User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 6

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

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

POV dispute[edit]

Hi. I'm looking for an impartial view from a random experienced editor for this discussion, in which another editor insists on removing the second sentence in this section's opening paragraph. I'm getting seriously fatigued from the argument. Would you care to comment? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Art therapy[edit]

I need your help with a paragraph I was editing in this article. I thought the paragraph was wordy and repetitive and I was trying to make it more concise. After I saved my changes, I realized there was an open-quote (") and I couldn't find the close-quote ("), so I went to View History and compared the before and after view of the revision I made. I was able to see the open and close quotes, and I realized I had added a phrase ("in a sanatorium") in the middle of a quote. I guess I need to remove it, but I don't want to put the entire paragraph back to the way it was. Can you suggest a way to improve the paragraph (making it more concise and less repetitious)? Where should that phrase, "in a sanatorium," be placed? Or would you recommend putting everything back the way it was? Also, I thought you were going to look at my comments in the hypnosis article.CorinneSD (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You seemed to be doing all right in the latter case. I made an edit there, I think. In the former, I can't get beyond the puzzling closing inverted commas after 'client'. Rothorpe (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see where you mean. Better revert and start again if you've accidentally added to a quote. Rothorpe (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
O.K. I'll go back and work on it. I have another question in the same article. It is in the History section, 4th paragraph (a one-sentence paragraph following a huge paragraph). There is a quote after that one sentence. I thought it should be indented (that's a block quote, isn't it?) like the two earlier in the article. I was looking through Wikepedia's Manual of Style and was reading about how to make block quotes, and it said not to put quotation marks. I was puzzled because I saw quotation marks around the two block quotes earlier in the article. I don't really know how to change this quote to an indented block quote, and I wonder whether the quotation marks are correct or not.CorinneSD (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I can never remember what the MOS says about all these things. But my advice is to be bold. Just make it look as good as you can. You can see how to do blockquotes by looking at how the others are done. Rothorpe (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I see that you changed "Art Therapy" to "art therapy". I'm glad you did that. I was going to ask you about that. Did you also see the one after "British"?CorinneSD (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I see you changed the one after "British," but I just saw "Art Therapy" twice more later in that large paragraph. I'll change them to lower case.CorinneSD (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I must have accidentally restricted myself to one section. Rothorpe (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I just fixed that paragraph, moved "in a sanatorium" out of the quote and back closer to where it was before, but I still think I improved the paragraph a little.CorinneSD (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, unrepeating is usually an improvement. Rothorpe (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that's a new one. Is "unrepeating" a word? You're allowed. It's your Talk page. :] CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Sssh, I use it in edit summaries too. Rothorpe (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hi, I have came here just to visit! Can you do me a favor on a different website :) --173.53.52.217 (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

What website? Rothorpe (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User page[edit]

Pls rd note on my Talk page.CorinneSD (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Surya[edit]

Hello, Rothorpe -- If you have a chance, could you look at a recent (August 20) edit done by someone named Mithun to this article? I looked at it and it seems a bit strange, adding "(actually someone's)". I think you are a better judge than I am.CorinneSD (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, yes, it's been reverted. Rothorpe (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Music therapy[edit]

I've been editing this article to improve the writing (syntax, word order, usage, etc.). I have come across a few places where I am seeking another opinion. I have already placed a few comments in the Talk page of the article; if you have time, could you take a look at them? Here is one more: In the section headed "As stroke therapy," the first paragraph contains no mention of stroke or stroke therapy. What do you think about changing the phrase "this therapy" in the second sentence to either "stroke therapy" (which doesn't make much sense) or "music therapy for stroke" or "music therapy for stroke victims"?CorinneSD (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the sentence.CorinneSD (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's another one: In the first sentence in the section headed, "In heart disease," it says "some music" which I thought sounded a little vague. I read the whole paragraph and I could not tell whether the writer meant "some" as in "not a lot" or "some" as in "some types of music". I tend to think it is the latter because, logically, loud, strident music would not relax a patient, but I thought I'd ask you whether I should change it.CorinneSD (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's one more: In the section "Treatment of neurological disorders," I see the letters MT used for the very first time in this long article to stand for "music therapy". I thought that was a little strange, to wait until near the end of the article to start using a two-letter abbreviation, as if the writer got tired of writing "music therapy". Also, it creates a small bit of confusion with the MI abbreviation in the previous paragraph, which abbreviation is not defined (I think it is myocardial infarction, but I'm not sure). What do you suggest?CorinneSD (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you didn't wait for me and have been editing it. Excellent! I'm using a strange computer in a very hot place (Portimão in the Algarve). I'll have a look now... Rothorpe (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Some types of music is clear, I think.
Yes, the abbreviation MT should be introduced at the beginning, or not used at all.
You could wikilink MI, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for all your comments. I don't know how to wikilink MI. Do you mean create a link to an article on whatever MI stands for? I guess I could look in W mark-up to learn how, but should we create a link based on just a guess as to what MI stands for? Also, you didn't answer my first question in this group.CorinneSD (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I see you put the link for MI. I fixed "MT".CorinneSD (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Glad you used the talk page there. Let's see what others say... Rothorpe (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Microtonal music[edit]

I've been working on this article and I have two questions about the section headed "History": In the 6th paragraph, starting Alexander John Ellis, it says he "produced a translation with extensive footnotes, etc., to Helmholtz's On the Sensations of Tone". 1) Is "a translation to" just as acceptable as "a translation of"? We usually hear "a translation of", but I wondered if "a translation to" is also correct.

Incorrect. Probably because 'footnotes to' is correct. Rothorpe (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Fixed the sentence.CorinneSD (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

2) In this sentence, shouldn't the title of the work by Helmholtz be in the original language (presumably German)? The English title could also be given after the original title. Perhaps there is a Wikepedia mark up policy that I am not aware of.

