User talk:Corinne/Archive 27

Comma, comma and comma vs. Comma, comma, and comma.
This piece is probably the best yet in Mary Norris's series on punctuation as a "bulwark against barbarism." Sca (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC) See also comma. – Corinne (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've read of this case elsewhere. I'm all for the truck drivers and serial comma!! This is the best article on this topic. GO SERIAL COMMA!!  HalfGig   talk  19:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sca, for the link to the Mary Norris article. I really enjoyed reading it. However, I don't understand this part:


 * "The next day, I enjoyed pan-roasted oysters with a tomato sauce over rice, broccoli salad and bread pudding with chocolate sauce." A comma after "broccoli salad" would have cleared the table before dessert.


 * I don't understand why "A comma after 'broccoli salad' would have cleared the table before dessert." To me, the way it reads now, without a comma after "broccoli salad", it sounds like both the broccoli salad and the bread pudding came with chocolate sauce, which, in the case of broccoli salad, sounds disgusting, thus clearing the table. If a comma is placed after "broccoli salad", then only the bread pudding would come with chocolate sauce. What am I missing? By the way, growing up, I was taught not to use the serial comma, but after reading more about it on WP, I have been persuaded that it makes more sense to use it, so I do. – Corinne (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Without the final comma, it can be read as saying that there was chocolate sauce on the broccoli salad as well. Not a consummation devoutly to be wished. The fact that it's disgusting doesn't solve the problem, grammatically speaking. – Sca (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 *  Thanks for your thoughts, but that's what I said:


 * To me, the way it reads now, without a comma after "broccoli salad", it sounds like both the broccoli salad and the bread pudding came with chocolate sauce, which, in the case of broccoli salad, sounds disgusting, thus clearing the table.


 * Mary Norris said that:


 * A comma after "broccoli salad" would have cleared the table before dessert.


 * and that's what I don't understand. – Corinne (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Uh, a comma after salad makes it clear that bread pudding with chocolate sauce is a separate item in the series, not additional info about the preceding salad item.  Sca (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sca Yes. I understand that. If it is made clear by that comma that the chocolate sauce would only be on the bread pudding and not on the broccoli, then there is no reason to think that people would leave the table in disgust before the dessert course. I think Mary Norris got things mixed up. No comma after "broccoli salad" might have "cleared the table before dessert". – Corinne (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's something here that either I or dare I say you don't understand. Sca (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Yes. Start from the beginning. Read M.N.'s article again. Then read what I wrote above, carefully. The way I understand it, she makes a kind of joke, saying that people would leave the table (presumably, in disgust) before dessert was served if they were served broccoli salad...with chocolate sauce. That understanding of the sentence would only occur if there were no comma after "broccoli salad", but she says, "A comma after "broccoli salad" would have cleared the table before dessert." If I have misunderstood Norris, could you explain what she means by this? – Corinne (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I read the relevant portion again. It's quite clear to me that Norris does endorse the final (missing) comma as "clearing the table before dessert." (Thus she endorses Judge Barron's ruling.)
 * But you say you "don't understand why 'a comma after 'broccoli salad' would have cleared the table before dessert.'" That means you disagree with Norris, and that you don't think the final comma is necessary. I don't understand why you don't understand why it is.
 * The only thing I don't understand is the digression about milk and cows at the end of her piece. Now, please tell me what else I don't understand. Sca (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: My basic rule on ultimate serial commas always has been, use only if necessary to avoid confusion. 17:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I am so sorry to shoulder my way in here when you two are clearly enjoying your discussion so much. However, I wanted to mention a possibility which you do not seem to have discussed, though please correct me if I am wrong. It seems so obvious to me that I feel as if I must be going mad if I am seeing it when you are apparently not, and if so, or if I've otherwise got this all wrong, then apologies in advance, but here goes. Please consider this: when she talks about clearing the table, that is a GOOD thing. She does not mean people leaving in disgust because a horrible mixture will be served; she means you clear the table of the main course first ... that is, you remove the oysters and rice and sauce and what have you. That food is no longer there - the table is clear, though your guests are still sitting at it. NOW you can serve the chocolate whatsit without fear of it ending up involved in oysters. Please have another look at it with this possibility in mind ... and I'm sorry if I got it wrong somehow but tbh I feel I am probably right! Hope this helps, best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo dolor di eget ligula. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis partoriente montes, nascetur ridiculus Mus Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pretium quis, pellentesque eu SEM. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In justo enim, ut rhoncus imperdiet un, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi! Sca (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that meant to be a response to me? It seems to be threaded as if it is. If so, could I please have something in English? Thank you. DBaK (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Further the affiant sayeth naught. Sca (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 First, I found your comment just above,

