User talk:Corinne/Archive 33

Corinne, you can resolve an edit conflict without losing your work. See H:EC. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot Thanks for your note and the link. I read the article, but found it confusing and difficult to understand. It would be more helpful if it showed examples and what to put where. I'm concerned about the last paragraph in the section Help:Edit conflict#Resolving an edit conflict:

Alice should not just post her changes over the top of Bob's. We assume good faith – mistakes are occasionally made, and newcomers may not understand the edit conflict window. However, Alice must not routinely ignore edit conflicts. It is absolutely not acceptable for Alice to overwrite Bob out of laziness. We encourage contributors to double-check their merges by using the diff feature.

I had posted the {{GOCEinuse}} template and was in the midst of a detailed conflict. It is difficult and tedious to re-do many small copy-edits. When I first started copy-editing, I didn't know about the template, so often had to re-do all my edits. Then, when I started editing for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, sometimes an editor would ignore the "GOCE in use" template (which is rather large, so hard to miss), and after spending half an hour or more copy-editing an article, I'd get an edit conflict. If I saw that the other editor's edits were minor and easily re-done, I over-rode the edits and saved my so as not to lose them, then apologized for having to do so. This time, I decided not even to apologize. The other editor had ignored the "GOCE in use" template, so I over-rode the edits, saved mine, then said, "Now you can re-do your edits." I think something should be added to the paragraph I quoted above to the effect that "Be on the lookout for an "In use" or "GOCE in use" template at the top of the article, and refrain from editing until the template has been removed. In the case of an edit conflict, the editor who posted the template may over-ride the intervening edits."

That is, unless someone can explain to me in a manner I can understand how easily to retain all my edits in an edit conflict. Since I can't understand the explanation, I may continue to over-ride edits made while the "GOCE in use" template is posted at the top of the article I'm working on.  – Corinne (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I never heard of {{GOCE in use}}, it appears just to be a branded version of {{in use}}, but fine, I guess. In either case, it should buy you a few hours uninterrupted work (unless it's on an article undergoing frequent changes, like, say, the BLP of some well-known figure that just died, where a few hours would not be fair, and your changes would likely be steamrollered out of existence). Also, if you're using {{in use}} (or the branded one) you need to quickly place the "in use" tag and immediately save the article, so others can see it, right? If you know what section you will be editing, it's not a bad idea to put two "in use" tags: one at the top of the article, and another {{in use}} at the top of the section you plan to edit; very hard to miss that one. If in spite of this, someone wipes out your edits after you tagged it "in use", and you haven't been hogging a popular article for a long time, I think you're within your rights to just apply your changes, even if it means trampling all over the intervening edits someone else made. Remember to quickly remove the {{in use}} tag in a separate edit immediately after saving your work, and then wait several minutes at least to let someone else get a crack at the article, before putting in another {{in use}} tag and going for a second round of changes.

The problem with Help pages not being useful enough is something that comes up all the time. There are two approaches to this:

• Go to the talk page of the Help or instruction page concerned, and add a comment about what you see is wrong, and how to improve it
• Be bold, and just go change the Help page yourself, the way you think it ought to be. After all, it's a wiki, so you can change the instruction pages, too.

The second option is pretty bold, and you might get some pushback, but if you feel you know a better way, it's worth a try. The worst that can happen, is someone will revert your change, and then you can go to the Talk page and talk it out, and try to come to some consensus, which is a fundamental method of dispute resolution on Wikipedia.

One thing I have occasionally found helpful on a page that I half-expect to see have an edit conflict, is to copy the raw wikitext out of the article into a text editor (even "Notepad"; nothing fancy needed). Go to the "History" tab, and note what the latest version is (date and time), and copy it down. Now edit the section in your text editing app. When you're done, go edit the article, and drop your modified section into place. Check the history again in another tab, and if the latest version is still the same as before, just hit the SAVE button on the article real quick. If the latest version is newer than before, then you have a potential edit conflict—somebody has changed something. You can either start over with the newest version, or you can "diff" the latest version with the previous one whose timestamp you noted earlier, to find what changes have been made in the meantime, and just reapply those changes into your text editor version. When you're done, same steps as before: go edit the article, drop your modified section into place, do another "latest version" check in the History tab, and if no change, hit SAVE. Sounds more complicated than it is, once you've done it the first time.