That'd depend on which title is familiar in English. Rothorpe (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
That I wouldn't know. I guess an English title is usually more familiar to English-speakers, but doesn't it make sense to say, "X produced a translation of Y's [book entitled] "[title as originally published]"? To me, it doesn't make sense to put the translated title there. What do think?CorinneSD (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, in the article on Music therapy I saw "Nayak et al." several times. Shouldn't all Latin abbreviations be in italics? (I may have asked this of you earlier, but don't remember your answer.) If so, why are they never in italics? In the first paragraph in the History section of the Microtonal music article, I saw "c.f." Isn't that Latin also, and shouldn't it be in italics?CorinneSD (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It depends. Et al and cf. are assimilated sufficiently for it not to apply. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style surely gives guidance on this sort of thing. Rothorpe (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
O.K. I'll look. I've also got to check whether it's "cf." or "c.f." I see you wrote "cf." but it's "c.f." in the article.CorinneSD (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Guess who's right! Rothorpe (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. I didn't check yet. If I had to bet, I would guess that it's you.CorinneSD (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I see you changed "c.f." to "e.g." I'm just curious as to why -- was "c.f." (or "cf.") incorrect? I don't even know what "cf." stands for. And what does your comment "presumably" refer to? I'm not questioning your correction; I'm sure it's right; I just want to learn something.CorinneSD (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It means 'compare', from Latin 'conferre', if I recall rightly. Rothorpe (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Beadwork[edit]

If you don't mind, could you look at a recent edit in this article? Someone changed "beadwork" to "beadworking" in one place. It's not a big deal, but I don't understand why it was necessary. The word "beadwork" (sometimes also "beading") is used throughout the article. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There may be a touch of elegant variation, but I agree it's not a big deal. Rothorpe (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Dolphins[edit]

I've been editing this article and have come across something that I need to ask your opinion on. It is in the first sentence of the paragraph under the section heading "Military", toward the end of the article. It says, "A number of militaries..." I had never seen "militaries" used that way, and I wondered if it is correct or not. I thought, "The militaries of a number of countries" might be more correct. What do you think? Shall I change it, or leave it as it is?CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm always wary of changing unfamiliar usages if I understand them (and when I don't understand them, I can't). You understand the usage, don't you? Maybe it's more common than you think.
By the way, it'd help if you'd include a wikilink to the articles you mention, as I have done with Dolphins at the head of this section. I'm very happy to answer your questions, and that makes it a whole lot easier. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC) PS There's quick way of doing it, with the chain at the top of the editing panel, in case you didn't know.
Do you really think "a number of militaries" sounds all right? O.K. if you do. Just wondered.
By all means change it, probably no one will mind. But why ask my opinion if you're going to question it after I've given it? Please be bold, make your edits & we'll see what happens. I have arthritic shoulders so please don't ask my opinion if you're not prepared to take it. Rothorpe (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC) - And if you don't agree, ignore!
Also, thank you for telling me about how to include a wikilink. I had no idea how to do that. Also, could you look at the last two edits made to the dolphins article by BabyNuke? First, if you read his or her comment on my Talk page, you will see that the editor has a nice attitude. Then look at the last two edits. On one, "authors" was changed to "author" twice. The first instance puzzles me since there are two authors. Is it always supposed to be in the singular? On the other, language was changed in several sentences; part seems an improvement; part I wonder about. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Both of you seem to be doing fine there. Rothorpe (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Universal time[edit]

If you have a chance, could you look at a recent edit by Jc3s5h or something like that to this article on universal time? He or she changed "As of 2012" to "As of 2013", but the information following the year did not change. I do not understand the reason for the edit as given by the editor. I may not understand all the information in this article, but I understand "as of", and I thought that, if the information following the "start" year does not change, the "start" year after "as of" shouldn't change, either. What am I missing?CorinneSD (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Presumably they've reviewed it and are affirming that it's still up to date. Rothorpe (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)---indeed there's an edit summary to that effect.

Symbol[edit]

I've been editing this article on Symbol (just the general article). I haven't had to change much; it's fairly well written. I just have a question. It is in the section headed "Definition". It is the format of the footnote that appears when I move the cursor (mouse) over the superscript number 4. Is that format correct?CorinneSD (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is of course one thing clearly wrong. But I don't bother much with footnotes; the MoS might have something to say about a general approach. Rothorpe (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Carl Sagan[edit]

If you have time, could you look at the section "Education and scientific career" in the article Carl Sagan? In the middle of the third paragraph is a phrase "gold- anodized plaque". I noticed the space after the hyphen and didn't know whether it should be there or not. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course you're right. Though there is a correct use of space after hyphen, as in 'gold- and silver-anodized'. Rothorpe (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Because they were in a blue font and therefore links, the thing I wasn't sure about was whether "gold" and "anodized" were separate links to separate articles, and that by putting them together I might disrupt them. I guess it was one link. Still learning... CorinneSD (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Have a look again at the markup and you'll see that they were separate links, with a hyphen added to one. I removed the space after it. Rothorpe (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Richard Feynman[edit]

In the second paragraph of this article on Richard Feynman, could you look at the last sentence? Shouldn't "professorship in theoretical physics" be capitalized? Isn't the whole phrase beginning with "Richard Chace Tolman" the name of the endowed chair?CorinneSD (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly but Tolman's article doesn't mention it; plus too many capitals in a row are offputtingly clunky, and we currently have Tolman's name nicely distinguished from the rest. Rothorpe (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
O.K.CorinneSD (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Richard Feynman[edit]

In the section "Personal life" in this article on Richard Feynman, this is the last sentence:

"Feynman has a minor acting role in the film Anti-Clock credited as "The Professor."

Considering that Richard Feynman is dead, shouldn't the verb be "had"? I don't know if the present tense is used for roles in movies.CorinneSD (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just been going through Seamus Heaney for tenses, mainly on the lines of has done to did, and there are some not-so-straghtforward calls. Here, as the film still exists, I would keep the has, provided there's not a past tense narrative... but I'd better look first. - Having done so, I'll leave it up to you. Rothorpe (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I just happened to come across a list of Irish poets yesterday. Today I updated Seamus Heaney's dates in that list.CorinneSD (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ralph Vaughan Williams[edit]

If you have time, could you look at the last sentence in the second paragraph in the section headed "Style", near the end of the article on Ralph Vaughan Williams? I just wonder if you could suggest a way to avoid the repetition of the name "Ravel" without adding ambiguity.CorinneSD (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't change it. I think it nicely conveys that Ravel deliberately mentioned his own name. Rothorpe (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
O.K.CorinneSD (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Weird revert[edit]

What, you like typos? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a word for a deliberate typo? I was discussing the changes to American orthography initiated by Noah Webstre (sic?). Rothorpe (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, I was trying to follow this edit, revision, revert, and I'm still confused. Do I understand correctly that you deliberately typed "Webstr" in the comment about changes to American orthography initiated by Noah Webster in order to illustrate the kinds of changes he made, and that, since it was typed that way deliberately, you wanted it left that way? If that is correct, then why do you have "Webstr" on your User page and "Webstre" above? No big deal. Perhaps is a further example of the varied spelling in the 18th and early 19th century. I'm just curious. – CorinneSD (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. 'Webstr' would be the spelling if he had abolished the distinction between -or (etc.) endings and -er ones as well ('doctr'), but he didn't. 'Webstre' is an example of the French-style spelling he was getting away from. His intention was admirable, but the result, different spellings on either side of the Atlantic, plus a bit of both in Canada, has been unfortunate. Rothorpe (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. CorinneSD (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Fermi paradox[edit]

I wonder if you would mind looking at the latest edit to the article on the Fermi paradox. The editor added an adverbial clause ("even though...") to a sentence that already began with an adverbial clause ("While....."). I read the sentence again and again and couldn't make up my mind whether it was well written or not. It is an adverbial clause, followed by a main clause, followed by an adverbial clause. Unusual, but not incorrect? I also wondered whether

a) the material in the "even though" clause could be combined with the first adverbial clause;
b) "though" might be better than "even though"; and
c) "would be required" would be clearer than simply "required".

