User talk:Corinne/Archive 28

Dire wolf
 I need your opinion on something. I've been helping William Harris polish the article Dire wolf, and I just started another read-through of the article. In the lead is the following sentence:


 * The species was named in 1858, four years after the first specimen had been found.

I'm fairly sure it was I who put the second verb in past perfect tense, but now that I look at it again, I'm wondering whether "was found" would sound better. It's shorter than "had been found", and maybe a little less pretentious-sounding. On the other hand, the sentence would then have two "was + past participle". What do you think? Which sounds better to you? (William, please feel free to offer your opinion, too.)


 * The species was named in 1858, four years after the first specimen had been found.


 * The species was named in 1858, four years after the first specimen was found.

– Corinne (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer the first sentence, additionally in getting to the current GA standard the assessor would probably criticise the use of two "was" in the same short sentence. Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  00:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the perfect aspect is seriously endangered and here is a good example of it contrasting neatly with the past simple. Rothorpe (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, both (William and Rothorpe). I guess I shouldn't second-guess myself, or maybe it's because I see past perfect tense so little these days. – Corinne (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can compare sequences of DNA to ascertain the differences between one sample and another, but nearly have no idea what you are both referring too! That is why these article-development undertakings are done best on a project basis. :-) Regards, William Harris •   (talk) •  01:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

' and any talk page stalkers, I wonder if you could give me your opinion on ' edits to Dire wolf, which I had recently copy-edited. I agree with some of the edits, but I think this editor removed "however" a few times where it really adds to comprehension and paragraph cohesion – indicating a contrast with what comes before – for example, the first edit of this group of edits, where one scientist determined something, and another published agreement with him, and the contrast follows. Also, later, in the Radiocarbon dating section, the contrast is in the fact that "The age of most dire wolf localities is determined solely by biostratigraphy", but some sites (localities) have been able to be dated using radiocarbon dating. "But" would also signal the contrast, but the word "but" has just been used. This editor also later removed "however" in the discussion of the jaw, where it is appropriate to signal contrast. I am all for using "but" (or no word) instead of "however" (see my edit , where I changed "however" to "but") and agree that "however" can be overused, but I think in some instances it is appropriate. I also think "a number of" is an elegant construction, as long as it is not overused, whereas "some" is often overused. I have discussed this before with this editor, and gotten nowhere, so don't want to take it up with him again. Also, the editor removed "in order" in the construction "in order to", leaving only "to", where I think "in order to" is more meaningful than merely "to". I cannot understand why some editors think this construction, "in order to", should be dispensed with in every case. (Here's another example by another editor: .) I think with most of the transitional words removed, the articles become like a list of tenuously related facts. I kind of also think that once the article has been copy-edited, it shouldn't be re-copy-edited unless there are obvious or egregious errors. It might give the impression that my copy-editing is mediocre. This is not the first time this editor has done this to an article I have just copy-edited. Most of these changes are merely stylistic choices, so I think they should be left alone, at least until after the review is completed, or discussed with me. What do you think? – Corinne (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree; however, I shall perforce be offline for a number of hours. Até logo, Rothorpe (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So did you decide what to do about this? If not, I'll change some of those back. Rothorpe (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I hadn't decided what to do, if anything. Don't feel you have to change anything back just because I asked about it; only change something back if you really feel it was better before. I think there are certain editors who regularly review Featured article candidates, so it ends up, perhaps by default, with their style preferences taking precedent and remaining in the article by the time the review is finished. I don't know if there is anything one can do about it other than starting a discussion, which will probably end up with their edits standing. – Corinne (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The best thing in such cases is to revert immediately and direct to the talk page. It's all a bit stale now. Cheers! Rothorpe (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

