User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 15

Aboriginal Australians
Hello, Rothorpe! I've been reading the article on Aboriginal Australians and I came across something I want to ask you about. It's in the section Aboriginal Australians. Right before the second block quote, which quotes former Justice Sir William Deane, it says, "Deane J said":", followed by the quote. My question is, what is that "J" doing there? I looked in the article about him and didn't see anything that would shed light on it, and it is not one of his initials, so I don't know what it is. Can you figure it out? Maybe it doesn't belong there. CorinneSD (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My first thought was that the J after the name might be equivalent to 'Justice' before it. But in cases like this, it really is worth checking the history to see who put it there, which I'll now do. Rothorpe (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been there since at least 2011 and in the process I noticed the footnote which also refers to him as Deane J, so I think that'll be a case of Australian English. Rothorpe (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Maybe it's something like our "Esq." for "Esquire", which follows the name of an attorney (lawyer) in the U.S. (with a comma). I'd be interested in learning how that abbreviation got started. Do you know that in Latin America, or at least the Spanish Caribbean countries, people often write their names last name first, then first initial or first name, with no comma? "Deane J" kind of looks like that. CorinneSD (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Some British people use 'Esq.' like that, or used to, on envelopes etc., as an alternative to 'Mr', for any man, not just lawyers. And there is a tendency here in Portugal to write names with the surname first in some formal contexts, though I haven't seen it with just the initials. Rothorpe (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit on your User page
I noticed your recent edit to your User page in the capitalization section. I only looked at it in the Revision History, not in the article, but I saw something that I didn't understand. It was after "the" in single quotation marks. It said just beat. Is that what you wanted? CorinneSD (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean "uncapitalised 'the' beat capitalised"? Yes, that's intended, but I can understand how it would seem odd out of context. Please take another look. Rothorpe (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. It's correct. I hadn't looked for it on your User page, only in Revision History. I think I was too tired to look for it. Sorry about that. CorinneSD (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Rothorpe (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

help
some user keeps removing the fact that Eugène Terre'Blanche was the founder of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) adding unreliable new sources and claming he was a founding member of Herstigte Nasionale Party althought we just joined it as a member and was an candidate of a local election in a town 46.45.142.226 (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll put him back on my watchlist. Rothorpe (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you also please revert his latest edit to the page, i tried to do that myself many times without effect 46.45.142.226 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you sign up with a user name, you can do it yourself. I don't want to get involved in a dispute I know nothing about. Rothorpe (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * why do you say you need to put that on your watchlist then? if youre not going to help remove him from that 46.45.142.226 (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no deadline. Rothorpe (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It's OK, now, right? As 'first executive'? Rothorpe (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is should be "Eugène Terre'Blanche was a South African politician who served as the founder of Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB)."
 * also you can remove him from your watchlist if your not going to do anything or atleast notify the user that you put him on your watchlist it better if you do that instead of me (notify) 46.45.142.226 (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at some other wikis. Some say he was a founder, with others, others say he founded... The version you want says he 'served as the founder' - what does that mean? Rothorpe (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you've already put that, above. OK, I'll revert it and we'll see what happens. Rothorpe (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't get to remove sourced information just like that. Try to see things from my perspective. The original complaint as presented to me by the above IP was that sources claiming Meneer Terre'Blanche was merely "one of the founders" of the AWB were biased and unreliable. I came up with another source accordingly. This time, the discussion mysteriously went from "unsourced" or "unreliable source" to "Hey! that's not true at all!"


 * I fail to see the problem here. Do citations mean nothing to some people? --Katangais (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Rothorpe, if you can't resolve this, you could ping Dougweller. CorinneSD (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not only that, I fail to see what that article has to do with me. I made one edit there a long time ago. Dougweller is most welcome. Rothorpe (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wanted someone who can resolve the issue and have expirience in the area so if saw the page history of south africa and you made the latest edit so i thought that you were active and if you editied south africa article meybe you would know about awb since it was a part of history of south africa and today have 5000 members 95.199.201.144 (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a lot of experience with sources. Arthur Kemp's book is self-published (Ostara is his and he's also used lulu.com for it I believe) and IMHO shouldn't be used as a source unless you can convince people at WP:RSN. Other "Wikis" can be used to find sources but of course not as sources. Surely this should be at the article's talk page? Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/04/eugene-terreblanche-obituary This Guardian obituary says "When the imposing Terre'Blanche and six other diehard Afrikaner racists conceived the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB, Afrikaner resistance movement) in 1970," - that can definitely be used. Two more are and. Dougweller (talk)

Jeremy Piven
I'm part-way through the article Jeremy Piven and I have two questions (so far):

1) In the first paragraph in "Early years", it mentions that he was a member of a fraternity (three Greek letters and then the word "Fraternity"). I don't think the word "Fraternity" needs to be capitalized, but I thought I'd check with you.

2) The reason I wanted to read about Piven is that I've been watching a television program that airs every Sunday evening. It is part of Masterpiece Theater (I just saw that it has been renamed. Now it's called simply "Masterpiece"). It's called Mr. Selfridge, and it stars Jeremy Piven. Right now, it is about the middle of the series. I noticed that the article on Jeremy Piven does not mention the television show. I wouldn't know how to source it, so I won't add the information. CorinneSD (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Forget the last part. I read further in the article (which I should have done before) and found the information about Mr. Selfridge. I was just surprised that it wasn't in the lead. If you read the middle part of the article, you'll read an interesting bit of information about an illness he has suffered: hydrargaria. CorinneSD (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. I don't know about 'fraternity', so I'm going to see if there's an article on them (an American phenomenon I only know from films & novels). Presumably there will be one with a title something like that and I'll see whether it gets capitalised. Rothorpe (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a mixture (and the article is agreeably informative). Sometimes the word is capitalised even without the Greek letters preceding. Now, if I ruled the Wikipedia, those latter would certainly go, and I'd be inclined to remove them after the Greeks too, since one can say e.g. 'Phi Beta Kappa', without anything more. Rothorpe (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:MOSCAPS, which agrees with my first point. Rothorpe (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ken Gormley
Hi Rothorpe - I was surprised that you accepted this edit on Monica Lewinsky. Unless the Ken Gormley article is not accurate, I see no indication that he is anything other than a scholar, an academic - nothing suggesting that he is a "political operative" as the IP's single edit claimed. I've reverted it, but am I missing something? Tvoz / talk 06:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. My role as a reviewer is to revert vandalism, not to judge what appear to be good-faith edits. Rothorpe (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, looking at it now, perhaps I should have smelt a rat. But I didn't, and that's where you came in. Rothorpe (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was subtler than most vandalism. I've just spent a lot of time in that article so I knew something was wrong. Cheers Tvoz / talk 04:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Broch
I've been reading the article on Broch, and I have a few questions about the section "Origin and definition":

I must be old-fashioned with regard to the use of commas or something. I see commas missing where I think they ought to be and commas used where I think they are not needed.... In this section I see more of the former. I thought I'd ask you to look at the whole section and see if you see what I see (re missing commas) (at least two of them).