Or shall I just leave it as is? I value your opinion.

Thanks! I have to say I think it's just fine. Rothorpe (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
O.K. I'll leave it. CorinneSD (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if you could take a look at the Talk page for the article on Hinduism. There seems to be a warm (I won't say "heated" – yet) discussion. It's not the last discussion on the page. It's a bit earlier. You'll see it in the recent Edit History, too. Edits are going back and forth. I don't know if this is normal in W p or whether a senior editor needs to weigh in. To complicate matters, some of the commentators are not native speakers. CorinneSD (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, quite normal, I'd say. Rothorpe (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ralph Vaughan Williams[edit]

I noticed your edit changing " Williams' " to " Williams's " (twice), and I saw the explanation that you added. I may have misunderstood that same explanatory note (to mean the opposite) on an earlier edit and changed " Williams's " to " Williams' " (twice). I always thought the apostrophe alone after a name that ends in "s" was both correct and more common; more recently I read that the apostrophe plus "s" is equally correct. Did you choose " Williams's " only because it had already been used several times in the article and you wanted things to be consistent throughout, or because you believe it to be more correct? Just trying to learn something.... CorinneSD (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was going for consistency. But I also happen to prefer the -s's form for singular cases, leaving -s' for plurals only. Rothorpe (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Carl Sagan[edit]

I've been looking at the most recent edits to the article on Carl Sagan. The editor seemed to know what he or she was doing, but I have a few questions:

I noticed in a paragraph around Line 165 the following:

Sociologist Ron Westrum writes that "The high point of Sagan's treatment of the UFO question was the AAAS' symposium in 1969. A wide range of educated opinions on the subject were offered by participants,

1) In an edit to the first sentence, the editor changed the full, written-out name of the American Association for the Advancement of Science into the abbreviation AAAS (after having added "AAAS" in parentheses after the full name in an edit higher up on the page). Thus, the abbreviation is clear. My question is whether the possessive apostrophe is really needed. It was on the full name of the organization that was deleted, and now it's on the abbreviation: "the AAAS' symposium". Wouldn't just "the AAAS symposium" be sufficient?

Of course I would prefer "the AAAS's symposium" to "the AAAS' symposium" (see above), but, yes, "the AAAS symposium" seems sufficient. Rothorpe (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
O.K.CorinneSD (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

2) Regarding the second sentence, is this a case where "A wide range" can be considered a plural subject? (It sounds all right.) Or is the plural "were" an error? – CorinneSD (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Definitely an error. Rothorpe (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
O.K. I'm glad I saw it, then. Thank you SO much for answering all my questions and not getting annoyed with me. ): CorinneSD (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It's a pleasure, you're most welcome. Rothorpe (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Feathers[edit]

I've just started going through the article on Feathers. I noticed that the first part of the second sentence in the first paragraph of the article

"They are considered the most complex integumentary structures found in vertebrates, and indeed a premier example of a complex evolutionary novelty."

is nearly identical to the first sentence in the second paragraph of the article (under the heading "Structures and characteristics"):

"Feathers are among the most complex integumentary appendages found in vertebrates and are formed in tiny follicles in the epidermis, or outer skin layer, that produce keratin proteins."

I don't know whether that is acceptable in a Wikepedia article or whether one should be deleted. If you think the first instance (in the first paragraph) should be deleted, what do we do with the information in the second half of the sentence:

and indeed a premier example of a complex evolutionary novelty"  ? CorinneSD (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I think it's fine to repeat a bit of the lead in the next paragraph and then enlarge on it. Some readers might have omitted the lead altogether. Rothorpe (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
O.K. I'll leave it. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Another question: The fourth sentence in the section headed "Classification" starts:

"A third rarer type of feather, filoplumes, is hairlike..."

I had just changed "feathers" to "feather" after "A third rarer type of" (to match the construction in the first sentence of the paragraph). Then I noticed that "filoplumes" was plural, and the verb, "is", singular, and I didn't know what to do. Shall I change "filoplumes" to "the filoplume"? – CorinneSD (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You could, but I didn't notice anything wrong. Indeed, being now aware of it, I think perhaps you should. Rothorpe (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
O.K.CorinneSD (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Also in "Classifications" is the following:

"Down feathers are fluffy because they lack barbicels, so the barbules float free of each other, allowing the down to trap much air and provide excellent thermal insulation."

What do you think of the affirmative use of "much"? CorinneSD (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That reminds me of when, in the 1970s, I used to tell French students to change 'much' to 'a lot of', which sounds pretty awful now. What do you suggest changing it to? Rothorpe (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that "a lot of" is rather informal and not very elegant. More formal alternatives (for the uncountable items) might be: "a great deal of", "quite a bit of", "a great quantity of", etc. – you know them, I'm sure. Here, I think it would all right just to omit "much". I don't think it's necessary. Sometimes, I think "much" works in the affirmative. Perhaps it's from reading too many 18th and 19th century British novels, but I remember seeing "much" used in certain situations and it sounded fine. Something like, "these are times of much anguish", or "he is destined for much success", etc. Have you seen those kinds of phrases? CorinneSD (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, exceedingly Jane Austen. But I agree, no need for anything, especially with 'excellent' following. Rothorpe (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Feather[edit]

In the section "Feathered dinosaurs" in this article on feathers, I changed the first instance of "Avialae" in about the 4th paragraph to italics. Then I realized that the italicization in the entire section seemed inconsistent. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know what the "rules" are about italicization of clades, taxa, etc., and Latin names, but, looking at all the various words/names used in this section, some with links, some not, it seemed to me that there was some inconsistency. Rather than attempting to correct them, I thought I would ask you. Perhaps you can sort them out. I guess I changed "Avialae" to italics because it seemed to be Latin, but perhaps I was wrong. – CorinneSD (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I truly haven't a clue about this (though I suspect 'American alligator' should have been left capitalised). What you could do, though, is undo your edit (and thus an inconsistency) with a questioning edit summary. Rothorpe (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Music therapy[edit]

I wonder if you would mind explaining what kind of edit was just made to the article on music therapy. I just don't understand it. Why does it end with a single letter "s", and why did the editor delete a large part of the caption? – CorinneSD (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The 'compare selected revisions' button shows what happened. It was just a vandal taking out a chunk. I've undone it. If that's not clear, I'll be happy to explain further. Rothorpe (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Scott Nearing - Early Life[edit]

I've started reviewing this article on Scott Nearing. It is generally quite well written and I have found few problems. I just wanted to ask your opinion on two words in the same sentence. The sentence is in the section headed "Early life" -- 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence:

Nearing distinguished himself as a "Wharton man" for the current progressive era, one of the proverbial "best and brightest" trained in practical economics to be readied for a place as a responsible leader of the community.

