User talk:Corinne/Archive 1

In the article about British Prime Minister Lloyd George, under the heading Welsh Church Act 1914, I added commas before and after ie.and after secularized.However, I have a few questions. 1) Why is ie. highlighted blue and therefore part of a hyperlink? Shouldn't just the words just before and after i.e. be highlighted blue for a hyperlink? I can't imagine the two words together leading to another article. 2) As an abbreviation from Latin, shouldn't ie. be in italics? 3) I do not know if my addition of commas before and after ie. messed with the hyperlink. Is it all right to add commas when the text is all highlighted blue for a hyperlink? 4) My addition of commas just improved the style in that part of the sentence, but it did not fix the rest of the sentence which makes no sense. I do not know how the word though fits into that sentence, and I do not know how to fix the sentence so that it would make sense. Can someone figure out what the original author intended?--CorinneSD (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've put in some brackets (parentheses). Rothorpe (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought that, in general, commas and periods go inside the second half of a pair of quotation marks, or "close quotes," in a quotation set off by quotation marks. In many entries, I see the commas and periods outside of the "close quotes." Could someone advise me on this?CorinneSD (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's American practice (yours). I prefer logical quotes. Rothorpe (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

In the article on Paracelsus, in the section headed "Contributions to Medicine," in the 3rd paragraph, shouldn't "alchemical" be just "chemical"? He may have explored alchemy, but to me, this sentence is about chemical combinations, not alchemical combinations. But I didn't change it since I wasn't sure.CorinneSD (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You could try changing it. Be bold!

Welcome to Wikipedia. Rothorpe (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you, Rothorpe (hope I got the spelling right; I'm going by memory), for replying to my queries. I have another question: I had two internet windows open at the same time, and I was logged in on one but I didn't realize I was not logged in on the other, and I made a small correction and clicked Save Page. Then I realized I wasn't logged in. Does that mean my name and e-mail address are going to be visible to everyone? Can this be fixed? I've made quite a few minor edits in different articles. This is the first time I made this mistake. I think it was in an article about Father Emile Licent.CorinneSD (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No, when you're not logged in, it just displays a number, no need to worry. When you are logged in, it shows your name, CorinneSD. By the way, don't forget to click on the blue links I made for you to find out all about Wikipedia... Rothorpe (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for allaying my concern and for your quick reply. Thanks also for the links. I looked at them. It all seems very complicated. I am not planning on submitting any articles, so I guess I don't need to learn all of those ways of showing quotes, italics, etc. (unless I feel I need to correct something, then I'll look at that). I have three questions:

1) Why did it take so long for someone to respond to the questions I posted months ago? (Of course I am not criticizing you. I just wondered.)

Probably because you started your talk page yourself. That's not a criticism of you. I saw your name in red (= empty user page) and a blue "talk" next to it (= talk page with content) and clicked out of curiosity.

2) How do I respond, if I want to, to someone like you who replies to my questions? Do I just click on New Section as I just did, or is there something else I should do?

Normally just click "edit". "New section" means you can type a header, as you did above ("Response...").

3) Occasionally I have come across some statement or word that I think is wrong, but since it is content, I hesitate to correct it; I usually just leave it as it is. Should I post a question in Talk to see if someone knows whether it is correct or not, and, if not correct, what to change it to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorinneSD (talk • contribs) 23:28, 31 March (UTC)

Corinne, if you see what you think is a factual error in an article, you should probably fix it so long as you have a reference. Articles on contentious topics may be an exception. See WP:BOLD. Asking on Talk first is always the safe option. To respond to someone else's comment on a talk page, just indent your response under the original (the colon will create an indent). Questions that you leave on an article talk page may remain there for some time if the article is viewed infrequently. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to add to that. If you have any more questions, click on "talk" next to my name, then on "new section". Don't worry, you don't have to learn everything all at once. Happy editing! Rothorpe (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been editing this article for punctuation, syntax, and word usage, but I came across a sentence that I think is illogical, and I don't know how to fix it. It is in the second (and largest) paragraph in the section Painters and acrylics. In what I think is the 9th sentence, it tells how some people use acrylics in "train, car, house, and human models." Then in the very next sentence, it says that, in working on such models (referring to the models mentioned in the previous sentence and which I just quoted), painters use acrylics to draw facial features on dolls. The thing I find illogical is that dolls were not mentioned in the previous sentence, even though this sentence starts by referring to that list of models. And even "human models" are not necessarily dolls. Perhaps someone can fix this sentence.CorinneSD (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember why I'm watching your personal talk page, but why bring up this topic here? Won't more editors with an interest in the article be watching the article's WP:TALK page? Jim.henderson (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jim. I'm fairly new to Wikepedia editing. I've been editing articles for about a year but have not added many comments or questions. I didn't realize until yesterday that there was a Talk option connected with each article. I think, right after I posted this comment about Acrylic paint here, I realized I should have put it in the Talk section connected with the article, so I did that. Thank you for your suggestion. I don't even know why anyone would read my personal talk page, or who would read it. I have a question. I don't know if you can answer it. What is the "Insert" menu just below this? If I want to put, say, a long dash in what I am typing, do I just click on it? Do I have to select an item from the menu below "Insert"? Do I use these when I am editing an article, or just here? If you don't want to take the time to explain, perhaps you could direct me to the right place for me to learn. Thank-you.CorinneSD (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Using my tablet computer, so this may be rough. Now I remember watching your page after seeing you in Teahouse. I've been editing for years without knowing about that "insert" menu. Yeah, we often forget how difficult it was to start, years ago. Experimentation is especially cheap on your own talk page; you can WP:revert your mistakes without bothering anyone. Oh, being slowed by a recent injury has slowed even more my responses to anything. Details in my talk pages, especially the Commons one. Commons:User talk:Jim.henderson Jim.henderson (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I spent some time skimming your talk page, including the part where you fell and hurt yourself while bicycling. I'm so sorry about that but am glad you are mending and feeling better. I also looked at Wikemedia Commons and read about the featured photographers. I never knew about the freely available pictures, video, etc.! I also re-read the tutorial on how to edit in Wikepedia. I just have two questions: 1) What is Teahouse? I didn't see it mentioned in the tutorial. 2) If I want to reply to someone's message on my User Page, is it better to reply right there, or is it better to post my reply on the talk page of that person? CorinneSD (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, more on your personal page? Yes, it has some advantages over open forums which invite the collective help of many rather than a few. Weeks ago you asked a question in Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions which is so busy that it has gone into archive but iy gave you a few Wikipedia:Talk page stalkers. Yes, in rcent years I've spent less time with articles in the front lines of Wikipedia anf more with pictures in the Commons back office. The majority opinion about a talk page discussion is to keep it in one place unless it starts in the wrong place in which case all discussants should go to the right place, leaving notices to help any stalkers. The minority view is to respond in the correspondent's page, on grounds that this gets speedier attention which is more important than easy following the thread of thought. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed that the Latin abbreviations ie. and e.g. are often not in italics. I searched the full Wiki mark-up page for information on the established Wikepedia style but did not find anything specifically on this. I don't even know where to leave a question about this. I thought that usually these abbreviations are to be italicized. Before I change any of these that I come across to italics, I thought I should ask if there is a Wikipedia style that I should follow.CorinneSD (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed this. No, don't italicise common abbreviations, e.g., i.e. OK? Rothorpe (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Thank-you! By the way, the British spellings of words like italicise (with s instead of z) look so strange to me. But I suppose the American spelling looks strange to you.CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm used to it by now. But when I type, the 's' version always materialises! Rothorpe (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have come across the title of Time Magazine as TIME (italicized all caps) several times, and I am puzzled as to why it is written in all caps. I know that on the magazine cover it is written in all caps, but I thought in a reference it could be written with just the first letter capitalized. I have never seen elsewhere a magazine title written in all caps, even though on the actual magazine cover it might appear in all caps. I thought it should be italicized, but not in all caps, just Time. I wonder if someone could clarify this style in Wikepedia for me.CorinneSD (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not have a look at the article Time (magazine)? Rothorpe (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for the suggestion. I just read it. It first says Time, then ″often written in all caps [or something like that] - TIME. But then, throughout the article, it was written Time. I had never seen it written in all caps. I guess it is an alternative form. I can't say that I like it.CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, it's a trick that advertisers use, and that Wikipedia shouldn't. Rothorpe (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly! So, should I change it to Time when I see it, or not? By the way, I just read what you wrote on your talk page for the first time. All very interesting. I feel the same compulsion to correct errors, even the smallest ones. I have a question about en and em dashes. I believe that an em dash is the longer one and the en dash is the shorter one (corresponding to the size of an "m" and an "n"), but I don't even know how to make them other than double hyphens. Just below this window I see a set of 16 or 17 editing marks one can insert, and I think the second one is the em dash, but is the first one an en dash? How does one normally insert an em or en dash? Is the one on my keyboard an em or an en? Finally, I often see the longer one in Wikepedia articles, but I think it looks terrible. I think the en dash looks better. Also, on my talk page I posted a question about the proper form of The New York Times; did you see it? I'd appreciate your thoughts on that.CorinneSD (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, change it. Don't forget WP:Be bold! Everyone does what they do, no point waiting around for others. Yes, the em dash is the longer one. It's a matter of taste. The trouble with em dashes is they they should not be spaced, but it's impossible to enforce that, so there are lots of horrible spaced em dashes everywhere, which should be changed immediately by someone young and energetic (you? – not me). En dashes should be spaced. You insert all those things by clicking on the blue thing below the window, just as on a key. I have neither dash on my Portuguese keyboard, and people in my position often do en dashes with two hyphens -- like that, which is not perfect but not too bad (ah, you mentioned it). I'm too lazy to change it, unless I'm already editing the sentence. Anyway, I like em dashes best—unspaced. Now to answer your other query... Rothorpe (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you.CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have come across the name of The New York Times in references as the New York Times, and sometimes just New York Times is given a hyperlink but not the preceding the. I thought the word The was part of the name of the newspaper and, if so, shouldn't it be in italics as well as the rest of the name? And included in the hyperlink? Could someone clarify this for me so that I know whether or not to correct it when I see it? Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The place to get answers to these questions is WP:MOS, the Manual of Style. I don't know whether it recommends either style for the NYT. Certainly newspapers with one-word names should include the The (if there is one) linked and italicised, in my opinion. Rothorpe (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at the Manual of Style. What do you mean by "linked"? When you say "linked", are you referring to when the name of the newspaper is hyperlinked? But shouldn't the italicization (italicisation) of the name of a publication be the same whether or not it is hyperlinked?CorinneSD (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I just skimmed the Manual of Style, and found a link to Wikepedia Manual of Style/Titles. Under the section for italics, the first example was The New York Times. I was right.CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 'linked' is my shorthand for 'hyperlinked' or 'wikilinked'. To your other question, yes. And NYT, yes, no surprise there. Rothorpe (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

