User talk:Rothorpe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


What do you think of the last two sentences in the second paragraph of the lead in Cabeiri? I think they could be improved. CorinneSD (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I changed a comma (or a dash?) to a colon; the last sentence seemed OK. Rothorpe (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
All good edits. I guess the sentences are all right. What do you think about "the accounts...vary" and, in the next sentences, "The number...varied"? CorinneSD (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's OK, the repetition of 'vary' isn't a problem for me, but do have a go at rephrasing if you wish. Indeed the accounts could differ. Rothorpe (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)---So I changed it. Rothorpe (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I like "vary", and I don't mind the repetition. I was just wondering about the change in verb tense -- the first one is present tense and the second one is past tense, and I couldn't see a reason for the change. CorinneSD (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, right, so I've made the second one present too. Rothorpe (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Good. I'm wondering whether "differ in the number and sexes of the gods" should be "differ in the number and sex of the gods". Why is "sex" plural? CorinneSD (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Because there are two! Ahem, I think the word 'number' sort of suggests a plural to go next to it. Perhaps 'number and sex' suggests serial number or some such. Rothorpe (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Rothorpe -- I need your opinions. Please read my comment at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Rhubarb, and then see all the changes at Rhubarb. Please comment either here or on Sminthopsis84's talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It's very complicated, but I note that someone reverted your edit. Did you ask why? Rothorpe (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I left a note for Sminthopsis84 (did you read it?), and Sminth then deleted an entire section of the sentence so that it read all right after that, so I didn't have to bother asking that editor. I was very puzzled by that because the way it was worded made it sound like rhubarb commerce was compiled (at least that's the way I remember it -- something like that), when it was an herbal manual that was compiled. I would have fought for my version if Sminth hadn't changed the sentence. CorinneSD (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I did read it, hence 'complicated'. So all is now well? Rothorpe (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I'm enjoying the very pleasant day -- not hot, humid, or windy, and listening to the birds singing. CorinneSD (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, good. Rothorpe (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot[edit]

Hello, Rothorpe! If you have time, would you take a look at the latest edits to Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot? Besides the space missing before the newly added professor, the other edits have some problems with verb tense and punctuation. They might have been made by a non-native speaker of English. I don't know whether they add to the article or not. CorinneSD (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's a ref, so I'd be inclined to leave well alone. Rothorpe (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
In such cases, to copyedit or not to copyedit? To do so seems to lend it legitimacy. Rothorpe (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I've thought that several times, too. That putting something into well-written English adds legitimacy when, if one leaves it alone, it might be undone by another editor. CorinneSD (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Glad you agree. Rothorpe (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Mount Ossa (Greece)[edit]

I just read the short article on Mount Ossa (Greece) and came across something that is not quite right. It's the last phrase in the first paragraph in the lead, regarding height. The way it is worded, it sounds like the height refers to the Vale of Tempe. But the Vale of Tempe is a deep gorge, so I don't think the height figure was supposed to refer to the Vale. Don't you think the height figure is for Mount Ossa? If you think we can confidently assume that, the sentence needs to be re-arranged. CorinneSD (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Rothorpe (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


In the first sentence in the section Thessaly#Ancient history, it says "around 6000-2500 BC". I'm wondering whether the word "around" is necessary. That's quite a span of years, and they're round numbers, so I think it's obvious that they're approximate years. I know circa, or c., would mean "around", but I don't even think that's necessary. I think "between" before the years would be better. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I like the vagueness of 'around'. At that distance, big is hazy. Rothorpe (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
O.K. I'll leave it. Boy, could "around 6,000 BC" be 5,000 BC? CorinneSD (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
For me, yes. Perhaps not for an ancient historian. Rothorpe (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Webster[edit]

Could you please look at the latest edit to Daniel Webster? I don't know whether it is a good edit or not. CorinneSD (talk) 22:23

It's just a change of picture of Webster. I don't know what the reason might be; normally one would be given. Rothorpe (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Blanking of page[edit]

When I saw that you had blanked your talk page without replying to any of my comments/questions, I thought you didn't want to chat with me any more. CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was a particularly angst-filled archiving this time. I always think it should be easier every time; instead the reverse. Still, all's well... Rothorpe (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I've figured out how to do it easily. (This works best when you have two windows open so you can copy from one and paste into the other.)

1) I create a new page by putting CorinneSD/Archivewhatever number in the WP search bar. Leave it in Edit Mode.

2) Then I highlight everything on my talk page (in edit mode), right-click the mouse so that a little menu opens up, click "Copy", then go to the other window where I have created a new page, and paste into the edit window, and save.

3) When I'm sure it transferred O.K. and I have saved it, then I go back to the first one (the old talk page), highlight everything on my talk page again (in edit mode), right-click the mouse, and click "Cut". Then I type at the top, "Welcome to my new talk page. Feel free to continue any discussions started in Archive whatever -- the number I just created." Then I click Save.

