on a dispute about the proper handling of sales figures in the article's lead.

The dispute is at Talk:ABBA#Sales and your input would be very much appreciated. --Kmhkmh (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to contribute there, but good to see you referring to "the Abba article", without the ugly capitals, which is how they were spelt in English in the days of their success. Rothorpe (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Definite Article in British English

Hello Rothorpe, hope you're well. See here. Do you have any thoughts on this? Cassianto^Talk 17:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice to see the definite article being supported. I'm watching. Rothorpe (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Swedish language

I was just reading the first part of the article on the Swedish language, and I got to the section Swedish language#Geographic distribution. I was wondering about the use of "c." to mean "around" (or "about") quite a few times with fairly large numbers. What do you think about that? Would you prefer "around" or "about"? I wondered whether neither "c." nor "around" or "about" was needed if the number is a large round number to begin with. CorinneSD (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. If you think words would be better, I don't see why not; no need for space-saving. (We'll then have to watch to see if anyone changes them to the dreaded "circa".) Or yes, you could try leaving them out; I suppose there is an understanding about large numbers. Rothorpe (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Corinne, you might be interested in the discussion linked by Cassianto below. Rothorpe (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies to my various queries, including this one, and for referring me to the discussion regarding "the". I saw Cassianto's post, below, earlier today and began a discussion on my talk page at User talk:Corinne#Preposed appositive, or false title. By the way, I just received approval to change my user name. Corinne (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

George Santayana

What do you think of this edit to George Santayana? [46] CorinneSD (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, seems rather POV. Rothorpe (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the adjective "subtle" is expressing unacceptable opinion; I think it is a description of Santayana's work. Corinne (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant removing it was POV. I must avoid these acronyms... Rothorpe (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Leah Roberts

Hello, Rothorpe! I've just finished copyediting the article on the Disappearance of Leah Roberts. I wonder if you would mind going through it once to see if I've missed anything. The article used "likely" as an adverb quite a few times. I changed some to "probably" or "most probably" but left a few. In two of the ones I left, I changed the tense of the verb, so the verb is now long, things like "would have been likely to have visited" and "would have been likely to have gone". If you have any suggestions for making those shorter but still accurate, please let me know or go ahead and change them. Corinne (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, 'would have been likely to have visted' is a bit unwieldy, I agree; it could be changed to 'would probably have visited', if you think that doesn't sacrifice any meaning. Rothorpe (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) which affects the recently renamed page Myanmar. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Indian National Congress

Rothorpe and Rwood128, I've spent several days reading and copyediting Indian National Congress in response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Two days ago I finished going through the article once. It was a lot of work. Yesterday I started going through it a second time, and I've caught a few things that needed further work. However, I just can't read it any more. I've gotten as far as Indian National Congress#1966–84. I wonder if you would mind setting some fresh eyes on the article. You can either start from the beginning or start where I left off on my second reading, around the Rajiv Ghandi section. You may catch things I missed or see where further improvements can be made. When you're finished, let me know and I'll mark "Done" on the Guild Requests page. (There were one or two places where I thought I might have to leave a note on the requester's talk page asking for further clarification, but you may be able to figure it out yourself.) Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, it's on my list, and I've made a copyedit. Rothorpe (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Will check tomorrow. Rwood128 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Had an interesting time working on the article this morning. Did up to 'Modern era'. May go back and add some citation tags, sometime in the future, but weary now. Rwood128 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Rwood128 Thank you so much! You did a lot of work there. I think there is some mental effort required to modify Indian English so that it's a little closer to worldwide standard English. You probably know a lot more about Indian history than I do, so that helped, too. I know you probably need a break, but I've been told that I can't accept more than one article at a time at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, so in order to accept another article, I either have to mark the request as "Partly done" (in which case someone else might take over, or "Done". You could mark it as in progress yourself with the {{Working}} template. No one will bother you until you finish it and mark it with the {{Done}} template unless, perhaps, you let weeks go by before finishing it. I need a project, and I'd like to take on another article, but I can't until I mark this article "Partly done" or "Done", and I can't mark it "Done" if it's not really done. If you'd like to continue working on this article, at your own pace, would you mind adding the template "Working" after I put "Partly done"? CorinneSD (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed you changed "which" to "who" after "the Congress party". I'm surprised you would use "who" after a political party. In American English, we would not use "who" after a party. I think in England, since you can use the plural verb after "party", you must see the noun "[political] party" more as a collection of people rather than as an abstract thing. CorinneSD (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC) -----Yes, 'who' must have sounded better to my ear, as people are involved.

