User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 21

Ebola virus cases in the United States
I haven't read this article -- Ebola virus cases in the United States -- yet, but I saw an edit to it and looked at it. At this moment it's the second-to-last edit, and there's a long edit summary saying that the editor had made the same edit before. I went to the article to look at it. It doesn't sound right to me. First of all, if the adjective clause is used, it needs to be preceded by a comma. But besides that, it doesn't sound right. I'm not sure "which includes" is right, either. I think a participial phrase, "...., including...." would be better. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the added link. I wondered again why you didn't just link the section heading. Perhaps you think its ugly. Anyway, now for the article... Rothorpe (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's since been pluralised, but I agree 'including' would be better. Rothorpe (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa - Responses
I asked Gandydancer a question on his/her talk page. I wonder if you would weigh in. It's whether to move the article "a" to within the quotation marks without checking the original text (or speech). It's at User talk:Gandydancer. Thanks.
 * Done. Maybe there was an adjective there. Rothorpe (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether there was an adjective there or not doesn't matter. I don't think you got the point I was making. Did you read (a) and (b) in my initial comment? The article is not present inside the quotation marks in the direct source (BBC article) but may have been inside the quotation marks on the source from which the BBC article was taken. I just think it looks better to have the article ("a") included with the phrase inside the quotation marks, but I hesitated to move it unless the original source is found and the article ("a") is seen to have been part of the original phrase. It's not exactly a "correction", as in the examples Gandydancer gave. I just wondered whether it was taking too much of a chance to move the article ("a") inside the quotation marks without seeing the original source (or perhaps someone could find the original source and look at it), or whether it was better just to leave it as is. CorinneSD (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did read it all and I've now read it again. Yes, if you think the 'a' is better inside the quotes, I don't think anyone will mind if you put it there. Rothorpe (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Robin Maugham, 2nd Viscount Maugham
If you have time, would you review the latest edits to Robin Maugham, 2nd Viscount Maugham? Some seem a bit odd, but I can't decide. I thought you'd be a better judge. CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WL's additions seem OK, but the edits by the IP are more of a mixed bag. Rothorpe (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I made a few edits. Did you see my comment at the Robin Maugham section in your Archive 19 User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 20? CorinneSD (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Had the wrong archive and the wrong section. Just fixed it. CorinneSD (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:On a Night Like This
Page move proposal is discussed; join in. --George Ho (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sky
I just started to read the article on the Sky, and I made a few small edits, but I am puzzling over the following sentence in the first paragraph of the lead:


 * "Usually, the term sky is used from the point of view of the Earth's surface, but the exact meaning of the term can vary."

It seems to me that the two halves of this sentence (even taking into account the example that follows this sentence) are not specifically contrasted to each other. They're about two different things. I also don't like the wording of the first part of the sentence. I prefer something like this:


 * The concept of the sky is from the point of view of the earth's surface.

or:


 * The sky is from the point of view of the earth's surface.

To me, it's not the "term sky" that is from the point of view of the earth's surface, it's the sky itself, or the human conception of the sky.

Do you have any thoughts about these sentences (including the subsequent sentence)?

