User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 9

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

San Blas Islands 2

In the first paragraph of the article on San Blas Islands, I see a word "comarca". I had never seen that word, so I looked it up on Wiktionary and found that it is a Catalan word. Shouldn't the word be in italics? It's not an English word. Or, alternatively, an English word could be used instead; perhaps "district". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Spanish too, but it's an obscure foreign word so should be translated. Rothorpe (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Fiji

I've been reading the article on Fiji, and in the third paragraph of the lead I found the following sentence:

"In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Dutch and the British explored Fiji, which was a Crown Colony until 1970, this administration lasting almost a century."

First, a simple question: would it be all right if I changed "seventeenth and eighteenth" to "17th and 18th"? Also, since it follows a BC date, should I add "AD", or is it clear that it is AD?

Second, I am puzzled by the last phrase in the sentence which not only feels just tacked on. almost as an afterthought, but is unclear. How could any administration anywhere last "almost a century"? And what administration? Any thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear it's AD, numerals would be nice and that phrase needs to go or at least a tag. Rothorpe (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Fiji 2

The second sentence in the first paragraph in the "History" section in Fiji ends with:

"they may have had some influence on the new culture, and archaeological evidence shows that they would have then moved on to Tonga, Samoa and even Hawai'i."

I feel there is some ambiguity in both uses of the pronoun "they", especially the second one. Is it clear that both refer to "the Lapita peoples or the ancestors of the Polynesians" and not Melanesians?

Do you think "would have then moved on" is all right? I'm thinking that something such as, "they then moved on to", or "they probably moved on to". I know it "would have then moved on to" is used because it is the somewhat hypothetical result clause following an unwritten "if" clause: If Polynesians lived on Fiji, they would then have moved on", but I think it is pretty clear that Polynesians moved eastward through the islands and eventually to Hawaii, so I don't think it is necessary to use the hypothetical "would have". What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it all reads very well and is quite clear. I don't think the 'would have' is as much conditional as it is presumptive future perfect in the past. Where have the Lapita gone? Oh, they'll have moved on to Tonga... Rothorpe (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Synesthesia

In the article Synesthesia, I just re-read the short paragraph that was added about a week ago on "Mirror touch synesthesia" (because someone had just added "citation needed", it appeared in my watchlist today). I made a few small edits to improve clarity and syntax, but I still have a question. In the last sentence it says "simulation". In wonder whether it should not be "stimulation" since it refers to touch, but I'm not sure. What do you think? If you feel it should be changed, go ahead and make the edit.

No, I don't think so. But it might be better to remove doubt by removing the word. 'Such a process' is enough.

Also, a question re style: The first sentence (which is the one I worked on) is all singular. Then the second sentence is all plural:

"This means that people can literally feel the pain of others when they see them get hurt.

Generally, I don't care for such a switch in number. What do you think about:

• "This means that one can literally feel the pain of others when one sees them get hurt." or

• "This means that one can literally feel the pain of others when seeing them get hurt."

CorinneSD (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I know what you mean but I think it's okay, a switch outwards from the particular to the general. Rothorpe (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(WP:TPS) - do we get a source of "rarest form of"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not the sourcy sort. Rothorpe (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Haha, now that is funny. Thanks anyway, Rothorpe. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Tonga

I've been reading the article on Tonga. It is generally well-written. I have found few problems, but have made a few minor edits. I wonder if you could look at the last sentence in the first paragraph in the section "Military" and tell me whether you think the second "Tongan" is necessary. Without it, is it clear that it means Tongan loss of life and not any loss of life?CorinneSD (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably clear, but people could say: you kidding, no Iraqis died?, so best to leave it in, I reckon. Rothorpe (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Tonga 2

The third sentence in the first paragraph in the section "Culture and diaspora" contains a phrase that is capitalized: "As of 2013". I wanted to change "as" to lower case, but when I looked at the phrase in edit mode, I saw double curved brackets and a pipe. I didn't know the reason for those, so I left it as is. Could you look at it and tell me what's going on? Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That's done so that the year updates automatically, but of course the capital won't do, so either it has to be moved to the beginning of the sentence or 'in' has to be substituted. Rothorpe (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I have two questions:

1) Why does "As" have to remain capitalized?