3b) Instead of clicking "Copy", then "Paste" in the new page, you could just click "Cut" and then "Paste", but then if it somehow disappears, you can't get it back (unless you haven't gotten out of your talk page edit mode yet; you could just click "Cancel" and start again). CorinneSD (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I more or less try to remember to do. Thanks: I'll be sure to consult it next time. Rothorpe (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Charlotte Corday[edit]

I was looking at a series of edits made to Charlotte Corday as mobile edits when I saw what I thought was a clear error in punctuation. I changed it back to the way it was. Then I saw the link was red. I searched for the WP article (through the disambiguation page for "Vera"), and I saw that the title of the article, which is the title of an Oscar Wilde play, was indeed "Vera; or, the Nihilists". So I undid my own edit. But I am astonished. I've seen many story or play titles that have two alternate titles. They are always "X, or Y", with a comma after the first title. I'm astonished that Oscar Wilde would punctuate it this way. Perhaps the semi-colon -- and a comma after "or" -- were more common in his day. CorinneSD (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had this problem somewhere on WP recently. I probably concluded there were several ways to do it. Certainly, the historical tendency is to simplify punctuation. Rothorpe (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Rothorpe! Can you tell me why Jaguar changed American spellings to British spellings at Guyana? I know about WP:ENGVAR, but Guyana is in the Western Hemisphere, not far from the U.S. Is it because it used to be a British colony? The other criterion for changing spelling to the other variant is that the article is already predominantly in one style, but I wonder whether it could have been in predominantly British style if so many words are being changed. CorinneSD (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, British in Guyana. They play cricket too! Rothorpe (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Epacris impressa[edit]

I was asked by Cas Liber to go over an article that is up for Featured Article. It is Epacris impressa. I have found only a few minor issues which I corrected. I have a few questions I'm going to leave at the Peer Review page for the article Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Epacris impressa/archive1. I may have questions later, but certainly you can read and reply at that page, but I have one question now for you. It is in, I believe, the second-to-last paragraph in the section Epacris impressa#Variation in flower colour and length. It is this sentence:

"The question has been raised over whether these different forms are becoming incompatible."

I just wonder whether you think this is all right as it is. It sounds all right, but I was wondering whether "as to" would be better than "over". The two authors of the article may be Australian, so I don't know whether "over" is more common there. Also, is "The question" all right? Not "A question"? CorinneSD (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best without anything: The question has been raised whether..., which makes sense of 'the' over 'a'. Now I'll go and look at your other links. Rothorpe (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Slightly puzzled as to why you changed 'Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania' to 'Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania,' - it rather suggests that Victoria is part of South Australia. Are you a fan of the serial comma? I am only when it resolves ambiguity. Rothorpe (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
O.K. I agree with you on the "whether" issue. I'm sorry, but I could not find that edit (and don't remember making it). I searched in the revision history carefully and couldn't find the edit. CorinneSD (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it wasn't you, apologies. I've fixed it anyway. Rothorpe (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Rothorpe! If you have time, would you look at the latest edits to Pyrenees? Normally, I like to find a verb other than BE if I can, but in this case I kind of like it. I suppose "form" is technically more correct, but there are several instances of the word "from" there, so "form" and "from" is a lot of "fr_m's". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk)`

I agree. Rothorpe (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Rothorpe (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Rothorpe! I just started reading the article on the Parthenon. I wanted to ask you about a sentence near the beginning of the lead:

"It is the most important surviving building of Classical Greece, generally considered the culmination of the development of the Doric order".

I was just wondering if there weren't a more concise way to say "the culmination of the development of the Doric order". I was thinking of something like "the zenith of the Doric order" or "the culmination of the Doric order". Any thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly needs clipping. Either of your suggestions would do nicely. Rothorpe (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I chose "zenith". It's more interesting, and I think WP articles need some more interesting vocabulary.
Yes, all good changes.

I have a few other questions about the article Parthenon:

1) In the second sentence in the lead, the sentence begins:

"Its construction began in 447...."
I'm wondering whether the sentence would be clear enough if the word "Its" were removed:
"Construction began in 447....."
I notice that the same sentence contains another "its" and the next sentence has "it". I thought it would be nice to reduce the number of "it's" and "its".
Yes, fine.

2) In the second paragraph in the section Parthenon#Etymology, I see "In 5th-century building accounts" and "the 4th-century BC orator Demosthenes". I know that a hyphen is needed for "foot" and "inch" when used as an adjective: "a six-foot-tall man", "a four-inch-high statue", but is a hyphen necessary in these cases, with "century"? Written out, it would be "In the fifth-century building accounts" and "the fourth-century BC orator Demosthenes". Do we usually use a hyphen there? The number "5" with "th" looks odd followed by a hyphen.

It reads perfectly well without, yes, and looks fussy with.

3) The first sentence in the section Parthenon#Function reads:

"Although the Parthenon is architecturally a temple and is usually called so, it is not really one in the conventional sense of the word".
I wonder about "is not really one in the conventional sense of the word". What conventional sense? Conventional in 450 BC or conventional today? I just think it's a little odd.
No, I think it's clear enough, if it means it wasn't used to worship the goddess.

4) The first sentence of the first paragraph in Parthenon#Older Parthenon reads:

"The first endeavor to build a sanctuary for Athena Parthenos on the site of the present Parthenon was begun shortly after the Battle of Marathon (c. 490–488 BC) upon a muscular limestone foundation that extended and leveled the southern part of the Acropolis summit".
Do you like the word "muscular" here? I think it's a little odd. What do you think of substituting a word like "substantial", "solid", or "massive" here? (I like "solid".)
I think solid. A muscular foundation is a little hard to envisage.

5) The first sentence of the second paragraph in the section Parthenon#Older Parthenon reads:

"The existence of both the proto-Parthenon and its destruction were known from Herodotus, and the drums of its columns were plainly visible built into the curtain wall north of the Erechtheum".
Do you like the wording of the second half of this sentence? I wonder about "were plainly visible built into".
Do you think perhaps a word or two is missing here? CorinneSD (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Do improve it if you can, but I don't think it's too bad in context. Rothorpe (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)