User talk:Corinne

Vertical garden from Lalbagh flower show, August 2013 Royal gardens of Reggia di Caserta, Italy Sunken garden at Butchart Gardens, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada Garden at Colonial Williamsburg the Moon 1st quarter, 46% #wikipedia-en-copyedit connect

GOCE templates

Guild of Copy Editors templates: {{GOCEstartce}} {{GOCEinuse}} {{GOCE|user={{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|date={{subst:date}}}} {{GOCE|user=Corinne|date=15 September 2015}} Add correct date manually. To leave a note for editors on the article's talk page before beginning a copy-edit: == Requested [[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] copy edit ==''' As [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests|requested]] by {{U|Requester's user name}}, I will be copy-editing this article on behalf of the [[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]]. I expect the edit to take at least a few days. I will post here if I find things I am unable to resolve. To leave a note on requester's talk page saying copy-edit has been completed: {{GOCEtb|article = Name of article here|sign = ~~~~}} To add, at the top of an article's talk page, the WikiProject banner shell (to group together all WikiProjects connected to the article) and to add GOCE as one of those WikiProjects and the template saying a copy-edit has been completed, with the date completed and by whom it was completed: {{WikiProject banner shell | {{WikiProject template1}} {{WikiProject template2}} {{GOCE template}} i.e., the third or fourth template above that starts "GOCE user" }} To add WikiProject banner shell (and GOCE template) to the talk page of an article on a living person: {{WikiProject banner shell |blp=yes | {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes |listas=Case, Nic}} {{GOCE|user=Corinne|date=19 February 2016}} }} Note: The "listas=Last name, First name" of the subject of the article is only needed once among the banners at the top of the talk page.

Templates

To place a notice at the top of an article saying that an active copy-edit is underway: {{In use}} – a generic in-use session {{In use|time=~~~~~}} – generic in-use but showing in time/date, and last edit time/date {{In use|30 minutes to fix the information in the History section|time=~~~~~}} – customize the message regarding your in-use intentions and duration. When you save an edit the timekeeper resets to the current time. {{in use|section}} – to declare a section in-use session  Done {{done}} to place a green check mark to the left of something completed  Not done {{not done}} to place a red "X" to the left of something not completed, or not done Link to master list of all the fancy "done" type templates To format a quote so that it appears in green text, useful for quoting something in a discussion: {{tq|Type quote here.}} "This is an example quote, optional quotation marks inside curly brackets." "This is an example quote, optional quotation marks outside." This is an example quote with no quotation marks. Usually used like this. The quote will appear in green. Optional quotation marks go inside the curly brackets if they are part of the quote, outside if they are not. Quotation marks are usually not used with this template. The green text makes it clear that it is a quote. To format a block quote that requires an attribution. This particular example also includes a reference: {{quote|Quote goes here|Attribution goes here}} {{quote|This doesn't have to be liberal versus pro-business debate.|Andrew Morgan, director<ref>http://www.this-is-a-dummy-ref.org</ref>}} Note: To omit the attribution, remove the 2nd pipe like this: {{quote|Quoted text}}. If the 2nd pipe is removed then the reference will hang on the quoted portion instead of on the attributed portion. Multiple references may be used, and they may be of any WP approved style. Of course, a reference is not always necessary in a quote. In that case, just use: {{quote|Quoted text}} or {{quote|Quoted text|Attribution text}} How to create a diff from two adjacent edits Go to Revision History, and find the edit. Left-click on "Prev". Look up at top of page at the URL. Toward the end there should be two numbers, something like this: revision&diff=695592676&oldid=695592296 Use this template, putting the larger/higher number (representing the newer version) to the left and the smaller/lower number (representing the older version) to the right. A label following a pipe is optional. Right after "diff" and a pipe, put the exact title of the page (no underline is needed). {{diff|User talk:Corinne|695573832|695552708|comparing a newer page to an older page by version numbers}} Or you could just put one number after "prev" (from a URL in which you see prev&oldid=695552708): {{diff|User talk:Corinne|prev|695552708|Optional label here}} Or you can use the template to compare any two nonadjacent page versions by taking one page version number from one nonadjacent page and one page version from another nonadjacent page. To hat, or collapse, a section: {{collapse top|top title goes here|bg=}} The material you want to hat (hide from view) goes here. (Can be a template.) {{collapse bottom}} En-dash and em-dash templates Click on each template link below for template documentation: Non breaking space: {{nbsp}} No-space breaking em-dash (but is sticky on the left): {{nsmdns}} (no-space m-dash no-space as a mnemonic) No-space ndash: {{ndash}} or {{nsndns}} Spaced non-breaking en-dash: {{snds}} (spaced n-dash space as a mnemonic) Spaced breaking en-dash: {{snd}} Line break: {{brk}} (replaces HTML tag <br> or identically functioning but more correct <br />) Note: You cannot use a template (with the curly brackets) inside a reference that is in the "cite ref" template format (with curly brackets). In that case, use &nbsp; for a no-break space and &ndash; or &mdash;. En-dash and em-dash keyboard shortcuts (at least on a Mac) En-dash: Alt+- Em-dash: Alt+Shift+- Converting units (height, weight, length, distance, speed, etc.) from one system to another: Information about the conversion templates: {{convert}} List of units: Template:Convert/list of units Example conversion templates for high numbers: {{convert|13100000|km2}} → 13,100,000 square kilometres (5,100,000 sq mi) or {{convert|13.1e6|km2}} → 13.1×106 square kilometres (5.1×106 sq mi) Text colors References

Helpful external links

Useful external links: Google Translate Merriam Webster Wiktionary To link a word in an article to a Wiktionary definition, use this link at the word. For example, if you want to link the word "skill", put [[wikt:skill|skill]] or just [[wikt:skill|]]. Putting the pipe hides the "wikt:". Tool for counting characters Copy text you want counted and paste in empty box. TFA summary char. count guideline: 900–1200; 1000–1150 great. Earwig's Copyvio Detector Per 7&6=13, the one limitation of this tool is that it will also find sources that used/plagiarized Wikipedia articles, so just be aware of this when using the tool.

This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2015)

Coffee production in Cuba – Robusta coffee beans at a coffee plantation in Viñales valley in Cuba Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Coffee production in Cuba Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Goods and services • Marie Serneholt Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2015)

The First Geneva Convention (1864) is one of the earliest formulations of international law. Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: International law Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Coffee production in Cuba • Goods and services Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2015)

Princess Leia with characteristic hairstyle cosplayed. Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Princess Leia Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: International law • Coffee production in Cuba Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

talkback copyediting

Hello, Corinne. You have new messages at BOTFIGHTER's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback copyediting

Hello, Corinne. You have new messages at BOTFIGHTER's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination for Wikipedia schwag

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

How to Write Numbers: spelling out numbers vs. using numerals

Hi Corinne, User:Checkingfax suggested more consistency in the use of writing numbers in the Laucke article and I agree. I've read a few articles such as How to Write Numbers and Rules for Writing Numbers and it seems there can be quite a difference in the interpretation of the rules, at times unclear and ambiguous unlike, say, ...Wikipedia's policies (specifically on the subject of navboxes). Seriousness aside, some sources suggest numerals from 1 to 9, others suggest numerals from 1 to 99, and there are other 'please yourself' notions as well

If you would be so kind as to make a few suggestions, I'll be able to pick up the baton from there. I've indicated below the havoc I might wreak if left to my own devices.

