User talk:Corinne/Archive 31

Clarifipology
Regarding the back-and-forth on the DATEVAR and ENGVAR thread, I'm sorry if that came off as argument for the sake of argument (or anything worse, like picking an argument with you in particular; I read and wrote the entire thing in source mode, and wasn't even sure I was responding to a single party, just responding to statements that stuck out).

I usually write in these threads for the benefit of all readers (even ones years later, because people dig up stuff from the archives all the time). E.g., the point that ENGVAR doesn't just mean UK vs. US wasn't meant as a contradiction of you or an insinuation that you only thought there were two dialects, but as a clarification for anyone who might latch onto "articles on topics that have no strong national ties to the US or Great Britain" in a very literal way. We've had a long-running problem of people misinterpreting ENGVAR and English itself as "American versus British", and I try to dispel that when possible. However, there's the countervailing factor that we also have people trying to write articles in, and assert the ENGVAR of, too-specific things like Hong Kong English, Jamaican English, etc., when these dialects are, for MoS purposes, indistinguishable from British/Commonwealth in formal, written form; this tends to include insertion of colloquialisms that need to be removed, e.g. the South Indian, Singaporean, and Malaysian English habit of using "allows to" without a referent in the middle, etc.) At some point we need to revise ENGVAR, and eliminate a lot of ENGVAR templates, since we probably only need them for US, Commonwealth, and Canadian.

The point of my own personal preference comments was different in different places. The ones about DMY format were to indicate that I'm including myself among individuals whose personal preferences shouldn't dictate MoS (and to also demonstrate that, yes, there are Americans who prefer that format). The one about theoretically preferring Commonwealth English as a site-wide standard was an aside to Peter's what-if about how things could have been.

On There ought to be some things left to the choice of those who write or expand articles" – They just shouldn't be style things.' – I didn't mean choice between ENGVARs; that's a choice explicitly permitted in the guidelines. I mean random variation within an ENGVAR, when the variations are stuff that we know, from long experience, that people are going to fight about. There are plenty of things people don't fight about and which MoS thus doesn't need to address at all (which is why MoS is as short as it is instead of as long as The Chicago Manual of Style or New Hart's Rules).

A matter perhaps worth further discussion is the "over 250 million American (U.S.) readers ... should[n't] be dismissed so easily" matter: But we do it (in an American or a British/Commonwealth direction) every time MoS settles on a single standard for anything. The entire concern has some factual-basis problems, too. The common nationalistic assumption that all Americans have a single style and all British have a single style, on virtually any style point at all, is easily disproven by looking at off-WP style guides. There are precious few things on which all US style guides agree with each other, and all UK ones agree with each other, and the US and UK ones do not agree with each other. (color/colour is one, but even -ize/-ise is not, nor is punctuation of abbreviations, quotation-mark patterns, or much of anything else we argue about). A rule that amounted to "do every style thing the way the head-count majority of users of a particular ENGVAR do it" (the determination of which would require resorting to flights of OR anyway) would invalidate a whole lot of MoS, starting with MOS:QUOTE and MOS:LQ. Almost all house style sheets settle on a single standard for everything; MoS is already "weird" in permitting any variation at all, and we only do it for things where WP has no reason to prefer one variation over another (e.g. colour vs. color). We don't permit it when there's a reason (usually clarity/parseability/disambiguation) to prefer one particular format (3 ft, not 3ft., 3' , three feet, 3-foot, etc., etc.). The "M D, Y" versus "D M Y" thing is kind of in the middle; cases can be made either way (and one of these cases is primarily grounded in sentiment/traditionalism and American editors' personal preferences, versus more practical concerns), which is why we've not settled on one date format.