Sometimes, a page is moving so fast, you can barely squeeze a word or two in, before someone has changed it again. If Elvis is sighted alive at Graceland, I'd suggest going and editing a different article, and leave the Elvis article alone for a while.   Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathglot. I rarely edit an article that is undergoing a lot of changes. I usually edit articles for which a copy-edit has been requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. The editor who requested the copy-edit, at least, knows to leave the article alone. The Guild's copy-editors generally either decline or put on hold any request for an article that is still undergoing active copy-editing, and we wait for editing to settle down before beginning a copy-edit. I prefer to copy-edit several sections of an article at a time. It enables me to use the "find" function of Google Chrome to find all instances of something that needs changing or checking. I don't usually have a problem. But I'll keep in mind your suggestions. Thanks again!  – Corinne (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The several-sections-at-a-time can work, as long as it's slow moving, but there is another problem with that. I just reverted a large edit (4 or 5k) involving 10 or 20 "chunks" (not as many sections, but different spots in a section) all over an article, even though I agreed with about 80% of the user's edit, because it was just too hard from the "diff" to see exactly what had changed, or how to fix it. Naturally, the editor had spent a lot of time working on such a large edit, so that can be annoying, and frustrating. If you know you will be editing more than one section of an article in a substantive way, there's little to be lost and lots to be gained by doing it in ten small edits with ten different edit summaries, than in one giant edit with an edit summary that can't possibly tell others what you really did, and may leave them suspicious of your changes. (For one thing, you're much less likely to have an edit conflict that way, and even if you do, it will only be 1/10 the size.) OTOH, if you have a global pattern match/replace type of thing, that changes fifty occurrences of "mettle" into "metal" all over the article, absolutely, go for it. Incremental editing is best, especially in a controversial article, or if it's fast-moving, or if you have any reason to think that a portion of it might be challenged. Mathglot (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Ssven2! I wish you the same. The only reason I don't post such a greeting is because I would have to post it on so many editors' talk pages that it would take too long. But I very much appreciate your leaving me such a beautiful greeting.  – Corinne (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Adityavagarwal! I wish you the same. The only reason I don't post such a greeting is because I would have to post it on so many editors' talk pages that it would take too long. But I very much appreciate your leaving me such a beautiful greeting.  – Corinne (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Corinne! :D Yeah, took me some time to post it from this list. I wonder if there might a bot that could be used for it. :P Have a great rest of the day! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, EEng – When I went to your talk page to look at the latest comments, I saw that Davey2010's comment appears right on top of the lower part of the Christmas message and the top part of the subsequent section. While you're here, I'd like to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! You, too, Davey2010!  – Corinne (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, some time no speak. Hope you're doing well. I was wondering, do you have any time in your agenda to copy-edit this article? I would like to nominate it for GA in the near future. In terms of content and all other GA criteria, its as ready as an article can be. Only thing it lacks, is a proper review of its prose by an outsider. Someone who can smoothen the text up. I believe (quite) a few parts of the body are still too "tightly" written, if you get what I mean. Probably some sections could also be merged, but I would really like to leave that suggestion to the person who is willing to do the copy-edits. As that person would probably be able to have a much fresher look at it. Looking forward to your response. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, LouisAragon – I'd be glad to copy-edit this article, but I would prefer that you list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I have just accepted the assignment to copy-edit another article you posted there, Andrew David Urshan. When I finish that, and maybe one or two others, then I'll look for Safavid Georgia. (I usually skip articles about topics in which I have very little interest.)  – Corinne (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Corinne. Aight, will do. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

LouisAragon I just want to assure you that there is nothing personal about my request to you to post at the Requests page. It's just because I have found that if I continue to accept requests left here, I never get to the project page, and since I am a member of the project, and have until now been a coordinator, I thought I'd better focus a little more on the project page. There are times when I don't see any article that interests me on the requests page, and that's when I wish I had a request here. So, maybe it's a good idea to post at the requests page, and then let me know here that you have done so, and I'll keep an eye out for it. But I really do find your articles, and those of West Virginian, especially interesting, so am always glad to copy-edit them. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, very sweet of you Corinne. Really appreciate it. But there's no need to explain. I understood your intentions right away. :-) Nothing is going to run smoothly, without setting priorities. Anyhow; you can now find the article at the requests section as well.[1] All the best, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