• ...when the two shared a loft in New York City in the early 1970s (seventies?)
• ...With his more than 100 transcriptions of classical and flamenco music, (one hundred?)
• ... he began performing in 1965, recording the first of 16 albums in 1969, and has toured in 25 countries. (sixteen albums in 1969, and has toured in twenty-five countries?)
• ... After they separated when Michael was six months old, he was raised and nurtured by his grandmother, who died at the age of 100 (one hundred?)
• ...building a boat from 2,000 toothpicks (two thousand?)
• ...a city-wide yo-yo competition among 2,000 contestants, winning a C$60 bicycle (two thousand?)
• ...The recording uses 24 tracks, (twenty-four?)
• ...The 24 tracks employ: 5 guitars (flamenco, Spanish, classical and electric guitars), a rhythm section consisting of bongos, 4 congas and a rock drum set blended with other percussion instruments such as claves, maracas and castanets, 3 dancers performing typical “palmas” (hand-clapping) in synchronization, 3 trumpets, 3 pianos and a “country-style” violinist. (I might suggest twenty-four tracks, and then go with the numerals 5 guitars, 4 congas... and so on)
• ...SOCAN lists 112 classical works (leave as is because it would be too long to spell out one hundred and twelve ?)
• ...Laucke has had 25 original, Canadian atonal works written for him, (twenty-five?)
• ...After 50 years of concert performances (after fifty years? ...dont know why I like '50' better)

Many thanks once again for your precious help. Kindest regards, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Hi, Natalie. The Wikipedia house style (MoS) suggests spelling out 1–9, unless there are table, infobox, or nabox space constraints. So, I would only suggest changing the single digits to being spelled out (e.g.- 5 → five). MoS is a WP guideline to standardize things, but it is not a WP policy, or local, state, federal, or international law. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels Well, I'm always partial to words, but I agree with Checkingfax that generally only numbers 1–9 are spelled out, but in this article I think only the single digit numbers 1–5 need to be spelled out, but it's not good to mix "1, 2, 3, 4, and 5" with "six, seven, eight, nine, ten" in the same list or section. So, for the ones you listed above, I would leave them all as they are with the exception of the one that starts "The 24 tracks employ". I would leave "24", but change the others. I also don't think the colon is needed there. Would you agree, Checkingfax?

Since I saw two items in your list, above, that contain "24 tracks", I decided to take a look at that section again. I'm going to copy three sentences here:

On 12 September 2001, Laucke released a CD called Flamenco Road; it consists mainly of his own compositions in the new flamenco style, which he also arranged. The recording uses 24 tracks, arguably the only recording in this style to employ such elaborate instrumentation. The recording took place in five different studios in Montreal, each chosen for its particular acoustics. The 24 tracks employ: 5 guitars...

I'd like to point out two different things:

1) You have "the recording" twice. I believe that in the first instance, the phrase is just a synonym for "the CD". If it is not, and you really mean "the recording process", or "the process of recording the CD", then "uses" should be in past tense: "The recording used 24 tracks", or even "The recording required the use of 24 tracks". It is clear that the second instance of "the recording" means "the process of recording the CD", so that's not a problem. However, it is a problem (conceptually) if you mean something different by the first use of "the recording" and the second use, and if you do mean something different, I recommend not using the same phrase.

2) There really should be a way to avoid using "24 tracks" twice. I'm thinking that if you re-arrange the sentences so that the two sentences about the tracks are next to each other, or even joined into one sentence, you can do that. How about something like this? --

• On 12 September 2001, Laucke released a CD called Flamenco Road; it consists mainly of his own compositions in the new flamenco style, which he also arranged. Recorded at five different studios in Montreal, each chosen for its unique acoustics, the CD required the use of 24 tracks, arguably the only recording in this style to employ such elaborate instrumentation. The tracks employ five guitars, (etc.).

(You'll notice that I changed "its particular acoustics" to "its unique acoustics" for one reason. The sentence is quite long as it is, so I looked for anything I could find to shorten that participial phrase that interrupts the flow of the sentence, "each chosen for...acoustics", and "unique" is a shorter word than "particular" and I believe is close enough in meaning to be a synonym.)

 – Corinne (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Upon one further reading, I would change the semi-colon plus "it consists mainly of" in the first sentence to a comma and "consisting mainly of". I would also remove the comma after the year:

• On 12 September 2001 Laucke released a CD called Flamenco Road, consisting mainly of his own compositions in the new flamenco style, which he also arranged.

 – Corinne (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Corinne My many thanks and heartfelt appreciation for your suggested refinements mentioned above. In striving to be neutral, I see that I sometimes assumed a 'reporters' role of dryly stating the facts, achieving the required neutrality but sacrificing some interest, readability and flow along the way. I am constantly learning from your suggestions and truly appreciate how you restructured the above sentence and I have now taken the pleasure to implement all your wonderful changes. Checkingfax Regarding the numerals, thank you once again for your advice , with which I concur of course, now duly implemented as well. Very kindest regards, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Corinne ...just wanted to also send my appreciation for the stunning Mirabelle plum blossom, which Checkingfax helped you position (see, I'm a (talk page stalker) too ); it's superbly beautiful! Natalie.Desautels (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2016)

Debt is the amount of money that is owed or due. Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Debt Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Delicatessen • Pecan pie Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Baldus de Ubaldis

Checkingfax I was looking at the latest edit to Baldus de Ubaldis, and I saw em-dashes in date ranges, so I changed the em-dashes to en-dashes using the "ndash" template. Then I looked at the en-dashes, and it looks like there is slightly too much space between the en-dash and the subsequent "1", so I tried changing the "ndash" template to just a regular en-dash (from the bottom of the edit window), and it looked the same. Then I tried the "no-space-en-dash-no-space" template {{nsndns}}, and it looked the same. Then I remembered kerning, and I remembered reading something about kerning on WP, so I looked for something. The only thing I found was how to add a tiny space in Help:Advanced text formatting (which is an interesting article if you haven't seen it). So I looked at the actual WP article on Kerning. That article is a bit overwhelming. Can you see if there is anything one can use to remove, or slightly reduce, spacing between an en-dash and a following "1" (which is what kerning usually does)?  – Corinne (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. I did not read the other articles yet, but the "1" does have different kerning. You can see it when you put double quote marks around it. You can see, for instance, the left side of a "2" has different kerning than a "1" does.

My Dad used to stick letters up for people and he was careful to kern them vs. tracking them. Kerning takes up less horizontal space too for the overall line of text. I think the IBM Selectric typewriter uses kerning whereas standard typewriters use tracking. This made it hard to line up right margins for certain tasks.

I wonder who our resident typographer is? Here is one you could ask: James Arboghast. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Million Award for Planned Parenthood, Million Award Hall of Fame, and DYK 5000+ for April, 2016

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Planned Parenthood (estimated annual readership: 1,793,486) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, Checkingfax! Thank you so much. What an honor!  – Corinne (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. Check out Wikipedia:Million Award#Million Award Hall of Fame and Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#April 2016 too. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Olivia de Havilland

Hello, Corinne. I hope you are doing well. I am preparing the Olivia de Havilland article for WP:GAN, and if you have time, I would appreciate one of your careful copyedits for the article. Last year, your contributions helped prepare the Gary Cooper article for WP:GA, and later WP:FA and WP:TFA. Best regards, Bede735 (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Hi, Bede735. I did not do any copy edits but I did do some MoS edits that should smooth things out for a later FA review. Let me know if you have any questions about my edits and I will explain each one to you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Corinne. Bede735 (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Bede735 As Checkingfax has explained, it was he who posted the comment just above and who made those edits. I am only now beginning to look at the article. I've gotten through the lead. I haven't made any edits yet, but I wanted to ask you what you thought about a few things I've seen:

1) Toward the end of the second paragraph of the lead, you have this sentence:

• In her later career, she was most successful in straight drama films, such as In This Our Life (1942) and Light in the Piazza (1962), and psychological dramas playing unglamorous roles in such films as The Dark Mirror (1946) and Hush… Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964).