1) The word "current" seemed jarring. I looked it up in the M-W unabridged dictionary and all definitions say it means, basically, "now", or "happening now". Usually, when "current" is used to refer to the past, it says, "the then current X". But I don't know about adding "then" before "current" in this sentence; it doesn't sound quite right: "the then current progressive era". What do you think?

Agreed. I've removed it.

2) I also wondered whether "place" was the best word here. I think "place" would sound right if it said "place in society" or "place in the government", but here it seems merely to connote "location". I thought about "position", but that pretty much means "specific job". Is there another word that means something about half-way between "place" and "position"? Or do you think either "place" or "position" is all right? – CorinneSD (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I understood it to mean 'place in society'.

Scott Nearing[edit]

I have another question about this article on Scott Nearing. It is in the last paragraph in the section headed "Early life". Out of the blue, the word "academy" is used (I guess to refer to the Wharton School of Business) twice: 1) right after note 19, and 2) right before "Upton Sinclair". Is that a commonly understood way of referring to a graduate school at a large university? I never heard that use of "academy". Or is it used to refer to a school that represents the conservative upper class in a society? I've always heard "academy" used to refer to a private, usually secondary, school. I'm just puzzled by its appearance here. What do you think? – CorinneSD (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course you have alerted me to it, but I doubt it would have bothered me. But I don't have American sensitivities to the word, obviously. Rothorpe (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
O.K. I'll leave it. CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Scott Nearing - Nearing in the Cold War period[edit]

In the section "Nearing in the Cold War period", is this sentence:

In 1954 he co-authored Living the Good Life: How to Live Simply and Sanely in a Troubled World with his second wife Helen. The book, in which war, famine, and poverty were discussed, described a nineteen-year "back to the land experiment", and also advocated a modern day "homesteading".

I just wondered whether the article "a" was necessary before "homesteading". What's the difference between "a modern day homesteading" and "modern day homesteading"? – CorinneSD (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It suggests that it was his new idea.
O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Scott Nearing - The Vietnam Years and after[edit]

In the section "The Vietnam Years and after" in this article on Scott Nearing, we read:

In 1968, Nearing signed the “Writers and Editors War Tax Protest” pledge, vowing to refuse tax payments in protest against the Vietnam War.

To me, "refuse tax payments" is vague. Doesn't it mean, "refuse to make tax payments"? I can't imagine that it means, "refuse to accept tax payments". Shall I add "to make" after "refuse", or just leave it as is? – CorinneSD (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Leave it. As you say, it can only mean one thing.
Or you could change it to a verb phrase, pay taxes.
Normally, a verb is better than a noun, but in this case I'll just leave it. CorinneSD (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Scott Nearing - Nearing as a Foreign Policy Analyst[edit]

In the section "Nearing as a Foreign Policy Analyst" in this article on Scott Nearing, we read,

Shortly after its founding in 1949, Nearing began contributing a monthly "World Events" column to the independent theoretical monthly, Monthly Review, established by dissident Marxist economists Paul Sweezy and Leo Huberman.

I wondered about two things:

1) The juxtaposition "monthly, "Monthly" " seemed inelegant. I thought about adding "publication" after "monthly", but that word is used in the next sentence. Then I went to the article in the link and read that it was a "journal", so I thought about adding "journal" after "monthly". What do you think?

2) What is a "theoretical monthly" (or even a "theoretical monthly journal"? Is it because the journal contains mainly articles on theory? But in the linked article "Monthly Review", I read that the articles have not been entirely on theory. Is there something I don't know about theoretical journals? –CorinneSD (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, terrible isn't it? That's what you can get from collaborative authorship. I'll see how many monthlies I can remove... Rothorpe (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't even noticed the third "monthly". But what about "theoretical"?CorinneSD (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot that. But yes, it is because the journal contained mainly articles on theory, as that final paragraph suggests. Rothorpe (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Vitreous enamel[edit]

Just two questions about style; I need your opinion. In the first paragraph of this article on vitreous enamel, the following sentences appear after the first sentence (which I did not copy here):

The powder melts, flows, and then hardens to a smooth, durable vitreous coating on metal, or on glass or ceramics. The term "enamel" is most often restricted to work on metal, which is the subject of this article. Enameled glass is also called "painted". Fired enamelware is an integrated layered composite of glass and metal. The word enamel comes from the Old High German word smelzan (to smelt) via the Old French esmail. Used as a noun, "an enamel" is a usually small decorative object, coated with enamel coating.

1) I wonder whether "...on metal, or on glass or ceramics" is all right. Normally, I would delete the first "or" and add "on" before ceramics (or delete "on" before "glass"), but the next sentence singles out metal, so that may be why the writer separated "on glass or ceramics" from "on metal". I still think it is not good writing, and I think the emphasis in the subsequent sentence ("The term enamel is most often restricted to work on metal") is enough. What do you think?

No, I think it's fine. The former prepares for the latter.
O.K.

2) What do think of the last sentence? "...a usually small decorative object"? Do you like the placement of the word "usually" there? What's wrong with "a small decorative object"?

Because it's not always true. That's what 'usually' means.
O.K. I'll leave it.

A little later in the same paragraph is the following sentence:

Since the 19th century the term applies also to industrial materials and many metal consumer objects, such as some cooking vessels, dishwashers, laundry machines, sinks and tubs.

I just wonder whether "some" is necessary. CorinneSD (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, not all cooking vessels.
I guess I just find "some" a vague, boring word. I prefer something like "certain types of". But I'll leave it as is. CorinneSD (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Vitreous enamel - History[edit]

In the second paragraph in the section headed "History" in this article on vitreous enamel, we read:

Enamel was also used to decorate glass vessels during the Roman period, and there is evidence of this as early as the late Republican and early Imperial periods in the Levantine, Egypt, Britain and the Black Sea.

