User talk:Corinne/Archive 19

Pottatea template update
Hi, Corinne. I note your pottatea template image update. Good work. I think it would be cool if that lovely image could be refactored onto a transparent background. What do you think? See if one of your Wikipals can float one onto the Commons to try out. I played with an online converter but I was not happy with the output. I can ask my sister to do it for you, if you wish. Cheers! 20:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Cropped version




 * Hi, Corinne. Here is a cropped version for you to explore. Pretty cool that this image was a FI on the Commons. You can click on the image to get the file name, if you like it. No hard feelings if it does not fancy you. Cheers!  02:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 *  Thank you for your offer just above. I was kind of busy today so didn't have time to respond earlier, and now I see this new image. I see the file name has "cropped transparent" added, but it doesn't look transparent to me. Besides the changed outline, the image looks the same as the rectangular one. Why do you say, "No hard feelings if it does not fancy you"? Are you making a joke, reversing "if you do not fancy it"? That's quite amazing that there is a way to make a rectangular image into a circular image. I would, in fact, like an image of a flower such as this one without the dark background so it doesn't cover as much text on the talk page as this one does. I picked this flower because it is a springtime flower. – Corinne (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. If you click on the oval image you will see that it is on a rectangular background that has a grid of squares on it. That means the grid part will be transparent so anything behind will show through. Since talk pages are a white background I did not think we could go transparent all the way to the petals of the white flowers and then have white flowers on a white background. Also, such a crop is very technical for an image like this, although not impossible, so for effieciency and function I felt the oval crop on darker backround was the best option. The image is still rectangular, but the rectangle part outside of the oval is transparent. Got it? Yes, I made a funny. Cheers!  04:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh. Interesting. How did you crop the image? I assume that you somehow selected certain grid squares to make them transparent, but how? Could I take any image on WP and crop it the way I want to? – Corinne (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. In this case I asked my sister to do it because she is a pro and has all the tools. But, I was going to have her make all but the flower transparent until I realized that would create a white flower on a white background (unless you change the background color of your talk page, which is very easy to do).


 * The grid squares are automatic when you convert the image to have a transparent background, after you crop it. The grid squares indicate the transparent portion of the image, and the level of transparency (in this case 100%). When you post the image the grid squares are transparent.


 * I have never cropped an image in an oval. If you want to do rectangular crops of images on the Commons you can enable the crop tool in your Preferences on the Commons and then you will have a crop link on the left side of your screen when you are viewing an image on the Commons. The tool is very easy. There are some choices.


 * If you want to pull an image off the Commons to your computer, work on it, then re-upload it, then you have to attribute the original poster of the image, or such. You also have to specify which license you are posting the image under.


 * In a nutshell, yes, you can take any image from the Commons and crop it or alter it the way you want to. You can colorize it, add captions, make a montage, whatever. As long as you attribute the creator of the image. For very old images, and in special cases, the images are in the public domain and you just need to state that fact when you do the upload. Cheers!  20:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 *  Thank you. I'd be interested to see what the flower looks like if all the background were made transparent. The flower isn't completely white, and it might look nice seeing just the slight bit of color and gray shades that are there. I don't know if I have the patience to crop or alter an image from Commons, etc. Maybe one day when I have nothing to do I'll try it. – Corinne (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. Doing a rectangular crop with the crop tool on the Commons takes a few seconds. The only big decision is if you want to overwrite the image with your cropped version, or if you want to have it saved as a new version. Either way, the overwritten version is still on the server.


 * The Commons cropper just crops. It will not convert the background to transparent. You would need to download the image and do that on your computer with software or with an online tool. For a flower, you'd probably have to do a rough crop then erase each pixel, pixel by pixel that is near the flower. There may be a way to do an inverse selection and crop, but I don't know. Once you had the borders of the flower fully cropped, then you would convert the background to be transparent. With line drawings it is easy for a background converter to detect the image and make the rest transparent. No so much for a flower, butterfly, person, etc. Cheers!  05:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Michael Laucke comma
Hi, Corinne. I liked the comma, but it has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Laucke&diff=next&oldid=714399352 removed] several times by an editor who does not appear to be a vandal in any way shape or form. Your take? You probably re-added it most recently?

By the way, there is a double RfC on whether names including Sr. and Jr. should have a comma before and/or after the Sr. and Jr.