English language
 Since you're on-line now, may I ask you for your opinion on another article? Since I've let some time go by, this, too, may be stale, but there might still be time to address things. See User:Corinne/sandbox. I've written a draft of a comment. You can leave your comments there, or here, whichever is easier. Don't let the images distract you. They were there before I added that section. – Corinne (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember that. Do go ahead and post it, it's fine. Rothorpe (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Krishna
 I have just started to copy-edit Krishna. In the section Krishna, I'm wondering if all those names need to be in italics. I know foreign words need to be in italics, but I'm not sure names do. What do you think? – Corinne (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:BADITALICS (don't you love those shortcut names? :-)), proper names don't; I learned that the hard way from a patient editor while I was copyediting an article. All the best,  Mini  apolis  15:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Krishna 2
 I'm doing a final read-through after copy-editing Krishna. I noticed that in the first paragraph of Krishna, in the phrase, "all-attractive", the hyphen looks shorter than usual. There is a space between the hyphen and the first "a" of "attractive". Is that the way it's supposed to be? I don't remember seeing that small space before. I know there are several hyphens (see MOS:HYPHEN and WP:Hyphen, though you probably already know about those). What do you recommend? – Corinne (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC) Never mind. I just looked at it in edit mode more carefully and saw that there was indeed a space added after the hyphen. I hadn't noticed the space because "all-" appeared at the end of a line. I have fixed it. Since you're here, would you mind reading my last comment under User talk:Corinne, above, about en-dash and em-dash templates? – Corinne (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The character in question is just a regular hyphen-minus. No need to change it. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

MoS
 I see you're working on the MoS; that's great! I'm glad you moved the information on straight and curly quotation marks up. I wanted to mention something that I saw, and you can do whatever you want about it, if anything. In the section Manual of Style, in the sub-section "Quotation characters", in the second bulleted item I see the word "glyphs". I wasn't sure what that word meant, and I'd guess that many readers might not know what it means, either. I see it is linked at its first mention at Ampersand, but someone looking at the Quotation marks section might not see that. The word is also used at the very end of the Manual of Style, not linked, but in the sentence:


 * In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization (but not archaic glyphs and ligatures, as detailed below).

When I read "as detailed below", I looked below, and had to go two sections below, to Manual of Style, last bulleted item in the long list, to find anything:


 * Normalizing archaic glyphs and ligatures unnecessary to the meaning. Examples include æ→ae, œ→oe, ſ→s, and ye→the.

Even that doesn't tell the reader which are glyphs and which are ligatures. Then there is a "See also" directing readers back to Ampersand.

At the very least, perhaps link "glyphs" to glyph, but for someone who doesn't know what is being referred to in Manual of Style, I'm not sure that article will be helpful. – Corinne (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You certainly have an eye for details. It's really complicated untangling all this verbiage. In my latest edit summary I mentioned I have more cleanup to get too, and that's the sort of thing I was talking about. I'll probably get to it tonight. Thanks.  E Eng  23:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 *  I did see your edit summary. I just thought that if you knew what was meant by "glyphs" you might not notice it. Perhaps I should have waited until you were finished before I said anything. I am confident that whatever you do, it will be an improvement. – Corinne (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Glyphs is one of those technical terms some people like to throw around as if everyone should already know it. It's exactly the kind of thing that makes MOS unreadable. All in good time.  E Eng  00:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 I noticed that in the first paragraph of MOS:DASH, it instructs editors as follows:

Two forms of dash are used on Wikipedia: en dash (–) and em dash (—). Enter them as or  ; or click on them to the right of the "Insert" dropdown beneath the edit window.

I wonder why the option of using the –, –, — , and  –  templates is not given. If it is added, perhaps a note should be added saying not to use them within another template such as a cite ref template or a quote template. (By the way, I stopped using –  because it often gives a space at the beginning of a new line, and  –  is sufficient to create the spaced en-dash that I want.)  – Corinne (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * On another topic, I notice that now and then people suggest you archive your talk page because it is getting so long. I wonder if creating sub-pages, such as sub-pages of your user page (if it is not possible to do with your talk page), organized in some fashion such as by year, would preserve the discussions and make it easy for your tps's to find older threads – I think it would be easier than looking for them in an archive, wouldn't it? – but keep the page with the most recent discussions somewhat shorter to ease the problem of loading the page that some experience. Perhaps the shorter talk page could have links to the sub-pages. Your regular tps's would get used to clicking on those links to get to another discussion. Just a thought. – Corinne (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Feelings run high about whether dashes should appear in wikicode literally or in some symbolic form, and if the latter whether that should be the & form or the form; advice throughout the project is all over the map on this, and it's not important enough for anyone to take on the battle of regularizing it all. It turns out to be a myth that ndash can't be used in citation templates, but it's one that will die hard -- we have some silly technical "experts" who don't really understand what they're talking about, and again, no one wants to bother with the battle.