That's how the template works, unfortunately: people who make these things often don't consider the practicalities. Examples in infoboxes are alas not uncommon.

2) What is the point of updating the year automatically every year if the percentage is not updated to a new, correct percentage, too? Perhaps in this case, the 98% would stay static, but in similar constructions in other articles, the percentage may very likely be different.CorinneSD (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite! Rothorpe (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Robin Maugham - 2nd Viscount Maugham

I don't know if you are following this article on Robin Maugham, but the editor who made the last edit requested help regarding the Strand Theatre. Do you know anything about the Strand Theatre?CorinneSD (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a link to disambiguation - one of the 2 in England, presumably. Rothorpe (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

San Blas Islands

I just saw an edit to San Blas Islands in which the editor changed

• "The San Blas Islands is an archipelago..." to

• "The San Blas Islands are an archipelago...."

Now, technically the plural verb is probably correct, but it still sounds odd to me. I'm wondering whether it would sound better with another verb such as:

• form an archipelago
• make up an archipelago
• comprise an archipelago (but if this is used, then the following "comprising" needs to be changed).

Any thoughts?CorinneSD (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, form or make up. Rothorpe (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Lenition

I just saw a group of edits made to Lenition. Most (or some) seem to be fine, but I noticed that he or she changed several single British 'quotes' to the double American "quotes". I thought the WP rule was to leave those as they are -- or determine in which style -- British or American -- the article is predominantly written and then make everything consistent with that style. Do you feel like looking at the article to see which style should be used and whether or not those quotes edits should be changed back or left as they are?

I refuse to play the AmE/BrE game. The Noddy books I read as an infant had double quotes, and Enid Blyton was no American. All my life I've seen and used both styles.

Also, I know i.e. is usually followed by a comma, but is e.g. also usually followed by a comma?CorinneSD (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Never. Rothorpe (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Indonesia

I just saw an edit to the article on Indonesia that just added this (you need to look at it in Edit mode):

===Mid-20th century political swings===

Could you tell me what this is? I'm just curious. And what (if any) is the connection between "Atheism" and "Mid-20th century political swings"?CorinneSD (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's an anchor, a device to make editing easier that some people use (but not me, so I can't help any further, sorry). Rothorpe (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but you ask more, which jogs my memory. I think it means that if you click a link from the atheism article you arrive at that spot in the Indonesia one. Rothorpe (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh. O.K. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Akkadian language

I just saw an edit to the article on Akkadian language in which the editor simply added a necessary space before the edition and date of a reference. I think it was "3rd. ed. 2011". My question is, should there be a period after "3rd" and after "ed"? I can understand after "ed" (but I wonder about it only because I was getting help yesterday on converting centimeters to inches, using the abbreviations cm and in, and learned that periods are not used for those in WP, so don't know if a period is used after "ed"), but I have never seen a period after "3rd", "4th", etc. Is that something special for WP references?CorinneSD (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No, after 3rd it must be a typo. Rothorpe (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

O.K. I'll fix it.CorinneSD (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

David Lloyd George

I've noticed that an editor has been changing dates such as "1935-1945" to "1935-45" in David Lloyd George. I wonder why. There doesn't seem to be a space constraint, and the full dates are so much easier to read. In the shortened version, one has to stop and think a bit, slowing down reading for a brief moment. What is the point of that?CorinneSD (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Personal taste, I'd guess. I'd revert with the edit summary that it was an unnecessary change. Rothorpe (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'd better do that. Did you look at the edits? They were made, I believe, with an automated editor, and there is a note for each that says something like "per CFD" and a discussion. I guess I'll take a look at the discussion.CorinneSD (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, categories for discussion. Rothorpe (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam

I just started reading the article on Vietnam. The second sentence in the lead reads:

"With an estimated 90.3 million inhabitants as of 2012, it is the world's 13th-most-populous country, and the eighth-most-populous Asian country."