After having done some minor editing, I have been following this page. I just looked at it and I have a question. I see a bulleted list early in the article and then a numbered list later in the article. I am just curious as to why the bulleted list is indented only a little bit from the left-hand margin while the numbered list is indented farther in. Shouldn't they both be indented the same distance from the left-hand margin? I looked on the editing page and did not see any marks that would produce an indent. Are numbered lists automatically indented farther than bulleted lists? Is that Wikepedia style? If it is not, is it all right to add an indent to the bulleted list to match the indentation of the numbered list? I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who is knowledgeable about this question of style.CorinneSD (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You could indent it, yes. Or you could bullet the second list, as the word 'three' is already there. Or perhaps the contrast is intended? Rothorpe (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and indented the bulleted list a little; I also added the word "and" after the first item in that list (I feel it makes the sentence flow more smoothly). If you have time, I wonder if you would look at the article again, fourth paragraph (the one starting "The latter"), fourth sentence. I noticed that the three items in this sentence begin with "A," "the," and "the". I thought that was a bit inconsistent. However, I don't know enough about the subject matter to know whether it would be correct to say, for the first item, "The first part." That might not be correct. On the other hand, for consistency, I could change the initial phrase for the second and third items to the indefinite, "a second part" and "a third part". What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but it looks fine now. Rothorpe (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There is something on my watch list, why it is there I do not know, but I don't know how to remove it from my watch list. Could someone tell me how? Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Click on the blue star at the top of the article so that it turns white. Rothorpe (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you. Sorry for the delay in thanking you. I had not looked at Wikepedia in a few days.CorinneSD (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I just read the article on Robin Maugham, 2nd Viscount Maugham, and I saw that there was no mention of his education, his military service and honors, and of the place where he lived in the 1960s, all of which information I read on the book jacket of a novel of his published by McGraw-Hill Book Company. I have never added content to any article on Wikepedia, but I wonder if I should add this information. The only source is that book jacket, and I do not know if that is considered a reliable source. Could someone advise? Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a reliable source to me. Go on, be bold! Rothorpe (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for your reply and encouragement. In giving the source of the information, do I actually say "information on book jacket", etc.?CorinneSD (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds about right! Rothorpe (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you again.CorinneSD (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again, but I have two questions: 1) I thought my Sandbox was like a worksheet for preparing an article or portion of an article for later creation (of a new article) or addition to an existing article. If that is correct, then why is there a message telling me that the material I typed contains references but there is no reference list? If the article to which I intend to add the material already contains a reference list, why do I need to bother about a reference list in the Sandbox? 2) Can I copy the material that I see on the book jacket directly without being accused of violating copyright law or of plagiarism? Or do I need to paraphrase or re-word the material? Any advice is very much appreciated since I am new at this.CorinneSD (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the sandbox, please? It's not at User:CorinneSD/Sandbox. Rothorpe (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't save what I had typed in my Sandbox. I was afraid to save it because of that bright red warning about having no reference list.CorinneSD (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I confess I'm not the best person to consult about either of your problems, because I hardly ever use sandboxes or insert references. But the red warning (which obviously can't tell that it's in a sandbox) is an automatic prompt that is useful in a real article. Don't worry about it, have another go and if one appears, just ignore it. Rothorpe (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Thank-you again.CorinneSD (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:Talk page stalker butting in; the software is able to detect some kinds of formatting errors, as vaguely hinted in Wikipedia:Citing sources. I normally repair these problems with Template:Reflist but there are many other ways. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for using the edit summary in such a clear and accountable way! Feel free to summarise what you are doing more concisely, e.g. "punctuation", "grammar", "re-wording for clarity" or "minor copy edit" if you would be happy with that. Best regards, – Fayenatic London 13:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your praise; I appreciate it. That's what I thought I was supposed to do. You are the first person to tell me I don't have to do that and that I can summarise the changes I have made. I was surprised to see your comment (above) this evening. I hadn't seen it before today.CorinneSD (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I was reading and editing the article on Yogi, then clicked on a link to another article on Shiva Samhita and started reading and editing that article, too. I got to the section headed "Translations" and saw a link in red. When I placed the mouse over it, I saw a small message that says, "Page does not exist". Is this something that needs to be fixed, or is it a suggestion for a future article? Is this what one calls "a dead link"? Should I just leave it alone, or do you recommend fixing it? If so, how would one go about doing that? Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi CorinneSD! Such links are often there to urge people to begin an article on the subject. I've written a few articles from red links, and it's pretty cool to watch a red link turn to blue. Sometimes, though, these links are from deleted articles. You find that out just by clicking on them. Deleted articles usually have wide pink boxes that give the deletion details. If you see one like that, just go back to the edit screen, find the link that looks like this... [[(article title)]], and remove the brackets ([[]]). That delinks the title, and your edit summary might go something like "delink article title that has been deleted". Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for your informative reply!CorinneSD (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 08:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we had an edit conflict, but anyhow, this is how you do numbered lists. For unordered lists, make *'s rather than #'s. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you, Martijn. No, we did not have an edit conflict. I deleted my request for help, but I still wanted to know how to make lists, so thank-you for replying. The list you formatted in the article now looks very nice, and I think it is easier to read than the way it was before. What do you mean by "unordered lists"? Do you mean lists where it is not as important what the order of the items is? Just for future reference, can you tell me how to make a bulleted list?CorinneSD (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Ordered lists are for items that have a specific ordering (1, 2, 3, 4 or a, b, c, d for example). Unordered lists are for lists of things that have no specific order. For example: examples of fruit are: * Bananas * Apples * Pears. Both types can be used and nested. I'll demonstrate below:

Unordered

• Apple
• Banana
• Pear
• Pineapple

Ordered: Steps to make a cocktail:

1. take a glass
2. pour different kinds of liquor in it
3. add ice
4. stere
5. serve

Nested: To make a planters punch you

1. Take a highball glass
2. Pour in one glass of citrus juice. You could use
   • Lime
   • Lemon
3. Pour in double the amount of sugar syrup
4. Add dark rum. If you don't have dark rum, substitute with, in order
   1. 2/3 light rum
   2. 1/6 molasses
   3. 1/6 vodka
5. fill the glass off with water
6. add some grenadine for a nice color

The complete help page is found at Help:List. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your clear and interesting reply. I am not planning on writing any new articles, but this may be helpful when I come across some information that would lend itself to being formatted as a list. Thank you again. (Now I feel like assembling the ingredients for planters punch.)CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:CHEAT is a "cheatsheet" i.e. handy revision list of wiki formatting codes. Hope this helps! – Fayenatic London 00:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you! It's a great list.CorinneSD (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

In case you do, don't go for lime juice but stick with lemon, and if you do want to replace the dark rum, just go for light, possibly with the addition of the smallest amount of invert sugar. The replacements do demonstrate lists to some point, but horribly butchers a planters punch. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

O.K.! Thank you!CorinneSD (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just curious about something. When I saved my comment, it indicated a time (21:32) and a date (10 August 2013). 21:32 means 9:32 p.m., right? But right now it is 5:36 (was 5:32) p.m. Why is the time coming out 9:32 p.m. when the comment was posted at 5:32 p.m.?CorinneSD (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The timestamps are in UTC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for your reply. I clicked on "UTC" and read the article. I had never heard of UTC before and was fascinated by what I read.CorinneSD (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Could someone read my comment in the Talk section of this article regarding a sentence in the 4th paragraph of the section "Literary and social career"? I would appreciate knowing if this kind of sentence is acceptable in a Wikepedia article or should be changed or deleted.CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you are correct, that appears to just be someone's opinion. Feel free to remove that sentence. Howicus (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for your reply. I will do so.CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your related inquiry, reply at my Talk. Rothorpe (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I need your opinion on something. I just saw that someone undid a small editing change I had made in a sentence in the article "Language isolate" (which has to do with linguistics). The change I made had nothing to do with content. It was just sentence structure -- actually, it was correcting an error -- and made to improve clarity.

I changed a semi-colon to a comma -- I felt there was no need for a semi-colon -- and, I felt the impersonal pronoun "one" was a bit unclear since it was far from its antecedent, so I put in the noun. Finally, with the semi-colon now put back in by the undone edit, there is no subject-verb after "that is,..." so it is ungrammatical now.