LouisAragon O.K. I just finished Andrew David Urshan, and Safavid Georgia is the only article that appeals to me, so I just accepted the assignment. Before I start, though, could you tell me what you mean by "Quite a few lines/parts are too 'tightly' written"? I really don't know what you mean.  – Corinne (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

LouisAragon First, I'd like to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I hope you found my comment appropriate.  – Corinne (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much Corinne, you too! May all your expectations and wishes for the coming year be fulfilled.
Regarding your comment, of course I did! There's simply no way I could ever receive an inappropriate comment from you I think. Never say never, they say, but you get what I mean ;-) I just needed to find some appropriate amount of time to adress everything at once.
As you correctly pointed out, Kober made numerous content-related changes to the article. As the changes were definitely an improvement in my opinion, I asked him on the talk page for further review. Put short / conclusion; some parts of the article are going to get changed/expanded in the near future. I will let you know when everything's done. If that's still alright with you, of course. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish First, let me wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. What is going on with the Manual of Style? All those changes to punctuation! I think at this point the MoS should be protected so we don't have to deal with many small changes like this.  – Corinne (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: Been busy. Which changes did you mean? I haven't caught up on stuff in a couple of days.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish I meant the ones by this editor. I see you've dealt with one item. By the way, in the edit summary of the next edit after this one, do you think the editor was joking when s/he wrote "these is direct speech"? I hope so.  – Corinne (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I've give up trying to suss out people's actual motivations. >;-) Anyway, most of those tweaks seem fine to me. Some of them are matters of opinion, but they seem harmless and don't affect the underlying meaning. I try not to get reverty on stuff unless it makes a substantive change that isn't helpful, or decreases clarity. I may try to "steward" the MoS for stability and sensibility, but I hardly WP:OWN it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

O.K. I understand. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

EEng I could barely refrain from writing, "I hope you're not copy-editing". See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Shenanigans at AfD. She wrote:

• I have been VERY active on wikipedia for nearly 10 years and have went to 2 wiki-meetups, and donated about $300 over the years.

 – Corinne (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Checkingfax I was just looking at the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Non breaking spaces, and I looked at the first diff given, and I don't see where non-breaking spaces were added. What should I be looking at?  – Corinne (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, LittleJerry – I can understand your wish, but I often leave comments for the requesting editor right under the GOCE message, and we resolve the issues together. This is the first time anyone has reverted my edit like that. Instead of reverting, I suggest that you ask me if it would be all right with me if you moved it to the article's talk page, and then move it, or simply move it with an edit summary. Now that you have removed it from your talk page, it will be difficult for me to copy and paste it. I suggest that you undo your edit, and then move it yourself (by copying and pasting) to the article's talk page (or I'll do it if you let me know). You can leave a note under the GOCE template saying "Discussion regarding wording of a sentence moved to article talk page" or something like that. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris! What a nice surprise! Best wishes to you, too, for a happy, healthy year in 2018.  – Corinne (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi can you please give Beaumont children disappearance a grammar check/proofread/fix? Thank you. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Paul Benjamin Austin. Thanks for asking, but I would prefer if you left a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I'll keep an eye out for the article and will accept the assignment if no one else accepts it before I get to it. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

EEng and SMcCandlish I was just looking at the latest edit to Konark Sun Temple, and I decided to take a look at WP:NOINDICSCRIPT. While I was reading the section, I came across something that puzzled me. It is the last sentence in the first paragraph:

• This does not apply to articles that are not predominantly within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject India.

