User talk:Corinne/Archive 22

RfA nomination
Hi. I was disappointed to see your RfA nomination for Checkingfax. RfA is a process best left to insiders because there are internal politics to which you must've been unaware and the results can be difficult to bear. You failed to get your candidate in front of our informal pre-RfA poll and you clearly didn't vet them well-enough. The result of your misstep is that Checkingfax was publicly shamed and needlessly so. We've had good editors quit after a one-sided rebuke like that. While you, the co-nom, and Checkingfax are all good editors this unpleasant social interaction at RfA only serves to fracture our community. Please be more careful in the future. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 14:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I cringed when I saw this RfA, because it was well-written and had clearly been filed in good faith yet had no hope of passing. I hope this doesn't dampen your enthusiasm for trying to find suitable admin candidates, and would recommend reading Advice for RfA candidates. Although my oppose vote was brief, a key reason for it was a lack of awareness of copyright violations, which the essay covers. I hope that's of use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I think calling overly a couple somewhat overly long quotations a clear violation of copyright is quite a stretch. It's probably best to refrain from publicly pronouncing definitive judgment on the legality of something like that. Granted, it certainly isn't our house style (it's not clear that CheckingFax added the material you're talking about, but he certainly edited around it - the bar for adminship is not perfection). Overall it seems like your oppose !vote was at best a bit misleading and hyperbolic. The actual substance of the copyright law is very much affected by these being court records, in my opinion (which holds no legal weight, but I am one of the more substantial editors of legal articles around Wikipedia). Even if it were not a court record, I highly doubt that the definition of "brief" in defined in a bright line rule (open to being corrected). You may want to take a glance at my friend and fellow admin's MastCell's user page (and perhaps chastise him if you feel so inclined), where he has longer quotations of wisdom displayed from various works of literature. II  | (t - c) 03:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your points of view. I just want to say that I was asked (not by Checkingfax) to put forth the nomination, and I was glad to do so; I did not know about the informal pre-RfA poll, or I would probably have used it; I have read all of the discussions on the various talk pages, and I see things quite differently from you. In those discussions, I think Checkingfax is the only editor, with the exception of Dr Blofeld, who expresses him/herself clearly. The others' comments are all over the place: they alternate personal jabs, emotional outbursts, nasty insults, and statements about various things, often without being clear or specific about what they're referring to, jumping from one thing to another; even their sentences are not well written. They often do not respond to specific things Checkingfax has said or his requests for clarification, and often ignore his requests for the specific source of something that has been thrown into the discussion so he can look at it himself. Not only is Checkingfax always respectful in his comments, the irony is that he is often right, but editors (and I would say particularly male editors) don't like to be told they are wrong, or have something dear to them changed, so they engage in an argument. Other bullies pile on. Clear, reasoned discourse seems a thing of the past. Understanding the details and nuances of copyright violations is something that can be learned; Checkingfax is not stupid – he could learn them in less than a day. Checkingfax is always learning, and he is the first to admit it when he realizes he is wrong about something, and he promptly fixes any mistakes that he makes. I think a lot of editors with whom Checkingfax has had contentious discussions are immature and disrespectful, and not only to Checkingfax. Others contradict themselves or are illogical. A cross-section of real life, I suppose, but these kinds of discussions do not reflect well on Wikipedia. I think a lot of the criticism of Checkingfax is unwarranted. I don't write content, but I read a lot of articles and I read a lot of talk page discussions. I cannot say for certain because I don't know much about references or templates, but I just do not see what it is that Checkingfax has done or said that is so wrong. Often, after much discussion, it turns out that edits he made are not wrong, just not to someone else's liking, and I find it regrettable that in those cases editors do not come to Checkingfax's defense. – Corinne (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Corinne I don't disagree with any of what you said and yet am exasperated with your naïveté. As you say, Checkingfax was editing "just not to someone else's liking". RfA is political and if, in the process of making an encyclopedia, you step on the wrong toes you'll never succeed. Checkingfax aggravated some prolific editors and admins which means he should have held off RfA for a year and started his statement with mea culpa. RfA is a process that's designed to insulate the content contributors from would-be do-gooders. Please don't forget that Wikipedia is the place where accomplished editors can call a female editor the c-word and get away with it. It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with edit count. You, as nominator, had a responsibility to navigate those rapids. You're not an admin and you took the RfA advice you may have read far too literally. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * +1, . Nobody has ever accused Wikipedia of being a friendly and necessarily fair place, and it's worth recognizing the reality of it when trying to accomplish things inside of it. II  | (t - c) 03:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