I'm working (again) on Novel, when I can find the time), which is an awful quagmire, and will be going on holiday most of September. Therefore, it wouldn't be until October, at the earliest, that I could recheck this article, Rwood128 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Corinne, now feeling guilty about being so negative, but I'm a little overwhelmed with various projects at the moment -- though I did enjoy working on INC. Rwood128 (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Rwood128 Well, thank you for all you did do in the article. Maybe Rothorpe can take over. Have a great holiday! Corinne (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Rothorpe I wonder if you have had time to go through this article. I'd like to be able to add the "Done" template at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Right now it has the "Partly done" template. I stopped in the middle of my second reading of the article because I had had enough of it. If you don't want to do anything more with it, I'll just leave the "Partly done" template there. Corinne (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I've examined it as much as I care to. Rothorpe (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Corinne, I was drawn back and did some more editing. I've now gone right through and made many edits. This is to let you know that I've finished, but whether the article is "done" is another matter. R. (Rwood128 (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC))

(←) This has now reached the top of the Requests list; thanks Corinne, Rothorpe and Rwood128 for working on this article. I'm going to accept the request and will credit all three copy-editors in the GOCE archives. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for W. H. Auden

W. H. Auden has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MusicAngels (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus

I was looking at the latest edits to Christopher Columbus [47]. The editor removed what s/he felt were unnecessary commas. I'm all for removing unnecessary commas, and in fact I'd go along with nearly all the removals. However, I'm wondering whether the commas are useful in the very first sentence from which a pair of commas was removed. It seems almost a parenthetical phrase. I'm not sure. What do you think? Corinne (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I had noticed that and thought, well, OK. But you're right, they are helpful and should be replaced. Rothorpe (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Gainsborough

Rothorpe, are these necessary? [48] Corinne (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Editing for editing's sake. Rothorpe (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't want to get into an argument. Would you mind reverting? Does it make sense to point to WP:OVERLINK? Corinne (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Rothorpe (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Heart of Darkness

What do you think of this edit to Heart of Darkness? [49] Presume? Or assume? Maybe "assume" is the right verb, but I like the construction of the previous version:

• presume (wrongly)

or

• assume (wrongly)

or

• presume, wrongly,...

or

• assume, wrongly,...

I think "incorrectly assume", while perhaps correct, is so common it's boring. Corinne (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Assume (wrongly) I like best. Rothorpe (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. Corinne (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Siberia

What do you think of this edit to Siberia? [50] I'm not sure "archetype" is the right word. CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, an inaccuracy intended as a simplification. Rothorpe (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no article to which "locus classicus" leads, only a suggestion to read the entry at Wiktionary [51]. After reading that entry, I think that neither "locus classicus" nor "archetype" is correct there. Can you or Florian Blaschke figure out a better word or phrase? It's got to mean something like "Siberia is the one place in the world that is [best-] known for shamanism." Corinne (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

'Locus classicus' seems perfectly to imply that, and, though it is Latin, it suggests 'classic location'. But if I think of something better, I'll let you know. Rothorpe (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it should mean "classic location", and if it does, that would be the right phrase, but Wiktionary has two meanings, neither of which seem right to me. Do you think the second definition is the right one, or does Wiktionary have it wrong? Corinne (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I have no problem with a Latin phrase being used, especially if it is linked to a definition or article. I just want to be sure it is the right phrase. Corinne (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think 'a classic case or example' is near enough. Rothorpe (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Then I would say "Shamanism in Siberia is a locus classicus...", not "Siberia is a locus classicus...", wouldn't you? Corinne (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Rothorpe Where are you? Corinne (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm here! Just about getting back to normal. Well, I think I would say Siberia is the locus, location. But I don't know how the phrase is normally used in English. Rothorpe (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Botteville Botteville, or Dave, I'd be interested in your opinion on this. (1) Is it the right phrase, and (2) if it is the right phrase, should it follow "Siberia" or "Shamanism in Siberia"? Corinne (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I happened to look at this message and since I did I might as well answer it. If I inadevertently insult anyone I apologize in advance. As an educated English speaker (in American English) I note that the author of the two proposed phrases seems very likely not a native English speaker or else one who needs some English preparation. I'm sorry, I presume you wanted my opinion for its truth value, otherwise why bother. "Siberia" is customarily a geographic word. If there are other connotations they have to be defined by the speaker. You cannot comprehensibly pluck it out of a geographic content like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz and set it down in any Oz you please without cluing the audience as to what exactly you mean. "Siberia is the paradigm of shamanism" mixes geography with religion, which is not a combustible aviation fuel. It does not fly. You can make all the speculations you please about what it might mean but why should you have to do that? Let the author address the meaning without resorting to "simplifications" no one understands. Fie on it. Out, out, oversimple phrase. In order to try to make sense of it we have to resort to all kinds of unsupported inferences about Siberia and religion. You can't sneak your Siberian prejudices past the Wikipedian gateway. The proposed substitute is even worse. Either rephrase for clarity or don't go there. Adios amigos, you asked for my opinion. I got pictures to work on.Botteville (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Botteville Thanks for your attempt at an answer, but now I'm sorry I asked you for your opinion. I asked you because I thought you knew Latin and could offer an opinion as to whether the phrase was the right phrase to use there. It is not clear to whom you were referring when you said, above, "the author of the two proposed phrases seems very likely not a native English speaker or else one who needs some English preparation". You apparently neglected to read my and User:Rothorpe's user pages. Also, you claim that you are an "educated English speaker". You may be a good speaker, but you are definitely not a good writer. I barely understood anything you were saying. I am sorry to have bothered you. You can be sure I will not bother you again. Corinne (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I knew I was going to push someone's button so I did apologize in advance. The apology still stands. As I am not actively working on this article I butt out. I should have resisted the temptation to butt in. Generally passing comments are of lesser value. But, now that it has been done, I should say that WP is not for this sort of of repartee, as it goes nowhere. If you are going to write for public consumption I think you have to realize that criticism and yes, even unjust criticism, is going to be rampant. You have to learn to ignore what is unfair or irrelevant and take to heart what seems possibly propitious, and to do so without thinking you have to lose your temper. I think you know in your heart I am right. I would like to wish you luck and joy and without any hard feelings at all take my leave of you. Write anything you please, you will not hear from me again unless by chance we work continuously on the same article. I suspect I may not be rid of you quite so easily so I will not be replying to messages until some time has gone bye. Don't bother to leave one. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I still prefer "locus classicus" to "archetype". Any further opinions? Rothorpe (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War