Second, there is a sentence in the middle of the third paragraph that starts, "Yet there is now little doubt that....". It has two clauses joined with "or". I just want to be sure that "or" is correct. If so, is it always "or" after "there is little doubt that"? CorinneSD (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I seem to have put two commas in already, trying to fix a single dash. As for or, I think it's pedantic after that expression---or do I? Hmm, I'll have another look for commas and come back to that. Rothorpe (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't like that or. But replacing it with and doesn't work. Rothorpe (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's much better. It also goes with what follows the references regarding a hybrid culture. You didn't see two other missing commas? CorinneSD (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Around 'for example'? Rothorpe (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's one. I added a pair of commas around it. I also made a few more changes to improve clarity. There were parts of this paragraph that I felt read like a dry history textbook with awkward word order and bits of information understood by the professionals in the field but not known by the average reader left out, so I tried to make it clearer. CorinneSD (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, very good. Rothorpe (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ketill Flatnose
From the article on Picts, I went to Ketill Flatnose. I've made a few edits, but I can't figure out what to do with one sentence. It is the first sentence in the first bulleted item in the second group of bulleted items in the section "Caittil Find". I fixed one or two things, but I still feel that something is wrong. CorinneSD (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You've fixed the first sentence nicely, removing 'and'. Perhaps you meant the second sentence, 'Þorgilsson was thus a direct descendent...'? Which should be 'descendant', I'll change that, anyway. Rothorpe (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an extra clause missing at the end. Rothorpe (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Styria
Can you check the spacing and punctuation in the latest edit to Styria? There may be an extra space now, but I'm not sure. CorinneSD (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Extra spaces in the markup don't show up, by the way. Rothorpe (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh. O.K. I didn't know that. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

 * The group adopted an experimental approach to composition with songs such as "With a Little Help from My Friends", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "A Day in the Life".
 * Is a comma needed after with? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  15:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I think the meaning is: 'Not all the songs were experimental, but here are some examples.' But you might decide the sentence is more readable with a comma. Rothorpe (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius
I don't know if you're watching Marcus Aurelius, but if not, would you take a look at the latest edit to the article? An editor removed his third and fourth names. Is that the kind of thing you would not hesitate to undo? CorinneSD (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I had to see where the names were being removed from first, and that required actually looking at the article. However, I agree that it's a bad edit, and since I'm there, will undo it. Rothorpe (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Udine
I was reading the article on Udine, from a link in the article Luca Carlevarijs, and saw something I wanted to ask you about:

1) In the section "Name", it says, "in the metonymic sense 'hill'." Shouldn't it say "in the metonymic sense of 'hill'."?
 * I would have thought so. But is metonymy the right figure of speech there? I thought it meant whole for part or part for whole. Wouldn't just 'figurative use' be better? Rothorpe (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been reading the articles on Metonymy, Synechdoche, Catachresis, and Bahuvrihi (a new word for me), to figure out which word is better, "metonymic" or "figurative". It's all a bit confusing. There is one section that explains the difference between metonymy and metaphor. It's in Metonymy. I've learned that your "whole for the part or part for the whole" is Synechdoche. I'm still thinking about this. Haven't made up my mind yet. CorinneSD (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just finished reading the first 10-15 paragraphs of "Rhetorical Tropes - Semiotics for Beginners", which is available by clicking on the link in Note 11 in Metonymy. You can begin a few paragraphs down from the beginning. Just after the picture of Catherine Deneuve, you'll see a detailed discussion of the difference between "metaphor" and "metonym". After reading all of that, I am still not decided. CorinneSD (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed I was confusing metonymy with synecdoche. I'll report back when I've done the reading. Rothorpe (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 We are debating whether "metonymic" is the best word in the second of these two sentences from Udine:


 * "The origin of the name Udine is unclear. It has been tentatively suggested that the name may be of pre-Roman origin, connected with the Indo-European root *ou̯dh- 'udder' in the metonymic sense 'hill'."


 * Is it, as written, "in the metonymic sense 'hill'", or, possibly:


 * used in the metonymic sense for 'hill';
 * used in a figurative sense for 'hill';
 * used in a figurative sense to mean 'hill',


 * or what? CorinneSD (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's figurative, but not metonymic, so 2 or 3. Rothorpe (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I know you must know, but could you tell me why you think it is figurative by not metonymic? CorinneSD (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Because an udder is not associated with a hill. Or is it? Rothorpe (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a similarity (cf. simile, metaphor) rather than an association (metonymy, synecdoche), let's say. Rothorpe (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I defer to your knowledge, and will make the change to "figurative", but you might want to read the first two paragraphs in Contiguity. In relation to that, can two things be contiguous in a non-literal, or even emotional, or even purely visual, sense? CorinneSD (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

2) In my view (I've enlarged my screen to 125% so I can read the text more easily), the hyphen before the "n" in the phrase in parentheses soon after the phrase above, is separated from the "n". Is there any way to make sure the hyphen doesn't become separated? CorinneSD (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't help with this. At first I thought of the non-breaking space thing,, but of course we don't want a space. And in fact I see the apostrophe joined to the n joined whatever size I make the font. Rothorpe (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Luca Carlevarijs
Speaking of Luca Carlevarijs, I cannot figure out why his name would be spelled this way. He was born in Udine (see above) and died in Venice. The combination of "ij" is Dutch. It's true that he was influenced by a Dutch painter, but that alone shouldn't make a man change the spelling of his name to a Dutch spelling, should it? Very weird. CorinneSD (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you know what young men are like, always trying to ape their idols. Perhaps he was trying to express kinship with van Wittel. Rothorpe (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. And it could also have been a wish to do the "in" thing -- perhaps Dutch artists were trendy in Italy at that time. But that's the first time I've seen an Italian changing his name to Dutch. CorinneSD (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Contiguity
I've been reading the article on Metonymy to see if "metonymic" is the appropriate word in "Udine", and got to Contiguity. I have a question. In the third paragraph in the section Contiguity, it says "there tends to be". Is that right? Or should it be "there tend to be"? Is "number" always singular? CorinneSD (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think either will do, one of those cases that you can treat as either singular or plural. Rothorpe (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh...interesting. CorinneSD (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Metonymy
In the article Metonymy, in the third paragraph of the section "Meaning relationships", we read:


 * Metalepsis is a figure of speech in which a word or a phrase from figurative speech is used in a new context. The new figure refers to an existing figure of speech. For example, in the idiom lead foot meaning someone who drives fast, lead is a heavy substance, and heavy foot on the accelerator pedal would cause a vehicle to go quickly. The figure of speech is a "metonymy of a metonymy".