What do I do?CorinneSD (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that the edit was undone by User:Kwamikagami. In your case, I probably would go with "a language" instead of "it is a language". Of course, in this case, it's just my opinion. Howicus (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it just didn't read well to me, though it wasn't a big deal either way. Howicus's wording would work. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above suggestion. Without the semicolon, it doesn't need subject-verb afterwards. – Fayenatic London 07:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the ideas, but I feel I must insist on the need for clarification:

• First of all, Kwamikagami put the semi-colon back in, so a subject-verb would be needed it is left there.
• Second, "that is," normally follows a comma, not a semi-colon.
• Third, the antecedent of "one" is ambiguous since there are two singular nouns preceding it ("a language isolate" and "a natural language"). It should be clear -- but it isn't -- that what follows "that is," is an alternate definition for "a language isolate". The way it is now, it could equally well be an alternate definition for "a natural language".

The only way to clear up both ambiguities (1) the antecedent for "one" and 2) for what, exactly, the information following "that is," is an alternate definition) is to insert a noun or noun phrase plus "is" after "that is,". It may be that the length of the sentence with the addition of a noun or noun phrase ("it is a language," or "it is a natural language") plus "is" is the problem. The best solution may be to break this up into two sentences and replace "that is," by an adverb: "Alternatively, a language isolate is..." or "In other words, a language isolate is...." CorinneSD (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's OK as it is; if anything, I'd remove "that is", and have just a comma before "one". Rothorpe (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

O.K. I made the change per Rothorpe's suggestion. Hope it is satisfactory to all.CorinneSD (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is to me. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've left a comment there. --Taivo (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I deleted that whole thread because the anon IP is simply pushing unscientific original research. It's total baloney. If you want to see the comments I wrote again, I moved them to my Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know whether it is necessary, or advisable, to create a User page. Mine was blank. I typed something. Then I deleted it. I didn't know what kind of thing was appropriate to write. I notice that other editors have placed a lot of varied information on their User page, including colorful boxes indicating various levels of skill with languages (which I don't know how to create). Do you have any advice you can give me, or any suggestions on what to write or add? Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

So you're a retired EFL teacher, like me. Yes, you've removed it, but it is there, in the history, forever. Your user name is now permanently blue. So never put anything you might regret sharing with the world. A blank page is perfectly acceptable. You can always click Edit in order to see how others have done things. Rothorpe (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Click Edit where?CorinneSD (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

On any page where you want to investigate how something was typed to get the result you see, click on Edit source (the 'source' bit is new so I forgot it) and there's the evidence. Rothorpe (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you.CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. By the way, I'm off to the Algarve for a fortnight* tomorrow but I expect to be able to get online. Arrivederci. Rothorpe (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC) *There's a BrE item for you.

The last two sentences of the second paragraph of this article explain how the word "aleatoric" came about – apparently as the result of a translating error. I kind of understand how a translator could take the German noun Aleatorik and translate it into an English adjective aleatoric. However, I still wonder how a German noun and the related German adjective could "both mean aleatory". According to the OED, "aleatory" is, along with "aleatoric", an adjective. I'm not saying the information in the article is incorrect. I'm just wondering if someone with a background in linguistics could explain this to me.--CorinneSD (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right, it's a sloppy sentence. Aleatorik is the noun and aleatorisch the adjective. Will you be bold and try to fix it? Rothorpe (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent input on the Dolphin article. I've been working on it on and off for years and your suggestions pointed out some weak areas and got me to look over it again and work on some improvements :) BabyNuke (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I just started editing the article on Ralph Vaughan Williams. (When I edit an article, I just look for errors in syntax, verb tense, word usage, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, and wordiness; I try to be careful not to change meaning.) I thought the last sentence in the first paragraph in this article was a bit wordy. Also (if you look at the edit history), the last sentence or clause started "This activity" but the antecedent was "was a collector of..." which is not an activity. I thought about changing "was a collector of..." to "collected" (to create an activity to which the next sentence's "this activity" could refer), but it didn't sound right; it didn't seem to follow the first sentence ("...was a composer"). I settled for adding "collecting" to the phrase "this activity", yielding "this collecting activity". It still sounds unsatisfactory to me. I thought I would ask your opinion. Also, I deleted "set" before "as hymn tunes". It seemed unnecessary to me, but I'm not sure. I also deleted "beginning in 1904". It made for a long and rambling sentence; I thought that information could, or would, be given elsewhere. Finally, I thought two things were a little odd:

1) It says Vaughan Williams "included many folk song arrangements [set] as hymn tunes" in the hymnal, but it doesn't say whether those folk song arrangements were his; if the arrangements weren't his, is the word "arrangements" really necessary? And if the arrangements were his, did his collecting of folk songs influence only "his editorial approach" to the hymnal?

2) I wonder why these details about the hymnal are in this first paragraph at all. The first paragraph is just introducing or identifying Williams. Besides that, he is mainly known as a composer, isn't he? I think dwelling on the details of the hymnal detracts from that. Your ideas are welcome. (I will probably have questions later as I work through the article.)CorinneSD (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a close look at this, which is an article I have not had much to do with up to this point. However, you should keep in mind that the composer's surname is double-barreled but unhyphenated: "Vaughan Williams", not "Williams".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to look at the article and for pointing out the double surname. Right after I typed this, I went back to the article and realized his surname was Vaughan Williams. I then fixed the use of the surname in 1), above, but missed it in 2). I also saw, later in the article, the details about the hymnal. It says clearly that V W arranged the folk songs. So I think the details about the hymnal could be left out of the first paragraph, but I will wait until you look at it and defer to you and your superb writing skills.CorinneSD (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I just saw the various edits you made to the article (but didn't look at the first paragraph yet). I agree with you on some of them but not others. You and I have a different perspective on the use of the comma. You deleted commas that I had put in and added commas where I had removed them (or would have removed them if I had noticed them). The one use where you added a comma is one I will not quibble about. I know the use of a comma after the second-to-last item in the list (before the final "and") is optional. I tend to use the comma when the items are phrases of about three or more words and leave them out when they are just one or two words long.

However, I have to ask why you deleted the comma in the Line 14 construction:

From that time onwards they spent several 'field days' reading through, and offering constructive criticism on each other's works in progress. (I had added both commas.)

I like to set off the second phrase with a pair of commas when the preposition is different. But, if you delete the second comma, I believe you must delete the first one.CorinneSD (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

First, the use of a comma before the final item in a series is not exactly "optional"—it should be consistent throughout an article. This style is referred to as an "Oxford comma" (because it is recommended in the New Oxford Style Manual—formerly known as Hart's Rules), "Harvard comma", or a "serial comma". The style without the comma is somewhat more common with UK publishers, the serial comma somewhat more common in the US, but both styles are used in both linguistic regions, so it is not a WP:ENGVAR problem. I judged the predominant usage in the RVW article to be the Oxford comma, and changed all the occurrences of the other sort to match. If you have strong feelings about this (and some editors do), then feel free to remove them—I really don't care one way or the other, but this should be consistent, as explained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Serial commas.

In the line 14 construction, as you have presented it here, I see only one comma. I recall deleting one such comma, in order to correct the imbalance, but I might just as well have added a companion to solve the same problem. Was this the case, or did I mistakenly remove just one of a pair of commas? If the latter, then I apologise, and agree that there should also be a comma following "…criticism on".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

In the line 14 construction, I copied and pasted it as you had left it after having deleted (in the first of your edits in Edit History) the second comma of a pair, the one after "...criticism on". I am just saying that in this particular place, there should be either two commas or no commas. I had added the two commas, as I explained above, because of the two different prepositions, but if you prefer no commas, that's fine.

The other edit, which I did not mention above because I had to leave off editing for a while, is as follows:

His music now entered a mature lyrical phase, as in the Five Tudor Portraits; the Serenade to Musi (a setting of a scene from act five of The Merchant of Venice, for orchestra and sixteen vocal soloists, and composed as a tribute to the conductor Henry Joseph Wood|Sir Henry Wood); and the [Symphony No. 5 (Vaughan Williams)|Symphony No. 5 in D, which he conducted at the The Proms|Proms in 1943. (I removed the links for this discussion.)

I had deleted the comma after "soloists" to make the sentence flow more smoothly (and quickly) since it was such a long sentence. (That phrase, "for orchestra and sixteen vocal soloists", sounded out of place, or awkward, to me.) You replaced that comma in your edit. Now that I look at it again, I see that one reason why it didn't sound right to me is that the phrases "for orchestra and sixteen vocal soloists" and "composed as a tribute to the conductor Henry Joseph Wood..." are not parallel. To be parallel, the first phrase should start with a past participle such as "written" or "composed". I also think that this might be a good place to create an adjective clause: "...which was written for orchestra and sixteen vocal soloists". Either way, with or without "which was", if the phrases are parallel, each starting with a past participle, no comma is needed after "soloists". It would just be two participial phrases joined by "and":

"[which was] written for orchestra and sixteen vocal soloists and composed as a tribute to...."

I realize that, often, a phrase such as "for orchestra and..." or "for viola and cello", etc., follows the title of a work with no past participle in between. However, because this sentence is so long and each individual phrase is so long, I think parallel construction would increase the clarity of the sentence.

Upon reading it through once again, I realize that another solution would be to delete the comma after "The Merchant of Venice", and delete "and" before "composed as", yielding:

His music now entered a mature lyrical phase, as in the Five Tudor Portraits; the Serenade to Musi (a setting of a scene from act five of The Merchant of Venice for orchestra and sixteen vocal soloists, composed as a tribute to the conductor Henry Joseph Wood|Sir Henry Wood);...