So yeah i'm a bit new to editing, should I have put my response to your message here or where you left it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.160.56.185 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. As you wish. It's usually best to keep conversations in one place, but you can always alert people on their user page to a discussion elsewhere. Rothorpe (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

List of transcontinental countries

I'd like your opinion regarding wording of a sentence at User talk:Vsmith#List of transcontinental countries. Corinne (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I've replied there. Rothorpe (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Plain dress

Hello, Rothorpe - I've just started to read the article on Plain dress. It was pointed out to me on my talk page as this week's article for improvement. I'm still in the lead of the article. I see "some few Quakers", which caused me to pause. I think that combination "some few" is colloquial in some parts of the U.S., but not all, or, alternatively, is informal rather than formal English. Would you agree? I'd like to avoid "some" appearing twice in close proximity. Which do you recommend there:

• a few Quakers

• some Quakers

or something else? "A few Quakers" suggests just a few individuals (which may be the case, but then why mention it?), and "some Quakers" has at least the possibility of some groups of Quakers, but not all, which is probably the case, but then you've got "some" twice. Do you think this is a case where the source should be checked, or can we just select something? Corinne (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

By all means check the source, but I must say that the expression to me means quite a few or, though not a vast number, quite a lot. Would you agree? If so. I'd replace it with "many". If not, I'll have another think. Rothorpe (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Heidegger Lead

I agree with your comments that the Heidegger lead current is incomprehensible. I have tried to salvage some of the lead that was attempted to replace it, while cutting it down in length. Here is my suggestion for a Heidegger lead which makes some degree of sense and will help explain him to those without familiarity, which I would imagine is the point of the lead in the first place:

Martin Heidegger (/ˈhaɪdɛɡər, -dɪɡər/;[6] German: [ˈmaɐ̯tiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ]; 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher and a seminal thinker in the Continental tradition. His influence in Analytic philosophy circles increased in the latter half of the 20th century, due to efforts rehabilitate his reputation as a Continental obscurantist.[7]Heidegger is closely associated with the fields of existential phenomenology and philosophical hermeneutics, though as the SEP states "his thinking should be identified as part of such philosophical movements only with extreme care and qualification."[8]

Heidegger's best known book, Being and Time, is considered one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century, though the work was never fully completed.[9][10] In it, Heidegger sought to recover philosophical questions of "fundamental ontology," and the "primordial" question of the meaning of Being, which he regarded modernity as having forgotten, and to effect a shift from ontologies based on ontic, or scientific, determinants to the fundamental ontological elucidation of being in general. Heidegger argued that the activity of questioning defines human nature, or the human mode of being as the "being which asks the question about being”, ”the being for whom being is an issue," holding that the question of being would have to be addressed through analysis of the being who poses the question. Heidegger argued that Being consists of three basic modes: 1) the mode of being he calls Dasein, the mode "which each one of us has ourselves", namely, Human Being, whose essence Heidegger argues is Being-in-the-world; 2) the mode which things or objects take or "show up as" "proximally and for the most part", insofar as they are objects of concern to us, things we are engaged in using, and which he calls the ready-to-hand; and 3) the secondary, derivative mode in which objects appear in their mere physical presence, in which they may become "thematized" in the natural sciences, when they appear as merely present, where former objects of concern protrude in their physical presence as unready, or broken, and which Heidegger calls the present-at-hand. Given this emphasis on the mode of being objects have insofar as we have care for them and take care of them, Heidegger argues that Dasein *is* its care, and Dasein's mode of being is its concernful-being-in-the-world.[13] Heidegger placed strong emphasis on the temporal aspects of human existence in his elucidation of Dasein, stressing human thrownness into “always already” ontologically significant human practices and matters of concern not of one’s choosing; as well as human being-towards-death, the way human existence is structured by awareness of its finitude, and efforts to conceal this from ourselves. In the condition of "fallen everydayness" Dasein loses touch with the grasp of being that defines its nature as the being which operates with an understanding of what it means to be.[16]17]

