User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 17

Ananias and Sapphira

I've been busy, and the weather is great so have been outside. Hope the weather is good where you are.

I've posted a question re Ananias and Sapphira on my talk page. Please feel free to weigh in. CorinneSD (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Fayenatic london replied, so I made the edit. You're still welcome to weigh in or even correct me. CorinneSD (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that's OK. Great weather here too, I've been out to look at the stars. Rothorpe (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Great! Today's the longest day of the year. CorinneSD (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

So it is, I hadn't noticed. Rothorpe (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ananias and Sapphira 2

An editor just changed "comprised of" to "composed of" in Ananias and Sapphira. Would you say that is correct or not? I'm not sure. CorinneSD (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely: "is composed of" = "comprises". Rothorpe (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying "is composed of" is better than "comprises" (or "is comprised of", which is, I believe, what it said before the edit)? If they are all equal, wouldn't "comprises" be the most concise? CorinneSD (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would; 'is comprised of' is widely regarded as incorrect. Rothorpe (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we talked about this before. I'm surprised that "is comprised of" is "widely regarded as incorrect". I've often heard "is comprised of", but have not often heard "comprises". But upon looking at the sentence again, I see that it is negative, so if "comprises" is used, it would have to be "does not comprise", and I think "is not composed of" sounds better than that, so I'll leave it. CorinneSD (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Good, yes, that's what I was taught in my English school, or somewhere... Rothorpe (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Umberto Eco

What do you think of the latest edit to Umberto Eco? Was "an acronym of" wrong? To me, that is more precise and more concise than "was derived from the initials of". CorinneSD (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Eco is pronounceable, so it's an acronym, not just an initialism. Rothorpe (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Good. Would you mind making the edit? Then you can put that explanation in the edit summary. CorinneSD (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Indonesia

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Indonesia? While I suppose it is an improvement, I don't think the word "thus" is necessary when there is already "by inference". Also, I wonder whether a link at "tuna" is really necessary. CorinneSD (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with both the comma and 'thus'. And perhaps 'inference' too. As for tuna, well, perhaps some readers would be unfamiliar with the word. Rothorpe (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I wondered about "inference", too. Do you think "by implication" was better? CorinneSD (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Rothorpe (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Or do you think it should be spelled out more clearly: Evidence that they were catching and consuming deep-sea fish such as tuna shows that they were capable of constructing ocean-going boats and navigating on the open ocean between Indonesia and Australia (something like that) ? CorinneSD (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I think it's basically OK as it is, just changing it back to 'and by implication the technology'. Rothorpe (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Or: and thus probably the technology. Rothorpe (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC) (But do change to your version if you think it's clearer.)

I agree with deleting "thus", and prefer your rewritten version that drops the whole "imply/infer" nuances, because it was awkward in this instance. Who is doing the "implying"? - not the evidence. My understanding was, usually, that a person "implies" something; it's an active verb. Conclusions drawn from evidence are inferred. In this case, because of evidence of deep-sea fishing, scholars inferred that the people could use their boat/ship technology to sail on the oceans. That's why I made the change but did not go far enough. I don't think we use "infer" much any more, but did not think that evidence "implied".Parkwells (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess you're right. Rothorpe, what do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Rothorpe (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I re-worded the sentence. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Simpler and better. Rothorpe (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree.Parkwells (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Borobudur ship - By the way, a group reconstructed an 8th-c. ship based on the bas reliefs on the temple, and artisans' knowledge of sailing and craft. It was successfully sailed from Jakarta, Indonesia to Madagascar and then around the continent to Accra, Ghana, a voyage lasting from Aug. 2003 to Feb. 2004, confirming theories about the potential for these ships having been used for ancient trade with Africa.Parkwells (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Is that way before the Chinese sea-captain Zheng He who sailed a whole fleet at least as far as Africa? CorinneSD (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

H. L. Mencken

Hello, Rothorpe -- Hope all is well. I wonder if you agree with the editor who made the latest edit to H. L. Mencken, changing "faking" to "fabricating". Also, in that same sentence, I noticed "inquiry against". Shouldn't it be "inquiry into"? CorinneSD (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. Indeed, 'faking' is much more direct. From what I know of Mencken, he would have preferred it. And yes, 'into'. Rothorpe (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. Do you want to make those edits? Then you can add your explanatory edit summary for the first one. CorinneSD (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Rothorpe (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sammy Davis, Jr.

What's with the latest edit to Sammy Davis, Jr.? I can't judge the appropriateness of the Mod Squad episode addition, but there's an extra line near the beginning of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

An accident, I think, so I've removed it. Rothorpe (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good. Thanks. Do you know how to use Google Translate? There is an article on it on WP. I just skimmed the article, but I still don't know where to find it or how to use it. CorinneSD (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never used it, but I'll investigate. Rothorpe (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Try the Web Address in the info box. Rothorpe (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for help on my Talk page. Have gotten some replies, but still don't understand it completely, and am waiting for more information. CorinneSD (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Rothorpe: What do you think about the latest edit to Sammy Davis, Jr.? CorinneSD (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's good. I agree with the summary: who's to say what if any effect it had? Rothorpe (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I guess you're right about that. But at least it gave you a chance to make a few further copy-edits. CorinneSD (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It did indeed. By the way, do you still want an answer to your question about making links on your talk page? Rothorpe (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, did you read the responses I got about where to find Google Translator? I found it as a website in the info box in the WP article Google Translate. I wonder how I could put that website as a link at the top of my Talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen just told me where to find it. I went to Preferences, then Gadgets, then I clicked in the box next to "Enable Google Translator". Now when I put my cursor over "More" (next to "Watchlist"), Google Translator appears as a choice. The instructions next to "Enable Google Translator" mention something about pressing the Shift key, but I have yet to try to use it. CorinneSD (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So have you tried it yet? Rothorpe (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried it when I got to it from the website link in the infobox of the WP article. It's easy. Just type in a word in the box on the left, then select a language, and the translation appears. I haven't looked at it the other way yet. CorinneSD (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this tomorrow. Rothorpe (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, nice, I've saved it. Rothorpe (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What does this mean?

I saw the addition to your User page, "This page plays at 55 1⁄5 rpm." What does that mean? CorinneSD (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't it remind you of anything? Rothorpe (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the records we played in the '60s and 70's? But those were 45s and lps, weren't they? Does 55 1/5 refer to something specific? Do you mean the solution to the riddle at the beginning of your User page, the 100th of the 5th, or whatever it was? CorinneSD (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm making a veiled reference to LPs there. Do you remember their speed? A little slower than the 45s. As to the riddle, that's just so you can work out my d.o.b. My parents never told me I was born on the 100th day of the year, presumably because they had never noticed, but one day I did, and thought, cool! Rothorpe (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember the speed of the LPs. I thought they were 70s or something. You're saying they were 55 and 1/5? But I still don't see the connection to your dob. I remembered that I figured it out a long time ago when I first looked at your User page, but now I don't remember (& you don't have to say). I'll look at it again. CorinneSD (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Now I can't find it on your User page. Did you remove it? One way to indicate how old one is is to say which television programs one watched in the original, not re-runs. Did you watch any American television programs back in the 50s and early 60s? CorinneSD (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I added the 55 thing today to remind myself how to do fractions, as I always have to look for Insert and I couldn't even find that today. The LPs played at 331⁄3. I did that one from memory: let's see if it comes out correctly... Yes! 78s were the breakable records that preceded long-players. My birthday has nothing to do with any of this, and you can find it out by putting your mouse over the wikilinks. Rothorpe (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I loved I Married Joan as a kid. My Dad was into the Burns & Allen Show, but that was too sophisticated for me. Rothorpe (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember "I Married Joan". I watched Jack Benny, the Lucille Ball Show, and that one with the group of rag-tag children (can't remember the title), and the Marx Brothers. CorinneSD (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you realize we're talking about three things at once? Oh, yes. 78s. That's right. By the way, I finally found out where to find Google Translater/Translation. See the last comment by C-something on my Talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Our Gang? The Little Rascals? Yes, and Jack and Lucille of course. Been editing Chico recently. Rothorpe (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I Married Joan was probably the first 'grown-up' TV show I enjoyed. It was very silly. Rothorpe (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Joan Davis

I decided to read the article on Joan Davis to find out about that show I Married Joan. I'm puzzled as to why I don't remember seeing either her or the show at all. Anyway, I made a few minor copy-edits, but -- as usual -- I have a few questions for you:

1) In the second paragraph in the section "Television", there is a long sentence beginning "With a title change to The Sealtest Village Store, Davis was the owner-operator of the store from July 8, 1943, to June 28, 1945, when she left to do Joanie's Tea Room..."

