User talk:Corinne

the Moon

1st quarter, 17%

Scene with flowering tree, Foy's Lake, Chittagong. Photo by S. M. Anisur Rahman. 2014. (Maybe it was a misty morning.)

You are welcome to continue discussions which have already been archived.

Paysage (Countryside), Le Cannet, by Pierre Bonnard. 1924

Useful Wiki-links Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests WP:TFAA * Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates Google Art Project Template:Convert/list of units Guild of Copy Editors' templates: {{GOCE|user={{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|date={{subst:date}}}} {{GOCE|user=Corinne|date=September 15, 2015}} Useful external links: Google Translate Merriam Webster Wiktionary 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. Useful no-break hyphen: ‑ 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)]]

Thanks

..for helping with the copyediting of the two articles. Could you please add the GOCE tag to both articles talk pages. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

BabbaQ You're welcome! I was away for three days. Now I don't know to which articles you are referring. Should I be adding the GOCE template to every article after I finish copyediting it? If so, I'm sorry. I didn't know I should be doing that. I will from now on. Corinne (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC) P.S. I don't know where on the talk page to put the GOCE template. Corinne (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"Please consider adding the template {{GOCE|user={{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|date={{subst:date}}}} on the talk page of articles you have copy edited" is what the WP:COPYEDITORS request page says. I interpret that to mean it is a personal preference whether or not to add the template (though perhaps it's encouraged); I also think a requestor adding the tag to the talk page in lieu of the copyeditor if they would like it there is reasonable (I've done that in the past).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Godsy Godsy (second ping in case you didn't see this) I'm sorry to bother you again, Godsy, but I'm new at this.

(a) Do I just copy what you've written above between the no-wiki template, or do I put in my user name and the date somewhere in the template?

(b) Where, exactly, on the talk page do I put the GOCE template? Corinne (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(c) Godsy, you asked me to add the GOCE template to two articles I've copyedited, but I don't know which two you are referring to. Corinne (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

West Virginian Would you mind reading what is written in this section, and then seeing if you can help me? I saw what you added to the talk page of the John Baker White article, but (a) I don't know what exactly I have to type, and (b) I don't know where I have to type it, and (c) I don't understand why what you wrote is different from the template Godsy wrote between the two parts of the no-wiki template, above. I'm totally confused. Corinne (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I don't mind.

(a) You can simply copy the text above ({{GOCE|user={{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|date={{subst:date}}}}) and place it on the page assuming the following two statements are true: You are the one who performed the copyedit, and it is on the same day you finished the copyedit. You can manually enter the date if you're adding it later like this: {{GOCE|user={{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|date=August 1, 2015}}. This last example would be for if you were placing the template for another user on a date other than the date of the copyedit (manually filling out both parameters): {{GOCE|user=Godsy|date=January 5, 2015}}.

(b) Towards the top of the page in the "talk headers", an example of adding it is present on Talk:Adam's ale where I happened to add it at the time.

Hope that helps. If you link the pages you'd like it added to, I'd be happy to take care of it for you. Or if you'd like to try, I can check to make sure it looks good if you want.

—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Godsy I've just finished copy-editing the article Death of Tina Watson. I was about to add the GOCE template to the article's talk page at Talk:Death of Tina Watson, but I didn't know where to put it, above or below the other items. Usually, I put it above the Wiki-Projects, but usually there are other things after which I can put it such as "Article milestones", but I see on other articles that "Article milestones" only appears when it is listed as a good article. Should I place the GOCE template right at the beginning? Corinne (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Per {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}: The template is placed in the top section of the article's Talk page, below any WikiProject banners that are present. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Godsy Oh, thank you. I hadn't seen that. Now do I have to go back and look for all the articles on whose talk pages I added that template in the wrong place? Or will someone fix them as they edit the talk page? Corinne (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You can if you'd like, but it probably isn't necessary. Talk page banner order isn't something of huge importance. If it were something in the article namespace, I'd lean the other way, but it isn't.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		Corinne, I hereby award you The Premium Reviewer Barnstar for your extraordinary copyedits and reviews of Samuel Lightfoot Flournoy, Samuel Lightfoot Flournoy (West Virginia lawyer), Literary Hall, Thayer Melvin, Romney Academy, Romney Classical Institute, Joseph Sprigg (attorney general), John Baker White (Virginia), John Baker White (West Virginia politician), Robert White (judge), Charles M. Williams (academic), and Joshua Soule Zimmerman. Your precision, diligence, and grammatical prowess are greatly cherished, and the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors is an even more valuable resource because you are a part of it! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

West Virginian Thank you so much for this award! The award and your kind words mean a lot to me. Thank you. Corinne (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Corinne, you are quite welcome!! It is my pleasure. I cannot thank you enough for all you do! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyediting help with a GAN

I'm having a dispute with an editor at Talk:Number 1 to Infinity/GA1 over some grammar/English usage and I'm wondering if you could take a few moments and look the article over. I saw your edits to Thayer Melvin and thought that were very helpful, so I though of you for this other GAN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Number 1 to Infinity/GA1

Hello. I appreciate your input, but I myself am pretty experienced in reviewing good article nominations and have had a fair few promoted myself. So if you were implying that I should pay more attention based on Sturmvogel 66 having reviewed more, then I am slightly disgruntled by that, as it's not about numbers and no-one is better than anyone else. Anyway, if you are saying that the song attained number-one status and it's not Mariah who does, then why is she credited with holding the record for most solo number-ones if you say it's not her who is number-one? She wrote them, she produced them, without her they wouldn't have existed to be number-one in the first place. They are her number-ones. She has attained five more since the release of her previous number-ones album, that cannot be disputed. This is not an FAC, and I don't believe this part needs changing. The alternative you proposed indicates that she released number-one singles, which is incorrect as you don't release a number-one knowingly, and that is why I've used "since attained". In short, I disagree with what you've suggested, but thanks.  — Calvin999 08:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999 I appreciate how much of a fan of Mariah Carey you are, but I don't believe you are an expert in the English language. In the way you are using it, attain is not the correct verb. If you don't like "release", then "acquire" or "amass" might work. If you read the full dictionary entry at the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) online, [1] you will see several definitions that are obsolete (OED gives the obsolete and archaic definitions along with the current meanings). The only one that applies today is Definition II (transitive verb) - #7. If you read Definition #8, you will see that that is the meaning you are using, but it is labeled Archaic – that is, really old-fashioned. If you read the synonyms there, you will see acquire is one of them. If you then read the full entry for acquire, [2] you will see several definitions. One of those is surely the right one. Corinne (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with being a fan or not, and I don't appreciate you saying "I don't believe you are an expert in the English language," which is a superfluous statement to make. "Acquired" sounds like she is collecting possessions, and "amass" indicates something much larger than 5 number-ones. I would use "amass" for album sales or single sales, which would be in the tens of millions. "Mass" means a lot, so as to "amass" would indicate as so. I know what archaic means, thank you. You may not have intended to, but you've rubbed me up the wrong way by insinuating that I am a fan writer, who is being bias in some way I assume, and that I don't understand the English language.  — Calvin999 14:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999 I'm sorry you have become irritated. I'm only trying to help you improve the article. I thought you were rather dismissive of Sturmvogel 66's comments, saying his last comment on this issue was "pedantic", and somewhat dismissive of mine, above, also. I certainly wasn't suggesting you were a fan writer since I don't even know what that means. This is the last comment I will make on this issue. This is the sentence as you have it now:

• In January 2015, Carey announced that she would re-release #1's (1998) with an updated version featuring the number-one songs she had since attained: "Heartbreaker"...