I know you are using the phrase "straight drama" to distinguish between this type of film and the one just mentioned, "historical period dramas" and "romantic dramas". I also know the phrase may have a particular meaning to movie buffs and those involved in the film industry. However, to a non-expert, the phrase does not mean much and in fact could suggest a meaning that I know was not intended. I notice that the phrase is not linked. Unless it is linked to an article that would explain it, I think it might be worth searching for another word besides "straight". Just a thought: if you can't think of another phrase, would you consider removing all those other phrases (different types of drama) and just list all those movies under drama? You can explain the various types later in the article.

Done. Bede735 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

2) The third paragraph begins with this sentence:

• In addition to her productive film career, de Havilland continued her work in the theatre, appearing three times on Broadway, in Romeo and Juliet (1951), Candida (1952), and A Gift of Time (1962) with Henry Fonda.

I paused at the word "productive". There is something rather prosaic, and kind of heavy and plodding, about this word. There is barely a suggestion of something special. I'm wondering if you would consider substituting another word such as "flourishing" or "active".

Yes, "active" is a better term. Bede735 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

3) The fourth paragraph begins with this sentence:

• After her romantic relationships with Howard Hughes, James Stewart, and film director John Huston, de Havilland married author Marcus Goodrich with whom she had a son, Benjamin.

I'm wondering whether the word "her" is needed at the beginning of the sentence. You haven't yet introduced these relationships, so to say "After her romantic relationships" is kind of a surprise to the reader, who may ask themselves, "What romantic relationships?" I think it will be clear enough that the relationships were between her and each of these men, because her name follows the list and begins the main clause of the sentence:

• After romantic relationships with Howard Hughes, James Stewart, and film director John Huston, de Havilland married author Marcus Goodrich, with whom she had a son, Benjamin.

(I've added a comma after "Goodrich", which I will soon add in the article.)

Made both changes. Bede735 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

4) In the last paragraph of the lead you have these sentences:

• De Havilland and her sister Joan Fontaine are the only siblings to have won Academy Awards in a lead acting category. Over the course of their careers, several well-publicized incidents underscored a lifelong sibling rivalry between the two that resulted in their estrangement that lasted over three decades.

I noticed you have "siblings" and then "sibling". I don't think the second one is needed. I know by using "sibling rivalry" you wanted to distinguish between sibling rivalry and other kinds of rivalry, but here I don't think it is needed, and, if removed, will eliminate repetition:

• De Havilland and her sister Joan Fontaine are the only siblings to have won Academy Awards in a lead acting category. Over the course of their careers, several well-publicized incidents underscored a lifelong rivalry between the two that resulted in their estrangement that lasted over three decades.

I'm sure that later in the article you explain the rivalry in more detail.

I also think you don't need to use the possessive adjective "their" before "estrangement". I think it would read better as "that resulted in an estrangement that lasted over three decades". I think it will be perfectly clear that the estrangement was between the two sisters.

• De Havilland and her sister Joan Fontaine are the only siblings to have won Academy Awards in a lead acting category. Over the course of their careers, several well-publicized incidents underscored a lifelong rivalry between the two that resulted in an estrangement that lasted over three decades.  – Corinne (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in both cases. I've made the changes. Thank you. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Bede735 I'm not finished yet, but it's late and I'm getting so tired I can't keep my eyes open, so I'm going to take a break and come back to this tomorrow. However, I can ask you about a few things, and you can think about them:

5) I prefer not to use a comma after "In + year" or "In + month + year" unless what follows is a parenthetical phrase that must be enclosed in a pair of commas. Please see the discussion in the next section below this. I usually remove them when I copy-edit articles. For some reason some people think the commas are needed. I do not. So, before I remove them, I will let you decide whether you like the commas or not.

You can remove them. The Chicago Manual of Style 6.36 (15th) includes an example: Commas with introductory adverbial phrases: An introductory adverbial phrase is often set off by a comma but need not be unless misreading is likely. Shorter adverbial phrases are less likely to merit a comma than longer ones. Examples: ... After 1956 such complaints about poor fidelity became far less common. Bede735 (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

6) I notice "Classical period", then "Classic period". I think these should be consistent, don't you?

"Classical Hollywood" is correct. I made the change. Bede735 (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

7) I see The New York Times several times, but the New York Herald once. Do you want these to be consistent, or is there a particular reason for this difference?  – Corinne (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Hi, Corinne. It's New York Herald, New York Herald Tribune, and The New York Times. That is their masthead. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the The New York Times includes the article in its masthead. Bede735 (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Bede735 I've done a little more, and I will continue tomorrow. (8) I wanted to ask you about one thing, though. I see you have spelled "ingénue" with an accent over the middle "e". However, earlier, I saw "protege" spelled with no accent, and I believe that I saw one other word of French origin (I'll have to look for it tomorrow) with no accent. Shouldn't there be consistency?  – Corinne (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC) (If you do decide to use accents in "protege", see the spellings for a male and a female a few lines from the beginning of Mentorship.)  – Corinne (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

After looking at the sentence, I replaced it with one that excludes the word "protege" to improve the flow of the paragraph. Bede735 (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Bede735 I presume you have seen my last comment, just above, by now. I will do a little more work tonight, then resume tomorrow. (9) I want to ask you what you think about something. It's about two sentences in the fourth paragraph in Olivia de Havilland#Early films, 1935–37. I'll copy the sentences here:

• Based on the popular novel by Hervey Allen, the film follows the adventures of an orphan raised by a Scottish merchant, whose pursuit of fortune separates him from the innocent peasant girl he loves, marries, and eventually loses. De Havilland plays the peasant girl Angela whose separation from her slave trader husband leads to her becoming opera star Mademoiselle Georges, the mistress of Napoleon.

This is a subtle style question. The two sentences each contain, and end with, an adjective clause beginning with "whose". I think it would be a good idea to avoid the similar sentence structure if possible. I'm wondering what you think about changing the second one so that it reads something like this:

• De Havilland plays the peasant girl Angela who, after being separated from her slave trader husband, later becomes opera star Mademoiselle Georges, the mistress of Napoleon.

or whatever wording you think is best (I haven't seen the movie).  – Corinne (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I like your wording. I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(10) A few sentences below that is the following sentence:

• It also gave de Havilland good exposure and the opportunity to portray a character over a long period of time.

I assume that this character is Madamoiselle Georges, and that the phrase "over a long period of time" refers to the fact that the movie covers a substantial portion of Mlle. Georges' life. However, it is not completely clear that this is what is meant. It could also mean that the process of making the film took a long time. To make it clear that it is the former meaning that is meant, what do you think of changing it to something like this?

• It also gave de Havilland good exposure and the opportunity to portray a character as she develops over time. - or

• It also gave de Havilland good exposure and the opportunity to portray a character through the character's lifetime.

or something else (too tired to think of more alternatives).  – Corinne (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I see the ambiguity. Your first option is fine. I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(11) Bede735 At the beginning of the section Olivia de Havilland#War years, 1941–44 is the following sentence:

• Following her emergency surgery in Santa Fe, de Havilland began a long period of convalescence in a Los Angeles hospital during which time she rejected several scripts offered to her by Warner Bros., which initiated another suspension.

You'll notice that the word "which" appears twice. I think it would be good to eliminate one. I've been pondering the best way to word the sentence.

(a) Following her emergency surgery in Santa Fe, de Havilland began a long period of convalescence in a Los Angeles hospital, during which time she rejected several scripts offered to her by Warner Bros., initiating another suspension.

(b) Following her emergency surgery in Santa Fe, de Havilland began a long period of convalescence in a Los Angeles hospital, during which time she rejected several scripts offered to her by Warner Bros., leading to another suspension. (I prefer this one.)