It's quite clear to me that Norris does endorse the final (missing) comma as "clearing the table before dessert.

confusing. I think you combined two statements into one. I am puzzled as to why you think I disagree with Norris. I think Norris does endorse the use of the serial comma, and I agree with her. I think the comma should have been used in the contract of which she wrote, and I think a comma is needed after "broccoli salad". She explains that, because the serial comma as omitted in the contract, two items were considered as one item. Instead of being understood as (1) packing for shipment, and (2) distribution, it was considered as one item: packing for shipment or distribution (i.e., transport). So, because of the missing comma, the judge agreed with the workers that transportation was not included in the list of exemptions from the requirement to pay overtime. The broccoli example is similar. Here is the sentence she quoted:

The next day, I enjoyed pan-roasted oysters with a tomato sauce over rice, broccoli salad and bread pudding with chocolate sauce.

The way it is written, with no comma after "broccoli", the phrase "with chocolate sauce" applies to both "broccoli salad" and "bread pudding". If a comma had been placed after "broccoli salad", the phrase "with chocolate sauce" would apply only to "bread pudding". I don't understand the reason for her next statement, "A comma after “broccoli salad” would have cleared the table before dessert." Does she think that this wording,

The next day, I enjoyed pan-roasted oysters with a tomato sauce over rice, broccoli salad, and bread pudding with chocolate sauce.

with a comma after "broccoli salad", means that the chocolate sauce would apply to both the bread pudding and the broccoli salad? If she does, then I really don't understand the serial comma. Jonesey95 and Miniapolis, and any talk page stalkers, can you help here? (Read from the beginning.)

 I don't mind at all your adding your comments, and you never need to apologize here. I see that "cleared the table" could be interpreted differently from the way I interpreted it; that adds another element to the confusion, but that's all right. I'm not completely sure why Sca replied the way he did, but Lorem ipsum is nonsensical Latin text used by publishers as a temporary filler. You can read about it in the WP article. You can also see how it might be used at Picture tutorial, where, since the article is about placement of images in an article, the text is irrelevant. His last comment is just (probably Middle English) for "the plaintiff, or litigant, rests his case, or has nothing further to say". Perhaps Sca had had enough of this discussion that seemed to be getting nowhere. Sca, is there a way to e-mail Mary Norris without subscribing to the magazine? – Corinne (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that I could discover in a quick search.
 * Since we both understand, after 1,600 words, that the comma after broccoli salad is the heretofore missing serial comma, and does the job, let's declare agreement and move on, OK? Sca (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, Sca. (How do know it's 1,600 words? How do you count the words?) To me, this is a good-natured discussion, not an argument; I hope you saw it that way. I hope it did not upset you. I do appreciate the occasional link to a Norris (or other) article. – Corinne (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The lesson here, as always, is that if you are trying to write a sentence or two or three to demonstrate a grammatical point, you must ensure that the sentences you write, including both the example sentence and the explanatory sentences, are unambiguous. I was amused by Mary Norris's phrasing when she wrote it, but this discussion makes it evident that "cleared the table" has an ambiguous meaning, leading to some confusion about the example sentence. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How do know? Copy text into word doc, go to tools, select word count – presto! And yes, it was all a collegial discussion. Sca (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Big news
From AP. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow! That is news. What does being "non-binary" mean? – Corinne (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your guess is as good as mine. But I'm just an analog guy in a digital world. – Sca (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Gender neutral. Vsmith (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC) or see Gender neutrality in English Vsmith (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Gender neutral (which I think should be hyphenated) is much more readily understood by most of us. Sca (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "non-binary" means a little from column A, a little from column B. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Palais Rohan, Strasbourg
Would you have time for a visit to a palace which is up for FA (not by me), and the prose questioned? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Norodom Sihanouk
Miniapolis, Jonesey95 and any talk page stalkers:

is the use of "as" after "appointed" common British usage? See  to Norodom Sihanouk, an article that I copy-edited a while back. It is not American usage, so I usually remove the "as" when I see it, but I guess I should leave it in when the article uses British English. Any thoughts? – Corinne (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a BrE user (of a sort) and I think the edit was wrong. "As" feels to me as if it adds an undesirable fiddliness to the sentence. Theresa May was appointed Prime Minister, Mr Smith was appointed manager of the Midland Bank (oops, that dates me!), etc ... these all seem correct to me, whereas adding the "as" in would make it just a touch awkward. hth DBaK (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As a Yank, I'm somewhat familiar with British English but can't say for sure; however, I also generally remove it as redundant. Jonesey might know better. All the best,  Mini  apolis  20:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Appointed as" doesn't bother me much, especially when followed by "a" or "an", like "appointed as an ambassador to Munchkinland". I would probably let it ride, as long as it was consistent throughout the article. I would definitely change one of them if it appeared as "appointed ambassador" in one part of the article, but "appointed as ambassador" in another section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps
' and ' You might be interested in  and a similar one an edit or two earlier by a different(?) IP editor to the article on Liquorice. I had brought it to the attention of Sminthopsis84 because this latter editor is a botanist and I wasn't sure of one fact that had been changed in the earlier edit. It is concerning when an editor doesn't realize that his or her edits are making a sentence ungrammatical. I looked at the IP editor's user contributions and see a lot of negative edit summaries. I'm wondering whether it would be worth looking at some of the other edits having to do with punctuation and grammar, just to be sure the editor is not sprinkling many WP articles with these kinds of errors. – Corinne (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since I'm knee-deep in Minoan civilization I didn't look at the earlier edit, but your diff may indicate a WP:CIR issue (non-native speaker). I reverted and left a note on the IP's talk page. All the best,  Mini  apolis  20:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Miniapolis. I didn't even remember seeing the removal of the comma after Spain (but I agree with your decision to put it back in); I was more concerned by the change from "actually" to "but", originally made in*' edit, and repeated by another(?) IP in *' edit, and again by another(?) IP in *' edit. Sminthopsis84 had already fixed that grammatical error in ' edit, but your replacing the comma was an additional improvement. I wonder, is it possible that this is the same editor using three different IP addresses? – Corinne (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It may be a dynamic IP (as mine is), but the IP I reverted had a few notices on their talk page.  Mini  apolis  00:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh. O.K. (What's a dynamic IP?) – Corinne (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is strange that someone would be so persistent about an ungrammatical edit, but welcome to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It happens. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's an IP address that (for a given device) isn't constant long-term (that would be a static IP), but changes fairly (or very) frequently, see Dynamic IP. I have a dynamic IP address: it changes whenever I reboot my router, or when the local telephone wires lose their connection (perhaps twice a week). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Civilisation vs. civilization
 I am just about to resume copy-editing Pakistan. I decided to look at whatever edits had been made since I left off a day or so ago, and I came across something I need to ask you about:

In  edit, an editor changed "civilisation" to "civilization", with an edit summary saying "direct link". I checked, and cradle of civilisation, through, I believe, a re-direct, leads to the article Cradle of civilization. I suppose a direct link is usually preferable to a re-direct link, but if the article is written in British English, shouldn't the spelling follow that variant of English, and the re-direct will take care of the problem? That's a general question, the answer to which will help me in future copy-editing, but I also have a specific question about the spelling of that word. I checked in two places:


 * Manual of Style/Spelling and


 * Manual of Style/Spelling/Words ending with "-ise" or "-ize"

The former chart does not show "civilisation/civilization", but it does have "organisation/organization", and in fact shows both spellings for the U.K. and Ireland (but the one with "s" may be OED).

The latter chart shows "civilise" for English/Great Britain (GB) and "civilize" for English/Great Britain (GB) OED.

So, which spelling of "civilisation/civilization" do we/should we use in Wikipedia articles that are written in British English, the regular GB one or the OED one? – Corinne (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Civilisation, I think. I had never heard of Oxford spelling, and wish that were still the case :-).  Mini  apolis  01:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And I've let know about WP:NOTBROKEN.  Mini  apolis  01:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: the "direct link" thing is a red herring here; it doesn't in any way override WP:ENGVAR which is a far more important guiding principle than anything about links. ENGVAR pretty much avoids a return to open warfare between our two great nations. Having said that, the -ise/ize thing is a horrible mess, over which people get stressy and stroppy. For quite a few years I typset academic books for UK publisher who were fully committed to Oxford so I tend to spell that way. What to do here is difficult, and it can lead to simplistic > rude > nationalistic > silly argument, which seems a jolly good thing to avoid. I would change as little as possible, but beware of crusaders, I guess. I could write more, but probably, nay certainly, should not. Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing comment from me: but if anyone tries to present ise/ize as a simple BrE/AmE distinction like colour/color ... it just isn't. It's important to recognize this. Language could get very boring if fitted too easily into tidy boxes ... Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * – Hi, Corinne. Pakistan was under British rule from 1849–1947. That is the main thing British about it. There is little American about Pakistan either. If the previous preponderance of the article is written in British English, then the whole article should be written that way. I do not see any strong nationalist reason to favor one spelling variation over the other. You are correct, IMHO, that a redirect can help promote EngVar continuity. Cheers!  16:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ' I'd like to hear your thoughts on something; nothing serious, just puzzling. In ' edit, I commented on some puzzling edits. Today, when I got a notice about a reply, and went to the talk page, the comments had already been archived in  edit, so I had to read the reply in the orange highlighted text. I was able to read them, but why were they archived so quickly? Also, the editor did not really respond to my comment. Shall I just resume copy-editing the article, or leave it for someone else to do? – Corinne (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody owns a WP article, not even the GOCE :-). Faizan didn't request the copyedit, and is doing freelance cleanup. User-talkpage latitude is pretty broad; the removal of a post (by archiving or deletion) implies that the post has been read and digested. Although it would've been nice if they had waited for your reply, it looks like an oversight to me. Unless the article has become unstable, your obligation is to the requester. All the best,  Mini  apolis  19:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Rose Cannabich
 Hello, Gerda - I was looking at your DYK for Rose Cannabich, and in the article, in the second paragraph of the section Rose Cannabich, I saw this sentence:


 * As was customary among musical families, the children received musical training, probably by their father and other members of the orchestra, such as the singers Augusta Elisabeth Wendling and Elisabeth Augusta Wendling and her husband, the violinist Franz Anton Wendling.

Were there really two singers, one named Augusta Elisabeth Wendling and the other named Elisabeth Augusta Wendling? If so, it might help dispel some confusion for the reader if you made clear any relationship or connection between the two women. Congratulations on the DYK. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, there were, only August would be a mistake, Augusta. The source has the relationship, I kind of thought it was undue weight. Perhaps better drop one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked, - no, the source doesn't have it either. One possible explanation would be AE being the sister of the man, who may have married EA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the typo in the second name; I've added the missing "a". It sounds like it was just a coincidence that one was named Augusta Elisabeth and the other was named Elisabeth Augusta, but it may puzzle the article's readers. – Corinne (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Idries Shah
' (or any tps) – What do you think of ' edits to Idries Shah, and the ones just previous to them by the same editor? – Corinne (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They look fine to me; the editor updated the ISBNs to later (and probably more readily-available) editions. I'll advise them to use edit summaries.  Mini  apolis  13:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ginkgoales
 Do you have Ginkgoales on your watch list? If not, can you check  edits? – Corinne (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think, with some other corrections. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Russian language
 Hello, Florian - I've been reading the articles on Russian grammar and Russian phonology. It has been a long time since I studied Russian, but was trying to figure out something. In the Russian grammar section of the Russian grammar article, there is a table showing the personal pronouns. The third-person-singular forms are оно́, он, and она́. I forgot the pronunciation of н. I figured it was a consonant, but I looked in both the vowel and the consonant tables in Russian phonology article and could not find that letter. What is the pronunciation of н, and why can't I find it in the tables in the phonology article? – Corinne (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan
Hi there! You claimed Pakistan on the GOCE Requests page two weeks ago and have not edited the page since April 9. Are you still planning to work on it, or should it be freed up for another editor to work on? It is the second-oldest request on the page at this time. I'll be happy to take over if it is not suitable for you. Thanks, and happy editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder, Jonesey95. I've been rather busy in real life lately. It's also a bit tedious, so I can't do more than a little at a time. – Corinne (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Singular 'they'
Pretty good discussion [http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-aps-pronoun-decree/article/2007577#! here.] – Sca (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a well written essay. I'm sorry, though, to see the AP has approved the use of "they" as singular. There is one sentence I want to ask you about. It is the first sentence in this passage, which appears a little before the end:


 * The incoherence is nicely, if unintentionally, expressed in the AP press release: "When 'they' is singular it takes a plural verb." The singular, in other words, is plural, except when it's singular.


 * I realize that Ferguson is having a little fun with this, but the humor is mainly expressed in the second sentence. The first sentence contains an actual quote from the AP press release. I don't understand this:


 * When 'they' is singular it takes a plural verb.


