User talk:Corinne/Archive 23

Puzzled
 I have to ask you for your opinion regarding something. I have several times copy-edited long articles for BabbaQ, including Alexandra Pascalidou. I often leave detailed comments and questions for BabbaQ on his/her talk page, but I rarely get any reply. See User talk:BabbaQ/Archive6. I don't expect profuse thanks, but some indication of appreciation would be appreciated. I just saw  edit. I don't know why I didn't see it before today. I'm puzzled as to why BabbaQ would request a copy-edit at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests if s/he is not one of the "main contributors to the article", and, further, why, upon seeing my detailed questions, BabbaQ would not refer my questions to one of the main contributors (assuming there is a recent one) or perhaps asking me if I would mind if s/he transferred my questions to the article's talk page – instead of simply archiving them where they become virtually hidden and of no use to anyone? I put a lot of time and effort into not only the original copy-edit but also into formulating and typing my questions. BabbaQ is one of the very few editors who does not indicate his/her appreciation for the work I do and merely archives my comments and questions. I am inclined not to accept requests for copy-edits from BabbaQ anymore, which is really regrettable since I believe s/he is a non-native speaker of English and I have a particular ability to interpret the intended meaning of the writing of such editors and put the sentences into Standard English and BabbaQ is a prolific contributor of content to WP. – Corinne (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Some people just don't respond. Don't feel bad about it. If you have concerns or questions about an article, posting on the article's talk page is a good idea. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean frankly I think you are overly dramatic here Corinne. You know very well that I always press the Thanks button plenty of times. And there is no rule against nominating articles that you are not a main contributor to. I have an interest in improving Swedish articles and wanting that I do nominate from time to time Swedish subject articles. I think, honestly that you expect that everyone should be highly greatful towards you. And I am, but you on the other hand have to realize that you can not make "demands" that others reacts to your work the way you want to. I also think that you and I do work in different ways, you expect me to give you a detailed response about what I will do. I always work on articles in due time and I do take your comments into consideration while working further on an article. And you also continue to claim that I never respond to you, so I refer to this diff as just an example. Certainly I do admit that I do not always respond to you, but that is because I either have nothing to respond to but to an general explanation of your work. Or you have given me a question that I simply can not answer. I mean I will not twist your hand to work on my request. That is only up to yourself, but the reality is that I have done nothing wrong here in terms of what is expected by a editor. I will as always take your opinions into consideration. One way to handle this would have been to either just write to me and ask about your concerns concerning this matter, or frankly not edit my requested articles. These kind of comments seems a bit "cry for attention"-like.  It is a free world after all. I hope you will not be a sour puss for long. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems like a good suggestion though by Jonesey95, that you post questions and concerns at the article's talk page. So that everyone can see it. In that way you do not risk for your comments to be archived. Also, I have to say that if you post a comment at my talk page for example, you have to expect that I am the one you are directing your comment to. In your statement above it sounds like you want me not to archive it because you want your input to be shown for the world. If that is your main concern, then simply do as Jonesey95 suggest you do. regards,BabbaQ (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 *  I have tried to find other comments I thought I had left on your talk page after completing copy-edits, but without success, possibly because you have no "Search" function for your archives, but I believe there were other articles where I left detailed questions and you did not respond at all. You are completely wrong in suggesting that I feel everyone should be highly greatful [sic] to me. Most editors, however, especially when I leave detailed comments and questions, at least thank me, but on several occasions you neither thanked me nor responded to the questions. I am sorry we do not seem to agree on this; I guess we have different editing and communication styles. – Corinne (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is, do not believe I am not greatful for your edits and help. Because I am. I think we just are very different editors. If it would make you feel better I would definitely be up for making an better effort to respond to your edit summaries in the future. I think you have interpreted my way to handle articles and edits as ignoring you, while I have in fact have great use of your input.  But that is up to you. As stated above a great compromise could be that you overall started to do these kind of summaries or questions at the article in questions talk page. So that not only the user that you write to gets the suggestions for improvements, and simply pinging the user which made the nom. Have a nice weekend.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Denominalization
Hi Corinne. I hereby article you with this. Sca (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 *  Thank you for the link, Sca! It's an interesting article. (I was wondering why you were using "article" as a verb!) It's funny, but I had heard "winter" used as verb more often than "summer", maybe more with regard to animals and birds. Sometimes I hear a noun used as a verb and it annoys me. I think it's a little lazy, because it is avoiding using the extra word or two you need to fit the noun into a sentence. Continue sending other interesting articles my way! – Corinne (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will memory your request. Sca (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination - Successful
Hey Corinne

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways). Congratulations and thank you for your hard work!

Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt.

Thanks! Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jseddon (WMF), I just wanted you to know that I did send an e-mail to merchandise, etc., about a week ago but have not heard anything. – Corinne (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Telugu language
' Hello, Kailash -- Can you take a look at ' edit to Telugu language and those just prior to it and see what you think?

Also, I'd like to ask you about something else. The other day, I made a few copy-edits to Sufism, mainly punctuation in captions. In  edit, I added "The name of" before "Allah". Later, I wondered if this is correct and whether I should have left it as it was. Do you have any idea? If you think I should have left it as it was, feel free to remove those added words, or let me know and I'll remove them – either way is fine. – Corinne (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no idea. Any more experienced editor may look into this. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Leopard
' If you have time, would you take a look at the edits preceding Sminthopsis84's ' to Leopard and see what you think? I agree with Sminthopsis84 about the ambiguity introduced by "lighter". I think this editor may have made a mishmash out of what was perfectly good prose, and I'm not talking about just the introduction of "lighter" (except that "its ability to" should be added to "run at speeds up to"). It was a list separated by semi-colons. I also think "The leopard's characteristics include" is awfully boring language. But I will defer to your superior knowledge in this area. – Corinne (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I opted to restore "build," and replace it with "physique." I agree that "The leopard's characteristics include" is clunky wording, but, I can't immediately think of what would sound better.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ' ' Pinging again so you'll see this: – Corinne (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I associate "physique" with human beings. I prefer "build". How about this:


 * It is similar in appearance to the jaguar, but with a smaller and lighter build.


 * Regarding the other wording, I'm going to take a look at it again now. – Corinne (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * So, Apokryltaros, are you saying you do not like the way it was written before one of the ? Do you agree with the edit summary? This is how it read before it was changed (I added a missing phrase):


 * The leopard's success in the wild is due to its well-camouflaged fur; its opportunistic hunting behaviour, broad diet, and strength to move heavy carcasses into trees; its ability to adapt to various habitats ranging from rainforest to steppe and including arid and montane areas; and [its ability] to run at speeds up to 58 km/h.
 * (The semi-colons could be changed to commas.) – Corinne (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "success in the wild" may not be neutral, but, then again, I don't like using the semicolon unless absolutely, positively, sword-in-my-back-as-I-walk-the-plank necessary.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  O.K. How about changing just the first part of this sentence but leaving the rest, and changing the semi-colons to commas? [Also, don't forget to read a suggested version of the other sentence, above.]


 * The leopard is distinguished by its well-camouflaged fur, its opportunistic hunting behaviour, broad diet, and strength (which it uses to move heavy carcasses into trees), as well as its ability to adapt to various habitats ranging from rainforest to steppe, and including arid and montane areas, and its ability to run at speeds of up to 58 km/h.


 * – Corinne (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Much much better!

Be on your guard
Check this! Sca (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  Wow, that was so realistic I thought it was something real until I actually read it. I don't think copy-editors' lives are ever that exciting, but I agree the arguments can get pretty intense. It's amazing how people can get so passionate about punctuation. – Corinne (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Trajan
 Hi, Doug -- I know you're busy, but if you have a moment, could you take a look at the latest edits to Trajan? In  edit, the editor added in precise dates for the beginning and end of Trajan's rule as emperor. I looked at Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius, and both have just years. I don't know about the three edits before this one, but I'm not sure they are needed or correct. Usually, Cerme follows this article, but s/he hasn't edited in a few months, and I don't want these edits to become buried in the edit history. Thanks. – Corinne (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see why not. There may be some slight doubt about the exact date Nerva died, but the date given is widely accepted. Doug Weller  talk 14:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  Thank you for your reply. Do you think that just because the date of death of the emperor he succeeded is known means it should be given in the lead? I thought consistency in similar articles would be taken into account. Compare the first sentence in:


 * Trajan:


 * Trajan...was Roman emperor from 27 January 98 AD – 8 August 117 AD.


 * with the first sentence in other articles about Roman emperors:


 * Hadrian:


 * Hadrian...was Roman emperor from 117 to 138.


 * Marcus Aurelius:


 * Marcus Aurelius...was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180.


 * Vespasian:


 * Vespasian...was Roman emperor from AD 69 to AD 79.


 * Caracalla:


 * Caracalla...was the popular nickname of Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Augustus..., the Roman emperor from AD 198 to 217.


 * Nero:


 * Nero...was Roman Emperor from 54 to 68....


 * Domitian:


 * Domitian...was Roman emperor from 81 to 96.