I think the example would be stronger if it were made clear which were the two figures of speech. ("The new figure [of speech] refers to an existing figure of speech.") I understand that "a lead foot" is one figure of speech, but what is the other one? Is it "a lead foot" meaning "a heavy foot on a car's accelerator pedal"? If so, then it's "a lead foot" meaning "a heavy foot" used to refer to a person who has "a lead foot". If that is correct, don't you think it should be made a bit more explicit? The way it is written, it is left up to the reader to figure out what the two figures of speech are. CorinneSD (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I quite agree, it needs clarifying. The driver is a lead foot; one could also say the action of overdoing the accelerator is leadfooting. Rothorpe (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I read the paragraphs from Bloom in the link in Note 10. Although the intermediate substitution of "lead" for "heavy" is explicit, not implied, I think the concept of "intermediate substitution" still makes sense and is useful for clarifying this example of metonymy, don't you? I've made a change. Do you approve? CorinneSD (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very good. Yes, it needed 'person' in there. Rothorpe (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=608887169 your edit] to Bahuvrihi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * an adjective. In Vedic Sanskrit the accent is regularly on the first member tatpurusha rāja-pútra "a king's son", but bahuvrihi rājá-putra "having kings as sons" (
 * Well sbotted. Rothorpe (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good one. Only someone who doesn't have "p" in his alphabet would say that. Had you ever heard of "bahuvrihi" before? CorinneSD (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good grief, no. And I've forgotten what it is already. Rothorpe (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, some of the examples use synechdoche, like "redhead" or "longlegs". Here are the three main examples:


 * "Houndstooth", a woven fabric with a patterns resembling dog's teeth: "She's wearing houndstooth."
 * "Old Money", members from established upper-class who have usually inherited their wealth: "He's definitely Old Money."
 * "Bluestocking", an educated, intellectual or artistically accomplished woman: "Auntie Maud will never marry; she's a Bluestocking."


 * There must be a common English word to describe all these so that we don't have to use the Sanskrit word. CorinneSD (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * English? Or Greek? Rothorpe (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you know. Either. Or Greek that has been accepted into English. Like metonymy or metaphor. CorinneSD (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict; I was saying I had to get used to not calling them metonymy. But perhaps something supergermanic would be better, 'thinkthinger' or something like that. Rothorpe (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason, Greek words are starting to look better. CorinneSD (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ja! Rothorpe (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The
I remembered your interest in the use of "the" before names when I saw on another editor (Dougweller's) talk page a request for his input in a discussion. I thought you might be interested in it. It's at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) (the last discussion on the page). CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That'll be a relief from figures of speech. Rothorpe (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Hulk seems like sensible disambiguation from Hulk. But then my attention was caught by the section above: some people still holding out for 'The Beatles' in running prose, sigh. Just because 'the' isn't capitalised it doesn't mean it's not part of the name. Indeed, some British style, like that of the Guardian newspaper, uses lowercase for newspapers also, but no one is saying the name is just 'Guardian'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

...see also False title which stumbled across a few days ago. Cassianto talk 15:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So that's what that construction is called, many thanks. I think we all agree that 'the' should be included before those, to avoid sounding like a newspaper. Rothorpe (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "False title" is an interesting article. I'll have to remember anarthrous nominal premodifier ;) But I have to agree with William Safire -- the last statement in the article. I would use "the", for example, in "the linguist John Smith", when (a) introducing him to an audience, or (b) distinguishing him from "the scientist John Smith", or possibly even as the object of a sentence, as in "I just saw the linguist John Smith". CorinneSD (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I've just added a couple of 'the's to the article. Rothorpe (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that the article contained some inconsistencies. Maybe it sounds right to me without "the" just because I've seen it so often that I've gotten used to it (mostly reading newspapers -- there you have it -- journalese). CorinneSD (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a great deal of it on Wikipedia. Most of us read newspaper sites after all. I don't always bother to put them in, just as I don't always bother to unspace em dashes, or undo bracket clashes) (as I call them, especially in lists. Oh well, who knows what styles will prevail in the future? Rothorpe (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Beatles singles released outside the UK and the US
Talk:The Beatles (album)/Archive 1  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  01:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. The policy, as seen from that exchange of 2009, seems intended to avoid clutter in infoboxes, but a song article benefits from a well-chosen single cover illustration. The French cover of Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da is a delight, très 1968! Rothorpe (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Any comments, ? Rothorpe (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Mal'ta-Buret' culture
Please see my note regarding Mal'ta-Buret' culture at User talk:Dougweller and jump in if you wish. (I left my note there because he is a good judge of the appropriateness of newly added material -- that's not to say you are not. If it's appropriate, we can work on the other issues.) CorinneSD (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I await Dougweller's judgment before doing any copyedits. Rothorpe (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume you've seen that Dougweller undid that edit and removed the added material. He also added a comment about it on the Talk page of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw. Have to go out now... Rothorpe (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Art jewelry
An editor has made quite a few edits to Art jewelry. Since they seem to be sourced, and the editor seems to know the material, I suppose they are all right as regards content. However, upon reading the article (which I must have read a while ago, because it's been on my watchlist), I felt that it was a bit wordy and full of overly academic (that is, slightly obtuse) language. I felt like I was reading a graduate school textbook that made me feel ignorant. I've only gotten through the first section after the lead. I wonder (a) do you approve of my edits? (b) Do you agree with my note to editors where I added the "clarification needed" tag, or do you think I'm asking for too much simplification/clarification? and (c) Overall, do you agree with the academic tone of the article? I'm just wondering, before I continue reading/editing. CorinneSD (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Yes, I think your edits are fine. 'Subset' would perhaps be better as 'part' or 'offshoot'. I see nothing wrong with the tone; it seems quite a complex subject. Rothorpe (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed "subset" to "offshoot". I also thought the adjective clause starting with "which" created some ambiguity, so I changed it to "..., adding that..."; do you think it should be "...and adds (or added; I forget the tense of the previous verb) that"? CorinneSD (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I thought it was perfect. Rothorpe (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thank you. I'll continue reading the article later. CorinneSD (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Parmenides
What do you think of the latest edit to Parmenides by an editor named Rocky-something? My feeling is that the way it was before the edit is both more accurate and more elegant. CorinneSD (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think he's trying to get away from 'perhaps'. But perhaps tentative is better. Rothorpe (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 *  What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that Rockypedia's version is better. Most scholars agree that "the history of metaphysics [is] the unfolding of a single tradition from Parmenides through Plato and Aristotle to Aquinas" (e.g., Robert E. Wood, 1990:123). --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but I think "had a strong effect on Plato" is not the way the influence of ideas on someone is expressed. Something like "profoundly influenced Plato" or "greatly influenced Plato", or even passive voice, "Plato was profoundly influenced by these ideas", would be better. Also, the phrase, "in turn" does not really say much about what actually happened. It's just not very precise. CorinneSD (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the earlier version has both 'strong' and 'effect'. I'll have to admit, Omnipaedista has convinced me. Rothorpe (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Parapsychology
In the second paragraph of the section "Terminology" in the article on Parapsychology is the following sentence:


 * "The term is derived from the Greek, ψ psi, 23rd letter of the Greek alphabet; from the Greek ψυχή psyche, "mind, soul"."

