User talk:Corinne/Archive 29

Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
 Here are is the promised detailed reply regarding recent edits to Macedonia (ancient kingdom).

(1) In Macedonia (ancient kingdom), I also would not have changed "and" to "but" and was glad you changed it back.

(2) In , I wouldn't have taken out the extra "was" at the beginning of this article. I think the phrase "bordered by" is far from the first "was", making the reader struggle to connect it to the subject ("the earliest kingdom"), especially because of the comma. Here is the sentence as it is now:


 * Home to the ancient Macedonians, the earliest kingdom was centered on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, and bordered by Epirus to the west, Paeonia to the north, Thrace to the east and Thessaly to the south.

I would either re-add "was" before "bordered by" or remove the comma after "peninsula" (I would also add a comma after "Thrace to the east"):


 * Home to the ancient Macedonians, the earliest kingdom was centered on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, and was bordered by Epirus to the west, Paeonia to the north, Thrace to the east, and Thessaly to the south.

or:


 * Home to the ancient Macedonians, the earliest kingdom was centered on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula and bordered by Epirus to the west, Paeonia to the north, Thrace to the east, and Thessaly to the south.

(3) You changed "due to" to "owing two twice. I often see "due to" changed to "owing to" (or something else), and I wonder why. Americans rarely use "owing to", but use "due to" often. Also, why change from a short phrase to a longer phrase if they are both acceptable? In the  you changed:


 * PerdiccasII sided with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) between Athens and Sparta, and in 429 BC Athens retaliated by persuading Sitalces to invade Macedonia, but he was forced to retreat due to a shortage of provisions in winter.

to:


 * PerdiccasII sided with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) between Athens and Sparta, and in 429 BC Athens retaliated by persuading Sitalces to invade Macedonia, but he was forced to retreat owing to a shortage of provisions in winter.

I don't understand the reason for this change. Is it that you think "due to" is incorrect, or it is merely a stylistic choice? If you think "due to" is incorrect, I'd be interested to know why. If you think "due to" is acceptable, I'd be interested to know why you think "owing to" is better. Merriam-Webster on-line says the two phrases are synonyms and are equally acceptable. If two words or phrases are synonymous, I generally choose the shorter of the two.

4) In the second one, In , you changed:


 * After the Macedonian victory there, PhilipII installed an oligarchy in Thebes, yet was lenient toward Athens due to his desire to utilize their navy in a planned invasion of the Achaemenid Empire.

to:


 * After the Macedonian victory there, PhilipII installed an oligarchy in Thebes, yet was lenient toward Athens, wishing to utilize their navy in a planned invasion of the Achaemenid Empire.

I don't see what was wrong with the previous wording, grammatically, but I agree that "due to his desire" may be unnecessarily long. Also, if a verb could be found that would express the same thing, I believe a verb would be preferable to the noun "desire". I know some editors object to the use of "due to" almost on principle, but, as I mentioned above, according to Merriam-Webster on-line, "due to" and "owing to" are synonyms and are both equally acceptable. Did you change this because you objected to "due to" or because the phrase was too wordy or flowery, or something else? As an alternative, I would use "because of his desire to utilize" or "because he wanted to utilize". I also think "wishing" is a little too "wishful", or soft, a verb to describe the plans of a strong military leader. I often use participial phrases at the end of a sentence, but here I don't think it is the best construction. I think it minimizes what follows, to the point where one wonders why it was even mentioned, and removes an explicit indication of the relationship between his leniency and his wish to utilize the navy. Another thing that complicates this, at least for an American reader, is the word "their", in "their navy", which is a little ambiguous since we don't use the plural pronouns or possessive adjective for a city (or country), which is always singular in US English. If we used a possessive adjective at all, it would be "utilize its navy". But, that aside, I would either leave it as it was:


 * After the Macedonian victory there, PhilipII installed an oligarchy in Thebes, yet was lenient toward Athens due to his desire to utilize their navy in a planned invasion of the Achaemenid Empire.

or change it to something like:


 * After the Macedonian victory there, PhilipII installed an oligarchy in Thebes, yet was lenient toward Athens because he wanted to utilize their navy in a planned invasion of the Achaemenid Empire.

Another alternative is to remove the adjective "planned" from the last phrase since it is PhilipII himself who was planning the invasion, and move it earlier and use it as the verb:


 * After the Macedonian victory there, PhilipII installed an oligarchy in Thebes, yet was lenient toward Athens because he wanted planned to utilize their navy in an planned invasion of the Achaemenid Empire. (Whatever PhilipII planned probably usually took place.)