I wonder about the list of four places at the end of the sentence. The first is a region, the second and third are countries, and the fourth is an inland sea. I won't quibble about the first three; they're all right, but the fourth one is a body of water. Shouldn't it say something like "the Black Sea area", or "the Black Sea region"? Or is it understood that it is a region? CorinneSD (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You said it!
However, Levantine is an adjective, so I've changed it anyway. Rothorpe (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I thought "the Levantine" sounded wrong; if I had thought about it a little, I would have remembered "the Levant". I'm glad you caught that. And I see your edit to "the Black Sea", too. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Hardy[edit]

In the last sentence of the 5th paragraph in the section "Novels" in this article on Thomas Hardy, "middle classes" is hyphenated. Is that correct? CorinneSD (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No. The writer has confused it with adjectival use. Very common mistakes, these hyphen ones. - Fixed.

Thomas Hardy - Literary Themes[edit]

In the first paragraph in the section "Literary Themes" in this article on Thomas Hardy, we read:

Hardy criticises certain social constraints that hindered the lives of those living in the 19th century. Considered a Victorian Realist writer, Hardy...

I see that "Realist" is capitalized. However, I recall that in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the article, it said:

A Victorian realist in the tradition of George Eliot, he...

with "realist" in lower-case. Which is correct? Shouldn't both be capitalized or both be lower-case? CorinneSD (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. There was no school called Victorian Realism, so I'd remove the cap. Rothorpe (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC) - Done.

Prince Buster article - "The Clovers" changed to "the Clovers"[edit]

Just made the change above. You had pointed it out months earlier and I countered that it "looked better" with the capital.

I did say "possible VA" for which I must offer an apology for. I'm consistent in my wariness evidently. Tackling the Bob Marley article at the moment which should be very interesting.

cheers

Sluffs (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I think it looks better in lower case even in blue, though I notice you left the 'the' outside the link - I agree, even better in black. Cheers, Rothorpe (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Albrecht Durer[edit]

In this article about Albrecht Durer, in the section, "Nuremberg and the Masterworks", in the middle of the second paragraph, is the following sentence:

During this period he also completed two woodcut series, the Great Passion and the Life of the Virgin, both published in 1511 together with a second edition of the Apocalypse series.

I wondered whether the names of the woodcut series should be italicized.

No idea, actually. Why not have a look around in other articles? Rothorpe (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the last sentence in the last paragraph in this same section is:

In the years leading to 1520 he produced a wide range of works, including the woodblocks for the first western printed star charts in 1515 and portraits in tempera on linen in 1516.

I just wondered if "leading to 1520" is all right. Usually, I hear "leading up to". CorinneSD (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, do change it. Rothorpe (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Horapollo[edit]

I was reading this article which I found through a link in the Albrecht Durer article. In the first section, headed "Horapollo", is the following sentence:

He wrote commentaries on Sophocles, Alcaeus of Mytilene and Homer, and a work (Te~tput&) on places consecrated to the gods.

I was puzzled by an ampersand (&) in the name of a work. What could that be? Could it be a way of transcribing Egyptian hieroglyphs? Or is it a typo? CorinneSD (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, strange. In such cases I look for a clue in the edit history. Was it added or altered alone? Will do that now. Rothorpe (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it was added with a lot of other stuff, so I think we can assume it's authentic. Rothorpe (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
O.K.CorinneSD (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Albrecht Durer - Journey to the Netherlands (1520-21)[edit]

In this section of the Albrecht Durer article is the following sentence:

In addition to going to the coronation, he made excursions to Cologne (where he admired the painting of Stefan Lochner), ...

Is "the painting" acceptable here? I should think "the paintings" makes more sense. What do you think?

I think the singular is more idiomatic and the context makes it clear that it doesn't mean 'portrait'. Rothorpe (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't even thinking that it meant "portrait". Durer was traveling and visiting other artists.CorinneSD (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I looked at a link in this Durer article and started to read the Stefan Lochner article. I found this sentence (beginning of 2nd parag.):

His style, famous for its clean appearance, combines Gothic attention towards long flowing lines with brilliant colours with a Flemish influenced realism and attention to detail.

I think the two "with" phrases creates confusion. Is it "long flowing lines [made] with brilliant colours" or "long flowing lines and brilliant colours"? What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It's the former. I know what you mean, but I found it read okay. Rothorpe (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Or you could change it to 'brilliantly coloured long flowing lines'. Rothorpe (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
How about, "long flowing lines in brilliant colours" or "long flowing lines done in brilliant colours"?CorinneSD (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the latter is very clear. Rothorpe (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Handmade jewelry[edit]

In the first paragraph in this article on handmade jewelry, I found these sentences:

This means that jewelry may be made using drills, lathes, or other machinery, but it must be guided by the human hand. This precludes the use of punch presses, CNC machinery, and casting, to name a few processes that would not qualify as "handmade". Beyond that caveat it can be anything made out of anything that would be considered jewelry.

I have two questions:

1) (2nd sentence): Maybe I am being too particular, but I'll ask anyway: I thought it was jewelry that was made with any of these processes that would not qualify as handmade, not the processes themselves. Shall I change it, or leave it?

Agreed, it jars, so do change it.
I changed it. Does it sound all right now? I wanted to ask you about the first sentence in the bit I copied above,
This means that jewelry may be made using drills, lathes, or other machinery, but it must be guided by the human hand.

In this sentence, is it clear what "it" refers to? I suppose it refers to "jewelry", but it could refer to "machinery". CorinneSD (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

2) (3rd sentence): What do you think of "it can be anything made out of anything that would be considered jewelry"? CorinneSD (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that struck me as nonsense. Time for a Corinne rewrite! Rothorpe (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I fixed this, too.CorinneSD (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Art jewelry[edit]

In the first paragraph in this article on art jewelry, we read:

Art jewelry, however, has not yet created such a large following and is a relatively small niche, where jewelry is mostly bought by collectors and museums. (italics mine)

Then, a few paragraphs later, in the section headed "History", we read that art jewelry is no longer a niche market

At present, art jewelry is no longer a niche market.

Are these two statements compatible? CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Rothorpe (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Art glass - Manufacturing techniques[edit]

Is the British spelling of the verb the same as the British spelling of the noun? Specifically, I see mould as a noun in the second paragraph under the section headed "Manufacturing techniques" in this article on art glass, and I see mold as a verb in the first paragraph of the article. I also see "mold" in the next sub-section on "Kiln something", but British "colours". Can you help decide which spelling to use, or fix the spelling? Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I can never remember this one, so I looked it up in Citizendium, and there you are: yes, the same. Rothorpe (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
'Mould' was 5-2 ahead so I made it 7-0. Rothorpe (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
CorinneSD (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

John Cowper Powys[edit]

I've been going through this article on John Cowper Powys and I came across the following sentence in the section headed "Works":

Cowper Powys is a somewhat controversial "writer who evokes both massive contempt and near idolatry".