I understand all the reasons given in the subsequent paragraphs for the decision that led to this guideline, but I don't understand the presence of this sentence, which seems to suggest that the prohibition against including Indic script in an article does not apply when the article is not related to [WikiProject] India. That doesn't make sense to me. If the article is not related to [WikiProject] India, why would there be a need to include Indic script at all?  – Corinne (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that needs to come out. That's leftover nonsense from the Bad Old Days in the early 2000s when every wikiproject was making up its own rules and wikiprojects were literally staking out turf. It doesn't make any sense because (aside from there being no articles that could have Indic scripts in their leads that could not be within the scope of that wikiproject, there are no articles within its scope that are not also within the scopes of other (non-geopolitical) wikiprojects. The WP:ARBINFOBOX case actually forcefully shut down the idea that wikiprojects could make up and enforce "rules" that applied to "their" articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh. O.K. Thanks for explaining. I hope you'll remove the sentence.  – Corinne (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Keagiles (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Keagiles! I'm glad you asked! If you have not yet seen the main project page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, you might start by reading that page. Along the top, you'll see several tabs. You might click on some of those tabs, especially "How to copy edit" and "templates", and just take a look at them. I see from your user page that you are a professional editor, so we can really use your talents. I'd like to point out, in case you don't already know it, that Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and encapsulated in that manual is Wikipedia's own style, which differs from other style guides in a few respects. The Manual of Style is so large, though, that it would take quite a while to read through the entire thing, so I suggest a few things regarding style:

(a) When in doubt, look for the guideline in the MoS. Ask another editor to point you to the right section if you can't find it. You can always ask another editor if you have a question; other copy editors at the Guild are good editors to ask;

(b) as you edit, pay attention to edits, edit summaries, and discussions regarding style; experienced editors will know Wikipedia's style, and you'll learn from the edits and discussions. If for some reason one of your edits gets reverted or changed, the other editor should provide an edit summary explaining the reason; it could be an opportunity to learn Wikipedia's style. If, after studying the situation, you still don't agree, you can start a discussion or ask another editor for an opinion. Read WP:BRD to familiarize yourself with the basic process. You are encouraged to be bold in your edits, but you want to avoid edit warring. See WP:3RR.

Toward the bottom of the main Guild of Copy Editors project page, you'll see a section headed "Joining the Guild". To participate in the activities of the Guild of Copy Editors, you can do any of the things listed there or simply start copy-editing articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, or participate in some of the blitzes. Just jump right in. Feel free to copy (while in edit mode) anything you find useful from the top of my talk page, or the templates section at the top of the main project page, and paste them to your user or talk page. (If you do copy anything, be sure to click "Cancel" below the edit window on the page you are copying from so you don't make any changes to those pages.)

I hope this is helpful, and please do not hesitate to ask if you have any questions. Best regards, and welcome!  – Corinne (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I've gotten started already and am now signed up. Nice "meeting" you. Keagiles (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise I have Persian language on my watchlist, so I saw your recent edit restoring the IP's edit. I am not questioning your edit; it looks absolutely correct. Though I am not an expert in linguistics, I have an interest in languages. I wonder if you could tell me why the transliteration is spelled tojiki, with an "o", and the country, Tajikistan, and the language, Tajiki, are spelled with an "a". Is that "to" from the IPA? It just doesn't seem like "to" would be a helpful pronunciation guide.  – Corinne (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see in the Tajik language article, the back open vowel that is conventionally transcribed as "ā" in standard Persian has a more o-like realization in Tajik, and this is reflected in the Cyrillic orthography of Tajik, which uses Cyrillic "o" for it. Latin transliterations for Tajik apparently tend to reflect this o-like pronunciation and/or the o-spelling in the Cyrillic. We have an article on Romanization of Tajik that should contain some more details. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Miniapolis or any talk page stalker: I just finished copy-editing Helmut Krausnick. I left a few comments for the requesting editor at User talk:K.e.coffman#Helmut Krausnick. As I said there in item 4, I want to be sure I understood the guideline in the MOS regarding the formatting of the English translation of a foreign language title . See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Translations. I understood it to have no special formatting and to be in sentence case, unless the work is well known with an English title. Is this correct?

Besides the question of formatting, if anyone knows German, perhaps you could help figure out the best wording for the translation of that German title. (Again, read item 4.)  – Corinne (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

EEng and SMcCandlish I was just reading the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and I came across two things I want to ask you about:

1) In the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations, which is just one paragraph, the last sentence reads:

• Consider minimizing the use of quotations by paraphrasing, as quotations should not replace free text (including one that the editor writes).

I paused at "including one that the editor writes". I wondered what "one" referred to. If it refers to "free text", shouldn't it read something like "including that which the editor writes", or "including that written by the editor"? I don't think "one" can be used to refer to "free text". If "one" means "a quotation", I don't think this is very clear.