 * I assume that when some people use "they" as a singular pronoun, they are using it instead of "he" or "she". Did someone mistake verbs like "thinks", "knows", and "works" as a "plural verb" just because it has an "s" on the end? In my mind, those are all singular verb forms – third person singular. The "s" on the end doesn't make them plural. So, what do you think the AP meant by this sentence (assuming that Ferguson quoted it accurately)? – Corinne (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I view this policy change as succumbing to the vacuity of the great unwashed. This supposedly is in acknowledgment of the "living language" construct. But it's illogical. Sca (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is all right when a style guide deems acceptable something that has been in the spoken language for quite a while – decades, if not centuries – by a large proportion of the speakers of the language. That's acknowledging that languages change over time. Here, I think they are being politically correct and deeming something acceptable when it is used by only a small fraction of the speakers of the language; they are thus promoting a change in the language instead of being on the conservative end of the spectrum (linguistically-speaking) and serving as a guide and leader in good writing. – Corinne (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. And it's illogical because it doesn't comport with the structure of the language.
 * It would be better if English-speakers could come up with a gender-neutral possessive pronoun. In German, man is used like the British-English one ("One doesn't like crumpets") in a gender-neutral way; the possessive pronoun remains seine ("his") but due to its neutral antecedent it's understood not to signify maleness biologically – only grammatically. (The German for a male human being is Mann, pronounced the same as man but spelled differently.)
 * Alles klar? Sca (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a great idea. Maybe "one" will come back as a useful alternative. Farsi has only one third-person-singular pronoun: oo (rhymes with two).  – Corinne (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And in German oo-hoo (Uhu) is a word for owl. Ha. Sca (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a great example of onomatopoeia. – Corinne (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it though? One confusing thing is, German seems to have two words for owl. Eule (oy' luh) seems to be the more official word, and Uhu more informal. However, if one looks at the German WP article about owls, titled Eulen (pl.), it seems to use Eule and Uhu interchangeably. Puzzling. Sca (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, Eule sounds cognate with "owl" – same word, really. Maybe it's children who call it an Uhu, or maybe it's regional. – Corinne (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, in Finnish it's Pöllölinnut – which goes to show you never know.... Sca (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. (How do you know Finnish?) Pollo means "chicken" in Spanish. Perhaps "chicken of the forest"? The elegant owl would be appalled. – Corinne (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know Finnish – just went to our article on owls and clicked on several languages in the left-hand column, eventually this one. (I do know the Finnish word for Finland is Suomi.) I can tell you from translate.com that Happy Easter in Finnish is Hyvää pääsiäistä! Must be quite a strange language. Sca (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If you go to the German article on Uhu and follow the English link, you come to Eurasian eagle-owl. As for Finnish, yes, it is very strange. My oldest English friend this week returned to England after spending his adult life teaching in Finland. He learnt the language, but wishes he hadn't bothered! Rothorpe (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Supposedly related to Estonian and, further afield, Hungarian, but to no other European languages. In that respect it seems a bit like Basque. Sca (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Basque is a true orphan, I believe, but coincidentally I came across a north-Russian relative of Finnish today, Verts language, something like that... Rothorpe (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Veps language. Rothorpe (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * From quick glances at the relevant articles, Veps and Karelian seem basically dialects of Finnish, while Estonian and of course Hungarian are distinct languages. The Urheimat of the group is posited as the Volga west of the Urals. So, one more strange thing to come out of Россия. – Sca (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Social contract 2
 I was just looking at the latest edits to Social contract (which I copy-edited about two months ago), and I saw something that puzzled me. It is this sentence, which appears in the Social contract section:


 * In Mills' words, "what has usually been taken...as the racist 'exception' has really been the rule; what has been taken as the 'rule' [,racial equality,] has really been the exception."

I wondered if the commas were necessary within the brackets. If they are, I wonder if you would mind explaining why; I'd be interested to know the reason.

Also, I thought that, according to MOS:LQ (and contrary to general American practice, but I've gotten used to it), when a quote is an incomplete sentence, the final double quotation marks go inside the final period/full stop. (I have seen some editors say that if the quoted material ends in a period/full stop in the original source, the double quotation marks go outside the period/full stop, but that would mean going back to the source every time one wants to check.) What do you think here? – Corinne (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The quoted sentence with the brackets inside is too strange. Even if you fix the punctuation, it will still be hard to read. That means that the surrounding sentence or two needs a complete rewrite.


 * I don't think anyone will object to the full stop inside the quotation marks if you are unable to verify it with the original source and leave it that way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jonesey95, for your reply. I left the period/full stop where it was. Regarding the other issue, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by "the quoted sentence within the brackets". I only saw two words within brackets ("racial equality"). I just took out the two commas that were with that phrase. I also re-worded the next sentence (about love) so that it at least makes sense. Is there anything more you think needs to be done there? – Corinne (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "with" the brackets, not "within". I looked at the article, and what you ended up with there looks reasonable to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I misread that. Thanks! – Corinne (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Wow, thanks, Jasphetamine! It is much appreciated. The same goes for you, too! Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * >=) Jasphetamine (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Mary Lascelles (literary scholar)
Hello, Corinne. I don't think you are an administrator yet, are you? If not, could you recommend one? The above needs moving to plain Mary Lascelles, which means a redirect must be deleted. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's just been done. False alarm, sorry. Regards. Rothorpe (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Crusades
Thanks for the copyediting on this. One question on the clarifications needed, shall I start on them now or wait until you have got to the end? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 *  Hello, Norfolkbigfish. Thanks for asking! I'd prefer if you would wait until I have finished copy-editing the entire article, for two reasons:


 * 1) There would be no chance of getting into an edit conflict; and


 * 2) occasionally, I find information later in the article that will enable me to clarify the sentence myself, in which case I would remove the tag and hidden note.