Shouldn't it say that she "played the role of owner-operator of the store", or "played the owner-operator of the store"?

If you think it should be more formal, yes, go ahead. I've already irond out some of the informalities. Rothorpe (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

2) The last sentence in the section "Radio" reads:

"The installment can still be seen at the facility now known as The Paley Center For Media."

Shouldn't the "for" in the name of the center be in lower-case? It's in lower-case in the title of the linked article.

Certainly. The linked article is usually a good guide. Rothorpe (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

3) In the first paragraph in the section "Television", the last sentence reads:

"There were exceptions, though, like Curly Howard (Three Stooges) and The Little Rascals, but those shows back then attracted more kids than adults, and the kids back then would laugh at anybody on TV or movies, living or dead, as long as they were entertained."

I have two questions about this sentence:

1) The sentence, particularly the use of "kids" and "those shows back then" seems a bit informal for an encyclopedia. Do you want to make some changes here?

2) I know this sentence is there to support some kind of point, and it is tenuously related to the sentence before it, but I think that the point that it is trying to make, and particularly the connection to the previous sentence, is not really clear. If there is a connection to the previous sentence, I think it needs to be made clearer. If there is no connection, then I don't know why the sentence is there at all. CorinneSD (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I mean, do you think "There were exceptions, though" is enough? Perhaps it should be expanded a little and say, "There were exceptions to that attitude, though". And maybe the sentence about Curly Howard and The Little Rascals should be constructed differently such as "Since those shows attracted..., ....". But the article is about Joan Davis and these shows had nothing to do with her. CorinneSD (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll have another look at that bit. Maybe it's original research and should just be removed. Rothorpe (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read the article yet, but reading your comments I get the impression that it has been on Wikipedia for a long time and hasn't received much copyediting. Not surprising, given the show's antiquity and obscurity. I'll run through it now and then return to look at your points in detail. Rothorpe (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've tweaked further; you may wish to do more. Rothorpe (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edits all look good. I'm glad you removed that sentence about Curly Howard and The Little Rascals. CorinneSD (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

See above at User talk:Rothorpe#Sammy Davis, Jr.. CorinneSD (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Pali

I left a note at User talk:Kwamikagami#Pali yesterday, I believe, and Kwami has yet to respond. I asked him because he's an expert on linguistics. Maybe you could help, or, if not, you can just follow it. If I don't get any response from Kwami in a day or so, I'm going to look for someone else. Do you understand the point I made originally and that I am still making? CorinneSD (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that 'it was not considered a spoken language' is nonsense---and it is! But I suppose the early grammarians weren't interested in the spoken aspect, just as when I did Latin and Greek at school there was little mention of that. It could be better phrased, perhaps: 'considered as'? Rothorpe (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What bothers me is the conjoining of "it was not a spoken language" and "because it was archaic". They don't go together. Did you read the Note to editors after the "clarification needed" tag that the editor removed? An archaic language can no longer be a spoken language, no matter how much later the people who expressed that idea lived. It was, or was not, a spoken language at the time the grammarians lived, and it was, or was not, a spoken language centuries before. Do you see what I mean? Perhaps this is what it should say:

The grammarians of the --th century BC (AD?)(whatever it was) believed that Pali had been a purely literary language rather than a spoken language. CorinneSD (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did read everything last night. But I'm confused: are we talking about Pali or Paisaci? Or doesn't it matter? Rothorpe (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I just re-read the article on Pali. I hadn't read it in a while. At that point in the section Pali#Pali and Paiśācī, it is speaking about Paiśācī. All along in that paragraph I was wondering what the connection between Pali and Paiśācī was. Not until the last sentence of the section do we read that some scholars think Paiśācī was the ancient name for Pali. But you're right. The sentence was referring to Paiśācī. But even so, this still does not resolve the issue.

Here is the sentence as it is now (which includes a minor edit made by another editor a few days ago):

"It is found grouped with the Prakrit languages, with which it shares some linguistic similarities, but was not considered a spoken language by the early grammarians because it was seen as a purely a literary language, and because it was archaic."

To me, if "and because it was archaic" is left out, the sentence makes sense. Also, I would change "it was seen as" to "they understood it to have been" [a purely literary language]. Do you see what I mean? CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense. Why not make the edit and see what happens? Rothorpe (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I did make the edit. I was torn between passive voice and active voice but settled on passive voice. CorinneSD (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting that typographical error I made. CorinneSD (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

H. L. Mencken 2

I posted a comment at User talk:Dougweller#H. L. Mencken. An editor has asked for consensus to add material to the article in a commment at Talk:H. L. Mencken. You can see that there was an earlier request written on March 23, 2014, and, probably because no one responded, the material is now in the article. This is a new request. If no one responds, I'm sure it will be added to the article. CorinneSD (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm watching. Rothorpe (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

John Forbes Nash, Jr.

Would you mind reverting the last edit to John Forbes Nash, Jr.? CorinneSD (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

House finch

I just finished reading the article on House finches. I noticed that "House finch" sometimes appears with "House" and "Finch" capitalized, sometimes with "House" capitalized and "finch" lowercase, and sometimes with both words lowercase. What do you suggest? CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This just seems to be the humble English name of a species, so I think it should be lower case throughout. Clue: the title of the article itself. Rothorpe (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

How about in the headings of charts, etc.? CorinneSD (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, having followed a couple of links from there, I'm reluctant to give any advice in the area of capital letters and biology. Perhaps one of your other interlocutors? A help request? I'd be interested to find out what the rules are. Too often they appear to be all over the place. Rothorpe (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I had left a question about birds' eggs at another editor's talk page, and she referred me to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds, so I left a message there about this. CorinneSD (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look later. At the moment I'm grappling with the Pali stuff. Rothorpe (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Right! I read the first comment on that page, in which a user bids farewell complaining about the emphasis on conformity. I wonder if he was thinking about capital letters... Rothorpe (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Which page? CorinneSD (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The one you linked to just above. Rothorpe (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I just read the long exchange there. Apparently, a lot of long-time editors of bird articles are upset that a rule was made to change bird names from capitalized to lower-case, and a few were so upset that they just left. Their good-byes and reasons are right there. Toward the end is a comment mentioning the fact that the capitalization and lower-case is "all a mess" in a lot of bird articles. Now I don't know what to do. Maybe we'll hear from someone. CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So my hunch was right. Not surprising, really. But I didn't imagine there would also be that problem in a scientific context, while I had been dealing with something similar in a pop music context (the, not The, before band names). Rothorpe (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Most ornithologists would render the name House Finch. However, Wikipedia's MOS boffins have decreed that it should be house finch in order that it not be "surprising" to the average reader, who mightn't expect capitalization of that sort. Many long-time bird editors have indeed left, because (during a recent request for comment) ornithologists have been belittled for attempting to argue that their normal standard of capitalization might be appropriate. The MOS folks have changed the article title, but haven't bothered to update the article text itself. MeegsC (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations. Rothorpe (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's surprising that a group of editors, probably not all or even most professional scientists, would overrule professional or experienced ornithologists. I wonder what has been happening regarding capitalization in other areas of zoology, biology, and botany? CorinneSD (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The RFC closing administrator commented that most encyclopedias don't capitalize the names of organisms, including birds. (Of course, most encyclopedias also don't have extensive articles on individual bird species — and those that do tend to be bird-specific encyclopedias that do capitalize bird names — but that's another kettle of fish altogether!) Since the standard style guides used to guide Wikipedia's MOS don't call for capitalization, any argument to the contrary fell on rather deaf ears. It wasn't the lower-case ruling that drove most of the project's editors away, it was the amount of vitriol and sarcasm leveled against them (led in part by a sock puppet that kicked the whole thing off and subsequently got himself/herself banned again). Contributing here is supposed to be fun, after all, so when it ceases to be fun, people find other things to do. MeegsC (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to hear of this. I have to say I don't see the need for these things to be capitalised in a general encyclopedia, though I can sympathise with those who do and deplore the incivility. Rothorpe (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I got a response to my question at User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Bird's eggs. Then I fixed some problems at Bird egg. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my god. I made another typo. (I has been corrected.) I must be distracted today. I hardly ever make typos. CorinneSD (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't looking. It'll remain forever secret. Rothorpe (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea 3