(5) Upon looking again at , I realize that the way it was worded, "with Macedonian soldiers fighting" was not good, because it was about a later battle, not the same battle, so you were right to change it. I wonder, since the Battle of Plataea was fought during the time of XerxesI, whether we couldn't cut out a few extra words here, changing:


 * AlexanderI provided Macedonian military support to Xerxes I ((r. 486–465 BC – undefined)) during the Second Persian invasion of Greece in 480–479 BC, and Macedonian soldiers fought on the side of the Persians at the 479BC Battle of Platea.

to:


 * AlexanderI provided Macedonian military support to Xerxes I ((r. 486–465 BC – undefined)) during the Second Persian invasion of Greece in 480–479 BC, and Macedonian soldiers fought on the side of the Persians at the 479BC Battle of Platea – yielding:


 * AlexanderI provided Macedonian military support to Xerxes I ((r. 486–465 BC – undefined)) during the Second Persian invasion of Greece in 480–479 BC and at the 479BC Battle of Platea.

The only way this would be incorrect is if it were not correct to say "AlexanderI provided Macedonian military support to XerxesI at the 479BC Battle of Platea.

P.S. I wonder why it says "Battle of Platea" when the WP article title is Battle of Plataea. There is a redirect, but still, why spell it differently from the WP article?

6) In , you changed "must have established" to "established". I didn't see what was wrong with "must have established"; I thought it indicated a certain degree of certainty, but still a guess, on the part of Errington. (Is there a rule against using "must" or "must have" in WP articles?) If you prefer the simple verb, I would put it in past perfect: "had established":


 * Historian Robert Malcolm Errington suggests that one of the earliest Argead kings had established Aigai (modern Vergina) as their capital in the mid-7th centuryBC.


 * Well, now I'm not sure about this. Maybe I'm wrong. Technically, because it follows a verb in the present tense ("suggests"), past tense ("established") is fine. I guess I thought past perfect would sound right because it followed an earlier sentence (the first one in the paragraph) about the kingdom that is in past tense, but actually, establishing a capital could, in fact, follow, and not precede, the establishment of the kingdom. So maybe past tense ("established") is all right here. – Corinne (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

7) In that sentence, you have "Historian Robert Malcolm Errington. In another edit you first added "The linguist" before the name Robert S.P. Beekes, then, in , removed "the", changing "The linguist Robert S.P. Beekes" to "Linguist Robert S.P. Beekes". I have had extensive discussions with Rothorpe about this (see User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 15). I always wrote this way, too, and it still sounds right to me, but I have been convinced by Rothorpe that "Linguist" would then constitute a False title, and is an example of "journalese". I'll leave it up to you what, if anything, you want to do about this. Any thoughts, Rothorpe? – Corinne (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)  – Corinne (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No big deal, but, yes, I still prefer to add 'the'. Rothorpe (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At a glance, it looks like all is well ... let me know if I can help. - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, Adityavagarwal. What a nice surprise! It's much appreciated. – Corinne (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sulphur/Sulfur
' Is ' to Manual of Style/Spelling correct? Is "sulfur" not used in Australia? – Corinne (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over use of commas at Fokker Scourge
I don't want to argue ad hominem but the problem here is really that once Keith-264 has decided he is right then he IS right and nothing will ever change his mind. I must admit I can be the same at times, but I am sometimes wrong. Sometimes he is right of course - he is a great dab at cutting words from sentences - and sometimes he manages to do so with good effect - in which case I am always willing to accept the edit. I like succinct, encyclopedic prose myself - this is very simply not what the two of us have been disagreeing on. Well not in this instance, anyway.

The current problem is that Keith-264 has a bee in his bonnet (yes, I admit I get them too) that a comma should NEVER precede a conjunction. Several of his recent edits have been either mainly or entirely eliminating commas before conjunctions. I might remark that in practice this only affects "and" and (occasionally) "but" - other conjunctions seem to escape the "Keith-264 rule". When I have reverted Keith for cutting commas right and left I have sometimes inadvertently changed something I would have agreed on had it been on its own - in fact my very last edit involved reinstating a useful wikilink he added.

What do we actually think of Keith's statement:
 * Punctuation next to a conjunction is never justified; if it seems necessary that means that the syntax is wrong

This may well be succinct, but is it right?

Anyway - I would be happy for you to make the edits to the article that you suggested, in fact I thought you already had. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * On the other hand - do you want me to do it myself? If I don't hear from you I may do just that. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note, Soundofmusicals. I thought I had made it clear, in the paragraph beginning "One place where a comma is required," at Talk:Fokker Scourge, that the broad statement made by Keith-264 and that you quoted above is not correct; it is too broad. Keith may have been referring specifically to the Oxford comma, which is about the last item in a list, and it is clear he feels strongly that the comma before a conjunction in that situation is never needed. Regarding the edits I said I would make, when I finished typing my comment, it was late, so I decided to put that off until today. I will get to it later today. – Corinne (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't mention Oxford commas, Soundof did. I wasn't ad hominem either, it's a description of my opinion, not a dig for the sake of it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * @Keith-264 I only ever mentioned the infamous Oxford Comma to point out that it had nothing to do with the case, and that I was NOT advocating it. To be fair, it is others that seemed to have jumped on this one. No comment about ad hominem (although I am doing it myself now, under extreme provocation. No excuse, but...)