My question is, are the hyphens necessary in the two phrases, "13th-most-populous country" and "eighth-most-populous Asian country"?CorinneSD (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No, but I tend to like them there for readability. Rothorpe (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

O.K.CorinneSD (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Holocene

I was looking at the article on Holocene, following a link from Vietnam, and I noticed a comma where there should be either a semi-colon or a dash in the text at the bottom half of the colorful table located to the right of the lead of the article. I could not find the text in edit mode in order to make the correction. Can you find it? You can go ahead and make the correction or let me know how to find it. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The text belongs to the box, not the article: in the article it appears as {{quaternary}}. But I don't know how to find that to edit it. I'll answer your next question and then have another look. Rothorpe (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I looked for Template:Quaternary. Rothorpe (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Maritime Southeast Asia

I got to Maritime Southeast Asia from Vietnam (since I didn't know what it meant, exactly). I noticed in the second sentence of the article,

Maritime Southeast Asia is sometimes also referred to as "Island Southeast Asia" or Insular Southeast Asia.

that, at the end of the sentence, one phrase is in quotes and the other phrase is italicized. Do you see any reason for that, or should they be consistent? If consistent, which do you prefer -- quotes or italics?CorinneSD (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And then later we have another such phrase in single quotes. I like the double quotes best myself. Rothorpe (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed the italicized one to double quotes, and several single quote phrases to double quotes. I saw the title of an article or book, perhaps mistakenly capitalized "states" in that title, then later saw the same title but with the word "The" within the quotes. I added one missing space. I think there are problems with that reference -- spacing and punctuation. Do you want to take a look at it? Should "states" (in the first mention of that title) be lower-case? Can you tell whether it is a book or an article? I think it's a book because it says "Edited" (capitalized, too) by..." I usually put book titles in italics, not quotes, but in a reference, I don't know.CorinneSD (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I've made a few small changes, including in the reference. Rothorpe (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Stevia

The second paragraph in the section "History and use" in the article on Stevia is as follows:

The plant was used extensively by the Guarani people for more than 1,500 years, and the plant has a long history of medicinal use in Paraguay and Brazil. The leaves have been traditionally used for hundreds of years in Paraguay and Brazil to sweeten local teas, medicines and as a "sweet treat".

I feel there is some redundancy in the first and second sentences, but at the moment I cannot figure out a way to consolidate the information without losing any new information. Do you want to have a go at it?CorinneSD (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, tricky. See what you think. Rothorpe (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I read the first few lines of the article on the Guaraní people, and learned that their traditional homeland included what is today Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay. The way it is worded now, and even the way it was worded before you changed it, it sounds like:

• the Guaraní only used the leaf in medicine, not in food or as a sweet treat, until the last few hundred years, and
• stevia has only been used in the last few hundred years in Brazil and Paraguay to sweeten teas and medicines, and as a "sweet treat".

I think neither of these can be correct. The second one is clearly not correct regarding sweetening medicine, based on what the first sentence says. (Also, I noticed that the two sentences came from the same page range in the same source, so it is not a case of two different pieces of research by two different writers.) I think it is safe to delete "for hundreds of years". Then the question is whether it is safe to delete "in Brazil and Paraguay". If we delete "in Brazil and Paraguay", then we also delete "in both countries". I just cannot imagine that the Guaraní in areas that are now Argentina and Uruguay did not also use stevia, and that they did not enjoy stevia for non-medicinal purposes until only a few hundred years ago.CorinneSD (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, I too found it garbled and unconvincing. I support your deletion of them. Rothorpe (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your "thanks" for my edit. I decided not to delete "Brazil and Paraguay" because I figured that the author of the source in the reference was probably a researcher who limited his or her research to those countries. I'm wondering whether I should raise my two points (what I said after "I just cannot imagine", above) on the Talk page of the article.CorinneSD (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is just the kind of case - consulting me is useless! Rothorpe (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Greenland