 * Do you see that none of them give exact dates? That's all I was trying to point out. – Corinne (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see why this shouldn't be treated the same as death and birth dates where we know them. See Queen Victoria. Doug Weller  talk 05:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't know, Doug, either. I notice that in these articles, the exact dates of the reigns are given in the infobox. There must be a reason why the exact dates are not generally given at the beginning of the lead. I can think of one: it is more concise. I don't think the exact dates are needed at such an early point in the article for people who lived at such a distance in the past, but that's just my opinion. – Corinne (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * See the bit on infoboxes on my talk page. Anyway, I have to say I don't think this is worth worrying about. Doug Weller  talk 18:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, though its not really a big of deal, I can totally understand Corinne's concern here. After all, we want consistency on articles. Usually precise dates/days are given in the infobox (for years of reign) while the years are just mentioned in the lede. A quick look at several FA-rated articles of roughly the same era, whom Corinne has already linked here, shows that this same "rule/habit" is applied. (e.g. Augustus, Maximian, Domitian). IMHO, the user in question should be WP:GF reverted. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

' and tpss: What do you think of ' edits to Trajan? The first few I can accept, but I don't care for the last few, the ones following "According to the Augustan Histories". – Corinne (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, signs of fatigue setting in. Rothorpe (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Lede of Kingdom of Pontus
Hi Corinne,

Do you think the lede of this article needs a copy-edit? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  You asked me to take a look at the lead of Kingdom of Pontus. I did, but continued reading and ended up copy-editing the entire article. I removed some unnecessary overlinking but also added a few wiki-links to existing WP articles. I wanted to link the two Roman names that appear toward the end of the third paragraph in the section Kingdom of Pontus, Marcius Rex and Acilius Glabrio, but couldn't find the right articles. There are several for Marcius Rex. I wonder if you can figure out which one it is and link it. For Acilius Glabrio, there is an article, Manius Acilius Glabrio (consul 191 BC), but the time in which he lived doesn't seem to be the right years. Does that mean we have no article on the Acilius Glabrio mentioned in the Kingdom of Pontus article?


 * Also, I tried to get some consistency in the Notes, putting en-dashes in page number ranges and changing a few "page" to "p." I also put one or two titles into italics, guessing (which I know I shouldn't do, and don't normally do) that they were book titles, but there were a few I wasn't sure whether they were book titles (italics) or article titles (quotation marks, I believe). However, since I don't write articles and never got much into formatting references, I wasn't completely sure about formatting the titles in the Notes. I wonder if you would mind taking a look at the Notes and seeing if anything needs to be changed. I would very much appreciate it if you would share any pointers so I can get this right in the future.


 * Finally, I changed "invested" to "invaded" in the second paragraph of the section Kingdom of Pontus, in  edit. I was pretty sure "invested" was not correct, so I just guessed it should be "invaded". I hope I got this right. Thanks. – Corinne (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On the last point, the object is a city—as opposed to an extended territory—so I don‘t think invaded is appropriate. IMO invested was just fine; see sense 10 in the Wiktionary entry.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  05:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  Wow! Thank you! I had never heard that use of the word invest before, and I'm sure you're right. I'm just wondering, though, if this use of invest is common enough to use in a WP article. I'm all for using the right word, but:


 * According to Checkingfax, 25% of our readers and editors are between the ages of 10 and 17; 50% between 17 and 35; 25% between 35 and 85.