All my life I assumed commas were the only way to go, but I have now waffled. Cheers! 20:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Checkingfax These subtle refinements do not go unnoticed . Thanks for attending to this. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 *  That comma definitely does not belong there, and the editor was right to remove it. I don't recall adding a comma there. If I did, it was an error, and I'm sorry I missed it when I was copy-editing. No comma is needed there because the date is within parentheses, so it should be treated as if the parenthetical material were not there, and no comma is necessary after "Michael Laucke" and before the verb. Did you see an edit in which I added a comma there? If you did, could you point it out to me? – Corinne (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. I looked at 500 edit summaries and did not find one that mentioned removing the comma, other than the most recent one, but I do recall in recent articles seeing an editor who was making that as their sole edit. This editor does a lot of editing and has the chops to copy edit an article. We should be grateful that the comma was the only flaw s/he sound. LOL. Cheers!  05:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. Can you please review this discussion? Cheers!  00:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Spelling out fractions
Hi, Corinne. I know you had a fraction question but I cannot find it. Does this help: MOS:FRAC? Cheers! 18:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies.
Dear Corinne; In his recent message at 10:19 pm, today, our colleague Checkingfax mentioned you in the sentence: "Corinne, if she will be so kind, will do any fine tuning to fill in any divots." Since I am not familiar with the GA review process, I don't understand precisely what this means, but it certainly implies that my lateness in applying final contributions to the ML article will be causing you to have to update some formal records, perhaps related to the GA review process itself. In that case, I apologise most sincerely for causing you additional work, especially at a time when you thought this GA review was now behind you and that you could therefore move on and make progress with your other projects. Please know that I am very sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused you, Corinne. With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 22:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC) [cc:, , and ] P.S.: has now elucidated the mystery of 'divots' for me&mdash;a non-golf player, obviously... &mdash;at 11:50 pm, yesterday; so, please ignore the above section, Corinne. Better still, please transmute my earlier apologies to the new purpose of seeking your forgiveness for polluting your alerts/messages indicators yesterday, repeatedly... . With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 23:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC) [cc:, , and ]


 *  I just read your messages, above, this evening after returning from a four-day trip during which I did not log on to WP. I'm glad Checkingfax explained his comment to you. I knew what "divots" were, but only just barely since I'm not a golfer, either, but I knew what he meant. Thank you for your apologies, but don't worry about anything, Pdebee. I'm happy to see you involved and busily editing. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Michael Laucke
Hi, Corinne. Thank you so much for your great edits and suggestions during the Michael Laucke Good Article review process. Please keep them coming. We are making great progress, but I desperately need your help to smooth things out. In spite of the GAR, I want the article to be the best that it can be, even for unraised issues. Get out your weed whacker. Natalie put out the word for a barn raising and you were the only one to helpfully respond. Keep up the good work. Cheers! 20:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Laucke
(I am going to refactor these so they look closer to an actual DYK hook)  09:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. User:Checkingfax and others have suggested submitting a DYK proposal now that the Laucke article is eligible. One of the rules is that the submission must be made within seven days of a GA status achievement, so we have until April 15th.

It would be great to have your thoughts on the sentence structure, flow, syntax, and so on. But if you are busy, I of course fully understand and we can submit it as is, as the reviewers are apparently skilled and advanced, and are among the upper echelon of wiki-world. So here are the 'hooks', as required, which I came up with after getting a feel for what DYK is about; DYK values the unusual it would seem. Each quote is well under 200 characters, as required. I didn’t know the correct format for the photo, nor how Checkingfax or I will go about submitting it, so I just included the info and link. I understand that, generally, several close alternative versions are submitted to the reviewers, which you will notice:



DID YOU KNOW:


 * ... that concert classical guitarist Michael Laucke (pictured), nicknamed "Young Mike", was also the North American snooker champion at the age of 17?
 * ... that Michael Laucke (pictured) winnings as a professional snooker player allowed him to finance 110 trips from Montreal to New York City to study with Rolando Valdes-Blain and become an international concert classical guitarist?




 * ... that concert classical guitarist Michael Laucke (pictured) was the Montreal champion at age 11 in a city-wide yo-yo competition and went on to become North American snooker champion at 17?

Photo: (needs to be licensed and uploaded to the Commons. Note: might not scale down per DYK image guidelines) Caption: Michael Laucke, age nine, with his yacht
 * ... that concert classical guitarist Michael Laucke (pictured) was also the Montreal champion in a city-wide yo-yo competition among 2,000 contestants, winning a CA$60 bicycle?
 * ... that concert classical guitarist Michael Laucke (pictured) first appeared in newspapers for designing and building a boat from 2,000 toothpicks at the age of nine?
 * ... that, in the early 1970s, guitarists Michael Laucke (pictured) and Paco de Lucia performed privately together for New York's jet set which included Andy Warhol, Calvin Klein and countess Elsa Peretti?




 * ... that while Michael Laucke gave concerts under the auspices of Senator Claiborne Pell, Pell's assistant Ray Nelson (pictured), Laucke's assigned agent, was assassinated in a still unsolved case?

Many thanks. Kindest regards, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Checkingfax. Both of the photos in question (above), and shown below, are fully secured with a proper license attached as Public Domain Dedication (CC0); ALL RIGHTS WAIVED! But they are both on Flickr. Do they have to be hosted on Commons for DYK eligibility?
 * Michael Laucke; First newspaper interview; 9-years-old


 * Senator Pells' right hand man, Ray Nelson, who discovered Laucke in New York.
 * very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . The Nelson photo need to be on the Commons so it can be linked from Wikipedia. It would need to be cropped so it only shows Nelson, as that overall picture will not scale down to the 100 pixels that DYK allows. I already have a Flickr link of it above.


 * I do not sense the picture of Laucke as a 9-year old child in the tattered and yellowed newspaper would be acceptable to the reviewers at DYK, plus it too would need to be uploaded to the Commons.