A usage question
 Yesterday I finished copy-editing the article on the Cheetah. I had two questions about usage for the person who requested the copy-edit, Sainsf. I left a detailed comment about the two issues at User talk:Sainsf. (Please read that discussion.) Regarding the second issue, on whether to use till or until, since on Wiktionary, till, unlike 'til, is listed only as informal, not non-standard, I felt there was some discretion there and I left the decision up to Sainsf. Sainsf opted to keep the three or so instances of till. Then, in  edit, an editor undid my edit changing "until" back to "till". In my edit summary I had provided a link to the talk page discussion. I feel that it would have been more polite to discuss this in the on-going discussion rather than undoing my edit. Also, it leaves at least two other instances of till still in the article. Before I leave a note for that editor, I wanted to ask you whether you think till is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Normally, I would change till to until, but Sainsf opted for till, and I respect his/her wishes. – Corinne (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just caught this on my way to bed. Yes, the examples of 'till' are very jarring, and should be changed to 'until'. Rothorpe (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And indeed 'cheetah' is not a plural. Rothorpe (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Valley View (Romney, West Virginia)
Hi Corinne! I wanted to let you know that I nominated Valley View (Romney, West Virginia) as a candidate for Featured Article. If you ever have a free moment, could you take a look at this article? It doesn't quite need a full copyedit, but I would love if you could just give it a sanity check. Thank you so much for all your incredible contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian   (talk)  20:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, West Virginian! Thank you for asking. I apologize for the delayed response. I was traveling for a few days. Last night I read about half of the article carefully. Of course I will continue reading it. It is quite well written as it is. I just saw a few small things, mostly punctuation. I wanted to know whether you want me to go ahead and make the edits, or write comments and let you decide which, if any, you want to change. If you want me to do the latter, please tell me where I should write my comments – here on my talk page, on your talk page, on the article talk page, or at a review page.
 * There is one punctuation issue that I know might be controversial (among those who care about punctuation). I do not think a comma is necessary after "In + year" or "By + year" at the beginning of a sentence, so I usually remove the comma when I see that. I think it slows down the flow of the sentence and is old-fashioned. However, I know others must think a comma is necessary. I've asked the lead coordinator of the Guild of Copy Editors about this (on my talk page, about two or three months ago), and he said either style (with or without comma) is fine, but that it should be consistent within the article. See User talk:Corinne/Archive 19, toward the end of the section. I also asked another editor about this. See User talk:Corinne/Archive 20, Item 5. I defer to your wishes on this. I suspect that if I remove the comma, someone will put them back in (unless you revert or argue against them – although in the many articles I've copy-edited, I haven't seen the comma put back in following my copy-edit). In the article, I spotted one instance of "In + year" without the comma in the second paragraph of the section Valley View (Romney, West Virginia), so you can see what it looks like. Let me know what you prefer. – Corinne (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Corinne, that is no problem at all! Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to review this article. I really appreciate it, as always! Your guidance and feedback has become an integral part of my review processes. We can continue to dialogue here regarding edits to the article. For minor punctuation or really any changes that you see fit, please feel free to make them as I always trust and value your judgment! As for the comma controversy, I am one of those people that prefers the comma after "In XX" or "By XX" only because it's a personal preference and habit of mine. Since the majority of instances in this article already use the comma, I'm fine with sticking with it, but if you were to remove a comma, it would not be problematic. -- West Virginian   (talk)  23:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

