User talk:Pgan002/Archive/2007

Numbers spelled out

Please familiarize yourself with WP:DATE before changing numbers, such as "sixth" to "6th". Happy editing! Chris the speller 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Manual of Style says that numbers from zero to ten should be spelled out, but also that within a context or a list, style should be consistent. "Example: There were 5 cats, 12 dogs, and 32 birds. or There were five cats, twelve dogs, and thirty-two birds." You refer to the context in the article Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest: "The film ended with $423.0 million domestically and just over $1 billion worldwide, becoming the 6th-highest grossing film domestically and the third-highest worldwide. When ticket prices are adjusted for inflation, however, the film is only the 44th highest-grossing film domestically." This constitutes a list much like the example in the Manual of Style, I think (I should have also changed "third-highest" to "3rd-highest"). I'm open to arguments to the contrary. -Pgan002 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the League of Copyeditors!

Thanks for joining. If you're interested, check out the goals of our February participation drive, detailed in the Announcements section of the project page. Again, welcome! And keep up the great work with your copy-edits! BuddingJournalist 02:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

Hi. As I was editing Cúcuta and pressed "Save page", I ran into an "edit conflict" with you. I moved my version to User:Rintrah/Sandbox. Is it alright if I put my version of History and Foundation into the article? You may refine my version if you like. Rintrah 09:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I saw this so late! I guess we both should have left a note saying we were about to edit it. We both made some big but positive changes, and I think it would be better to merge them rather than choose one set. -Pgan002 09:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've further refined my version. I have only copyedited the History section up to Battle of Cúcuta, though.Rintrah 09:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I liked some of your wording better than mine, and replaced mine. What do you think about my new structure? It's interesting (alarming) how we differ in interpreting some of the vague sentences. For example, I did not realize that "...Cuellarby ... donated a further 782 hectares to the settlement." So it's good to compare. -Pgan002 09:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Table

The table of Cúcuta (this one) is a table of the political division of the city.

--Ricardocolombia 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping me in the article of Cúcuta...

File:Seal of Cúcuta, Colombia.png			City of Cúcuta
			This barnstar is awarded to Pgan002 in appreciation of his contributions in the article of Cúcuta. --Ricardocolombia23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

--Ricardocolombia 23:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Article on Zambia

Hey there, I read the discussion page on Zambia and saw that you're one of the regular contributors. I posted a possible add to the article based on an article I read on The Guardian. It is regarding the Chinese population in Zambia. Please if you get a chance check it out and let me know what you think. Thanks a bunch! Vnv lain 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See also section in Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate

Hello there. I see you have removed the "see also" section in this article. I have a few comments: first of all, it was not really necessary for you to remove your commentary on the talk page, which would make it easy for someone to identify your edit or rationale later on, as edit summaries are more difficult to search through. Also, the removal of the section left a redundant line-break in the article itself (I've removed it). Lastly, I'm wondering whether it's really a good idea to remove "see also" sections like that. The section contained relevant links. It's usually a good idea to have such a section, because maybe the reader would like to skip the actual article and click through to different articles that are related. We also have users of print versions to consider. There are no hyperlinks in print versions of articles, but it's much easier to figure out relevant articles to look up if there's a section for it. Maybe you can reconsider. —msikma (user, talk) 21:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I should have left a comment on the talk page saying why. I thought that my summary sufficed, and that the "See also" section was clearly unnecessary. I did not want to clutter the talk page with trivia. Sorry about the line break. For removal, I followed the Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, which says:

'The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links.'

(bolding in original) I agree with this. Why duplicate links from the article, after it? The article is supposed to link only to relevant topics. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to skip reading the article, only to look at related articles, but they can easily use the links in the article. What's more, the context of the links in the "See also" section is lost -- unlike in the article body, it is not clear why a link is relevant. As for print, links are as visible there as in a "See also" section. And especially for print, it is important not to waste space with duplicate information. The only caveat is that the relevant links should be included as free links (which I suppose means without altered text). I did not check the archives, but I remember making sure that all the links in the "See also" section were included in the article as free links. -Pgan002 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Cougar

Hi, I was wondering if you could remove the inuse tag and discuss your changes on the article talk page, as some of the changes you are making are to items that were covered in the featured article review and/or go against WP:MOS conventions such as WP:MOSNUM. Having the article in use while it's on the main page isn't great. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It's not me who put the tag there, but someone has now removed it. -Pgan002 01:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, it was hard to figure out. And I discovered your changes to the numbers were the correct ones. But there have been several discussions about the capitalization issue. I hate the main page !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not made most of the capitalization changes that I see now in the article, only some obviously wrong ones. "Cougar" can only be capitalized when it refers to the species; for example, you cannot write "Male Cougars ...", because the plural refers to a collection of individual animals, not to the species. You can write "Male cougars..., or "The male Cougar". If the latter, then all references to species in the article should be capitalized too, including deer, elk, aardvark, etc. I prefer lowercase, but I don't want an edit war over it. -Pgan002 02:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bird names are Capitalized