What is wrong is the "she had...attained". A person doesn't attain a song (any kind). That's just not English. A person can attain a goal, a position, or a status. Mariah Carey attained fame, for example. Maybe she attained number one status as a singer, I don't know. Her songs can attain a position or status, also, so you could say that many of her songs attained the number one position on some ranking in the music world. So: she attained a status, or her songs attained a status, but she cannot attain a song. I think I know what you're trying to say. How about one of these? -

• In January 2015, Carey announced that she would re-release #1's (1998) with an updated version featuring her songs that had attained number-one status. (or:)

• A number-one isn't a status, it's a position.  — Calvin999

• In January 2015, Carey announced that she would re-release #1's (1998) with an updated version featuring her songs that had attained number one. (or:)

• attained number-one what?  — Calvin999

• In January 2015, Carey announced that she would re-release #1's (1998) with an updated version featuring her songs that had attained the number one position in the rankings.

• It's not in a ranking, it's not the Olympics.  — Calvin999

If you want to make it clear that the updated version included her songs that had attained the number one position in the rankings since the first version of the album was released, you can add a phrase to any one of those sentences:

• In January 2015, Carey announced that she would re-release #1's (1998) with an updated version featuring her songs that had in the meantime attained number-one status.

• I'll go with this one but removing 'status'.  — Calvin999

• In January 2015, Carey announced that she would re-release #1's (1998) with an updated version featuring her songs that had attained number-one status since the release of the first #1's album. Corinne (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds too clumsy with saying number-one three times.  — Calvin999

I'm not saying that she has attained songs, I'm saying that she has attained number-one songs. There is a difference. I'm not being dismissive, you both said the same thing worded differently and I just don't agree. I'll go with your fourth one, even though I'm still not sold on it, but if one or two words is what is holding the review back from being closed. I feel like the original sentence is saying the same thing anyway but better.  — Calvin999 16:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999 These were just suggestions for you to use or modify as you wish. You didn't have to say what was wrong with each one. Since I'm not up on the lingo of popular music, I may have chosen the wrong noun (status), but it is number one in the rankings of songs – I believe the rankings are called the charts, so you could say "number one in the charts". ("Status" just means where something falls in a ranking.) Calvin, there is no difference except for an adjective in "she has attained songs" and "she has attained number-one songs". They are both using the verb attain incorrectly. I had no idea this difference of opinion would in any way hold up or close a GA review, but I believe if you left it that way and it got to a FA review, it would be questioned just as it has been now. Corinne (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

But I have no intention of taking it to FAC. So I don't see why such a fuss was made over one word.  — Calvin999 08:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it grates on me that you used it incorrectly. If you haven't noticed yet, every reviewer brings something different to the table depending on their own skills, interests and knowledge. When reviewing articles in subjects that I'm unfamiliar with, I tend to unleash my inner grammarian because I'd otherwise have little else to say other than comments about structure, flow and compliance with the MOS. Forex, I didn't notice that you didn't discuss how it charted outside the US and UK; it never even crossed my mind that not doing so demonstrated incomplete coverage of the album. And just in case you might be thinking that I've picked on you especially hard, consider my review at Talk:Leigh Woods National Nature Reserve/GA1 where about 90% of my comments related to the editor's language.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Moodu Pani

Thanks for Anniyan's copyedit. This is the next article that I have worked on for GA. User:Kailash29792 is the main contributor to the article though and he has posted a copyedit request at GOCE. Do let me and Kailash29792 know if you would be interested in giving a good copyedit for Moodu Pani. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ssven2 and Kailash29792 I haven't yet looked at the article, but if it is at all interesting to me, I'd be glad to work on it. I'm going to copy-edit another article now, and when I finish that, I'll look at Moodu Pani and probably accept the assignment at GOCE. I'll probably get to it in a couple of hours from now. Corinne (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ssven2 I just noticed your comment to West Virginian on his/her talk page asking him/her if s/he would like to review Moodu Pani. Since you posted the comment right after I finished going through the article and copyediting it, I'm curious about why you would ask West Virginian to review it. Is that a different kind of review from the review I have just done? Corinne (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I asked him to conduct a GA review since you had finished copyediting the article. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 03:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2015)

"Boy on white horse" by Theodor Kittelsen Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Scottish mythology Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Head • High diving Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Would you like to help out at WP:TFA?

Hi Corinne. I'm somewhat familiar with your copyediting work (having crossed paths at FAC and having checked some of your recent edits), and I'd like to invite you to do a few WP:TFA summaries. If you're interested, pick a subject area you enjoy or a wikiproject you have a good relationship with, and keep an eye out for new articles that Chris and Brian post at WP:TFAA. I'll be happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Dank Ooo...thank you. I'd love to help. I clicked on the link WP:TFAA and saw what looked like summaries of featured articles, with a date above each one. It looks like those summaries have already been written. I guess I'm not clear on what you want me to work on. Corinne (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Great. I recommend you watchlist these four pages:

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 9, 2015
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 10, 2015
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 11, 2015
• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 12, 2015

Within a few days, all of those links will light up. Pick one of those to work on that you're comfortable with ... they will come either from article leads or from WP:TFAR (and most of the work will be done already if they come from TFAR, but there will probably be things you'll want to tweak). You're welcome to pass on those if you like and pick one from the next batch of four. I reserve the right to fiddle with your results to comply with other people's rules (MOS, FAC standards, etc.), but don't worry about that ... just do whatever seems right to you. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

They're up ... do any of those appeal to you? - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Even though I read the fourth one out of curiosity, I'm more interested in the first three. I can get to one or more of them tomorrow, after I finish copy-editing Termite. Corinne (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Great. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Dank, I've done all I want to at Termite (I went through it once and then about 2/3rd's of a second reading. It's a very long article.) So now I can start on this project. I'm a little confused, though. When I click on each link, above, it looks like a summary has already been done. The summaries look like the ones you see on the Main Page that end "Full article...". What do you want me to do? Did I wait too long, and someone else did the summaries, or am I supposed to write a one-paragraph summary? (If I'm supposed to write a one-paragraph summary, what is that for?) Corinne (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You didn't wait too long; the pages haven't been edited since Chris created them. For Oct 9, he copied in the current article lead, which is 1394 characters. (I can tell by using this page.) That needs to be reduced to between 900 and 1200 characters (not including "(Full article...)" at the end), and I try to aim for 950 to 1150. I also tend to make small tweaks for grammar and readability, because the Main Page gets 10M hits (as opposed to up to around 20K hits that the article itself will get on its TFA day), so I do a little rewriting for a readership that includes less sophisticated readers. I also try to minimize redundancy. You can look at some of the TFA summaries I've done to see what I mean ... it's easy to create a diff between the page that Chris or Brian created and my final version. - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I see Oct 10 isn't identical to the lead of the article; that's because it was nominated at TFAR for TFA, and the nominator did their own article summary. I usually find things I want to tweak, even when a summary has already been done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Btw, when I count characters, I'm counting the text the readers see, not wikitext in the edit window. - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Dank Oh.... Thanks! I have two more questions:

1) Where do I work on the summary? In my sandbox? Here on my talk page? Or somewhere else?