I just thought it was a little odd that the quote started with "writer". Wouldn't it look better if the word "writer" were outside of the quotation marks, and it read,

Cowper Powys is a somewhat controversial writer "who evokes both massive contempt and near idolatry".

Or doesn't it matter? CorinneSD (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you're quite right. Much better to have the quotes coincide with the new clause. Rothorpe (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

John Cowper Powys[edit]

I noticed the information about Powys's novel Wood and Stone, including date of publication and dedication to Thomas Hardy, in two places in the article:

1) Fourth paragraph under "Biography". Here is the entire 4th paragraph:

His first published works were highly derivative collections of poetry ("very Hardyesque" was Philip Larkin's opinion),published in the 1890s. His first novel Wood and Stone, dedicated to Thomas Hardy, was published in 1915. This was followed by a collection of literary essays Visions and Revisions in 1915 and his first full length work of popular philosophy, A Complex Vision, in 1920.

and 2) Second paragraph under "Works".

Is that acceptable, to have the same information mentioned twice in an article (besides the minor mention in a lead paragraph, followed by more detailed coverage later, which we discussed the other day regarding another article)? If not, which do you think is the better place for this information? CorinneSD (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Change it if you like, but I think it's OK in a long article, far apart. Rothorpe (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I won't change it. I respect your judgment.CorinneSD (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

John Cowper Powys - Works[edit]

In the third paragraph in the section headed "Works" in this article on John Cowper Powys, I saw the following:

"The latter is set in Dorchester, Thomas Hardy's Casterbridge, and there are parallels with that earlier work."

I was wondering if the setting of "Dorchester, Thomas Hardy's Casterbridge" constitutes a parallel. If it does, then shouldn't the subsequent clause read, "there are other parallels with that earlier work"?

No, I think it reads well. Rothorpe (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, later in that same paragraph, I saw,

"with affinities with".

Shouldn't it be "affinities to" (or some other preposition)?CorinneSD (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's "with affinities also with"! No, that doesn't bother me. Rothorpe (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

John Cowper Powys - Works[edit]

If you have time, could you look at the sixth paragraph in the section headed "Works" in this article on John Cowper Powys? There is a fragment near the beginning of the paragraph that I don't know how to fix, and some of the sentences seem unclear, especially toward the end of the paragraph. Among other things, it is unclear whether Porius is a fictional character or a historical figure. If he is a historical figure, why compare the fictional Arthur's prominence ("minor") to his role? I don't get it. CorinneSD (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Historical figures as fictional characters, what's the problem? Rothorpe (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Fragment fixed.

John Cowper Powys - Works[edit]

In, I believe, the ninth paragraph in the section headed "Works" in this article on John Cowper Powys, we read:

"The novels that followed Porius are more minor in scale and an element of fantasy is a special characteristic of them."

I just wondered about "more minor". I also wonder about "is a special characteristic of them" -- an odd way to end a sentence? What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's fine. Rothorpe (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

John Cowper Powys - Works[edit]

In the 4th-to-last paragraph in the section headed "Works", we read:

"written to help their finances."

The antecedent for "their" is Powys and Phyllis Playter, but the last time they are mentioned together is in the previous paragraph. Is that all right?

Yes.

Also in this 4th-to-last paragraph, there is a number 7 in parentheses after a quote. I looked on the Talk page for the article and there is a comment (the last one) about this. I've never seen a page number in parentheses after a quote in an article before. Is that correct?CorinneSD (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that before. You could try removing it! Rothorpe (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, in the 3rd-to-last paragraph in this same section, we read a list of three works on other writers with the date of publication in parentheses after each title. I wonder whether the word "respectively" is really needed here. There is just "three writers" then the three titles. CorinneSD (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite unnecessary, I agree. Rothorpe (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Walter Pater[edit]

I've started reading the article on Walter Pater, and I've come across two things I don't understand: 1) In the second paragraph in the section "Early life", the last sentence is:

"He gained a school exhibition, with which he proceeded in 1858 to Queen’s College, Oxford."

I don't understand the first part of this sentence: "He gained a school exhibition". The previous sentence spoke about this early interest in art and good writing, but it's not clear what the "school exhibition" refers to, and what is "gained a school exhibition", anyway?

2) Toward the end of the third paragraph in the section "Early life", we read:

"His years of study and reading now paid dividends: he was offered a classical fellowship in 1864 at Brasenose."

What is "a classical fellowship"? CorinneSD (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinks would help here. An exhibition is a grant, an award to study, and a fellowship means he was made a fellow at the college, classical meaning in the study of classics, ie Latin and Greek. Rothorpe (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
By "Wikilinks" do you mean the same kind of link that you told me to put in my comments with the double brackets, links to other articles on WP? Thank you for the information. I knew what a fellowship was. I think in the U.S. we use "a fellowship in classics" more than "a classical fellowship", but I may be wrong. Also, I was thrown a little by the statement that Pater received this on the basis of his ability to teach modern German philosophy (and lit?). The only one I didn't have a clue about was "gained an exhibition".CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikilinks, yes. Let's try one to history of emotion and see if it turns red or blue. - As I feared. Rothorpe (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if I remember rightly, an exhibition is worth less than a scholarship. Rothorpe (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Walter Pater - Marius the Epicurean[edit]

In the middle of the second paragraph in the section, "Marius the Epicurian....", we read the following sentence:

"These are not so much stories – plotting is limited and dialogue absent – as psychological studies of fictional characters in historical settings, often personifications of new concepts at turning-points in the history of ideas or emotion."