 * {snds} have very little application. The right thing to use for e.g. birth-death dates is {snd}. Also, don't use {mdash}, use {mdashb}, because mdash (without the b) joins both sides into one huge unbreakable block (at least on some browsers). The b means breakable i.e. a break is allowed on the right, which is usually what you want.


 * My talk page is meant to be a stream-of-consciousness tour through the trials and tribulations of one editor. It's big I know, but it's not an archive, it's an adventure. I trim it now and then.  E Eng  23:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 *  Regarding the templates, thank you for explaining the situation and for the information about the importance of adding the "b" to the dash templates. Regarding your talk page, I do see your talk page that way. I was just trying to think of a way to help those editors who, for some reason, have a problem with the loading of the page (not me), but I'll say no more about it. ;) – Corinne (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's only mdash that takes the b i.e. {mdashb} = "mdash breakable". I invented it (at least in that form) and you and I might be the only two people using it, so don't be surprised if someone says, "What's that???" It's explained at .  E Eng  00:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thanks, EEng. Did you see the en- and em-dash templates in the Templates section at the top of this page? There is a template for an en-dash and another one for an em-dash that breaks after the dash. See for the em-dash one. I think these were developed by Checkingfax.  – Corinne (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * {mdashb} redirects to {Zero_width_joiner_em_dash_zero_width_non_joiner}. Who in the world is going to put {Zero_width_joiner_em_dash_zero_width_non_joiner} in an article?  E Eng  15:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

 I'm sorry, but you've lost me. I was referring to templates such as —‌. The template documentation explains what it is, ending with this:

In essence, it is an em dash that will not break on the left side but will break on the right side if needed.

The phrase "Zero width joiner em dash zero width non joiner" will not appear in the article. It's just explaining what kind of em-dash it is. – Corinne (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many ways of making dashes. The MoS doesn't list them all because it shouldn't need to. Really we have only have four situations: (i) a hyphen-minus; (ii) an en-dash; (iii) a spaced en-dash; (iv) an em-dash (cases i, ii and iv are unspaced). All those templates like just complicate things for the newbies, and we also shouldn't need to worry about whether spaces are "thin" or "normal" because nobody will actually be measuring the gap. Joiners (of any width) are another minefield. There are only two useful kinds of space: a normal space that you get from tapping the space-bar once; and the non-breaking space (nbsp). The nbsp character may be typed directly, if you know how: but when the page is next edited, some browsers have the annoying habit of altering a directly-typed nbsp into a regular space, so when I need an nbsp I use the entity   -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There certainly are places (though rare) where a thin space is needed, and certainly joiners are needed as well, though rarely in the wikicode of articles, but rather inside templates. People invent synonyms like {snd} because stuff like {spaced nsdash} it too awkward; newbies quickly learn to imitate what they see in other articles. Back on earth, Corinne, all I was pointing out is that {mdashb} ("mdash breakable on the right") is a synonym for {nsmdns}. And let me point out, per Redrose's concern about newbies, that a newbie has at least some hope of understanding that {mdashb} is some kind of mdash -- no one could ever guess what {nsmdns} is.  E Eng  17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Very true. Thanks both. – Corinne (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Corinne and . Template names are supposed to be descriptive. "Zero width joiner em dash zero width non joiner" is the full description, so that is the base name of the template. Then, shortcuts (redirects) are created to make the template manageable for insertion into pages and articles. I am happy that you came up with mdashb to wrap your head around. The ones I used were based on existing shortcuts for other templates, to make a unified nomenclature.
 * Corinne. Look at the globe logo on the top left of every Wikipedia page. Those puzzle pieces all contain glyphs. Cheers!  06:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A glyph is a shape, representing one or more different characters. For instance, the glyph that is used for the three characters A, Α and А is the same (in most computer fonts). So we have three different characters here (I made them all into links so that you can find more information) that all look the same; there are no subtle differences (as there are when you compare K with К), so A, Α and А share a glyph (whereas K and К do not). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Redrose64! I found this article, Homoglyph, linked from the Cyrillic "A" link, the third one you provided above, which helps a little. – Corinne (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Evolution of ageing
Hi, this article has been tagged for cleanup and style since 2008 ... if you or others felt like giving it a polish and removing some of those very embarrassing old tags, that'd be great. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 *  I've nominated it at WP:TAFINOM, in the Society and social sciences section. It may not receive any support votes because it gets zero daily page views, but it may get more now that I have added it to the "See also" section of Ageing, which gets 922 daily page views. You are welcome to nominate articles at WP:TAFINOM, vote, and comment. We need more participants there. If you really think an article simply needs a good copy-edit, you can submit a request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Thanks for letting me know about Evolution of ageing! – Corinne (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
 After a day-and-a-half break, I am resuming copy-editing Macedonia (ancient kingdom). I'm now at Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Near the beginning of that section I found the following sentence:


 * In Macedonia, politics and religion often intertwined.

What do you think of the use of active voice for the verb "intertwined"? Would it sound better in passive voice?


 * In Macedonia, politics and religion were often intertwined.

Which sounds better to you? – Corinne (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely change it. Rothorpe (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

2) Another question:

In the section Macedonia (ancient kingdom) is the following sentence:


 * He was especially fond of the plays by Classical Athenian tragedians Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, whose works formed part of a proper Greek education for his new eastern subjects alongside studies in the Greek language and epics of Homer.

I'm wondering whether the preposition "in" after "alongside studies" is appropriate for both "the Greek language" and "epics of Homer". The phrase "studies in the Greek language" can mean two things:

(a) studies conducted in the Greek language, or

(b) studies of the Greek language.

If it means "studies of the Greek language", then does "[studies in] epics of Homer" make sense to you? Is it clear enough that "studies in the Greek language and epics of Homer" (the way it is now) really means "studies of the Greek language and [of the] epics of Homer"?

Perhaps "in" should be changed to "of", or perhaps the addition of "the" before "epics of Homer" would make it a little clearer.


 * alongside studies of the Greek language and epics of Homer, or


 * alongside studies in the Greek language and the epics of Homer,

or some other combination. What do you think? – Corinne (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I had no problem taking 'in the Greek language' to be an intentionally (?) vague way of saying 'of...', probably including some nice texts, but got a bit of a jolt at the mention of Homer. How about 'including the epics of Homer'? Rothorpe (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Or even '...in the Greek language, taking in the epics of Homer'? Rothorpe (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ' Since I copy-edited this article, Macedonia (ancient kingdom) about ten days ago, I have kept it on my watch list just to see further developments. I was just looking at the latest '. I remember seeing this, but left it as it was. Is "yet" categorically wrong here? I hardly ever use "yet", but I thought it was similar to "but". If it is wrong here, can you explain why? I'd really like to know. – Corinne (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the edit. 'Yet' is stronger than 'but' and suggests some kind of injustice: "Demetrius improved everything for everyone, yet his subjects protested against his aloof, Eastern-style autocracy." Hope that's clear. Rothorpe (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 *  It is clear, but I don't think "yet" always suggests some kind of injustice. I thought sometimes it means "but anyway", or "but in spite of that". If I change the way it was before the edit:


 * Demetrius had his nephew AlexanderV assassinated and was then proclaimed king in Macedonia, yet his subjects protested against his aloof, Eastern-style autocracy.


 * to:


 * After Demetrius had his nephew AlexanderV assassinated, he was proclaimed king of Macedonia, yet his subjects soon protested against his aloof, Eastern-style autocracy.