 * @Corinne I have actually done the deed, so far as your notes went - as you will notice if you look at the article. Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your continued interest in the Fokker Scourge article - I was assuming that once we'd got the "comma" point out of the way that your interest was at an end. Please ignore the following if you ARE fed up with the pair of us, as you have every right to be! Alas, the other editor seems to have developed a personal antipathy that may, to a certain extent, be colouring his judgement. I am aware (as, basically the original author of much of the article) of the risks of "owning", and I have endeavoured to let all his edits stand, unless they really distorted or lost actual meaning. I have tried to justify WHY some of his gallant efforts at compression needed modification, if not reversal, and have consistently received in return a lot more personal abuse than constructive counter-argument (to put it mildly). Anyway, thanks again. In the highly unlikely event you want to reply to this, could you do so on my talk page? This will enable me to "unwatch" this page and let you get on with your life. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Frikandel
' I don't know why I have Frikandel on my watch list, but I was just looking at the latest ' to the article. I have no way of knowing if it is correct or not, but I thought you might be interested in it simply because of the accompanying source. – Corinne (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Paging .  E Eng  17:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC) P.S. Now I see what you mean about the source. Let's Go used to be (read: 1970s-90s) an unusually insightful source of good advice for student travelers, but I don't know about today. And like any travel guide, it's at best borderline reliable for history and culture.  E  Eng  17:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ew. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I emailed Oliver; he knows frikandellen like no one else I know. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

My apologies...
...on behalf of Wikipedia as a whole, that you had to be exposed to that the other day. There's a little clique of this type, a kind of mutual admiration club that considers their writing and research talents far above those of other editors, and who get very, very angry when any person or any event calls that superiority into question. The other day (I forget where) I saw you discussing some issues re copyediting of FAs or FA candidates. I advise you to stay away from the FA process completely. There are some good editors there, but enough of the type I just described to make the place complete poison.  E Eng  01:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, EEng. That's very nice of you. I think I might have been more successful if I had listed each edit separately, and for each one, posed a question that would require some reasoning in the answer instead of just saying generally I supported all your edits, but I was tired, and didn't have the energy to put that together. – Corinne (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's just as well – would have been a complete waste of your time. Check out Talk:Moors_murders/Archive15.  E Eng  00:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. I am surprised that people think that because an article is a Featured article candidate, there is more leeway to add more detail, so they cram in as many details as possible in a small space (i.e., paragraph). They don't get the idea that if the details are important, the story line needs expanding so the details are placed in context, making it clear why that detail is important. Simply adding the detail does not make it clear why the detail is important to know, and thus include. I agree with your criticisms completely, but it would take a professional teacher of writing in a writing course where they get a grade at the end of the term to convince them. I thought of something else. Maybe these editors grew up reading Dickens. Dickens' novels were first published in serial form, in installments, so he was, I believe, for all intents and purposes, paid by the word, so his novels are chock full of details. Dickens might like these wordy articles. Perhaps we should post a picture of him at the FA page. – Corinne (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

As the wise man said, "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." You may very well have put your finger on it with Dickens; now and then I've had the idea that certain editors think they're paid by the word. I am reminded of Michael Kinsley's "Department of Amplification: William Shawn and the temple of facts" (1984), a pitch-perfect sendup of The New Yorker as "a weekly monument to the proposition that journalism consists of the endless accretion of tiny details":
 * The June 18 New Yorker has an article about corn. It's the first in what appears to be a series, no less, discussing the major grains. What about corn? Who knows? Only The New Yorker would have the lofty disdain for its readers to expect them to plow through 22,000 words about corn (warning: only an estimate; the TNR fact checkers are still counting) without giving them the slightest hint why. Here is how it starts (after a short introductory poem):
 * When the New England farmer and botanist Edward Sturtevant retired, in 1887, as head of the New York Agricultural Experiment Station, in Geneva, he left behind a bulky manuscript that was published in 1919, twenty-one years after his death, as "Sturtevant's Notes on Edible Plants." Dr. Sturtevant, who was also a graduate of the Harvard Medical School, but never practiced medicine, had scoured the world’s botanical literature for mentions of all the plants that human beings were known to have eaten (he did not count tree bark, which in times of famine was often one of them), and had come up with among more than three hundred thousand known plant species, two thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven edibles. (Latter-day scientists believe he may have missed as many more.) But, of all these, only a hundred and fifty or so have ever been widely enough consumed to figure in commerce, and of those a mere handful have been of any real consequence.
 * Now, there are some facts for you. No doubt every single one of them has been checked. You stand in awe as they tumble toward you, magnificently irrelevant, surrounded by mighty commas, mere numbers swollen into giant phrases ("two thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven"), all finally crashing over you with the bravura announcement that nothing you have just read is "of any real consequence." How true this is! From the end of the paragraph, you gaze back on the receding vistas of inconsequence, as far as the eye can see. Even supposing we would like a bit more information about corn, and even supposing we might be relieved to know how many other plants, edible and otherwise, are not going to be discussed in this article, why are we being told about a man whose count apparently was off by half? Even supposing we need to know about Dr. Sturtevant’s book, when it was published, and when the good doctor died, why do we need to know when he retired? Even—stretching it—supposing that we need to know that this gentleman "was also a graduate of the Harvard Medical School," why, oh why, do we have to learn that he "never practiced medicine"? As for the business about tree bark, that has just got to be conscious self-parody.