Anyway, I liked your proposed change in combination with Peter's. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SMcCandlish, for your "clarifipology" (great word!). I avoided logging on for a while because I anticipated you might be angry with me for what I wrote, so it is with a sigh of relief that I read the above, as I see you are not angry. I've often read your comments, and you write well and cogently but with such authority and confidence that I hesitate to get involved in the discussions. I was really confused by the first few exchanges at that discussion; I realized right away that it was on about three or four different issues at the same time. I thought a consensus was developing for allowing, within an article, the date format to differ from the variety of English used, even though I didn't agree with it – I guess it was too soon, and with too few participants, and with no clear proposal, to assume that; I was glad to see you supported matching the date format with the variety of English used; and then I became alarmed that you were advocating using DMY in all science articles, or even throughout WP, and wanted to know why. I feel that more than half of WP articles are written in Br./Commonwealth English, with DMY, and though I have gotten used to seeing them, I still prefer the American/U.S. variety of English and the MDY date format and don't want them to disappear from WP. I like to see them now and then. I haven't yet looked at that discussion; there are probably more comments to read. I appreciate your kind reply here very much. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Most welcome (and it did seem warranted after I looked at the thread and realized it might seem I was singling you out). I'm generally never actually angry with anyone (short of personal attack stuff), just sometimes more argumentative or "certain" than may seem necessary, because I care a lot about the outcome, about stability, and about secondary effects – changes to MoS and other guidelines can affect a tremendous number of articles. I honestly tend to quickly forget who posted what, and don't pay much attention to user IDs.  My default is to discourage changes and novel reinterpretations of WP:P&G material, and I think it's served the project well even if it's made me out to be a curmudgeon.  Anyway, sure, I also get contradicted and am definitely wrong sometimes, despite being certain at first of my stance. I've switched views on a lot of P&G stuff, I just do it cautiously and slowly.On that particular discussion and trying to assess consensus in it: Agree it was covering too many things at once. At this stage, most changes proposed at MoS are perennial, tedious rehash by noobs who want WP to write like they were taught to write in 7th grade.  Once in while, though, we do hit on something that needs revision, and you and Peter teased out two (compatible) things in one section, which is pretty hard to do in a discussion that muddled and with guideline material that old.  Haven't looked at the ENGVAR stats.  It would be rather remarkable if 51%+ of articles weren't in AmEng, given the relative populations and userbases.  Not even sure what would account for it.  It might actually be useful to generate and examine such stats, though how to do it accurately is hard to say. We could count transclusions of ENGVAR-related templates, but this might be fairly skewed since BrEng, AusEng, etc., editors are more apt tag a page than AmEng ones, who seem to often feel that AmEng is "the default".
 * Having looked at the template distribution before, I was pretty skeptical of its usefulness, but on reading this I decided to collect some current data. Not only does there appear to be strong selection bias, but comparing the talk-page and article (“Use X English“) transclusion-counts reveals considerable idiosyncrasy in their application, or possibly very different circumstances prompting editors to place a template. In particular the ratio of article to talk-page tags for each variety (among the more used) ranges from less than 2:1 to nearly 90:1. Regarding the proportion of AmE tags, your “fairly skewed” would seem a gross understatement.