When I was getting started at TFA, I used my sandbox ... you're welcome to do that or to make the edits directly to the page. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

2) When you count characters, do you just copy what you've written and paste it into the blank box that's at the link you gave me, or am I supposed to copy the script that is under that blank box and paste it somewhere? I tried copying it to my talk page, but it looked weird in preview so I didn't save it. Corinne (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I paste text into the blank box and click on "Calculate characters". - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dank. I finished the first one. How does it look? I got it down to 1,076 words. If you don't like it, perhaps you'll like the previous version, one edit back. Corinne (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You're doing great ... you see some of the same things I do, and you're doing some things I wouldn't do. The mental workout this gives me is worth the price of admission. Before we get started: I'm going to be insisting that we do some things my way rather than your way ... but I want you to know that this isn't the way I usually operate, it's a reality that comes with TFA. People want their FAC and TFA copyeditors to make the same calls that have been made before, and the coordinator job requires a certain fussiness. So for now, I need to be pretty hands-on. I hope that's okay. So, some comments:

• "and their colour has inspired more unusual common names such as port wine banksia and strawberry banksia.": The rule at TFA is: no aliases or alternative names, apart from one common name if the article has a scientific or foreign-language name.
• Paragraph break: sadly, TFAs are written without paragraph breaks. (There are times they'd be really handy, but space is limited and paragraph breaks are frowned on at the Main Page.)
• "relatively hardy": stet. Wow, this one is hard. I'll run through the relevant issues so you can plug this into your calculations in the future. Yes, academese and journalese are stuffed full of adjectives used mainly to CYA (cover your anatomy), to vague-ify any assertion to the point where no one will ever successfully challenge it, without a lot of thought given to whether the noun alone might suffice. But that's the point ... these (sometimes awful) choices often come from the sources, and on Wikipedia, some level of faithfulness to the sources is required. I think it's a great idea to skim a Wikipedian's prose to see if they're the culprit, the one who seems to be inserting unnecessary fudge-words ... in this case, Cas is either writing the prose or vetting it, and he doesn't have this bad habit, so my usual call would be to just leave this alone and not bring it up (but note that I just pinged him, so I guess I'm bringing it up :). Also, note that technical terms can have a meaning for experts different from the common meaning, so for all I know, the word "hardy" implies survivability under particular conditions, and this banksia doesn't quite rise to the challenge, in which case "hardy" alone would be technically incorrect. Cas might enlighten us on this.
• "It is a gnarled tree up to 10 m (33 ft) tall": stet. When I hear "gnarled tree", I'm not thinking of something 33 feet tall, and the image alone doesn't give a sense of scale, so I think we need the numbers here.
• "1–3 m (3.3–9.8 ft)": Good call on ex-ing this. A rule of thumb at TFA is: most readers who see our TFA summary weren't planning on reading it, it just happens to be the first thing that comes up on the Main Page, so as soon as we throw in a lot of numbers (of any kind) or scientific jargon or lots of long words, we've lost most of our potential readership. (That has to be balanced of course against the needs of accuracy, clarity, and fidelity to the article.)
• "or a lower spreading shrub in the more northern parts of its range.": In general, I'm not looking for a reason to toss the writer's text, I'm looking to keep it. My instinct is to keep this bit, but I'll have to check the character count when I get done. But I'm going to rewrite it: "or, in its northern range, a spreading shrub." (Make sense?)
• "firewood banksia": No bolding at TFA. I will of course use italics or quote marks for words-as-words, but not for common names, except that I'll use italics for a name in cases where it would otherwise be mistaken for running text. (I'm leery of the inherent ambiguity with quote marks ... do they denote scare quotes? words-as-words? post-modernism gone wild? a title? a word I think the reader won't be familiar with? an attempt to disambiguate from a more common meaning? I'm comfortable with quote marks when I know my reader, but I'm very careful with a broad readership.)
• "paler grey green": I'm fine with the change to "paler green"; we have to cut somewhere, and this place is as good as any. I also agree with your choice to leave it alone in the article; it's not a mistake, just a stylistic choice. Cas, if you're reading this, it would also be fine to restore it, it's not like we're tight on space here.
• "are often two-coloured red or pink and yellow": stet. Removing "often" changes the meaning, and FAC writers sometimes get ornery over these kinds of changes.
• "birds and in particular honeyeaters are prominent visitors.": We've got room for this, though I rewrote it to: "honeyeaters and other birds are prominent visitors."
• Okay, 1008 characters now. Anything between 1000 and 1150 is great, and 900 to 1200 is allowed.
• No need to do anything with the images; David Levy and Chris have those covered.
• Nice work! - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, I just noticed you gave me the option of restoring "but its sensitivity to dieback from the soil-borne water mould Phytophthora cinnamomi makes it short-lived in places with humid summers." I don't have a preference; Cas might. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Btw, great work on Termite. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• The Oct 10 TFA is a tough one, I'll do it. Oct 11 looks fun, if you want it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Dank Thanks! and thank you for the pointers. When deciding whether to leave a word in or take it out, do I need to look at the original source? Corinne (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I never go that far. Sometimes I'll ask the writer if it's okay to take it out. - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Dank I just finished the October 11, 2015, TFA summary. What do you think? I got it down to 1,063 characters. Whew, it's difficult to keep cutting and consolidating! I took out things that seemed either less important or less interesting than what I left in. Corinne (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Dank Did you see this yet? I may have added the link to your user name after I signed, so you might not have gotten the notification. By the way, other science and technology articles I helped with to get them to FA are Epacris impressa, Radiocarbon dating and Oil shale in Estonia, in case you'd like to look at them. I have another question: I see a note at the top of the page when I am working on a summary that says I am supposed to purge something after I work on it. What is that? Corinne (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll get a chance to look at it in an hour. If you add "?action=purge" after a url, that makes transcluded pages show the most recent changes (for instance, if you're looking at WP:FAC, it will fetch the most recent version of all the individual FAC pages to display). You don't need to purge when you're working on an individual TFA to see your changes. - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

My ears were burning....menziesii is really grey-green not green but otherwise reads ok. thx for playing with it.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Heh ... I hope your eyes were burning too, I pinged you above. (If you didn't see the ping, I'm going stop pinging entirely, it's too unreliable.) I've restored the one "grey green" from the original text. - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dank I just learned about a week ago that if you add the ping after you have signed, the ping won't work. You have to sign again if you add a ping to a comment that's already been signed. Corinne (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I did sign, but the signature was several paragraphs down; I'll try signing the same paragraph with the ping from now on. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I looked at the October 12, 2015, TFA (the last one of the four, above), and it looks like the summary has already been done. It's at 1186 characters. Do you have any other summaries that need to be written? Am I supposed to look somewhere for further ones or wait for you to provide links? Corinne (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I did October 12. Up to you ... if you like, you can watchlist all the remaining October TFA pages (the ones at WP:TFAA), so that as Chris creates new TFA pages this month, you'll be able to get to work on the ones you like. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

O.K. I'll watchlist the TFAA page. Thanks for all your help. (I'm sure I'll need it again.) Corinne (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisting WP:TFAA itself will work if you pull up the page daily with "?action=purge" at the end; then you'll be able to see when the red links turn blue. OTOH, I'm watchlisting all 31 days in October (before most of those pages have been created), so that they show up on my watchlist as soon as the pages are created. You may want to do that too. I also need to watchlist the pages so that I can respond if someone edits the pages. - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dank, but I couldn't find anything with the "action-purge" thing at the end. I don't even know what you mean by "page daily". Regarding watch-listing all 31 days in October, I found the list for each day of October. I clicked on "watch". There was a question: "Do you want to watchlist this article?" and I clicked on "Yes", and it said, "This article has been added to your watchlist." But how do I get back to the list to add others? If I use the back-arrow, am I erasing the addition of that article to my watchlist? Corinne (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

If you watchlist all the pages, you won't need to purge, but in case you ever want to purge a page: you won't find "?action=purge" in Wikipedia; you have to type that in yourself in your url bar (the one that starts https), after the url, then hit Enter, to "purge" a page, which will reload all the pages transcluded into that page. (So, for instance, formerly red links will turn blue, if those pages have since been created.)