BTW, have you seen User:EEng/Principle_of_Some_Astonishment?  E Eng  01:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 *  No, I hadn't. Thanks for the link, and for copying the send-up of The New Yorker article. Your "astonishment" collection is a great page. I wonder if it should be linked from the MoS, or even become part of the MoS. Is there a section in the MoS about good writing style, and the importance of being concise? I really think some editors were absent on the day their freshman English teacher mentioned the importance of being concise, and not overloading their writing with irrelevant details. – Corinne (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC) P.S. I love the expression "Less is more", as it applies to writing.  – Corinne (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I subscribe to a kind of MOS minimalist philosophy, according to which MOS should not try to teach "good writing", nor basic grammar and mechanics that there's no debating. It should restrict itself to the arbitrary choices that a good write, if he/she were working alone, would make for himself, but which in a larger project need to be just decided once and for all, e.g. how to format units of measure, so there isn't endless wrangling over what are essentially personal tastes.
 * Another of my opinion pieces: WP:MISSSNODGRASS.  E Eng  17:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. It's a little discouraging to think that on WP, the most persistent editors (as long as they remain civil) often win out because others simply give up. – Corinne (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I'm right. ;)  E Eng  17:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I'm right. ;)  E Eng  17:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

;) – Corinne (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)  You didn't see my attempt at humor? A response to your last comment. Just teasing.  – Corinne (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd somehow missed the photo. You funny lady.  E Eng  02:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Something different?
Side note: I felt this one was better than the version one of the special barnstar. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, Adityavagarwal! It's always nice to see one's work appreciated, and thank you for taking the time to select a nice one. – Corinne (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I noticed when you completed the ce, but I had an exam in the morning so I left it for later today. When I logged back in, I browsed through almost all the barnstars, and thought this one would be the best. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Corinne,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:John F. Francis - Luncheon Still Life - Google Art Project.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on August 13, 2017. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2017-08-13. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Non-breaking space discussion
 I just posted a comment regarding the discussion I thought was headed "Disagreement on comma punctuation when parentheses occur in a sentence" at Wikipedia talk:Manual of style, but now I can't find that discussion anywhere. How can I find it? I even mentioned you in it. Also, why are discussions at MoS archived so quickly? Just because the threads get a little long doesn't mean they aren't current. Can the time delay be lengthened a bit? – Corinne (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with archiving. Something in your post caused much of the page content to disappear. This is absolutely not your fault -- there's some bug in the parsing which you somehow stumbled into. See WP:Village_pump_(technical).  E Eng  16:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, EEng. I'm glad I didn't cause it. When I clicked on the link you gave me, it led only to the top of the Village pump technical page. I searched for the right discussion but couldn't find it. Can you give me the heading that's in the page's table of contents? – Corinne (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC) I saw another section, Village pump (technical), that is somewhat related to the discussion on the MoS talk page. Do you think it might be of enough interest to them that we should provide a link to the other discussion?  – Corinne (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, this time you did get there too late -- the discussion was archived already, try WP:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_158. Anyway, it was nothing you did. As to that other nbsp discussion, it's resolved itself so I'd leave it alone.  E Eng  15:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Corinne, you're only "too late -- the discussion was archived already" because EEng just 18 hours 35 minutes after the last comment, which was by . This doesn't just cause problems for people like Corinne who wanted to find the thread, it prevents further discussion - but VPT is a community page were we encourage people to join in as they may have further observations on the topic. When a VPT thread has gone 5 days without further posts, it's automatically archived by, by which time those who wanted to know what the problem was will normally have read it. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Nbsp
Hello! I was wondering what Nbsp is? (perhaps non-breakable space or something?) What is the actual meaning of that apart from the abbreviation? Also, could you tell me where to use that instead of a normal space, and to do it manually or is there is a script or something? Thanks a bunch! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello,  - "nbsp" means "non-breaking space" (or, as I like to call it, a "no-break space"). It is used to prevent a break between two items if they should happen to occur at the end of a line, creating a better appearance overall in the article. I'm sure many editors never use them, but I'm a bit of a perfectionist, so I add them as I copy-edit articles. I use the no-break space in things like this:


 * between the number and year in a date in a British formatted date such as 4December 1970 so that the number "4" does not end up alone at the end of a line;
 * between the year and the number in a date in a US English formatted date such as March12, 1965, so that the "12" is not separated from "March" at the end of a line;
 * between a single digit number such as 1, 2, or 3 (and sometimes even a double-digit number) and a word (such as "or", in something like "1or 2") in a phrase like "1million", or abbreviation such as "cc.", "ml.", "in.", so the number does not end up alone at the end of a line;
 * between an ordinal number such as "5th" in a phrase like "in the 5th century" (but remember that if this is used adjectivally it will have a hyphen there, as in "a 5th-century marble statue", or "a 17th-century painting", so no no-break space is necessary);
 * between "p." or "pp." and the number following it (this is not as important as the others since it only appears in references); Adityavagarwal I just want to add that I would only add a no-break space template in a ...< /ref> formatted references, not in a cite ref formatted reference, or in any ref that's enclosed in curly brackets. – Corinne (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * between a title such as "Dr" (British English) or "Dr." (American English), "Mrs", "Mrs.", "Mr", "Mr.", etc., and the name the follows it;
 * between "c." (for "circa") and the year that follows it, or "r. (for "reigned") and the years the follow it, as in "c.1200", or "r.1723–1740" – but if you use the template for circa – showing only "c.", but when you hover the mouse over the "c." it tells you that it means "circa"; the same with the template for reigned – you don't need to add a no-break space; it's contained in the template;
 * between single letters such as initials, as in "R.L. Marsh". People often leave out the space between the initials, but there really should be a space, so I add a no-break space so a single initial does not end up alone at the end of a line;
 * between a word and a small number that follows it, such as in "World WarII"; I've learned that you can use the no-break space template after a pipe – but not before it – in a piped link;

and other things like this. Note that you don't have to add the no-break space for anything in the first five to ten (roughly) words in a line; they are unlikely to break at the end of a line. Adityavagarwal I need to clarify this last bit – it should read: You don't have to add the no-break space for anything in the first five to ten (roughly) words in the first line of a paragraph, or a single stand-alone line, or in the first two to three words in a caption (because the lines are necessarily short). – Corinne (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You can use the html no-break space, but I mainly use the template (with the curly brackets) because I find it easier to type. I use the html no-break space instead of the template no-break space if it is within another template (such as a citation in the cite ref format that uses curly brackets, or a block quote that uses the quote template). If you look at the templates section at the top of this page, about three-quarters of the way down, in a section (probably misnamed), "en- dash and em-dash templates", you'll see a list of the templates. If you click on the no-break space template, you'll see the page with the template documentation. You can also get to that page by clicking on this link: Template:Spaces. Read the "warnings" section to see when not to use the template.

On another issue, in that list at the top of my page for en- and em-dash templates, I no longer use the "snds" template for a spaced en-dash because I found it added an extra unnecessary space at the beginning of a line following an en-dash that ended up at the end of a line. The "snd" template doesn't do that.

Don't feel that you have to use the no-break space template. Use it only if you want to take the time to give the article a somewhat better appearance. Please ask if you have any more questions. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was an amazing explanation. Things are crystal clear now, thanks to your extraordinary explanation. It makes a lot of sense to me now, as I have seen a few people using the Nbsp template, and you had used it as well in mallard and columbidae. It must sure have taken extra efforts keeping so many things in mind while copy-editing an article. I miss out on a few myself, even though the list or things to be kept in mind before nominating an article is short (like duplicate links, extra spaces, etc). I guess I know your secret to such a superb copy-editing.  I hope I would learn more and be sure to get the articles even better the next time (learned a lot from your ce too). Thank you very much again! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See also MOS:NBSP. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

West Bengal copy edit comment
Thank you for taking on the job. I will try to answer/address your concerns as you go on copy-editing. Did address three clarification issues just now. Thanks, once again. Regards, --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Dwaipayan I'm not finished copy-editing West Bengal, but I'm going to take a break until tomorrow. In the meantime, I'd like to ask a botanist about a word that appears in the middle of the second paragraph in the West Bengal section, in this sentence:


 * Much of the vegetation of the western part of the state shares floristic similarities with the plants of the Chota Nagpur plateau in the adjoining state of Jharkhand.


