User talk:Rothorpe

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

George Kennan (explorer)[edit]

You might like to read my comment at User talk:Vsmith#George Kennan (explorer), and give your opinion or make edits. CorinneSD (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wigger[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Wigger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article appears to be coat rack and synthesis. Renominating since no noticeable improvement since last AfD in 2010

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nowa (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Eponym[edit]

Hello, Rothorpe! I've just started reading the article on Eponym (for the second time, but the first time was a while ago). I paused at the first sentence:

  • An eponym is a person or thing [citation needed] for whom something is named, or believed to be named, or the name itself.

Shouldn't this be,

  • An eponym is a person for whom, or thing [citation needed] for which, something is named, or believed to be named, or the name itself.
'Whom' doesn't go well with 'thing' as the antecedent, but 'which' and 'person', I think, are OK, so how about:
  • An eponym is a person or thing [citation needed] for which something is named, or believed to be named, or the name itself.

About two paragraphs later there is a similar sentence regarding the adjectives eponymous, etc., and if the first sentence is changed, that one probably ought to be changed as well.

Yes, I think it's OK there too.

I actually wonder why a citation is needed after "thing". Is it because usually an eponym is a person?

Yes, probably.

I've been reading and editing Kurgan hypothesis, and the word eponymous appears toward the end of the first paragraph in Kurgan hypothesis#Cultural horizon. That particular sentence illustrates an eponym that is a thing rather than a person: a kurgan. CorinneSD (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, that's a good example. Rothorpe (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Look at how Merriam-Webster deals with the problem of person or thing: [1]. Would this be a sufficient citation for "thing" so that the "citation needed" tag could be removed? I know external links don't belong right in the text of an article, but could it be added as a reference? CorinneSD (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, with a reference 'for whom or for which' would be excellent. Rothorpe (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

I am bemused by the edit summary of your revert, specifically the claim that "singular is established; too soon to change to plural" as the plural is the first usage in the first sentence. Number 57 21:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Which first sentence? Rothorpe (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I meant "as the plural is the first usage in the sentence". It's far too hot to think straight today... Number 57 21:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I hear it's extremely hot in my native England, my sympathies. Cool enough here in Portugal, however. Er... which sentence? Rothorpe (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The sentence that began "Although they were excluded from Golda Meir's government..." Number 57 21:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
But that's what I've just changed in the revert, to "Although it was..." Rothorpe (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
That's what I'm trying to point out. You seem to be claiming that the singular is established in the sentence and it is too soon (further on) to change it to plural. But the first time anything is used in the sentence, it is the plural – therefore the singular is not established. Number 57 21:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The sentence is only one word old: 'although'. If you mean the paragraph, then the antecedent is 'the party', which can be singular or plural, but on second mention it has already become 'it', so singular is established. Rothorpe (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You yourself said that "styles can be mixed". Number 57 21:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and I also said "too soon to change to plural". There should be a forgetting interval. Rothorpe (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Like your comments about jarring (which I agree with the concept of), what constitutes an interval is a personal judgement. To me, the sentence reads perfectly well. Number 57 21:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

...[edit]

OK, how about a request for comment, then, to see what others think? Rothorpe (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see the point to be honest; this is simply a matter of personal preference rather than right or wrong. The article should have simply have been left with its original wording per WP:RETAIN. Number 57 15:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Number 57 You are simply wrong. Once a singular pronoun (it) or possessive adjective (its) has been used, the singular should continue to be used, even into subsequent sentences, until another subject (noun or proper noun) has been introduced and the focus is now on that other subject. Then, if the original noun is mentioned again, the writer is free to change to a plural pronoun or possessive adjective. One quality of good writing is that it is seamless. One thought leads smoothly to the next (within a paragraph anyway), with no awkward interruptions that slow the reader down and make the reader wonder, even for an instant, "To what does this word refer?" Keeping to the singular – or the plural – to refer to the same noun or proper noun eliminates awkward or rough patches in the sentence. It may very well be common enough in ordinary conversation in England, and even in informal writing, but good formal writing is another thing altogether. Good writing is precise. CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
CorinneSD: I'm not wrong, and neither are the editors who have written Featured Articles in the same style. I'm sorry that you are unable to appreciate differences between different dialects of English. Number 57 11:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
"...the party won only 1.4% of the vote, though it retained its two seats. Although they were excluded from Golda Meir's government..." I too am unable to appreciate it. Rothorpe (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you've been living overseas for too long ;) Number 57 12:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It's an exciting new style, are they? Rothorpe (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Robin Maugham, 2nd Viscount Maugham[edit]

Which do you prefer? [2] CorinneSD (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding and makes it sound rather glib and reviewish, I think. Rothorpe (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree. How does one explain the subtle difference to one who does not see it? CorinneSD (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
No explaining required. Just revert and say 'better before'. Rothorpe (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Last, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ringo Starr[edit]

I'm reading today's Featured Article on Ringo Starr. I have a question for you:

In the third paragraph in the section Ringo Starr#940–56: Early life is the following sentence:

  • His lack of education contributed to a feeling of alienation at school, which resulted in him regularly playing truant at Sefton Park.

Do you see an error in this sentence? CorinneSD (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The preposition? Or the apparent contradiction? Rothorpe (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No. The "him". CorinneSD (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I didn't notice that at all. I remember reading once that it's a British usage, and Americans would put 'his'. Correct? Rothorpe (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I hadn't heard that it was a British usage, but you're right that I would have put "his" there. I believe there are times when "him" would be correct – and maybe this is one of them – but it struck me as wrong. I suppose I ought to do some research, but I'm too tired right now. It will have to wait until tomorrow. CorinneSD (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Dorothy L. Sayers[edit]

I'm reading the article on Dorothy L. Sayers. In the section Dorothy L. Sayers#Childhood, youth and education is the following sentence:

  • The Regency rectory is an elegant building, while the church graveyard features the surnames of several characters from her mystery The Nine Tailors.

I don't see that the two clauses in this sentence really have any direct connection, except the physical proximity of the rectory and the graveyard. Do you think the two clauses should be connected, and, if so, do you think "while" is the best word to use? Any ideas? CorinneSD (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, rather guidebookish. Is the elegance of the rectory relevant to Sayers? If not, the clause could be omitted; if, so, 'while' could be changed to 'and'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)