I agree. Option B is better. I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about something else: I noticed that you repeated the information about the emergency surgery in Santa Fe. I assume you did that because it was beginning a new section, and there is always the chance that a reader will read only this section. In that case, I would remove "her" before "emergency surgery", leaving "Following emergency surgery in Santa Fe,..." On the other hand, if someone has already read the section before this, then there is no need to repeat all the details. In that case, I think "in Santa Fe" can be left out, leaving "Following her emergency surgery,..." What do you think? (I can also understand if you want to leave it as it is.)

I think your latter option is fine. I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(12) Near the beginning of the second paragraph in the War Years section is the following sentence:

• Flynn and de Havilland had a falling out the previous year during the making of Santa Fe Trail‍—‌mainly over the kinds of roles she was given‍—‌and she did not intend to work with him again.

I'm wondering what you think of changing "was given" to "was being given", or even "had been given":

• Flynn and de Havilland had a falling out the previous year during the making of Santa Fe Trail‍—‌mainly over the kinds of roles she was being given‍—‌and she did not intend to work with him again.

I like this version, because it implies a continuing state. I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Flynn and de Havilland had a falling out the previous year during the making of Santa Fe Trail‍—‌mainly over the kinds of roles she had been given‍—‌and she did not intend to work with him again.

Also, I noticed that you have been using the "no-space-em-dash-no-space" template for em-dashes. Don't you think the template should be used here, too?  – Corinne (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

They should all be replaced with the template. I go through the article later to replace the rest. Bede735 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(13) Bede735 In the fourth paragraph of the War Years section is the following sentence:

• Filmed in July and August 1942, the story is about a European princess visiting her diplomat uncle in Washington, D.C., who is trying to find her an American husband. Intent on marrying a man of her own choosing, she boards a plane heading west and ends up falling in love with an American pilot who is unaware of her true identity.

The wording of this sentence is all right, but only all right. It could be improved. It would be good to get the adjective clause "who is trying to find her an American husband" so that it directly follows the noun it is modifying ("her diplomat uncle"). That means moving "in Washington, D.C.", perhaps earlier in the sentence:

• Filmed in July and August 1942, the story is about a European princess in Washington, D.C., visiting her diplomat uncle, who is trying to find her an American husband. Intent on marrying a man of her own choosing, she boards a plane heading west and ends up falling in love with an American pilot who is unaware of her true identity.

But to make it grammatically correct, we have to add a comma after "European princess", since it becomes a shortened non-restrictive adjective clause: "..., [who is] in Washington, D.C., visiting..."

However, you'll also notice that the sentence has a lot of -ing forms, so you might consider changing "[who is] in Washington, D.C., visiting her diplomatic uncle" to "..., who comes to Washington, D.C., to visit her diplomat uncle, who tries to find her an American husband". So it would then read:

• Filmed in July and August 1942, the story is about a European princess who comes to Washington, D.C., to visit her diplomat uncle, who tries to find her an American husband. Intent on marrying a man of her own choosing, she boards a plane heading west and ends up falling in love with an American pilot who is unaware of her true identity.

I agree with your wording, except I'm not sure about the "who tries to find her" phrase. I think "who is trying to find her" sounds better in context. I used your previous version. Bede735 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought.  – Corinne (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hello, a peer review on the above article has opened and I understand you conducted "a thorough copy edit" on it prior to the PR. I assume good faith when I say that personally, I fail to see the benefits of the copy edit you conducted. I'm sorry to say that the article is currently in an awful state and it is a space age away from the nominator's desired destination of FAC. The sheer amount of shoddy prose, bloat, and copyright infringements are going to make this a particularly long process. You may wish to take part. Cassianto^Talk 21:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto I'm surprised at your critical tone. My copy-edits were done between April 26 and 30. I left detailed concerns for Bede735 both above, in this section, and lower down on this page, at User talk:Corinne#Olivia de Havilland 2. I thought that, since Bede735 had already done a lot of work on the article, he might prefer to be involved in decisions about these issues rather than my going ahead and making the changes without consulting him. He addressed all those issues one by one. I thought I left the prose in pretty good shape, especially after Bede735 addressed the issues I raised. Many edits have been made since I copy-edited the article, some by Bede735 and some by other editors. I can't be responsible for the quality of the prose after all those edits. Also, I just work on the prose and to some extent on organization within paragraphs. I leave to others to advise on the finer points of what is needed for an article to be considered a featured article, especially in an article on a subject that is not one of my areas of interest. If you think a "thorough copy-edit" should include those things, too, fine, but I don't believe I was the one who thus characterized my work. You should really only look at the difference between what the article looked like before my edits and what it looked like after my edits. Also, you may wish to look on my user page and see the many barnstars I've received for my copy-editing work, and the fact that I have nearly 20,000 edits for only copy-editing, and my edits have rarely been reverted. I'm not interested in participating in the peer review, especially not now.  – Corinne (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC) :Cassianto I don't think it's the job of a copy-editor to decide whether an article or section is too long. That's the job of the writer of the article and FAC reviewers. Also, you might be interested in the first and last lines in the "Comments" section at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)/GA1.  – Corinne (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't critising you as an editor in general; in fact, I wasn't even criticising you at all. I merely pointed out that as the article was in such a poor condition, I couldn't quite believe that someone as good as you had been involved with it. I did point out that I came with good faith, but if you want want to assume otherwise then that's your problem. Cassianto^Talk 03:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You say: "I don't think it's the job of a copy-editor to decide whether an article or section is too long." no? Just so I'm up to date with things, what does a copy editor do? It was my impression that a copy editor was at their best when they could reduce a 30-word sentence into a 20-word sentence, no? I'm afraid that as a reviewer at the peer review, the nominator doesn't wish to listen to me in terms of cutting out uninteresting and bloated text and that they have cited you and your copy edits as justification not to do so. Cassianto^Talk 03:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Hi, Cassianto. Corinne is a hard core copy editor. She edits copy that is presented to her. She is very thoughtful about changing up an article. She does meticulous micorcopyediting. That is her style. She does not delve into areas outside her job description such as copyright. What does copyright have to do with copyediting? That is the job of somebody else at a different stage. Fine tuning an article is a moving target and takes the collaboration of many editors. That is why Featured Article allows and requires unlimited reviewers, whereas Good Article only requires one. Peer review is like the wild west. Everybody brings their own perspective and skills to the table to move an article forward.

Despite your denial or failure to see it, the following three sentences contain three direct criticisms:

I assume good faith when I say that personally, I fail to see the benefits of the copy edit you conducted. I'm sorry to say that the article is currently in an awful state and it is a space age away from the nominator's desired destination of FAC. The sheer amount of shoddy prose, bloat, and copyright infringements are going to make this a particularly long process.

OdH was at 12K words or prose when Corinne copy edited it. Over the copy edit the submitter was asked to trim it to 9K. It is currently at over 10K. When it gets to 9, it will be ready for another copy edit by somebody‍—‌maybe Corinne. Again, copy editing is a moving target.

Sometimes I wish Corinne would delve into more issues in an article, but that is not what she is tasked with, it is not her skillset, and she does not enjoy it yet.

What are the copyright issues you are raising? Have you blasted the GA reviewer for missing those? That is part of the GA toolbox.

Have you read this section yet: #Olivia de Havilland 2? Cheers! PS: Your two submissions above contain three spelling errors. Can you spot them? {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927

I'd like to hear opinions on the necessity of adding a comma after "In + year", or "In + month + year", at the beginning of sentences. I see it added often in WP articles. Regarding the former, I feel strongly that a comma is not needed at all, unless the following phrase is parenthetical and between a pair of commas. Regarding the latter, I think a comma is usually not needed. I agree with the addition of a comma by Coemgenus in all the places s/he added them except in these particular situations. I copy-edited this article several months ago, and I omitted the commas after "In + year" and probably also "In + month + year", but a lot of editing has taken place since then.