 * Every part of the hook must be gleaned in substance (does not have to be word for word) from the article, and each fact in the hook has to be verifiable with an inline citation. Cheers!  10:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Natalie.Desautels and Checkingfax, that I did not see these comments about the DYK until now. I was traveling from Sunday until earlier this evening. I'll leave this discussion up to you. Checkingfax, I wanted to ask you about the edit summary that appears in the Revision History for  of mine just a little while ago. It says: "Tag - visual edit". What is that? Earlier, when I first opened an edit window, it gave me the option of choosing something like "always open source editing", "always open visual editor/editing", and "show both". Since I chose "always open source editing" (because I don't like Visual Editor and don't use it), I thought my edit summaries would look the same as before. What's going on? I don't want that tag to appear on every one of my edits. – Corinne (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Corinne, We received a message saying that Wikipedia is implementing a new editor but that we can opt out and simply continue to use the old one. The new one is more user-friendly in that it allows one to easily switch from Visual to source editing with a point and click interface. I have used both methods since the new version came out but have not experienced the "Tag - visual edit" insertion you mentioned. Perhaps, or rather, most certainly, Checkingfax will help us 'clarify and refine our inner vision until we see nothing but pure, radiant light.' Natalie.Desautels (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Corinne. I have submitted a DYK Nomination for Laucke so that process is started.


 * I did not look at your edit, but I did see this appended edit summary: (Tag: Visual edit: Switched). That is automatic. Probably a one-time deal for WMF to track the fact that you switched to the edit-source mode only. When editing, I believe there is a big pencil icon if you want to toggle VisualEditor back on. (pinging for clarification on that.) Welcome back! We missed you. PS: they throw in those automatic edit summaries for mobile edits, suspected vandalism, etc. too. cc to . Cheers!   04:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Invitation: Poll on adding two navboxes to a recent GA article
Hi Corinne. ...tis I again. May I once again prevail upon your good nature and extend an invitation for you to visit a poll and vote here. Of course please feel free to ignore my request if time is too short (and I'll just go away ). This vote is for a small issue—the insertion of two navboxes into Michael Laucke. User:Checkingfaxand I thought it would be good policy to go through the democratic process of putting this issue to a vote.

Thanks you so much in advance for your kind consideration and for your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. With utmost respect and kind regards, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

How to Write Numbers: spelling out numbers vs. using numerals
Hi Corinne, User:Checkingfax suggested more consistency in the use of writing numbers in the Laucke article and I agree. I've read a few articles such as How to Write Numbers and Rules for Writing Numbers and it seems there can be quite a difference in the interpretation of the rules, at times unclear and ambiguous unlike, say, ...Wikipedia's policies (specifically on the subject of navboxes). Seriousness aside, some sources suggest numerals from 1 to 9, others suggest numerals from 1 to 99, and there are other 'please yourself' notions as well

If you would be so kind as to make a few suggestions, I'll be able to pick up the baton from there. I've indicated below the havoc I might wreak if left to my own devices.


 * ...when the two shared a loft in New York City in the early 1970s (seventies?)
 * ...With his more than 100 transcriptions of classical and flamenco music, (one hundred?)
 * ... he began performing in 1965, recording the first of 16 albums in 1969, and has toured in 25 countries. (sixteen albums in 1969, and has toured in twenty-five countries?)
 * ... After they separated when Michael was six months old, he was raised and nurtured by his grandmother, who died at the age of 100 (one hundred?)
 * ...building a boat from 2,000 toothpicks (two thousand?)
 * ...a city-wide yo-yo competition among 2,000 contestants, winning a C$60 bicycle (two thousand?)
 * ...The recording uses 24 tracks, (twenty-four?)
 * ...The 24 tracks employ: 5 guitars (flamenco, Spanish, classical and electric guitars), a rhythm section consisting of bongos, 4 congas and a rock drum set blended with other percussion instruments such as claves, maracas and castanets, 3 dancers performing typical “palmas” (hand-clapping) in synchronization, 3 trumpets, 3 pianos and a “country-style” violinist. (I might suggest twenty-four tracks, and then go with the numerals 5 guitars, 4 congas... and so on)
 * ...SOCAN lists 112 classical works (leave as is because it would be too long to spell out one hundred and twelve ?)
 * ...Laucke has had 25 original, Canadian atonal works written for him, (twenty-five?)
 * ...After 50 years of concert performances (after fifty years? ...dont know why I like '50' better)

Many thanks once again for your precious help. Kindest regards, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * . Hi, . The Wikipedia house style (MoS) suggests spelling out 1–9, unless there are table, infobox, or nabox space constraints. So, I would only suggest changing the single digits to being spelled out (e.g.- 5 → five). MoS is a WP guideline to standardize things, but it is not a WP policy, or local, state, federal, or international law. Cheers!  19:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 Well, I'm always partial to words, but I agree with Checkingfax that generally only numbers 1–9 are spelled out, but in this article I think only the single digit numbers 1–5 need to be spelled out, but it's not good to mix "1, 2, 3, 4, and 5" with "six, seven, eight, nine, ten" in the same list or section. So, for the ones you listed above, I would leave them all as they are with the exception of the one that starts "The 24 tracks employ". I would leave "24", but change the others. I also don't think the colon is needed there. Would you agree, Checkingfax?