Amongst Heidegger's other important arguments is his idea that the original, most "primordial" meaning of Truth is unconcealment, or the revealing or bringing of what is hidden into the open, and that the common understanding of truth as correctness, or the correspondence between language,or thought, and the world it describes is a late, derivative accretion. Heidegger's work on Technology is sometimes considered to represent an important critique of technology and precursor to Environmentalism, in its criticism of the "enframing effect it has had on Modern Civilization, which he takes to conceive of all of Nature as a "standing reserve" to be kept "on hand", purely, always, and in total for Human purposes.[18] In his later work, Heidegger sought to transform philosophy into a deliberate effort at thinking “the history of being.” Heidegger is a controversial figure, in part for what some regard as a willfully obscure writing style, his sweeping judgments of the history of philosophy, as well as his notorious his affiliation with Nazism prior to 1934, 20] which in private he called "the biggest stupidity of his life" (die größte Dummheit seines Lebens).[21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrhesiast (talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That's just the latest version of User:SuperFriendlyEditor's overlong and complex suggestion, just as "Parrhesiast" is his latest pseudonym. Rothorpe (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That version has been pared down to 650 words, quite a feat by this bold and fearless speaker of truth.Parrhesiast (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it and examine it carefully tomorrow. I wasn't keen on the earlier version. Rothorpe (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, and the current version is no good either (see the Talk page). Perhaps the lead should simply say he is regarded as an important philosopher. Succinct attempts to say why seem doomed. Rothorpe (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Contents

Rothorpe, isn't the word "contents" [52], meaning "that which is contained", a plural noun? Shouldn't it take the plural form of the verb? The example at Wiktionary uses a past tense verb, so isn't helpful.

• The contents of the house were sold.

• The contents of the house was sold.

I thought it was plural, but I see it used as singular in an article and I've got to be sure before I change it. Corinne (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely plural. Rothorpe (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Corinne (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Homo naledi

I just spent some time reading and copy-editing Homo naledi, which I saw on the Main Page. I wanted to ask you about the placement of an adverb in this sentence, which appears in the section Homo naledi#Possible behaviour:

• If correct, this would be remarkable since this type of behavior has been generally considered to have emerged much later, among Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis.

I've noticed that some articles have the adverb after "been" and just before the past participle. Once or twice I've moved the adverb to between "have/has" and "been" and once or twice have been reverted by a British English speaking editor. The way it is now sounds wrong to my ears. I think Americans would be more likely to say:

• since this type of behavior has generally been considered to have emerged much later...

It appears that this article is written in British English style, and if you think the way the sentence is written now is British English style, I won't change it. If you think either way is acceptable, even in British English, I might change it but I'll defer to your recommendation. Corinne (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The second version seems a bit more logical, and so I prefer it, but both are acceptable. I made a point of examining the examples before reading your comments about them, and I found it interesting, if not surprising, that the first should be BrE. Rothorpe (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Vila Franca do Campo

Hello, Rothorpe! Maybe you can help me decide whether to make a change to Vila Franca do Campo. See my comment at User talk:Cplakidas#Vila Franca do Campo. (I asked Cplakidas my question because I think s/he is interested in articles related to the history of the Mediterranean and Christianity.) Since this is about the Azores, is there any way you could look into this? Corinne (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your logic that quis sicut deus is a statement, so I suggest you Be Bold! Rothorpe (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Princess Johanna of Hesse and by Rhine

Hi.

I don't think the "family curse" section should be there as it's conspiracy theory nonsense, but having already been sent abusive threats by monarchist editors, I'm reluctant to remove it on my own. Can you help me with what to do. I'll send this message to others i trust and admins as well. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

List of British words under threat on your user page

Hi, Rothorpe - I was just looking at your latest edits to your user page, and I wondered what the umlaut (two dots) over the second "e" in the British pronunciation of "research" was. I don't think Brits spell it that way, do they? Is it supposed to be indicating how the word is pronounced? How is "research" pronounced in British English, by the way? Corinne (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Once again, I only looked at the list in the revision history and didn't read the entire section. I see the umlaut over the "e" is one of several diacritics you used in the pronunciation guide you developed, and that "ë" represents the "e" in "fern". So the vowel sound is the same as in Am E; it's just that the stress is on the second syllable instead of the first. Sorry about that. I think, as a verb, both pronunciations are used in the U.S., but as a noun, the stress is on the first syllable. Corinne (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Umlaut, schumlaut! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 25 September