The reason why I think a comma is not needed is that in speech, native speakers normally do not pause after the year. Also, the comma is not needed to ensure clarity (unless it is the first in a pair around a parenthetical phrase). So, why add punctuation to slow down the reader? The comma should be used judiciously as a means of avoiding confusion and ambiguity and to make the sentence structure clear to the reader. I think it is really old-fashioned – 19th century style –  to use commas where they are not needed. Is there a guideline on MoS stipulating that a comma be added? Is this a British English/American English style difference? I cannot comprehend the constant adding of unnecessary commas.

Pinging Coemgenus, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Dank, Rothorpe, Drcrazy102.  – Corinne (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Offhand, I think it's probably a British usage, as I'm not normally aware of whether there's a comma in that position ot not, and I spend a lot of time on other commas. Rothorpe (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was standard here, which is why I added them. I know I've been dinged for it in FA nominations I've made, and I learned from that. But if I'm wrong, by all means revert. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm giving out bad information. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a judgement call, like a lot of grammar and usage. This page explains it well. The most important thing is to be consistent within an article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Google Doodle task force collaboration for 22 April 2016

Hello, Corinne. The current collaboration of the Google Doodle task force is: Earth Day Please be bold and make this a valuable reference for interested readers! Opt-out instructions Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the task force. This task force is part of Today's articles for improvement. Opt-out instructions

Termite

Vanamonde93 I was just looking at your copy-edits to Termite. I wonder if you would mind discussing this edit. While I agree that the way it was before your edit:

• The knowledge of the relationships between the microbial and termite parts of their digestion is still rudimentary;

was cumbersome, the way it is now:

• The relationships between the termite digestive tract and the microbial endosymbionts is still rudimentary;

(a) has a plural subject ("relationships") with a singular verb ("is"), and

(b) I believe that what is still rudimentary is not relationships but rather scientists' understanding of the relationships. The word "knowledge", which was in the sentence before your edit, is close to the word "understanding". However, I am not advocating going back to the way it was. I'm trying to figure out a way to include the word "understanding" without making the sentence cumbersome. I thought of:

• Our understanding of the relationship [singular] between X and Y is still rudimentary;

• Scientists' understanding of the relationship between X and Y is still rudimentary.

Any thoughts or ideas?  – Corinne (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

2) I was looking at the edit previous to this one, in which you changed "the" to "these" before "worker termites"; that was an improvement, but I wondered if perhaps the sentence as a whole could be improved. Here is the sentence as it is now, with the sentence that precedes it:

• In the social Hymenoptera, the workers are exclusively female: males (drones) are haploid and develop from unfertilised eggs, while females (both workers and the queen) are diploid and develop from fertilised eggs. In contrast, while most individuals in a termite colony are infertile workers, these worker termites are diploid individuals of both sexes and develop from fertilised eggs.

I think, regarding the second sentence:

(a) It would be good to avoid having to repeat "worker", and

(b) I'm not sure the "while" clause conveys the right meaning. It seems to place too much emphasis on a fact that has little to do with what is being contrasted, and comes between the information Burkemore1 is trying to contrast.

(c) A third consideration is avoiding the use of "while" twice.

How about this? --

In contrast, worker termites, which constitute the majority in a colony, are diploid individuals of both sexes and develop from fertilised eggs.

This minimizes the fact about worker termites being the majority of individuals in a termite colony and places the focus on the contrasting information.  – Corinne (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Your other edits are excellent.  – Corinne (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'm not sure what I was thinking with that first edit. I think I started rewriting the sentence, got distracted, and never completed the rewrite. "Scientists' understanding of the relationship between X and Y is still rudimentary." sounds fine to me, as being slightly more impersonal. I'm also fine with your change for the second sentence. In general, feel free to tweak any language I might have changed, but thanks for bringing this up. I am curious, though, why did you post on your own talk page? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Well, I wasn't sure how you would feel if I just went ahead and re-wrote the sentences you had just worked on, and I posted here rather than on the article's talk page or your talk page to avoid embarrassing you. Some editors do not like any criticism of their writing.  – Corinne (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's fair. I've had my writing put through the wringer far too often to be too particular, but I appreciate the sensitivity, nonetheless (and I know what you mean about people reacting to criticism!). I see you went ahead and made the changes; thank you. I've seen you around a good bit, so it's good to make your acquaintance at last. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Many thanks for your cordial message. I feel sure, though, that we have exchanged comments in the past, but I do not remember where. It's nice to be re-acquainted, though.  – Corinne (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. We could really use your participation at WP:TAFINOM. We select articles that need improvement. We nominate articles, and I think they are approved if they get three "Support" votes. With low participation, good nominations just languish and don't get the necessary votes in time. You are also welcome to nominate articles you come across. It's really easy to nominate.  – Corinne (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2, 2016

Dank I really struggled with this one. My first, easy edits to streamline sentences brought the character count down to 1140 – too low, so I selected another piece of information from the article to add. That brought it up to the high 1200s, so I began to cut again, bit by bit, sorry to have to change things like "A grey bird,..." to "It is grey". Sigh... Maybe it should go back to my initial streamlined version before I added the extra information (about "coteries") from the article. I'll leave this up to your more experienced judgment. Any suggestions to make this easier (for me) next time are welcome.  – Corinne (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Anything between 1100 and 1150 is no problem at all ... I'll start by reconstructing your 1140-char version, and have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually ... what you did looks really good, I'm just tweaking it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 17, 2016)

Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Fame (Irene Cara song) Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Debt • Delicatessen Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Olivia de Havilland 2

Bede735 I've decided to start a new section just to make it easier to access.

14) In the third paragraph in the section Olivia de Havilland#Early films, 1935–37 is the following sentence:

• In July 1935 Warner Bros. made a decision that would have a profound impact on de Havilland's career, pairing her with an unknown Tasmanian actor named Errol Flynn in the swashbuckler film Captain Blood (1935).

I wonder if a different sort of punctuation should be used after "would have a profound impact on de Havilland's career". Instead of a comma, perhaps either a colon or an em-dash would set the second half of the sentence off better.

• colon: In July 1935 Warner Bros. made a decision that would have a profound impact on de Havilland's career: pairing her with an unknown Tasmanian actor named Errol Flynn in the swashbuckler film Captain Blood (1935).

or:

• em-dash: In July 1935 Warner Bros. made a decision that would have a profound impact on de Havilland's career‍—‌pairing her with an unknown Tasmanian actor named Errol Flynn in the swashbuckler film Captain Blood (1935).

Yes, I think the em-dash works best. Bede735 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 – Corinne (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

15) In the middle of the third paragraph in Olivia de Havilland#Early films, 1935–37 are the following two sentences:

• The on-screen chemistry between de Havilland and Flynn was evident from their first scenes together, where clashes between her character's spirited hauteur and his character's playful braggadocio cannot mask their mutual attraction to each other. That on-screen attraction reflected their actual feelings at the time.

I think the second verb in the first sentence needs to be in past tense to be consistent with the tenses used just before and after it. I was at first just going to change "cannot" to "could not":

• The on-screen chemistry between de Havilland and Flynn was evident from their first scenes together, where clashes between her character's spirited hauteur and his character's playful braggadocio could not mask their mutual attraction to each other. That on-screen attraction reflected their actual feelings at the time.

However, then I thought (a) "could not" is visually long (a subtle consideration) and (b) conveys negative possibility (as does "cannot"), whereas I think something slightly different might be needed here. So then I thought about:

• where clashes between her character's spirited hauteur and his character's playful braggadocio did not mask their mutual attraction to each other (which I think conveys the right meaning), or, possibly:

• where clashes between her character's spirited hauteur and his character's playful braggadocio failed to mask their mutual attraction to each other.

So, which do you prefer?