Since I saw two items in your list, above, that contain "24 tracks", I decided to take a look at that section again. I'm going to copy three sentences here:


 * On 12 September 2001, Laucke released a CD called Flamenco Road; it consists mainly of his own compositions in the new flamenco style, which he also arranged. The recording uses 24 tracks, arguably the only recording in this style to employ such elaborate instrumentation. The recording took place in five different studios in Montreal, each chosen for its particular acoustics. The 24 tracks employ: 5 guitars...

I'd like to point out two different things:

1) You have "the recording" twice. I believe that in the first instance, the phrase is just a synonym for "the CD". If it is not, and you really mean "the recording process", or "the process of recording the CD", then "uses" should be in past tense: "The recording used 24 tracks", or even "The recording required the use of 24 tracks". It is clear that the second instance of "the recording" means "the process of recording the CD", so that's not a problem. However, it is a problem (conceptually) if you mean something different by the first use of "the recording" and the second use, and if you do mean something different, I recommend not using the same phrase.

2) There really should be a way to avoid using "24 tracks" twice. I'm thinking that if you re-arrange the sentences so that the two sentences about the tracks are next to each other, or even joined into one sentence, you can do that. How about something like this? --


 * On 12 September 2001, Laucke released a CD called Flamenco Road; it consists mainly of his own compositions in the new flamenco style, which he also arranged. Recorded at five different studios in Montreal, each chosen for its unique acoustics, the CD required the use of 24 tracks, arguably the only recording in this style to employ such elaborate instrumentation. The tracks employ five guitars, (etc.).


 * (You'll notice that I changed "its particular acoustics" to "its unique acoustics" for one reason. The sentence is quite long as it is, so I looked for anything I could find to shorten that participial phrase that interrupts the flow of the sentence, "each chosen for...acoustics", and "unique" is a shorter word than "particular" and I believe is close enough in meaning to be a synonym.)


 * – Corinne (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Upon one further reading, I would change the semi-colon plus "it consists mainly of" in the first sentence to a comma and "consisting mainly of". I would also remove the comma after the year:


 * On 12 September 2001 Laucke released a CD called Flamenco Road, consisting mainly of his own compositions in the new flamenco style, which he also arranged.


 * – Corinne (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ' My many thanks and heartfelt appreciation for your suggested refinements mentioned above. In striving to be neutral, I see that I sometimes assumed a 'reporters' role of dryly stating the facts, achieving the required neutrality but sacrificing some interest, readability and flow along the way. I am constantly learning from your suggestions and truly appreciate how you restructured the above sentence and I have now taken the pleasure to implement all your wonderful changes. ' Regarding the numerals, thank you once again for your advice, with which I concur of course, now duly implemented as well. Very kindest regards, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 *  ...just wanted to also send my appreciation for the stunning Mirabelle plum blossom, which helped you position (see, I'm a  too ); it's superbly beautiful! Natalie.Desautels (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Baldus de Ubaldis
 I was looking at the latest edit to Baldus de Ubaldis, and I saw em-dashes in date ranges, so I changed the em-dashes to en-dashes using the "ndash" template. Then I looked at the en-dashes, and it looks like there is slightly too much space between the en-dash and the subsequent "1", so I tried changing the "ndash" template to just a regular en-dash (from the bottom of the edit window), and it looked the same. Then I tried the "no-space-en-dash-no-space" template –, and it looked the same. Then I remembered kerning, and I remembered reading something about kerning on WP, so I looked for something. The only thing I found was how to add a tiny space in Help:Advanced text formatting (which is an interesting article if you haven't seen it). So I looked at the actual WP article on Kerning. That article is a bit overwhelming. Can you see if there is anything one can use to remove, or slightly reduce, spacing between an en-dash and a following "1" (which is what kerning usually does)? – Corinne (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. I did not read the other articles yet, but the "1" does have different kerning. You can see it when you put double quote marks around it. You can see, for instance, the left side of a "2" has different kerning than a "1" does.


 * My Dad used to stick letters up for people and he was careful to kern them vs. tracking them. Kerning takes up less horizontal space too for the overall line of text. I think the IBM Selectric typewriter uses kerning whereas standard typewriters use tracking. This made it hard to line up right margins for certain tasks.


 * I wonder who our resident typographer is? Here is one you could ask: . Cheers!  11:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927
I'd like to hear opinions on the necessity of adding a comma after "In + year", or "In + month + year", at the beginning of sentences. I see it added often in WP articles. Regarding the former, I feel strongly that a comma is not needed at all, unless the following phrase is parenthetical and between a pair of commas. Regarding the latter, I think a comma is usually not needed. I agree with the addition of a comma by Coemgenus in all the places s/he added them except in particular situations. I copy-edited this article several months ago, and I omitted the commas after "In + year" and probably also "In + month + year", but a lot of editing has taken place since then.