 *  I wasn't sure what "floristic" meant; I hadn't seen that word used before. In Wiktionary, it is not included as an adjective; only the noun, "floristics", is mentioned. In Merriam-Webster on-line, there is an entry for the adjective. I'm wondering, though, whether there might be a more common word that could be used here instead of "floristic". – Corinne (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Corinne, I've changed it, and made some changes to floristic here and in wiktionary. See what you think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Tarim Basin
' Is ' a "more better" definition? – Corinne (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'caucasoid' seems to be used a lot more than Europid. Doug Weller  talk 17:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. – Corinne (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Farsi translation needed
 Hello LouisAragon – perhaps you can help resolve this issue: Editor assistance/Requests. – Corinne (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Corinne. I'm not entirely sure whether I told you before (I think I did... did I..?!), but I can't read/write Persian. So, unfortunately, I'm afraid that I can't provide any help here. Perhaps could? - LouisAragon (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 *  Thanks for your reply. I'm so sorry. I believe you did tell me a while ago, but I forgot. – Corinne (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to be sorry! We can't possibly expect each other to remember every single thing by heart, do we? - LouisAragon (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not ask one of these users? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Redrose64. I didn't know about that. I'll keep it in mind for the future. I see that the original question on the Editor assistance page has been answered. – Corinne (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Mal'ta-Buret' culture
Hello, ' – I was just looking at your recent ' to Mal'ta–Buret' culture, and I was surprised by both your edit and your edit summary. Growing up in the U.S., I am old enough to remember the shift in name preference from "American Indian" to "Native American" in the 1960s and 1970s, and I remember hearing the phrase "Native Americans" used to refer not only to native peoples in the U.S. but also to those in Canada and Central and South America. I see from Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Native American name controversy that not all native peoples like to refer to themselves as Native Americans, but I still don't think the phrase is exclusive to the U.S. I'm no expert; I'm just speaking from experience. I'm just curious as to why you think the term "Native American" is "just in the U.S." – Corinne (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It really is a US coinage, created specifically to assuage a few noisy activists; "(American) Indians" remains in use, with others rejecting the term, including for the reason that it's ambiguous, with people like you being native Americans as natives of the US. Nobody except Americans uses the term (or calques thereof) to refer to individuals in other countries; it's completely unknown in Canada except to people familiar with US usage, for example (the terms are "First Nations" and "Indians"), the Spanish and Portuguese term is indios or Amerindios/Povos ameríndios, and also see nl:Indianen and fr:Amérindiens for the other major languages of the Americas.  And finally, virtually everything I find with a Google search of <"native americans" site:.uk> is a reference to American Indians, and many of the exceptions are referring to US-born people, as opposed to native Canadians, native Guatemalans, native Algerians, and the like.  Nyttend (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 *  I hear what you're saying, and you may very well be right, but a few points:


 * 1) You write, "It really is a US coinage, created specifically to assuage a few noisy activists".


 * (a) I don't think it matters who coined a term if it ends up in common usage;


 * (b) the term "Native American" was coined by Native Americans, not by white Americans, and it was coined at the same time "Black Americans" was adopted in the African-American community instead of the earlier "Negroes"; and


 * (c) the term "Native American" was quickly adopted by most people in the U.S., and has been taught in the public schools since then. "American Indian" is still used, but "Native American" is still considered more acceptable.


 * 2) You write, "virtually everything I find with a Google search of <"native americans" site:.uk> is a reference to American Indians, and many of the exceptions are referring to US-born people, as opposed to native Canadians, native Guatemalans, native Algerians, and the like."


 * (a) It's not exactly clear what you mean by "is a reference to" American Indians; I assume that you mean the term "American Indians" is used in the material found with the search; that would be expected if the material were from the early 1960s or earlier, or if the material were published overseas, where, it seems, people continue to use "American Indian". I would be surprised if a modern scholar in the U.S. used the term "American Indian" in an article.


 * (b) I have never heard [U.S.] Americans refer to a person born in the U.S. as a "native American". "Native-born American", perhaps, but not "native American". I think that term, with the lower-case "n" on "native", was used in the 1800s, according to the article Native American name controversy.


 * I don't think it matters what word is used in other languages to refer to indigenous peoples. What matters for Wikipedia is what word, or term, is used in English. – Corinne (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You've completely misunderstood. It's a US usage, coined because of those activists and not because of complaints from other countries; its use for non-Americans is just as inaccurate as using "African-Americans" for people in other countries.  Essentially everything I'm finding with that search is talking about such peoples in the US (e.g. "Photos of Native Americans" depicting Sioux); that's what I meant by references to.  And finally, the term remaining acceptable, removals on contrary claims necessarily appear as an attempt to advocate a specific point of view.  Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have completely misunderstood. I don't think you have responded to any of my points. I'll make a few more, and separate them so you can respond to each point separately. By the way, I don't understand what you mean when you say:


 * the term remaining acceptable, removals on contrary claims necessarily appear as an attempt to advocate a specific point of view.


