User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 11

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

FAC comment?

Hi. Would you be interested in voicing your support (or oppose/comment) at the FAC page for the article Of Human Feelings? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

RE: Query

WP:WTA, in this case terrrorism(Lihaas (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)).

Words to avoid, it would never have occurred to me. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

NP(Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)).

Gnosticism

I've been reading the article on Gnosticism and have made a few edits. Do you want to help me with a sentence? I've been mulling over how to fix it and would appreciate your ideas. It is the third sentence in the last paragraph in the section "Main features" (after the bulleted list).CorinneSD (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I wonder about the capitalization of "gnostic" throughout the article. Is it necessary?CorinneSD (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see you back! That sentence is not a complete one, so I've attached it to the preceding, which, though it gives a sentence of Proustian length, reads quite well. Really don't know about the capital. Is Ggnosticism a generic term or a 'suprareligion' that subdivides into those individual religions...? Rothorpe (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I saw your edit – a nice, simple fix. About Gnosticism/gnosticism, I don't know. First, I'll read the entire article and think about that question. I may do some reading to try and answer the question.CorinneSD (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you then. Rothorpe (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Merkabah mysticism

I read the article on Merkabah mysticism (after reading the article on Hekhalot literature and clicking on a link) and made a few minor edits. In the section "Ezekiel's vision of the chariot", I noticed that in the middle of the first (long) paragraph, the tense changes from present tense to past tense. I thought, since it is describing a vision, which is kind of like re-telling a story, it should all be in present tense. Also, in the second, shorter, paragraph, the tense switches back and forth. I thought I would ask you what you thought before I started changing the tense of so many verbs.CorinneSD (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, should all be present. Rothorpe (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Done.CorinneSD (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Indonesia

What do you think of the latest edit to Indonesia? I thought it read fine before the edit. Also, what do you think about a "multiplicity of groups"?CorinneSD (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite, wordy, I'll support a revert. Rothorpe (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Done.CorinneSD (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

San Blas Islands

I noticed an edit to San Blas Islands in which an editor added an external link. I have no way to judge whether the link is appropriate or not, but I noticed that, after the actual name of the organization, there is a phrase which contains the word "videos", but with an accent on the "e", which makes it the Spanish vee DAY os. Shouldn't that be in English?CorinneSD (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've changed it. Rothorpe (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Werner Jaeger

I read the recent edits to the article on Werner Jaeger (this is one of the articles I worked on a few months ago). An editor named "BillMoyers" added an entire section. Since I am not an expert in philosophy, I cannot judge whether the material is correct or not, but I noticed that there is only one reference, and it is late in the paragraph. Besides the fact that the entire paragraph seemed just a bit obscure (meant to be understood only by other students of philosophy), I felt that, even though it is generally well-written, there was something unclear about it. Do you see where he says "...a position, (a)....or not, (b)....or not, or some combination of these."?

• 1) Wouldn't you agree that just the fact that he's got "(a), (b), or some combination," makes it "positions", not "position"?

• 2) Just after this, he refers to them as "these two positions". I don't see two positions there. I see at least three, and, if one counts "X...., or not, Y....., or not" as four instead of two positions, there are at least four, and possibly five if one counts "or some combination".

I wonder whether we should

• attempt to improve the syntax;
• revert the entire addition as unsourced;
• leave it alone and let someone who is knowledgeable in philosophy review it.

You may recognize the user name of this editor. There is a well-known author, television series director, and speaker named Bill Moyers. Do you know about him? Well, I wondered whether this was the famous Bill Moyers, so I looked at his talk page. I read all the comments, including some regarding his user name. Then I decided that this was definitely not the well-known Bill Moyers and I left a comment on the talk page of the editor who left the last comment on that talk page, "warshy", giving my reasons. As another editor on the "Bill Moyers" talk page was, I am troubled that an editor would use as his user name the name of a well-known person.CorinneSD (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Using a known person's name is not against the rules, but it rings alarm bells. Unreferenced, poorly written, original research, I'll support a reversion. Rothorpe (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I went back to that edit, which is now about three edits back, and clicked on "Undo". There was a message that this edit could not be done because of intermediate edits (one of which was mine, correcting a typo, and one of which was yours). It said the edit had to be done manually, which I believe means blanking the whole section. I don't want to be accused of "section blanking". How do you recommend undoing that edit? Do you want to go ahead and do it?CorinneSD (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Our edits are only to his new bit. It's possible to do it manually and leave a summary rv to revision... Failing that, an 'unreferenced' tag, but that is easily ignored. Rothorpe (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I guess I am not sure what is meant by revert the edit manually. Do I revert each edit in succession, starting with the last, until I get to that one? Or do I just delete the entire section that was added?CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed my mind mid-sentence, very careless. Not manually, a proper revert to the last good one. Rothorpe (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC) (Manually means the second option you mentioned.)