The reason why I think a comma is not needed is that in speech, native speakers normally do not pause after the year. Also, the comma is not needed to ensure clarity (unless it is the first in a pair around a parenthetical phrase). So, why add punctuation to slow down the reader? The comma should be used judiciously as a means of avoiding confusion and ambiguity and to make the sentence structure clear to the reader. I think it is really old-fashioned – 19th century style – to use commas where they are not needed. Is there a guideline on MoS stipulating that a comma be added? Is this a British English/American English style difference? I cannot comprehend the constant adding of unnecessary commas.

Pinging, , , , ,. – Corinne (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Offhand, I think it's probably a British usage, as I'm not normally aware of whether there's a comma in that position ot not, and I spend a lot of time on other commas. Rothorpe (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought it was standard here, which is why I added them. I know I've been dinged for it in FA nominations I've made, and I learned from that. But if I'm wrong, by all means revert. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm giving out bad information. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a judgement call, like a lot of grammar and usage. This page explains it well. The most important thing is to be consistent within an article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Million Award for Planned Parenthood, Million Award Hall of Fame, and DYK 5000+ for April, 2016
Wow, Checkingfax! Thank you so much. What an honor! – Corinne (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. Check out Million Award and Did you know/Statistics too. Cheers!   04:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Termite
 I was just looking at your copy-edits to Termite. I wonder if you would mind discussing  edit. While I agree that the way it was before your edit:


 * The knowledge of the relationships between the microbial and termite parts of their digestion is still rudimentary;

was cumbersome, the way it is now:


 * The relationships between the termite digestive tract and the microbial endosymbionts is still rudimentary;

(a) has a plural subject ("relationships") with a singular verb ("is"), and

(b) I believe that what is still rudimentary is not relationships but rather scientists' understanding of the relationships. The word "knowledge", which was in the sentence before your edit, is close to the word "understanding". However, I am not advocating going back to the way it was. I'm trying to figure out a way to include the word "understanding" without making the sentence cumbersome. I thought of:


 * Our understanding of the relationship [singular] between X and Y is still rudimentary;


 * Scientists' understanding of the relationship between X and Y is still rudimentary.

Any thoughts or ideas? – Corinne (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

2) I was looking at the edit previous to this one, in which you changed "the" to "these" before "worker termites"; that was an improvement, but I wondered if perhaps the sentence as a whole could be improved. Here is the sentence as it is now, with the sentence that precedes it:


 * In the social Hymenoptera, the workers are exclusively female: males (drones) are haploid and develop from unfertilised eggs, while females (both workers and the queen) are diploid and develop from fertilised eggs. In contrast, while most individuals in a termite colony are infertile workers, these worker termites are diploid individuals of both sexes and develop from fertilised eggs.

I think, regarding the second sentence:

(a) It would be good to avoid having to repeat "worker", and

(b) I'm not sure the "while" clause conveys the right meaning. It seems to place too much emphasis on a fact that has little to do with what is being contrasted, and comes between the information Burkemore1 is trying to contrast.

(c) A third consideration is avoiding the use of "while" twice.

How about this? --

In contrast, worker termites, which constitute the majority in a colony, are diploid individuals of both sexes and develop from fertilised eggs.

This minimizes the fact about worker termites being the majority of individuals in a termite colony and places the focus on the contrasting information. – Corinne (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Your other edits are excellent. – Corinne (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not sure what I was thinking with that first edit. I think I started rewriting the sentence, got distracted, and never completed the rewrite. "Scientists' understanding of the relationship between X and Y is still rudimentary." sounds fine to me, as being slightly more impersonal. I'm also fine with your change for the second sentence. In general, feel free to tweak any language I might have changed, but thanks for bringing this up. I am curious, though, why did you post on your own talk page? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 *  Well, I wasn't sure how you would feel if I just went ahead and re-wrote the sentences you had just worked on, and I posted here rather than on the article's talk page or your talk page to avoid embarrassing you. Some editors do not like any criticism of their writing. – Corinne (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fair. I've had my writing put through the wringer far too often to be too particular, but I appreciate the sensitivity, nonetheless (and I know what you mean about people reacting to criticism!). I see you went ahead and made the changes; thank you. I've seen you around a good bit, so it's good to make your acquaintance at last. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 *  Many thanks for your cordial message. I feel sure, though, that we have exchanged comments in the past, but I do not remember where. It's nice to be re-acquainted, though. – Corinne (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. We could really use your participation at WP:TAFINOM. We select articles that need improvement. We nominate articles, and I think they are approved if they get three "Support" votes. With low participation, good nominations just languish and don't get the necessary votes in time. You are also welcome to nominate articles you come across. It's really easy to nominate. – Corinne (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/May 2, 2016
 I really struggled with this one. My first, easy edits to streamline sentences brought the character count down to 1140 – too low, so I selected another piece of information from the article to add. That brought it up to the high 1200s, so I began to cut again, bit by bit, sorry to have to change things like "A grey bird,..." to "It is grey". Sigh... Maybe it should go back to my initial streamlined version before I added the extra information (about "coteries") from the article. I'll leave this up to your more experienced judgment. Any suggestions to make this easier (for me) next time are welcome. – Corinne (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Anything between 1100 and 1150 is no problem at all ... I'll start by reconstructing your 1140-char version, and have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually ... what you did looks really good, I'm just tweaking it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Olivia de Havilland 2
 I've decided to start a new section just to make it easier to access.