Using Alt-backarrow will not unwatchlist a page; I use Alt-backarrow repeatedly to get back to WP:TFAA after watchlisting. "page daily" meant "page, every day". - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you. Now I understand. So if I watchlist WP:TFAA, then, every day, or every few days, I add the "action-purge" thing to the url, hit enter, then it's updated.

Yes, but you won't need to do that if you watchlist Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 13, 2015, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 14, 2015, etc. - Dank (push to talk)

Regarding what to do after watchlisting a particular date-page/article, I guess you hold the ALT key down while you press the back arrow (the one on the keyboard in the group of up-down-left-right keys). I've never used that combination (but of course I will if that's the best thing to do). I usually use the back arrow that's in the upper-left-hand corner of the screen. Do you know if these have the same result?

Exactly the same, whichever is easier.

Dank, would you mind explaining two things to me? One is "transcluded". What does that mean?

If you pull up for instance WP:FAC, you'll see a very long page that has a bunch of Featured Article Candidate pages on it, one after another, including (currently) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Runaway Scrape/archive1. The individual FAC is said to be "transcluded" to the WP:FAC page: if you make an edit to it, you'll be editing the individual FAC, not the WP:FAC page. Likewise, WP:TFAA transcludes each of the individual TFA pages for a whole month, and displays them all, but if you start to edit one of them, you'll suddenly be working on the the individual TFA page for a particular day.

The other one is this: I don't understand what you mean by a page being created. I thought these articles have already been written, some, apparently, a while ago. What is the new page that is being created? Is it just the summary page? Who creates that initial summary that needs paring down? Thank you in advance for your patience. Corinne (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Dank... Corinne (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The Featured Articles have already been written. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 10, 2015 is an example of a TFA page, a short summary that will appear at the top of Wikipedia's Main Page on October 10. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 15, 2015 hasn't been created yet ... if you click on that red link, it will take you to a page that doesn't have any article text, and you can watchlist it just like any page. As soon as Chris creates that page, it will show up in your watchlist. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Dank I was just looking at the TFAA page, and I looked at the summary for Charles Domery. I wondered why there was a comma after "Polish soldier" in the first sentence. I would not put a comma there. Corinne (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

How about these sentences? George Washington was our first president, known as the "Father of His Country". Bunny Bread is a market leader, available in grocery stores statewide. Are these commas okay? - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Dank Yes. There's a difference between these two sentences and the first sentence in the Charles Domery paragraph. In these two sentences, the subject is already known and/or identified.

That doesn't seem to be the difference. In "Bunny Bread is a market leader", the subject is unique, and the predicate nominative is one of many, just as in "Charles Domery was a Polish soldier". In both sentences, the subordinate clause is being used in a nonrestrictive sense. There are a few who would be offended by the Domery sentence if we left off the comma to give it a restrictive sense, for the same reason that "He was an Italian with a big appetite" might be read as offensive ... are we implying "He had a big appetite, even by Italian standards"? The nonrestrictive comma gives it the meaning, "He was a Polish soldier, and he was noted for his appetite". - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

In the first sentence in the Domery paragraph, the two phrases, "a Polish soldier" and "noted for...", are both being used to identify Charles Domery. He was a Polish soldier who was noted for eating a lot (whatever it says). If you put a comma before "noted for", you are making it an afterthought, which minimizes it, when in fact it is the most important part of the identification.

Other way around ... the "payload" of a sentence, the new information or the intended point, is most likely to be the last thing said, not the first (although there are exceptions, of course, and the first sentence in an encyclopedia article sometimes reverses the usual order). Chapter 4 of The Sense of Style covers this in some detail. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

He was not just a Polish soldier. He was a Polish soldier who was known for eating a lot. (I think I prefer "known for" over "noted for".) Also, in your first example, it says "our first president". It doesn't say "a president". If it said, "was a president [who was] known as the father of his country", then you could leave out the comma because the phrase "known as the father of his country" is essential to identify the person.

In the second example, "Bunny Bread is a market leader, available in grocery stores statewide", it is really, "Bunny Bread is a market leader, [and it is] available in stores statewide". The last phrase (a shortened clause) is giving additional not-particularly-important information and is not being used to identify Bunny Bread.

You could also say that the sentence is really, "Bunny Bread is a market leader that is available in stores statewide." If this is intended, the adjective clause "that is available in stores statewide" is modifying "market leader" and is restrictive – it is essential for identifying "market leader" – thus, no comma before it; and, if this is intended, it can be written like this, or "that is" can be removed, leaving: "Bunny Bread is a market leader available in stores statewide". In this case, "available in stores statewide" is important information. In the first way, preceded by a comma, this information is less important.

Bunny Bread is a market leader, [and it is] available statewide.

Bunny Bread is a market leader that is available statewide. Bunny Bread is a market leader [that is] available statewide.

At least that's the way I see it. Corinne (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Dank Should I assume that you skipped the rest of my verbose post since you commented early on (above)? ;) I hadn't thought that those types of sentences would offend anyone. You think it might be offensive if it were worded, "Charles Domery was a Polish soldier who was noted for his unusually large appetite"? I don't see how that can be offensive. What if it just said, "Charles Domery was a Polish man who was noted for his unusually large appetite"? If you took "who was" out of each one of those sentences, would you write, "Charles Domery was a Polish man, noted for his unusually large appetite"? I wouldn't. Those "who" clauses are restrictive, not non-restrictive. Here is a non-restrictive clause: "That man is Charles Domery, who is known for his large appetite." Here, the man is already identified; the information in the clause is extra information and not needed to identify him. I think you'd like it to be, "Charles Domery was a Polish soldier, and he was known for his unusually large appetite." That makes being a Polish soldier and being knownn for his large appetite equal in emphasis. Is that what you want to convey? If so, I would write the sentence just like that. If you think one is more important than the other, then you use subordination, or you could write, "A Polish solder, Charles Domery was noted for his unusually large appetite", or "A soldier in the Polish army in the late 18th- to early 19th-century, Charles Domery was noted for his unusually large appetite." What do you think of that? Corinne (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I read the whole thing ... I replied inline because I was responding to specific sentences. I was about to add roughly the same thing you just did ... that if this sentence were any sentence other than the first sentence of the article, then "Charles Domery (c. 1778 – after 1800), a Polish soldier, was noted for his unusually large appetite" or "The Polish soldier Charles Domery (c. 1778 – after 1800) was noted for his unusually large appetite" would be preferable to what we have now, for exactly the reason you give. Unfortunately, it's the first sentence, so we're somewhat constrained by WP:LEAD. (Although ... you make a good point, let me think whether I want to be bold enough to deviate from LEAD, since this is TFA and not an article.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I just saw your second comment. Where is, or who is the author of, The Sense of Style? Also, I have been wondering whether this is a British English/American English difference. I have noticed British English-speaking editors adding commas in places where I would not use them, such as this kind of shortened clause. I would actually never write, and in fact have never even seen before I began editing on WP in 2012, I think it was, the kind of sentence with which I started this conversation. Are you, by any chance, a British English speaker? Corinne (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Lifelong US resident. See The Sense of Style. - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay ... LEAD be damned, we'll do it our way. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There's another issue we hadn't broached yet ... there are Wikipedians who go ballistic over any occurrence of "known for" or "noted for". Till now, I was thinking that we couldn't get around it, but now that we've reworded the sentence, I think it works without "known for" ... what do you think? (See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 12, 2015.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Btw, back to where this all started: I'm looking for people to write a few TFA summaries. I've been suggesting this plan for many months, and gotten basically no support for it, because FAC writers would apparently prefer to deal with one person rather than several. Things came to a head recently when there were a couple of TFAs that I didn't want to work on, for one reason or another, but now that I've gotten started with looking for help, I want to try to make this work. My position is that wikiprojects react very positively at FAC and TFA when they feel they have a copyeditor "of their own", someone who knows their wikiproject standards as well as FAC and TFA standards, at least well enough to get the job done. So, where this is going is ... be thinking about which wikiproject(s) you enjoy working with the most, and after you've picked a few more TFAs to work on, I'll ask you to specialize in TFAs for one or more wikiprojects. - Dank (push to talk) 16:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Dank O.K. I'll give that some thought. I see you re-worded the first sentence of the Charles Domery summary. I like it. It's nice and short and simple. I don't know what you mean by "LEAD be damned". Was there some sentence pattern we were supposed to use? I just want you to know that I'm always open to learning something new and hearing other viewpoints, and unless something is clearly ungrammatical, apart from explaining my point of view on a style issue I'm not going to get upset if something doesn't end up the way I would write it. I appreciate being able to discuss things with someone as knowledgeable, courteous and kind as you are. Corinne (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Why thank you, you're very easy to work with too. Many have interpreted LEAD to require a "was" in the first sentence of this type of article; I took the "was" out for a while, but I changed my mind and put it back. I think this is the first version of the first sentence we've arrived at that's unlikely to cause a problem at WP:ERRORS ... so thanks for bringing this up, you were right that there was a potential problem. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Dank I thought you were going to assign articles to me for writing or shortening summaries. I see you've been writing quite a few, and you haven't asked me to write a single one. Corinne (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You gave me a list of topics. It won't work for you to do all the history or biography TFAs; that's too broad. You asked about art history; I can add that to your list if you like. Other than that, none of the new articles have been in your list of topics (except Oct 31, Cucurbita, which I had done before it showed up). Is there a TFA I've done that you were looking forward to doing? - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dank No, I hadn't been looking. I only saw them as they appeared on my watchlist as either being already completed or still being worked on. I was just waiting for assignments. Can you give me some history and biography articles? Corinne (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll find some for you to work on in the next batch. Sorry for the miscommunication; I was just looking for a few people to work on a few TFAs. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