Perhaps this is the best solution. It has the fewest number of words. Well, perhaps much ado about nothing. I await your choice, since the article is about your field. (Also, don't you think the parenthetical phrase starting with "a setting" and ending "Henry Joseph Wood" is awfully long?)

Regarding the comma before "and" in a list of items, I know what you mean, and I am a strong fan of consistency, but with regard to the comma I feel there should be some leeway. I believe it should be used only when necessary to show when a natural pause would be expected, to aid the reader in following the construction of a long, complicated sentence, or to create a literary rhythm in phrases or clauses. I think a list of long phrases needs the comma before the final "and" and a list of one- or two-word phrases doesn't. However, if this rule about consistency in the use of commas before "and" in lists is a hard-and-fast rule, I will adhere to it. I don't have strong feelings about it. Finally, thank you for your patience in reading all this. I am open-minded and always appreciate learning something new.CorinneSD (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I see that that unbalanced comma was my error, and I apologise. I agree that your final version is the best (because shortest) and, yes, that phrase is over long. The best solution in such cases is usually to rewrite the passage. The problem with asserting "leeway" in the use or non-use of the serial comma is that there are already two opposed factions on this matter. Trying to create a third faction will be an uphill battle, but the ground on which it should be fought (should you care to attempt it) is the Talk page for WP:MOS.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I too omit serial commas except when they are clearly desirable. So if there is to be a third faction, it'll have my support. Rothorpe (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. I'll have to think about whether to start a discussion on commas. Regarding the sentence we have been discussing:

His music now entered a mature lyrical phase, as in the Five Tudor Portraits; the Serenade to Musi (a setting of a scene from act five of The Merchant of Venice for orchestra and sixteen vocal soloists, composed as a tribute to the conductor Henry Joseph Wood|Sir Henry Wood);...

I'd like to remove the parentheses and just put a comma after "Musi". I want to ask whether "a setting of" is important to retain. "A setting of a scene" sounds redundant, vague, or wordy. Also, shouldn't "act five" be capitalized? (or I could say "the fifth act". – CorinneSD (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest changing "Musi" to "Music"? The title of the work is, after all, Serenade to Music ;-) In the context of a list of elements delimited by semicolons, it does seem better to use commas instead of round brackets.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about "Musi" when I first saw it, but, I thought, "Who am I to question the title of a musical work?", and besides, it was based on "The Merchant of Venice". I thought maybe "Musi" was a character in the play. You call parentheses "round brackets"? I had never heard that before. You didn't say what to do about "a setting of a scene" -- leave it as it is? CorinneSD (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

In deference to the subject, and because Rothorpe employed the expression further up on your Talk page, I used the British "round brackets" instead of the American "parentheses" (I think most UK speakers would understand the latter, but your surprise at the former is completely expectable from an American). I agree that the "setting of a scene" bit is excessive in the context. The problem seems to be that someone tried to stuff too much data into what should have been a simple listing of work titles. This either needs to be broken up and expanded, in order gracefully to include all the explanatory material, or ruthlessly pruned here, with an eye toward giving more details about the works in another place.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward ruthlessly pruning. I'll look to see if that information is given later in the article.CorinneSD (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I deleted "the" before each of the three titles and put the details about Serenade to Music in a separate sentence. Then I had to change "it" to "Symphony Number 5" in the next sentence. Hope it's O.K. now. – CorinneSD (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just started editing the article on Erich Fromm. If you have time, could you look at the first sentence in the second paragraph in the section headed "Life"? I added "first" after "Fromm moved" (to balance "and then". But my question is about the pairing of a city (Geneva) with a university (Columbia University):

"moved first to Geneva and then, in 1934, to Columbia University".

Shouldn't both places be cities? But if I change "Columbia University" to "New York", how do I get the information about Columbia University in? Can we assume he held a professorship, and say that? Any ideas? – CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid not: this seems to be a case where exactitude must trump style. Rothorpe (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In the sixth paragraph in the section "Psychological theory" in this article about Erich Fromm, we read:

Fromm outlined three of the most common escape mechanisms: automaton conformity, authoritarianism, and destructiveness. Automaton conformity is....

The three terms are italicized and explained in the following sentences. I just wondered whether the three terms should also be italicized in the first sentence where they are mentioned for the first time. CorinneSD (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You probably should be asking these questions on Talk:Erich Fromm, where editors involved in that article are more likely to notice. Italics are often used instead of quotation marks to indicate a term being referred to as a term. That appears to be the case here. They will not usually require such emphasis upon subsequent appearance.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been told that before, so I have done that several times (for other articles) and received only a few replies. It seems to me that editors who comment on an article's Talk page are more interested in content rather than the fine points of writing style. I get more response from people like you and Rothorpe on my (or your) Talk page. My point about the italicization of the three terms (above) is that they are not italicized the first time they are mentioned, but are italicized in subsequent sentences.CorinneSD (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In the section headed "Six orientations" in this article on Erich Fromm, we read:

Fromm also spoke of "orientation of character" in his book Man For Himself, which describes the ways an individual relates to the world and constitutes his general character, and develops from two specific kinds of relatedness to the world: acquiring and assimilating things ("assimilation"), and reacting to people ("socialization").

I feel there is some ambiguity in the first half of this sentence. Am I safe in assuming that the antecedent for "which" is "orientation of character" and not "his book Man For Himself"? Right now, it is not so clear, and the verb "describes" goes better with a book title than with "orientation of character". I am thinking about moving "in his book Man For Himself" earlier in the sentence, after "Fromm also spoke". (Also, shouldn't the preposition "for" in the book title be lower-case?) – CorinneSD (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I've lower-cased 'for' as you suggest. But it's not a very clear sentence, indeed. Should there perhaps be a 'this' after 'develops'? [No.] Rothorpe (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I revised the entire paragraph. I cut out some words and re-arranged things to make it more concise. What do you think of it now? – CorinneSD (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Very good, much clearer. Rothorpe (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's purely a question of time and I find I quite often find regrettable things on Wikipedia and don't have time to deal with them, but will have a go if I get the chance Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!CorinneSD (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

De nada. Rothorpe (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Took the boa baia by the horns: hope you like it. Rothorpe (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be an improvement, although I'm not exactly sure what you did; all I saw was that you made an edit and then undid it (keeping original order of the two words), which I thought was a good move. Did you consolidate the last paragraph (with the info on Machado) with the one before it? I think that was good. I decided to change the last sentence just a bit to make it clear that the etymology being discussed is the popular one mentioned at the beg. of the sentence, and I made a small change to the end of the sentence. What do you think? I wonder if the word "thus" is necessary. It makes the sentence longer. Shall I delete it?CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Go to the history, find your uppermost edit, click on 'cur' and you'll see exactly what I did. I'm going to do that now for what you did. Rothorpe (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Correction: your second uppermost edit; I was forgetting your latest.

Oh. I see it now. I had not gone back far enough in the edit history. I'm glad you consolidated the paragraphs. I'm a great fan of conciseness.CorinneSD (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Rothorpe (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I just saw your edit, adding the phrase, "as in Bombaim", above. That was a good idea, but I looked "above" and found the paragraph that listed the many versions of "Bombay" and I did not find "Bombaim". There is "Bombain" (1552) and "Bombaiim" (1666). I rather think "Bombaiim" might be a typographical error (with the double "i"). Something needs to be changed.CorinneSD (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I just found "Bombaim". It's in the second paragraph, while all the others are in the third paragraph. You're right. But what do you think about "Bombaiim", since I saw it?CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe it. Now, Bombaiiim... Rothorpe (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean when you say, "I believe it." Believe what? CorinneSD (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Two Is are believable, but not three. Rothorpe (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

So, I guess you mean that "Bombaiim" is a possible old name (and spelling) of Bombay and that I should just leave it.

I read through that paragraph again, and a thought came to me:

How could baia/bahia, "bay", be feminine and baim, "little bay" be masculine?

1) Words don't usually change in gender through time, do they?

2) If there are two forms, I would think the diminutive would be feminine, not masculine. I think the statement that baim is an archaic Portuguese masculine word for "little bay" is a little strange.CorinneSD (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No examples come to me, but I don't think it too strange, taken over centuries. Rothorpe (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at the article on Old Delhi and I clicked on Chandni Chowk. I noticed that blue bullets run all the way down the left side of the page, right through photos and other illustrations. I don't know how to fix that.CorinneSD (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I only see them running through the Overview section. But I don't know how to fix it. Perhaps it's something to do with the placement of the photos. Rothorpe (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe I was exaggerating a little. I didn't have the article in front of me. Oh, well.CorinneSD (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I find it often helps to have two wiki windows open. Rothorpe (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed some of your edits to Indian city related articles and found them to demonstrate good judgment. I hope you will continue closely reading and evaluating these pages. If anything, I'd advice you to be bolder in your edits; for instance:

• Use tags such as {{clarify}}, {{cn}}, {{dubious}} when you think they are needed. That way, readers are warned about the credibility of the related statement and editors can work to find needed citations or to reword/remove the claim. Of course, if you can find a reference yourself that is ideal!
• Evaluate if the content really belongs in the article, and particularly the article lede (which is supposed to summarize the whole article). If not, feel free to move or remove it. The content is always preserved in the article history and can be recovered if needed.

As you'll notice in going through these pages, many of the older dates (3000 years, 5000 years, ...) are simply pulled out of thin air especially when statements relate to "Ancient India". Additionally, content is often added to the article simply because someone read something (usually flattering) about the city in the newspaper or magazine and thinks it deserves to be added to the article, and typically the article lede. Consequently over time these articles tend to get bloated and make ever more boastful claims, and it is helpful if editors like you can trim them back to comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Cheers and happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just started reviewing the article on Tierra del Fuego. I have two questions:

1) At the very beginning of the article, it says,

"Tierra del Fuego (/tiːˈɛərə dɛl ˈfweɪɡoʊ/, Spanish: [ˈtjera ðel ˈfweɣo]; Spanish for "Fireland" or "Land of Fire") is an archipelago...."