I just saw an edit to Greenland in which an editor changed "monetary policy" to "fiscal policy" with an edit summary saying "this was confused in the earlier version". I could not find "the earlier version", but just based on my knowledge of what is colloquial in English, to me, "monetary policy" is a much more common phrase than "fiscal policy". I've heard "fiscal management", "fiscal year", "fiscal conservatism", but not so much "fiscal policy". I don't know enough about the topic to be 100% sure this is an error. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think they are synonyms, yes. Thatcher's policy was called monetarism, not fiscalism. Rothorpe (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I must be missing your main point. The first half of your comment suggests that the edit should be left as is; the second half suggests that "monetary policy" is better, so the edit should be reverted. Which do you suggest?CorinneSD (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think they are synonyms, so the editor was creating a false distinction (not that I am au fait with the subject, but that's always been my understanding). Thatcher's policy was called monetarism, not fiscalism, so I agree that 'monetary' would be a more natural choice. Rothorpe (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Language isolate

What do you think of my edit to Language isolate?CorinneSD (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely right, with a good edit summary. Rothorpe (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

In a recent edit to Sri Lanka, an editor added a link to a phrase, "island country". I thought I had read somewhere in WP Manual of Style that it was not good to overload an article with links. Do you think this link is a good edit or is adding an unnecessary link?CorinneSD (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, does a perusal of the island country article add to our understanding of Sri Lanka? Indeed not. Classic overlink. Rothorpe (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Bamboo

I just started reading the article on Bamboo. In the first paragraph in the section "Genus and geography", I was struck by the word "anywhere". It wasn't clear to me to what, exactly, "anywhere" referred. Does it refer only to South American or to anywhere in the world? Is it clear to you? What do you suggest?CorinneSD (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It means anywhere in the world, and was presumably included as a contrast to the preceding Americas. I suggest removing it. Rothorpe (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Bamboo 2

"Bamboo 2" -- rhymes! In the second-to-last paragraph in the section "Mass flowering" in the article on Bamboo, the second half of the paragraph is as follows:

"As the number of rodents increase, they consume all available food, including grain fields and stored food, sometimes leading to famine. These rats can also carry dangerous diseases, such as typhus, typhoid, and bubonic plague, which can reach epidemic proportions as the rodents increase in number. The relationship between rat populations and bamboo flowering was examined in a 2009 Nova documentary Rat Attack."

I have two questions:

1) In the first sentence, right at the beginning, shouldn't the verb be "increases"? Isn't "number" singular? Or is this one of those British English plural nouns like "orchestra" and "jury"?

Ah, those pesky British nouns! But 'number' is not among their number, so singular it is. It's the plural 'rodents' causing the problem, of course.

2) In the last sentence, both "Nova" and "Rat Attack" have links, but I think "Nova", a regular television program, should be in italics and "Rat Attack", one specific program, should be in double quotes, but I thought I'd check with you first.CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure. I have a feeling one-offs are like series, with italics. Do you want to check or shall I? Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you check? I find it kind of difficult to find things in MOS. Do you mean "one-offs" or "one-ofs"?CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll check. In British English it's a one-off, a stand-alone. Rothorpe (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I really think this might be another difference between American and British English. I have never seen or heard "a one-off" before. I have heard "a one of" many times. To me, "a one of" makes much more sense. It means one of something, one unique instance of something.CorinneSD (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, well, that's entirely new to me. Rothorpe (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed, see One-off, which has a link to a New York Times article that may surprise you. Rothorpe (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Rat Attack is a documentary, so italics. See MOS:ITALICS. Rothorpe (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Fiji 3