 * Doesn't that sound all right? – Corinne (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Not injustice, larger contradiction then. Yes, that sounds fine. Rothorpe (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi
' In ' and the subsequent edit, an editor changed the date format for Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, with an edit summary saying "relevant date format". If you have time, and wouldn't mind, would you research the history of the English variant used in this article and determine whether the change is justified? Pestalozzi was Swiss; does that by itself make British English the appropriate variant? – Corinne (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (watching) I call it European date format, - compare de:Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
 Thank you so much for your message and kind words. I very much appreciate them. I also look forward to collaborating with you. I was looking at your user page and found few details about you – I suppose that is deliberate. I was also astonished by all the statistics you've placed there. I'm wondering why – do they help you in your work on WP, or are you just curious about the numbers? What kinds of topics are of interest to you? Let me know if there is anything I can help you with! Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Strange user name
Hello, . See the recent  at Budapest. Can you figure out what's going on there?
 * No. Vsmith (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, one of the editors, Desaiabhiii, has a user name that sounds an awful lot like the French word for "undressed". Here is the definition of the verb to be undressed, or to be in a state of undress at the French Wiktionary:. The past participle déshabillé (undressed) would be pronounced (for an English-speaker) des-ab-i-yeh. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I thought I'd mention it. – Corinne (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * hmm... if someone wishes to edit in the nude, well, more power to 'em (as long as we aren't required to watch the show :) Vsmith (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

' Do you think ' to Budapest is an improvement? Do you think it was necessary to change "it" to "Budapest"? – Corinne (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, because 'it' specifically referred back to Budapest the city, not Budapest the word, making nonsense of what follows. Rothorpe (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but in that case shouldn't it read "The name Budapest..."? – Corinne (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I think it's quite clear without it. And it would need expanding ('The name Budapest refers to both a city and a county...'?) Nice and simple as it is. Rothorpe (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks! – Corinne (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Azadirachta indica
' and ' I saw  to Azadirachta indica, and I thought I remembered seeing somewhere in the MOS that WP does not use the German ß (for "ss", I believe), but I can't be sure. I tried to find some information on it in the MOS but could not. I pinged both of you because EEng, you've been working on the MOS, and we talked about glyphs (but I'm not sure this is a glyph), and Sminthopsis84, you are the botanist. (a) Does WP use the German character, and, if not, (b) do you know where the guideline is in the MOS? Thanks in advance. – Corinne (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think may be able to help here. ß does not "stand for" ss, but ss is close enough where ß can't be used for whatever reason.  E  Eng  09:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We use "ß", - "ss" is not the same, even a different sound. "ss" is a substitute when the correct letter is not available, or in Swiss, or when English sources use that version predominantly. Example: Friedrich der Große is correct, but we have Friedrich der Grosse, because English sources have that, because ship names are all-capital, and there's no capital ß. To Germans, it looks gross ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh...I didn't know that. What is the sound of "ß", or where can I find the sound on WP? The section German orthography gives the name of the letter, but I don't think it gives the actual sound. Also – and I certainly don't want to argue with you, Gerda, because I have no idea about this – but I thought I'd point out that below the small chart, it says there is a capital ß. – Corinne (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not precise. The "s"-sound is the same, but a "ß" usually indicates that the vowel before is long, while "ss" says that it is short. No rule without exception. To make things worse: with the orthography reform of 1996, some (but only some) "ß" were reduced, especially "daß" became "dass", to make it conform with the rule. However, in writings before that year, you'll find "daß", including Bach's cantatas because they were printed from 1950, for example Es ist euch gut, daß ich hingehe, BWV 108. - Not without irony: while the German Wikipedia changed some titles of pieces, English keeps the original and is more German than the German ;) - Der Kontrabaß, Der Prozeß (opera). (So I thought, but the German Wikipedia improved: Der Kontrabaß there also, moved 30 January 2017.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. Quite complicated. Thanks, Gerda! – Corinne (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Gerda, in the German orthography article, there is a box showing German script. If you don't mind, could you tell me a few things things?


 * (a) After lower-case "r", there appears to be another lower-case "r". Is that just a different style of writing the letter, or does it mean something else?