I wonder if "Fireland" is really necessary. Isn't "Land of Fire" enough?

Absolutely. Be bold! Rothorpe (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

2) This one is about something I've been meaning to ask you for a while, and now that I see another example, I will ask you now: In the second paragraph in the section "Colonialization and the extinction of native....", we read,

"An 1879 Chilean expedition led by Ramón Serrano Montaner reported large amounts of placer gold in the streams and river beds of Tierra del Fuego. This prompted a massive immigration to Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego from 1883 and 1909."

I've often seen this kind of construction, "from 1883..." -- that is, from + a year, meaning, "starting from 1883", or "beginning in 1883". To my American ears, "from 1883" is incomplete and almost meaningless. Is that a British idiom? We would always say, "starting from 1883", "beginning in 1883" or "from 1883 onward".

In this case, "from" followed by two different years makes no sense to me. To me, "from" implies a starting point. I suppose it was two waves of immigration, but if so, I think that should be said. Any thoughts?CorinneSD (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a very bad sentence. Rothorpe (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Tracked this down to 23:11, 28 July 2010, User:Dentren. Fancy making enquiries? Rothorpe (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

How did you find that? I think I'll wait for a while to see if someone responds on the Talk page. If not, maybe I will.CorinneSD (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Detective work, going through the history. Rothorpe (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, effectively I did write the sentence: "An 1879 Chilean expedition led by Ramón Serrano Montaner reported large amounts of placer gold in the streams and river beds of Tierra del Fuego. This prompted a massive immigration to Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego from 1883 and 1909.".. Im not a native English speaker. Feel free to correct it. The sentence itself is, as far as I remember, based on the article Tierra del Fuego gold rush. Dentren | ^Talk 15:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the second paragraph in this section, we read,

"The Selknam and Yaghan populations of Tierra del Fuego declined sharply due to persecution by settlers, diseases to which they had no natural immunity and mass transfer to the Salesian mission on Dawson Island, where despite the missionaries' efforts many perished."

I feel there is some ambiguity here. I thought I'd ask you what you thought before I post a question on the article's Talk page.

Did the Selknam and Yaghan populations...decline sharply due to three causes:

• persecution by settlers
• diseases to which they had no natural immunity, and
• mass transfer to the Salesian mission on Dawson Island?

If it was just three distinct causes, I would add a comma after "no natural immunity".

Or was the "mass transfer to the Salesian mission on Dawson Island" a direct consequence of the Native people becoming sick with infectious diseases (in order to isolate them and prevent further spread of the diseases, or perhaps also to help them recover)?

Right now, there is no indication of a connection between the Native people's contracting the diseases and their mass transfer to Dawson Island. If there is a connection, don't you think it should be indicated, somehow, such as with an adverb? What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I see you've already posted some comments there, and you could paste this question too. Problem is, we don't know whether the diseases caused the transfer. Rothorpe (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted it on the article's Talk page (minus my note to you). I just copied and pasted and made some minor changes.CorinneSD (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

So I see, good. Rothorpe (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I need help with a sentence in the article on Sri Lanka, in the section headed "History", in the sub-section "Pre-historical":

"The remains of Balangoda Man, an anatomically modern human, and other evidence found inside these caves,suggests that they may have engaged in agriculture and kept domestic dogs for driving game."

I added "and other evidence" because I thought human remains by themselves would not be enough to tell whether they kept domestic dogs.

I think the verb "suggests" may be wrong. Isn't "remains" a plural noun? Is it ever considered singular? I was thinking that the sentence would make more sense if "The presence of" were added before "remains" at the beginning of the sentence:

"The presence of remains of B Man...and other evidence (etc.)"

Then the verb "suggests" would be all right.

Also, I wondered about the pronoun "they". If "remains" is plural, then by default it becomes the antecedent of "they", and I don't think that is what the writer intended. Is it clear that "they" refers to the people called "Balangoda Man"? Or should I change "they" to something else?CorinneSD (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Tricky. Suggest you have a go at recasting the sentence. If I get a eureka, I'll edit it myself... Rothorpe (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

How about this:

"In these caves, archaeologists have found the remains of anatomically modern humans, nicknamed Balangoda Man, and other evidence that suggests that they may have engaged in agriculture and kept domestic dogs for driving game."

or: "...and other evidence suggesting that they may have engaged in agriculture and kept domestic dogs for driving game." – CorinneSD (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That last is excellent. A nitpick: perhaps 'named' would be better than 'nicknamed', or left out. Rothorpe (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

How about, "In these caves, archaeologists have found the remains of anatomically modern humans which they have named Balangoda Man,..."?CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A bit wordy I thought at first, but I think it does the trick. Rothorpe (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've made the edit. Would you mind looking at it and telling me if it sounds all right? I know you thought it a bit wordy (and I agree, but I think it's the best arrangement), but I found something jarring in the last part of the sentence. Since "kept" is both the past tense and the past participle of "keep", it sounds a bit like there are two different tenses in "may have engaged....and kept....". Would it be clearer to write, "may have engaged....and may have kept....", or is that too many words?CorinneSD (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I think it's all perfectly clear. Rothorpe (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for looking at it.CorinneSD (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In the third sentence of the first paragraph in the section headed "Colonization" in the article on Sri Lanka, there is a long name, "Vimaladharmasuriya" followed by Roman numeral I. The name has a link but the "I" is not included in the link. When I clicked on the link, it leads to an article titled "Vimaladharmasuriya I". Shouldn't the Roman numeral "I" be part of the link in that sentence?CorinneSD (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The 'I' seems to be part of the link. Have another look. Rothorpe (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness. Before I moved a short sentence on "intermittent warfare" to an earlier place in the sentence, "Vimladharmasuriya" and "I" were not on the same line. "V..." was at the end of a line and "I" was at the beginning of the next line, and it looked like "I" was not part of the link. After I re-arranged the sentences I did not notice that they were together and that "I" was, indeed, part of the link. Sorry about that. Thank-you. Did you see my note on the Talk page of the Sri Lanka article about that same paragraph? I thought the paragraph was a bit wordy and redundant. Shall I cut and consolidate without waiting? CorinneSD (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems you're doing OK there. Rothorpe (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I just wonder if "Dutch" and "Portuguese" in the phrase "Dutch-Portuguese War" (in the second paragraph in the section "Colonization") should be separated by a hyphen or an en-dash. I thought it should be a hyphen, but it is now an en dash.CorinneSD (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, WP makes this distinction (unlike most typists), so the endash is right there. Rothorpe (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In the last paragraph in the section "Geography" in the article on Sri Lanka, the names of quite a few minerals, and the word "Petroleum" in the subsequent sentence, are capitalized. I did not see any reason why they should be capitalized. I thought I would ask whether you thought they needed to be capitalized or could be changed to lower-case.CorinneSD (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, that's just ignorance: people tend to capitalise words they're unfamiliar with. Rothorpe (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In the first paragraph in the section "Politics" in the article Sri Lanka, we read the following sentences:

"Sri Lanka is the oldest democracy in South Asia. The Donoughmore Constitution, drafted by the Donoughmore Commission in 1931, enabled general elections with adult universal suffrage (universal adult franchise) in the country."

In the second sentence, I was just wondering if "enabled" was the best verb. I thought there might be a more accurate verb, something like, "made for", "prescribed", "established", or "enacted". Can anyone think of the right verb to use here?CorinneSD (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's OK. Rothorpe (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

O.K.CorinneSD (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In the second paragraph in the section "Economy" in this article on Sri Lanka, we read the following sentence:

"In 1977 the Free market economy was introduced to the country, incorporating privatisation, deregulation and the promotion of private enterprise."

The first part of this sentence does not sound right to me. First of all, I don't think "Free" needs to be capitalized. Second, I don't think "the" is necessary before "free market economy"; if anything, it should be "a free market economy". But I think "an economy" is not introduced to a country, Rather, I think "the principles of a free market economy" are introduced to a country, or "a free market approach to the economy" might be introduced. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

With the first and second points I agree. The word Free is probably capitalised because it begins a link & the editor didn't think to lowercase it. But I think 'a free market economy was introduced' is normal shorthand. Rothorpe (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I found this article on Polymath by clicking on a link in another article I was starting to read, one on Michael Servetus. I got as far as the second paragraph in this article on Polymath. I made some edits to improve it but really struggled, more than I usually have to. I thought the sentences were not elegant and not concise, but I don't know if I made much improvement. I wonder if you can help me. Feel free to look at the "before" in the Edit History; you'll see what was there, and feel free to undo my edits or make further changes. I have a couple of questions:

1) In the sentence about 3/4 of the way through, there is a list of prepositional phrases, all starting with "in". I was going to delete all but the first "in", but at the same time, I wondered about the relationship among the items in the list: I wondered whether all the items in the list are equal (and thus deleting the extra "in's" would be correct) or all (or some) of the items after the first one in the list are not specific examples of the first item.

I think they're nicely accumulative, sorry! Rothorpe (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

2) In the (approx.) second-to-last sentence in that paragraph, it says that the word "polymath" entered the English lexicon in the 20th century. Then I remembered that in the first paragraph it says that it was first used in the 17th century (in English?). Is there any discrepancy there?