 * I presume, possibly wrongly, that the redirected templates will count under their targets. I made no attempt to determine the extent of overlap between the two types of template, but even assuming there to be none (unlikely), well under 10% of articles are tagged overall.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  20:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lawdy. I do remember a couple of editors a few years go who seemed to be "on a mission" to tag BrEng articles, and I guess I didn't realize the lengths to which they were going.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the further insights. It seems you've been around WP longer than I have and are more aware of the problems that have come up. I can understand why, as you write comments on the MoS talk page, and perhaps elsewhere, you would keep in mind future editors looking for past discussions, and I need to keep that in mind whenever I read your comments. Regarding any attempt to discover what percentage of WP articles are written in which English variant, I wonder whether that might stir up more trouble than it is worth, with speakers of each variant piping up and saying not enough articles are written in their particular variant. Maybe it would be best to leave that alone and have it remain an unknown. May I make a suggestion? My comments and particularly my questions were a sincere attempt to understand the issues and your comments, and though you may have found them simply wrong, or wrong-headed, if your replies contained a bit more kindness, and showed a genuine attempt to understand and respond to my concerns, instead of sounding like "the one in charge", I might not have answered with such a serious, albeit toned-down, challenge – and such a long one at that – to some of your points. Someone else with thinner skin might have taken even greater offense than I did. In other words, soften your tone and stance, at least initially, until the discussion reaches a point where you need to insist on something. It's just a suggestion. Again, I appreciate all your replies here and at the MoS. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Aye, tone-policing myself is something I've been working on for a long time (I used to be worse!). So, still in-progress. It's good to get reminders when I'm too far toward the challenging or dismissive side. You may be right on the ENGVAR stats thing; that potential side effect combined with uncertainty that it could be done with any accuracy anyway is a strong combined reason to "not go there". A third concern, upon some reflection, is that it could result in someone proposing something like "since [some large]% of our articles are in AmEng anyway, we should just get rid of ENGVAR and make AmEng be WP's standard".  While, like Peter, I think that WP having made such a decision  might have actually been a good idea, at this late stage it would not be constructive. An RfC on it that anyone took seriously would be a goodwill-reducing battleground, even if it concluded against the idea.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  Thank you for your gentle reply to my suggestion, and I'm glad we agree. I think the existence of different variants of English and different date formats on Wikipedia is a good thing. It is a reminder that the rest of the world does not always do things the way we do, which can come as a surprise. Even I have learned things about language and style from editing on Wikipedia that I didn't know about before. One thing I find interesting from reading all the discussions is how strongly people feel about both content and style issues. Well, that's all for now. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 👍  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have said "gentlemanly reply" instead of "gentle reply"; the choice of word reflected my trepidation over expecting an angry reply, or no reply, to my suggestion. Re "stern", I understand. – Corinne (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I have a thick skin. I'll happily argue about details, but tend not to take much offense at how they're phrased (other than I hate it when people straw man me by twisting my words and arguing against a caricature of what I actually said).  I also sometimes warn ranters about the WP:ARBATC discretionary sanctions when they're making generalized attacks against MoS regulars (e.g. conspiracy theorizing, etc.), since we don't need people hit with banhammers; MoS discussions get testy enough as it is. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  Regarding your reply at 08:29 on 10September 2017 to my second comment in the discussion about whether to change the rules regarding interleaving comments, at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, of course you were right, and because I hadn't read all that preceded my comments, that's the first time I realized that you opposed changing the rules. I guess I shouldn't jump into the middle of a discussion without first reading what has already been said. I usually do read everything, but in this case, it seemed like so much to read! – Corinne (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The save I did at 08:29 inserted something into pretty much every section of the mega-thread at once, so I'm not sure which bit you mean (and most of what I injected [irony intended] into the discussion would have post-dated yours anyway). This is another of those cases where I'm not looking at who is posting what, but just addressing the arguments as I notice them and trying to present a consistent overall response to the entire mess (and, as usual, a "we don't need a rule change" response).  It's too much work to try to construct a dramatis personae in my head and assign views to particular parties and try to figure out who's backing whom. It is really a mess; that's one of the most useless "let's blather confusingly for weeks about trivia on a guideline talk page for no clear reason" threads I've ever encountered.  :-/  And now someone wants to turn it up to 11 by making in an RfC?  Gahhh ...  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  I agree that was a particularly confusing thread. What does "turn it up to 11" mean? – Corinne (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Also, could you tell me what "LOCE" means? I saw on Johnbod's talk page, "LOCE/GOCE".  – Corinne (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a vague This is Spinal Tap reference. I mean that on a scale of 1–10, where 10 is nominally maximum noise, it could actually still get worse.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to?
Hey there, Corrinne! The alpine pika has just passed GAN, and looking forward to an FAC on it. Would you like to ce the article? Your wonderful ce on the others was so extraordinary that I had to ask you for this too. This is a shorter article, so I hope it might not be much taxing. Due to any reason if you are unable to, however, that would be fine too! Thanks a bunch, in any case. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adityavagarwal. I would love to copy-edit alpine pika, but I feel it would be unfair to those who have been patiently waiting for their request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests to move up the queue to copy-edit your article before I complete a few more at GOCE. It's true that even on the requests page I select only articles that interest me, so I would only have to do a few before I get to your article. I will certainly keep an eye out for it and try to get to it as soon as I can. I hope you have posted a request for this article. Thanks for your confidence in me, and thanks for asking. – Corinne (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are right! Thanks a lot for your mention. Would wait till you get down the queue, and I hope you enjor ce'ing it whenever you would reach to it! I hope you have a great rest of the day. 02:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your advice for perfect prose
Hi Corinne, many thanks for your excellent advice on my talk page. There are some great points in there that I hadn't considered or seen before.

I had looked around for this kind of advice on the various essays supporting the FA process, but I couldn't find anything. The best I found was User:Tony1/How to improve your writing, which incorporates perhaps a quarter of your points.

As a result, I think it would really help other FAC newbies if these golden nuggets of advice – exactly as they are – are moved into a new essay. What do you think?