 * We need to keep that first group in mind as we write and edit articles. What would you think of substituting "laid siege to"? If you prefer invested, I'll be glad to put it back in. Thanks again. – Corinne (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Invest probably falls under military-history jargon (with its antonym relieve), and is somewhat old-fashioned at that, so “besieged”, “laid siege to”, or some other paraphrase might indeed be better in a general article like this one. It’s just that I don’t like invade in this context, although my ear is far from infallible; the notion of invading a city arouses cognitive dissonance in me. I’d be more attached to invest in a more specialized military-history article: there the readers will very likely encounter such terms in the sources anyway, so they might as well get used to them. ;)—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  18:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Corinne, thanks much for the effort! Looks really neat.
 * I think that the Marcius Rex in question has to be this one; Quintus Marcius Rex (consul 68 BC). The Acilius Glabrio in question gotta be this one; Manius Acilius Glabrio (consul 67 BC). I just added both links.
 * Don't worry, your changes at the note section were totally appropriate. I will however later on search up proper links of those works (modern-day translations, that is) and cite all the titles with the "cite book" tool.
 * And it looks like you already solved the "invested/invaded" matter with Odysseus1479, great ;-)
 * If you ever need help, don't hesitate to let me know!
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sayyid
 A day or two ago I finished copy-editing Sayyid, so I've got the article on my watch list. I just saw  edit to the article's talk page, Talk:Sayyid, and I'm wondering what the point of archiving so much material was when there is hardly anything left on the page. Is the decision whether to archive material on an article talk page just an individual judgment call? – Corinne (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne. Sorry this one dropped through the cracks. That talk page is set up to auto-archive, so there was no need for anybody to manually archive it. Normally pages are archived when they get to about 75K, if I recall correctly, but one can adjust the setting in the archive template. I believe this talk page was archived because the editor is trying to get 3 article pages merged into one, with Sayyid being the mother page. The mover will have to make sure to move any archives that exist on the other 2 pages. Let me know if that answers your question satisfactorily. PS: I believe the automatic archiver is currently set up to archive no less than one thread, but to leave no less than 7 threads on the page. There is only 1 archive so far on the Sayyid article's talk page. Cheers!  17:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Checkingfax. I had forgotten all about this. I know so little about archiving and page moving that, while I'm sure the information you provided above is all correct, it won't help me much. I'll just leave this up to whoever is working on that article. – Corinne (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Berry
' Hello, Rothorpe -- What do you think of ' to Thomas Berry, and the ones just previous to them by the same editor? – Corinne (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Olá! There's no sourcing, so I would be inclined to remove them. If it's a new editor, you might have a word. Rothorpe (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rothorpe. I agree with you, but am hesitant to revert the editor's edits entirely only because I am not very familiar with the subject matter. I'm wondering if either you or Laurel Lodged, whom I have seen editing Non-trinitarianism, would feel more confident about it. – Corinne (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I share your misgivings exactly. Rothorpe (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Anchorite
' What do you think of ' edits to Anchorite? Is "prayerful" an appropriate substitution for "prayer-oriented"? Regarding the removal of a sentence with the idea it is redundant, I could only find a similar statement in the lead. I thought just because something is mentioned in the lead of an article does not mean it cannot also be mentioned in the body of the article. – Corinne (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Prayer-oriented' is more precise, so I prefer it; 'prayerful' is a little new-fangled. And I agree with you about the deletion. Rothorpe (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * – Hi, Corinne. Actually, you are correct. If something is not mentioned in the body, then it may not be mentioned in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a complete nickel tour of the body. So, if something is mentioned in the lead, but not in the body, it should be added to the body, or deleted.


 * Editor wrote a nice User essay on lead creation called WP:CREATELEAD. Cheers!   00:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Palatinate (region)
 and any s, OMG. What do you think of all  edits to Palatinate (region)? I only studied the last large group (i.e., the diff I provided), and, if you look carefully, you'll see that the added punctuation is all wrong. I'm sure the editor meant well. What do you suggest? – Corinne (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So many edits all at once, the good, the bad and the unnecessary. If you're willing to take them on one at a time... Wholesale reversion seems cruel/crass. Rothorpe (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * – Hi, Corinne. It looks like a hot mess to me. What do you want to do? You can roll back all 6 edits with Twinkle if you jump in before anybody else starts editing. Otherwise you'll have to revert back to a page version using Twinkle. Let me know if I can assist. Cheers!  00:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. I just looked at the editor's user page, and see that s/he considers him/herself a good judge of grammar and usage. I know how a wholesale revert of all those edits could feel. Perhaps selective editing would be better.  What do you recommend? – Corinne (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On the whole, those edits improved the article. What am I missing? There appear to be a few typos, like "Majestry" (Majesty?) and "Baumholder,for" (missing space), but I would definitely not revert. The first sentence of the "Bavarian rule" section was a disaster before the edits and was a different flavor of disaster after the edits; the commas are technically acceptable, but the sentence really needed to be rewritten and broken up into multiple sentences. It may be polite to notify the editor in question – see the essay Notification ("Initiating a discussion at the talk page of a recently edited article would generally not require notification, but doing so at a noticeboard, wikiproject, or third party's talk page generally would."). – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

All right.  You may be interested in this discussion. I certainly appreciate your goal of improving the article; I just disagree with some of your edits. Here are some specifics:

1) I don't think any of the commas in this sentence are needed; I find their use very old-fashioned:


 * These were designated individually as “Bezirksamt”, in 1862, and finally as “Landkreis” (rural district), in 1939.

2) I don't see how this:


 * It should be noted here, however, that the historic Electorate of the Palatinate was on both sides of the Rhine with Heidelberg and Mannheim as its capitals on the eastern side, while this new "Palatinate" established in 1815/16 was solely on the left bank of the Rhine, and included territories that had never been part of the historical Palatinate

is an improvement over this:


 * It should be noted here, that the historic Electorate of the Palatinate was on both sides of the Rhine with Heidelberg and Mannheim as its capitals on the eastern side, while the new "Palatinate" that was established in 1815/16 was solely on the left bank of the Rhine, and included territories that had never been part of the historic Palatinate


 * (a) Why "this new Palatinate"? The paragraph starts by referring to how the districts were to be named using historical allusion beginning in 1835. The phrase "this new Palatinate" must refer to something created in 1815/16, so the phrase "this new" is confusing.