I just wonder whether this sentence is written correctly. It sounds like the Greek letter psi is derived from the Greek word psyche. Is that correct? If so, then wouldn't a comma be better than a semi-colon after "alphabet"?

If not, and it means that the term [parapsychology] is derived from the Greek psi and from the Greek word psyche, then the sentence needs editing. CorinneSD (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that needs sorting out. I've had a go at a clarification. Rothorpe (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

In the first paragraph in the section "Early psychical research", under "History", there is the following sentence:


 * "Its formation was the first systematic effort to organize scientists and scholars to investigate paranormal phenomena".

To me, the second "to" was jarring: ''to organize scientists and scholars to investigate...."

Don't you think it would read better as follows?

"Its formation was the first systematic effort to organize scientists and scholars for the purpose of investigating paranormal phenomena", or, if you don't like that, then:

"...to organize scientists and scholars in order to investigate...."

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Or just 'in investigating'? Rothorpe (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC) 'In the investigation of'? Though it read OK to me the first time. Rothorpe (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. Then I'll leave it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Cognition
In the first paragraph of the article on Cognition, right in the middle, it says "groups dynamics". Isn't that a typo? Shouldn't it be "group dynamics"?
 * Yes, typos like that often get ignored in the lead. Rothorpe (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This paragraph contains a series of sentences that show how the word "cognition" is understood in various disciplines. Right around that phrase I just mentioned it says "information processing...." Then the last sentence of the paragraph says "information processing". I know the fields/disciplines are different, but the understanding of what cognition is (information processing) seems to be the same. Do they have to be mentioned separately because the fields are different, or perhaps because there is a separate reference? Wouldn't it make more sense somehow to combine these? CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How? What sort of combination were you thinking of? Rothorpe (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I hesitate to start re-arranging things in an article on a subject in which I am not an expert. I thought about leaving a comment on the article talk page, but I saw that no one has left a comment there for quite a few months. So I'll leave it as is. CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you see this response? It is somewhat buried in the middle of a long discussion. CorinneSD (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, but it took me a long time to see this. Rothorpe (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In the first paragraph in the section "Origins", it says, "as the study of psychology was blooming". What do you think about "blooming"? I'd never heard "blooming" used to refer to a field of study -- although it's clear what is meant. Actually, if one is going to use a floral metaphor, "blossoming" has more of the right meaning. What do you think about "burgeoning" or "growing"? Or shall I leave "blooming"? CorinneSD (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think 'blooming' would be fine like that, but in fact your quote seems to be a subconscious improvement: it actually says 'became a blooming study'. That's rather amusing as it reminds me of my London childhood when people would routinely use 'blooming' as a 'polite' substitute for the swearword 'bloody'. So yes, change to 'burgeoning'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That mistake comes from trying to recall something from an article without having a second window open. I think you're right, that it was a subconscious improvement. I hadn't even noticed the humorous implications of "a blooming study", maybe because we don't say that in the U.S. -- either as the euphemism or as a serious phrase, but now that you point it out, it made me laugh. I'll fix it. (I added a link to the article right in the first line, above.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Cendol
Can you answer my question about "affluence" vs. "influence" at User talk:Kwamikagami? Kwami answered one of my questions but not the other, and it's been a few days since I asked it. Feel free to make any necessary edits at Cendol. CorinneSD (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All fixed now. Rothorpe (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. Thanks. I had neglected to put the article on my watch list, so didn't see Kwami's edits until now; then I also saw yours. CorinneSD (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Harold Bloom
Would you mind looking at the latest edits to Harold Bloom? An editor changed,


 * "For many years, indeed decades,..." to


 * "For many decades,...".

While the former is somewhat conversational, it is also good writing. If concision is to be primary here, then I think either "For many years,..." or "For decades,..." would be better than "For many decades". What do you think? Undo the edit, or choose one of the shorter ones? CorinneSD (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, 'for many decades' would normally be a longer time than 'for many years, indeed decades', and looking at the article, I decided it was just a couple, so reverted. The decades could go, indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So you do like the way it was (as I do)? Is "For many years" your second choice? I think you might soon hear from that editor. CorinneSD (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, decades it ain't. Rothorpe (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Nutmeg
What do you think of the latest edit to Nutmeg in which an editor substituted two common verbs for one less common verb? I rather like "extirpate" (or some other single verb that succinctly expresses what happened). CorinneSD (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So do I. This isn't the simple English Wikipedia. Rothorpe (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Will you undo it? I don't want to incur wrath. CorinneSD (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Rothorpe (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Taborites
I have a few questions for you about the article on Taborites:

1) At the end of the second paragraph in the lead, there is the following sentence:


 * "They promised people would return to a state of pristine innocence."

I didn't care for the sound of "They promised people". I thought the simple addition of "that" after "They promised" would make it clear, but I thought I'd check with you to be sure it did not mean, "They promised the people that they would return to a state of pristine innocence".
 * No, I agree: They promised that people...

2) The fourth paragraph of the lead is as follows:


 * "Some of the most outstanding Taborite theologians were Mikuláš Biskupec of Pelhřimov and Prokop Veliký (who died in the Battle of Lipany). The early radical theological ideas of Taborites were represented by Petr Kanis and Martin Huska."

I am puzzled by two things in this paragraph:


 * a) It is not made clear why the two pairs of theologians are mentioned separately. It is true that the second sentence says "early" and "radical", but other than that, there is no indication of why they must be mentioned separately -- no time difference, nothing.
 * I agree. It is not good writing, but I think your conclusion is correct.


 * b) In the second sentence, is it clear to you what is meant by "were represented by"?
 * No. One guesses they were the spokesmen.

3) At the beginning of the fifth paragraph in the lead, it says, "in defense of Bohemia against the crusading Imperial Army under Emperor Sigismund".

Normally, when one reads "crusading" or "crusades", one thinks of the crusades in the years 1000 to about 1300 to the Holy Land. I know it's a verb that can be applied to other actions and periods, but is it clear to you that this means attempts to wipe out these Protestant sects by a Catholic emperor? I don't see it explicitly explained this way.
 * No. Being very ignorant, and noting this is in the 15th century, I would have probably thought: Oh, so the crusades went on that long.

4) What do you think of the wording toward the end of the last sentence before "External Links"? CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think all that is needed is a comma after the date. By the way, it reminds me of - perhaps you know - this: Smith where Jones had had had had had had had had had had had the examiners approval. Rothorpe (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply.