No problem. But I still have to ask, do I start by reverting the most recent edit (with what edit summary?), then revert the second most recent edit, and proceed backwards, or is there a way to get to the edit made by that editor, then revert it (with the edit summary "unreferenced,..") without getting that message?CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Click on the date of the edit you want to replace the article with, then go to edit that. It'll then appear with a message to the effect that it is an old edit and if you save it subseqent edits will be lost. Save it, with an edit summary, rv to revision &c. Then I'll support you by jumping in with a copyedit. OK? Rothorpe (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if you prefer, I can do it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I made the edit.CorinneSD (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

How does a copy edit show support?CorinneSD (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

By enhancing and not reverting the preceding edit. Rothorpe (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh. O.K. Thanks.CorinneSD (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

'Reverted to version by Bill Moyers.' Which one? I've tried three. Rothorpe (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC) - Ah, got it, before his big one, sorry.

(Edit conflict.) I was answering you, but I see you found it. You don't have to go into the revision history in order to add your copy edit, do you?CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I just do it! Rothorpe (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

MusicBlvd.com Links Whitelisted on Wikipedia

Hi Rothorpe,

We would like to advocate for MusicBlvd.com, a competitor to MetroLyrics, both licensed lyrics providers. We are trying to get Wikipedia to verify that MusicBlvd.com is indeed compliant with copyright and and lyric licensing laws.

You can see MusicBlvd's response here - Dear Wikipedia, We Love Musicians More than Lawyers.

This is in response to this Wikipedia thread by other editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Music_Blvd_lyrics_Links

MusicBlvd.com should be added under the "Lyrics and Video" section in the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs

Can you please help us in setting the record straight?

Thanks

Trystanburke (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Synesthesia

What do you think of the latest edits to Synesthesia? It seems like someone was writing from personal experience. Toward the end, the writing deteriorates. I don't know about the spelling change of "synaesthetes" to "synesthetes".CorinneSD (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed it. Rothorpe (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Gnosticism 2

Did you see the latest edit to Gnosticism? I don't know enough to judge whether this addition to the article is appropriate, but I am puzzled about the new section heading, "Sant Mat and gnosticism". I don't see the connection between this heading and what is in the paragraph, and the editor has no talk page.CorinneSD (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I said it was unsourced, but there is a ref. But it still looks like agenda pushing, and it's an IP edit as you say (Internat Protocol number, ie anonymous). Rothorpe (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought that, besides the fact that the connection between the heading and the content of the paragraph was unclear, tying Indian philosophy to the Gospel of Judas and then to gnosticism in such a short space was a bit too ambitious for one paragraph.CorinneSD (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The

Apparently I stand corrected! Cheers. Яehevkor ✉ 16:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and three cheers for you. Rothorpe (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

The latest edit to Indigenous peoples of the Americas changed "lake district" to "Region de los Lagos". Should the phrase stay in the English form, or not?CorinneSD (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've reverted it. Rothorpe (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Werner Jaeger

Perhaps you have noticed that the editor "Bill Moyers" put back into the article on Werner Jaeger the paragraph I undid after our discussion. What, if anything, should I/we do now? Does it deserve a point-by-point list of reasons why I undid it, including why it is poorly written?CorinneSD (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be interesting to see how he responds to a point-by-point, if you're keen to do it. Rothorpe (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No response yet.CorinneSD (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Isatis tinctoria