No, that's 'Renaissance Man'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I must be tired or I would have seen that.CorinneSD (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Aha! Rothorpe (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, my question on your Talk page about split infinitives was inspired by what I saw in the first paragraph of this article.CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong article. It was in an article about Michael Servetus.CorinneSD (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, it looks like several days ago User:Super48paul, without discussion, reverted back to an ancient version of the article, adding back in a lot of text that had been removed quite a while ago as being original research, with the rather strange edit summary "vandalism." In the process he removed a bunch of tags that had been added because of remaining problems that needed to be addressed, as well as references to articles that have long been deleted. You've done a fine job wrestling with the old version that he restored, but unfortunately this editor undid a lot of painstaking work and reinstated a lot of questionable text and errors. I'm going to revert back to the version before this editor's wholesale revert and we can take it from there. Coretheapple (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I look forward to reading the earlier and presumably better-written version.CorinneSD (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the user reverted to a version that was 13 months old! He assures me it was unintentional. Very strange. Coretheapple (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible the editor really was reverting a small instance of vandalism and made the larger revert in error? Did you look at the edits just preceding that large revert?CorinneSD (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the previous edit was this[1] - routine. Hard to see how it could have been an accident, but the editor insists it was and I see no reason not to believe him. Twinkle issue? Coretheapple (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what "Twinkle issue" means.CorinneSD (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I was just thinking aloud. Have no idea. The editor claims it was inadvertent, so if so maybe he was experiencing a problem with Twinkle? Though I can't conceive of why Twinkle would have reverted back one year. Coretheapple (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thinking aloud is fine. However, I don't know what "Twinkle" is. I don't think it is worth expending any more energy on trying to figure out what happened, but I assume you'll keep an eye out to make sure something like that does not happen again in this article. When I have time, I'm going to read through the article as it is now.CorinneSD (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle is the automated script he used. See WP:TWINKLE. Probably human error, and I agree further speculation is pointless. Coretheapple (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

In the paragraph under "Related terms" in this article on Polymath, I fear I have not made much of an improvement. It was dense before I started. Now it is less dense but perhaps more of a mish-mash. I have never liked using "they", "them", and "their" to refer to the singular "someone"; I prefer the more correct "he or she" or just "he", or just "she", etc. I changed them to "he or she", "him or her", etc., but the sentence is long and the repetition wasn't so good. Normally, I would make the antecedent plural so that I can use "they", "them", and "their", but in this case the sentence is about "Renaissance man", which is singular. It's hard to make that plural. "Renaissance men"? (We could make it politically correct and change the whole thing to "Renaissance people". Just kidding.) What do you recommend? When I finished going through this paragraph, I felt like saying, "Yaaagh!" What a paragraph. Any suggestions are appreciated.CorinneSD (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you've got me editing myself now, though not yet in regard to this. I would remove all the feminines for convenience, as we already have 'remaissance man (or woman)' - and in olden times, 'twas mainly men, if I recall... Rothorpe (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with your other edits there, though. Rothorpe (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, good! I deleted the "or she" and "or her", but not "or woman" in "Renaissance man or woman" because it said "today". Shall I delete "or woman" also? ("...or woman" is now followed by "he".)

That's fine.

What do you think about the italics I put in at the end of the second paragraph of the article? Were they perhaps not necessary?CorinneSD (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Not necessary, but that's a common use of them here. Rothorpe (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Would quotation marks (or just no italics) be better? I don't mind changing them back.CorinneSD (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. Up to you. Such italics are a WP thing rather than a common use, I'd say. Rothorpe (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to have a go at the paragraph headed "Renaissance men" (lower down on the page)? I made a few small edits, but then gave up. There is one lo-o-n-g sentence. I don't know where to begin.CorinneSD (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Me neither. Rothorpe (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

In the second paragraph in the section "Polymath and polyhistor compared" (after the poem), I could not figure out whether the use of commas is correct. I don't understand that phrase "of Alexander polyhistor", either what it means or why it's there. Hence, I cannot decide whether the commas are right.CorinneSD (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Commas are OK. There's a wikilink to Alexander Polyhistor. Rothorpe (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I looked at that article. Will read it thoroughly later, but noticed in the first paragraph that it said he lived in Italy. Is that right? There was no country named Italy then.CorinneSD (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense as a physical entity though. Rothorpe (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a great job done with Music therapy! You have a way with words. Lova Falk talk 07:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!CorinneSD (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I second the above. Now I have a question for you. I'm wondering if "he died from a heart attack" is American English particularly. Can you think of another way of saying this, changing the wording only slightly? Rothorpe (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. "He died of a heart attack" is equally as common as "He died from a heart attack", at least colloquially. There's also "He succumbed to a heart attack" and "He died of myocardial infarction", and "He died of heart failure" (although that is not necessarily a heart attack).CorinneSD (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I was wondering about 'of' instead of 'from': perhaps the former is more common in BrE. Rothorpe (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think "He died of a heart attack" is more common than "He died from a heart attack". It is easier to say, for one thing.CorinneSD (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fine, thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ki Hajar Dewantara may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Raden Mas]] '''Soewardi Soerjaningrat''' ([[EYD]]:'' 'Suwardi Suryaningrat''', since 1972 '' 'Ki Hadjar Dewantara''', EYD:'' 'Ki Hajar

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

See the last edit to the article on Richard Feynman. I guess that's vandalism.CorinneSD (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

How did it last 9 minutes? Rothorpe (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In the article on Ted Cruz, it gives a Senate vote as "57%–to-43%". I would not have expected to see those dashes. Are they correct? Rothorpe (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen a vote written like that with hyphens. Perhaps as an adjective: "It was defeated in a 57%-to-43% vote." One percentage represents the Republicans and the other percentage represents the Democrats. There are a hundred senators in the Senate. I don't think the hyphens are necessary, even when used as an adjective.CorinneSD (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that there were 100 senators. So I'll remove the hyphens, thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think for the Senate you could also remove the percentage symbol. Those are actual numbers of Senators. (Just so you know, I did not look at the article on Ted Cruz when I responded to your query, so I don't know whether the measure was defeated or passed, or what.)CorinneSD (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it makes much more sense that way. I've changed it. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw that an editor just changed commas to parentheses with the comment that there were too many commas. I don't agree. I think the sentence is well constructed and that the paired commas indicate parenthetical pauses. I think parentheses are distracting and break up the flow of the sentence visually.CorinneSD (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I just thought the pauses generated by the commas unduly emphasized the founding dates of the Argentine settlements as opposed to those of the Chilean settlements. I was actually tempted to remove the dates altogether as they seemed to clutter the sentence. Maybe my views on punctuation in this case are influenced by the fact that I use a screen reader, which pauses at every single comma, and does not especially indicate parenthesized text. Graham87 15:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

My last edit was made before I read this. Must say I preferred the commas. Rothorpe (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Re Tierra del Fuego. It was interesting to learn about the effect on the flow of sentences of screen readers, which I believe many people use. I don't think mentioning the dates separately places more emphasis on them. I get the impression that the pauses of the screen reader may be a bit distracting. I read the sentence again, and I thought that it might be all right to leave out the founding dates altogether, as you had thought about doing. The names of all four settlements are linked to articles, and if a reader is interested, he or she can click on the link and learn more. What do you think about that?CorinneSD (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine, no need for the dates. Rothorpe (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good to me now. Graham87 05:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've responded on my talk page re Polymath, just to be sure you saw it. I'm more concerned with the sourcing and OR than the writing. Coretheapple (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm already outnumbered on this one, but I thought I'd ask you anyway. At Uranus, in the Moons section, it says:

The largest of the satellites, Titania, has a radius of only 788.9 km, or less than half that of the Moon, but slightly more than Rhea, the second largest moon of Saturn, making Titania the eighth largest moon in the Solar System.

I thought that, given we already have mention of the moon Titania, and are about to mention another, Rhea, it would read less awkwardly as 'Earth's Moon' instead of just 'the Moon'. I asked Graham, assuming wrongly that he wouldn't be aware of the capital M. He says it's clear. Indeed, it is clear, but what do you think? Rothorpe (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a tough one. I think, if you had not explained this to me beforehand, and I had just come across it by myself, there would have been a frisson of ambiguity when I came across "the Moon". The capital letter only helps a little to dispel that ambiguity. Saying "Earth's Moon" would remove any trace of ambiguity. I am puzzled as to why the article, and specifically this paragraph, uses the word "satellite" instead of "moon" to discuss the moons of Uranus. Perhaps that is the word used among astronomers. I had always heard the word "moon" used: "the moons of Jupiter", for example. The fact that this paragraph uses "satellite" and not "moon" makes "Moon" stand out in contrast. But is that contrast enough to signal "Earth's moon" in the mind of the reader? I think I prefer "Earth's moon" to "the Moon" (I don't think "moon" needs to be capitalized). The reader is being asked in the middle of a paragraph to switch from a discussion of Uranus' moons to Earth's moon, and I don't think the capital "m" is enough to dispel the slight ambiguity.CorinneSD (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, you articulate my problem with it exactly. (When I was a boy reading the books of Patrick Moore and the like, the 'correct' word was satellite; I imagine it was Sputnik that revived the generic use of 'moon'. In astronomical contexts capitalisation of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon is standard.) Rothorpe (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that in "the Sun", "the Earth", and "the Moon", they should be capitalized, but in the phrase "Earth's moon" do you think it needs to be capitalized? Are we in agreement that it should be either "Earth's moon" or "Earth's Moon"? How about "our Moon"? It is your call.CorinneSD (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking 'Earth's Moon', but too many capitals? And 'moon' becomes generic after 'Earth'. Yes, 'our Moon' would contrast it nicely. Rothorpe (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

...Except that astronomers don't like it. I searched for 'our moon' in Wikipedia: zero. Earth's moon, then? Rothorpe (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think "Earth's moon" is best. (Before we all became aware of the many moons of the other planets in our solar system, we all thought our moon was the only moon, thus, "the Moon". I think "Earth's moon" reflects our knowledge that it is only one of many moons. Of course, in the right context, we could still use "the Moon".)