14) In the third paragraph in the section Olivia de Havilland is the following sentence:


 * In July 1935 Warner Bros. made a decision that would have a profound impact on de Havilland's career, pairing her with an unknown Tasmanian actor named Errol Flynn in the swashbuckler film Captain Blood (1935).

I wonder if a different sort of punctuation should be used after "would have a profound impact on deHavilland's career". Instead of a comma, perhaps either a colon or an em-dash would set the second half of the sentence off better.


 * colon: In July 1935 Warner Bros. made a decision that would have a profound impact on de Havilland's career: pairing her with an unknown Tasmanian actor named Errol Flynn in the swashbuckler film Captain Blood (1935).

or:


 * em-dash: In July 1935 Warner Bros. made a decision that would have a profound impact on de Havilland's career—‌pairing her with an unknown Tasmanian actor named Errol Flynn in the swashbuckler film Captain Blood (1935).
 * Yes, I think the em-dash works best. Bede735 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

– Corinne (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

15) In the middle of the third paragraph in Olivia de Havilland are the following two sentences:


 * The on-screen chemistry between de Havilland and Flynn was evident from their first scenes together, where clashes between her character's spirited hauteur and his character's playful braggadocio cannot mask their mutual attraction to each other. That on-screen attraction reflected their actual feelings at the time.

I think the second verb in the first sentence needs to be in past tense to be consistent with the tenses used just before and after it. I was at first just going to change "cannot" to "could not":


 * The on-screen chemistry between de Havilland and Flynn was evident from their first scenes together, where clashes between her character's spirited hauteur and his character's playful braggadocio could not mask their mutual attraction to each other. That on-screen attraction reflected their actual feelings at the time.

However, then I thought (a) "could not" is visually long (a subtle consideration) and (b) conveys negative possibility (as does "cannot"), whereas I think something slightly different might be needed here. So then I thought about:


 * where clashes between her character's spirited hauteur and his character's playful braggadocio did not mask their mutual attraction to each other (which I think conveys the right meaning), or, possibly:


 * where clashes between her character's spirited hauteur and his character's playful braggadocio failed to mask their mutual attraction to each other.

So, which do you prefer?


 * could not mask
 * did not mask
 * failed to mask
 * The two sentences are perhaps overly complex in that I am writing about the chemistry between actors as well as their characters, which requires both tenses—past tense when describing the actors, and present tense when describing the characters ((per WP:FILMLEAD). I changed the second verb to past tense, using "failed to mask". Bede735 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 I keep reading this sentence over and over. I've changed my mind on this. I think "failed to mask" is too negative, and "could not mask" conveys the right meaning. Another possibility – and this would bring it back to present tense, reflecting a discussion about the film/characters, which, as you said, should be in present tense – is "do not mask". It's simple, direct, short, and clear. What do you think? – Corinne (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Or: "are unable to mask". – Corinne (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Upon further thought, it has to be in past tense, not just for consistency's sake. These sentences are not a modern critique of the movie; they are describing the experience of movie-goers at that time. So: "did not mask" or "were unable to mask" are best. – Corinne (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed the second verb to "did not mask" per your suggestion. It's a tough little sentence to get right. Bede735 (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, what do you think about adding the phrase, "It was later revealed that" before "That on-screen attraction reflected their actual feelings at the time."? --


 * It was later revealed that this on-screen attraction reflected their actual feelings at the time.
 * I think this is conveyed in the following sentence: "She would later admit ..." Bede735 (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

– Corinne (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. I guess I'm finished reading the article now. Would it be all right with you if I added the Guild of Copy Editors notice (about a completed copy-edit, with date) to the talk page? – Corinne (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for your excellent work and helpful suggestions. I appreciate the time you put into this. Your copyedit has definitely improved the article. Please feel free to post the Guild of Copy Editors notice on the talk page. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

– Corinne (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

16) In the second paragraph in Olivia de Havilland is the following sentence:


 * In Alibi Ike she plays Dolly Stevens, the beautiful girlfriend of a baseball player with a penchant for making excuses for his average play; in The Irish in Us, she plays a police captain's daughter who is wooed by a boxing manager turned boxer.

Regarding the last part of the first clause, "with a penchant for making excuses for his average play", shouldn't "his average play" be "his average playing"? If not, then this use of "play" is new to me. – Corinne (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In this context, "play" is used to mean "performance" in a baseball game (see Merriam-Webster, 1c), but I can see there is a hint of jargon in that usage. I changed it to "playing". Bede735 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

17) In the second paragraph in Olivia de Havilland, you have the word "dizzy" three times:

*In Michael Curtiz's romantic comedy Four's a Crowd (1938) with Errol Flynn, de Havilland plays Lorri Dillingwell, a dizzy rich girl being romanced by a conniving PR man looking to land an account with her eccentric father, one of the wealthiest and most hated men in the country. In Ray Enright's romantic comedy Hard to Get (1938) with Dick Powell, deHavilland plays another dizzy, spoiled rich girl, Margaret Richards, whose selfish desire to exact revenge on a gas station attendant leads to her own comeuppance. While deHavilland was capable of playing these dizzy characters in light comedies, her personality was better suited to stronger and more dramatic roles, and tended to betray "an intelligence too obviously superior to her material", according to Kass.