I saw an edit to Fiji. I kind of agreed with the point made about 40% not being "most", and the re-written sentence seemed an improvement. I decided to improve it further and re-arranged some words. I also dated the two "citation needed" tags that the editor placed. However, upon thinking a bit further, I thought, this far into the article, wouldn't there already be a reference with basic facts about the country such as population numbers? I looked for one. In "Population" I saw a link to a whole article on "Demographics in Fiji". I saw that the information about population was from "Fiji Statistics Department". I had seen that, and other possible sources, in the list of references at the bottom of the Fiji article. Does every last fact in an article have to have a reference, or is it enough that the source is given somewhere in the article? Was the editor right to add "citation needed" twice in that paragraph on religion? Just trying to learn... – CorinneSD (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

As you know, citations are not my speciality, but I think you're right: one source per article should suffice. So that editor was mistaken to add tags, and you can remove them, if the information is already there. I think. Rothorpe (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Although at the beginning of the section on "Demographics" there is a link to an entire article on "Demographics of Fiji", and there are many references at the bottom of the article, I could find no reference in the section on "Religion" that specifically referred to something like the Fiji Statistics Department or the country's census. I have decided to leave the tags and let someone who knows how to put in references do that. Thank you for your reply, anyway. CorinneSD (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Zante currant

Help! I've been reading the article on Zante currant and have made a few edits. About halfway through the article I came upon 'Black Currant' and 'Red Currant' and 'White Currant'. Since the article seemed to be written primarily in American English, I decided to change the single quotation marks to double quotation marks. (Single quotation marks are rarely used in American English; they are used only when enclosing a quote (or a quoted word or two) within another quote.) I finished one section ("Cultivation") and then started the next ("Culinary uses"), where I saw more of these phrases. I also noticed phrases in double quotes in the same section. I stopped changing them. I started wondering whether putting something like this in single quotes was something special to botanical terms. (I also wondered whether the quotes were necessary at all, after the first mention earlier in the article.) If you think the quotes should stay (and then I'd have to replace the ones I changed), is there a way to find out whether the single quotes are correct for these particular phrases?CorinneSD (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I know that a genus has capital letters without quotes. So my first thought is to back your suggestion of removing the quotes wherever possible. Rothorpe (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Gooseberry

In the last paragraph in the section "Distribution" in the article on Gooseberry, I found the following sentence:

"Towards the end of the 18th century the gooseberry became a favourite object of cottage-horticulture, especially in Lancashire, where the working cotton-spinners have raised numerous varieties."

Shouldn't the verb in the final clause be "raised" rather than "have raised"? Maybe there are still "working cotton-spinners" in Lancashire today, but I think the sentence is about the end of the 18th century. I thought this was an easy call, but I thought I'd check with you just in case you think there are still cotton spinners who raise gooseberries in Lancashire today.CorinneSD (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the more often you read it, the less odd it sounds. But I don't think they're still at it, so yes it should be changed. Rothorpe (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

En dash vs. hyphen

I can understand using the en-dash to indicate a range of numbers, like 5–7 miles, but I don't understand the use of the en dash for years, as in "1557-58". I've always seen, and used, a hyphen here, and I see editors changing the hyphen to an en-dash, as in Woolpit. To me, "1557–58" looks silly. Is that standard WP style? Why??CorinneSD (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was standard WP style, and have changed a few hyphens to dashes in just such expressions, though I don't bother now; so I'm surprised to hear your view. Rothorpe (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

When I said, "I've always seen, and used, a hyphen," I didn't mean I'd seen the hyphen in WP articles; I meant I've always seen the hyphen for dates (and things like 5-7 miles), but perhaps that is because I grew up with only a hyphen (or two hyphens in a row) on the typewriter. I've only recently figured out how to insert an en (or em) dash with the computer. I still think the hyphen makes sense for years, but I'll go along with WP style.CorinneSD (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Bangladesh

I just noticed some edits to Bangladesh that I want to ask you about. The editor apparently updated both years and dollar figures, but the dollar figures have a period after the first three digits (100.000 instead of 100,000). I thought the comma was standard on WP, or is it because they are in a reference?CorinneSD (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Also in Burma, where I see both a comma and a period in the same number.CorinneSD (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought the comma was standard in English, the dot being used in many other languages. Rothorpe (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Merton

I don't know if you are watching the article on Thomas Merton, but an editor made several edits which I wonder about. He or she changed "Merton" to "Thomas Merton", but I thought that after the first mention of the full name, the last name can be used. He or she even added "Thomas" to "Merton" once after "Merton" was used in the same paragraph.