TAFI

If you could, please take a look at some of my noms at TAFI. Some of them could need some more input. Appreciate it.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Bill Skarsgård, Gustaf Skarsgård, Anna Lindh, Yolanda Saldívar, Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden , Molly Sandén and Kerobokan Prison are those that needs one more input. Any help is appreciated. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

BabbaQ O.K., but I feel kind of silly just agreeing "per nominator". I don't have the time or energy right now to study those articles to find reasons. I'm sure you wouldn't nominate the articles if they didn't need work. Corinne (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If you could just review Molly Sanden as well I would highly appreciate it and I will not nag you again ;) Thanks again.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean review, as in copy-edit the article, or review the nomination at TAFI? If the latter, I've added my support. Corinne (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC) BabbaQ Did you see this? Corinne (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Have a barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		While I could have used a copyeditor barnstar, but I feel like it cannot justify how grateful I am for your tireless work you have made on to improve Termite and Iridomyrmex. As well as that, you are a very easy person to discuss any issues that are raised in the article, which is a bonus when I request a copyedit. In the long run this makes the GA review much easier, so I am internally thankful for your work. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I should get around to fixing up the issues you have raised on my talk page. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Burklemore1 Thank you so much for this beautiful barnstar and for your kind words. They are much appreciated. Corinne (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You are most welcome! Burklemore1 (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 11, 2015

Great work! I made a few tweaks. I'll go notify the FAC nominator that the article will appear at TFA (they usually won't know, unless they nominator the article at TFAR themselves). - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2015)

Personal finance – an example image of personal budget planning software Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Personal finance Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Scottish mythology • Head Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Hey

Sneak a peek at my Sneek reply. Sca (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

So, did you survive the Blood Moon? Sca (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sca Thanks for the link, but I had already seen your reply last night (and responded). It was raining here, so I wouldn't have seen the moon no matter what color it was. I don't remember ever seeing a "blood moon". I will certainly read that article, though. Did you see it? Corinne (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Viewed it from my back yard, then with fear & trembling hid under my bed and waited for the End. Shockingly dusty under there, though, so went to bed – and dreamed I was flying (again!).

Where's "here" – ?? Sca (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's somewhere in the U.S.A. Corinne (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere in ... the zone? Sca (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you been reading the article I just copy-edited? Rebirth (sculpture) Corinne (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No and I ain't gonna, neither! Art, my foot! Sca (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sca I assume you said, "Art, my foot!" because you didn't like the image of the sculpture. Well, if you read the article you'll see that a lot of other people in the town didn't, either, and protested against it, and the artist withdrew the design. One name that the local newspaper gave it was "Twilight Zone-something" (I forget exactly). Corinne (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Here in prosaic ol' Bozo, Idaho, there has been a series of 'public art projects' that stood for a while, then were banished to parks or simply trashed. One, called Northwest Angle, was a couple of steel-girder rectangles. Good grief. Who's kidding whom? Sca (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: My guess is, you're in Seattle or Portland(ia). Sca (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Tag

Hi, thank you for your copy-editing of Mata Hari. Could you please add the GOCE-tag to the articles talk page. Thanks again.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article/October 14, 2015

Dank I just read the summary at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 14, 2015 about Mary O'Reilly. I did a character count and it came out at 1196, so it's within the range you gave me before. I don't know if you want it shortened a little bit. It's pretty well written as it is, but I've got to ask you about something. It's the second sentence in the lead:

• She worked at the Mint from 1904, for 34 years.

When I started editing on Wikipedia three years ago, that was the first time I had ever seen "from + year" used to mean "beginning in [year]" or "starting from [year]" or "from [year] onwards". I think I discussed this with Rothorpe, and we may have concluded that this was British English style (I don't remember). Also, I would never tack on a phrase like "for 34 years" after a comma like that. I would write:

• She worked at the Mint for 34 years beginning in 1904.

• She worked at the Mint for 34 years starting in 1904.

Do you want to leave it as it is, or change it? Also, do you want the paragraph shortened, or not? Corinne (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Since it's under 1200, I wouldn't remove stuff just to make it shorter (especially since it went through TFAR, so arguably, it's had some vetting). Agreed with you on both points. Question: given that the 10M Main Page readers may need an extra dose of clarity, should we be concerned about "Mary Margaret O'Reilly (1865–1949) was the Assistant Director of the United States Bureau of the Mint. She worked at the Mint beginning in 1904 ..."? If they're skimming (and most of them didn't come to the Main Page intending to read our column), they might think we're saying she was the Assistant Director beginning in 1904. Is that a problem, and is there a fix? - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dank How about if we take out that short second sentence entirely? We can add a short sentence at the very end, perhaps: "She had worked at the Mint for a total of 34 years." Regarding October 16 (section below), if I understand you correctly, you'd rather I not make any further edits to the article. If I have misunderstood, let me know. Corinne (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's right. Agreed with your suggestion. Let me know when you're done with the 13th please. - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Dank I'm done with the 13th. Corinne (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. It's such a pleasure having someone on board who knows this stuff. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Dank First, thank you for the kind comment just above. Second, I just saw your edits to the end of the October 14, 2015, article. Here's the first of the two to that sentence: [3] The reason I put "for a total of 34 years" and even added "Upon her retirement" to the beginning of the sentence, is so that there is no possible confusion with the information just preceding it. The way you have it, a reader might think (a) Roosevelt postponed her retirement after she had worked at the Mint for 34 years, or (b) when Roosevelt postponed her retirement date (in 1934), she had worked at the Mint for 34 years, both of which would be wrong. I'll leave it up to you, though. Corinne (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops, missed that. Okay, I made another edit, what do you think? - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Dank Good. Corinne (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article/October 16, 2015

Dank The summary at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 16, 2015 is 1164. Do you want it trimmed a little? I've copied the paragraph here and drawn a line through what I think could be left out if you want the summary shortened. What do you think?