 * (b) The new version changed "historic" to "historical" before "Palatinate" at the end of the sentence but did not change it earlier in the sentence in the phrase "the historic Electorate of the Palatinate". If "historical" is the correct word for one, it ought to be the correct word for the other.

(2) I think this:


 * Another term, that of Rhenish Bavaria (Rheinbayern), though used occasionally, never gained overwhelming currency, but can, nonetheless, be found sometimes on older maps.


 * is wordy and stilted and not an improvement over this:


 * The term Rhenish Bavaria (Rheinbayern) never gained currency but can be found sometimes in older maps.


 * The change from "in older maps" to "on older maps" is a good change. It would probably be best to put "sometimes" earlier.


 * The term Rhenish Bavaria (Rheinbayern) never gained currency but can sometimes be found on older maps.

(3) Regarding the change from this:


 * On the other hand, the Palatinate's representatives to the common Bavarian Parliament always prided themselves on originating from a more progressive region and tried to expand the liberalism, which the French had introduced in the Palatinate, to the whole kingdom.

to this:


 * Still, the Palatinate's representatives to the shared Bavarian Parliament always prided themselves on their claim of originating from a more progressive region and they tried to expand this liberalism, which the French had introduced in the Palatinate, to the whole Bavarian kingdom.


 * (a) I think the previous version was correct in introducing a contrast with "On the other hand". "Still" does not mean much here. There may be other contrast phrases that would also work here. Although it is not spelled out very clearly, this paragraph describes efforts made by royalty and efforts made by representatives to Parliament toward increasing liberalism. I think there's a contrast there.


 * (b) I'm not sure about "shared" versus "common". Is a Parliament shared or held/exercised in common? Probably "shared" is all right, but it could suggest that the two political entities shared the same building, but used it at different times.


 * (c) I do not think "their claim of" is necessary. It should be clear enough that the Palatinate's representatives prided themselves on something they had in their own minds, which was the idea of originating from a more progressive region. I think the adverb "always" is not needed. With that removed, the sentence will be two verb phrases following one subject:


 * the Palatinate's representatives...


 * prided themselves on originating from a more progressive region and


 * tried to expand this liberalism, which the French had introduced in the Palatinate, to the whole Bavarian kingdom.

There really is no need to introduce a pronoun subject "...and they" for the second verb phrase. So, the best wording would be:


 * At the same time, the Palatinate's representatives to the shared Bavarian Parliament always prided themselves on their claim of originating from a more progressive region and they tried to expand this liberalism, which the French had introduced in the Palatinate, to the whole Bavarian kingdom.


 * (d) "The liberalism" should clearly be "this liberalism", so that was a good edit.


 * (e) Regarding the change from this:


 * The German historian Heiner Haan [ref] described the special status of the Palatinate within Bavaria as a relation of "Hauptstaat" (main state, i.e. Bavaria) and "Nebenstaat" (alongside state, i.e. the Palatinate).

to this:


 * The German historian, Heiner Haan, [ref] described the special status of the Palatinate within Bavaria as being one whereby a "Hauptstaat" (main state, i.e. Bavaria) was paralleled by a "Nebenstaat" (alongside state, i.e. the Palatinate).


 * (a) I don't think commas are needed around "Heiner Haan".


 * (b) I think the new version is unnecessarily wordy and long. The previous version is more concise. Also, I think the phrases in parentheses, translations of the German terms, sufficiently explains the relationship. Perhaps "relation" could be changed to "relationship".

So, the best wording would be the way it was.

(4) In the paragraph that starts "In May/June 1849",


 * (a) I don't think commas are needed around "and as part of the Imperial Constitution campaign", but I realize that is a matter of taste;


 * (b) "Separatists" is better than "A separatist", but perhaps the best phrase would be "A separatist group" or "separatist groups";


 * (c) I do not think the addition of "separatist" is needed before "uprising", especially coming so soon after the use of "separatist" or "separatists";


 * (d) Regarding the change from this:


 * The uprising was suppressed by Prussian military intervention. The union with Bavaria persisted after it became part of the German Empire in 1871, and even after the Wittelsbach dynasty was deposed and Bavaria became a free state of the Weimar Republic in 1918.

to this:


 * The Palatinate's union with Bavaria persisted after it became part of the German Empire in 1871, and, indeed, after the Wittelsbach dynasty was deposed, and Bavaria became a free state of the Weimar Republic in 1918.