I thought of one situation in which "our Moon", or "our moon", would be ambiguous, and especially now around Halloween. – CorinneSD (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to be bold. Rothorpe (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I just saw an edit to the article on Hypnosis in which an editor changed ", but" to "; however,". I think that is a slight improvement, but I was drawn to the material that followed "however". I think it is a bit wordy; I think the verbs could be consolidated and shortened in some way, and I also wonder whether the word "theory" is too strong a word. I am sure there are many theories regarding hypnosis, but a theory as to how to define the word? Wouldn't "ideas" be better than "theories"? Do you have any ideas for making the part of the sentence following "however" more concise?CorinneSD (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all very circular. I'll have to think about it. Rothorpe (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is a great improvement. I wonder why you kept "theoretical". I don't think it is necessary. And what is a "theoretical definition" anyway?CorinneSD (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Oversight. Removed. Rothorpe (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I just saw an edit to the article Tea in which an editor with no Talk page reverted several edits back to Materialscience or something like that, which is before I made some edits. If you have time, could you take a look at this and referee? I had taken a long sentence and broken it up into two sentences. The items in the new shorter part seemed different from the items in the longer list, so I had put them in a separate sentence.CorinneSD (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The latest editor cites policies in the edit summary. Looks like all you can do is repeat your edits, I'm afraid. Rothorpe (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed the sentence back to nearly the way I had left it. I think the editor who cited policies was more concerned with sources and just reverted everything. I wanted to ask you whether it would be all right to remove the comma between the two noun phrases following "have" in the sentence "Green tea is also said to have". The two noun phrases seem to be a quote. I don't know if it acceptable to remove the comma.CorinneSD (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It is acceptable to alter quotations slightly to bring them into line with Wikipedia's policies, but is that the case here? I must say I find the comma bounces quite nicely. Rothorpe (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I just started reading the article on Vanuatu and I came across the following sentence near the beginning of the article:

"The first Europeans to visit the islands were the members of a Spanish expedition led by Portuguese navigator Fernandes de Queirós, who arrived in Espiritu Santo in 1605; he claimed the archipelago for Spain and named it Espiritu Santo (the Spanish term for Holy Spirit)."

I was wondering whether the word "the" before "members" was necessary. Normally, I would delete "the"; I don't think it is necessary. But I thought I'd ask your opinion. "The members" implies all of the members of the expedition. I suppose if it were just "were members of a Spanish expedition" it could be interpreted that it was not all of the members. Alternatively, couldn't "the members of" be deleted? Then it would read, "The first Europeans to visit the islands was (or were -- British English) a Spanish expedition...", where "expedition" is a collective noun implying a number of people, so that "members" would not be necessary? So, what is the best solution:

• The first Europeans to visit the islands were the members of a Spanish expedition",
• The first Europeans to visit the islands were members of a Spanish expedition", or
• The first Europeans to visit the islands were a Spanish expedition"? – CorinneSD (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The last: a good example of brevity resolving ambiguity. Rothorpe (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

In the article on Vanuatu, could you read the second paragraph under "History" and then read the first paragraph in the section "The Queirós voyage" in the article Luis Vaz de Torres? There is a discrepancy in the meaning of "Austrialia". I was checking to see if that was a typographical error or not and came across the article on Luis Vaz de Torres. In the latter article, it says [sic] after "Austrialia" and gives a specific reason for that spelling. In the article on Vanuatu, there is no [sic] and it suggests that it means "Southern", but I think southern would be "Australis" or "Australia". Shall we try to resolve or highlight the discrepancy, or just leave it?CorinneSD (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should be explained in both places, Trouble is, using Wikipedia as a source is not allowed. How about linking 'Austrialia' to that section of the Luís article? Rothorpe (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to link something to just one section of another article. How does one do that? Also, besides that, the wording in the Vanuatu article suggests that it means "Southern etc.", which would not be correct if the other statement (about Austria) is correct, right? CorinneSD (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I was assuming 'Southern' was implied as well, and it was a sort of pun. Perhaps not. Anyway, #, unspaced, is used to introduce the section in the link. I think I'd link it anyway, and let others decide. Rothorpe (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you do that? Then I can look at the edit history and see what you did.CorinneSD (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Worked beautifully. Rothorpe (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I see it in the edit history. Title of article, number symbol, section heading, and, if necessary, pipe, then the word you want visible. How do you make the pipe (the vertical line)? Also, did you get my joke at the end of our exchange of comments under the heading "Uranus", just above? (I meant if residents of places other than Earth read the article, "our moon" would be ambiguous.)CorinneSD (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The pipe is above \ on my keyboard, top left. Yes, I saw your joke and forgot to comment, rather boringly, that I don't really get it as Halloween didn't become a big thing in Britain until quite a few years after I left in 1983. In Portugal it's all very serious All Saints, when people gather in cemeteries and tend graves, as in much of Europe. But I'm not sorry I missed out on 'trick or treat'... Rothorpe (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In the section "Linguistic situation" (a strange heading) in the article Erromanga language, to which I got from the article on Erromango, I found the following sentence:

"The South Vanuatu languages comprises these four languages."

Even though "South Vanuatu languages" has a link, I still think the verb does not match the subject. Shouldln't it be something like "The South Vanuatu languages group comprises...."? – CorinneSD (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The link needs piping by the sound of it. I'll go there and do it. Rothorpe (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

In the last sentence of the article, just before "References", there is a phrase, with a link, that says "Erromanga-language branch". I was wondering whether the hyphen was necessary. I read the entire article on "Erromanga language" and did not see it hyphenated anywhere. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There's only one mention as far as I can make out. Anyway, not strictly necessary, but I like those hyphens in compound adjectives, as I think they improve readability. Rothorpe (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

O.K.CorinneSD (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In the third paragraph in the section "History", I found the following sentence:

"At the height of the labour trade, more than one-half of the adult male population of several of the Islands worked abroad."

I was wondering: Does "Islands" need to be capitalized? I didn't think so, but I thought I'd ask you.CorinneSD (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a favourite of mine. No need to echo the name, doing so is just distracting, so no. Rothorpe (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Regarding the same sentence, does "one-half" have to be hyphenated?CorinneSD (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's no different in construction from 'one hoof'. Rothorpe (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Having said which, there are those who might say it's not a case of one half or the other, it's just a quantity. Rothorpe (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I was reading the article on John Frum to which I got from the article on Vanuatu. In the fourth paragraph in the section "History", I see "t-shirt" with the "t" not capitalized. Shouldn't it be capitalized?CorinneSD (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes! A very annoying tendency, this. Rothorpe (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you read the last sentence in the second-to-last paragraph in the "History" section in the article on John Frum? I don't understand the presence of the phrase "from years past". The paragraph is about a 50th anniversary celebration. Then it says someone, its leader, was quoted on BBC. But why "from years past"? He was apparently there, at the celebration.CorinneSD (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, hence need to say 'from years past', presumably, as he had said it long before. Rothorpe (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In the second paragraph in the section on "Climate", I found the following sentences:

"The wettest and hottest months are December through to April, which also constitute the cyclone season.[13] The driest months are June through November."

"December through to April" sounds strange to me. We had this conversation before. You'll also see "June through November" in the subsequent sentence. I'd like to make the phrases parallel, but would the first one be "December through April" (ie., up to the end of April) or "December through March" (ie., up to the end of March)?CorinneSD (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Just ditch the 'to' - they means the same, mercifully. Rothorpe (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit made.CorinneSD (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In the first paragraph in the "Climate" section in the article on Vanuatu, I notice that the temperatures are given with Fahrenheit first, followed by Centigrade (or Celsius). That's fine with me, because we use Fahrenheit, but I notice that in the lead of the article and elsewhere, distances are given with kilometers first, followed by miles in parentheses. Shouldn't the article be consistent, with the order of metric/non-metric being the same throughout? Or doesn't it matter, since "Climate" is its own section?CorinneSD (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is it doesn't bother me at such a distance. But I'm very lax about such things, being quite happy to mix date formats, for example. Rothorpe (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

O.K.CorinneSD (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Early in the section "Demographics" in the article on Vanuatu, I found the following sentence:

"The inhabitants of Vanuatu, or Ni-Vanuatu, are in the majority (98.5%) of Melanesian descent, with the remainder made up of a mix of Europeans, Asians and other Pacific islanders."

To me, "are in the majority" is confusing. It could mean,

• "The inhabitants of Vanuatu...are in the majority." or "The inhabitants of Vanuatu...are primarily...of Melanesian descent".

I don't think these two concepts should be merged (unless the word "and are primarily" is inserted). I suppose to some people "in the majority" could serve as an adverbial phrase meaning "primarily", but I think it creates confusion here. Shall I change it to

• The inhabitants of Vanuatu...are in the majority (98.5%) and are primarily of Melanesian descent", or
• The inhabitants of Vanuatu...are primarily (98.5%) of Melanesian descent"?