I realize that this may be a certain stock character type in films, but, even so, it would be better style to use a different word for at least one of them. Also, I think the word is a bit dated, which is all right if one is familiar with the way it is used. I believe it was used in the 1930s, 1940s and perhaps 1950s to describe a woman who was (a) not particularly bright, and (b) somewhat flighty or scatterbrained, both of which are stereotypical and somewhat sexist today. People familiar with the use of the word, probably mostly from movies from the 1930s and 1940s, will understand what is meant, but readers from other cultures may not know this common meaning. If the word is not linked to an article that would explain it, then perhaps it needs to be linked to an on-line dictionary definition such as dizzy. Perhaps just remove the third instance of "dizzy":


 * While deHavilland was capable of playing these dizzy characters in light comedies, her personality was better suited to stronger and more dramatic roles...

or:


 * While deHavilland was capable of playing these types of characters in light comedies, her personality was better suited to stronger and more dramatic roles...

How about the addition of "certainly" before "capable", and "such characters"?


 * While deHavilland was certainly capable of playing such characters in light comedies, her personality was better suited to stronger and more dramatic roles...

Do you really need "in light comedies'? What's wrong with just "such characters" (or "these types/kinds of characters")?


 * While deHavilland was certainly capable of playing these kinds of characters, her personality was better suited to stronger and more dramatic roles...  – Corinne (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see how the term requires some context. I added the link and made your other changes—"certainly capable of playing these kinds of characters" works well. The word "dizzy" is used in the sources, and in this context refers to a character type popularized in the 1930s and 1940s in screwball comedies. Typically the "dizzy" character was a young woman from a wealthy family who is flighty, scatterbrained, and has a tendency to act impulsively. Carol Lombard defined this character type in the early thirties in films such as My Man Godfrey. Jim Harvey's Romantic Comedy In Hollywood: From Lubitsch to Sturges covers this character type, and has a nice section on Lombard's comedy skills (pp. 201-220). Claudette Colbert, Katherine Hepburn, and Myrna Loy were also very effective in this type of role in some of their early films. Bede735 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2016)

 * Hi, Corinne. À la carte is an example of an article that uses a header navbox. Cheers!  03:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding alt img text to the images that are lacking it
Hi, Corinne. I would encourage you to take a look at this important IEG proposal. If you like it, please add your support and rationale. Cheers! 23:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 *  Thank you for telling me about this. I would be glad to help write alt image text. Why did my user name appear in red there? Also (just curious), why is it necessary to apply for a money grant for this? – Corinne (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. Your name is red there because you signed your name pointing to the Wikimedia site and you do not have a user page on that site yet. I created a "soft redirect" on all such pages so my username is blue, and so people can find my "home site". The system does not allow automatic redirects as those could be a spamming issue. Your signature points to the Wikimedia project you are on, unless you preface it with the project abbreviation (wikt for Wiktionary, en for English Wikipedia, etc.)


 * I will write a soft-redirect you can paste onto your user page (and a slightly different one for each talk page). It is less important now that we have interwiki notifications. Before, if somebody posted on your 16 other project talk pages you would never know unless you looked. You actually have over 288 possible user and talk pages. Some with R/L text.


 * WMF has grant money available and people apply for it if they are going to spend a lot of time developing a project. User Dispenser has created many tools gratis, but s/he is asking for a nominal amount of money to work on this one for the next year. For instance, The Wikipedia Library was started on an IEG, which was extended by a year, and now it is a full-fledged staffed component of many Wikipedias. The Wikipedia Adventure is another Wikipedia tool that was launched with IEG funds. The max IEG grant is $30K. Cheers!  18:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Add these to any other WMF page such as:

Wikimedia user page:

This is a soft redirect to: Corinne's home Wiki

Wikimedia talk page:

This is a soft redirect to: Corinne's home Wiki This will make your red name blue on Meta, and folks can find your home Wiki. Cheers! 18:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 Thank you! I put the first one, but I don't know if I need to put the second one. There was already a welcome message there, and my user name was blue, when I clicked on the link. What is "hu-wiki"? What is "R/L text"? – Corinne (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. I saw two comments on the nominate for a T-shirt page that I hadn't seen before. I think both were from N.D., one about my nomination and one nominating you. I think I added a comment in support of your nomination. – Corinne (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. R/L text is text that writes from right to left. Also, their pages have our left-hand links on their right-hand side of page. Like fa.wikipedia (Farsi). Hmm. hu-wiki? Where do you see that? Maybe Hungarian Wiki? As for adding the second one, you could put it above the welcome message, and then folks could find your home Wiki, or you could blank the welcome and add it. It is your call. Cheers!  04:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Why did you redirect Corinne's talk page on Meta from meta:User talk:Corinne to meta:User talk:Corinne~huwiki? The history says you changed her username too. Cheers!  05:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It was done during the requested usurp: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=13157042#CorinneSD.40global –xenotalk 10:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ' and ' Thank you for whatever work you have been doing regarding this. I believe I am supposed to post the second redirect link provided by Checkingfax above to the hu-wiki page, but I don't know where that is. Can someone provide a link to it so I know where to put that redirect? Thank you. – Corinne (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The "~huwiki" user is someone else. You want to post yours to meta:User talk:Corinne. –xenotalk 17:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. As Xeno says, your page is the Corinne one so that is the one you want to edit. Corinne~huwiki is the actual user name of the other user now. You usurped her old name and now Corinne~huwiki is her actual using name (including the tilde). So, use the link I gave which will take you right to the edit screen for your Corinne talk page or Meta, or you can use the link Xeno gave you and then edit the talk page from there. Your username on all 900 Wiki projects is now Corinne. A lot of folks had to give up their preferred names to end up with one that was unique across all 900 projects. You accomplished that by usurping the Hungarian use. Cheers!  19:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 *  I just want to be sure: do I copy the second soft redirect you gave me above and paste it to the User talk:Corinne at the link xeno gave me, and save? – Corinne (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. Yes, that will work. Cheers!  01:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits.
Hi Corinne, Thank you so much for your fine edits, which always manage to fascinate me, on Jean-Luc_Montminy.