An editor made the same edit at Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands. I cannot judge whether the edit is correct or not, but perhaps you can. CorinneSD (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the idea is just to remove tautology, as the word 'monarch' is already there. Rothorpe (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Is an emperor considered a monarch? Aren't there more than one title for monarchs? CorinneSD (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an emperor is surely a monarch. But we're talking about Monarch Queen Elizabeth, aren't we? Rothorpe (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. You and I and many others know she is "Queen" Elizabeth, but maybe some people would not automatically connect "Elizabeth II" with "Queen Elizabeth II". CorinneSD (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course the British monarch used to be Emperor of India! Rothorpe (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I can see you like the name without the title there. I'll concede that it's neater and more concise. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and it matches the article title. Rothorpe (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Gnosticism 4

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Gnosticism? While I'm not crazy about "that taught that", I'm also not crazy about "that taught people to...". To me, when describing what a religion teaches, "taught that people should..." is more common than "taught people to...". Perhaps "held" is better than "taught". Can you think if a way to avoid two "that's" but include "taught/held that people should...."? CorinneSD (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. Rothorpe (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Oh, I see, hang on...

I've tried it with a 'which'. I know that's very unAmerican of me... Rothorpe (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Much better. Really? I didn't know using "which" was more British than American. I use both "which" and "that". Here, definitely, "which" sounds better. I don't like the use of the same word twice in close proximity (except words like "a", "an", and "the", which sometimes one cannot avoid using). CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. There was a person at CZ who routinely 'changed a which to a that', as he would put in edit summaries. He wasn't the only American who evinced that preference. Typical storm in a teacup, or tempest in a teapot, as it appears Americans say. Good to see you are typically sensible about it. And avoid repetition, indeed yes. Rothorpe (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I know "that" and not "which" is used to start a noun clause, as in "I know that it is raining" or That he works there I did not know". (not very interesting examples), and I know that only which is used in non-restrictive (or non-defining) adjective clauses (the ones that must be set off by a comma or pair of commas) and in any adjective clause that contains a preposition (of which, by which, in which, etc.), but other than that, let's say in restrictive (defining) adjective clauses that refer to a thing, idea, animal, etc., aren't which and that interchangeable? Is there any other time when one is correct and the other incorrect? CorinneSD (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly my view. Purely a matter of one or two individuals and their personal tastes. No wonder they couldn't stand Wikipedia. Rothorpe (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(I had to qualify my statement just above. I know "who" and "whom" are used for people, and I don't like it when people use "that" to refer to a person.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, almost as bad as 'it'. Rothorpe (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how this all ended up in italics. CorinneSD (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Fixed it. CorinneSD (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If you read the exchange at User talk:Vsmith#Richard Proenneke, you will see an example of that. You'll also enjoy a few puns. CorinneSD (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, hard to get 'I'll ask her' = 'Alaska' if you have my standard BrE pronunciation, different A sounds, but I remember that one from my youth. As for 'editors that', I didn't notice it at all, so I must revise my earlier view, to not include plurals, perhaps. Rothorpe (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you get "Juneau"? Also, did you get my pun? "Know'm"? Another city in Alaska is "Nome". I had first written "Nome", but something in me prevents me from spelling things wrong, so I had to change it to "know'm". CorinneSD (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. I was just puzzled by Know'm. Perhaps I would have got it if you'd put Nome. And I don't recall seeing Juneau at all. I fear I would have failed a puns exam even worse than I did chemistry. (Though that's actually impossible.) Rothorpe (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Juneau was the first word in Mr. Fink's reply to Marn..something. I'm not good at puns, either, though I can sometimes add one when the puns start rolling on a topic. But it seems nobody else go my pun on Nome, either, probably because I didn't use the name of the city. CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems 'which' didn't go down well. Rothorpe (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Where? CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Gnosticism. Rothorpe (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I had always thought that it was all right to use "which" or "that" in a restrictive clause to refer to a thing, animal, idea, etc. I did a search on-line and found [1]. In #2, it says, " When choosing between "that" and "which," use "that" to introduce a restrictive clause and "which" to introduce a nonrestrictive clause. Although some writers use "which" to introduce a restrictive clause, the traditional practice is to use "that" to introduce a restrictive clause and "which" to introduce a nonrestrictive clause." So, that editor was right, if one follows traditional practice. CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

So are you happy with the present state of that one? Taught + infinitive? Rothorpe (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No. It took me a while to get back here. Hafspajen sent me a note, I think to urge me to vote at Wikipedia:Featured Picture Candidates, and I was looking at the candidates and voting for some.

I just don't like "taught....to shun". To me, a person teaches someone to do something. I thought of several possible alternatives:

"...a collection of religions that advocated shunning the material world....", or

"...a collection of religions that believed in shunning the material world....", or

"...a collection of religions that encouraged their adherents to shun the material world...."

"...a collection of religions, each of which encouraged its adherents to shun the material world..."

What do you think? Or something else? CorinneSD (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Lots of nice pictures. It doesn't make me want to vote.

Yes, I agree about 'taught'. 'Advocated' works best, I think. Rothorpe (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I went back and re-read the context. It's right at the beginning of the article. I don't know...I don't think "shunning" sounds so great there. For this context, I like the construction of the third one, above:

"...a collection of religions that encouraged their adherents to shun the material world". I wonder if there is a verb that is mid-way between "encouraged" and "required"? CorinneSD (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rothorpe: Rothorpe, oh Rothorpe, where are you? Did you see this? CorinneSD (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but my brain subsequently scattered. Thanks for the ping: I'll investigate. Rothorpe (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Called on? Instructed? Rothorpe (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know. I like the meaning of called on, but would prefer a single-word verb. CorinneSD (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You could sidestep the question with '...whose adherents shunned...' Rothorpe (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Why didn't I think of that? It's much more concise than any of the alternatives I listed above or than the way it is now in the article. I think it's because the weather has been so hot and humid here that it's hard to think. Do you want to go ahead and make the change? CorinneSD (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, will do. Sounds like you're in Tennessee Williams country there. Very temperate here. Rothorpe (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean Cat on a Hot Tin Roof? It must be hotter in Tennessee than it is here. Now the weather is nice and comfortable. For a few days last week it was hot and humid. CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So where is 'here'? Alaska would always be too cold, I think. And Hawaii would always be at least warm as Tennessee. So that narrows it down to the mainland... Rothorpe (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Bolivia

What just happened at Bolivia? CorinneSD (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been fixed. I've decided that goodfaith makes a nice hyphenless adjective. Lovely sunny day just drawing to a close here. Rothorpe (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Much better. Really? Goodfaith? I prefer two words. But it's not important. I'm glad the weather is nice there. It is lovely here, too. CorinneSD (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Just realized that I had not yet looked at Bolivia. The "much better" was meant for Gnosticism. CorinneSD (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, when you use 'good faith' as much as I do. Though perhaps I'm beginning to drop it. Rothorpe (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I rarely use it. I would rather use the space to explain why the version created by the edit was not as good as the way it was. CorinneSD (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I usually do that too. 'Good faith' is to soften the blow. Rothorpe (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Nishapur

I was just wondering whether the link was created correctly in a recent edit to Nishapur. CorinneSD (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Rothorpe (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. I also saw the minor edit you made just before that, removing an unnecessary space between words. How in the world did you spot that? It's all the way at the end of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