Also, just a few paragraphs before this (second-to-last paragraph in "Geography"), I read "Ni-Vanuatu" for the first time, with no link and no explanation. Here, I see the two next to each other. Shouldn't the explanation, with the appositive, be with the first mention of "Ni-Vanuatu"? – CorinneSD (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

1. I don't think it's contrasting a majority with a minority. So, the second.

2. Yes, links and explanations at first mention. Rothorpe (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this second point, about "Ni-Vanuatu", I re-read both places and decided that (a) it would be awkward to try and fit in a definition or appositive for "Ni-Vanuatu" in the first location (2nd-to-last parag. in "Geography"), and (b) it seemed to fit fine in "Demographics" (but I changed the wording a bit, as you'll see). So I decided to change "Ni-Vanuatu" in the "Geography" section to just "Vanuatu", thus leaving "first mention" to "Demographics". If you know another or better way to do this, go ahead and edit.CorinneSD (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I must have been looking in the wrong place. Link, please. Rothorpe (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps my last comment was so wordy that you didn't see that I removed the necessity for a link by changing the first (unlinked) appearance of "Ni-Vanuatu" to just "Vanuatu". "Vanuatu" makes enough sense there, and that leaves the first mention of "Ni-Vanuatu", with its explanation and link, in "Demographics". If you do not agree with what I did, let me know, or go ahead and change it.CorinneSD (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I just couldn't find where you were referring to. Rothorpe (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, when you said, "Link, please", I guess you meant that I should place a link here to the section in the article I was referring to. (I had thought that you meant that I should put a link on the first mention of Ni-Vanuatu.) Sorry, I misunderstood you. Did you find it? You'll see the first instance in the Edit History. I'll put a link here to the second instance: Vanuatu#Demographics.CorinneSD (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see about 'link, please'. But I still don't know what to look for or where. So I suggest you just make some edits (to Vanuatu, right?) and I'll revert if I disagree, with edit summaries, and I'll let you know right here if I agree. Rothorpe (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

But I already made them, just a little while ago.CorinneSD (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As it happens, I've just come from there. Excellent edits! Rothorpe (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Did you see my comment in the second "Papua New Guinea" section below, right before "Talk pages, etc."? CorinneSD (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I found something interesting and puzzling. If you read the last paragraph in the "Demographics" section in the article on Vanuatu, you will see mention of many, many languages in Vanuatu. However, if you read the article on "Erromango", which is the largest island in Tafea, which is the southern province of Vanuatu, you will see that there used to be four languages, but now there is only one. I am puzzled by that low number, considering the information in the paragraph in the "Demographics" section of the article on Vanuatu. That means there are 112 languages on the other islands of Tafea and on the other islands. Strange.CorinneSD (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I think we just have to accept that the distribution is odd. Rothorpe (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just started reading the article on Burma. I want to ask your opinion about the following sentence, which appears about 2/3 of the way through the second paragraph in the lead:

"Since independence in 1948, the country has been involved in one of the longest running civil wars among the country's myriad ethnic groups that remains unresolved."

I feel that there are two things that are not clear in this sentence:

1) It is not clear whether "one of the longest running civil wars" is "one of the longest running civil wars" in Burmese history and is confined to "the country's myriad ethnic groups" or is "one of the longest running civil wars" in world history (see the link).

2) I think the adjective clause at the end of the sentence, "that remains unresolved" is in the wrong place.

Do you have any ideas as to how to make this sentence work? I was thinking of changing "one of the longest running civil wars" to "a long running civil war", or "an extended civil war", which would be clearer, but there is a link there and I don't know how that would affect the link.CorinneSD (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The link is to wars worldwide, so I think adding 'world's' would suffice. So 'world's longest-running unresolved civil wars' would do it. By the way, in cases like this, do you prefer me to edit, or just comment? I don't mind you reverting me if necessary. Rothorpe (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind you going ahead and editing. If you do so, it might help if you just say, "Done." or "Agreed. Done." or "I'll make the change." or something like that. (If you have time. If not, I'll see it in my Watchlist anyway.CorinneSD (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my bothering you with all these questions. Sometimes I can figure out these poorly written sentences and re-word them. Other times, I just can't. Either I don't know what was meant, or I just can't think of a good re-wording.CorinneSD (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, except that I have to stop myself answering them all at once... Rothorpe (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In the third paragraph in the lead in this article on Burma, we read,

"Since the military began relinquishing more of its control over the government – coupled with its release of Burma's most prominent human rights activist, Aung San Suu Kyi and many other political prisoners – the country's foreign relations and human rights record have improved rapidly."

Shouldn't there be a comma after "Aung San Suu Kyi"? Isn't that an appositive?CorinneSD (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. Wikipedia's most common error? Rothorpe (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I had seen this missing comma, especially after a link, so often I began to think it was Wikepedia style.CorinneSD (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Rothorpe (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the collective noun "government" always used in a plural sense in British English? I know that words such as "government", "jury", "orchestra", "family", and "committee" are often (or always?) used in a plural sense in British English, and thus are followed by the plural form of the verb, but are they always used in a plural sense? In American English, these are always singular nouns. I am wondering because of the last sentence in the "Etymology" section of the article on Burma.CorinneSD (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No, not always, although whether singular use is the influence of American I don't know. So a choice there. Rothorpe (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to "the Brazilian Government uses...."CorinneSD (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been reading the article on Pali, having gotten there from the article on Burma. In the first paragraph of the "Etymology" section, R. C. Childers is quoted. In the second paragraph, his full name is given and it contains a link. Shouldn't the first time a person is mentioned in an article give the entire name and have the link? Or is it all right as it is?CorinneSD (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There has to be a good reason for a link not to appear at first mention. Rothorpe (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In the second paragraph in the section "Classification" in the article on Pali, I see reference to "Rgvedic Vedic Sanskrit", with the link on one of these to "Vedic Sanskrit". First I wondered why "Rgvedic" was before "Vedic". Then I wondered about the spelling of "Rgvedic". I read the entire article on Vedic Sanskrit and did not see "Rgvedic" once. I saw "Rigvedic", though. I also skimmed the article on Vedic and did not see "Rgvedic". Finally, I typed "Rgvedic" into the WP Search box. There is no article, but I saw "Rgvedic" in bold in several articles. Do you think that is just a typographical error? If it is not an error, why is there no explanation for it? CorinneSD (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a dot under the R, so it obviously means something to insiders. But that makes it impossible to search for with 100% certainty. Perhaps I'll come back to this. Rothorpe (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, 'Rigvedic' is for those who cannot write the subscript. Rothorpe (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Just before I wrote this comment/question, I read most of the rest of the article on Pali. I saw that some consonants are retroflex. I even read the article on retroflex consonants. I think retroflex consonants are written with a dot under them. If it is not a retroflex consonant, it is another kind of special consonant sound. However, I think it is strange that I didn't see "Rgvedic" anywhere in either the "Pali" or the "Vedic" articles. Good luck in your search.CorinneSD (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I've done the search: you're right, nothing. I think it does mean retroflex, yes. But I meant that the computer won't find it with a dot under it, as one can't type that in the search box. Rothorpe (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I still don't understand why the vowel would be left out. I guess I'll have to read further to learn why.CorinneSD (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In the first paragraph in the section "Early western views" in the article on Pali, there is a sentence that says, "a form of lingua franca". I'm wondering whether "form of" is necessary. Wouldn't "as a lingua franca" be sufficient? I notice that "lingua franca" also appears in the subsequent paragraph.CorinneSD (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks superfluous. Rothorpe (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the middle name "Caesar" in the name "Robert Caesar Childers" is spelled differently in

• the second paragraph in the "Etymology" section, where the "ae" is joined, and
• the second paragraph in the "Pali today" section, where the "a" and the "e" are not joined.

Which do you think is correct?CorinneSD (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The article on him doesn't use the ligature. But perhaps he did! Rothorpe (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you about something in the last sentence in the last paragraph in the section "Pali today" in the article on Pali. I think the sentence is making the point that the Danish have compiled a remarkable collection of Pali texts even without having colonial holdings in either India or Sri Lanka. As it is now, I think the relationship between the first and second halves of the sentence is unclear. I think the word "Even" before "without" at the beginning of the sentence would clear it up. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Rothorpe (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I just started reading the article on Papua New Guinea. I have a question for you. In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph in the section "History", we read "Portuguese and Spanish explorers such as [name] and [name], respectively." I just wonder if the word "respectively" is really needed. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it reassures people that the first is Portuguese and the second Spanish. But 'respectively' is often redundant, I think. Rothorpe (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In the first sentence in the "Politics" section in the article on Papua New Guinea, is the punctuation in the middle of the sentence correct? I feel that the comma is incorrect and that it should be a semi-colon, a long dash, or a period. I thought I'd ask you to be sure.CorinneSD (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite so. I believe that's called a comma splice. Rothorpe (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The thing that made me not sure is the "as such". I rarely use "as such" and wasn't sure how it affected the syntax.CorinneSD (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, this talk page is getting rather long, while mine is very short. Rothorpe (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to ask you how to put all or most of this into an archive, as you have done on your Talk page.CorinneSD (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Make a page called User talk:CorinneSD/Archive 1 by clicking on that red link. Then paste the contents of this page into it, leaving this one empty. Rothorpe (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

But you're welcome to use mine too. Rothorpe (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I know. I thought we agreed to alternate. Also, I didn't want to clutter up your Talk page with all my questions.CorinneSD (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you usually start the subjects, so it's you who would do most of the alternating. I don't mind my talk page filling up, and it is a little easier to get at than your filling-up one. Also, would you mind, when you start a new section with the same title, giving it a number? That would make navigation easier. I'll add numbers too if you forget. As to the archive, did you see my suggestion above? Rothorpe (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did, thank you. I was waiting until I was sure I had made all edits we had discussed, and that you had seen all my replies to your comments, before doing so.CorinneSD (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

But of course I forgot to say: Do it all in Edit mode! Rothorpe (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh. O.K. I'll try again.CorinneSD (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)