I just read the article on a plant called woad, or Isatis tinctoria, and, as usual, made a few minor edits. In the first paragraph in the section "Woad and indigo", I added a link, something I rarely do, to "Diet". I knew it had something to do with German government. The link was blue, but it went to a disambiguation page, with a long list. I saw two for German government, state and federal. I figured it was the federal one, but since I'm not completely sure how to correct the link so that it goes to the right article, I thought I'd ask you. If you'll fix the link, I'll learn how to do it.CorinneSD (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, here's the link for you to copy and put in [Sorry, I forgot you asked me to do it]. You reckon the federal one is correct: the link that appears as "The Federal Diet" goes to to Bundestag, if you follow it on the dab (disambiguation) page. So: The Federal Diet should do it. Let me know if you have any problems with that. Boa sorte! Rothorpe (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Obrigada. Is "boa sorte" "Good luck"? Is that literally, "good going" or "good outcome"? Regarding the link, it is usually called just "the Diet", and the German government was mentioned in a previous sentence, so, if possible, I'd like it to appear as just "the Diet". Is "The Federal Diet" necessary? Or can one put a triple link with first "Bundestag", then "The Federal Diet", and finally "Diet", all separated by pipes? If not, at the risk of annoying you, what do you recommend?CorinneSD (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It's 'good luck', literally---I'd link to Wiktionary, but I forget how. And 'Feliz Natal' if you're into that kind of thing. No, you can't do triple links, but you don't need to, 'Diet' can do directly to 'Bundestag'. Rothorpe (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

First I put "Federal Diet" and "Diet", separated by a pipe, and saved it. When I clicked on "Federal Diet", it went to a disambiguation page for "Federal Diet", with three choices. So I changed the link to "Bundestag" and "Diet", separated by a pipe, and saved it. When I clicked on "Bundestag", it went right to the Bundestag article. Thank you for your help.CorinneSD (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done, it works perfectly. Rothorpe (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Polymath

I noticed an edit to Polymath in which an editor not only added a quote but created several links as well. I cannot judge the appropriateness of the quote, but I wonder what you think about those links. They are links at words such as "mathematics" and "astronomy". Are they appropriate or are they examples of over linking?CorinneSD (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, classic examples, so you can remove the links and put 'overlink' as a summary. Rothorpe (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

At first, I couldn't even find them in the article. Then I saw that they were in a link within a reference (bracketed note 2) that is visible when one moves the mouse over the 2. I guess the links are less of a problem since they are in a reference. I also noticed links for other subjects in the first paragraph in the section on Renaissance-something. Maybe due to the subject matter, these links are all right.CorinneSD (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, all right then. Rothorpe (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Fermi paradox

An editor just made several edits to the article on Fermi paradox. Most of them are all right. I'm going to re-phrase the one long re-phrasing, though. I noticed that in about two of the last (most recent) of the edits, the editor changed single quotation marks to double quotation marks. Now, I'm used to the double quotation marks, but I know that the single ones are British style, and I wonder if you want to look at the article overall and see whether the Br. or Amer. style predominates. If the British style predominates, then those quotes would need to be changed back to single quotation marks. Also, the editor changed hyphens to em-dashes, which is an improvement because hyphens are wrong there, but would en-dashes be better? What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not worried by any of these alternatives. I tend to use emdashes, more stylish, and single quotes, no shift key. Hyphens make the least stylish dashes, and they must be spaced as such. Rothorpe (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Now those edits are a few edits back. Could you also look at the second-to-last edit in which the same editor as before deleted a period at the end of a statement that ends with two questions in quotes: "....?" I don't know if that edit is right or not. It's a statement, so shouldn't it end in a period? Or is the presence of a question mark (even though within quotation marks) sufficient? I should know this...CorinneSD (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree about removing the period after the question mark (good), and about ending with the question mark when it isn't a question (bad). The best way to get round that would be to use indirect speech. Rothorpe (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Jewelry wire gauge

If you have time, could you look at the latest edits to Jewelry wire gauge? First, do you think the word "the" is necessary before "wire used in jewelry making" in the first sentence of the article? Second, I thought the word "smaller" is more commonly used before "gauge" than "thinner". What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why no one has put an 'A' at the beginning of the article. Or maybe it should be a 'The'. Perhaps that's why.