When I compare the diffs I sometimes notice things like that. Rothorpe (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I usually just view revisions edit (or group of edits) by edit, going backward. Occasionally, I'll look at the entire article (by clicking on the date and time link). I forget, is there a way to see the article diffs side by side (other than opening up another internet window and then opening the article twice and putting them side by side)? CorinneSD (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't you use 'compare selected revisions'? Rothorpe (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, did you see my last comment at User talk:Rothorpe#Gnosticism 4? CorinneSD (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I wondered why you said it had all been in italics and went to investigate... Rothorpe (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I fixed that. But my question about "which" and "that" is still there. CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I do use "Compare selected revisions". I had forgotten what it was that I clicked on every time I look at an article's edit history. That's it. But I still marvel that you can spot an extra space all the way at the end of the article using that. The print is rather small, and it's on a gray (grey) background. I only notice unnecessary spaces when I'm in Edit Mode. CorinneSD (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking again, it wasn't an extra space I spotted, but its opposite, no space at the end of a sentence. Indeed, I wouldn't have bothered with an extra space: harmless, and I probably wouldn't have spotted it anyway. Have another look, the lack of a space is not so inconspicuous. Rothorpe (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You're right. You added a space. I got mixed up because I looked at it quickly. However, upon looking at it again, I don't think I would have noticed it (in "Compare selected revisions"). I would have noticed it in Edit Mode, though. You've got good eyes! Which reminds of an eagle ("eagle eyes"), which reminds me of something I just read. It's the latest comment posted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds, at the end of the very first discussion (I'll miss the fish, or something). The comment makes a humorous, but valid, point about capitalization of bird names and uses the eagle as an example. CorinneSD (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, not to be confused with the crewcut eagle or the one with the copious locks! Rothorpe (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Still life paintings

Did you see the group of pictures at User talk:Hafspajen#- -- all still life paintings? I really like them, some more than others, of course. I copied and pasted the one with the musical instruments on Jerome Kohl's talk page because he is a musician, and I was surprised that not only did he know about that particular painting but a lot about 16th and 17th century Dutch painting and 16th century Italian painting! You might like to read the exchange at User talk:Jerome Kohl#Nice painting. I wonder what the plural of "a still life painting" is. Jerome used "still lives". I would have said "still lifes", at least conversationally. I know the plural of "a life" is "lives", but "still lives" sounds strange. CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not surprised Jerome knows all that stuff. Nice painting, yes. I would say 'lifes' too. Rothorpe (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Saadi Shirazi

After getting a knowledgeable editor to resolve a discrepancy in Saadi Shirazi (see last comment at Talk:Saadi Shirazi), which he did, (and I learned something new and useful -- click on the last link he provides -- it leads to a place for checking whether something is plagiarized from another source on the web, or a too-close paraphrase -- it looks easy to use), I decided to go through the article. I made quite a few edits, as you'll see. However, I need your help. In the Biography section, I changed some verb tenses to try and make things consistent. Then, when I got to the Travels section, I started changing verbs from present tense to past tense (since these were real journeys and experiences), but I got to a point where I started seeing a lot of present tense, and I wondered whether what I was doing was right, so I stopped. Now I don't know whether I should continue changing present tense to past tense in the Travels section, or go back and change them all to present tense. Then what about the Biography section? Do you like how the tenses sound in the Biography section?

I notice that the one long quote from Saadi ends abruptly in mid-sentence early in the quote. I'll have to ask Ugog Nizdast about that. CorinneSD (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You might smooth over the transition in the 2nd paragraph of the travel section, otherwise I think it's OK as it is. Rothorpe (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw that transition early in that paragraph and changed one verb. Then I saw another switch right after that, so I just continued to put verbs about his travels in past tense and verbs about his writings in present tense. It's logical, but I don't enjoy reading all those past tense verbs later on. Is the distinction between what's in his writings and his actual journeys necessary? If not, then perhaps all present tense would be better than going back and forth. (Probably all the travels are in the writings.) CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The ones in the present tense work best. Rothorpe (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Changed back to present tense. Does "were fearful" have to be changed to "are fearful"? CorinneSD (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, just remove 'who were'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Richard Proenneke

What do you think of "record him to have been born in"? I think it's a bit awkward. I didn't mind "prove him to have been born in", and I think "prove" provides the contrast to the material just before it. I don't know why User:Ward20 changed it. Perhaps one of these:

• show him to have been born in

• show that he was born in

• record that he was born in.

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ward20: No..."document him to have been born in" is not better.

• document that he was born in

is possible. CorinneSD (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"...records have him born in..."? Rothorpe (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with "prove" because the other records could be wrong. Unlikely but possible. I was looking for more neutral wording, but It isn't a big deal to me if you want to go back to the original wording. Ward20 (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

On the morrow I still like my version so I've changed it. Rothorpe (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate

I've just finished reading the article on Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate (I had read a book on this and wanted to read more; I'm actually surprised that book was not mentioned here), and made a few minor copy-edits. I was wondering if you could look at the third paragraph (there's one short paragraph followed by two longer ones, so be sure to count the short one) in the section Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate#John Lucy. In this paragraph there are a series of short quotes separated by a bit of text. I was wondering if you would mind going over that part and checking the punctuation (I'm too tired). There may be a few extra commas there. Then, if you feel like reading my questions on the article's talk page, perhaps you can answer them. CorinneSD (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I just removed a full stop, though I'm not sure what "(original emphasis)" refers to, as there are no italics. To the talk page... Rothorpe (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, and some commas too. But I'll leave further investigations until tomorrow. Interesting though about the Greeks not perceiving colour, not just in the same way as we do, but having a less developed sense of it. Reminds me of Homer's very odd 'wine-dark' sea. Rothorpe (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking again, I have to admit bafflement, sorry. Rothorpe (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you look carefully, there is a short phrase in single quotation marks inside a pair of double quotation marks. I assumed that phrase was the one referred to by the phrase "original emphasis". I hadn't thought that that was a way to emphasize something, though. Regarding Greeks and color, when I find the title of the book I read, I'll tell you. It was an interesting book. CorinneSD (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha, I see it. Indeed, 'emphasis' is the wrong word. Yes, do let me know about that book. Rothorpe (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Cod article doesn't have a language link

Heaux O Rheaux! I was just looking at the article on Cod (the fish) and discovered that there was NO language link in the lower left-hand pane. I clicked on the Settings wheel and was baffled by what I saw -- couldn't understand any of it. I figgered that maybe things had changed at WP since the last time that I looked at it and that the language links were gone from ALL articles. Mais non. I looked at, randomly, Sole, Salmon, and Haddock, and all of THOSE have the language links. I then looked at number of tennis articles and all of THEM have language links. I just can't believe that a LONG article, like Cod, about a really important fish, doesn't have any language links at all, not even ONE. What do you think is going on here? Thanks! Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, migrating links, they call it. Have you tried clicking on the wheel-like thing where it says 'languages'? Not that I know/remember what to do after that, though. Rothorpe (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed,cher camarade, and it left me even more baffled than before. One explanation: no one has ever linked the article to another language. Bizarre. When I used to write my tennis articles, I would then go to the french WP and write at least a squib and then make a link. Can't remember how I did it, though.... Cheerio, and hope that all is well with you and Maria in Sunny Portugal! Hayford Peirce (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hayford Peirce: you might try asking about this here Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). As I remember it the adding of links to other language wikis was automated a couple years ago. But I have no idea how that works. Im betting that someone at the VP(t) does. Good luck in finding an answer to your questions. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 03:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello HP and R. I know little about wikiprogramming but I have been poking around a bit to see if there is an answer to this question. This Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#w:.28lang.29 links popped up so I thought I would leave you this link in case it helps. I notice that you haven't edited since posting this HP so I thought I would also let you know that the Cod article seems to have some interwiki language links now. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 23:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Marnette, and cheers to you! Hayford Peirce (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho

Are you in the mood for a project? I just did a search for Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho, an author whose works I read in college, and I found a kind of mini-stub. It's got his name and a picture and one sentence. There is a template box that says the article on him on the Portuguese WP can be translated and added there. Do you want to attempt it? I'm sure at this point your Portuguese is better than mine is, but I'd be glad to help if I can. Have you read any of his novels? He grew up in Angola, and his father was a colonial administrator of some sort, so he grew up seeing the dynamics and effects of colonialism up close. He incorporated some of that in his novels such as A Chaga. Even if you don't want to translate, you might still like to read the article on him on the Portuguese WP. But it could be a fun challenge. CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but I'd rather you did most of the work! Translating, hmm, shades of school French homework, not an experience I wish to relive. Plus my shoulders are so decrepit, I really like to relax here, just a little burst of energy from time to time. But I'm entirely with you if you want to attempt it yourself. The best way to start would be to paste the Portuguese text underneath the English, I think. The only word I'm not sure of is aspirante - seems to be some kind of rank. Oh, and I'd never heard of him. Rothorpe (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've done the pasting, so if you want to continue, I suppose it's 'ethnologist' next. Rothorpe (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well, a word or two every now and again. Rothorpe (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Any idea which is best for the following? Rothorpe (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Luanda, trust me to miss the obvious! Rothorpe (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd give it a try but have come up against a problem right away. I looked for a WP article on New Realism in literature in order to create a link in English at "Neo-realismo", but didn't find anything. There is an article at Nouveau réalisme and another at New realism (philosophy), but neither mentions literature. Either there is no article on a school of New realism in literature, or the Portuguese term must correspond to another term in English, perhaps just "Realism". Do you want to do some sleuthing on this? CorinneSD (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I translated most of the Portuguese into English. I was surprised at how easy it was after so many years of not reading or speaking any Portuguese! There were only one or two words that I didn't know. I'll check those with the translator option, unless you already know them. I left all the Portuguese in place so that you (or any editor) can check it before we delete it. I translated the headings at the bottom of the page, but I came to a stumbling block when it said I had to create at least one portal. I search for instructions and found them at WP:Portal/Instructions, but it all looks too complicated for me right now. Maybe when I'm not tired I could do that, or maybe I had better ask someone else to do that. So, I await your review of my translation. (Now you know I know Portuguese.) CorinneSD (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I never doubted! Sorry, I don't know what to do about the portals, I've always left them to others. Rothorpe (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you watching my talk page? I asked for help and received a response. I don't know if more needs to be done than I've already done regarding the listing of the two portals at the end of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this yesterday. Yes, I am watching and saw it. Did you get it resolved? Rothorpe (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, the portals are already made -- were made a long time ago. I guess it was the links to those portals that had to be corrected (also the categories). Other editors have fixed those issues. CorinneSD (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you had a chat about it; glad it's been dealt with (not my scene). Rothorpe (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lunda. 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) 08:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Latin names

There are two editors whose user names are Latin, and I was wondering what they meant. One is Omnipaedista. I know "Omni" means "all", but what's "paedista"? The other is "in intu oculi". I know that "in" is "in" or "into" and "oculi" means "eye" ("eyes"?), but what's "ictu". Does this by any chance mean "In your eyes" or "In your face"? I'm just curious, and rather than asking them, I thought I'd ask you. CorinneSD (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing the translation, which I haven't looked at yet. I've always taken 'Omnipaedista' to mean something like 'Wikipedian (Wikipedist) of everything'. In ictu oculi is in the blink of an eye. Rothorpe (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh... Thank you. So "ictu" means "blink"? It's almost like the English word "itch". I wonder if there is some distant relationship. CorinneSD (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dictionaries cast doubt: 'itch' is from Old English gycce, and ictus can also mean 'stroke, blow, wound, beat'. So there you go. Thanks again for doing the dreary work. Rothorpe (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, but translating is fun for me. Regarding "itch" and "ictus", I still think there's a possibility of a link: "stroke" is similar to the action of "itching" and "wound" as a noun is close in meaning to "an itch". I'm going to keep looking (if I remember). CorinneSD (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, boa sorte. Rothorpe (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Remind me. Is boa sorte "good luck"? Looks like it's literally, "good sortie" or "good outcome". CorinneSD (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That's right, from Latin sortior, to draw lots. Rothorpe (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh... What's the Latin verb for "to leave, to go out"? (I'm thinking of the French verb sortir.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Exire, as in exit and exeat. Rothorpe (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

So where did the French sortir and the Spanish salir come from? CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Salire, to leap, gives the Spanish and Portuguese, but I don't know about the French. Rothorpe (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Castro Soromenho

I have a specific translation question. It is regarding the Portuguese collaborando. It is used several times in the Portuguese text. However, I felt that the English word "collaboration" or the verb "collaborated" was no appropriate in at least one instance, when he returned to France. I translated it as "worked at" in:

"He returned to France in August 1961 and worked at the magazines Présence Africane and Révolution."

My question is whether "collaborated on" is appropriate for the first instance:

"Em 1937, regressa a Lisboa, colaborando em diversos jornais..."

which I translated as:

"In 1937 he returned to Lisbon where he collaborated on several newspapers such as the weekly newspaper Humanidade of the newspaper Diário Popular, A Noite, Jornal da Tarde, O Século, Seara Nova, O Diabo, O Primeiro de Janeiro e Dom Casmurro.

or whether "worked on" or "worked at" would be better here, too. If it was simply his job at the time, then "worked" is better. As I'm sure you know, "collaborated on" is usually used for a project of some kind. (I wonder why the Portuguese use "collaborated" when it was just his job. Why not trabalhar/o?)

CorinneSD (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it's just an idiom, giving us also the idea of others working on the same thing or in the same place. Certainly 'working' is the translation. Rothorpe (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I had not understood setões and just typed it in the English sentence, but later I thought it probably means "sectors" (cognate with Spanish sectores), and that would fit in that sentence (about his job in Angola). CorinneSD (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of 'sectors' too, but didn't know the Spanish word. 'Eastern sectors of the colony' sounds OK to me. Rothorpe (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to use Google translate to translate "setoes" and "aspirante" to English but I couldn't figure out how to do it, so I thought if I go to the original article in the Portuguese WP, I could try translating the words into English, but I don't know how to find the Portuguese WP. How do you access it? CorinneSD (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The link is where it says 'Português' in the column to the left of the article. So why didn't I look in a dictionary? Perhaps it felt like cheating. Anyway, neither setão nor sectão, which would be the older version, are in either of mine. Aspirante, though, is cadet. Also aspiring, candidate and midshipman. Rothorpe (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Now it occurs to me that setoes might be a typo for secções. Seems rather far fetched, though. Rothorpe (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Thank you. Well, for aspirante, it's used to describe a position he held in a diamond company. I don't think any of those words fit. How about "intern", or reword it so that it indicates that he started working there as a young man, or that it was his first job? CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Just been to have a look myself. Yes, intern would probably do it, though it's a bit American-sounding, sorry! Or, yes, reword. I see that setões does have a til in the original so it's an unlikely typo. Rothorpe (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Or apprentice... Rothorpe (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

When I took a look at the article in the Portuguese WP, and was about to try and use Google translation to translate two words into English, I saw that I had left out an entire line (must have skipped it when I was translating before). Now it all makes more sense. He wasn't serving the setoes in the east for the diamond company, it was in government administration. How do you like the way it is now? (I can change it to apprentice if you prefer.) CorinneSD (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that reads very nicely. Done! Rothorpe (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well done. I've just had another look at Lunda, though: they are two provinces in the north-east, far from Luanda. Hmm. Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Good. I got a little sidetracked, trying to find out more about Lunda. I learned that, as you said, there are two provinces named Lunda in Angola, Lunda do Norte and Lunda du Sul, and there are short articles on them. I also skimmed the article on Angola to see if I could find some evidence that they had once been one province, but didn't see anything (but I found a number of errors in the article, so I'll go back and work on it, maybe tomorrow -- and I'm sure I'll have questions for you). So, even though we don't know which Lunda province Castro Soromenho's father was governor of, I changed Luanda to Lunda at that point (but not in the references to newspapers such as Diario de Luanda). I also changed all-cap last names to initial cap at the end of the article. Do you think we can now delete all the Portuguese text? CorinneSD (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

One more question: at the beginning of the article (in the part you translated) is the following sentence:

"He is classified as belonging to the neo-realist school of Portuguese literature as well as a novelist of Angolan literature."