I must have been unusually tired because I see some French 'génie de la langue' creeped into my English version, specifically where I wrote '613 projects, where he does the voice-over' and you corrected it to '613 projects in which he did the voice-over'. The former is typical of French construction where we would say 'où il fait le doublage'. So I'm somewhat surprised at myself since, most of the time, I ask for your help when the English is, well, English, and I instinctively feel that the sentence can flow better and be clearer, but don't quite know what to do to make it so.

I've created an article on a deserving young guitarist called Kyuhee Park, and have a question about one sentence, to wit:


 * 'At age nine, she won the Youth Division of the National Korean Guitar Competition in what was to become a string of first prizes in national and international competitions.'

I am trying to say that 'she took first prize in the ...National Korean Guitar Competition in what was to become a string of first prizes' and I am trying to find a way to avoid saying 'first' twice, which would sound awkward. So I purposefully omitted 'first', simply saying she 'won', but that does not communicate all the information I want to convey. warm regards, N atalie Desautels  …as within, so without   00:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Natalie.Desautels First, you are welcome. Second, regarding the "613 projects" sentence, don't be too hard on yourself. Sometimes "where" is all right. "Where" can start an adverbial clause or an adjectival, or adjective, clause. Adverbial clauses modify either a verb (an action) or an entire clause or sentence. Adjective clauses modify a noun or noun phrase. You can see that "projects" is a noun, so this is an adjective clause. Sometimes, "where" works fine instead of "in which", "for which", "at which", etc., which are all a little more formal than "where". However, here I didn't think "where" sounded right, maybe because "projects" is not a place. Then, if you decide to use "which", you have to decide which preposition is best. You can turn it into a sentence to see which one sounds best and makes the most sense: "He did the voice-over in the 613 projects", or "he did the voice-over for the 613 projects". I chose "in", but perhaps "for" also makes sense. I'll let you decide that. I was also wondering about the words "voice over". I noticed while I was editing that you didn't hyphenate them, but here, you did. Maybe you should check to see what is most common in English sources, and use that.


 * Regarding the sentence about the Korean guitarist, I see what you mean. To me, "she won the youth division" doesn't sound right. I think you need to say either "she won first prize in the youth division" or "she took first prize in the youth division", as you suggested. How about this? --


 * At age nine, she won first prize in the Youth Division of the National Korean Guitar Competition, the first in a string of first prizes in national and international competitions.


 * I see I'm using "first" twice, but I've shortened the sentence, so perhaps it's all right. It is certainly factual. What do you think? – Corinne (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * . ALT1: At age nine, she won first prize in the Youth Division of the National Korean Guitar Competition, the beginning of a string of first prizes in national and international competitions.


 * (cc to ). Cheers!  02:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ' and ' I just realized that in my version I used "first" three times, not two! Checkingfax, yours uses only two, so is a possibility, but I don't like the sound of "the beginning of a string". Perhaps "..., beginning a string of..."


 * ALT2 At age nine, she won first prize in the Youth Division of the National Korean Guitar Competition, beginning a string of first prizes in national and international competitions. Or:


 * ALT3 At age nine, she won first prize in the Youth Division of the National Korean Guitar Competition, followed by a string of first prizes in national in international competitions. – Corinne (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. Yes, I was trying to lose a first, but your ALT3 really pops for me. Let's see how it resonates with Natalie. Cheers!  04:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Jean-Luc Montminy article, I will choose "... 613 projects in which he did the voice-over". "For" gives me the impression of a more objective involvement in a project that is already under way. (But that's just me ). "In" makes me think of someone intricately involved, as one would be in voice-over work. Also, common usage seems to be 'voice-over' or even 'voiceover'; I like the former. I see that Checkingfax already attended to this correction article-wide.

For (in?) the Kyuhee Park article, ALT 3 seems a good choice. "At age nine, she won first prize in the Youth Division of the National Korean Guitar Competition, followed by a string of first prizes in national in international competitions". So, as one says these days: "Like!" . kind regards, Natalie