I'd support you in reverting the new edits as 'not an improvement'. Rothorpe (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Esotericism

I posted a series of questions about Esotericism on my Talk page, hoping you would see it.CorinneSD (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did, too tired yesterday. Rothorpe (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll have another look at that now. If I don't do anything, it's because I'm too tired today as well! Rothorpe (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Marcus Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus

I was reading the disambiguation page for Marcus Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus and I fixed the punctuation, but I noticed that, twice, the city in Spain, usually spelled Córdoba, is spelled "Corduba". I had never seen it spelled that way. The link goes to the right article, but I wonder why it is spelled "Corduba". Is that perhaps the spelling in Latin works?CorinneSD (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No idea, but you could find out by looking at the Latin article, assuming there is one. Certainly the spelling in English is 'Cordoba', no accent needed. Rothorpe (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Gnosticism 3

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Gnosticism? An editor added to a sentence, but

(a) the date in the added part is not supported in the information that follows the "ref", and

(b) it's got "century" capitalized, and

(c) it's got "A.D." with periods -- I thought "AD" is usually written without periods in WP.

What do you recommend?CorinneSD (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been reverted, rightly. Rothorpe (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally, when an edit is as sloppy and as hideous as that, you can revert it without ceremony, to the general delight of the community. Rothorpe (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hattie

So, not only has Tim riley admitted to being a secret Carry On fan, but I now find out that you too are perilously close to ruining your flawless reputation with a secret knowledge of these fine films. Bravo! Cassianto^Talk 19:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. My Dad took 8-year-old me to the cinema, a rare treat, to see Carry On Sergeant when it arrived in Beckenham, as I was a fan of The Army Game, as also of H-h-hancock's Half-Hour of course, co-starring Sidney James---as "Sid". Rothorpe (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Lucky you. Alas, I am too young to remember them at the cinema which is a shame. I can't even claim to have been born in a "Carry On" year, missing out by two years of Carry On Emmannuelle's release date. It's funny, I have never really been a fan of Hancock and don't really understand the hype around him. I do know that they all turned against him eventually; Sid, Hattie, Kenneth and Mario Fabrizi, which is a name you don't hear that all too often nowadays. Morecambe and Wise are two I could take or leave as well. I was more in the Two Ronnie's camp and consider them to be the greatest double act of all time, controversial I know. -- Cassianto^Talk 05:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I too preferred the 2Rs to M&W: the latter's moments were good but few and far between, while R&R were consistently funny. Mario Fabrizi I edited a little while back. That reminds me that I wanted to create a John(ny) Vyvyan article too, another, even more obscure, picturesque Hancock sidekick: I discussed it with another editor, but there just wasn't enough to go on. Oh well. Hancock's appeal was probably that of the groundbreaker: there just was nothing remotely as good on TV at the time. He survived getting rid of SJ (his fictional mocker) but not Galton and Simpson (his real-life puppetmasters)---the ITV series was terrible, RIP. Rothorpe (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you check this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hattie_Jacques&diff=588351583&oldid=588271026 edit to see if this makes sense or is an improvement in your opinion? -- Cassianto^Talk 10:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's good. Rothorpe (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 02:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Blimey, Robey took it out of you yesterday, I am most grateful for your time. It will be the 60 anniversary of his death this year so I will be keen to make the deadline....oh, It will also be my 33rd birthday, although I may not score points for that on TFA. Cassianto^Talk 21:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Aha, there you are! Yes, I did spend a lot of time, but I'm fortunate to have it, and your article was a pleasure to deal with, interesting, nothing too tricky. Plenty of time till September. Rothorpe (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Columbia Gramophone Catalog

Hello, Columbia EMI's (Columbia Graphophone Company) catalog is currently managed by Parlophone Records, not UMG. I will give some examples that can be validated easily. If you look at some websites like amazon, hmv, or itunes some artists who recorded in the 1960s on EMI Columbia as Pink Floyd, The Shadows, Manfred Mann, Gerry & The Pacemakers, The Animals rights recordings (if you to buy mp3) are registered to Parlophone, not EMI Virgin or UMG, like recordings of classical music that are copyrighted in the name of Parlophone Records (WMG). Thank you.181.130.228.153 (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you've made the change, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

John Frum

I need your help in reviewing a series of edits by Risssa to John Frum. This editor made quite a few copy edits earlier today. I felt that some were all right but most were not. I manually changed some of them back and made a few other edits. Then the editor made a few more edits including adding quite a few links which don't think are necessary. I don't know whether to undo all of the recent edits (after mine) or change them manually. Also, I wonder what you think about changing "arose" to "rose". I thought "arose" was fine. I don't know whether this is an instance of Br/Amer English or not (as in American "around", British "round"). If you want to look at the latest edits, it will take some time to go through them.CorinneSD (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