I'm just wondering whether "He is classified as" is a little dry for the beginning of an article. How about (and closer to the Portuguese):

• "He is considered a writer of the..." or even:

• "He is a writer of the....", or something else? CorinneSD (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence annoyed me right at the beginning! He is considered a Portuguese neo-realist as well as an Angolan novelist? Some bathos there. An Angolan novelist, he is also regarded as a Portuguese neo-realist? Rothorpe (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, another editor, Yngvadottir, made a few changes. (See also her note near the bottom of my talk page.) I still didn't like it. I don't like "as well as being" so near the beginning of the article. I did the best I could. I divided it into two sentences. I'm inclined to think that the information about being a Portuguese writer should be combined with the fact of being an Angolan novelist. How would you go about doing that? CorinneSD (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you see my attempts just above? Not that I was very enthusiastic about the results. A novelist of Angolan literature, he is also regarded as a Portuguese neo-realist? I liked your new-sentence solution, actually. I'll have another look through the article now. Rothorpe (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry. I did see them. (I was looking at a lot of new edits on my watch list, including these, rather fast, to catch up.) The only problem with beginning a sentence with "An Angolan novelist,..." is that it suggests that he was a citizen of Angola, and we don't know that. He was born there in Mozambique and lived there in Angola when very young, but at that time, Angola was a Portuguese colony, so he may very well have had Portuguese citizenship right from the start. (Corrected country of birth.)

I really don't know why he is called "a Portuguese writer..." and "an Angolan novelist". Why the distinction between writer and novelist? I don't think all his novels were about Angola, and I don't think he was a citizen of Angola. He wrote some novels set in Angola. So what does that make him? Something is not right in the lead. CorinneSD (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Upon looking at it again, I see that it says he was "a novelist of Angolan literature", which is better than an Angolan novelist (excuse my blathering on). I don't know. Is it all right as it is now? CorinneSD (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(Amused!) Yes, it's very tricky to get the emphasis right. I might make a sudden revision, but for the moment, I suggest it's OK to leave it. Rothorpe (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I should really think more before I write. I type almost as fast as I think, so it's easy to keep writing. By the way, you would be amused if you read the last exchange between Hafspajen and me at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Portals. CorinneSD (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry -- I had put the wrong talk page, then came back and corrected it. I hope you haven't been searching in vain. CorinneSD (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Very good edit at Castro Soromenho. Nice and concise. CorinneSD (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem & thanks! Just a straightforward translation did it. Rothorpe (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you look at that brief exchange between Hafspajen and myself that I mentioned just above this? I thought you might be amused, as I was, at the miscommunication. CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that bit of classic misunderstanding. But I was distracted by the 4th of July activities, what could they be? Rothorpe (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I'm fascinated by the fact that the holiday is the Fourth of July, but Americans usually say July 4th, 5th, etc. I suppose that's because it's old. Rothorpe (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I made something for a parade. No picnic or barbecue, though. Just stayed home. Music and fireworks on television. Fireworks in front of our house tonight (delayed celebration). Regarding dates expressed the 4th of July vs. July 4th, we use both, often, in conversation. I think the difference is that when giving a date, especially in writing, we say it the way it is written, but when talking about an upcoming event, we would just as often, or almost just as often, say the the 5th of July as we would July 5th. You'll notice that "July 5th" is quicker than "the 5th of July", and Americans like to save time when speaking. But for the holiday, it is definitely "the 4th of July". CorinneSD (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very clear. Upcoming event being the crucial distinction. Rothorpe (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I should have said, an upcoming event or appointment. CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Lesley Molseed

If you don't mind, would you take a look at the latest edits to Murder of Lesley Molseed? I don't quite know what to think about them. I believe there is now a grammatical error in Line 55 as result of one of the changes. I'll let you judge all the edits. CorinneSD (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't like them. But how do I find Line 55? (Apologies if I've asked you a similar question before.) Rothorpe (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

When you click on Compare selected revisions, you see the latest edits, new material on the right, with additions in blue, and old material on the left, with things removed in light orange. If you look, you'll see that line numbers are given before each group of edits, in bold-face type. CorinneSD (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, those numbers, thanks. But the 'cleared of murder' paragraph looks OK to me. In fact I thought the change there was rather good, unlike my first impression of most. Rothorpe (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I think I'm too tired to read fine print right now. Overall, this editor pared some of the wordiness, and I guess you approve. CorinneSD (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't like most of the edits there. I went to have another look, but for some reason didn't edit. Rothorpe (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please have a go at it, using your usual good judgment. I don't like to go up against an editor who makes a lot of edits at once. CorinneSD (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, dangerous, aren't they? I'll have a go. Rothorpe (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted most of them, but now I'm in two minds, so much for my good judgment. Should I re-remove more, do you think? Rothorpe (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

What is "re-remove"? I guess that means "put back". Let me look at it again. CorinneSD (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I worked on it a bit. I felt that the word "both" was needed but realized that it was in the wrong place. It belonged before "by" (because there were two "by" phrases): "both by A and by B". I also felt the other sentence about the judicial hearings was wordy and confusing, so I re-arranged some things and made it more concise, I think. CorinneSD (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good changes. Re- = again, so re-remove = remove again. But it wasn't necessary. Rothorpe (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I know what "re-" means. I know most of the Latin prefixes. I was just teasing you. So you think I should delete the word "both"? CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, yes, 'both' is in the right place now. Rothorpe (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Look for these replies

I've left you three replies:

1) User talk:Rothorpe#Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho

2) User talk:Rothorpe#Latin names

3) User talk:Rothorpe#Castro Soromenho.

CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that is impressively organised. I shall set out at once. Rothorpe (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating

Editor Mike Christie recently finished making substantial revisions to the article on Radiocarbon dating. Now it is open for peer review (and he has given me the peer review link -- on my talk page) and invited me -- and anyone who is interested -- to read the article through and make any corrections or add a comment at the peer review site. He hopes to get the article up to featured article status, I think.

The article is a bit technical. I skip the parts that are really technical and too dense for me, but I am working my way slowly through the article. Mike writes very well, so I have found almost no errors, and stylistically it is well written, too. I'm not all the way through the article yet, but I wanted to ask you about two sentences.

1) One is the second sentence in Radiocarbon dating#Invention. It now reads:

"Libby published a paper in 1946 in which he proposed that the carbon in living matter might include 14 C as well as non-radioactive carbon."

It's all right. It's good, in fact. I just wondered whether there might be a way to avoid the use of the word "in" three times in the sentence. It would have to sound all right following the first sentence in that paragraph. Do you have any suggestions?

2) The second one is the second sentence in the second paragraph of the lead:

"Although the idea behind radiocarbon dating is straightforward, it depends on many assumptions, and the development of the technique required much additional work to resolve the associated questions. The most important of these was..."

I'm just checking with you to ask you whether you think it is clear that "these" in "The most important of these" refers to "associated questions" and not "assumptions".

Also, even it it is, I'm wondering whether "the associated questions" might be a little wordier than necessary, and whether "to resolve certain questions" wouldn't be more concise and equally effective and accurate. I need your opinion (here). CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice the three ins at all. As you say, it's good. I agree that 'certain questions' is much better than the rather presumptuous-sounding 'associated'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Language isolate

Is "pre-history" now written without a hyphen? See Language isolate. It seems that the hyphen between prefixes and nouns has all but disappeared. I thought it took time before the hyphenless form is accepted into the language. CorinneSD (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, WP's article is called Prehistory. "Prehistoric", though, has long been hyphenless (hasn't it?), so I suppose it was only a matter of time. Rothorpe (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "prehistoric" is hyphenless, but I think there is a difference. In "prehistoric", the primary stress is on "pre-" and the secondary stress is on "tor" (right?), or the two have equal stress, while "his" and "ic" have no stress. The "h" in "his" is pronounced, but briefly. In "pre-history", "pre-" and "his" have equal stress, and the "h" in "his" is clearly pronounced. There is a kind of pause after "pre-" in "pre-history". That's why I like the hyphen. But I'll go along with the WP article title. By the way, why doesn't Wiktionary show syllabification and the primary and second stress on syllables? I've never seen a dictionary that didn't show that. CorinneSD (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Quibble: for me, the main stress is on 'tor' in 'prehistoric', but I take your point. What about other words? Prenatal or pre-natal? I think it just depends on familiarity: the more common the word, the sooner the hyphen is discarded. Rothorpe (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my God. Yes, you're right. I would say in "prehistoric" the primary stress is on "tor" and the secondary on "pre". Sorry. Got them reversed. But they could also be almost equal, couldn't they? CorinneSD (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And there was I thinking, hang on, she's right: before a noun, the stress would sometimes be on 'pre'. Certainly they can be almost equal, though I think there is always stress one way or another---perhaps there is some science on that? Rothorpe (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary is like Wikipedia: it isn't there because no one has done it, presumably. Perhaps some entries have pronunciation. Though there would be a lot of arguments. Which variant(s)? Rothorpe (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating 2

I have three questions about the section Radiocarbon dating#Variations in 14C production. I don't want to bother Mike Christie about them unless it's an important issue that I can't resolve with your help.