• could not mask
• did not mask
• failed to mask

The two sentences are perhaps overly complex in that I am writing about the chemistry between actors as well as their characters, which requires both tenses—past tense when describing the actors, and present tense when describing the characters ((per WP:FILMLEAD). I changed the second verb to past tense, using "failed to mask". Bede735 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bede735 I keep reading this sentence over and over. I've changed my mind on this. I think "failed to mask" is too negative, and "could not mask" conveys the right meaning. Another possibility – and this would bring it back to present tense, reflecting a discussion about the film/characters, which, as you said, should be in present tense –  is "do not mask". It's simple, direct, short, and clear. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Or: "are unable to mask".  – Corinne (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Upon further thought, it has to be in past tense, not just for consistency's sake. These sentences are not a modern critique of the movie; they are describing the experience of movie-goers at that time. So: "did not mask" or "were unable to mask" are best.  – Corinne (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I changed the second verb to "did not mask" per your suggestion. It's a tough little sentence to get right. Bede735 (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, what do you think about adding the phrase, "It was later revealed that" before "That on-screen attraction reflected their actual feelings at the time."? --

• It was later revealed that this on-screen attraction reflected their actual feelings at the time.

I think this is conveyed in the following sentence: "She would later admit ..." Bede735 (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 – Corinne (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. I guess I'm finished reading the article now. Would it be all right with you if I added the Guild of Copy Editors notice (about a completed copy-edit, with date) to the talk page?  – Corinne (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Corinne, for your excellent work and helpful suggestions. I appreciate the time you put into this. Your copyedit has definitely improved the article. Please feel free to post the Guild of Copy Editors notice on the talk page. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 – Corinne (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

16) In the second paragraph in Olivia de Havilland#Early films, 1935–37 is the following sentence:

• In Alibi Ike she plays Dolly Stevens, the beautiful girlfriend of a baseball player with a penchant for making excuses for his average play; in The Irish in Us, she plays a police captain's daughter who is wooed by a boxing manager turned boxer.

Regarding the last part of the first clause, "with a penchant for making excuses for his average play", shouldn't "his average play" be "his average playing"? If not, then this use of "play" is new to me.  – Corinne (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

In this context, "play" is used to mean "performance" in a baseball game (see Merriam-Webster, 1c), but I can see there is a hint of jargon in that usage. I changed it to "playing". Bede735 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

17) In the second paragraph in Olivia de Havilland#Movie stardom, 1938–40, you have the word "dizzy" three times:

*In Michael Curtiz's romantic comedy Four's a Crowd (1938) with Errol Flynn, de  Havilland plays Lorri Dillingwell, a dizzy rich girl being romanced by a conniving PR man looking to land an account with her eccentric father, one of the wealthiest and most hated men in the country. In Ray Enright's romantic comedy Hard to Get (1938) with Dick Powell, de Havilland plays another dizzy, spoiled rich girl, Margaret Richards, whose selfish desire to exact revenge on a gas station attendant leads to her own comeuppance. While de Havilland was capable of playing these dizzy characters in light comedies, her personality was better suited to stronger and more dramatic roles, and tended to betray "an intelligence too obviously superior to her material", according to Kass.

I realize that this may be a certain stock character type in films, but, even so, it would be better style to use a different word for at least one of them. Also, I think the word is a bit dated, which is all right if one is familiar with the way it is used. I believe it was used in the 1930s, 1940s and perhaps 1950s to describe a woman who was (a) not particularly bright, and (b) somewhat flighty or scatterbrained, both of which are stereotypical and somewhat sexist today. People familiar with the use of the word, probably mostly from movies from the 1930s and 1940s, will understand what is meant, but readers from other cultures may not know this common meaning. If the word is not linked to an article that would explain it, then perhaps it needs to be linked to an on-line dictionary definition such as [[wikt:dizzy|dizzy]]. Perhaps just remove the third instance of "dizzy":

• While de Havilland was capable of playing these dizzy characters in light comedies, her personality was better suited to stronger and more dramatic roles...

or:

• While de Havilland was capable of playing these types of characters in light comedies, her personality was better suited to stronger and more dramatic roles...

How about the addition of "certainly" before "capable", and "such characters"?

• While de Havilland was certainly capable of playing such characters in light comedies, her personality was better suited to stronger and more dramatic roles...

Do you really need "in light comedies'? What's wrong with just "such characters" (or "these types/kinds of characters")?

• While de Havilland was certainly capable of playing these kinds of characters, her personality was better suited to stronger and more dramatic roles...  – Corinne (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see how the term requires some context. I added the link and made your other changes—"certainly capable of playing these kinds of characters" works well. The word "dizzy" is used in the sources, and in this context refers to a character type popularized in the 1930s and 1940s in screwball comedies. Typically the "dizzy" character was a young woman from a wealthy family who is flighty, scatterbrained, and has a tendency to act impulsively. Carol Lombard defined this character type in the early thirties in films such as My Man Godfrey. Jim Harvey's Romantic Comedy In Hollywood: From Lubitsch to Sturges covers this character type, and has a nice section on Lombard's comedy skills (pp. 201-220). Claudette Colbert, Katherine Hepburn, and Myrna Loy were also very effective in this type of role in some of their early films. Bede735 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for improving the Olivia de Havilland article. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding alt img text to the images that are lacking it

Hi, Corinne. I would encourage you to take a look at this important IEG proposal. If you like it, please add your support and rationale. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Thank you for telling me about this. I would be glad to help write alt image text. Why did my user name appear in red there? Also (just curious), why is it necessary to apply for a money grant for this?  – Corinne (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. Your name is red there because you signed your name pointing to the Wikimedia site and you do not have a user page on that site yet. I created a "soft redirect" on all such pages so my username is blue, and so people can find my "home site". The system does not allow automatic redirects as those could be a spamming issue. Your signature points to the Wikimedia project you are on, unless you preface it with the project abbreviation (wikt for Wiktionary, en for English Wikipedia, etc.)

I will write a soft-redirect you can paste onto your user page (and a slightly different one for each talk page). It is less important now that we have interwiki notifications. Before, if somebody posted on your 16 other project talk pages you would never know unless you looked. You actually have over 288 possible user and talk pages. Some with R/L text .

WMF has grant money available and people apply for it if they are going to spend a lot of time developing a project. User Dispenser has created many tools gratis, but s/he is asking for a nominal amount of money to work on this one for the next year. For instance, The Wikipedia Library was started on an IEG, which was extended by a year, and now it is a full-fledged staffed component of many Wikipedias. The Wikipedia Adventure is another Wikipedia tool that was launched with IEG funds. The max IEG grant is $30K. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Add these to any other WMF page such as:

Wikimedia user page:

<H1>This is a soft redirect to:</H1> 
<H1>'''[[en:User:Corinne|Corinne's home Wiki]]'''</H1>
<hr>

Wikimedia talk page:

<H1>This is a soft redirect to:</H1> 
<H1>'''[[en:User talk:Corinne|Corinne's home Wiki]]'''</H1>
<hr>