 * (b) At the bottom of the box, I see "Qu", "qu", "St", and then – what? What is the next one? Is that "rt", using the second style of "r"? Why are these combinations written separately from the other letters? The "Q", "q", and "u" don't change, and the "S" and the "t" don't change, either. Are they just illustrations of combinations of two letters? The only letter (besides that second "r") that is, to me, quite different from English script, is the "t". – Corinne (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Never even knew that article existed. Sorry, just waking up, have a lot to do first: spread the news of welcome light of joy, thank the people who have anniversaries of being called awesome and wrote the TFA, go over the watchlist (typically 1000 changes), write the daily new article, nominate the one of a week ago for DYK, reply in two FACs (one my own), - you see how I can procrastinate having to deal with German orthography. More on the topic: Hans Krieger. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Now (after having all done, + a few infoboxes and nominating someone else's overdue DYK: do you mean the box with German cursive, letter combinations at the bottom? If yes, Qu qu St st tz sch. Example: a lower-case "u" has an upward line for a start when connected to a "q", but not when beginning a word, etc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Fix
Hello C. I hope you are well. I saw your post on Drmies talk page. As far as I know there is no way to alter an edit summary. Delete yes but alter no. I went ahead and made a dummy edit and linked to the two articles that you mentioned. This is what I usually do when I mess up and leave a red link in an edit summary. I hope this is okay and if I am wrong Drmies will let you know. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dag nab it - I forgot to leave my groaner of a joke. Your edits certainly make the article flow in a smoother fashion :-P Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In a lit class, "flow" is the f-word I tell students not to use lightly. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Corinne,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Henri-Edmond Cross - The Evening Air - Google Art Project.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on June 22, 2017. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2017-06-22. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Continuing as GOCE coordinator?
Are you interested in continuing as a GOCE coordinator? If so, I encourage you to self-nominate at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2017/2. You have about 17 hours to do so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 *  I have just returned home from a week of traveling, including a lot of driving. I was not able to get internet access during that time. I saw the notice at the top of the page to which you provided a link that says nominations are now closed. I guess it's too late. I was interested in continuing as a coordinator. – Corinne (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Bocskai
Thank you for your thorough and comprehensive copyedit. Now I can nominate the article for GA. I highly appreciate your hard work. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Borsoka. I'm glad to help. As I was copy-editing, I came across two sentences that I wanted to ask you about, but it's late and I'm too tired to look for them. I'll try to find them tomorrow. – Corinne (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Criterion of embarrassment
 and any talk page stalkers. I was looking at the latest  to Criterion of embarrassment, and I felt the first sentence of the article could be improved. Here it is as it is now:


 * The criterion of embarrassment is a critical analysis of historical accounts in which accounts embarrassing to the author are presumed to be true because the author would have no reason to invent an embarrassing account about themselves.

At first glance, it sounds all right, but I think some slight changes might improve it, and I'd like to hear your thoughts. Here are a few of mine:

1. I don't like the sound of "accounts in which accounts". I think this can be avoided if the explanation of the type of analysis uses the singular "an account" instead of the plural.

2. Instead of "a critical analysis", I'd like to substitute "a type of critical analysis".

3. Regarding the phrase "in which accounts embarrassing to the author", I feel this displays an unwarranted certainty about what would be embarrassing to an individual. I'd like to substitute something like this:


 * in which an account likely to be embarrassing to the author of the account [is presumed...]


 * or


 * in which an account likely to be embarrassing to its author [is presumed...] (This wording avoids using "account/accounts" again.)

4. Instead of "themselves", I'd like to substitute "him- or herself".

Another alternative would be to reword the entire last part to:


 * because it would be illogical for an author to invent an embarrassing account about him- or herself.

Thus, it would read:

(a) The criterion of embarrassment is a type of critical analysis in which an account likely to be embarrassing to the author of the account is presumed to be true because the author would have no reason to invent an embarrassing account about him- or herself.

or:

(b) The criterion of embarrassment is a type of critical analysis in which an account likely to be embarrassing to its author is presumed to be true because the author would have no reason to invent an embarrassing account about him- or herself.

or:

(c) The criterion of embarrassment is a type of critical analysis in which an account likely to be embarrassing to its author is presumed to be true because it would be illogical for an author to invent an embarrassing account about him- or herself.