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 *  I'm glad you found the notes useful. I'm wondering if I shouldn't give them some more thought. I probably wouldn't re-word what I wrote, but I might add one or two points. Also, perhaps I should group them into two sections: prose and formatting. What do you think? – Corinne (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds perfect. The way they're written now is very clear, so no rewording required to my mind. I agree a bit of logical ordering / grouping might help orientate people.
 * The other piece I've been considering is where links to the essay might be best located so people can find them easily. I remember thinking that it wasn't entirely straightforward finding the Tony1 essay I mentioned above. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ' and ' I'd be interested to know what you think of Onceinawhile's suggestion. If you think it is a good idea, I wonder if you could answer Onceinawhile's question about the best place to put a link to it. I'd like to add a few more points to the list and organize it better. Also, if either of you has any suggestions for improvements or additions, I'd be glad to try and incorporate them. The audience would be, as Onceinawhile says, FAC newbies. They could still request a GOCE copy-edit, but these would be things they could do on their own. – Corinne (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping; I replied on Onceinawhile's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be worth adding a little about the "Noun plus -ing" that Tony1 mentions on his pages (maybe one of you can tell me what the correct grammatical name for that is; I've seen it called a few different things). Also, I find that inexperienced nominators often have very repetitive sentence structure; lots of sentences that start with a simple subject-verb that gets tiring very quickly for the reader. I agree that it would be better split into prose and formatting, and I wonder should there be some examples of the kind of thing that we mean? As for where to link to it... There is no obvious place, but it is something that I could certainly point people towards as coordinator. When it's finalised, we could leave a note on the WT:FAC page for people to see. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * in The King’s English Fowler called the “noun plus -ing” construction a fused participle, and condemned it in one of the longer entries in MEU: “grammatically indefensible” is about his kindest characterization of it there. In the mid-1920s he had quite a debate over the issue with Otto Jespersen, who said Fowler’s position was that of an “instinctive grammatical moralizer”. Gowers’s and Burchfield’s editions of MEU take a less strident line, however—especially the latter, which divides contemporary (1996) usage into four categories, depending on the noun involved: personal or proper n. – usually possessive; non-personal, plural, or phrasal n. – usually common case; personal pn. – evenly mixed; and indefinite pn. – mixed but trending to common case. It concludes that Fowler’s preferred possessive form is generally on the wane, “but its use with proper names and personal nouns and pronouns persists in good writing.”—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  00:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  Thank you for this detailed explanation. I wonder if you could tell me what you and Sarastro1 mean by "the "Noun plus -ing" that Tony1 mentions on his pages". I just skimmed Tony1's page, and found it really outstanding, but I couldn't find what you are both talking about. Also, what is "MEU"? – Corinne (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I linked to A Dictionary of Modern English Usage in my ES but not in my actual remark. Fowler’s first example of the offending construction is “Women having the vote reduces men’s political power”, contrasting it with two unexceptionable sentences: “Women having the vote share political power with men”—subject-noun with participle (heading an adjectival phrase); note “share” is plural—and “Women’s having the vote reduces men’s political power”—adjectival possessive with subject-gerund; note “reduces“ is singular. He considered the first type of sentence to be a sort of failed hybridization of the latter two, in which the “-ing” form tries to be both a participle and a gerund but falls between these two stools, so to speak.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  01:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I understand the differences between the three sentences, but:
 * (a) The second sentence (the first of the unexceptional ones), "Women having the vote share political power with men", is, to me, not a very well written sentence. I think it should be "Women who have the vote share political power with men" or "Women who vote share political power with men". Because of that, I say, "Who cares?" I think it's splitting hairs. I think they should have come up with a more useful sentence.
 * (b) I think it's ironic that the MEU would choose that particular sentence to make their point. They would never consider using a sentence like "Men's having the vote reduces women's political power". ;) – Corinne (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, remember it was written no later than 1926, while the UK didn’t get women’s suffrage on equal terms to men’s until 1928. Most of Fowler’s examples appear to have been drawn from contemporary newspapers & the like, therefore reflect issues of the day. I’m not so keen on the sentence in (a) either, but it was probably constructed to be as similar as possible to the other two. BTW in the 1996 edition the discussion is found under the heading possessive with gerund rather than fused participle, which I guess Burchfield considered overly idiosyncratic.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  02:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  I figured that was the case; I was just teasing. I had never heard the phrase "fused participle" before. The important thing is to understand whether the -ing form is a gerund, thus functioning as the subject (or object) of the sentence, or a participle, and thus functioning as an adjective. I think the best way to determine that is first to determine what the subject of the sentence is. Is it "women", or is it "having the vote"? If it's "having the vote", then it's a gerund (same as a noun), and "women" is therefore an adjective and Fowler would say it should be possessive. If the subject is "women", then "having the vote" is merely adjectival, so is a participial phrase (and could be left out and the sentence would still make sense: "Women having the vote share political power with men.") But you know all this. I was just thinking of how to explain it to someone who doesn't understand the difference. You're right, of course, that the verb has to go with the subject. Judging from what you wrote, above, Fowler considered "Women having the vote reduces men's political power" incorrect, but today, I think it would be considered acceptable. I think people today would see "Women having the vote" as a unit, and all of it together reduces men's political power. Would you make a point of using the possessive on "women" in this sentence, or the noun in a similar sentence? – Corinne (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That depends on what you mean by “make a point of”. Yes, personally I would always use the possessive in formal writing–but in a conversational register, I probably do so only about half the time. No, I would not insist on it when collaborating (although I would probably try and find some way to recast), or call anyone out for using the common case. Note that the “women“ example falls into Burchfield’s second category I mentioned above, which he considered not to normally use the possessive. (Burchfield has been criticized for taking all the colour & wit out of “Fowler’s“, but his more descriptive approach is certainly in keeping with modern attitudes.) My own (layman’s) take is that the common-case non-subject can still be parsed as adjectival, modifying the gerund-subject by a sort of apposition, and could thus be seen as part of a broader tendency to use nouns as adjectives—which to my ‘ear’ is generally more appropriate to technical, commercial, and journalistic styles than a formal expository (dare I say encyclopaedic?) style.