 * (a) I'm not sure "Palatine's" is needed before "union"; the entire section is about the Palatinate's union with Bavaria; but all right;


 * (b) I think "even" is better than "indeed". To me, "indeed" is meaningless and unnecessary here. The word "even" goes along with the idea of persistence.


 * (c) A comma is absolutely not needed after "was deposed". The clause "Bavaria became a free state of the Weimar Republic in 1918" is a second clause following "after" and joined by "and", so the two clauses are equal: "after X and Y". Not "after X, and Y".

(5) Regarding the change from this:


 * However, after World War I French troops occupied the Palatinate under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

to this:


 * After World War I French troops, however, occupied the Palatinate under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

I can understand a possible preference for not starting a new paragraph with "However", but the word "However" is introducing a contrast to what preceded it, which is a paragraph on the persistence of the union of Bavaria and the Palatinate through time and several changes in political structure. This new paragraph is about a final radical re-arrangement, a breakup of the union. So some indication of contrast is warranted. Technically, the position of "however" after the subject is possible and is often effective, but here, this late placement dissipates the effectiveness of the contrast adverb ("however"). A possible effective placement would be after "After World WarI":


 * After World War I, however, French troops occupied the Palatinate under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

(6) Regarding the change from this:


 * In 1919 and 1923, during the occupation, there were attempts at separating the Palatinate from Bavaria and the Empire supported by the French.

to this:


 * In the period 1919 and 1923, during the occupation, there were attempts at separating the Palatinate from Bavaria and the Empire which the French supported.


 * (a) "In the period 1919 and 1923" does not make sense. It is either "In 1919 and 1923" or "In the period from 1919 to 1923". Unless the sources say differently, it appears that two specific years were given deliberately: there were attempts in both 1919 and 1923 to separate the Palatinate from Bavaria and the Empire. If this is what was meant, then "In the period" is not needed.


 * (b) Unless there is some reason to emphasize the French support, "supported by the French" is more concise than "which the French supported". The position of "supported by the French" at the end of the sentence is all right, but another possible position would be after "there were attempts":


 * In 1919 and 1923, during the occupation, there were attempts, supported by the French, at separating the Palatinate from Bavaria and the Empire.

Another possible wording is:


 * In 1919 and 1923, during the occupation, there were several attempts, supported by the French, to separate the Palatinate from Bavaria and the Empire.

Some changes are fine, such as the change from "else" to "otherwise" in the next paragraph. Well, that's all for now. – Corinne (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a note
' Hello, Nøkkenbuer -- I just wanted to drop you a note about your recent ' to Gnosticism in which you removed two unnecessary spaces. Like you, I also do not like to see those extra spaces, but the truth is that most of them do not appear in the article. Two spaces after a period/full stop will appear as one space. Thus, it is not necessary to remove them. (I realize there are some that do appear in the article and if they don't look right, they need to be fixed.) I do, however, remove them when I see them in the course of making other copy-edits as I prefer seeing only one space even in edit mode. There are a few editors, though, who actually prefer seeing two spaces after each period/full stop (saying that they find it easier to see the beginning and end of sentences), so if they see an edit summary saying that you removed double spaces, they may object; others may object simply because you are using server time to make what are (sometimes) unnecessary edits. Now, of course you may not care whether others object ;). I don't want to discourage you from removing the unnecessary spaces, but – and this is just a suggestion – I suggest you do it in the course of making other edits. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Two questions
 I have two questions, actually one question and a suggestion:

1) When I archive requests made by MisterCake, I've been writing MisterCake so that "MisterCake" appears in the table, instead of Cake, in which case just "Cake" would appear in the table. I thought "Cake" by itself was awfully short. If you want me to change it so that just "Cake" appears, I'll change it.

2) I've noticed that Twofingered Typist has been editing at an extraordinary pace, and I wondered if there were a way to honor this editor in some way. What do you think would be appropriate? A simple barnstar? Or something else? Also, if you agree that it is a good idea, shall we do this now or wait until the end of the six-month period ("End of 2016") is reached? – Corinne (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. I always use the editor's real username, in this case "MisterCake".