What is "the history of emotion"?CorinneSD (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

What it says! Rothorpe (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry if I'm annoying you. I'll stop asking questions if you prefer. I had never heard that phrase before and still don't know what is meant by it.CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it's OK, but some questions don't really have answers... Rothorpe (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
But I can ask you a question here: if you understand 'history of ideas', why not 'history of emotion'? Rothorpe (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Merton[edit]

I was looking at a recent edit to the section headed "St. Bonaventure" in the article on Thomas Merton. I was puzzled why the editor changed "one of the most important repositories of Merton (etc.) worldwide" to "an important repository of Merton (etc.) worldwide". Then I made an edit of my own to the sentence just before that one. Upon reviewing my edit in "Preview", I realized that in the next sentence, the one containing the edit by the other editor, after the edit, the world "worldwide" is not necessary. "Worldwide" (kind of like "in the world") is no longer needed. However, that editor has no talk page, so I can't ask him/her about it. Should I put a note on the article's Talk page, remove "worldwide", undo that edit, or what? If there is some factual reason why "one of the most important repositories...worldwide" is incorrect, I can accept the edit, but otherwise, I think it should stay that way. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's just that he/she didn't see 'worldwide' so didn't remove it. So you can do that. Rothorpe (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Aram Khachaturian[edit]

In the fourth paragraph in the section headed "Education and career" in this article on Aram Khachaturian, we read this sentence:

"The three named composers had by then already become established as the so-called "titans" of Soviet music, enjoying worldwide reputation as some of the leading composers of the 20th century."

Can the word "reputation" be an uncountable noun? Usually I see it as countable: "a worldwide reputation". Shall I add "a"?CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd just make it plural. Rothorpe (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
In fact I've paraphrased. Rothorpe (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Good work. It's much better now.CorinneSD (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Ta! Rothorpe (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

TOCright templates[edit]

Hello. You seem to be putting a {{TOC-right}} template on a few articles, but without an edit summary I can't see any compelling reason for doing so. The template documentation makes it clear that a floating TOC should only be employed where the default TOC is somehow disrupting the page, which I don't think it is for the articles you've been applying it to. Am I missing something? --McGeddon (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I always do it for the same reason, to remove excessive whitespace. Thanks for the link: I see there is more to it than just that. Please make any changes you think necessary. Rothorpe (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
At Apposition, for example, what are the reasons for not moving it? Rothorpe (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC) (Though I'd put it after the lead now, not at the top.)
The main reason for not floating a TOC is that doing so "breaks the standard look of pages" - saving a little whitespace isn't worth disorientating the reader, who will be used to being able to skim an article from top to bottom, reading a brief lede summary, then a list of aspects covered by the article (which clearly flags the end of the lede), and then the main article body. When there would be masses of whitespace from a normal TOC (as with Weapons in Star Trek) then floating it can be useful, but you can also get around that by limiting the header depth to which the TOC displays, reducings its height. The short seven-section TOC at Apposition doesn't, I think, merit floating it.
(Note that a floating TOC should always be after the lede, per WP:TOC.) --McGeddon (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the detailed explanation. Rothorpe (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri[edit]

I am puzzled by the most recent edit to this article on Dante Alighieri. The editor removed several sentences AND changed the estimated age of Dante (at what point in time I still haven't figured out), but gave no reason for either. Shall I just wait and see if someone who knows about his life notices it?CorinneSD (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say you should undo it. It's an anonymous user removing a chunk of text and changing Dante's age at an important, thus well known, time in his life. Rothorpe (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I see that someone else has undone the edit. Thank you for the reply anyway.CorinneSD (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Parsi[edit]

I've just started going through this article on Parsi. It has a lot of issues. In the third paragraph in the section headed "Definition and identity", we read:

"For example, Portuguese physician Garcia de Orta observed in 1563 that "there are merchants [...] in the kingdom of Cambai [...] known as Esparcis."

I just want to know if the brackets around the ellipses (...) are necessary.CorinneSD (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No, not necessary: see MOS:ELLIPSIS. Rothorpe (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank-you.CorinneSD (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Parsi[edit]

In the last paragraph in the section "Self-perceptions", if you click on "Edit source" you will see between the first and second sentence "<see next 2 sentences>". I don't think it is necessary. When I see that kind of thing, should I delete it?CorinneSD (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you mustn't delete such edits: they're instructions to future editors. Rothorpe (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
O.K.CorinneSD (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Aram Khachaturian[edit]

This is not a big deal, but I just wondered what you thought:

I was looking at the edits just made today by Yerevanci (or something like that) in the article on Aram Khachaturian, and I noticed that he or she changed two dates in references from the American style (month day comma year) to the British style. Since I remember reading somewhere that if an article is written predominantly in the American style (dates, spelling, etc.), it should stay that way throughout for consistency, and vice versa for the British style, I took a look at the article. In just a cursory look, I saw several dates (in the text) in the American style and no British spellings. I wonder if that "rule" I mentioned above applies also to dates in references, and I wonder whether, if you had time, you could look at the article and decide which style should be followed.CorinneSD (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see my user page, Notes on formatting, third bullet point. Happy reading! Rothorpe (talk)

Khorasan[edit]

In the list on this disambiguation page for Khorasan, one of the items reads,

"Greater Khorasan, a historic region the majority of which lies in modern day Afghanistan, as well as minor parts of Iran and Turkmenistan. It was historically known as Parthia; later, during the Sassanid era, it was changed to Khorasan."

I just made some changes to the last sentence, but I feel there is something wrong with the first sentence. I am looking particularly at "as well as minor parts of Iran and Turkmenistan".

I think it should be:

"...the majority of which lies in modern day Afghanistan, with minor parts in Iran and Turkmenistan", or maybe:
"...which lies mainly in modern day Afghanistan, as well as in parts of Iran and Turkmenistan".

Also, what do you think about "a historic region" followed by "historically" in the next sentence?CorinneSD (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, either of those would be a great improvement; the second perhaps wins on clarity. As for the 'historics', you could change the 2nd to 'previously'. Rothorpe (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I typed in the second one (in which, by the way, I just saw a typo -- I had written "in" twice; I deleted one). I changed the adverb from "historically" to "previously". (When I read your suggestion, I also thought of "originally", but then I thought, "Who's to say what it was called originally -- I mean really originally?") Sometimes, after I've been reading and editing for hours, the right word doesn't come to me. (That's why I ask you.) Thank-you for your help!CorinneSD (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, yes, I rejected 'originally' for the same reason. Rothorpe (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Isadora Duncan[edit]

I made some edits to the article on Isadora Duncan. After that, I posted comments on the article's Talk page regarding lack of clarity in certain sentences near the beginning of the article. Then I saw, and read, the previous comment on the Talk page. At first, I just made a reply to it and added a kind of postscript to my comment saying I had seen it. Then, I went back to the other editor's comment, read it again, then looked at the link to the "Wayback-something" source, a short article on Isadora Duncan. I found the paragraph (near the end) and realized that the sentences in the WP article were indeed taken almost verbatim from that paragraph without citing it. (I saw one; I couldn't find the other.) Because I realized I hadn't fully understood the situation, I deleted my comments from the Talk page and undid my edit. My question is, if there is an article that contains pertinent material that would enhance the WP article, why can't some sentences be quoted and cited? I don't understand what needs to be done to fix the problem.CorinneSD (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Because it's a non-free source (according to the anon on the talk page), and therefore plagiarism. Rothorpe (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
O.K. Thank-you. But then shouldn't those sentences be deleted from the article?CorinneSD (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I was assuming they had been. But I suppose they can be paraphrased. Rothorpe (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