Quite so & it's been reverted. Rothorpe (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, he or she changed "an 18th Century English Literature class" to "an 18th-century English Literature class". Normally, when 18th century is used as an adjective, it takes the hyphen, but in this case it is the name of a literature class about the 18th century, so I don't think it needs the hyphen and "century" should be capitalized, right? I just wanted to check with you on that.CorinneSD (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. Rothorpe (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Isles of Scilly

I just started reading the article on Isles of Scilly. The first sentence in the second paragraph is as follows:

"Since 1890 the islands have had a local authority separate from Cornwall's, but some services were combined with Cornwall's, and the islands are still part of the ceremonial county of Cornwall; the authority has otherwise had the status of a county council since the passing of the Isles of Scilly Order 1930."

Don't you think this sentence is not only long but a bit inelegant? Do you have any ideas for improvement?

The last sentence of the second paragraph is as follows:

"Natural England have designated the Isles of Scilly as National Character Area 158."

The verb "have" seems to be to be incorrect, but I thought I'd check with you to see if by some strange chance "Natural England" is considered plural. I see in the article that it is a government "body", but still.... – CorinneSD (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You could certainly replace the semicolon with a full stop, yes. Natural England sounds a bit strange as I had never heard of it, but the plural is indeed natural British; having said that, I wonder if anyone would object if you were to change it. The link is blue... - Just a touch of plural towards the end. Rothorpe (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Priscillian

I've been reading the article on Priscillian. I want to ask your opinion on something. In the fourth paragraph in the section "Continued Priscillianism", it says, "Priscillian casts a long shadow in...." I think "casts" should be "cast". He lived in the 300s AD, and the article tells the story of his life and then how many people in Portugal, northern Spain, and perhaps also southern France followed his ideas for several hundred years after his death. The second half of the sentence in which "Priscillian casts a long shadow" appears has verbs in present perfect tense, but I still think most of this section is about what happened from about 380 to about 580, or perhaps through the Inquisition, not right up to today (so I wonder about the use of present perfect), but even if those verbs stand, I think "cast" is more accurate than "casts". Using "casts" suggests that he is somehow still alive, still present, today. I thought I'd ask you for your opinion. (I can be persuaded that "casts" is all right, but I'd like to know the reasoning.)CorinneSD (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it gives the impression that Hispania and Gaul still exist. Though maybe one could say that they still do and this is a historian's device. I rather like the sentence as it stands. But your objections are sound; perhaps go to the talk page. Rothorpe (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Scilly Isles

I clicked on a link to Haakon Jarl in Scilly Isles because I saw Jarl Haakon in the same paragraph. Then I read that article. Near the beginning of the article I saw "linage". I thought it was clearly a typo, so I changed it to "lineage". Just to be sure, I checked on Wiktionary and saw that "linage" was an alternate spelling! I was so surprised. I had never seen that alternate spelling, and I've always heard "lineage" pronounced LIN ee əj, so how could there be an alternate spelling "linage"? Shall I leave it "lineage" or put it back?CorinneSD (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Good grief. Lineage. Maybe there's a prankster at Wiktionary... Rothorpe (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Parsi

If you have time, could you look at the last edit to Parsi? The editor added "Persian language" to a link that just said "Persian", but there is already a link to "Persian language" earlier in the same sentence. Should there be two links to "Persian language"? If not, which one should be kept? If you think anything should be changed or deleted, go ahead and make the edit.CorinneSD (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite so, done. Rothorpe (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Bangladesh

In the last edit to Bangladesh, the editor changed "women empowerment" to "women's empowerment" and "reducing population growth" to "population growth reduction".

Regarding the first one, I think it's all right, but I would prefer "the empowerment of women". What do you think?