 * 2. My view: Let's think about doing this in our end-of-2016 newsletter. We should discuss it on the Coordinators' page at that time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ' Another question: Do you think the addition of a wiki-link at "Latin America" in Jacobo Árbenz ' is an instance of overlinking, or do you think it is appropriate given the subject matter? – Corinne (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:OVERLINKING. I suspect that a lot of readers do not know what "Latin America" really means, so I think that particular link is helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Jacobo Árbenz
 Yesterday I finished copy-editing Jacobo Árbenz. You'll see some discussion with Vanamonde93 on his/her talk page at User talk:Vanamonde93, where we have resolved pretty much all the issues, if you're interested. I've been thinking about a sentence that doesn't sound quite right, and I'd like both of your opinions on the best way to fix it. (Vanamonde93, I often consult Rothorpe when I need help deciding on wording.) It is the last sentence of the first paragraph in Jacobo Árbenz. Here is the sentence:


 * It was only the support Árbenz had, and the impossibility of Giordani being elected, that led to Arévalo deciding to support Árbenz.

I'm open to any thoughts regarding the first half of the sentence, but right now I'd like to focus on the last part:


 * that led to Arévalo deciding to support Árbenz.

I'm wondering whether "Arévalo" should be "Arévalo's":


 * that led to Arévalo's deciding to support Árbenz.

But even that doesn't sound like the best writing. Here are some possibilities:

(a) that led to Arévalo's decision to support Árbenz. (b) that led Arévalo to decide to support Árbenz. (c) that led Arévalo to make the decision to support Árbenz. (d) that led Arévalo to support Árbenz.
 * Options a and d look best to me. They are concise and avoid repeating words or phrase constructions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Any other ideas are welcome. – Corinne (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't change it at all! Rothorpe (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Really? You like "that led to Arévalo deciding to support Árbenz"? – Corinne (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's fine. What's wrong? Rothorpe (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I guess it's all right. I just don't like the sound of "led to Arévalo deciding". But I trust your judgment. – Corinne (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Yes, I still think it's OK. Rothorpe (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Came to this a little late, clearly. While I'm fine with the current version (I did write it :)) Option D also seems fine: your call, Corinne. Also, thanks for catching the minister for "hen health" that I accidentally introduced. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Evolutionary developmental biology
 I saw your note to Sminthopsis84 on his/her talk page about the article you're working on, Evolutionary developmental biology. Out of curiosity I started to read it. It is really well written and seems pretty close to being a very good article. I wonder if you would find it overly presumptuous on my part if I offered a few comments. I have studied just enough science that I can understand for the most part what the sentences mean and how they relate to those before and after them. (I've copy-edited a number of insect articles for Burklemore1, including Termite, Radiocarbon dating for Mike Christie, Oil shale in Estonia, articles on geology and mineralogy, and a few plant articles, including Epacris impressa for Cas Liber. I have to admit, though, that I know less about biology and zoology than about other fields.) So, as a non-biologist, non-zoologist, and basically a non-scientist, I tend to notice when something starts to sound opaque, fuzzy, or impenetrable to a person of average education. Also, as Checkingfax pointed out to me a while back, "25% of our readers and editors are between the ages of 10 and 17; 50% between 17 and 35; 25% between 35 and 85." So, feel free to ignore what I write below, correct me, or tell me not to bother you again. ;) (I realize that the article is still a work in progress, and that other editors with more scientific background will be looking at it.) (My questions will probably reveal my ignorance.) (I noticed that the article got more technical as I progressed through it, so I understood less and less of it.) I'm really impressed by your knowledge and ability. I didn't know you had a science background!

1) In the first paragraph in the section Evolutionary developmental biology is the following sentence:


 * Charles Darwin could assert that community of embryonic structure revealed community of descent.

I'd like to say two different things about this sentence:

(a) It's not clear why you used the construction "could assert". "Could" suggests possibility or ability (or permission). There does not seem to be anything in the lead-up to this sentence or anything following this to explain the use of "could assert" instead of "asserted". Did something occur that made it possible for Darwin to assert this? Was it Darwin's research or special understanding that made it possible? If not, perhaps consider changing it to "asserted".

(b) My second question is about the word "community". Of course I know that the intended meaning is not a community of people, or a neighborhood. It is a less common usage of the word. However, the fact is that I can guess what is meant, but should the non-expert reader have to guess? There is not much before this to help the reader understand the phrase "community of embryonic structure". Perhaps you could give a brief explanation or definition in parentheses following the phrase, and maybe also following the other phrase, "community of descent", or one explanation for the entire concept.


 * Rewritten. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

2) Later in the same paragraph is the following sentence:


 * Müller also recognised that natural selection must act on larvae, just as it does on adults, giving the lie to recapitulation which would require larval forms to be shielded from natural selection.