1) Hi, West Virginian. Thanks for your note. I'm wondering about the word "associated" in the first sentence. It just sounds a little odd and a little wordy. Would it sound all right to you if you deleted "associated"? I suppose in the old days in England, a house with its associated farm would have been called a manor, but I guess we don't use that word in the U.S. (I think, with the singular "is" – Valley View is – it is clear that it is not some non-associated farm far away from the house.
 * Corinne, I concur with your rationale, so I've removed "associated" from the lede. Thank you so much for the copy edits you have made thus far! I'm responding via my phone, so I apologize for any typos. -- West Virginian   (talk)  07:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

2) Regarding the first sentence of the second paragraph:


 * The Valley View property was part of the South Branch Survey of Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron's Northern Neck Proprietary.

I know that anyone can click on the link, but to a reader completely unfamiliar with Thomas Fairfax or the Northern Neck Proprietary, this could be read as if "Cameron's" went with "Northern Neck Proprietary" instead of with "6th Lord Fairfax". I also think it's a little odd to add an apostrophe "s" to the title. Would you consider something like:


 * The Valley View property was part of the South Branch Survey of the Northern Neck Proprietary a large tract belonging to Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron, or


 * The Valley View property was part of the South Branch Survey of the Northern Neck Proprietary, a large tract that belonged to Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron.
 * Corinne, thank you for the suggestion! I've gone ahead and incorporated the second option into the lede. -- West Virginian   (talk)  11:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

3) I'm going to copy the first few sentences of the third paragraph for easy reference:


 * The house at Valley View is a two-story brick Greek Revival-style structure with a rectangular architectural plan. The front entrance is covered by a small portico, topped with a pediment supported by wooden Doric columns. Its rear façade faces the South Branch Potomac River valley and Mill Creek Mountain. A two-story (double) wooden porch stretches across the house's rear elevation.

I suppose most readers would guess that "its" refers to "The house", but the fact is that there are several singular nouns between "The house" and "Its" (structure, plan, entrance, pediment). I'm wondering whether you would consider changing "Its" to "The house's". If you do that, then we've got to figure out a way to avoid repeating "the houses" (see next sentence). I'm wondering whether the house's "rear elevation" is substantially different from its "rear façade". It seems to me that you have studied architecture and are using architectural terms. Would you consider the less technical wording:


 * The rear of the house, with a two-story (double) wood porch stretching across it, faces the South Branch Potomac River valley and Mill Creek Mountain.
 * Corinne, thank you for another wonderful suggestion! This works well, and I have incorporated your suggestion into the lede. -- West Virginian   (talk)  12:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

4) The first sentence in the section Valley View (Romney, West Virginia) is:


 * The land on which Valley View is located was originally part of the Northern Neck Proprietary, a land grant first awarded in 1649 by Charles II of England to seven of his supporters and again in 1688 by official patent.

At first glance, the sentence seems all right. However, in the first sentence of the article, you said that Valley View is a house and a farm. So this later sentence is really saying:


 * The land on which the house and farm are located was...

Is a farm normally said to be located on land? Maybe. Even if you feel that's not a problem, this wording might be more direct:


 * Valley View is located on land that was originally part of the Northern Neck Proprietary...
 * Corinne, I've changed the beginning of the sentence to: "Valley View is located on land that was originally part of the Northern Neck Proprietary" per your suggestion. The more direct wording works much better! Thanks again! -- West Virginian   (talk)  12:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

5) The third sentence of this first paragraph reads:


 * This was confirmed by King James II, and Colepeper's grandson Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron inherited it in 1719.

I would put a comma after "6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron", since it's a title, and a kind of appositive, but I'm wondering; I see "Jr." is often no longer preceded or followed by a comma (why, I don't know), and "Jr." is a kind of title, so are we doing away with the second comma in the pair? I think if you have the first comma, you should have the second one (after "Cameron"). If you agree, we've got to add it.
 * Corinne, I added a comma after 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron, per your suggestion. I removed the comma from Jr. following a review of the article at Featured article candidates/Valley View (Romney, West Virginia)/archive1. An editor cited MOS:JR for the comma's removal. Thanks again for your comments and suggestions! -- West Virginian   (talk)  15:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

6) In the middle paragraph in the section Valley View (Romney, West Virginia) is the following sentence:


 * The grounds contain a smokehouse, a water well and the foundations of an ice house and a summer kitchen.