Re #2, what conclusion? What conclusion did I make? Should I post a comment on the talk page of the article or just add a clarification needed tag with a note to editors?
 * Sorry, I meant that 'early' and 'radical' differentiated them to some degree. Probably you'd be more likely to get a response from the talk page than just tagging it.

Re #3: I think all this needs is a clarification of "crusades"/"crusading" near the beginning of the paragraph, where it's first mentioned. Can you think of another noun for "crusades" and another verb for "crusading" that would avoid confusion with the famous crusades? Onslaughts? Continuing attacks?
 * Continuing attacks, yes.


 * I changed "crusades" to "attacks" toward the end of that paragraph, but what do I do about this, at the beginning of the paragraph? --


 * "crusading Imperial Army under Emperor Sigismund".


 * Shall I just leave that? Also, here it says, "Emperor Sigismund", but later in the paragraph it says, "the Czech king, Sigismund". Is an Emperor a king? Is that all right, that two terms are used? CorinneSD (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Sigismund article: he was indeed both, at different times and places. "Crusading army" is OK there, I think. Rothorpe (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Re #4: I hadn't heard that before. What does it mean? CorinneSD (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a puzzle. It makes sense if you punctuate it correctly. For lovers of the pluperfect.

Regarding your addition of "the" before "Czech king" in "the Czech king Sigismund", I can understand adding it here, but for some reason, it seems to me that the name, Sigismund, is an appositive that should follow a comma: "the Czech king, Sigismund" (or even "Sigismund the Great", or whatever his name was). What's the difference between "the Czech king Sigismund" and "the Czech king, Sigismund"? I'm not saying you should go and add a comma. I just want to understand this. CorinneSD (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, I should have put in a comma. Rothorpe (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This is my second note of today; see my other note re "crusading" just above.


 * Re #2 (a), up above, what's a good verb to use instead of "representing" -- "expressing", "outlining", "elucidating", "embodying", "putting forth", "enunciating", "clarifying"....? I think there's one verb that captures the right meaning, but I can't think of it right now. CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Personified, put into action/practice? Yes, it's a tough one. Rothorpe (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that we don't know exactly what they did. I thought of "articulated". Maybe I need to do some reading to find out what exactly they did. CorinneSD (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be ideal. Rothorpe (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did some searching on Google and WP. I found an article on Google and another in WP about Peter Kanis. That's the English spelling of his name. He is Saint Petrus Canisius. I read both articles. Apparently he was a Jesuit who brought the Jesuit beliefs and founded Jesuit orders in Germany and maybe also Bohemia; don't remember. He was something of a radical but definitely supported the Catholic position at a time when there was reaction to Rome and the beginnings of Protestant ideas. I didn't find anything specifically that he was a spokesman for the Taborites, but I'll keep looking. I've read the articles on Taborites and Hussites and am quite confused by all the various groups. I even added some clarification needed tags in Hussites. I still haven't figured out the connection between Peter Kanis/Petrus Canisius and the Taborites. I could not find anything at all on Martin Huska/Hruska, even on Google. CorinneSD (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, in the article on Hussites I read that the pope, Pope Martin V, actually ordered a crusade against the radicals in Bohemia. Joan of Arc was about to lead an army against them when the English and Burgundians captured her. See Hussites. CorinneSD (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Pauli Murray
What do you think of the caption under the picture of Eleanor Roosevelt in Pauli Murray? CorinneSD (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It could be tightened. Rothorpe (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Rothorpe (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hussite
I've been struggling to make the various groups in Hussite clear. Upon an earlier reading I had found all the parties quite confusing because different phrases were used to refer to the parties. Then I realized that there were just two. I had earlier added clarification needed tags with questions, then just now decided to remove them and add clarifying phrases in parentheses. (Do you approve? ~Yes. Rothorpe (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC))

In the middle of Hussite, I found the following sentence which seems to me to be unnecessary. What do you think?


 * "They comprised the essential force of the radical Hussites."

Is there anything about this sentence that is essential and shouldn't be left out of the article? If so, is there a way to incorporate it somewhere else in the paragraph? CorinneSD (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it adds anything, but I rather like it: it consolidates. But do overrule me if you feel it should go. The article is not exactly short on detail. Rothorpe (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sammy Davis, Jr.
I noticed two edits to Sammy Davis, Jr. that I wanted to ask you about.

1) IP editor 86 added a paragraph about Davis' appearance on a British television show and then an upcoming tribute show.


 * (a) Is that advertising?


 * (b) If not, is the newly added title of the 1978 show in brackets a sufficient reference?


 * (c) If the added paragraph is all right, "British" is misspelled.


 * No, there needs to be a proper reference: it could be all made up. Though I doubt that it is, I also think it's just a gratuitous 'puff'. And the added programme, whatever its content, is not a reference: we can't use Wikipedia itself as a source.


 * By "puff", do you mean advertising for the upcoming show or material designed to improve Davis' image generally?
 * That's right, the latter.


 * Are you saying I should undo that edit? How would I do that since you have made a later edit? I wouldn't want to undo your edit.
 * Careless of me, apologies. However, I've just checked: you can undo any of the three prior edits without undoing mine. Rothorpe (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Another editor just undid a more recently added paragraph about a 2014 show, but the other paragraph that begins, "In 1978 he made an unforgettable appearance on British television...", is still there. I wonder, if that is removed, why not remove the one just above it (in a list, where the two items each end "Self"; I don't know what that list is)? Would you do this undoing? (and if you decide for whatever reason not to, the misspelled "British" is still there at the end of that paragraph). CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take care of this (though not just now). Rothorpe (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

2) IP address 82 changed "right" to "left" regarding the eye to which Davis suffered an injury in an accident. Is that just simple vandalism? Does research need to be done now in order to discover who is correct on this? CorinneSD (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I went through the article and the left eye is mentioned again, plus there's a link to a YouTube video showing him wearing a patch. Rothorpe (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K. Thanks. (See two comments just above.) CorinneSD (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I've reverted the other unsourced bit. Please do any clearing up you may think necessary. Rothorpe (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's all. I just wondered, though, whether your removal of a recently added "his" before "third wife + name" was deliberate or inadvertent. Isn't "third wife + name" an example of that American journalese we were talking about? It's all right without "his" from my perspective, but clearly in that journalese mode. Do you want to put "his" back in? CorinneSD (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Don't know what happened there: had a long day... Rothorpe (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians
Can you look at the latest edit to Saint Thomas Christians? An editor changed "came under" to "became". "Became" is marginally better, but I think neither verb is right. In fact, I think the entire phrase, "became extinct", is not correct to refer to a kingdom that ceased to exist. Can you think of a better phrase (or verb) to use here that would accurately describe what happened? I can't think of one right now. CorinneSD (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Rothorpe (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very good now. CorinneSD (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ta! Rothorpe (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to receive a "Thanks" notice for my edit to this article 5 hours ago. I didn't think I had made any edit to the article. CorinneSD (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It must have been for reverting your accidental undo. Rothorpe (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