One of those edit-for-edit's-sake types, by the look of it. I'll start by reverting 'rose' to 'arose' (simply incorrect). After that, I don't know, but I'll be watching and will support any changes back you wish to make. Rothorpe (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Did you see two comments on the Talk page, one about David Attenborough's quote and one about "Frum = broom"? I responded to both just now. I already changed back a few of the first group of edits (did you go back and see all the edits before mine?), and this editor changed one back (he/she had taken out "who was" before "calling himself John Frum" and I had put it back, and he/she took it out again; if I add it again it becomes an edit war, so I'll leave it; I'm all for conciseness, but I add "who is" or "who was" when there are too many -ing's, for clarity). I'm glad you changed "rose" to "arose".CorinneSD (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting complicated, I'll look at it later. Rothorpe (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearer with, I agree, so have put it back. Rothorpe (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Good. I'm glad you agree.CorinneSD (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam

I just saw an edit to Vietnam in which an editor changed the placement of "AD" from after a year (I think it was 938) to before the year, with an edit summary saying that AD goes before the year and BC goes after the year. Maybe that is true for scholarly works, but, throughout my school years we always put AD after the year. That it never goes after the year is new to me. Also, I have noticed in many articles that if the year is AD, the AD is simply not written; just the year is given. Is it important to mention AD when the year is 938?CorinneSD (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's customary in years smaller than 1000, as much to clarify that it is a year as to mark AD or BC. But I think you're right about the positioning of AD, and hse's being pedantic. Rothorpe (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Toraja

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Toraja? The editor made some minor corrections including to two links. However, the two links ended up as "Cockfight pipe cockfight". Is that right, to repeat the word like that, with the first capitalized and the second not? Isn't once enough for the link to work?CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

(Answering your posts in reverse order, not for the first time.) Yes, once is enough, otherwise there would be lots of pipes just capitalising like that all over Wikipedia. Rothorpe (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Laodicea on the Lycus

I have just finished reading the article on Laodicea on the Lycus (in my quest to discover which Laodicea was meant in the article on Marcus Aurelius) and made a few edits. In the third or fourth paragraph in the History section, I added a link at "free city" (free city). After I saved my edits, I saw that the link was blue. I clicked on it and it went to a disambiguation page. I think it refers to the second item in the list, "Free city (antiquity)", but since I'm not certain about the periods of Roman history, I thought I'd check with you to be sure.CorinneSD (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, free city (antiquity) it is. Rothorpe (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!CorinneSD (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Goliard

Happy New Year! I just finished reading the article on Goliard and, as usual, made a few edits. I noticed in the section "Satirical poets" that the word "Goliard" is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. I know it is usually better that most nouns be uncapitalized, but in this case I'm not sure. Do you feel like looking at it and deciding which is better? Feel free to make any necessary edits.CorinneSD (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy 2014 to you too! It doesn't seem to be a proper noun, not as if they were members of a troupe or gang, so I would get rid of the capitals. Rothorpe (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, now I'm having second thoughts. Maybe they were a sort of literary movement. Rothorpe (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Spanish, Catalan and Portuguese don't capitalise, while French, like English, can't decide... Rothorpe (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You might want to see the discussion partly related to this on the Talk page of Carmina Burana.CorinneSD (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, perhaps there'll be more light shed on this. Rothorpe (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Styria

I was reading the article on Styria (linked through "Steiermark" from "Carmina Burana"), and found a sentence that doesn't read quite right; the punctuation needs to be fixed, but I don't know where to put the punctuation. Do you feel like looking at it? It's the second sentence in the "Geography" section.CorinneSD (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've changed a comma to a semicolon. Rothorpe (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

German mediatization

In the second paragraph of the article on German mediatization, I see "secularization", spelled with a "z", and "secularised", spelled with an "s". Is that right? Shouldn't they be spelled the same, both with "z" or both with "s"? I notice that the title is "mediatization", with "z". I don't care either way; I just prefer consistency. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree about consistent spelling. Rothorpe (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The article about mediatization, however, is called Mediatisation. Rothorpe (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Oy...What to do? Change everything in German mediatization to match?CorinneSD (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd do nothing. After all, they're all correct spellings. I'm contradicting myself, I know, but... I was going to ask you, how's life at the guild? Rothorpe (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, if you want to standardise them, that's fine. Rothorpe (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No. I'm going to leave them. Regarding life at the guild, am I right in assuming that this is another of instance of your wry humor? Is it because I've been reading about the Middle Ages? Oh, now I get it. It's because I put "Guild of Copy-Editors". Well, no one has asked me to copy-edit, so I do it anyway. Guilds, banquets where one can throw chicken bones on the floor, mead, the lute, and Greensleeves...makes one miss the Middle Ages.