I am puzzling over the presence of "and" twice in the list. I'm wondering whether "the foundations of an ice house" should necessarily be paired with the well. If so, I can understand the first "and". If not, and it is just another item in the list, then the first "and" can be removed.
 * Corinne, I removed the first "and" and added commas where necessary. As you know, I'm a proponent of the Oxford comma. :) -- West Virginian   (talk)  15:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

7) The last sentence in the section Valley View (Romney, West Virginia) is:


 * Zimmerman suggests that "Big Jim" Parsons embellished his home's front entrance to assert his "wealth and status" and provide "an honored welcome to visitors."

The way I read MOS:LQ is that the closing double quotation marks should be placed inside the final period (or a comma) when it is a sentence fragment – that is, an incomplete sentence:


 * and provide "an honored welcome to visitors".

It's not American style, but it seems to be WP style, and I've often seen this edit. Some editors (mainly British editors, I think) say that if the period/full stop was in that place in the original text, it should be inside the final quotation marks. I've just about given up trying to figure this out since I've heard arguments on both sides and I think the MOS is not clear on this. I recommend putting the final quotation marks inside the period. The same with


 * "subtly demarcated corners."

in the second paragraph in the Interior section.
 * Corinne, I've moved quotation marks inside the periods. -- West Virginian   (talk)  15:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

8) In the section Valley View (Romney, West Virginia), last paragraph, you mention that Paul and Nancy "moved to Valley View to live with her" after you mention her death. What do you think of that? If you just change "moved" to "had moved", that makes it clear that they moved there before she died. The other alternative is to re-arrange the information in the paragraph. Also, did you notice the hidden question "Who is Bess Fox?", visible only in edit mode?
 * Corinne, Bess Fox was another relative of the Harmisons, but an earlier editor told me mention of Bess and her relationship to the house was too "extra" so her introduction was deleted. I guess this brief mention of her was a hold over. I've removed mention of her, but I may consider re-introducing her after reviewing older versions of this article. Thank you for the catch! -- West Virginian   (talk)  15:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's all. Everything else looks fine. These are all minor issues. – Corinne (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Corinne, thank you for your copyedit and for your review! As always, I appreciate your diligence and your eye for detail! -- West Virginian   (talk)  15:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

16 July 2016 thank you
Thank you for copyediting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Thank you, Gerda, and I'd like to congratulate you on your featured article appearing on the main page! What a wonderful accomplishment! – Corinne (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I particularly liked that the composer was also pictured in a DYK, which happened to be my 700th ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Spaced and un-spaced en-dashes
 Several months ago Checkingfax shared some templates with me for spaced and un-spaced en-dashes, as well as un-spaced em-dashes and the no-break space. (They're all in the "templates" section at the top of my talk page.) He probably told me, but I have forgotten, whether there is a good reason to use those templates, that is:


 * ("space, en-dash, space") instead of –[space] or  (from the Wiki-mark-up at the bottom of the edit window)
 * ("no space, en-dash, no space") instead of – (from the Wiki-mark-up at the bottom of the edit window)
 * ("no-break space") instead of
 * (un-spaced em-dash) instead of

(I apologize if I haven't gotten some of these right.)