Any thoughts? – Corinne (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd choose b out of the options provided. Be advised that some editors prefer to normalize the singular they instead of gendered pronouns, so you might get pushback there. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 05:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chris! – Corinne (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, b. (Apologies for forgetting about this; real life very intrusive.) Rothorpe (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Edward VI of England
' I guess some people think "which" is to be used for restrictive adjective clauses... See ' and the one previous to it. – Corinne (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Election as a Guild of Copy Editors Coordinator
Congratulations! You have been re-elected as a Coordinator of the Guild of Copy Editors for the second half of 2017, serving from July 1 until December 31. Please review the Coordinators' responsibilities and tasks at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators, and post on the corresponding talk page if you have any questions. You may place the GOCE Coordinator userbox on your User page if you like. Let me know if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Context
 I see on your user page you have a section headed User:EEng. I think you've looked at your page so many times you probably didn't notice that it should be: "taken out of context". I know you've told me I can make small corrections on your user and talk pages, but I thought since this was a section heading, I'd better just tell you and let you decide what you want to change, if anything. On your page, there is always the possibility that you have written it just as you want it to be. – Corinne (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your caution but boldness is still the word of the day. If you mess something up I'll just gently correct it.  E Eng  20:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

FAC
It's possible I could do something to help with conflicts over copyediting at FAC. How would you like to approach this? Are we looking at specific types of edits? Should we tweak the process to get more input from you and others? Clearly, we don't want a situation where copyeditors in general are feeling like their work is unappreciated or disregarded ... that would make it harder for people to get copyediting when they ask for it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking and for your concern, Dank. After I copy-edit an article that I have some interest in, I often keep it on my watch list for a while, and sometimes I look at the GA or FA review that usually follows. When I've spent hours copy-editing a long article, and really working hard on it, I do find it disappointing to have my wording changed, not just in one place but in several places throughout the article (and especially when it is not in response to a particular recommendation from a reviewer). If it's just a matter of style, why not just leave it as it is? Why is it necessary to go in and re-word things throughout the article? If it's grammatically wrong, or has somehow introduced bias toward a point of view, or something like that, I can understand re-wording a sentence or paragraph, but if it is just a stylistic choice, why can't it be left alone, at least until the review has been completed? Also, no one ever asks me (as I often ask others), "What do you think about changing X to Y?"


 * I don't know what the solution is. I guess it's partly the nature of an on-line encyclopedia. If we were all sitting at nearby desks, we could discuss the edits before actually making them (which would be my first choice of approach when an article is in an FAC review). I did see Sarastro1's note to feel free to revert, but once an edit is made – particularly by a senior editor, and one who participates regularly at FAC – I feel extremely hesitant about reverting or even beginning a discussion. I feel all the other regulars at FAC will join in.


 * One of the reasons I haven't joined in at FAC is that some of the articles I've copy-edited for the GA review soon end up in an FAC review, and I thought those involved in the article (the writer, nominator, copy-editor) were not supposed to participate. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Another reason is that, when I read the commentary and the ensuing edits, I feel the reviewers often notice things I never even thought of when I copy-edited the article, so must be looking for certain kinds of things, and I don't know what those things are; I feel FAC reviewers must have much more experience editing academic articles than I do. I also see edits I wouldn't have made, but I hesitate to argue about them with an experienced FAC reviewer. If you think my input would be helpful at FAC – in addition to catching grammatical, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation errors, I do notice things about organization and sentence flow – I would be glad to participate there.


 * I'm curious about something. I often read the day's featured article on the main page. As I read them, I sometimes find grammatical or spelling errors. I wonder how an article that has gone through an FA review and been approved for FA status could have any errors at all in it. I read the featured article that appeared on the main page on July 5, 2017, Head VI and made a few copy-edits. If you look at my  and ignore my addition of the no-break-space template and a few links, you will see no less than seven blatant errors that I corrected, and MisfitToys caught three or four others. I wonder if you think it might be a good idea to ask a member of the Guild of Copy Editors to copy-edit an article after it has been approved for FAC but before it goes onto the main page. Is it possible that FAC reviewers, because they are looking for certain things, might miss other types of things that copy-editors would see? Or is it that one or more editors are editing the article after the article has been reviewed and accepted for FA status?