• On 16 October 1834 a massive fire largely destroyed the Palace of Westminster, the medieval royal palace used as the home of the British parliament. The conflagration was caused by the burning of small wooden tally sticks that had been used as part of the accounting procedures of the Exchequer until 1826, which were being disposed of carelessly in the two furnaces under the House of Lords. The blaze caused a chimney fire, initially under the floor of the Lords' chamber, then that moved up through the walls before spreading rapidly throughout the complex. The fire lasted for most of the night and developed into the biggest conflagration to occur in London between the Great Fire of 1666 and the Blitz of the Second World War; massive crowds were attracted to the spectacle. By the following morning a large part of the palace had been destroyed, but the actions of the London Fire Engine Establishment ensured that Westminster Hall and a few other parts of the old Houses of Parliament survived. In 1836 a design competition for a new palace was won by Charles Barry who, in collaboration with Augustus Pugin, incorporated the surviving buildings into the new complex.

– Corinne (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• • What you've done so far is fine, but let's otherwise leave this one alone; I asked Brian to do it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Btw, there's not a lot to do for Oct 15, but Oct 13 could use some attention, from either of us. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dank I had changed "although" to "but" because you've got a comma there. I see you changed it back to "although". That's all right, but then you should remove the comma. Adverbial clauses that follow the main (or independent) clause ought not to be preceded by a comma. I see this mistake often on WP. Corinne (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a problem for me if you remove such commas when you copyedit; I won't. As a general rule, I don't consider a certain usage of commas a mistake if everyone follows that usage from time to time. Also, I find that it's close to impossible to get people to change their comma usage; commas aren't the kind of thing people care about much. I fix the more egregious commas or lack thereof, and generally don't talk about commas much.

With regard to Oct 16, I shouldn't have asked Brian to handle it without letting you know that I was handing that page off; I'd prefer we not touch it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Dank Oh, O.K. That's fine. I understand (and I agree with you that it's hard to get people to change their habits with regard to commas). Corinne (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Picking a wikiproject

Okay, we've collaborated enough now that I know I'll be happy with your work. I'd prefer that we switch over now to a regular routine where you pick one or more wikiprojects, and just do the TFAs for articles that have been tagged by those wikiprojects. Take your time ... it can be hard to choose. Obviously you want wikiprojects that tag articles that tend to show up at FAC, but it's also good to choose subject matter you're comfortable with, and also good to choose people you enjoy working with. Hylian Auree has WP:TROP covered, and I've got Milhist covered. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Dank Great! Thanks for your confidence in me. I just looked at the list of WikiProjects, and I know which ones I want to work on:

• All the Geociences - I studied some geology and mineralogy in college, so I've copy-edited a lot of geology and mineralogy articles already, and when I have questions, I ask a geologist editor (Vsmith). (Do I have to pick individual Wiki-Projects?)

• All the Geographical topics (Do I have to pick individual Wiki-Projects?)

and, if I get more:

• Paleontology
• Archaeology
• Anthropology
• History
• Art History

and, I have copy-edited a few plant articles. I'm not a botanist, but I do all right, and when I have questions, I ask botanist editors (Sminthopsis84 and CasLiber), but this is not my strongest subject. Corinne (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I like to edit articles about people, biographical articles, especially about writers, philosophers, explorers, painters, inventors, etc. Corinne (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

All those are fine (including botany), except that history, art history and biographies are a little broad; I'll handle those. You don't need to pick wikiprojects as long as we know which ones you're doing. The areas you've picked are narrow enough that I think you'll get to know the writers over time and they'll get to know you (if they don't already). - Dank (push to talk) 01:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you rather watchlist all possible TFAs, or should I let you know when one of yours is up? (At the moment, there's just one, on the 19th). - Dank (push to talk) 01:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if I watchlist all of them, I guess I'd have to make the determination whether it is within my areas, which is fine, but I wonder, if I start working on an article that another editor also chooses, how would that be sorted out? Do you think that won't happen very often? I hate to give you more work, though. Whichever is easier for you is fine with me. Corinne (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Do you want me to work on the October 19, 2015, article? I see it is about a plant. Corinne (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the 19th is yours. Hm, good point ... Auree is taking some, and I'm going to give Brian a few, so it would probably be best if I leave a message here when one of yours comes along. You're welcome to watchlist all the TFAs, though, or keep an eye on WP:TFAA, and if you see one that's in your areas and I miss it, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Corinne (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Dank I just finished the October 19, 2015, summary. I didn't know whether I should leave one common name or take out both, so I took out both. Also, it said, "shrub or (rarely) tree", so I didn't know whether to leave "tree" in or (since it's rarely a tree), remove it. Corinne (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The botany writers will sometimes do a simple Google search to see if one common name predominates, and use that. Albany Banksia gets 4 times as many hits so I went with that. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 41, 2015)

An example of musical composition – Scherzo in A flat (Borodin) Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Musical composition Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Personal finance • Scottish mythology Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Aucanquilcha

Hi Corinne, what's going on with the copy-edit here? Having skimmed through your conversation with Vsmith on his talk page, I can't see what progress was made (although it did clear a few points up). Are you planning to continue the copy-edit, or shall I return the request to the list? I didn't want to template you, seeing that you've commented on the request. Either way I'll ensure you're credited in the archive. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Baffle gab1978 In the days following my post at Requests, I saw the requesting editor and Vsmith were making edits, so I left it for a while. Every day or so I see another edit. I guess it's time I go back and read it through. Thanks for reminding me. Corinne (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for replying. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Termite (energy source section)

As per the GA review, it has been put on hold because there is an apparent copyvio in the energy source section, but I am really terrible when I'm trying to reword things (I unintentionally disorganise, change meaning or add grammatically wrong sentences at times), so I may need some assistance. Also, I'm sorry I haven't been caught up with the issues you have raised, I will get to them when the copyvio has been cleared. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Burklemore1 I'm sorry the GA review has been put on hold, but I'm sure it will be resolved and you can continue working on it. No problem. There's no rush as far as I'm concerned. Let me know when you want me to take a look at the article again. Corinne (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That's okay, I should be able to rewrite the whole section very soon. I may be slower than usual though. Having two other GA nominees being reviewed, it isn't very easy to balance them all evenly. And I shall, just watch closely to my edits so my potential errors can be fixed. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have rewritten the section, so please feel free to check it out and correct anything I may have done wrong. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the GA reviewer for the Termite article. Things are looking good so far, so Burklemore1 doesn't really have to worry. You've done a really good job copyediting it, and because of that, I'm going to have a tough time giving Burklemore1 a tough time. I'll manage to find stuff to carp about, though! (heh, heh, heh ...)

Nice place you got here. You've decorated it with some of my favorite photos in all of Wikipedia! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Stigmatella aurantiaca Thanks! I'm glad you approve of my copy-edits to Termite, and I'm glad you like the images on my user page. I think that's great you noticed the same photos in Wikipedia articles. I just looked at your user page, and your page is interesting, too. I'm so impressed by the titles of articles you've written and worked on. I think if I had another life to live, I'd study that stuff. (The closest I got to it was a course in crystallography and mineralogy in college.) Your diagrams are fabulous. I love them. What does your user name mean? Corinne (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliments! For scientific illustration on Wikipedia, I've adopted a deliberately flat and minimalist style, usually using no more than a handful of colors. This is in complete contrast to the volunteer work that I do (such as flyers for the local public library) using 3D rendering software. I especially like it when I can simulate an observation or effect using a computer to work out the math and to draw the images that I assemble into an animation.