I personally like using the templates. They're easy to remember and type. I've been using them so much that I've almost forgotten the HTML codes. However, although I haven't had any problems in the course of my copy-editing, I have heard that some editors are not fond of the templates. Others probably don't care either way as long as it looks right in the article. So, if there is a good reason to change from HTML (the ones that use the semi-colon) – or the actual en-dash or em-dash from the Wiki-markup at the bottom of the edit window – (with a no-break space before a spaced en-dash), I would like to know, so I will feel more confident in changing to the templates as I copy-edit articles. Can you let me know? Thank you. – Corinne (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally never use those templates – because they take longer to enter and occupy more space – so to get a spaced en-dash (two examples earlier in this post) takes one keypress (the space bar), then one mouse click, then one more keypress (space bar). The amount of space occupied in the edit window is three characters, and it is not possible for a template to occupy less than five. For the em-dash—like this—it's even quicker to enter (no keystrokes, one mouse click) and occupies just one character. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Redrose64. I see your point, but I usually add a no-break space before an en-dash so that it remains at the end of a line and a line does not break before the en-dash. (It doesn't look good to have a new line start with an en-dash.) Also, I find picking up the mouse and ensuring that I click on the right dash a bit time-consuming. But from your response, it appears that it doesn't matter which is used. – Corinne (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I wanted to ask whether you can fix a problem with the  template, to create a "space, en-dash, space" that I believe Checkingfax told me would break after the en-dash if it comes at the end of a line. When I use this, and then look at it in the article, if the en-dash comes at the end of a line, there is a small space at the beginning of the next line. That is, the first word ends up being slightly indented from the left margin, ruining a smooth left margin for the text. I wish this could be fixed.  – Corinne (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I suspect that it may be browser-dependent, and you may get an answer at WP:VPT. But for me, using Firefox 47.0, a construct like Here – There will break either before "Here" or after "There", but nowhere in between. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I use Chrome, and it does break right after the en-dash when I use that template. Interesting. – Corinne (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. Instead of snds, try snd. Cheers! 02:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * O.K. I will, thanks. I'll have to add the space after the template with the space bar, then. – Corinne (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't need to. emits three characters - non-breaking space, en-dash, non-breaking space; whereas  also emits three characters - non-breaking space, en-dash, normal space. So the only difference between  and  is the type of space after the dash - no further spaces are required. Compare Here – There with Here – There. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. Thanks, Redrose64! – Corinne (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Chhinnamasta
Thanks Corinne for your help and taking up the challenge and effort to copyedit this unusual, unfamiliar topic. Thank you for your patience and your comments on my talk about the article. I have moved your comments to Talk:Chhinnamasta and replied to them. Kindly take a look. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response. I have replied to some comments and bolded Corinne in comments where your attention is needed.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 19:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chhinnamasta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sati. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Redtigerxyz Would you mind reading this notice? Can you disambiguate this link to Sati? It occurred when I re-wrote a paragraph as a result of our discussions. Thank you. – Corinne (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Someone else already fixed it.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Genetic relationship (linguistics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creole. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sol Invictus
' I was just looking at the ' to Sol Invictus. I am unable to judge whether these two edits are good ones, but while I was looking at the article I noticed several red notices among the notes at the end of the article. Do these need taking care of? If so, I don't know how to fix them, but maybe you do. – Corinne (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Those edits did not cause the red error messages, which were added in a recent change to the various cite templates (see Help talk:Citation Style 1).