This will make your red name blue on Meta, and folks can find your home Wiki. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Thank you! I put the first one, but I don't know if I need to put the second one. There was already a welcome message there, and my user name was blue, when I clicked on the link. What is "hu-wiki"? What is "R/L text"?  – Corinne (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. I saw two comments on the nominate for a T-shirt page that I hadn't seen before. I think both were from N.D., one about my nomination and one nominating you. I think I added a comment in support of your nomination.  – Corinne (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. R/L text is text that writes from right to left. Also, their pages have our left-hand links on their right-hand side of page. Like fa.wikipedia (Farsi). Hmm. hu-wiki? Where do you see that? Maybe Hungarian Wiki? As for adding the second one, you could put it above the welcome message, and then folks could find your home Wiki, or you could blank the welcome and add it. It is your call. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Xeno. Why did you redirect Corinne's talk page on Meta from meta:User talk:Corinne to meta:User talk:Corinne~huwiki? The history says you changed her username too. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It was done during the requested usurp: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=13157042#CorinneSD.40global –xeno^talk 10:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax and xeno Thank you for whatever work you have been doing regarding this. I believe I am supposed to post the second redirect link provided by Checkingfax above to the hu-wiki page, but I don't know where that is. Can someone provide a link to it so I know where to put that redirect? Thank you.  – Corinne (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne: The "~huwiki" user is someone else. You want to post yours to meta:User talk:Corinne. –xeno^talk 17:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. As Xeno says, your page is the Corinne one so that is the one you want to edit. Corinne~huwiki is the actual user name of the other user now. You usurped her old name and now Corinne~huwiki is her actual using name (including the tilde). So, use the link I gave which will take you right to the edit screen for your Corinne talk page or Meta, or you can use the link Xeno gave you and then edit the talk page from there. Your username on all 900 Wiki projects is now Corinne. A lot of folks had to give up their preferred names to end up with one that was unique across all 900 projects. You accomplished that by usurping the Hungarian use. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax I just want to be sure: do I copy the second soft redirect you gave me above and paste it to the User talk:Corinne at the link xeno gave me, and save?  – Corinne (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. Yes, that will work. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2016)

Steak à la carte Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: À la carte Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Fame (Irene Cara song) • Debt Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 02:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Hi, Corinne. À la carte is an example of an article that uses a header navbox. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for adminship (RfA) for Checkingfax

@Checkingfax:

Hi Corinne,

I suggested to Checkingfax that I would like to nominate him for an administrative position and was very pleased that he graciously accepted. I feel fortunate to have been able to avail myself of his great generosity and timely help, seemingly at every turn I've made, and I think other editors should be as lucky as I've been in. The procedure is called a Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (RfA) under the category of 'nominating someone else'—one can also nominate oneself. I originally wanted to nominate him myself and then ask other cyber friends to comment. But then I was thinking that, if you are amenable, it would carry more authority if a senior editor like yourself did the submission, as I am just over the threshold of the 4000 edits needed. I think we would have a better chance of success this way. But of course I would be more than happy to submit the RfA myself if time is too short on your side, if the whole process seems too cumbersome or for any reason whatever.

The nomination button is here. Once we are rolling, I will invite Pdebee, and Sainsf and other 'nice' editors for that's the quality I require most . Seriousness aside, kindly let me know; I am eager to proceed with this as I know Checkingfax is highly deserving of adminship ...few are better suited to the task and he possesses all the characteristic traits needed to help Wikipedia attain it's goals. I beleive he would be an exceptionally contributive participant among the administrative group; I hope others agree. kindest regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 08:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Natalie.Desautels suggested I nominate you for adminship. I would be happy to do so. I just clicked on the nomination button and the first item says to check with the person to be sure s/he is interested in the job. I know Natalie said she had asked you and you had said yes, but I don't know where that is, so I thought I'd better ask you myself. So, are you interested in being considered for adminship? (What's the right term to use – "adminship" or "an administrative position"?)  – Corinne (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. I was not seeking an adminship, but some things have popped up that having the admin tools would help me with. So, yes, I am interested, and I would use it on a broader level to be a good admin. You might want to look at other noms. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Hi, Corinne. Since Checkingfax gave his approval, albeit hesitatingly , to be nominated for adminship, I was wondering if you would like me to attend to the actual submission push if time is a bit short on your side. I feel it would have more weight coming from a more senior editor like yourself, but I imagine we can 'make do' either way, as you wish. (Is 'make do' a proper English expression?) Kindly advise. warm regards,65.93.227.24 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits.

Hi Corinne, Thank you so much for your fine edits, which always manage to fascinate me, on Jean-Luc_Montminy.

I must have been unusually tired because I see some French 'génie de la langue' creeped into my English version, specifically where I wrote '613 projects, where he does the voice-over' and you corrected it to '613 projects in which he did the voice-over'. The former is typical of French construction where we would say 'où il fait le doublage'. So I'm somewhat surprised at myself since, most of the time, I ask for your help when the English is, well, English, and I instinctively feel that the sentence can flow better and be clearer, but don't quite know what to do to make it so.

I've created an article on a deserving young guitarist called Kyuhee Park, and have a question about one sentence, to wit:

'At age nine, she won the Youth Division of the National Korean Guitar Competition in what was to become a string of first prizes in national and international competitions.'

I am trying to say that 'she took first prize in the ...National Korean Guitar Competition in what was to become a string of first prizes' and I am trying to find a way to avoid saying 'first' twice, which would sound awkward. So I purposefully omitted 'first', simply saying she 'won', but that does not communicate all the information I want to convey. warm regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 00:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels First, you are welcome. Second, regarding the "613 projects" sentence, don't be too hard on yourself. Sometimes "where" is all right. "Where" can start an adverbial clause or an adjectival, or adjective, clause. Adverbial clauses modify either a verb (an action) or an entire clause or sentence. Adjective clauses modify a noun or noun phrase. You can see that "projects" is a noun, so this is an adjective clause. Sometimes, "where" works fine instead of "in which", "for which", "at which", etc., which are all a little more formal than "where". However, here I didn't think "where" sounded right, maybe because "projects" is not a place. Then, if you decide to use "which", you have to decide which preposition is best. You can turn it into a sentence to see which one sounds best and makes the most sense: "He did the voice-over in the 613 projects", or "he did the voice-over for the 613 projects". I chose "in", but perhaps "for" also makes sense. I'll let you decide that. I was also wondering about the words "voice over". I noticed while I was editing that you didn't hyphenate them, but here, you did. Maybe you should check to see what is most common in English sources, and use that.

Regarding the sentence about the Korean guitarist, I see what you mean. To me, "she won the youth division" doesn't sound right. I think you need to say either "she won first prize in the youth division" or "she took first prize in the youth division", as you suggested. How about this? --

• At age nine, she won first prize in the Youth Division of the National Korean Guitar Competition, the first in a string of first prizes in national and international competitions.

I see I'm using "first" twice, but I've shortened the sentence, so perhaps it's all right. It is certainly factual. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). ALT1: At age nine, she won first prize in the Youth Division of the National Korean Guitar Competition, the beginning of a string of first prizes in national and international competitions.

(cc to Natalie.Desautels). Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax and Natalie.Desautels I just realized that in my version I used "first" three times, not two! Checkingfax, yours uses only two, so is a possibility, but I don't like the sound of "the beginning of a string". Perhaps "..., beginning a string of..."

• ALT2 At age nine, she won first prize in the Youth Division of the National Korean Guitar Competition, beginning a string of first prizes in national and international competitions. Or:

• ALT3 At age nine, she won first prize in the Youth Division of the National Korean Guitar Competition, followed by a string of first prizes in national in international competitions.  – Corinne (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. Yes, I was trying to lose a first, but your ALT3 really pops for me. Let's see how it resonates with Natalie. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax and Corinne: Regarding the Jean-Luc Montminy article, I will choose "... 613 projects in which he did the voice-over". "For" gives me the impression of a more objective involvement in a project that is already under way. (But that's just me ). "In" makes me think of someone intricately involved, as one would be in voice-over work. Also, common usage seems to be 'voice-over' or even 'voiceover'; I like the former. I see that Checkingfax already attended to this correction article-wide.

For (in?) the Kyuhee Park article, ALT 3 seems a good choice. "At age nine, she won first prize in the Youth Division of the National Korean Guitar Competition, followed by a string of first prizes in national in international competitions". So, as one says these days: "Like!" . kind regards, Natalie

Sentence structure question

In the Caitlyn Jenner article, here', the following sentence structure seems just slightly off to me, and I wanted to check with you.

The original sentence says: ...Jenner was the second in a succession of athletes featured as spokespersons for the brand.