George Eliot[edit]

In the second-to-last sentence in the section headed "Literary assessment" in this article on George Eliot, I do not understand why "Western Writers" is capitalized. The link goes to a list of writers called the Western canon, but I didn't see the exact phrase "Western Writers" there. Do you think it needs to be capitalized?CorinneSD (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, unnecessary capitals, the curse of Wikipedia! Do please change it. Rothorpe (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I will. Good work on adding "better" before "known". I wish I'd caught that. You're amazing.CorinneSD (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Indeed I forgot to mention keeping 'Western' capitalised. Rothorpe (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Fixed -- back to "Western".CorinneSD (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

David Lloyd George[edit]

If you have time, could you look at the last edit to this article on David Lloyd George? It seems odd.CorinneSD (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that someone reverted that, and another, silly edit.CorinneSD (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Really silly edits like that one, just click 'undo'. Rothorpe (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri[edit]

I have a question about the last edit to the article on Dante Alighieri: the editor changed "was the greatest" Italian poet of the Middle Ages to "was a major" Italian poet of the Middle Ages. I know the WP injunction against opinion, but in this case, I wonder, were there any other great Italian poets in the Middle Ages besides Dante? If not, what's wrong with "the greatest"? or: "is considered the greatest" or "is widely considered the greatest"? After all, later in the article, it says he is called "Il Sommo Poeta" (or something) in Italian, meaning "Supreme Poet". What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it goes to the heart of the injunction against opinion, as you so nicely put it. 'The greatest' can only be an opinion, while 'a major' is a mere fact about opinions - so it's OK! And of course we don't know about all those unpublished geniuses... Rothorpe (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
O.K. Thank-you.CorinneSD (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Surat[edit]

If you have time, could you look at the most recent edit in the article on Surat? I just don't understand it. I found it in the article (in a list, toward the end of the article), where it is the only heading all in lower case, but also, within that short paragraph, it is capitalized. The editor has no Talk page.CorinneSD (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Rather than give you an immediate diagnosis, and forgive me if you've already done this, but have you looked at the article as it was before the strange edit? Rothorpe (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I had gone through the first part of the article and made a few edits a few days ago, but now I realize this is one of the few times I didn't get all the way through an article before I left it. I did not remember seeing this particular item at that time. Just now I looked at the last few edits; it doesn't appear to be a case of "edit, undo, edit, undo" which we see sometimes. I didn't look at all the revisions done by other editors. – CorinneSD (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Apologies: in my drive to be educational I had forgotten the last two edits were by you. Anyway, I've undone it; just a bit of vandalism destroying the link as far as I can see. Incomprehensible edits by anonymous numerical editors are usually just vandalism. Rothorpe (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
That's O.K. Thank you. On another topic: I just got a notification that I had never seen before, that I had been reviewed by .... and there was a green check mark next to it. What does that mean?CorinneSD (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Not sure exactly, does it seem to refer to a specific edit? Obviously it's positive. Rothorpe (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it doesn't refer to anything specific. Could it be because I just passed 1,500 edits?CorinneSD (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe. Congratulations anyway! Rothorpe (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

RE: JB[edit]

Hello, "JB" is the initials of the leader of Peter Mannion's party (i.e. the Conservatives), so he's the leader of the opposition for the two specials and series 3 and then prime minister in series 4. Essentially, it's implied that JB is David Cameron ("JB and his Eton clique") in much the same way as "Tom" is heavily implied to be Gordon Brown. I don't think it's ever stated what the initials stand for in the series. Bob talk 06:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Little Tich at peer review[edit]

Hello Rothorpe, hope your well. Just a quick note to let you know of the listing of Little Tich at peer review. I would love for you to take part if you're able to. Many thanks! -- CassiantoTalk 08:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Cudham, I knew it well. I'll be watching, thanks for the invite. Rothorpe (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Mumbai[edit]

In the sixth paragraph in the section headed "Etymology" in this article on Mumbai, I made a change to the first half of the last sentence. I did not like the sound of "Having said this", which sounds like what someone would say while giving a lecture, or the language one would see in a professional journal. I changed it to, "While this calls into question this explanation of the origin of "Bombay", it is also true that...". However, I am still not happy with this wording and wondered if you had any suggestions (perhaps making it shorter).

Also, regarding the second half of the sentence (which I did not touch), while the word "baim" sounds a little like Portuguese, and the title of the source (in footnote) is about Portuguese influence on Indian words, the sentence itself does not specify that the word is a Portuguese word, and I think it should because, if it is archaic Portuguese, it suggests an alternative, and possibly more correct, etymology tracing the roots of "Bombay" to Portuguese (since "bom Bahia" was explained to be incorrect). It affects the construction of the sentence. That's why I wrote, "While..., it also true that...". But I don't want to add "Portuguese" before "masculine" ("an archaic Portuguese, masculine word") without asking someone. I'd like to know what you think.CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Bombay, why did they change it? (Rhetorical question, it's always the same answer.) I'll see if I can find some better wording by actually editing it... Rothorpe (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Bombay sounds so much nicer than Mumbai. I look forward to reading your re-wording of the sentence (or possibly deleting it?).
Well, since Bombaim is still, as far as I know, commonly used in Portuguese, and is already mentioned further up the article, one wonders why the last two paragraphs find the derivation such a mystery. Bom baim = Good little bay. Rothorpe (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree.CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a mystery. Tomorrow I shall do some sleuthing in the history, to see where 'baim' came from. I can't find it on the internet. Rothorpe (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Mumbai - History - Early history[edit]

Can you help me figure out how to improve the first sentence in the second paragraph in the section headed "Early history"? I just don't think it is worded very well, but can't figure out how to fix it. What, exactly, was ruled is ambiguous.CorinneSD (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Two edit conflicts already... Rothorpe (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to copy the sentence from the article and paste it here; I think that's when there was an edit conflict. I tried twice. So I gave up and canceled. Did you see the sentence?CorinneSD (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I was trying to write stuff here, that I couldn't save because you were trying, etc... Also I was trying to archive this lengthy talk page. I've done it five times before, but that doesn't mean I can ever remember how to do it... Rothorpe (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you write down the steps on a piece of paper as you do it (and succeed). Then you won't have to struggle the next time you want to archive?CorinneSD (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you know, that has just occurred to me. As no doubt it did last time. Rothorpe (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)