John Calvin
I don't understand the reason for the latest edit to John Calvin. I think it's vandalism. Would you mind reverting it? I don't want to do it. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * More of a test edit, by the look of it. Rothorpe (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Mumbai
I posted a comment re an edit to Mumbai a few days ago on User talk:Dougweller. I'd appreciate your opinion. CorinneSD (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! A glance at the article suggests that all is well, and that 'British' and 'English' have been properly distinguished. Let me know if any examples puzzle you, and I'll have a proper look. Rothorpe (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, you saw the many instances of "British" that were changed in one edit to "English" a few days ago, didn't you? That's what I was writing about to Dougweller (only because I had asked you about similar changes and I believe you said you had no strong preference in most cases) on his talk page. Did you see Dougweller's response (he must have read my comment to you, above) on my talk page, and my reply? If you could clarify the history referred to in the editor's edit summary for me, that would be nice. CorinneSD (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you click on 'view history'? It's the edit of 17:34, 24 May, with the summary 'pre-act of union'. Rothorpe (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I know which edit it was. I was pointing out to you in case you hadn't seen it. I don't know what "pre-act of union" means and was hoping you could explain it to me (and why "British" was not correct there). CorinneSD (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was completely misunderstanding 'history' as meaning 'edit history'. The act of union was the union of England and Scotland in the mid-seventeenth century. I'll see if I can find the article on it. I gave up History at the age of 13 to do Greek, did I mention that before? - so please bear with me. Rothorpe (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found it the other day. Seems it's called Tender of Union nowadays. Rothorpe (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

F. H. Bradley
Do you approve of my edit to F. H. Bradley undoing a number of changes made in one edit? I couldn't be as detailed in my edit summary as I would have liked to because of space limitations. CorinneSD (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, vy gd. I added a BrE. Rothorpe (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thnx. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Therizinosaurus
I wonder if you would look at the latest edit to Therizinosaurus. An editor changed "what" to "the". I don't know if "what precise kind of dinosaur it was" was simply incorrect or was correct grammatically but stylistically unusual. CorinneSD (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I feel the same. I want to paraphrase: it remained controversial what precise kind of dinosaur... I think I prefer the current version. Rothorpe (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Dorothy Parker
I've been reading the article on Dorothy Parker, and I have two questions, both minor issues, both in "Algonquin Round Table years":

1) 5th paragraph: Does "New York Times" have to be in bold?
 * No, it shouldn't be, as the bolding implies that the NYT is synonymous with DP. Rothorpe (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

2) 7th paragraph: What is "semi-regularly"? Isn't there one word that would express the same thing? Intermittently? Occasionally? Or is "semi-regularly" clear enough to you? CorinneSD (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I take it to mean more often than occasionally or intermittently. Rothorpe (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A-class Rock Music reviews
Hi. I'm seeing if there's an interest in doing A-class reviews for rock related articles to help bridge the gap between Good and Featured status. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music and I'd be grateful if you had any comments. Thankyou. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   20:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but not for me. Rothorpe (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

F. H. Bradley
Do you want to weigh in on the discussion at Talk:F. H. Bradley, particularly with regard to:

a) the stylistic choice of


 * "X, for example, ..." vs. "For example, ...." and


 * "Y, however, ..." vs. "However, ..." (I had put them back to the first pattern when I undid all the edits. I should have gone back in and added the commas around "for example" but forgot to do so. It's not a big deal. I know it's just a stylistic choice. To me, when the "for example" or the "however" are after the subject, it is minimized/minimised a bit (doesn't stand out as much). But Breakfast, Jr., prefers the second pattern, so I'm not going to argue over that; just wondered what you thought.

b) More importantly, I really do not like splitting an infinitive, so I prefer "never to confer" to "to never confer", no matter how old fashioned it might sound to a younger writer.

c) Of course, along with you, I don't like the unnecessary use of capital letters, so I agree with Breakfast's change to lower case. My only question is whether "Pragmatism" is the name of a school of thought and should therefore be capitalized/capitalised. What do you think?

d) Most importantly, I thought single quotation marks were British style (I know you've mentioned that you also use double quotation marks, but in your comments you invariably use single quotation marks, so I thought that was British style.) If you think double is O.K., then Breakfast is right.

CorinneSD (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I use single quotation marks because it only needs one keystroke. I was taught to use double as a child, in England, and anyway have no preference. I agree with you about generally avoiding split infinitives, of course. I don't know if it is worth me joining in there. Also I agree about varying the 'however' pattern. Rothorpe (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I just realized what you said (first sentence, just above), that you use single quotation marks because it only needs one keystroke. On a typewriter, where double quotation marks might be made by hitting the single quotation mark two times in succession, both at the beginning and the end of the quote, yes, it takes two keystrokes. But on a computer, there is a key with double quotation marks, so you only have to hit that key once, at the beginning and the end of the quote. Don't you have that key on your keyboard? It's not important. I don't mind the single quotation marks. I just didn't understand how you would need more than one keystroke to make double quotation marks. CorinneSD (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Oh...I just looked at my keyboard. The double ones are above the single ones, so it requires hitting the shift key first. Is that what you mean by two keystrokes? It's similar to hitting the shift key to get a capital letter. CorinneSD (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. On my Portuguese keyboard the " is above 2, and the ' is below ?, so only one stroke, and the apostrophe doubles as a quote mark. But I don't think I became aware of single quotation marks as a style until I started reading novels in Penguin Books in my teens. Rothorpe (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now, when I look at those Penguin Books paperbacks, I wonder how I ever read the small print. CorinneSD (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's my shoulders that have stopped me reading books. I can still manage the Guardian Weekly with my glasses. Rothorpe (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you seen a NOOK (or other electronic reading tablet)? You can buy books and read them on-line, in a kind of tablet that you can take anywhere. I hear the new ones are easier to read than the first ones that came out. I think turning a "page" would be easier than with a real book. CorinneSD (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes, I've heard of that kind of technology, but to be honest I don't really miss books. If I lived in an English-speaking country with delicious bookshops, ah, the afternoons I used to spend at Tunbridge Wells... But it's such a long time ago (I can't even name the last book I read) and I'm quite happy with just the Internet. Rothorpe (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I love the atmosphere of book shops. I don't read as much as I used to, but I usually have a book or two that I get through slowly. I understand why you don't miss or need books, but I just want to say that these days, you can order books on-line and they arrive at your house in less than a week. It's quite amazing. CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, of course, I will remember that should it ever be necessary. Rothorpe (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Roger Bacon
I just started reading the article on Roger Bacon. In the second sentence in the lead, to whom or to what does "those" refer to? Did Alhazen have scholars? CorinneSD (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to refer back to 'method' though it would logically be 'scholars'. Perhaps change 'method' to plural. Rothorpe (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Rothorpe (I'm highlighting my latest comments so that you can find them.) I read it again, and I think "scientific method" is best left singular, but I think if I take out "those of" (and the comma) it would make better sense:


 * "He is sometimes credited...as one of the earliest European advocates of the modern scientific method inspired by Aristotle and later Arabic scholars, such as those of Muslim scientist Alhazen."