(Edit conflict, will investigate)

I was wondering whether to bold the list of example words; thanks for deciding me. Actually I haven't heard any British speaker say resëarch for ages, it's all rêsëarch now, but it was the pronunciation I grew up with for both noun and verb. Rothorpe (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC) 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice read. I think the unSwedish advertisers put their final acute accent on glädje to stop people from rhyming it with Madge, very sensible. Rothorpe (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Martin, for the interesting article. (Makes me want to go buy a pint of coffee Haagen Dazs.) I found a sentence on page 5 that I think has at least one, possibly two, errors:

• The other is over the second of two adjacent vowels to indicate that it should be spoken separately, rather than as a dipthong.

I think it should be: "...to indicate that the two vowels should be spoken separately, rather than as a diphthong".

Near the top of page 6 I saw a word I had never seen before: parodistically. Is that really a word? Related to "parody"? Does that makes sense there? Or should it be "parodoxically"? Was this guy a professor? Corinne (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

'Parodistically' I think means 'in a spirit of parody'. 'The two vowels' would be clearer, yes. But we can't edit it, can we?! Rothorpe (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, can't we? Darn it, I've tried for hours. Ah yes, the perils of the diphthong. That's like a mankini isn't it, but with shorter straps. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown & Religious Categories

Hi Rothorpe, its Inter&anthro, I wanted to explain our conflicting views on the article Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. While I don't doubt your edit was made in good faith I personally find it unnecessary that the subject of this article be placed in the Category:Shia Muslims and Category:British Muslims when she is already in the more specific Category:British Ismailis. Usually if someone is in a more specific category they are not usually in a generic one, such as religion. If some one was in Category:Anglicans for example that article would not be in Category:Protestants and/or Category:Christians for example, or an article in Category:Tibetan Buddhists would not also tend to in Category:Buddhists. If you disagree ping me on this discussion or message me on my talk page so we can overcome our different views in an organized manner. Thanks & happy editing. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, that's clear. Rothorpe (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A question about spelling

I'm working on a summary of the October 13, 2015, Featured Article at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 13, 2015, and I see the noun "short cut" spelled as two words. I had always seen it spelled as one word, so I looked it up on Wiktionary and saw that "short cut" and "short-cut" are given as alternate spellings (and perhaps if you look up "short cut", "shortcut" is listed as an alternate spelling, but I didn't look). I wondered if "short cut" is the common British English spelling. Since the article is about a topic in England, I've got to be sure before I consider changing it to "shortcut". Corinne (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I grew up stressing the second word of 'short cut' (parental eccentricity?), and stressing the first syllable still feels a little alien, though I often hear it on the BBC. So, no, the two-word version needn't be changed. Rothorpe (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting... Thanks! Corinne (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Analects

Hello, Rothorpe! I'm in the midst of copy-editing the article Analects. I have a question for you. In the last paragraph of the section on Analects#Political philosophy, it says, "one of the most essential ways". I wonder if "essential" really should be used comparatively ("essential", "more essential", "most essential"). It's kind of like the adjective "unique". It either is essential or it's not. Does the sentence sound all right to you, or would you (a) remove "most" or (b) leave "most" there and change "essential" to "important"?

Also, if you're interested, see Talk:Analects#GOCE Copy-edit of October 3-4, 2015. I'm kind of waiting for additional responses. Corinne (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at that. Yes, I agree, 'most' there is less than moderately essential. I think 'most important' is probably closer to what was meant. Rothorpe (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll change it to "most important". Regarding my points on the talk page, do you see what I mean? I feel I need someone who knows both the subject matter and English well in order to fix it. Corinne (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I lay claim to only one of those. I've put it on my watchlist; ping me if you want a quick opinion. Rothorpe (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Adolfo Rodríguez Saá

I've just done all I can for the moment copy-editing Adolfo Rodríguez Saá. I'm sure there are things I've missed; I'm just too tired to continue scrutinizing it. If you feel like it, would you read through the article and see if there is anything I missed or that you think ought to be changed? See also the points I raised on the talk page. I'm hoping the person who posted the request for a copy-edit sees it. Corinne (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I've put it on my list and you can ping. It looks very nice (of course). As for 'deputy', I've more or less grown used to hearing this used of members of parliament, even if it does always make me think of the B&W cowboy films where I first came across the word. Rothorpe (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I would change the Personal life heading to Kidnap and move the final sentence into the preceding section. Rothorpe (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestions. I made those changes. I also changed "deputees" to "deputies" for the time being. I'm also changing "proscript" (third paragraph in "Early life" section") to "proscribed", but I'm wondering whether "outlawed" would be better. What do you think? Corinne (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm reminded of cowboys again; I think 'proscribed' is better. Rothorpe (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

American versus British English on Exclamation Point page.