 * I think Sarastro1 deserves a detailed reply to his comment on his user page, specifically about Macedonia (ancient kingdom), but I need more time to write it. When I'm finished, you'll see which changes I wasn't happy about, and why. Perhaps it wasn't as many as I first thought. – Corinne (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I can probably take a few of these. FAC is like anywhere else, and there are some edits that are more effective than others. Occasionally, reviewers attempt to impose their own style and preferences on an article; some nominators just let it happen, others fight back. More often, the edits are for other reasons, and prose sometimes gets a little disturbed in the process. In terms of discussing edits, that is often not the best way at FAC. Once upon a time, all the copy-editing and heavy reviewing took place at Peer Review, or away from FAC, and articles came to FAC quite polished. Now, PR is far less effective, and most of the review and editing takes place at FAC. Reviews are lasting up to (and sometimes beyond) 4 weeks; having to discuss every edit would lengthen already bloated FAC pages and slow the process down. The best way is just to jump in and discuss later (nominators sometimes grumble about why reviewers don't just fix it themselves). On another point, writers and copy-editors are more than welcome to participate at FAC, although it is usually better to make a note on the review if you have copy-edited or otherwise contributed. And no-one is perfect, things can be missed at FAC reviews and articles can get to TFA with things that we have all missed (although anyone can edit FAs, so changes could have been made). From my viewpoint, anyone is always free to revert me or to discuss things. I doubt hoards of "FAC regulars" will come charging in! Finally, from the viewpoint of FAC in general, we are crying out for good prose reviewers; there are often articles that have lots of support declared where the prose is not quite up to scratch. These present problems for the coordinators, so someone checking (and even copy-editing) these for prose would be absolutely invaluable. I don't think I've addressed everything here, so feel free to discuss this further. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My first step here will be to keep quiet while you two (and anyone else) work these things out. I think it's possible that copyeditors feel shut out in some ways, with repercussions for FAC, so I have more to say later on. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sarastro1 for your thoughtful comment. I'm wondering about a few things:


 * You say FAC articles up for review often display less-than-ideal prose. I'm wondering what the best time for a copy-editor to jump in would be:


 * (a) during or after a peer review, before the FAC nomination;


 * (b) any time during an FAC review;


 * (c) toward the end of an FAC review, after most reviewers are satisfied with everything, or at least everything except the prose; or


 * (d) any or all of these. If (c), I do not recommend formalizing it; if formalized, you may get an inexperienced copy-editor who might mess things up. If (a), do you want to make an effort to improve the peer-review process? That might make the FAC review process go more smoothly. I have a question: Is going through the peer review process a prerequisite for nominating an article for FA? If not, do you know why it isn't?


 * I look forward to both of your replies. I will prepare a reply regarding the edits to Macedonia (ancient kingdom) now. – Corinne (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My take on this is (d), all of the above. All of these "stages" have been useful before when a copy-editor has come in. However, I'd suggest making none of them "formal"; while there are some outstanding copy-editors around, there are others who do not always improve things. But the more eyes, the better. Anyone is welcome to improve the PR process, but it's not directly connected to FAC, and several recent attempts have been less-than-successful to be honest. The idea of making it a formal requirement has been floated a few times but would not be practical as many articles go through PR without receiving any review at all, and several nominators have suggested that the feedback they received at PR had been less than useful. Like most things on here, it's down to luck: who reviews your article makes a big difference. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm astonished at the blase acceptance of the idea that articles can be nominated for FA when they're known to be seriously short of FA standards.  E Eng  21:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They can be nominated, but that doesn't mean that they are successful. And in fairness, for many editors, there's no other way to tell if an article meets FA standards without nominating it and seeing. Feedback is otherwise hard to find; reviewers are thin on the ground, and good ones even more so. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If reviewer labor is limited, it would be much better invested by having a single editor do a PR before nomination, than many eyes redundantly looking at something which is going to fail. But I gave up on the whole FA process long ago, to be honest.  E Eng  21:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Nadodi Mannan
Hi, Corinne. How are things with you? The film, Nadodi Mannan is my next attempt at GA. I have listed it at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. A good and thorough copyedit would be really grateful. Do inform me once you get around to it. Thanks. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 09:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A small, gentle reminder. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 06:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)