Hello there. Common names for bird species are capitalized in English. When you read the MoS section on Capitalization of Animals, Plants, etc., you should have seen the note that starts that section:

Main pages: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life § Article titles and common names, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)

The second article listed there has a section devoted expressly to common names of species that specifically states:

Insofar as there is any consensus among Wikipedia editors about capitalization of common names of species, it is that each WikiProject can decide on its own rules for capitalization. In general, Wikipedia follows academic practice in each group of organisms. For example, ornithological societies have established official lists of common names, and these are almost always capitalized.

The current practice is, roughly speaking:

   * Birds are always capitalized (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds).
   * Mammals are mostly capitalized (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals).
   * Fishes are mostly in lower case (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes).
   * Reptiles and amphibians are a mixture.
   * Arthropods are mostly in lower case (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods), except that Lepidoptera and Odonata are often capitalized.
   * Plants are often capitalized.
   * Most other organisms are in lower case.

...

There are some disputes about naming conventions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds, mostly about hyphenation, overlapping names from different regions, and a few other issues. Capitalization is not a problem. One of the first things that anyone who starts learning about birds learns is that each species has an official common (English) name. List of official names are published by regional academic associations, and they are accepted very broadly by virtually all ornithologists, authors of field guides, and other professionals. English names undergo the same process as scientific names, and therefore are just as standardized, universal, and useful (until you leave the English-speaking world, when the scientific names become essential).

I hope that helps clarify. Cheers. Fredwerner 06:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kent FAC

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Kent article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 21:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have edited it, I hope you like it. It was quite good to start with. -Pgan002 23:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you very much for your copy-edit ofKent during its FAC. Epbr123 00:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Watergate editing

Nice job with the copy editing. I'm glad the Watergate Scandal article is getting some recent attention. I will be re-working a good bit of it and would be greatly appreciate your review if time allows. Thank you for your time and effort!
Warm regards, Ukulele 10:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

K-T extinction event

Hi Pgan,

Thanks for your copyedits to this article. It is greatly appreciated. I made two slight adjustments after your edits, one of which was "14" back to "fourteen", as the WP:MOS indicates.

Where does it say that it should be spelled in letters? What I see is that you should be in digits if it's more than ten. -Pgan002 22:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Numbers_2: "Numbers above ten may be written out if they are expressed in two or fewer words, except in tables and infoboxes. Example: "sixteen", "eighty-four", "two hundred", "twenty million" but "3.75", "544", "21 million"."

OK, so they may be, I had missed that; but they need not be. -Pgan002 01:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have time, would you consider copyediting Parasaurolophus? This article will eventually be sent to Featured Article Candidacy, probably fairly soon, and it's clear you're able to whittle down redundancies and improve the flow of prose better than I am able to. Would you consider looking? Thanks again for your assistance on Katie. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 12:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If I have time, I will :-) -Pgan002 22:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for considering it. :) Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You will definitely get it done faster if you ask my friends at theWikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors? -Pgan002 22:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. WP:DINO gave up on using the League of Copyeditors. Styracosaurus was added toWikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/proofreading#Copy-edit_requests_for_other_articles back in early May; we finally gave up and asked other editors for copyediting. There's no point in waiting two and a half months for copyedits that will never happen. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes, let me know what you think. -Pgan002 05:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's wonderful. Thank you very much, Pgan. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cyanosis

I moved the new paragraph you put under "Central Cyanosis" so that it's now an introductory paragraph. Is that all right with you? --JDitto 06:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's a good place for it. It's very polite of you to ask :-)

Okay then. Thanks. --JDitto 06:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Pgan002, I just wanted to thank you for copy-editing the Marathi language article. It had long been suffering from bad grammar and awkward wording in many places, but it looks much better now. Thanks again, Max ^{- You were saying?} 19:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Cúcuta

Could you please help me to wikify and copy-edit the article of Cúcuta.

Thanks,

Ricardo Ramírez —Preceding unsigned comment added by208.29.129.225 (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Tool (band), a FAC, needs copyediting

Hi Pgan, I stumbled on your userpage at the League of Copyeditors' page, and come here in need of your copyediting skills.. sorry to bother you, I hope you aren't too busy and could help me out.. Tool (band)needs someone with better capabilites than mine to proofread spelling and grammar (en-US). Any suggestions or hints regarding bad or clumsy prose in the article would be appreciated as well and could be added to itsFAC. Of course, if I can return the favor, I'd gladly help out with any of your articles. Thanks in advance and best wishes, Johnnyw talk 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

AmigaOS

Better active voice and style on your rewrite. Gratz. Alatari (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!)18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)