Should this be either:

...Jenner was second in a succession of athletes featured as spokespersons for the brand. or ...Jenner was the second in a succession of athletes to be (who were) featured as spokespersons for the brand. In this latter version, he was second ...featured? It should be 'second to be (who were) featured' I believe.

kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 07:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Natalie.Desautels and Corinne. Can you please keep me and Twofingered Typist in the loop on this? TFT just finished a meticulous and substantial WP:GOCE copy edit. There is always room for refinement, so keep up the good work. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Twofingered Typist {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax and Twofingered Typist: Hello Checkingfax, Yes, of course it will be my pleasure to keep you in the loop. I meant to ping you yesterday on this, but I must have performed a hundred edits or so on various articles along with translations as well, so fatigue did what it does I guess. Thanks for the good reminder. kindest regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 06:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed the "the" which I think solves it. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels I'm sorry I didn't reply promptly to your question. I've been kind of busy. I'm glad it seems to be sorted out now.  – Corinne (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax and Twofingered Typist: Thanks, Corinne. Yes, the little issue has been resolved. ...funny how these tiny things, like one misplaced word, prey ever so slightly on one's mind . kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 18:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

TAFI

Hi, if you want to, please take a look at my noms at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Laucke

On 7 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Michael Laucke, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Michael Laucke's snooker winnings allowed him to finance 110 trips from Montreal to New York City to study the classical guitar with Franco-Spaniard Rolando Valdès–Blain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Laucke. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Michael Laucke), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sarawak

Checkingfax I was just looking at an edit mentioning Sarawak's recently closed peer review, and I wanted to see the discussion since I had copy-edited the article a few weeks ago, but I could not find the discussion anywhere. Can you find it and give me a link?  – Corinne (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. It looks like it was never reviewed formally, and has now been closed. Wikipedia:Peer review/Sarawak/archive1. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. I notice several editors, including Cerevisae did over three dozen edits starting right after you pulled the GOCE in-use template. Cerevisae is the one that requested the peer review, and I do not think Cerevisae gave that enough time to fruit.

While I was checking it out, I made two MOS edits, but no real copy edits. That is a very long article. I am surprised your head did not explode. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Requiem (Reger)

Could you go over the article Requiem (Reger) once more? - Failed FAC after a month, and a delegate mentioned prose issues as a typical cause. I requested at GOCE, but waiting for a month would be waiting too long, - centenary of premiere is 16 July. Say no if you have no time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt I've done the best I could. I changed the formatting of lines in German from quotation marks around Roman (regular) font to italics. I thought all foreign language words and sentences (except Latin and languages that do not use the Latin script) were to be in italics. However, I realize that there may be a special text formatting style for music, so if you want me to change them back, I will. Just let me know.  – Corinne (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you! Re the formatting: for Bach's works we don't do that. Once it's established in the lead that the text is in German, we simply quote and use italics only for books etc. - Centenary of Reger's death 11 May, getting ready ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Have you been waiting for me to undo those text formatting changes I made? If so, I apologize. I've been kind of busy, and then got distracted by other articles, and now I don't remember exactly what I was supposed to change back. Do you still want me to do that? If so, I'll study what I did and make the changes. Also, I was just skimming the article. I don't think "Isle of the Dead" should be in italics. I think the English translation should just be in regular font.  – Corinne (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't expect anything, sorry if that wasn't clear, - just would like to have it clarified. If a phrase is just a translation it should not be italic, (Isle of the dead), but if it's a title in English (seems so), then italics and cap, Isle of the Dead, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt O.K. I understand regarding Isle of the Dead. But regarding the other formatting issue, you wrote (above):

Re the formatting: for Bach's works we don't do that. Once it's established in the lead that the text is in German, we simply quote and use italics only for books etc.

and I had offered to undo my changes (changing quotation marks to italics). Now I see that many edits have been made to the article, so it would be a little difficult for me to figure out what to change back. Can you do that, or do you still want me to do it?  – Corinne (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to do it, - it's nothing I care much about ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hi and I expanded and referenced this article. Can you take a look? Thank you: Amaro Rodríguez Felipe.--80.39.243.106 (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Corsican Guard

Was wondering if you forgot about this one, since you accepted the request April 28 and haven't started it. All the best, Miniapolis 02:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Miniapolis Thanks for the reminder. I hadn't really forgotten about it. It's just that I've been busy, and when I log in in the evening, I first go through my watchlist and notifications, and by the time I do that I'm usually to tired to start a new copy-edit, but I guess I should have worked on Coriscan Guard before doing the copy-edit for Gerda.  – Corinne (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 19, 2016)

Gustaf Skarsgård Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Gustaf Skarsgård Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: À la carte • Fame (Irene Cara song) Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Grammar question

Hi C. I hope that you are well. I am wondering which version of this is the correct one. My dusty memory banks are muddled at the moment so if you or Rothorpe have a moment to straighten things out it would be appreciated. BTW it is always a joy to see the pics and paintings on your talk and user pages. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD First, I'm glad you enjoy the pictures. Second, thanks for asking me. I searched through Indigenous peoples of the Americas, and I'm pretty sure "peoples" is correct. I think some people are not accustomed to seeing "a people" as a singular noun, with the plural being "peoples", so they think it is wrong.  – Corinne (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look C. I had a feeling that was the situation (especially since there are three different indigenous peoples mentioned) but the more I looked at it the more I started questioning myself. One of the nice thing about the collaborative nature of WikiP is that there are fellow editors that will answer questions that I have. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) I agree that peoples is most likely what’s wanted, but I’d like to point out that it’s not a question of grammatical correctness, rather of appropriately expressing the intended meaning. I would use people to describe a collection of individuals who happened to be Ute, Arapaho and Cheyenne, but peoples for groups or settlements that were more or less representative of the corresponding cultures or that constitute a ‘homeland’.—Odysseus1479 21:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank for chiming in and for the clarification Odysseus1479. Every bit of knowledge that gets added is helpful. MarnetteD|Talk 21:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I second that. Thanks, Odysseus1479!  – Corinne (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

When not to use templates

Checkingfax I remembered that you said I shouldn't use the templates for no-break space, en-dash, and em-dash inside a reference in the "cite ref" format, so I wanted to add that piece of information after my list of templates in my useful things at the top of this talk page, but I couldn't get the "no-break space" to show up. Also, I think "en-dash" and "em-dash" ought to stand out just a bit more. I wonder if you would mind looking at what I wrote (it's in the "Templates" section, above) and fix any formatting issues you see (and correct it if it is wrong). Thanks in advance,  – Corinne (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. OK, done. You can do a view or edit source to see what I did. Making the & sign show up in an example is tricky. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Michael Laucke article nominated for FA status

@Checkingfax: Hi Corinne...been a while; I trust you are well! I'm delighted that the GA article on Michael Laucke, is nominated for FA status. As you may know, Checkingfax, you and I are a few of the main contributors. If you'd like to share your viewpoint and help us advance, it's right here. Please feel free to leave comments as you please, if time permits. I just wanted to get a jump on things and leave you this message ...and, at the same same time, send my greetings of course. warm regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 22:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Old Pine Church

Hi Corinne! I know it has been a very long time due to my continue absence from Wikipedia. I've only been working on promoting one article at a time, and I've currently been working on revising Old Pine Church, which has been nominated for Featured Article candidacy at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Old Pine Church/archive1. I was wondering if, time permitting, you could take a look at the architectural section of the article. There are only so many ways to re-state architectural descriptions. I've tried to make the content in the article as different as possible from the original source, but some descriptors will inevitably be similar to accurately convey the architecture. Could you please take a look when you have a chance and see if you can find any places that could be described more eloquently or in a different manner? Thank you so much for your continued stellar contributions to Wikipedia! --West Virginian (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)