 * Usually, I pose questions like this along with any other concerns or questions I have on the talk page of the requester when I'm all finished, especially if it's up for, or will soon be up for, an FA review. In other words, I would try not to clutter up the article with tags and notes. I didn't think it would be a problem in this case. It's a little easier to pose the question right where the clarification is needed than to write it all out on a talk page.


 * I'll continue copy-editing later today. – Corinne (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks np, I'll be patient and wait Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * A bit of advice on the clarification required below would be appreciated. The term Crusade has been applied retrospectively and as with the numbering somewhat arbitrarily to a number military actions which imply a consistency of definition that doesn’t exist. This is the intention behind the use of coherence, so advice on how to phrase this would be appreciated


 * "By convention, historians have adopted the term for the Christian holy wars from 1095, but this sometimes creates a misleading impression of coherence in the early "Crusades"." Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * First, do you think it is clear to the reader what is meant by "the term"? You've just spent a paragraph explaining the etymology and the various words for "crusade" in various languages, ending with "Croisade". Instead of just "the term", I would be a bit more specific. Perhaps:


 * the more modern form of the word, "Crusade", ...


 * the term "Crusade"


 * the term "Crusade" and its various cognates


 * I don't understand the necessity of ending with the phrase "in the early Crusades". That will mean nothing to the reader at this point. Perhaps, "..., particularly in the early Crusades", or "..., particularly regarding the early Crusades". (I don't think "Crusades" needs to be in quotation marks.) Perhaps don't use "Crusades" here at all. Maybe just "..., particularly in the first two centuries of this period" (or something like that). (All this is thinking out loud. Perhaps if the first part of the sentence is made more specific, the second half the way it is now would make more sense. See possible wording below.) – Corinne (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it would help to be a little more specific in the first part of the sentence. Something like:


 * Although the term "crusade" has been adopted by historians to describe the Christian holy wars from 1095, the range of events to which it has been applied is so great that its use can create a misleading impression of coherence, particularly regarding the early Crusades.


 * – Corinne (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that works perfectly, I thank you Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this, it is greatly improved. I have clarified the items you raised and passed back the the reviewer to complete the GAR. Much appreciated Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

.
 I see you removed the material I put in your sandbox revising your list. I guess I should have left it alone. I was mainly concerned that you had labeled "that" for use with a non-restrictive clause when it should be used with a restrictive clause, but I guess I got carried away. I would like to apologize, and I'll leave your sandbox alone in the future. I guess I did finally annoy you. I'm sorry. – Corinne (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorrect - I transferred it to my Talk page! There it will reside and ultimately be archived where I can safely refer to it. My Sandbox is a bit "dynamic", as you probably noticed, with stuff going everywhere - sometimes I accidentally delete things then experience difficulty finding and retrieving it again from View History. Our Sandbox exercise was good for what a Sandbox should be used for - developing a final product. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  21:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Tus, Iran
' Do you agree with ' edit to Tus, Iran? If you do, the semi-colon construction ought to be restored. – Corinne (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the edit made by user "Yazeh", yeah. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

People from Balochistan
 Yesterday, I finished copy-editing most of Pakistan in response to a request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Since it was taking me so long to get through it (partly because I was busy in real life and partly because I had to spend more effort than usual in improving the prose), Jasphetamine offered to assist me. I accepted the offer, and suggested s/he work on some middle sections (see section above this on Pakistan and a section on the article's talk page). Yesterday, I turned the article over to Jasphetamine. If, for some reason, s/he does not start working on those sections, I will finish them. That's just a little background.

I was just looking at some  to the article by Mfarazbaig. They are all fine, but I am puzzled by one of them. I had earlier changed the name of people from Balochistan from "Balochs" to "Baloches" (it could also be spelled "Balochis"), and in this set of edits Mfarazbaig changed it in two instances back to "Balochs". I am really puzzled by this. The reason I changed it was because, to my mind, "Balochs" (with, I believe, "ch" pronounced "ch", not "k", because "Balochistan" is pronounced with the "ch" sound) is unpronounceable in English. I cannot fathom how this could be the name of the people in English. With only "s" following "Baloch", it would normally be pronounced with the "ch" sounding like "k". Is it possible that the province is pronounced with the "ch" sound and the name of the people living in it is pronounced with the "k" sound? Also, I did a search for "Balochs", and it led to the article Baloch people, and in that article the people are referred to mainly as "Baloch people", or "Baloch tribes". The word "Balochs" appears only twice in the article. Can you enlighten me on this? – Corinne (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Corinne Thanks for all your efforts in copy-editing the Pakistan article.