 * Do you like "He is sometimes credited...as..."? How about, "He is sometimes credited...with being..." or "...as being..."? CorinneSD (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 'As' does it for me, but change it if you like. Rothorpe (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rothorpe O.K. I'll leave the "as", but what about my other question here? CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just getting round to that... Rothorpe (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, very good edits. Rothorpe (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't make them yet. I was asking you what you thought first. So "credited as" is all right, but "considered as" and "cited as" are not? CorinneSD (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Cited' is overused, but of course it does go with 'as'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

2) A little later is the following sentence:


 * "A survey of the reception of Bacon's work over centuries found it often reflects the concerns and controversies central to the receivers."

Do you like this sentence? I'm not crazy about it. At the very least I would add "the" before "centuries" and "that" after "found":


 * A survey of the reception of Bacon's work over the centuries found that it often reflects the concerns and controversies central to the receivers.

Also, I think it's usually better writing style to use the verb form of a word rather than the noun form whenever possible. Do you think it makes the sentence too wordy to change the first part of the sentence to:


 * A survey of how Bacon's work was received...

Finally, I think the past tense "it often reflected" would make more sense than present tense "reflects".

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with all this. Rothorpe (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Rothorpe: I re-worded that sentence. Do you like the phrase "the receivers"? Maybe that's the word that was used in the source, but I don't like the sound of it. I like "his readers" better, but that would exclude "his listeners", and he was a lecturer. But it does refer to "his works", which were read, right, so maybe "his readers" would be all right. There's also "his audience". CorinneSD (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice the oddity of 'receivers', but, yes, I was about to say only 'his audience' is really inclusive enough, but I think we can accept that lectures have readers, and that word is the most natural. Rothorpe (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

3) In the last paragraph of the lead, the word "sometime" is used twice. I know the "sometimes" is always written as one word, but I always thought "some time" (as in "some time in the 1950s") was to be written as two words.


 * Also, it says, "his harsh regards for other innovators". Shouldn't it be "regard"? CorinneSD (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Give my harsh regards to those innovators..." Yes, some time unspecified is two words. Rothorpe (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe that's what he said regarding his competitors. I changed it. Also separated "some" and "time", twice.

4) The first heading after the lead contains "tyler Bacon". It's also in Note 12 at the bottom of the page. I wonder whether that isn't a bit of vandalism. CorinneSD (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I just saw the (red) User name of the editor just before my first edit. CorinneSD (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like a kid playing around. Will you remove the tylers? Rothorpe (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. CorinneSD (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Rothorpe: I've finished reading the article. One more question: In the very last sentence of the article, just before "See Also", shouldn't "games" be games (that is, plural possessive)? Did you see my two additional comments, above, that I highlighted by putting "Rothorpe" in bold so that you could find them? CorinneSD (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Singular possessive, I think, actually. Yes, putting my name in bold was a great help in navigation, thank you! Rothorpe (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. It was singular. I've added the apostrophe.


 * Reading and talking about Bacon so much makes me think of bacon and eggs. CorinneSD (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)




 * Sizzle, sizzle. Rothorpe (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, very tasty. Not quite colourful enough for your user page, perhaps, but a pleasing sight nonetheless. Rothorpe (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I know. It's not the brightest picture of bacon and eggs I've seen. I'll look for another one. CorinneSD (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ilchester
I got to Ilchester from the Roger Bacon article. In Ilchester, second (and last) sentence in the first paragraph, it says, "This was defeated by Lord Darlington....". It's not clear what is meant exactly by "This". What was defeated? This scheme? or should it be "He was defeated by Lord Darlington," with "he" referring to Sir William Manners? CorinneSD (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, better, and I've changed it accordingly. Rothorpe (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Dioptrics
I found this short article as I was searching to see if there was an article on Dioptrics (I had never heard that term before) so that I could create a link to it from the Roger Bacon article. The second sentence is:


 * "Understanding of the principles of dioptrics was further expanded by Alhazen, considered as the father of modern optics."

1) Do you think "understanding" without "the" before it is all right? Wouldn't it sound better with "the"?
 * Yes.

2) I've often seen "considered as" in WP articles and I don't like the sound of it. Do you like it? To me, it would sound better:


 * (a) with "to be" instead of "as": "considered to be the father of modern optics", or


 * (b) simply without "as": "considered the father of modern optics".
 * Absolutely. (And 'cited as' is even worse.) Rothorpe (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely (b), I mean. Rothorpe (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert Grosseteste
I've started to read the article on Robert Grosseteste (gotten to from the Roger Bacon article). Thus far, I have two questions for you:

In the third-to-last sentence in the section Robert Grosseteste, it says, "his unique ability to read Greek". Could that be correct? Was he the only person in England who could read Greek?
 * Quite. Change to 'rare'?


 * How about "unusual"? I thought the sentence would make sense without "unique" and no other word added. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course! It cries out for silence. Rothorpe (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I think less is more. CorinneSD (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Rothorpe (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