 * You removed "Native American" and substituted "American Indian". Are you saying that because "American Indian" remains acceptable, changing it to "Native American" is advocating a specific point of view? Did you grow up in the U.S.? I did, and I'm telling you that "American Indian" is not used nearly as often as "Native American" in the U.S. "Native American" is the preferred phrase; "American Indian" is merely tolerated as a holdover from an earlier time.


 * (1) I understand that "its use for non-Americans" is inaccurate because it appears, from what you say, that the phrase is used only for Native Americans within the U.S. That's interesting, because I see that on Wikipedia the phrase "U.S. English" is preferred over "American English". Before starting to edit on Wikipedia, I had never even heard the phrase "U.S. English"; everyone I know uses "American English". I don't know the reason for this, but I wonder if it is because people, inside the U.S. or outside of it, or both, think "American" might refer to any one of the Americas – North, Central, or South America. I'd really like to know why "U.S. English" is used on Wikipedia. It is very strange to me.


 * (2) I have met people from Central or South America who consider themselves "Americans" even though they are not from the U.S., and would use the adjective "American" to refer to anything in any of the Americas. They bridle at the thought that "American" anything refers only to people or things in, or of, the U.S. That was a real shock to me. I had always thought that "American" – noun or adjective – referred only to people and things of the U.S. I wonder what your opinion is regarding the use of the word "American". Does it refer only to people and things in, or of, the United States of America, or does it refer to people and things in, or of, any one of the Americas? If the latter, then "Native American" ought to refer to people in any one of the Americas.


 * (3) Presumably, the sources you are finding are by scholars, or otherwise serious writers, in English. Do these writers use "American Indian" in their scholarly writing? (I would be really surprised to learn that scholars, especially those from the United States, would use "American Indian" in scholarly writing.) If so, in that phrase, does "American" refer only to indigenous peoples in the United States, or to indigenous people in any of the Americas?


 * Perhaps both phrases are too controversial to use at all. – Corinne (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The inner-city area I live in, we have all three types of Indian; one North American, one South American and 90,000 Indians. So that's 90,002 Indians. Of course the total conflates Indians and British of Indian origin; the two American Indians have lived here so long they must be British of American Indian origin. Also we have people from the West Indies and from the East Indies, some of whom might be Indians. Hope this helps :) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Rtl-Ltr issue
I saw that you'd brought an issue at User talk:Miniapolis/Archives/2016/December. I've came across same problem, I think. Can you see if the first line in Seyyed Abdollah Behbahani can be fixed? Thanks. -- M h hossein   talk 06:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ' and ' Although everything looked all right at the beginning of the article, in edit mode the birth and death dates were in the middle of the language and the name in Persian/Farsi, so I thought I'd try to use one of the templates Redrose64 provided in the discussion on Miniapolis's talk page (linked above). I tried using the fourth template. I copied and pasted the name in Persian into the template, and deleted the old template (but didn't save, so actually made no changes). The birth-death dates kept coming out in the middle of the template; when I tried to delete the numbers one by one, I could see the order of the text was right-to-left because the deletion was going right to left. I got rid of the pair of years completely and copied them from the article in another window that I had open, and pasted them to the right of the second pair of curly brackets (at the end of the template), but they wouldn't stay there. I finally gave up and canceled (i.e., didn't save) my edits. Any ideas? – Corinne (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your attempt. I have no idea at the moment. The only thing I can suggest, as I said earlier, is to right all English texts and then enter the Farsi ones. -- M h hossein   talk 06:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * One technique that you can try is as follows. Start with an empty line - doesn't have to be an empty edit window. Type in all the English-language text, including all figures. You can also add templates, including, but don't enter any Persian text, not even inside those templates - instead use some easily-spotted placeholder like ************. Preview your edit, and check that it all looks correct, ignoring the oddity of the placeholders. Now, replace each placeholder with the proper Persian text, preview and save. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting something similar. However, the details of your suggested technique are great and helpful. Thanks. -- M h hossein   talk 17:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * See how HyperGaruda had fixed a similar issue. I think this is in accordance with what PrimeHunter said. -- M h hossein   talk 11:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PrimeHunter's explanation in the link above pretty much sums up the cause. While everything should turn out fine on the final page due to the template's corrections, it is an annoyance in editing mode to work with numerals (which can be both rtl and ltr) next to rtl script. You just have to make sure that there is something ltr between the rtl text and the number. What I did in the link given by Mhhossein was to add an invisible html marker (&lrm;) saying "this is where ltr starts again". Or you could be more creative and add e.g. a latin-script transliteration after the persian text. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Future WP editor
 S/He sounds like a future Wikipedia editor.  – Corinne (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hahahahaha!--Mr Fink (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