 * Notice that each instance appears as follows:
 * Retrieved November 2014. Check date values in:  (help)
 * The problem being advised is that the access-date parameter (or equivalent) does not have a full date, but only a month and year. The "(help)" link should explain this. The proper fix is to add the missing component, in this case the day of the month; unfortunately, the article [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sol_Invictus&action=history&offset=20141220000000&limit=2 was not edited in November 2014], so those access dates are apparently fake. Most (if not all) of them are due to, notice several occurrences of November 2014. I think that may have copied that chunk of text from another article, without attribution, contrary to WP:CWW. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks, Redrose64. I'm so impressed by your fund of knowledge. I haven't looked at the article yet, so I don't know if you've made any corrections, but I wouldn't know how to do that anyway. Thanks for explaining it all, though. – Corinne (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hyphens
Corinne, I keep seeing what I feel is the needless adding of hyphens. Recently "a three hour hike" became "a three-hour hike". Is there difference here between British and American English? Perhaps I'm just getting old and crotchety, or spend too much time looking at a screen! Likewise I prefer "19th century". I did try looking at the manual but that hasn't helped. Rwood128 (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "a" is the indefinite article; "three-hour" is a compound adjective; and "hike" is the noun. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks User Redrose. This sounds sensible. Though I still wonder if this usage is mainly American? See, for example, . Rwood128 (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 *  That's an interesting question, and I'm giving it some thought. Thanks, also, Redrose64, for your input. I thought the article Compound adjective was helpful. I thought the last sentence in the first "Exceptions" section was interesting:
 * Hyphens are unnecessary in other unambiguous, regularly used compound adjectives.
 * If you hover your mouse over the "5" at the end of this sentence, you will see some examples. I don't have access to the Chicago Manual of Style to look further. I did a little searching on-line and found these:
 * (The APA is The American Psychological Association, and their style guide is one of the major ones used in the U.S.)
 * The Chicago Manual of Style is probably the most important style guide in the U.S. Another one is the MLA style guide (the style guide of the Modern Language Association).
 * I always thought 19th century should be hyphenated when it is used as an adjective (but not hyphenated when it is used as a noun, that is, a date/time period). See the entry for "century" toward the end of the first page of Section 3 in the Chicago Manual of Style table.
 * In the course of my copy-editing, I haven't noticed a problem or a difference with regard to the use of the hyphen, but I would be interested to see instances you come across in articles where you think a hyphen is not necessary. (I feel about commas the same way you do about hyphens; I think they are used in places where they are not needed, but that's another discussion.) – Corinne (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Corinne, many thanks for this very thorough reply. I'll do some work later on British style guides and look at your examples. Oddly I cannot now find the "three-mile hike" example, but this is another recent one . I must admit that I have a tendency to over-use commas (too many Victorian novels when I was younger? – I need an excuse). Rwood128 (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The last example (Strand School) was by whose grammar is generally good. It looks like a correct edit to me (I'm British). Regarding 19th century: we would write "a 19th-century house" (hyphenated), or "a house built in the 19th century" (no hyphen). So "a three-hour hike" might be turned around to make the unhyphenated "a hike of three hours". -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, what Corinne and Redrose said; numbers are hyphenated in all varieties of English when used as compound modifiers (except in the one particular case of the -fold suffix, in which case the words are concatenated, e.g. thirteenfold). Thus, "a 19th-century building" but "a building built in the 19th century". (Those pesky cricketers mean this can't be made into an automated fix, owing to "he scored a 19th century".) See English compound for chapter-and-verse, and MOS:HYPHEN for how it fits into Wikipedia's particular house style. &#8209; Iridescent 16:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This makes me aware of gaps in my education. All the same the following quotations, I think, are relevant to this discussion:


 * Do not use a hyphen unless it serves a purpose. If a compound adjective cannot be misread or, as with many psychological terms, its meaning is established, a hyphen is not necessary (APA).


 * There is considerable variation in the use of hyphens. Usage shifts over time and forms that were once entirely acceptable may now seem odd or old-fashioned (MHRA).

Am I right in thinking that the APA example suggests that the hyphen can be dropped in the phrase "a three-hour hike". Furthermore is the use of a hyphen with a compound adjective a "rule" or an accepted custom, or usage?

Rwood128 (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We do not follow the APA, we follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which is unambiguous on the matter. If you want to make significant change to something that is the result of (literally) over a decade of discussion, start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style; the MOS is one area where WP:BRD doesn't apply, as it's the end product of years of discussions over which what a style guide for a global project which needs to be maintain consistency over articles written by people speaking all varieties of English should look like. &#8209; Iridescent 18:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that makes sense. At least I now know, that there is both a basis for my objection, as well as a reason why the hyphen is used. Probably the section in the manual could be more explicit. Rwood128 (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I found the clearest discussion of this topic here:, in the article on the English compound.
 * This seems especially relevant:

The following compound modifiers are not normally hyphenated:
 * Compound modifiers that are not hyphenated in the relevant dictionary or that are unambiguous without a hyphen.
 * Where there is no risk of ambiguity:
 * "a Sunday morning walk"


 * I, of course, realise that this does not supersede the official manual. See the original for the citations. Rwood128 (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Dubious edits
' Can you take a look at ' edit to Kerman? It may be someone adding a friend's name or it may be a real master, but it is unsourced, I believe. Also look at the previous five or six edits. I don't feel like dealing with them. – Corinne (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it was good faith and genuine, but the text it was added to was shabby. I've made changes at Kerman carpet, though haven't added that unsourced addition. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Elmer McCollum
Corinne, I am so pleased with your work on Elmer McCollum. Breathing a sigh of relief now. I proposed this bio for extra credit in biochemistry, but my teacher had me write about aspirin instead. So glad it is finally done. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 *  I'm glad you approve. I really enjoyed reading about him. I'm sorry he didn't get the recognition he deserved. – Corinne (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. My user name is spelled with one "r" and two "n's".  – Corinne (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry! Spelling fixed. -SusanLesch (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Catherine Hilda Duleep Singh
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bohemond III of Antioch
Thank you again for your thorough copyedit. I made two minor changes. If you had time, please cheque them. I am really grateful for your tireless work to improve articles of various subjects. Have you whenever counted how many GAs are connected to your work? :) Borsoka (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 *  You are welcome. I will look at your changes in a minute. I enjoy reading the articles you have worked on. I haven't looked to see how many GAs are connected to my work. I hadn't thought about it before, and I don't know how to do that, except maybe to look at the table in the archives of completed requests. – Corinne (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 *  I just looked at the two changes you made. The first one, in which you fixed a wiki-link that I had added, is fine. I knew there was an article on "see", but I was just guessing when I added that link as to the title; I was planning to go back and check it, but I forgot, so I'm glad you saw that and fixed it. The second one is more problematic. You changed my wording:


 * According to the contemporaneous William of Tyre, many crusaders, wanting to take advantage of Philip's presence in their own realms, blamed Bohemond and RaymondIII of Tripoli for dissuading Philip from participating in a military campaign against Egypt.


 * to a separate sentence:


 * They said, Bohemond and Raymond wanted to take advantage of Philip's presence in their own realms.


 * Besides a minor punctuation issue, it is not clear who "they" is. If "they" means Bohemond and Raymond, then my wording conveys that clearly. If "they" refers to other individuals, we have to make that clear. If the problem (as you see it) is that, the way I worded it, it sounds too certain when it is actually not known for sure, then we can add an adverb to the way I worded it:


 * ...possibly wanting to take advantage of Philip's presence in their own realms,...


 * ...probably wanting to take advantage of Philip's presence in their own realms,...