In the second-to-last sentence in that section, there is a Latin phrase in parentheses: "(tabula distinctionum)". Shouldn't that phrase be in italics? CorinneSD (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, foreign-language phrases always go in italics. Rothorpe (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Would you mind reading the section Robert Grosseteste? Look at the last sentence in the second paragraph. It's written all right, but the relationship between that sentence and what precedes it is not clear. Can you figure it out? I think some kind of transitional word or phrase should introduce that sentence to show the relationship. CorinneSD (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably. Making sense of history is not easy for me. Rothorpe (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ford Madox Brown
I just saw an edit to Ford Madox Brown in which an editor changed "hold" to "holds". Unless, for some reason, the Tate Gallery is one of those collective British plurals, this edit is all right. But upon reading the entire sentence, I see "his Brown's" -- the name of a painting?? What's that? CorinneSD (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, seems the editor forgot to erase first thought; I've fixed it. Rothorpe (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Polymath
Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Polymath? An editor changed "from the 14th through the 17th century" to "from the 14th through to the 17th century". I'm not sure that "to" is necessary. I think it also changes the meaning. "Through the 17th century" means (as I'm sure you know), through all of the 17th century nearly to the end. "Through to the 17th century" means through the 15th and 16th centuries, up to the 17th century. Of course, if that's what was meant, then the addition of "to" is correct. What do you think? Do we need to ask someone who knows the subject matter?
 * My impression is that the IP user simply isn't familiar with that American usage of 'through' - which I always take to mean the equivalent of British 'to', and you seem to bear me out. Whereas of course having both changes the meaning, as you describe. I'm not sure what to do about it though. Presumably using 'to' alone would sound odd to you. Rothorpe (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we've talked about this before. "...to the 17th century" to me means "...up to the 17th century", which would mean through the 16th century -- up to the end of the 16th century, perhaps to the beginning of the 17th century. Do we just need to determine whether the article is written in British or American style? Or should we first determine to what years, more or less exactly, it was to?
 * Probably best to do nothing and observe if anything happens. It's all very vague timekeeping, so no serious truth issues. Rothorpe (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Also on Polymath, you might be interested in reading a comment posted on my Talk page about another issue. I had forgotten all about this edit that I made. When I looked at the revision history I can clearly see the reason. I had undone an edit changing the spelling of Baldassare to Baldassarre because it links to a WP article with "one r" spelling. This editor says that neither are correct and it should have two "r's". I don't know what to say or do. Maybe I should ask Omnipaedista. CorinneSD (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My suspicion here is that the man lived a few centuries ago and has had time to develop his own English spelling, so to speak. I could be wrong. This could be investigated, e.g. via Google search. Rothorpe (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the man who posted the comment? CorinneSD (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that would make him very long-lived! No, I mean old Baldy. Rothorpe (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See footnote 1, for example, where the anglophone editors are quite happy to mention an Italian text with -arre. Rothorpe (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, perhaps the -arre spelling is an Italian modernisation, in line with modern pronunciation, while the English keeps the original. Rothorpe (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the French has the -are spelling, which seems to bear me out. Rothorpe (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)~
 * And the German and Dutch. Clearly, Baldassarre is the modern Italian spelling: the 'r' sound has become sustained, doubled, in modern Italian. So your original change was correct. Rothorpe (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't know that about Italian. That's interesting. As I told the editor who posted a comment on my Talk page, I did a Google search and found that it is spelled with one "r" in Encyclopedia Britannica. CorinneSD (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. Rothorpe (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

José Iturbi
I have a few questions for you about the article on José Iturbi:

In the section "Biography", 3rd paragraph:


 * I cannot seem to insert a space before and after the long quote (liner note) with double quotation marks, and I don't know why.
 * You mean a line-space for a blockquote?


 * Jose's name should have an accent on the "e", but I don't know if I can add it when it's inside quotation marks. (There are two instances.)


 * Amparo's name is misspelled, but it, too, is inside those double quotation marks, so I don't know if I should correct it.
 * It's allowed to make such minor modifications to quotes to improve accuracy.
 * Fixed. I notice that in the article on Amparo Iturbi, her first name sometimes has an accent on the first "A" and sometimes not. In this article, it never has an accent. CorinneSD (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I imagine there are many users who can't put in accents or don't know how, or can't be bothered. I would put them in. Rothorpe (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In the same section, 4th paragraph:


 * In the phrase, "French Pleyel et Cie pedal, metal-framed harpsichord", shouldn't "pedal" be "pedaled"? It just seems strange there.
 * I agree, and perhaps remove the comma.

Just for interest, you might want to read (in the large 3rd paragraph) the second RCA liner note of a recording he and his sister made. It is quite a description ("the bony brittleness of the piano"!). CorinneSD (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read it, good stuff! Rothorpe (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 *  Rothorpe and Jerome -- Was that phrase meant as a negative criticism, or was it appropriate for Gershwin's music and therefore a compliment? CorinneSD (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, RCA are trying to sell you their record... Rothorpe (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. It is in liner notes, not a review. It's just that "bony brittleness" didn't seem like a compliment for piano playing. CorinneSD (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite. Better get the smooth fleshy version on Columbia. Rothorpe (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

June Allyson
I've just finished reading the article on June Allyson. I made a few minor edits. I have two questions:

1) In the edits I made, you'll see that in two places I changed the slanted double quotation marks to the vertical ones. I just want to be sure that I was correct in doing that. I think I had read in WP:MoS that the slanted quotation marks are not to be used.
 * Yes, that's right.

2) In the first paragraph in the section June Allyson, there is a note (labeled N 2). When you hover your mouse over it, it opens up. It's quite a long note. It is more easily read in Edit Mode. When I read it, I saw a few minor issues (including a sentence with both the noun and the verb "use"), but I didn't change anything because I wasn't sure that I could edit a note. If it is all right to edit a note, feel free to edit it, or let me know and I'll edit it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can certainly edit it, or I will if you prefer. Rothorpe (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. I'm a bit tired. I'm also a bit upset that a very nice editor has quit, hopefully just temporarily. See User talk:Hafspajen. He/She always finds the most interesting, beautiful pictures and posts them there and at Sminthopsis84's talk page (they're both botanists). The issue is discussed a few comments from the bottom. I'm not quite sure exactly what precipitated the decision to quit, though. Hafspajen has been very helpful to me with regard to formatting pictures. CorinneSD (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember reading your discussions about the pictures. I'll go and have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, puzzling business. For your sake, I hope he* returns. Rothorpe (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (*By the way, I've decided to drop the he-or-she formula, and assume that editors who don't adopt female usernames are happy to be thought of as 'he'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC))
 * I agree. It's so tedious writing "he or she", "him or her", "his or her". I recently saw something that said that WP editors are predominantly young male editors. I think Dr. Adrienne Wadewitz was making an effort to get more women to edit on WP. So "he" is likely to be correct. Regarding Hafs, Sminthopsis provided a bit more information on my Talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll keep watching your page. Yes, I read that about young males. Sorry to hear of Wadewitz's demise. Rothorpe (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Rothorpe (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Ida Lupino
I've just finished reading the article on Ida Lupino. I found few problems. I wanted to ask you whether you thought there was any ambiguity in the pairing of the first and second sentences in the second paragraph in Ida Lupino. Is it clear enough that the "she" in the second sentence is Ida, not her sister Rita? CorinneSD (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's a classic case of misleading. I'll fix it. Rothorpe (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Barbara Stanwyck
I'm reading the article on Barbara Stanwyck and have come across very few problems. I added a few commas here and there. At the end of the third paragraph in the section "Ziegfeld girl and Broadway success" is a sentence beginning:


 * "He also describes Stanwyck as, "The greatest natural actress of our time,".."

I just wonder whether the comma is necessary after "as". I don't think it is, but I thought I'd check with you. CorinneSD (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I don't like commas there. Rothorpe (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In the third paragraph in the section "Marriages and relationships" is the following sentence:


 * "Rather than a torrid romance, their relationship was one more of mentor and pupil."


 * Aren't "one" and "more" reversed? Shouldn't it be, "their relationship was more one of mentor and pupil."? CorinneSD (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Rothorpe (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)