On another topic, would you mind reading my questions to Jerome Kohl on his Talk page regarding Carmina Burana and Carl Orff? (Kohl is an authority on classical music.) If you have any thoughts, I'd be glad to hear them. – CorinneSD (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you were chatting with JK and had already indulged my curiosity. Neither did I know that 'declaim' could mean 'dislike'. I had you down as a mediaevalist; sorry to hear the Guild hasn't thrown any interesting new challenges your way. Rothorpe (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good. I'm glad you read that exchange. Did you understand why the sentence I quoted confused me? I had understood "declaim" to mean "dislike", not "recite", so the sentence was confusing. I think only someone who knows that opera in Monteverdi's time was largely recitative would immediately know that "declaim" meant "recite". Anyway, I'll leave it the way it is. It's understandable to music people. Regarding the Middle Ages, I am not a mediaevalist, but I have read enough to have gotten a general idea of what life was like then in Europe.CorinneSD (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understood it, though it helps that I was unfamiliar with the other meaning! Rothorpe (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation or not?

I have a quick punctuation question: Should this comma have been removed? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism&diff=589363515&oldid=588321514 Cassianto^Talk 09:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No. It opens a parenthesis. Rothorpe (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Will you be up for a Rothorpe going over of George Robey when I go live with this in the next week or so? I still have a few sections to do so it won't be just yet. Cassianto^Talk 14:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course. I've just done a preliminary copyedit. Rothorpe (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)---ah, that was before I clicked on 'this'.

Thank you, yes I should have made that more clear. Feel free to dip in, or if you'd rather wait, I'd envisage two weeks before I move it to the main space. Cassianto^Talk 18:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've put both versions on my list and will read yours probably tomorrow. Rothorpe (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am most grateful, thank you. Cassianto^Talk 18:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Another fine article, well done. Let me know if you're unhappy with any of my changes: as always, they vary in tentativeness (tentativity?). Rothorpe (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Would you mind taking a look at the latest edit to Sri Lanka? What's wrong with "goes back over 125 thousand years". The replacement doesn't even use the word "years". It uses "B.P." for "Before Present". I prefer real words to "B.P.", don't you?CorinneSD (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a very silly edit. I'll support you in a revert. Rothorpe (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Your list of Most Abused Words

I've been following your edits to your list of Most Abused Words, tweaking the information about "better known as". Do you mind if I make a suggestion? After the second-to-last edit, which I thought was good, I was going to suggest that you add, after "remove 'better'", the following: "and possibly (or perhaps) add 'also': 'also known as'". I think your last attempt (adding "at least" and the explanatory phrase) did not improve things, and that the phrase is confusing. Just a thought. – CorinneSD (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I wasn't satisfied with it either. Thanks for the suggestion, I'm still thinking. Nice to know it's read! Rothorpe (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I just realized why "better known as" is so ridiculous. The way something is most commonly known should come first, as you said. Other "names" should come after that, possibly preceded by "also known as" or "Other names are...".CorinneSD (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, I think I'll leave it as it is. Rothorpe (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Synesthesia

Did you see the tremendous number of edits to Synesthesia yesterday by Jmh649? I reviewed all of them; most seem all right. What do you think? (I haven't yet read the edits that followed his/her edits.) I have a question about the very last edit today. It was made by a robot editor "Anomiebot". What is MEDRS? It is in the edit summary.CorinneSD (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I just looked at all the edits that followed his/her edits. Except for one, other editors seemed by and large to approve of jmh649's edits.CorinneSD (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. One editor calls the article "a mess".CorinneSD (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of changes, so I'll postpone that till tomorrow. I've just noticed for the first time the ridiculous plurals. It's not a count noun, I think they should go. It looks as if someone was just showing off. Rothorpe (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed a discussion regarding all these changes on the Talk page of the article.CorinneSD (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of arguing going on there, I think I'll take a raincheck (it stays on my watchlist). Rothorpe (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks, and great userpage!

Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. Rothorpe (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Carmina Burana

I have noticed a few edits to Carmina Burana since I worked on it a few days ago. The last few, by an editor whose user name starts with "A", are all right, but I wanted to ask you about the one before that by an editor with no Talk page named "Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi", a name I think was made up on the spot because it is the name of a song in Carmina Burana mentioned immediately before the edit.

This editor added a link (and it is a link to a related WP article), but also changed the wording of the sentence in such a way that I think it is not an improvement. The editor changed "settings" to "aspects", and I think "aspects" is not the right word. If it makes sense to keep that link, and if it doesn't make sense to put it back to "settings", then another word needs to be substituted such as "types". What do you recommend here?CorinneSD (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's dreadful; I suggest you revert it. Rothorpe (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I did, with a detailed edit summary. The editor reverted my edit. Read the edit summary.CorinneSD (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I've kept the link, but restored the settings and films. Rothorpe (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent edit. Good compromise.CorinneSD (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh

If you have time, would you mind looking at a comment I posted on the Talk page of Bangladesh and the reply I just received? My comment was about two different things, one, a problem with chronological order in a section of the article and the other about a phrase – a section heading in the article – which I had never heard used in a discussion of history before: "The middle age". The editor responded and gave links to Google book searches. When I clicked on the link to the first Google book search, I noticed that the majority of titles had to do with the middle age in a person's life. Only a few referred to a period in history. To me, the results of the search do not offer much support for this editor's opinion. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Robert Alter

I was reading the short article on Robert Alter and I have two questions, both minor issues:

1) In the section on "Biography", it says he received his "master's...and doctorate degrees...." I thought "doctoral" was the adjective. Can "doctorate" be used as an adjective this way? Does it sound all right to you? Normally, I would think it would be "his master's degree and doctorate at....".

'Doctorate degree' is noun qualifying noun, so awkward, and I agree with your suggestion.

I fixed it; I also fixed the spelling of "master's", above.

2) In the section on "Awards", the last award, from Yale, seems to be a sentence fragment. Shall I just leave it, or change it into a complete sentence? Does it matter?CorinneSD (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a place for incomplete sentences, but not in running prose. Rothorpe (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it -- made a complete sentence. Do you think the word "degree" is necessary after "Doctor of Humanities"?

Yes, I put it in, more complete. Rothorpe (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, is "distortedly" really a word?CorinneSD (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that's a perfectly legitimate way to end a word. Yes, good fixes. Rothorpe (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A. C. Bradley

I was reading the article on A. C. Bradley, then the one on his brother F. H. Bradley, and then skimmed the one about their father, Charles Bradley (preacher). I hope it is all right that I added a line about A. C. Bradley's mother Emma Linton to his article; I got the information from the other two articles. (I thought that if she had eight children she deserved to be mentioned.)

Or 21 children? I don't know, but we're not supposed to use Wikipedia as a source, for obvious reasons. Rothorpe (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I just wondered why there is no biographical box below the picture for A. C. Bradley as there is for his brother F. H. Bradley. If it should be there, do you know how to create it and enter the information?CorinneSD (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, not my scene, but you could always copy the pattern from the markup page and experiment in a sandbox. Rothorpe (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hegel

I just read the first few paragraphs of the article on Hegel. I noticed an inconsistency in the use of single and double quotes (all the quotes had double quotes except for the one from Michel Foucault, so I changed that one to double). I also changed period final quotes (American style) to final quotes period (which I think is WP style). My question is this: on the one quote that ended with an ellipsis (...), I didn't know whether to add a fourth period, which would serve as the ending period (full stop) of the sentence, before or after the final quotes. I decided to add it after the quotes. I want to check with you to be sure I did that correctly (and that the other changes I mentioned are correct).CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I was given Enid Blyton's Noddy books to read as an infant, and they had double quotes, and at primary school we were taught to use double quotes, so I don't know when this idea that they are American crept in. As long as usage within an article is consistent, I wouldn't worry.

I had forgotten that you don't consider single quotes British style. Sorry 'bout that. I just mentioned it because I did make the various pairs of quotation marks consistent; only one pair had been different from the others.

No problem, I'm glad you've fixed that.

To answer your question, I wouldn't add that extra full stop, no.