1) The first sentence of the second paragraph reads,

"Over geological timescales, the earth's magnetic field can reverse, both locally and globally."

Then, the second sentence begins with "These global geomagnetic reversals" and then mentions "localized polar excursions".

(a) Do you think the use of the word "These" is all right even though the precise phrase "global geomagnetic reversals" was not used in the first sentence?

Yes, I think you can change part of speech like that if there is no ambiguity.

and

(b) Do you think it is all right that in the second sentence, global reversals are mentioned first and local ones second, reversing the order in which they are mentioned in the first sentence?

Yes, better to swap the adverbs round in the first sentence.

2) In the fourth paragraph, the first sentence reads,

"14C can also be produced at ground level, primarily by cosmic rays that penetrate the atmosphere as far as the earth's surface, and by spontaneous fission of naturally occurring uranium."

Because of the word "primarily" before the first way, I'm wondering if this sentence would be clearer if "and" were replaced by "but also".

How about 'and also'?

Normally, I would say all right, but the sentence starts, "14C can also", so you'd have "also" twice in the sentence. But with "but also", you have "also" twice in the sentence -- also. What do you suggest? CorinneSD (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think 'also' sounds OK at that distance; alternatives are a bit lengthy; 'and additionally' is quite good, though. Rothorpe (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I put "but also". I think it's the only phrase that sounds right. "...primarily A..., but also B." CorinneSD (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, OK. Rothorpe (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

3) Later in the fourth paragraph, in fact the last sentence in the paragraph, there is a semi-colon after "the effect on 14C is minor", followed by a subordinate clause beginning "though". I don't think any punctuation is needed there, but if any punctuation is desired, I think a comma would be sufficient. What do you suggest? CorinneSD (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and would put a comma. Rothorpe (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Swift

Would you take a look at the latest edit to Jonathan Swift? While I agree that "also died" is silly, especially since it was not even in the same year, and thus the edit is an improvement, I don't think "now" is necessary. I think it would sound perfectly all right without "now". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think something is needed there for flow: perhaps replace 'now' with 'at'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Cannon

What do you think of the latest edit to Alexander Cannon? Which preposition do you prefer? CorinneSD (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Preposition? Where? Rothorpe (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought the article looked different from what I had remembered, and it was. It was a different Alexander Cannon from the one I had read and edited before (the psychiatrist). I just filled in the subject line with what appeared in Google Chrome's autofill (it appears under the line after just typing a few letters and you can click on it to save time). Then I created the link in my comment to reflect that. I just corrected both the heading and the link. It goes to a very short article about another Alexander Cannon. CorinneSD (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought it must be something like that. Indeed, I disagree with the change: 'at' is surely the customary preposition for historical battles. Rothorpe (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I undid the edit. I hope you don't mind that I used your phrase in the edit summary. Also hope you don't mind that I added an "o" to "something" in your reply just above. (I know one isn't supposed to edit other editors' comments.) CorinneSD (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Fear not, I am smiling broadly. Rothorpe (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Good. You might be interested in the various smileys at User talk:Hafspajen#Undecided. CorinneSD (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Smileys? Aaaaagh! Rothorpe (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never liked them, either, but once in a while, I like the big smile. It's more expressive than :). But if you don't like them at all, I won't use them here. CorinneSD (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they're more decorative than punctuation marks, I grant you. Rothorpe (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Not more expressive? The fact is, a writer with a good control of words and punctuation can express quite a lot. It just takes a bit longer to type than :). CorinneSD (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Tacitus

I just saw an edit to the Talk page of the article on Tacitus. An editor replied to a comment under the section heading Talk:Tacitus#What is the correct pronunciation... I thought the previous comment was reasonable, so I don't understand the latest comment. To me, it's not clear exactly to what in the previous comment he is objecting so strongly. Is it clear to you? What is he disagreeing with? And what do you think about it all? CorinneSD (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The latest comment is a few years late. The attempts to describe pronunciation show the usual ineptness ('schwa' is a very useful word). The pronunciation is 'Tassitus', as enny fule kno. The Romans probably said 'Takitus', but don't suggest that to any Italians. Rothorpe (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the older comment explains the pronunciation sufficiently well that the latest editor shouldn't object so strongly. What do you think the latest editor was disagreeing with? CorinneSD (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

He seems to be objecting to the theories of Latin pronunciation on the grounds that the Romance languages don't sound like that. Rothorpe (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I thought it was interesting that a comment made a few years ago would still provoke another editor to the point he had to respond. CorinneSD (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps he didn't notice the eight-year gap. Rothorpe (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Chard

I've been reading articles on vegetables. I've read Celery and Cardoon. Now I'm reading Chard. I have three questions for you:

1) In the section on Chard#Cultivars, I see "more hardy". Isn't this a "short" adjective, with the comparative form "hardier" and the superlative "hardiest"?

Yes, fixed.

2) A little later in the same section, I see "day-time temperatures". Isn't "daytime" one word, unhyphenated?

Yes, not fixed.

3) In the first part of the section Chard#Culinary use, I see:

"Mature chard leaves and stalks are typically cooked (like in pizzoccheri) or sauteed".

Is "like in pizzoccheri" correct? Shouldn't it be "as in pizzoccheri"?

I agree, better style.

I have one more question about the second sentence in the lead, but I'm going to ask User talk:Sminthopsis84 because he/she knows about plants. CorinneSD (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look at that now. Rothorpe (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Goliard

Remember when we worked on Goliard a few months ago? A lot has changed since then. Whenever I see an edit summary that says, "Fixed grammatical errors", I look at the edits. Sometimes they really do fix errors, but sometimes they make things worse. In this case, I felt that the edits partially fixed errors but missed others. Then I started reading the entire paragraph to get a sense of the meaning before starting to make any changes, and I realized that it was quite poorly written. I cut out a bit of "fat", but I got to the point where I didn't know what to do next. It's the second paragraph in Goliard#Debate over authorship and recent scholarship. I think the entire section probably needs work. In this paragraph I couldn't figure out what meaning was intended, and what was important, or where to start. Do you want to look at it? CorinneSD (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You did a very good job, and I've cut out an unnecssary sentence and copyedited a bit. But the last two sentences are a problem, particularly 'because of the forced monastic way of living' - perhaps just take that bit out? Rothorpe (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've copied part of that paragraph here:

"They were where both sacred and secular manuscripts were written, and are the primary sources for what medieval society was like. They were also closely linked with the universities in Europe, and monks moved freely from university to the monastery where they could transmit the poetry and music. It was not always the pious who sought a religious refuge; some aristocratic men were forced into monastic life by their families, and brought with them secular forms of song about love and earthly affairs. Certain monastic orders were also less strict than others because of the forced monastic way of living, such as the Benedictine monks at Cluny."

That last sentence is very confused. I don't understand what the precise point is. It's got to be related to the general thrust of the whole paragraph. If there's no reference, I think it could be removed. (I don't have two windows open so I can't look at the end of the paragraph now.)