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  04:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean about Burchfield's second category. I had only skimmed that list of categories last night; now I have read them more carefully. Besides not ever having seen Burchfield's (or Fowler's) editions of the MEU, I had never heard or thought of those differences before. If, as you say, Burchfield's approach was descriptive, he, and presumably his staff, must have spent quite a bit of time researching actual usage at the time – would you say only in written sources, or written and oral? – to come up with those four categories. I think the differences are so subtle that it would be very difficult to teach them to a non-native speaker; they would be difficult to understand even for a native speaker. You are, of course, correct in your other observations. In connection with that sentence, "Women having the vote share political power with men", I was thinking that maybe "Women having the vote" is a shortened version of a longer phrase, "Women who are in a position of having the vote share...", where "women" is clearly the subject. "Women's having the vote reduces men's political power" really does sound better with the possessive, but I was thinking that if "Women having the vote" is thought of as a shortened version of "The fact of women having the vote" or "The situation of women having the vote", doesn't it sound a little better without the possessive form? If so, perhaps "Women having the vote reduces men's political power" is just a shortened form of "The fact of women having the vote reduces men's political power". I'll change it to something more plausible: "The fact of women having the vote changed the political landscape." Would you still use the possessive form of "women": "The fact of women's having the vote changed the political landscape." (If you get tired of this, I'll completely understand.) – Corinne (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The section on this in Tony1's exercises is here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also note that you say on that page that you don't participate in FAC reviews. Sadly, that is still true but as I've said before, I'd be really delighted if you did get involved in reviews. Prose is one of the hardest things to get right for FA, and your expertise would be more than welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to chip in another vote for that -- Corinne, I recall being impressed with your prose skills, and there are occasionally cases at FAC where someone with those skills is needed to get an article over the line to promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, Sarastro1 and Mike Christie, for your confidence in me. I will get to work on that list, and I agree that examples would help. Regarding FAC, I'll take a look and see if there is an article I could help out with. Sarastro1, at that stage, would you recommend that I not make any changes to wording without first checking with the nominator? Should I just raise concerns and suggest changes on the review page and leave it to the nominator to make the edit? – Corinne (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s usually easier to just make the changes rather than leaving a long list, and most (but not all!) nominators prefer that. The only time it is better to raise the point on the FAC page first is if it is a major change or something that you aren’t sure about the meaning or sourcing. Sarastro1 (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Corinne,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Rembrandt Peale - The Sisters (Eleanor and Rosalba Peale) - Google Art Project.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on October 8, 2017. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2017-10-08. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Gnosticism
You offered to improve my edit, and wanted me to let you know, then I moved the text to my sandbox. I am doing this here now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle (talk • contribs) 14:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Adding a link to your sandbox: User:VenusFeuerFalle/sandbox. – Corinne (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 *  I just corrected the spelling errors, and added a few missing words, to the paragraphs in your sandbox. May I ask you whether this material is a translation from a foreign language source (I didn't look at the references), or whether this is your paraphrasing of material in English language sources? May I ask you also whether you are a native speaker of English or a speaker of English as a second language? I'm puzzled by the number and type of spelling errors. – Corinne (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Gentle as always; you're a precious pearl, Corinne!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding one of your queries, rūḥ in Arabic means the spirit or intelligence of a conscious being (as with Lat. spiritus, the figurative extension of a core sense referring to breath or wind), cognate with Heb. ruach; see also wikt:روح.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  02:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for the great explanation, Odysseus! While I'm typing, I'll reiterate my thanks to Joshua Jonathan, too. – Corinne (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Corinne. And yes, english is my secand language.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  You are welcome. If I have time, I'd be glad to help you formulate (put together, word) a sentence or paragraph whenever you need help. Just let me know. Regarding spelling, if you have Google Chrome – and maybe this works with other internet search engines/browsers – when you type in the edit window and it determines a word is misspelled, the word appears with a red squiggly line under it. When you see that, you can make an effort to find the correct spelling. You can look in Wiktionary. You can also look in the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary (you'll have to sign up for an account). When you type in a word in Merriam-Webster, and it is misspelled, it lists words that it thinks you might be looking for. One of those is probably the right one. You can click on each one and read the dictionary entry and see if it is the one you want. I think it is worth spending some time finding the right spelling for the words you are using and getting the number of misspelled words down to as few as possible. While editors normally don't mind correcting an occasional misspelled word, I think most would not want to correct many misspelled words in a single paragraph. If you do this on a regular basis, you may gradually come to remember the right spelling of the words you use, so it will help improve your writing. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Malacca City
' Would you mind taking a look at ' to Malacca City? The actual languages may be correct, but the sentence is not worded well, and I don't know if the added material reflects the source. – Corinne (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The first source says that the Chinese speak their own dialect; I've reverted it.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Kipchaks
' I wonder if you would take a look at ' to Kipchaks and the ones previous to it by the same editor. I don't know what point the editor was intent on making, but clearly s/he was struggling to formulate the sentence. I don't see what was so bad about the way it was before, and the editor may have made a mess of it. I trust your judgement about it. – Corinne (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the edits; the previous version was better, I think.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea


Thank-you so much for your copy edit of Danzig Street shooting, your detailed notes, and your patient discussion of the article. It helped me a lot to talk it over with such a talented editor. I hope you still enjoy tea. Much thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your generous comments, Reidgreg. It was a pleasure to work with you on the article. Thanks also for the cup of tea, and yes, I do still drink tea. – Corinne (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Mahavira copyedit
Hi, Corinne. Are you done with this article? All the best,  Mini  apolis  20:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Der Messias
Der Messias, - could you please go over it, copy-editing, even in an incomplete state? I confess a certain degree of frustration, see talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ... and WP:FORUMSHOPping. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ... certain degree of frustration ... - Corinne is my regular copy-editor, Francis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I experience a certain degree of frustration over your behaviour. I don't go forumshopping to another user's talk page about that, and certainly not if they're befriended (when then, on top of being forumshopping it is also a highly inappropriate form of canvassing, as explained multiple times). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Francis Schonken, I haven't even looked at the linked article yet, and I'm not an expert with regard to WP's policies such as Forumshopping or canvassing, but since this is not a vote on policy or an ARBCOM or ANI discussion, I don't see anything wrong with asking another editor for an opinion. I wouldn't be afraid of hearing additional opinions. You never know – and Gerda Arendt doesn't know either – I may end up agreeing with you. Assume good will on everyone's part, take others' opinions under consideration, be willing occasionally to yield or compromise, offer reasoned responses, approach each exchange with peace, light, and love, and things will turn out all right. That approach is also good for keeping your blood pressure low, which tends to lead to longevity. Now I'll take a look. – Corinne (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's not opinion, just a copy-edit, because I dislike the tag on top. Francis and I are both no native speakers. I can also go to GOCE, if you prefer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Francis Schonken and Gerda Arendt, I have just finished reading through the article and all the discussions on the article's talk page. First, Francis, I wrote my "advice" on how to interact on WP, above (beginning "Assume good will") before I read all that. Now that I have read the exchanges on the talk page, I feel that my advice was not really necessary. You write very well, and make well-worded and useful suggestions, and all in a respectful tone. It is clear you both share an interest in the topic, and both are quite knowledgeable; it ought to be a pleasant experience collaborating on these types of articles, and I'm sorry you both experienced some frustrations. I think it is partly due to the necessity of using an entirely written medium of communication and partly, perhaps, because neither of you are native speakers of English. (The only thing I wouldn't have done is accuse Gerda of Forumshopping; I have found her to be one of the most delightful editors on Wikipedia; she was only asking for a second opinion because she was becoming frustrated.) Just some general observations; I'll get to copy-editing and more detailed comments later today: 1) I see a few instances of clearly ungrammatical sentences (due to just small errors) and a few instances of grammatical but non-colloquial phrasing – Francis pointed out a few of them; these I can fix easily; 2) I see a few places where the flow of sentences could be improved; there are several short, uninteresting sentences that could be combined with other sentences; 3) I wonder about the lack of chronological order in one early section; 4) I see a few terms that I would clarify for the general Wikipedia reader; Francis pointed out at least one of them. 5) Regarding the tags, either way – with or without the tags – the issues will need to be resolved. I'll point out a few that I see, and those more knowledgeable about the subject matter will point out the others (Francis has already pointed out a few) and possibly even resolve them. – Corinne (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "I'm not an expert with regard to WP's policies such as Forumshopping or ..." and "The only thing I wouldn't have done is accuse [...] of Forumshopping" – Well, coming from a declared non-expert in forumshopping matters (please do familiarise yourself with the policy) you're not winning my confidence with prejudices about when it is or is not applied correctly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Tauqeer Raza Khan