Regarding the second one, I think that phrase, "population growth reduction", is not colloquial English. I had earlier worked on this sentence. I don't know how I missed "women empowerment". I also don't remember how it was worded originally and what exactly I changed, but I know I was trying for parallel structure in all the phrases. I know having a gerund in the list breaks the parallel structure a bit, but I don't think "population growth reduction" is an improvement. If "reducing population growth" is not all right, I think "the reduction of population growth" is better than "population growth reduction". Which do you prefer, "reducing population growth" or "the reduction of population growth", or something else?CorinneSD (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've edited it along those lines, but you might wish to add some finishing touches. And if you feel like driving yourself crazy, I suggest having a go at the sports section! Rothorpe (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Off to England for a few days. I don't expect to be online. Rothorpe (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Merton

When you get back on-line....

In the second paragraph in the section "France 1926" in this article on Thomas Merton, it reads:

"Murat disambiguation needed (a small town in the Auvergne)....".

I wonder why disambiguation is needed when there is a parenthetical phrase identifying Murat.CorinneSD (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's because when you click on the Murat link, you get a disambiguation page instead of the intended Murat. What is required is research into which of those Murats is the one in the Auvergne, then a direct link supplied in its place - that's disambiguation. Rothorpe (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh. O.K. Thanks.CorinneSD (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Merton 2

In the second paragraph in the section "France 1926", we read:

"A Protestant preacher would come to teach on Sunday at the Lycée for those who did not attend Mass...."

"The Lycée" refers to the Lycée Ingres, mentioned just before this.

However, in the first paragraph in the next section, "England 1928", "lycée", referring to the same school, appears, uncapitalized. I don't know whether they should both be capitalized or both be lower-case.CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's just a matter of editorial preference. I'm against unnecessary capitals myself. Rothorpe (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Pánfilo de Narváez

I just engaged in my first "edit war" (back-and-forth twice), in the article on Pánfilo de Narváez. I give up. I now turn to you to ask you to review the changes and edit summaries, and to referee.CorinneSD (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I see you have an ally there, so for the moment I'm just watching. Rothorpe (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether I should move the entire exchange to the article's Talk page, as Coretheapple suggested. I'm worried that people will find me too harsh in my reply to Maunus regarding his/her writing. I was a bit annoyed at that moment. CorinneSD (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving it to the article talk page would make it more public. Rothorpe (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Burma

In a recent edit to Burma which is largely an improvement, I saw the verb "institutionalize" used reflexively (it wasn't part of the actual edit; it was there already). Does that make sense to you? The government institutionalizing itself into politics.CorinneSD (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it means making itself into an institution, an inevitability. Rothorpe (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Marsh

I just started reading the article on Marshes. In the first sentence in the section "Types of marshes", is the word "different" necessary? Also, should the word "marsh" be singular: (a number of types of marsh)? Or should I just leave it? – CorinneSD (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Look at the second sentence in the section "Riverine wetlands" (just before the larger section "Restoration"). - CorinneSD (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, I've done some trimming there. Rothorpe (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Merton

What do you think of the latest edit to Thomas Merton changing "made friends with" to "made friendships with"? To me, "made friendships with a circle of ...." doesn't sound right.CorinneSD (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a non-native speaker has changed it. Rothorpe (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Dill

If you have time, could you look at the last two edits to the article on Dill? The last one seems to be by an automated editor, but the one right before it deleted part of the article with a strange edit summary saying "Give it up, Wikicentral". But I can't see any good reason for that deletion.CorinneSD (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither can I. But the edit summary suggests a prior conversation somewhere. Rothorpe (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam

Could you also look at the last group of edits to the article on Vietnam? Seems to be a bit too many links.CorinneSD (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:Overlink can be brandished. Rothorpe (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Bolivia

Would you hyphenate "agreed upon" in the first paragraph in the section "Democratic transition" in the article on Bolivia? (I'm sorry, but I've forgotten how to create a link to a section in an article.)CorinneSD (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Use the # sign: Bolivia#Democratic transition. Rothorpe (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)