 * If I have missed something, please tell me what it is so that we can come up with the best wording. – Corinne (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your remarks. "They" refers to the crusaders who blamed Bohemond and Raymond. Borsoka (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Notifications
I've noticed that the icons for notifications have changed several times over the past two weeks. That's O.K. – I figured they were working on it. Now, I see that they have turned into a bell on the left, and something on the right. Can someone tell me what that's supposed to be? It looks like either the view out the front windshield/windscreen from the back seat of a car or an oblique view of an old floppy disk. – Corinne (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Allegedly, an in-tray. The theory is the bell for things which may need immediate attention, and the inbox for things one can safely ignore (thanks, barnstars etc.) &#8209; Iridescent 21:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been several threads on the various changes over the last three or four weeks at WP:VPT and WT:Echo. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. On the right-hand badge I get notifications from other wikis such as wikidata, wiktionary and meta. Cheers!  20:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks all...interesting... – Corinne (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello C. I hope you are well. Amazing isn't it. We have gone from the massive "Orange Bar of Death" to these icons where the red or blue pings are so small that my aging eyes occasionally have to look twice to be sure that there is actually something there :-) Enjoy your weekend! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mine looked like this: [[File:Vpt redrose64 alerts.PNG]] but now they look like this: [[File:Vpt redrose64 alerts2.PNG]]. To find out how you too can have visible, noticeable, readable counters, see my post of 19:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC) at Village pump (technical). -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Although still small that does make them easier to see. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, '! (and thank you ' for your greeting and comments). I also found the numbers (and the colored boxes in which they sit) too small. Your solution is great. Do I copy that entire thing (with the four rules) and paste it all at once? I read most of the discussions there, and I have a question – don't know if I should post it there. When I log on and go to my talk page, I often see a different number in each place, like a 2 on the left and a 1 on the right, or some combination like that. When I click on the right-hand number (notifications), it takes me to my talk page (but not to the latest comments, unfortunately; I still have to look for them), but, simultaneously, the number at the left disappears. What is the point of having two numbers if one disappears when the other is clicked on? I much prefer the way it was before they started making all these changes. – Corinne (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Regarding that icon that looks to us like a view of a car (either a door or back-to-front view) and to the techs like an inbox – only people who have worked in an office would ever guess that it is an image of an inbox. I really don't think it looks like an inbox because it's missing any kind of perspective to show the full length of the inbox . Maybe an image of a bulletin board for both notifications would be good, or, for the right-hand one, an image of a piece of paper with a pin/thumbtack stuck into the corner would make sense. – Corinne (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC) I take it back; upon looking at it again, there seems to be some effort at perspective, but it's not very good.  – Corinne (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First, copy the contents of that box (all four rules) to your clipboard. Then go to m:Special:MyPage/global.css, click the "create this page" tab, paste in the code, then save. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week [20 August 2016]
User:Checkingfax submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate Corinne to be Editor of the Week for her tireless and persistent efforts copy editing articles submitted by other editors to the Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE). Her meticulous, subtle attention to detail and ability to turn a phrase are unique on Wikipedia. She does this discretely and seeks no acknowledgement for her efforts. Corinne takes on the hard articles; topics that would go over most people's heads. Here is a snapshot of her most recent GOCE undertakings:
 * Green-head ant
 * Bajo Pivljanin
 * War of the Antiochene Succession
 * Anbe Sivam
 * Cristóbal Bencomo y Rodríguez
 * History of South America
 * Sarawak
 * As you can see, Corinne is not picking the low-hanging fruit to copy-edit. It is my estimation that Corinne fully copy edits an article every other day. Additionally, if Corinne does not know how to fix a phrase she collaborates with other editors to find a solution. Even with a Master's in English, Corinne is humble enough to ask for help when she gets stuck. Corinne is a classy editor who brings nothing but good things to the encyclopedia. Corinne's GOCE work on articles with problematic prose is commendable...providing a good copyedit and to-the-point queries on the article's talk page.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: Thanks again for your efforts! Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Corinne. Very well deserved! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Best wishes, Corinne. And thank you for your excellent work on Sigismund Báthory. Have a nice week! Borsoka (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, BlueMoonset and Borsoka! – Corinne (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So well deserved (I know BlueMoonset said it first but the sentiment is so true!) Many congratulations C. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MarnetteD! Also, I would be remiss if I did not thank Checkingfax for nominating me, so thank you so very much! I really appreciate it. It was a nice surprise. – Corinne (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Oceania
' I was just looking at ' edit to Oceania. I know Australia is part of Oceania, but aren't there other considerations when deciding whether to change the variant of English used in an article? Should which variant has been used all along be a consideration? I'm not good at figuring out what variant has been used and since when. If you have time, could you look into this? I don't feel strongly about which variant should be used here, but I do wonder whether a variant should be changed suddenly without discussion. – Corinne (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Also see tag added to talk page. – Corinne (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. I think they should have left it alone. There are probably arguments to make it American English as the area includes more than Australia. Plus, Australian English is morphing into American English. Somebody decided to make it British English, that was the status quo, and it should be returned to status quo ante bellum until this is settled. In the meantime, I will dig in deeper. Cheers!  10:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)