O.K. Thank you. Regarding that question, the reason I asked was that I had been taught that one uses three dots for an ellipsis within a sentence and four dots if the sentence ends in an ellipsis; the fourth one is the period, or full-stop; and following that style, all four go within the final quotation marks, at least, that is, if the quote is an entire sentence. I have had to get used to putting final quotation marks within the period/full-stop, but I didn't know whether, when one follows that style, a full stop is added to an ellipsis when the ellipsis ends the sentence. If not, it is clearly a difference from what I learned growing up.

Ah, thanks, that explains why I sometimes see.... Like that. Rothorpe (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the link in this box (or at least it and I agreed when I added it to my user page some time ago). Apparently that's British usage, but if it's logical, it's for me! Rothorpe (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"…"!
US vs. UKThis user uses "logical quotation marks". Forcing internal punctuation leads to factual errors. It's not a nationalistic style issue!

.

WP:TPS: yes, surely doubting Thomas Maurice Merleau-Ponty is so elliptical, he deserves a full stop! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Martin, I'm delighted that you jumped in, but unfortunately I do not understand your sentence.CorinneSD (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I share Corinne's puzzlement. Rothorpe (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I only wish I knew... (probably just trying to suggest that, with all his toying with impressionism, old Merleau-Ponty never quite got to the point. Maybe he should have mused on artists whose work was full of 'em. Ah well, you know what they say... "David Hume could out-consume... " Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, one of my favourite songs. You drank therefore you were? Rothorpe (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I do apologise, I should have taken that New Year's pledge, after all. But there's work to do here... these bottles won't just drink themselves, you know! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did you write in such a small font? If your ideas are worth reading, why not write them so that we can read them without a magnifying glass? CorinneSD (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my lapse in etiquette, Rothorpe. I should let you respond since this is your Talk page. Shall I delete this comment?CorinneSD (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Gnosticism

I've been reading the article on Gnosticism in bits and pieces whenever I see an edit that has been made to the article. I just made a few minor edits to the section "Origins", sub-section "Buddhism and Gnosticism", and I have a few questions for you:

1) In the first paragraph in that section, there is a reference to "Mansel" followed by a date (1875) in parentheses. I noticed that after the year there is a comma and then a superscript number. I just wondered if that were correct -- the comma and superscript within the parentheses.

The comma is absurd, and should go.

I removed the comma and fixed the parentheses. I don't think the superscript belonged inside the parentheses.

Yes, it looks good now.

2) Later in that paragraph is the following phrase: "but in the later case is considered quite possible by Elaine Pagels". My question is, is "later" all right? It could also be "in the latter case". It is true that the Nag Hammadi texts were written later than the other material, but I wonder if "case" is the right word. It's not really "a case", it is a collection of texts. To me, "case" does not go well with "later". I would think it would be either "the later text" (or texts, or documents) or "the latter case". What do you think?

Absolutely, latter is natural, later stilted.

Done.

3) In the second paragraph is found the following: "who visited India around 50 AD from where he brought "the doctrine of the Two Principles". What do you think about "from where"? Wouldn't "from which" or "whence" be better? Does anyone use "whence" anymore?

Go on, I dare you!

I guess you're reminding me to be bold.

I thought better of "whence". It didn't work here. I put "...and brought back".

Ah, yes, simple and stylish. Rothorpe (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

4) In the middle of the block quote that follows, there is a colon kind of floating in space, that is, it is preceded and followed by a space. Is that correct, or is it a typo? I thought, since it is from an ancient document, it may have been written that way in the original. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a typo, possibly a francophone, as that language has that strange habit. Rothorpe (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the space before the colon, but now that I look at it, I'm not sure it should even be a colon. A colon is a weird punctuation mark there. It should probably be either a semi-colon or a comma. I don't know what to do now. It's a quote, after all. CorinneSD (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Such a small emendation to a quote is okay, I think. Rothorpe (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd keep the colon: it suits the rather quaint style. Rothorpe (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

O.K.CorinneSD (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Pseudonym

I noticed that an editor made quite a few edits to a small section of the article on Pseudonym. I wonder if this is another case of an editor making edits for edits' sake. I wonder if you would take a look at them. While they do not seem too terrible, I don't see them as an improvement. Also, now there is a glaring grammatical error where there wasn't one before.CorinneSD (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an inexperienced editor, do step in. Rothorpe (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)