2) At the very end of the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Typographic conformity, there is a tag saying "example needed". I thought that perhaps you might not have seen this and that an example should be found. Well, that's all.  – Corinne (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

On the first point, that's the result of string of edits by Moxy [2] and whoever changed that material even further. I suspect what happened was material that originated in the thought "a close paraphrase written by the editor" got interrupted by insertions, until the second half was divorced from the first. The entire add-on phrase doesn't help, because all our content is written by editors unless it actually is a quote (or is a copyvio). On the second matter, I clarified the wording and added an example, but the example may not be necessary given the clarification.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I’ve taken the liberty of contacting you on something I can’t get straight. Whenever one places quotation marks around a word or words is one required to cite a source for the quote? It seems to be done with or without sources in many promoted articles. Thank you in advance for any help you can offer. Pendright (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Pendright I apologize for the delay in responding. I didn't see this until just now. I'm not an expert in attributing material, so I'm going to ping other editors who know more than I do. I believe you are not talking about MOS:WORDSASWORDS, which can be formatting either using italics or double quotation marks, in which case no attribution is necessary, but it is important not to introduce opinion or bias; see the section a few sections up called Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Point of view. I believe you are referring to quoted words or phrases taken from a source. I don't think every quoted word needs to have a reference number after it as long as it is clear who said it; the reference or the name of the person who said it should be somewhere nearby, but I'm not an expert, so I'm not sure. Perhaps SMcCandlish, EEng, or Iridescent can help answer your question.  – Corinne (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The answer to the question as phrased is "no", because question marks have multiple uses, like the ones in this sentence and the next one, and titles of shorts works, and various other things. The answer to a question like "is one required to cite a source for an actual quotation?" is of course "yes", or we wouldn't have verifiability dispute templates like {{cite quote}}. Use WP:Common sense; if the same party is being quoted multiple times in rapid succession, all from the same source, and without any possibility that the reader doesn't understand this, then a single citation is probably sufficient. If anyone disputes that it's good enough, just add the redundant-seeming cites and don't worry about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Ping: Pendright.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What SMcCandlish said. If you're quoting someone directly—or even paraphrasing them—you need to cite who said it, where and when. "Who" is obvious, "where" is important both so readers can see to whom the remark was originally addressed and also to assess for themselves whether the quote is likely to be genuine; "when" because context is essential and perceptions change over time. It's not a case of "anything contained in quote marks"—there are five sets of quote marks in this post—but "are you claiming that someone said something?". This isn't a Wikipedia rule, this is a rule of writing in any context whatsoever—you should never quote anybody without attribution. ‑ Iridescent 20:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ths information is very helpful - thank each of you for your explanati0n. Pendright (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Hello, Gerda – Do you know anything about European ceramic art? See this edit to Ceramic art. I agree that uncited material has got to go, but I'm puzzled. The change was made to a paragraph beginning "Until the 16th century" in the Ceramic art#Porcelain section, but the statement remains in the last paragraph in Ceramic art#History, which is also about porcelain. Also, (see edit summary) I thought other Wikipedia articles were not to be used as sources. I thought maybe a source could be found, if not in English then perhaps in German, for the statements about Meissen. Iridescent You probably know something about ceramic art. What do you think about this? Also, what do you think about the addition of the word "sculpture" in the previous edit? I think it should remain as three adjectives for one noun phrase: "decorative, industrial or applied art objects".  – Corinne (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You want Johnbod for ceramics; I know they exist but that's pretty much it. Wikipedia articles aren't usable as sources, but I read that edit summary as a clumsily worded attempt to point out an inconsistency between articles, rather than the use of Wikipedia as a citation. ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) European Porcelain of the 18th Century by Meister and Reber, Phaidon 1983, ISBN 0714821977 has in an appendix on p.310 under Inventions, 1708/9 Johann Friedrich Böttger and Ehrenfried Walter von Tschirnhaus. Father d'Entrecolles is mentioned on p. 10 as having introduced the term "kaolin" in 1712 (he's not listed in the index). The authors don't seem to describe the initial development of the European porcelain industry (but I could've missed it- the book's thick, heavy and boring). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Thanks, Johnbod for working on the article. Do you think the word "sculpture" needs to be there? See this edit.  – Corinne (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Moved it. Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