If the clause beginning with "which" is a non-restrictive clause, there should be a comma after "recapitulation". If you prefer it to be a restrictive clause, then I would change "recapitulation" to "the theory of recapitulation" and "which" to "that"


 * Added a comma. I suspect Brit and Am usage vary here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

3) I notice that later in this paragraph, and several times in subsequent sections, you use "evo-devo" to refer to "evolutionary developmental biology". I read the explanation of the shorter term at the beginning of the article. The first sentence begins: "Evolutionary developmental biology (informally, evo-devo) is...". I would just like to mention a few points:

(a) Real evolutionary developmental biologists are unlikely to read this article (except to check or edit it);

(b) the abbreviated form is admittedly informal, and encylopedia articles are generally written in somewhat formal language;

(c) the abbreviated form was probably developed mainly to save time in speech, conversation, discussions, etc.; there is no real reason that I know of to save time or space in a WP article, is there?

(d) to avoid constantly repeating "evolutionary developmental biology", I would guess that there may be a few times when "the field" could be used.

I just prefer to see the real, complete phrase, or nothing at all. But that's just my opinion. In articles on, say, paleo-anthropology, do we see "Paleo-an" for short?


 * Risked a passive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

4) Toward the end of the third paragraph in the Evolutionary developmental biology sub-section of the larger section Evolutionary developmental biology is the following sentence:


 * The evidence of Pax-6, however, was that the same genes controlled the development of the eyes of all these animals, implying that they all evolved from a common ancestor.

In this sentence, and in the last sentence of the paragraph, you use "implying". This may be a common usage among scientists, but something about it does not sound right to me.

(a) I know the verb imply can be used in two senses:


 * a person implies something when he or she says something but not directly, or
 * the existence or occurrence of X and Y implies (strongly suggests) Z

But here, it is not clear whether the evidence of Pax-6, spelled out in the middle of the sentence, has been clearly demonstrated to be fact, or is still in the hypothetical stage. If it is still in the hypothetical stage (probably, or pretty sure to be true), I would use "suggesting" instead of "implying". If has been demonstrated to be fact, then I would re-word it to say something like "leading researchers to conclude" (which also gives the suggestion of a new development in science). Perhaps use the longer phrase for the first one and "suggesting" for the last sentence in the paragraph. Just a thought.


 * The goal is to describe the field, not researchers. Suggesting it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 *  After I logged off last night, I thought of another word: "indicating"; it's a little stronger, more definite, than "suggesting". "Suggesting" is fine; I just thought I'd mention it. – Corinne (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

5) In the section Evolutionary developmental biology, toward the end of the second paragraph, are the following sentences:


 * The effects of these genes interact; for instance, the bicoid protein blocks the translation of caudal's messenger RNA, so the caudal protein concentration becomes low at the anterior end. Caudal later switches on genes which create the fly's hindmost segments, but only at the posterior end where it is most concentrated.

I have highlighted the word "caudal" twice. In the sentence before these, you use "caudal" as an adjective (which, I believe, judging from the -al ending, is its usual function): "the caudal and nanos genes". Here, you seem to be using "caudal" as a noun, almost as a name: Caudal came over for dinner last night. What is "caudal" (noun)? Not even "the caudal", or "the caudal protein", but just "caudal"? Very puzzling.


 * Thanks. caudal is a gene; Caudal is a protein. Nouns can be used in apposition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

6) Toward the end of Evolutionary developmental biology you have "Distal-less" in italics: Distal-less, but earlier in the paragraph it is in Roman (regular) font. Shouldn't those be consistent? Well, that's all. – Corinne (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, we need italics for the genes and Sentence case for the proteins. Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Response (copy-edit)
Hello Corinne, excuse me for my belated response; I can talk and understand Persian well, but I can't read/write it at all. So unfortunately, I'd be unable to help you with such a question. Did someone else manage to help you out though? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem, LouisAragon. I will ask the editor who made the request for the copy-edit. You ought to try to learn to read and write Persian. I taught myself. It's not that difficult. Just learn the alphabet and the various forms (initial, medial, and final) for the letters (some letters just have one or two forms, so it's not that bad). Then learn the few combinations of two letters that represent one sound (such as aleph and i). Most letters just have one sound. There are more than one letter for a few sounds, such as "s", "z", and "h". You just have to memorize which one to use. (The "s" in particular reflects the origin of the word.) If you already know the language, it will be easy to learn to read and write. – Corinne (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks alot for the tip! I appreciate it, and I will definetely remind it. Yeah, many people told me that I should learn it, especially given that I can already speak it, but I'm unfortunately really busy/occupied with other stuff. You just taught yourself the entire language out of sheer interest or? Regardless of the answer, that definetely deserves a big thumbs up. Learning new things in life, of which languages are probably a prime example, always require us to show a certain amount of perseverance and will -- regardless of the natural talent to learn new things that is. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)