Hi Rothorpe,

The edit in question makes the article biased, as it favors one dialect of English over another. The original wording made no preference for one usage over the other, while the new wording strongly implies that one is preferred or more common, neither of which has been established. Wikipedia articles must stay neutral. I'll give you some time to respond, after which I fully intend on putting the original language in place.

Moreover, this same user has made this same edit FOUR TIMES on the full stop page, and it has been undone each time (not just by me). Battling McGook (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"The exclamation mark (also exclamation point in American English)..." Please note that I changed it from the earlier edit (or > also). But if 'exclamation mark' is not used in American, then it's wrong, and should be reworded---which is what you're saying? Rothorpe (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If the original wording left out "exclamation point", the edit to add it is correct. The punctuation mark is called an "exclamation point" in American English. It is not being biased to state what is common usage in a major variety of English. Corinne (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The question is: is it ever called 'exclamation mark' in American English? At the moment the article is implying that it sometimes is (see quotation above). I think that's probably incorrect, in which case it needs changing to a one-or-the-other phrasing. Rothorpe (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I've changed it to either/or now; I hope that's right. Rothorpe (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "exclamation mark" is recognizable in American English but it is not idiomatic. American sources will universally say "exclamation point" in modern times. Historically, period, comma, exclamation, question, even semicolon and colon sometimes were referred to as "points", although it was mainly the period which was long referred to as a "full point". "Marks" was a more general term, applied to more than just "points". And "notes" was sometimes used too (my favorite historic name for the exclamation point is actually "note of admiration"; sources that use that would also tend to use "note of interrogation" instead of "question mark"). Also, even though "exclamation" remained a point in American English, the "question" became a mark. Go figure. This fact though is probably the only reason we can make any sense out of "exclamation mark". Battling McGook (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the historical details, User:Battling McGook. I've only ever heard it called an "exclamation point". Could somebody tell me which article you're talking about? Corinne (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Exclamation mark. Rothorpe (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Luristan bronze

Rothorpe, I need your opinion regarding some edits I made to Luristan bronze and which were partially reverted and modified today. See [53] and previous and following edits. I am a bit offended by the edit summary. This editor seems to have a background in art, but that doesn't mean s/he is a good writer. (I also have a degree in fine art.) I don't even like the subsequent edits. It's not that important. I just wonder what you think. Corinne (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'd sleep on it, and then if you feel so inclined, keep at it. Rothorpe (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I left a comment on the article's talk page. That's all I will do. I'm not going to edit the article again. By the way, look at the number of articles that the other editor (E.) has contributed to. Corinne (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Very good. I shall be watching for the reply. (Yes, E has an impressive list.) Rothorpe (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

John Dominic Crossan

I was just reading the article on John Dominic Crossan, and I saw that it has numerous "citation needed" tags and improvement templates that date from 2011 and earlier. I wonder if you feel like working on it or whether it might be a candidate for Today's Article for Improvement. Corinne (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

William Ellery Channing

I'm reading the article on William Ellery Channing, and I've come across a sentence that doesn't sound quite right. It's toward the end of the lead of the article:

• Here he espoused his principles and tenets of the developing philosophy and theology of "Unitarianism" resulted in the organization later in 1825 of the first Unitarian denomination in America (American Unitarian Association) and the later developments and mergers between Unitarians and Universalists resulting finally in the Unitarian Universalist Association of America in 1961.

I have to assume that "tenets" is the subject of the second clause. Do you think it would be enough simply to add a comma after "principles"? The sentence is a bit long, though, and has both "resulted" and "resulting", and has "later" twice. Any suggestions? Corinne (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

W. D. Davies

I've just read the article on W. D. Davies. I came across a sentence in which I see a bit of ambiguity. It's the last sentence in the short second paragraph in W. D. Davies#Work:

• In The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (1964), Davies sees a law which remains even under the covenant of grace and thus spans the canonical tensions between James and Paul.

It's the word "even" I'm wondering about. It could mean the adjective "even", as in "on an even keel", remain steady, or it could mean the adverb, as in a sentence like this: "it remains even when everything else is gone". Which meaning do you think was meant? Is it clear enough to you? Corinne (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Saka

Hello, Rothorpe! I was just reading the article on the Saka, and I have a question for you. Can you think of a way to avoid the use of "synonymous" and "synonymously" within the same sentence? It's the first sentence in the third paragraph in Saka#Usage of the name Saka:

• The Saka were regarded by the Babylonians as synonymous with the Gimirrai; both names are used synonymously on the trilingual Behistun inscription, carved in 515 BC on the order of Darius the Great.