 I just finished copy-editing Tauqeer Raza Khan. I went to the talk page to add the GOCE template, then decided to add the WikiProject banner shell as well. Then, after saving, I realized that there was additional material to be added to the banner shell and Biography banner because it was an article on a living person. I went by the example in my list of GOCE templates at the top of my talk page that I got a while ago from Redrose64. However, I wasn't entirely sure which was Tauqeer Raza Khan's last name. It's got to be put first, followed by a comma, in the Biography banner. Is it just "Khan" or is it "Raza Khan"? If you don't know, can you ask someone who would know? – Corinne (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * do you know?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure but I will give you some inputs. Tauqeer is definitely the first name. Raza looks like his second family name and Khan looks like his first family name. I am unaware of naming styles in Muslim families and different families follow different styles. I have seen of cases where people had one family name which kept by all generations as "first family name", then at one point in generation they adopt a "second family name" and use second family name and first family name after their first name. First name is given to child on his birth so name format looks [First Name] [Second Family Name] [First Family Name].--Nizil (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both Joshua Jonathan and Nizil. I think what we've got to do is see how other WP biographical articles on living persons list the name in the Biography project template at the top of the talk page. I wonder if there is a list of those names somewhere, which would make it easier to spot names like this one.  Can you help here? – Corinne (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When unsure as to what to put in the listas, I normally look at the article proper to see if there's a  near the bottom, if so I copy the name order from that. In this case there isn't.
 * However, I have an interest in cricket, and I have noticed that when names are alphabetised in the cricket press and reference books, those from non-Muslim countries like England and Australia follow the "surname, given names" convention for sorting, whereas those from primarily Muslim countries (Bangladesh, Pakistan) are usually treated as-is; but India seems to be a special case: in a given list, many names are reformatted into "Bar, Foo" style for sorting, others in the same list are left as "Foo Bar". I would set Tauqeer Raza Khan and wait for somebody more knowledgeable to come along and adjust it. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Redrose64. It difficult to follow one rule for a country such as India which is very diverse in all things. Mutilple languages, traditions and geological differences is also menifested in how a person is named or how his name is transliterated. Simple "surname, given name" can not be applied to all people in India. In south India, sometimes names are very long in format of [greatgrand father] [grandfather] [father] [given name] [surname]. For example A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. He was Muslim and south Indian of Tamil origin.--Nizil (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all. Redrose64 Just out of curiosity, does the name that follows "list as" end up in an actual list somewhere that one can look at? – Corinne (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, all that happens with it is that within the WikiProject template it's put into a  (see Categorization of people, Help:Category; and H:MW}. So if a talk page has  that's equivalent to   except that using the latter method will put the page into . Most WikiProject banners have a listas parameter (known exceptions include ; ; ), but  is the only one that I know of that actually makes sure that the value is filled in. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Redrose64, for this information. Since there is no easily accessible list, I assume that placing a name in a category makes it available in some way if someone really needs to see the contents of a category. But I don't need to know more about that. Thank you for the links you provided. I read Categorization of people, particularly "Sort by surname", shortcut WP:SUR, with interest. I have a question: do the guidelines for sorting by surname on that page also apply to sorting names in categories, i.e., after "listas"? If so, at WP:SUR there is a note specifically regarding Arabic names. Wouldn't that apply to Tauqeer Raza Khan? I don't want to make a big deal about this – it's not that important – but I'm just curious why we wouldn't follow that guideline. – Corinne (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Time and date stamp
 I just made an edit to Sminthopsis84's talk page, at User talk:Sminthopsis84, and I noticed that the time and date did not appear with my user name either in preview before I saved or after I saved. Can you tell me what the problem is? – Corinne (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You probably used three tildes instead of four. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh. I'll be more careful in [the] future. I just looked at it now, and the date and time are there. Thanks, Redrose64! – Corinne (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A little request
Hi again, hope you are well. I was hoping for a small favour. I've just promoted Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game) at FAC as it has quite a bit of support. I'm lacking a little enthusiasm for little bits of the prose but nothing enough to delay promotion or to say anything on the FAC page, and there are no major issues. I was wondering if you could take a little look and see what you think. I think it's just the odd word or phrase here or there that could stand tightening. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 *  I've just finished reading about half of the article. It doesn't look too bad. I'm going to make a few small edits, but on other things I'll have to leave you questions. Shall I leave them here, or somewhere else? I'm going to be very careful because I know close to nothing about video games. – Corinne (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