Apart from the article Baloch people. See: Baloch of Iran and Baloch of Punjab. The word "Baloch" is used to refer to a single person in native language, thus the use of Baloch people to refer to the group as a whole. Therefore the people of Balochistan are referred to as "Baloch" (same pronunciation in Urdu بلوچ) if singular and "Balochs" (anglicized version: by adding a 's') if plural. This is also because the language they speak is Balochi. Thus the terms "Baloches" or "Balochis" are not applicable for a people. Also many a books use the term "Balochs" for the people of the region. See Google Hope this satisfactorily explains my changes. Cheers. mfarazbaig --mfarazbaig 17:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Mfarazbaig, for your comments. I'd still be interested in LouisAragon's thoughts. I'm also puzzled because, in Farsi, the "i" ending on a noun can mean "person from" that place. If it can mean that in Farsi, why not in Urdu? – Corinne (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Balochs", "Baloch", "Balochis", can all be used as plural forms. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Mind if I help out on Pakistan?
If you don't mind working with another editor, ping me and tell me where to start tidying up. Jasphetamine (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jasphetamine. I've seen you're now working with the GOCE. No, I don't mind working with another editor, and I'd love to have your help on Pakistan. If you could start at Pakistan (I think I may have just started it), and go through Pakistan, at least through the Transport section, I'll work on the last part of the article. Note:


 * I added two "clarification needed" tags. When you find them, you might be able to clear up the confusion.


 * I think the administrative division Gilgit–Baltistan should have an en-dash rather than a hyphen, and I think the article title Gilgit–Baltistan probably should also have an en-dash. In addition to changing the hyphen to an en-dash where it appears in this article, you might consider working on correcting (moving?) the title of the article so it, also, has an en-dash.


 * In the Pakistan section there is a conversion template that shows hectares, then square kilometers. I'd like to add acres and/or square miles (probably square miles would make more sense because it is such a large area). Can you look at the information on conversion templates (see links at the top of my talk page) and see if there is a way to do a triple conversion? Neither hectares nor square kilometers mean anything to an American reader.


 * I know conservative or Br. Eng. style usually uses a comma after an initial prepositional phrase such as "In 1970", I prefer no comma (I think the comma is unnecessary and slows down the reader); if you don't feel strongly that a comma is needed, shall we continue the style of no comma? If you feel that a comma is needed, please feel free to add one wherever that type of initial phrase appears, starting from the beginning. It is consistency that is important.


 * I usually add the no-break-space template between a one- or two-digit number and a following word (including a month) or abbreviation such as AD, BC, CE, and BCE so that the number does not end up alone at the end of a line. For a spaced en-dash (which I greatly prefer over an unspaced em-dash), I use the template  –  unless it appears within a cite ref or quote template (which both use pairs of curly brackets), in which case I use   for the no-break space and, for an en-dash,   or the simple en-dash line: – . By the way, please feel free to copy to your user or talk page any or all of the material at the top of my talk page. (Don't forget to put your user name instead of mine in the GOCE template.)