I'm not sure, but I think the second clause is intended to give an example of the Babylonian view of the two names. If so, would it change the meaning or make it unclear to remove "synonymously" from the second clause? Any other ideas? Corinne (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's entirely unambiguous, as well as stylistically much better, if you leave it out in the second clause, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Corinne (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

University of Cambridge

Hello, Rothorpe! I was just skimming the article on the University of Cambridge and was surprised to see punctuation errors. I fixed one or two, but there is one that I'm not sure is an error or not. It's "Exercise's" in the first sentence of the second paragraph in University of Cambridge#Reputation and rankings. I should think it would be "Exercises", but since I'm unfamiliar with the phrase, I left it. Corinne (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Corinne. Yes, you are right, it should be changed. Since you are already copyediting there, I'll leave it to you. I'll be watching. Rothorpe (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. I've got other articles to work on, so I'm not going to read the article now, but I'll make that edit. Corinne (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Rothorpe:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

The

Hello, Rothorpe -- I was just looking at your latest edits to your user page. I thought it might help readers if you gave one example of a compound adjective that needs hyphenating (other than the long one you gave). Also, I wanted to ask you about the formatting of "the" in newspaper titles such as The New York Times. To me, it was always The New York Times, not the New York Times. I think it's even at the top of the front page of the newspaper. Why is "the" dropped like that? Corinne (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The latter is indeed a Br/Am difference. The Guardian, for example, always refers to itself as the Guardian. So "the New York Times" is a hybrid, I'd say. Now I'll have a look at your other suggestion. Até já. Rothorpe (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm fond of the lengthy example, hammers the point home nicely, but if you could suggest a more typical case where the hyphen often goes missing, I could include that too. Rothorpe (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The ten-year-old child, the six-foot-tall man, the four-minute mile, the two-story (storey?) building, the seven-layer cake.

I have another question for you. i.e. and e.g. are both written with a period following each letter, right? Are both to be followed by a comma, or only one of them? Corinne (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I always put the dots in, but I think commas are optional after both. Rothorpe (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

How I pronounce sèguè

sa-go, I do not know why, and I know how it is actually pronounced but, for some reason, it still gets me to this day. I read your user page and again, I was tricked by this word! I wont use the ever-so-dreadful lol --Xavier (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your note and for reading my page. Rothorpe (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Your welcome, I hope I am not the only one laughing. --Xavier (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have nothing to do...

...you might want to look at the comments I posted on Fayenatic london's talk page in September. There are about four separate comments in a row. I posted them there because I thought s/he was interested in Christian topics, but apparently s/he is not interested in dealing with them, or does not have the time to address these. I probably should have asked you first. Corinne (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll be happy to deal with them, but could you first copy them here, so I don't have to keep going to FL's page? Or give me permission to do so (if I can manage it...) Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

[Next four sections copied from User talk:Fayenatic london]:

Thomas Berry

I just read the article on Thomas Berry. I noticed that in the last paragraph of the article there are several external links. Should those be there? Corinne (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Corinne (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Looks like a good place for them. (Thanks for copying this over.) Rothorpe (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hedy Lamarr

I just spent an hour copy-editing Hedy Lamarr and, when I went to save my edits, got Edit Conflict. I saw only a few edits to links, so left a note on the editors talk page asking if he would mind re-doing his edits if I save mine, but haven't received an answer yet. (I may go ahead and save mine anyway.) But in the meantime, I see another edit to the article: [54]. I also wondered about that lower-case "nazi", but I thought, "fascist" is in lower-case, and both are used as adjectives, so I wondered whether lower-case might be correct. Is there a difference between the two words that one should be lower-case and the other capitalized, even when an adjective? Corinne (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, no logic there. Unlike fascist, Nazi is always capitalised, for no good reason that I can see. Rothorpe (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

TAFI

If you want to, take a look at the article about Marie Serneholt which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I removed a full stop! Rothorpe (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman

Hello, Rothorpe -- I have just finished copy-editing the article Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman. I had two questions. I left one at User talk:West Virginian# (to which you are welcome to respond), and here is the second: the boy's father remarried twice. Both times, it is expressed in this way:

• After the death of his mother in 1855, his father remarried to the widow of a missionary...

"His father remarried to..." doesn't sound right to me. We would never say "Mr. Smith married to the widow of a missionary". But you also can't say, "His father remarried the widow of a missionary" (unless, of course, he married the same woman two times); that would be factually incorrect. I'm thinking that it has to be this way:

"His father remarried, to [name], the widow of a missionary..."

What do you think? Corinne (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree, the comma solves it. Rothorpe (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good. Thank you. Corinne (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Typhoon Gay (1992)

I was just skimming today's featured article, Typhoon Gay (1992), and I came across something I want to ask you about. It sounded odd. It's the last sentence in, I believe, the second paragraph in Typhoon Gay (1992)#Aftermath:

• As a result, the Guam Communications Network was created to facilitate in future relief efforts during storms.

I think the preposition "in" is not needed after "facilitate". What do you think? Corinne (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about this!