 Pardon. Thought Apokryltaros was acting rude to the editor you mentioned (afterall, when someone laughs, it frequently means they are insulting someone. However, after reverting him, I realized it may have meant something else so I tried to revert but the edit filter refused to let me restore it, saying it was a commom vandal phrase (so the filter actully thought like I did). So, beg your pardon Corinne. 2600:1:F15A:C3A1:BD59:8361:B763:3860 (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , your stalking and trying to harass me with good intentions has been noted repeatedly.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just making an amusing observation, and Mr Fink was merely laughing at my amusing observation, not at the other editor. I'm surprised you didn't understand it as such, and I'm puzzled as to why you are searching through Mr. Fink's user contributions. There are plenty of constructive things you can do on Wikipedia. – Corinne (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC) P.S. Thank you for your apology, but I'm not quite sure what you are apologizing for.  – Corinne (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Oh, I just looked at the revision history of my talk page, and now I see what you're referring to. Normally, editors don't remove things from other editors' talk pages unless it is grossly inappropriate. Again, if you look at the history, and think about our comments, you will see that Mr. Fink was laughing only at my comment, not at the other editor.  – Corinne (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This particular anonymous editor stalks my edits via various IPs, and occasionally reverts my edits in order to scold me for biting a new or anonymous IP editor, (possibly deliberately) oblivious that it is restoring blatant, and sometimes blatantly obscene vandalism edits in the process. Once in a while, it tries to get creative, like here, when it tried its hand at WP:Canvassing.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * S/he apparently has nothing better or more constructive to do with his/her time. Why would Ph say in response to this IP editor's canvassing post that "you are right to worry about him"? I cannot believe this. – Corinne (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, Corinne...
...you're a saint (Diff, not that I think he's worth bothering with).  E Eng  05:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, EEng. I feel sorry for him. I think people who often feel they are being unfairly attacked or harassed are unhappy and have difficulty interacting with others. He also seems to have a problem absorbing the advice and guidance people have extended to him, which doesn't seem to change no matter how many times people say the same thing. I thought I could help with Communication 101. – Corinne (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Margaret Lea Houston
' I've pinged you because I don't know who else to ask about ' to the Margaret Lea Houston article. I see the edit summary says, "Wikipedia", which makes me think the editor got the information from another Wikipedia article. I thought Wikipedia articles were not supposed to be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles. I know the proof is in the sources, but I thought you'd know whether these edits are appropriate or not. – Corinne (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources in the "cited in the references section" sense of the term. One Wikipedia article can be the source of another in the sense of "part of article a is copy-and-pasted into article b", provided it provides specific attribution in the edit summary so people can track the history if necessary. The sum of all the changes thus far is just this, which isn't an improvement but isn't obviously disruptive, and there doesn't seem to be any introduction of uncited facts. If I had to guess, I'd say it's most likely a school project. I haven't had much experience with Mobile Editor, which the IP is using, but as I understand it it's much less intuitive as to explaining what edit summaries actually do, so the "Wikipedia" edit summaries may be good faith. As long as the IP confines themselves to Margaret Lea Houston, I wouldn't worry too much unless it becomes disruptive, as Maile66 will pop up at some point to clear up any mess. &#8209; Iridescent 22:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Iridescent. I was concerned about the change to the birth year. I did a search just now on Google and found this article, which confirms the 1819 birth year. I also think the change to the wording that you linked above is not an improvement and am planning to change it back. Thanks again! – Corinne (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (watching, ec:) There's no other Wikipedia article about her, afaik, but I saw this in the refs, supporting 1819 for her DOB. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda! – Corinne (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Maile66. I was looking at your userboxes and saw the Startrek one. If you aren't watching it already, you might enjoy the exchange at User talk:Tryptofish. – Corinne (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Funny stuff.  One thing seems to be clear about Shatner over the years - he doesn't take himself seriously.  Have you ever seen him on the old Boston Legal?  It's pretty much Captain Kirk, but with senility creeping in.  Although ... "space slut" is the best description I've ever seen of Kirk. — Maile  (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I really enjoyed StarTrek when it was on T.V. (in its various forms), but I have to admit that I haven't followed the later career of Shatner (except the commercials), so I don't get the descriptive phrase. – Corinne (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Space slut, huh? So he snogged Nichelle Nichols. Who wouldn't? Respect to the man! -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Space slut, huh? So he snogged Nichelle Nichols. Who wouldn't? Respect to the man! -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Main page
Hello,  – I just noticed that in the number of articles on Wikipedia at the top left of the main page, a comma is not in the right place. – Corinne (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see "5,467,406 articles in English" - which comma is wrong? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Redrose64 The second one. If you look closely, you'll see that there is a space after "467" and before the comma that shouldn't be there. – Corinne (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC) I suppose it could be a problem of a lack of kerning. It might be that there just appears to be a space after the "7", but there isn't really a space. I don't know. It's hard to tell.  – Corinne (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a space; it's an illusion caused by imperfect kerning. This will vary according to the fonts that are installed on your device; and different browsers may show different effects too, which may also vary according to the skin selected at . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)