Stigmatella aurantiaca and Myxococcus xanthus are bacteria that I worked on when I was a graduate student. Myxobacteria are social bacteria which form "wolf packs" and which hunt other bacteria, fungi, and even the occasional eukaryotic microorganism. They have complex life cycles reminiscent of the life cycles of eukaryotic slime molds. I highly recommend taking a look at the videos that I've included in the external links of Myxococcus xanthus and Myxobacteria such as Video: Myxococcus xanthus preying on an E. coli colony and Myxococcus xanthus fruiting body formation. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Jack jumper ant has proven to be the most difficult article to work on so far, but Termite will also be very challenging (yet worthwhile). ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Stigmatella aurantiaca Wow! Those are great videos! I watched several in a row. How did you get such close-up images? E. coli is not such a great bacteria, for humans at least, right? So I guess it's a good thing that other bacteria can destroy them. Are the other bacteria actually eating the E. coli? I guess this kind of thing goes on all the time among different kinds of bacteria. Did you see the videos that followed yours that are set to music, like this one [4] and the one right after it that is set to what is, I think, a tune from a James Bond movie, or are those yours, too? Corinne (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No, those videos aren't mine, but I personally knew several of the people who took them. Hans Reichenbach (not the same as the one in Wikipedia) was still alive when I was a graduate student. He was on a visit to the United States and tried to recruit me to his lab. I also knew Eugene Rosenberg (who tried to recruit me to Tel Aviv University), Dale Kaiser, Marty Dworkin, and bunches of other people in myxobacterial research. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Stigmatella aurantiaca I was just looking at your recent edits to Termite. Most seem fine, but I wanted to discuss two changes with you, both at this edit [5].

1) In this sentence:

• "Termites antennae have a number of sensory functions. They include a scape (one of the three basic segments on the insect antennae), a pedicel...

You added "antennae" but neglected to change "termites" to either "termites'" (plural possessive) or "termite" (noun as adjective) right before it. Then, in the next sentence, you changed "This includes" to "They include" (presumably to match the plural "antennae"), but in doing this you introduced some ambiguity because in the previous sentence there are two plural nouns, "antennae" and "sensory functions". Since what follows "They include" look like parts of antennae, I assume you want "they" to refer to "antennae", not "sensory functions". This needs to be cleared up. I read the rest of this sentence, and the next, and I do not see any details about the sensory functions of termite antennae, so it's not clear why that statement is there. It just goes right into a list of the parts of the antennae.

2) Later, we read these two sentences:

• The structure of the legs is consistent with other insects. They include a coxa, trochanter, femur, tibia and the tarsus.

You again changed "This includes" (in the second sentence) to "They include". From looking at what follows "They include", I assume by "they" you mean "the legs", but, again, there is ambiguity because of the two plural nouns: "legs" and "insects". Also, the subject of the first sentence is really "structure", not "legs". By switching to "legs", you're abandoning any further mention of "the structure". I recommend changing "They" to "The legs": "The legs include".

• The structure of the legs is the same as that of other insects: the legs include...

or:

• The legs are the same as in other insects: they include... Corinne (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. Unclear pronoun antecedents are a major downfall. I see them in other people's writing, but somehow I don't see them in my own. Selective blindness hits us all. The other mistakes I attribute to being distracted by an emergency at work.  :-( Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Stigmatella aurantiaca That's all right. Thank you for not taking umbrage at my corrections and explanations. I never know whether another editor really knows the grammar but just overlooked something or doesn't really know the grammar. I provide the explanations to save time but also to allow the other editor to make the changes. I also sometimes miss things and make mistakes and am chagrined when I see them corrected by another editor. Corinne (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've finished making my final swoop through the article. Could you go through and fix any mistakes that I've introduced, after which I can promote? Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Stigmatella aurantiaca First, thanks for your confidence in me. I'm going to read through the article once more from beginning to end. I've just read a few sections and made a few changes. (I hadn't read the article in a while, so was seeing it with fresh eyes.) I'm going to take a few hours' break, but will continue reading later today, if that's all right. I wanted to ask you about one section. It's the second paragraph in Termite#Description. I'll copy it here for ease of discussion:

• Consistent with all insects, the anatomy of the termite thorax consists of three segments: the prothorax, the mesothorax and the metathorax. Each segment contains a pair of two legs. On alates, the wings are located at the mesothorax and metathorax. The mesothorax and metathorax have well-developed exoskeletal plates; the prothorax has smaller plates. The thorax consists of three plates, known as the pronotum, mesonotum and metanotum.

You'll have seen in the edit history that I did make one or two small changes in this paragraph, but not enough to change any meaning. I noticed, though, a little problem. The first sentence says, "the anatomy of the termite thorax consists of three segments". The last sentence starts, "The thorax consists of three plates". (I didn't think "termite" was necessary before "thorax" here, but if I'm wrong, feel free to put it back in.) I think it's a little confusing to say, "the thorax consists of three segments", then describe the segments, and then say, "the thorax consists of three plates". Do the plates, by any chance, cover the segments? If so, perhaps the verb could be changed in the last sentence. Perhaps, "The three segments of the thorax are covered by plates known as the pronotum, etc." Corinne (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

O.K. I've resumed reading. I have two questions about the following sentences which appear in the middle of the first paragraph in Termite#Diet:

• Most so-called higher termites, especially in the family Termitidae, can produce their own cellulase enzymes, but they retain a rich gut fauna and rely primarily upon the bacteria. The flagellates have also been lost in Termitidae, a result of the diversification of their feeding habits.

1) I don't remember reading about "higher termites" anywhere. Has this phrase been defined somewhere in the article? Don't you think it should be explained somewhere?

2) I don't understand the presence of the word "also" in the second sentence. I don't see where we have said that Termitidae, or any other species, has lost something, so why "also"? Corinne (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you mind if I re-arrange the sentences in Termite#Parasites, pathogens and viruses? I think all the sentences about parasites should be together, then fungi, then viruses. Right now, it's parasites, then fungi, then parasites again, then viruses. Also, in that section is a sentence that puzzles me. It's this sentence:

• Certain nematodes are an intermediate host, with chickens being their final host.

Are you sure this is worded correctly? This section is about parasites (etc.) that sometimes infect termites, making the termite the host. I should think that the termite is the intermediate host of (or for) some nematodes, on their way to infecting chickens. No? If you think this is worded correctly, and nematodes are the host, then what is the reason for including the sentence? Corinne (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding that same section, Termite#Parasites, pathogens and viruses, I don't understand the reason for including a photo of a dead cockroach covered with a parasite. Even if that parasite also infects termites, I think there should be a photo of an infected termite, not a photo of an infected cockroach. If one cannot be found, I would still remove the photo of the dead cockroach. Corinne (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

In the first paragraph in the section Termite#Communication are the following two sentences:

• When termites go out to look for food, they forage in columns along the ground through vegetation. A trail can be identified by the faecal deposits or runways that are covered by objects.