 * Thank you so much for offering to help. Let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm going to poke at it here and there. I'll be in the GOCE IRC channel whlie i'm editing. Jasphetamine (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 *  Great! I just wanted you to know that if you already copied material (links, templates, etc.) from the top of my talk page to your user page or talk page, I just fixed some things in the "GOCE templates" section, so you might want to re-copy that section. What does that mean, "Ill be in the GOCE IRC channel while I'm editing"? I thought the IRC channel was just for chatting on-line with other editors. – Corinne (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up about the templates and what not. I just mentioned I log into the copyedit IRC room when editing so if you see edits going live that are problematic, or break a template, or whatever, you can yell at me in real time. >=) Seriously though, I'm trying to seed the habit of logging in and just leaving it in the background and if they see it blink, glance to see if someone needs a question answered or help or whatever. The generic wiki-en help room guys don't really do specific MOS. Jasphetamine (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh.... Very interesting. Maybe I should try logging on. I'm currently working on the Education section of the article. I should be finished soon. – Corinne (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 I'm turning it over to you. I finally finished my sections, and then searched for and removed quite a few duplicate links. Perhaps you can find more. If you see an em-dash, would you substitute the template for a spaced en-dash? – I'm going to leave a note on the requester's talk page asking why s/he put a hyphen in "Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa" (and after a pipe in links) even though the WP article title has no hyphen, and why s/he spelled Sindh "Sind" once, after a pipe, in a link. There was one place in Foreign relations where I was going to remove the link to "All India Muslim League" (it read "Muslim League" after the pipe) but decided not to because other more modern political parties with "Muslim League" in the name of the party had recently been mentioned; I actually wonder why the older Muslim League is mentioned at this point, but I'm too tired to figure it out right now. – Corinne (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 *  Sorry I've been away from Wiki due to life being, you know, a requisite aspect of existence the priority of which sadly overrules Wikipedia's. I'm not sure where you left this article, but I'll give it a read over just in case and if anything stands out I'll touch it up. Again, I'm sorry I disappeared. I'm sure there is a double-bracket "Wikipedia isn't the most important thing" article of some kind I could reference giving justification/precedence for me bailing on you but as a new guy and someone you took a lot of time to talk to I feel an apology is in order. If any edits seem needed I'll ping you. Thanks, Jasphetamine (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Macedonia (ancient kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Levy. 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) 09:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Falcon Nest
Hi, you did some cleanup on this article the other day. I am just curious as to how you decided to pick this one. You did the copyedit just at the end of the 24-hour run in the DYK section, where it received about 20k views. Unfortunately, most people read it before it included your improvements. MB 00:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, there, MB! I saw the DYK on the main page and decided to read the article. As I read it, I came across things that needed fixing. If you would like someone to go over an article before a DYK review or a GA or FA review, you can post a request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Right now, there is a long list of requests, so it is taking longer than usual for a request to get copy-edited. If you have a short to medium-length article and would like me to do a quick copy-edit before a DYK review, you can ask me here on my talk page. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My next DYKs are Tapeats Creek and Red Rock Bridge. Both are short. They won't get onto the main page for several weeks yet, so anytime you have a chance would be great. Thanks for the help. MB 15:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 *  I would be glad to. I think you should put in a request for each of them on the Requests page anyway. That way, if for some reason I don't get to them (due to real life, for example), they will be moving up the list. I can always accept the assignment there, too.  – Corinne (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank You
Hi Corinne: I had completely forgotten about your nominating me for Editor of the Week some time ago. I got such a pleasant surprise this morning to learn that your nomination was accepted and I have been bestowed this honour. Thank you so much for considering me worthy and taking the time to prepare a nomination. I sincerely appreciate it! All the best.Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User name
 I was just looking at the latest additions to your user page, and I saw the user box "admire my block log here", so I clicked on it, and I saw that you had been blocked by a user named Nakon. I thought you might find it interesting that that means "Don't do it" in Persian (Farsi). See Persian verbs, the first verb in the second group of verbs for "kon", and Persian verbs, which shows the negative imperative is formed with "na": na = Don't, kon = do [it]. I don't know whether that user is aware of this or not. – Corinne (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Don't do it?", huh? Well, he certainly wasn't aware of it enough to not block me -- see WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive277.  E Eng  14:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Lars von Trier
Hello, Miniapolis - I wonder if you could tell me how  edit could have an edit summary "Undid revision...by Corinne" when only the section heading formatting was replaced. It clearly could not have been a normal revert of my edit since I had undone an edit by the other editor containing two things: section heading formatting and removal of the no-break space templates I had added. A normal revert would have put both of those back, not just one, right?

Also, if you have time, could you read my last post at User talk:Corinne, above. I'd appreciate your opinions. – Corinne (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like didn't like your reverting them; I wouldn't sweat it, but hitting that "undo" button causes a lot of hard feelings. As for your dire wolf copyedit, in a quick look at Featured article candidates/Dire wolf/archive1 I didn't see any issues with it; it may be unrealistic to expect an FAC to remain untouched after a copyedit. Good thing we don't do this for a living :-). All the best,  Mini  apolis  17:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I reviewed my edit. I made a mistake reverting your edit. No discussion about that. As I quick remark, no break spaces are though to see while using the Visual editor. Some of them appear like a double space which may easily trigger the backspace or delete "reflex". Sorry for the trouble. --Afernand74 (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 *  Thank you for your kind comment. I didn't know that about the appearance of the template when using Visual Editor; I rarely use Visual Editor. I just looked at your user page. That's a fantastic photo of the mountains you have there! May I ask where that is? Did you take the photo? If you did, you might consider nominating it for Featured Picture at Featured picture candidates. By the way, you might want to proofread your comments before you save them. – Corinne (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)