If you find time for it could you take a look at my recent noms at TAFI Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. Would appreciate no matter what !vote as no one is attending the TAFI nom page anymore to give input. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you review my TÁFI nom for Prisoner. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Something fun to read: Talk:Saxons#"Saxons in Gaul" - what about: Tin de Cornbeef?.  – Corinne (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish and tps's, what do you think of the addition of this tag in this edit to Who (pronoun)?  – Corinne (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) – The Wikipedia article is much more detailed, lengthy, and cited than a Wiktionary entry would be. Just sayin' – Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Checkingfax! Great to hear from you.  – Corinne (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not a WP:DICDEF page. I removed the drive-by tag.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers: I was just reading the article on Bruno Bettelheim, and I came across a sentence that didn't seem right, and I'd like to hear your opinions on it. It is in the third paragraph in the Bruno Bettelheim#Background in Austria section:

• Candidates for the doctoral dissertation in the History of Art in 1938 at Vienna University had to fulfill prerequisites in the formal study of the role of Jungian archetypes in art, and in art as an expression of the Freudian subconscious.

I wondered about the choice of "in" as the preposition for the last phrase. Is the sentence construction

had to fulfill prerequisites

• in the formal study of the role of Jungian archetypes in art, and

• in art as an expression of the Freudian subconscious

or:

had to fulfill prerequisites in the formal study

• of the role of Jungian archetypes in art, and

• of art as an expression of the Freudian subconscious.

I thought it should be the second, and that "in" should be changed to "of". What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the sentence as it stands. You would have to look at the original source to be sure, but I think the parallel structure is written as intended. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Any other opinions? Iridescent, BlueMoonset, Miniapolis, Reidgreg?  – Corinne (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jonesey. Miniapolis 23:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

O.K., thanks, Miniapolis. I just thought it was odd that the one stipulated the formal study of something and the other did not; it suggests that the study of art is not the formal study of art.  – Corinne (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I just think the existing sentence reads better. Miniapolis 00:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

O.K.  – Corinne (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The construction does seem a little odd, and it doesn't seem ideal to have five occurrences of in in the sentence. (I might have been tempted to change it to "had to fulfill prerequisites including" and get rid of the fifth in.) If you move formal study outside like "fulfill formal study prerequisites in..." then it applies to both. But should check sources – is there an alternative to the assumed study such as the practise or application of "art as an expression..."? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Iryna Harpy – I was reading the exchange on the talk page of the Kievan Rus' article at Talk:Kievan Rus'#Part of todays Poland would be part of Kievan Rus'. Of course, I know very little of the subject matter, but I still find the discussion interesting. I was puzzled by one statement you made, so I thought I'd ask you about it. It's the last statement in your comment of 02:45 of 28 January (I'm sorry, but I couldn't figure out how to create a diff to show your addition of this comment, perhaps because the discussion was copied from somewhere else.):

• A reasonable map created for Commons providing an approximation is not a useful reference point, but it is not a reliable source of itself.

Are you sure you wanted the negative "not" in both halves of this sentence? It would seem to me that if you introduce the second clause with "but", there ought to be a contrast. If I am wrong, I'll be glad to be corrected, or you can ignore this. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Also, right after that you wrote, "Regardless of rather". Perhaps you meant "Regardless of whether"?  – Corinne (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Goodness, Corinne, I'm grateful for your attentive reading! You're absolutely correct with regards to my doubling up on the "not" business. I've amended my response to the IP. As regards the 'whether' business, I've cut and pasted the discussion from my talk page and, as you've correctly assumed, I left the IP's response as it was written verbatin. I've understood what they intended to say, but I don't want to tamper with their response in case it is misconstrued as being an misrepresentation of their intent. Cheers for the heads up! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy Oh, my goodness. Of course you're right not to change the IP's comment; I didn't see that that second comment was not yours.  – Corinne (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone besides me find this funny? Talk:Thulium#Who did the 15,000 recrystallizations of thulium bromate to obtain pure thulium?  – Corinne (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. Only us wordcrafters would find that amusing.   Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)