I don't understand the second sentence. Does it mean that a trail can be identified by a scientist, or does it mean that a trail can be identified by termites? If the latter is meant, why not use the active voice: "Termites identify a trail..."? Also, I don't understand the last part of the second sentence: "by the faecal deposits or runways that are covered by objects"??? Don't you mean "by the faecal deposits or runways that cover objects along the way? User:Burklemore1 If you haven't already been watching my talk page, you might be interested in all my questions that I've been addressing to User:Stigmatella aurantiaca. Stigmatella aurantiaca, I just realized that the second word of your user name sounds a bit like "Our Auntie Akka" :) Corinne (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Corinne (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, I'll address some of your concerns while Stigmatella aurantiaca isn't available (I'm not sure where he/she lives, so I can't be certain though). I have done the following:

• For the "higher termites" part, this is used by scientists to group specific families of termites. This is what I found from a .edu wiki site that can classify termites into specific groupings: "There is a distinction between lower termites and higher termites, mentioned throughout many studies of termite guts. Lower termites have many species of bacteria along with protozoa, while higher termites usually just have the bacteria and a more elaborate anatomy while lacking the protozoa. ". The following source was cited: Breznak, J A; Brune, A (1993). "Role of Microorganisms in the Digestion of Lignocellulose by Termites". Annual Review of Entomology. 39 (1): 453–487. doi:10.1146/annurev.en.39.010194.002321. Where would you like this added? Description? I have also removed "also" from the specific sentence you have mentioned.
• You're more than welcome to rearrange the parasites section if you would like to, for the sake of this article retaining its high quality.
• Removed sentence about the chicken being the host and such.
• Removed photo of the fungi infecting the cockroach. It was more of an illustration as to what it does to its hosts. I figured it doesn't need to be "insect-specific" as long as it illustrates what it does, giving readers a glimpse of what some infected termites go through.
• For the faecal depoists part, it is how people and scientists can identify tracks. Most of the time termites don't visually identify these because they're blind, but rather they construct the tracks and leave pheromones on the track so other termites can walk along these trails. As for your second concern, the runways are covered by objects to avoid sunlight and predators. It's pretty much a safe passage for termites. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Valais and Tethys ocean

Just a note: there are easier things in life.

Valais Ocean, Tethys Ocean, formation of the Alps, formation of the Caspian Sea, Periadriatic Seam are linked together.

The Alps is the best known orogeny on Earth, but these things are still quite complex.

Some references:

• Christian Gnägi, Toni P. Labhart (2015). Geologie der Schweiz (in German) (9 ed.). Ott Verlag. p. 208. ISBN 978-3-7225-0142-0.
• The TRANSMED Atlas: the Mediterranean Region from Crust to Mantle. Springer Verlag. 2004. p. 141. ISBN 3-540-22181-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 42, 2015)

Costumed performers from the 2006 Bristol Renaissance Faire Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Costume Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Musical composition • Personal finance Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Thiruvilaiyadal

I happened to notice that you have some experience in copyediting Indian films (Moodu Pani and Anniyan) before. Would you like to give Thiruvilaiyadal, a 1965 Tamil film, a copyedit for a potential GA nomination? Thank you. Thamizhan1994 (^{Appo Pesu}) 11:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist has accepted my request for copyediting as I asked him first before coming to you as I thought he was busy. Thank you. :) Thamizhan1994 (^{Appo Pesu}) 13:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Re that user

Corinne, I'd really just ignore him. We're wasting our time; let him get on with it and don't work on any of "his" articles. As his replies show, he is supremely graceless, not to mention patronising (posting a link that he thinks demonstrates a cast-iron rule rather than some piece of regional whimsy). Regards, Ericoides (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ericoides Thanks, and I will. I just read the link you provided, and in the answer read something – "Some people use "which" restrictively, which is more or less okay (and popular among writers of British English) as long as no commas are involved" – that finally explains why I see "which" used to introduce restrictive clauses so often on WP. I had seen it sometimes before I started editing WP but not as much as I have seen it on WP. I had just gotten tired of changing "which" to "that", so I finally stopped, unless (a) the clause is non-restrictive and should stay as "which" or (b) it just doesn't sound right. It's amazing how, when a little grace and courtesy is so easy, it is just too difficult for some editors. Corinne (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

TFAs

Nov 1 and Nov 2 both look fun, you're welcome to do them. Nov 2 came from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Shah Rukh Khan, and there's not much to do except whittle it down (it's currently at 1367 characters) ... those guys have a pretty good sense of how to write TFA summaries. Nov 1 didn't go through TFAR, and the trick for that one will be to expand the TFA summary (which came from the lead) with information in the article that will appeal to Main Page readers, if you can find any ... the lead is too short for TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Dank I read the November 1 article, and I made a few minor copy-edits. I struggled to find anything to add to the summary. Maybe the information about the ll of her 14 foals that won a register of merit and the amount they collectively earned in races, if it's not already in the summary. Would you mind taking care of this one? Horse racing is just not one of my interests. I was puzzled by something in the article, though. It's not that important, but I thought I'd ask. I normally add a no-break space to prevent a single letter or initial of two (or three) initials from ending up on one line and the other single letter or initial ending up on the next line, as in "A. B. Green", or to prevent a single digit from ending up all alone at the end of a line. In this article I also thought the "L" of "Barbara L", the name of the horse, should not end up on a separate line from "Barbara". I was going through the article adding a few no-break spaces when I saw that whoever had written this article had added a lot of no-break spaces, many more than I usually see, and in places where I thought it would not have been so bad if there had been a break there. I didn't want to say anything, but I just thought I'd point it out. I'm going to look at the Shah Rukh Khan summary now. Corinne (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be happy to do it. Per my standard disclaimer, no-break spaces are one of the things I don't pay attention to. - Dank (push to talk) 01:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Dank, what do you think? I got the November 2, 2015, summary down to 1210 characters. Corinne (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

1200 is the cap. - Dank (push to talk) 01:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I forgot. I cut out an unnecessary sentence. Corinne (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Very nice work, no complaints. - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lay-out

Ho corinne. I've tried some versions; see the history. persoanlly, I'd recoomand to stick witht the show/hide version of the links; I think that looks best. But alas, that's my opinion. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 Can you help me format the top of my talk page? It looked O.K. when I asked JJ to figure out why my automatic archiving no longer worked. He saw that my user name in the archiving template had not been changed to Corinne when I changed my user name about six weeks ago, and he fixed that. But in the process he changed the width of the box/column in which I had all my links so that it was narrow. Before that, I had gotten it just wide enough that each of the links was on its own line, and the painting by Bonnard was to the left of the list of links, about the same size. When I asked JJ to try to get it back that way, he put all the links in a show/hide. I don't want them in a show/hide since I use them often. I also don't want the Bonnard painting to appear twice, and I don't want my table of contents really narrow like it is now. I'd like the Signpost to be at the right, just below the first image of Chittagong, and the table of contents to the left, but not so narrow, then, below that, the Bonnard image at the left and the list of links to the right of the Bonnard image. Can you do that? I'd be very grateful. Corinne (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Like this? If you'd rather the links are more or less on the same line, just remove the "width: 50%" parameter from the table above. I'd recommend keeping the TOC easily readable, personally. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492 Thanks, Chris. Well, it's a little better. I agree with you about the ToC, and that looks fine as it is. However, neither of the Pierre Bonnard images appear. The file is in red letters. I only want the second one, however, so could you delete the first one (and make the other one appear)? Also, is there any way that the first section of the actual talk page could show up below the Bonnard image and the box with the links, not squeezed along the left side? Finally, and this is the least of it, could you take out any extra space between lines in the box with the links? Thanks. Corinne (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You'd need to see if the file was deleted or moved, or if this is mistyped. I don't know where the original file was. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi

If you want to, please take a look at my TAFI noms for Astrid Lindgren and Omakase. Appreciate it.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)