I think that 'in' goes with 'future', but the way it's phrased misleads one into thinking it's 'future relief efforts'. But I agree, removing 'in' solves the problem. Rothorpe (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh...I hadn't even thought of that. For me, the only way I could read it was "future relief efforts" because we don't say "in future" to refer to a time in the future, or in the future generally. We say "in the future". I really do think, though, that it meant "future relief efforts". Corinne (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Americans don't say 'in future'? Live and learn... Rothorpe (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe sometimes. Perhaps we'd hear it in a sentence like this: "In future, I hope to see an improvement", but we'd also hear "In the future, I hope to see an improvement". We'd be more likely to hear "In the future" for sentences like this: "In the future, we'll probably all drive electric cars."

I thought of something else I wanted to mention. I remembered that I have heard "controversy" pronounced by British English speakers as con TRO ver sy, whereas we would say CON tro ver sy. Interesting, right? How did that difference happen? Corinne (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how it came about, but I've several times read that cóntroversy is more 'correct' than contróversy. Interesting that Americans agree. Rothorpe (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Boys Don't Cry (film)

A little while ago I skimmed the article Boys Don't Cry (film), and I saw "sic" (in blue) in quotes. Now, in my watch list, I see this edit, which was probably the edit that put "sic" there: [55]]. My question is, what is wrong with simply putting "sic" in a pair of single square brackets? It could be linked to Wiktionary if necessary. What's the point of using a template? Corinne (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Because someone thought it would be a wonderful idea to use a template to link to the article on 'sic' for the ignoramuses who don't know what it means. And who are we to question such enterprise? Actually, I'm wondering why there should be all those sics there at all. Is the quoted material so peculiar? Rothorpe (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches

Hello, Rothorpe -- What do you think of this edit [56] to General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches? I think it is rather strange. The actual website is clear, and, to me, it make sense to give the name of the organization right after it because the two are different. I don't see the need for the statement there. What do you think? Corinne (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I think the MoS deprecates 'NB'. But also I see no need to repeat the name of the article there, so I'd trim it down to the standard 'official website'. Rothorpe (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind making whatever edits you think ought to be made? I hate to get into arguments with other editors. Corinne (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Right. Rothorpe (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Corinne (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Did you vote? If you'd like some guidance, see Tryptofish's recommendations at User:Tryptofish/ACE2015. There are links to other recommendations at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015. See "Voter guides" in the light green box at the bottom of the page. Corinne (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I don't know if I'll vote, but I ended up being amused by User:The Lady Catherine de Burgh/A fool's guide to the 2015 Arbcom election. (Interesting name, a combination of Jane Austen and Chris de Burgh, it would seem.) Rothorpe (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Gnosticism

I was just looking at the latest edits to Gnosticism, this edit and two before it by an IP editor [57]. I think the last two are wrong because punctuation normally goes before references, not after, and the first of the three edits removed a phrase that I think is necessary. What do you think? If you agree, feel free to revert. Corinne (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the punctuation. I also agree about the removal but would be on shaky ground reinstating it; and what does 'their' refer to in the preceding? Rothorpe (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

Hello, Rothorpe! -- I just saw your most recent edit to your user page regarding "circa" [58]. Of course I agree with you 100%. I'm just wondering if you think the bolding of "c." might make an inexperienced editor think it should be in bold. Perhaps putting it in double quotation marks might avoid that. (Your call, of course.) Also, when I looked at it in the sentence on your user page, I though perhaps a colon following a period might confuse the same editors. Perhaps start a new sentence so that there is only a period/full stop after the "c." Since I always add a no-break space between "c." and the year, you might suggest that, too, typing c. 1400 or c.{{nbsp}}1400. Corinne (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the good advice. I hope you like the changes I've made. It's good to see there's now a memorable code for nbsp. I might even start using it! Rothorpe (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it looks better now. I usually use an ampersand n b s p ; (that's all you have to type, but with no spaces in between) because, once I got used to it, I found it easier than looking for the curly brackets for the other one. By the way, did you know that "a number of" is frowned upon by GA and FA reviewers as being too vague? I was surprised to learn that. To me, it's a nice alternative to "several". Corinne (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I have the curly brackets on my keyboard (Alt Gr 7 & 0). Yes, have you come across the smart Alec who edit-summarises 'zero is a number'? A perfectly acceptable expression. And how is 'several' more precise? Rothorpe (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Edward Elgar

Hello, Rothorpe! I'm reading the article on Edward Elgar, and I came across a sentence that didn't sound right. It's this sentence, which appears at the end of the third paragraph in the article:

• Some of his works have, in recent years, been taken up again internationally, but the music remains more played in Britain than elsewhere.

It's the last part that bothers me, especially "remains more played". Does that sound right to you? I think it would sound better if it read:

• but the music continues to be played more in Britain than elsewhere. What do you think? Corinne (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're quite right. Rothorpe (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll make the change. Corinne (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)