I wonder if the first sentence in what I quoted above is all right (it's about the third sentence in the paragraph). I had shortened something to "They were where...". Does that sound all right to you? If you can think of a better arrangement, please feel free to modify it, or tell me, and I'll do it, either way. CorinneSD (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it reads well. As for the other sentence, yes, it's unsourced, so let's remove it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about your arthritis. Have you ever read the book Bees Don't Get Arthritis? It's about the use of honey bee sting therapy for arthritis. The medical community generally doesn't report on this, but there is quite a bit of unofficial research into it that shows it works. One can only consider using it if one is sure one is not allergic to bee stings. CorinneSD (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm most touched that you should think of this. Thank you; I shall investigate. Rothorpe (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you have e-mail enabled? I would tell you more about this if you did. CorinneSD (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was enabled. Anyway, turvszwyx at hotmail dotcom. Rothorpe (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Warlock

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Peter Warlock? I can't be sure, but I may have put the comma that was deleted in this edit there. To me, it adds clarity, but I guess a lot of people would say it's unnecessary. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it came between 'of' and the following noun. One could say it made a parenthetical pair with the preceding comma, so it would make more sense to remove both or neither, but I think it reads well as it is. Rothorpe (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. Was that his real name, or a kind of stage name? If it was his real name, can you imagine going through life with that name? CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No, his real name was Philip Heseltine, under which he wrote his book on Delius. Rothorpe (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Swift

Hi, Rothorpe -- Do you like the latest edit to Jonathan Swift? I don't like "any sufficient cause", and I think that in the circumstances "ended" is more appropriate than "were broken off". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and have reverted. Rothorpe (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Huchen

If you don't taking the time, I'd like your opinion on a question I posed to User talk:Sminthopsis84 under the heading "Huchen" (and on any of the other questions I posed in previous sections on "Anise" and "Fennel"). You can respond either here or there. CorinneSD (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think the 'now' is needed, assuming there's no contrast intended. Rothorpe (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure. As for the other matters, I'm watching Sminthopsis's page. Rothorpe (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Elfdalian

I just read an interesting article on Elfdalian. CorinneSD (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, most interesting, some very odd features. Any idea what amplexity might be (if it's different from complexity)? Rothorpe (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

And ADVL in the syntax section? Adverbial? Rothorpe (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering about those very same things. I have no idea what they are. How could a double subject ("you...you...") be adverbial? Let's do some sleuthing. CorinneSD (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I posted a question at User talk:Peter Isotalo. CorinneSD (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of it. It's not in dictionaries and seems to appear only as names of various products or companies, or as a biological term. Judging by the context, it refers to prosody, something that varies a lot in Scandinavian dialects overall. The article was also dotted with claims of how unique and "interesting" the language is, which is really just peacockish fluff. Since the claim wasn't referenced and since "amplexity" is quite impenetrable as a linguistic term, I removed it altogether.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative reply and thorough editing! CorinneSD (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

American Robin

Please feel free to weigh in on my question that I posted on the talk page of MeegsC about American Robin. I'd like your opinion, too, either here or there. CorinneSD (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm watching the page. I entirely agree about the serial comma. Rothorpe (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Some people are not interested one way or another. CorinneSD (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Cynocephaly

Hello, Rothorpe! Do you want to take a look at a series of edits made by an editor with a red user name at Cynocephaly? It will take some time because there are a lot of them. Among other edits, this editor:

• changed British ". to American ."

• changed British spelling such as "traveller" to American "traveler"

• changed some wording, not always (or maybe not at all) for the better

• changed some verb tenses

I trust your judgment completely. CorinneSD (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

But do I?! Thanks, anyway; I've reverted, as such wholesale changes need discussion. Rothorpe (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Good. Thank you. I just hope he/she doesn't interpret your edit summary as saying that all the other edits besides British to American style were all right. For example, he/she had changed "dog-like" to "doggish"! CorinneSD (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That's why I squeezed in an 'e.g.'---let's hope he sees it. Rothorpe (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

If you feel like it, you might look at a comment I posted on Dougweller's talk page under the heading of "Azerbaijan". There, I included a link to the talk page of Azerbaijan. What started out as a simple edit to improve the wording in the language section of the article has become a group effort, and, of course, you're welcome to jump in. The only reason I posted it on Doug's talk page is because he has some talk page stalkers who are knowledgeable in history, and I haven't found many editors who are knowledgeable in history. (Also, what do you think of the note to Doug that I posted on my talk page re strange user name?) CorinneSD (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm watching. No, not a very tactful username. Rothorpe (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you help? See User talk:Dougweller#Azerbaijan and the talk page of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I would spoil the broth there, indeed it rather looks as if it'd be best if you made an edit and then invited opinions. Thanks for your emails! Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thessaloniki

I just started reading the article on Thessaloniki, and I have a question for you:

In the second paragraph in Thessaloniki#Etymology, "Salonica" and "Salonika" are italicized, but they aren't italicized at the beginning of the lead. Shouldn't these be consistent? CorinneSD (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the italics in the etymology section are there because it's about 'words as words', as the MoS puts it. Rothorpe (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Corsica

I remembered your interest in the topic of "the" or "The" in the name of bands when I saw the latest edit to Corsica. I also wonder about the one right before it by the same editor, changing the height of a mountain in Corsica. CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for remembering that. Yes, when someone changes a number without any edit summary, you can assume vandalism and undo without ceremony. Rothorpe (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the same editor that added The to the Police? Well, then, I'm waiting for a complaint. Rothorpe (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

I've been reading the article Republic of Macedonia and have made quite a few minor edits. In the second paragraph in the section Republic of Macedonia#Human rights, I added some punctuation to make the phrasing clearer, but I'm still not happy with it. I'm wondering if you think I could delete "threats against,". Do you think "intimidation of" includes threats? Or do you have another solution? CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd remove 'threats against', as it's pure tautology. Rothorpe (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In the section Republic of Macedonia#Military, I re-worded the last paragraph to make it more concise. However, I wonder whether I should include the phrase "the Armed Forces" anywhere in that paragraph. It had been there, but I didn't like the place where it was. Now I don't know whether I should put it back, and, if so, where. CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem, armed forces is a given. Rothorpe (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Corinth

Hello, Rothorpe! I just finished reading the short article on modern Corinth, and I have found a few unclear sentences. I don't know what to do about the first one. Maybe leave a note on the talk page?

1) The third sentence in the section Corinth#Industry reads:

"As of 2005, a period of deindustrialization has commenced as a large pipework complex, a textile factory and a meat packing facility disrupted their operations."

(a) Do you think present perfect tense "has commenced" is now outdated?

(b) I think the last part of the sentence ("...disrupted their operations") is unclear. It's unclear what "disrupted their operations" means, and it's unclear how that relates to the "deindustrialization". Was it a deliberate deindustrialization or did it begin to become a less industrialized city only because business was flagging (diminishing)?

Yes, puzzling. Maybe best to put a 'clarify' tag.

2) Look at the last sentence in the section "Port" and the only sentence in the section "Ferries". They seem to contradict each other, and why mention a ferry service that no longer exists (if, in fact, it no longer exists)?

Quite. Only sleuthing - which came first? - will solve that.

3) In the section Corinth#Geography, the word "townlet" is used more than once. This is the first time I have seen the word "townlet" used in a WP article. Is it acceptable, or should a more colloquial word such as "town" or "small town" be used? CorinneSD (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem, as it conveys the meaning clearly. Rothorpe (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Cabeiri

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

Well, I changed a comma (or a dash?) to a colon; the last sentence seemed OK. Rothorpe (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

All good edits. I guess the sentences are all right. What do you think about "the accounts...vary" and, in the next sentences, "The number...varied"? CorinneSD (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's OK, the repetition of 'vary' isn't a problem for me, but do have a go at rephrasing if you wish. Indeed the accounts could differ. Rothorpe (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)---So I changed it. Rothorpe (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I like "vary", and I don't mind the repetition. I was just wondering about the change in verb tense -- the first one is present tense and the second one is past tense, and I couldn't see a reason for the change. CorinneSD (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, right, so I've made the second one present too. Rothorpe (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Good. I'm wondering whether "differ in the number and sexes of the gods" should be "differ in the number and sex of the gods". Why is "sex" plural? CorinneSD (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Rhubarb

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

Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot

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

Mount Ossa (Greece)

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

Thessaly

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

Daniel Webster

Could you please look at the latest edit to Daniel Webster? I don't know whether it is a good edit or not. CorinneSD (talk) 22:23, 1