1) In the middle of the section Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game), the second sentence begins:


 * The main player characters are three hedgehogs.

I've never heard this phrase, "player characters". Are both words necessary? What would be wrong with just "The main characters"?

2) Later in that paragraph is the following sentence:


 * In certain areas, control is switched to a friend character with their own abilities.

Besides cringing at seeing the plural "their" used for singular "character" (I know some people are now considering it correct), "their own abilities" is a bit vague. The plural "their" (even if meant to apply only to the singular "a friend character") could suggest various friend characters, each with their own abilities. If this is not the case, and there really is only one friend character (what, is it not clear whether it is male or female?) then it might be clearer to change "with their own abilities" to "with unique abilities". That avoids two problems at once.

3) The first sentence of the next paragraph (in the Gameplay section) is the following:


 * In each story, the player navigates through open-ended hub worlds known as "Town Stages", where they can converse with townspeople and perform missions to advance the story.

I paused at the phrase "perform missions". Usually, it is "carry out missions" or "complete missions" and "perform tasks". Would any of those work?

4) The next sentence begins:


 * The main gameplay takes place in linear levels...

Usually, things happen on levels, not in levels, and, for the non-video-game-player, what does "linear levels" mean? By definition, I would think "levels" are never linear. But I understand that this is a different world... I also see that in the next sentence that characters "traverse" levels, so again suggesting something flat. Is it possible that these levels are "levels of difficulty" – that is, conceptual levels rather than actual, physical levels?

5) A sentence or two later, we read:


 * Scattered through each level are golden rings, which serve as a form of health.

I wondered about "a form of health", but then saw a sentence or two later a link to Health (gaming), so I guess "health" is a special term in video gaming. Wouldn't it make sense to link this first instance of "health" to that article?

6) In the second paragraph in Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game) is the following sentence:


 * Throughout the story, Sonic and friends travel between the past, present, and future in their efforts to seal Mephiles and Iblis and protect Elise from Doctor Eggman.

The phrase "to seal Mephiles" is not clear.

7) The last sentence of the "Gameplay" section is:


 * In certain areas, control is switched to a friend character[a] with their own abilities.

This phrase "In certain areas", and specifically the word "areas", is a little vague. Areas of the screen, passages in the story, moments in the game...? – Corinne (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Just pinging you, Sarastro1, since I don't think I got the ping right yesterday. – Corinne (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 Why is the other editor's user name red? I checked, and you spelled it right. I just want to be sure he got the ping. – Corinne (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it. This might be better on the article talk page, but it's worth pinging who nominated the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I entered it wrong. Trying again. Sorry about that ! Sarastro1 (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's fine! Thanks for the pings; I'll resolve these issues when I get a chance. JOE  BRO  64  18:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Me/we
 I can barely resist correcting "we" to "us" here: User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus. Also, it's not clear whether s/he means behind in the sense of I am/we are at the head of this company, so the company is behind me/us, or the company is located behind our house. – Corinne (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You're not Down With The Kids - Me/We is a social network for people paranoid that Twitter and Facebook are full of The Man spying on them. &#8209; Iridescent 15:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, my gosh. I guess I'm not very social-media savvy. But it figures that young people would use the wrong pronoun, or maybe they did that deliberately either to flout rules or put grown-ups off. How are you so "down with the kids"? – Corinne (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Corinne, I didn't know about it either, and as you know I'm super hip to everything the young people's groovy lingo these days.  E Eng  16:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Groovy" and "hip" give you away as a sexagenarian. – Corinne (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Either that or I'm skilled at linguistic imposture.  E Eng  17:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Be a Wikipedia admin for a while—or even more so, an arb—and by the end of it you'll know more about assorted hokey social networks and the pondlife that dwells on them than you'll ever want to. MeWe is tiny, but trolls, extremists and conspiracy theorists like it because it allows you both to designate who can and can't see any given post, and to set up private members-only groups. It also operates without installing tracking cookies on your device, which makes the tinfoil hat brigade happy. &#8209; Iridescent 21:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)