Also, if you look at the second paragraph, it seems to alternate between the daytime and the nighttime. Do you think that is necessary? Would the paragraph read better if the information about the daytime was all together and the information about the nightime followed? CorinneSD (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I like the alternation, and the sequence with its contrasts, blue, dark, stars, sun, clouds, moon, planets. I'm still trying to think of an improvement to the sentence in the 1st paragraph. Rothorpe (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a bit weaselwordy. Scrap it altogether? 'The exact meaning...' Rothorpe (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think saying "the sky" or "the term sky" is used from the point of view of the earth's surface is kind of obvious. Words are human constructions, so of course it's from the point of view of the earth's surface. The only reason I can think of for saying that in the article would be to contrast it with another term for the same thing from another vantage point. Do you see anything like that? (I haven't read the rest of the article yet, but if there is another such term, it should be given right there. I don't think "atmosphere" qualifies", do you?) CorinneSD (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't minded to read any more, but I checked through, and the word 'term' doesn't reappear. Rothorpe (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Rothorpe, do you mind if I ping Vsmith here to ask him about this? CorinneSD (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course not. Rothorpe (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I just did a bit of rewording to the intro - tweak as needed ... I hadn't looked at the article before and the wording seemed a bit awkward. Vsmith (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Tyre, Lebanon
What do you think of the latest edit to Tyre, Lebanon? The editor seems not to like a plural predicate. Do you prefer the way it was, or do you want to go along with this editor's preference? If the verb ("is") is to stay, the comma is not needed. CorinneSD (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it's totally unnecessary. Rothorpe (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just looking at the latest edit to the talk page of the article. It's an unsigned comment in one of the earlier sections on the page about the name of the city. I read all the comments about the origin of the name "Tyre" and the etymological information at the very beginning of the article. I still cannot figure out how "Tyre" is pronounced in English. Is it "Teer" or "Tour"? The second would be closest to Arabic "Sur", but the first would make more sense when considering how to pronounce the adjective "Tyrian". I can't imagine that the adjective would be "Tourian". Do you know how "Tyre" is normally pronounced in English? CorinneSD (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * At school we pronounced it like 'tire'; I don't recall ever hearing any other than that regular one. Now I'll go and look at the article. Rothorpe (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'Tire' and 'Tirrian', I'm quite sure. Rothorpe (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. I had always wondered about that. Also, how do you pronounce "Sidon"? CorinneSD (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * SIGH-don, I say. Rothorpe (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello Rothorpe: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  CorinneSD (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Halloween cheer!
[[

File:Halloween pumpkin night puzzle.jpg|246px|right]]

Happy Halloween!

Hello Rothorpe: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  NorthAmerica1000 02:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


 * Many thanks to you both. Actually, FWIW, I've never lived in a country which has Halloween; it's quite a recent import to Britain. Rothorpe (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's quite a big holiday (though no one gets a day off work) in the U.S., especially for children, who dress in costumes and go from house to house in the late afternoon or evening, ringing doorbells, saying "Trick or treat!", and getting handouts of candy. We also collected pennies for UNICEF. There are costume parties for adults. In NYC there is a Halloween parade, which is quite a spectacle, with all sorts of costumes. Many people put pumpkins on their front steps for the whole month of October, into November, sometimes carved into a jack-o-lantern with a candle inside. Lately, some people even decorate the outside of their houses with orange lights, which I think is a bit much. There are also some who come from a conservative religious background who want nothing to do with Halloween, saying it is pagan, etc. CorinneSD (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Funny, I think I read somewhere that it was related to All Saints Day, which is around the same time. That's a big gloomfest here and in Italy etc., no tricks or treats in the cemetery! Rothorpe (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought Halloween stemmed from Druid ceremonies -- Samhain -- in England. Christian holidays would have been later and were perhaps based on Samhain. Did you know that in Mexico, they celebrate the Day of the Dead by going to the cemeteries, having a kind of picnic on the graves, placing flowers, candles and figurines on the graves, and making candies in the shape of decorated and clothed skeletons? Maybe a bit more colorful than in Italy. CorinneSD (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't know about Samhain. I recall reading about the Day of the Dead when Lou Reed died. Rothorpe (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Shel Silverstein
Hello, Rothorpe! Can you please take a look at something in Shel Silverstein? It's in the middle of the quote by Otto Penzler in Shel Silverstein. I'll let you find it and see if you have any solution for fixing it. CorinneSD (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * For their own blockbusters? I'd prefer with. But in a quote... Rothorpe (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think you were reading the right paragraph. It actually starts with


 * Otto Penzler, in his crime anthology Murder for Revenge.... CorinneSD (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I was reading that bit. And I stand by the above, but now I notice that there is a 'thought' that shouldn't be there. But it's a quote, and there's a big 'citation needed' at the end of the paragraph, surely unnecessary. Rothorpe (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You found it! Would "though" work there? Or shall we add a note to editors, or a comment on the talk page about that word "thought"? CorinneSD (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, 'though' doesn't work. Good idea to use the talk page, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Shetland
Where are you? I read most of the article on Shetland and made a few edits to improve wording and sentence flow. I left one question about an article ("the") that I added at User talk:Ben MacDui. I have another question for you. It's the last one of my edits. I didn't particularly like "..., although unusually..." there, so I re-worded the sentence. I want to know if you like my version or if you like it the way it was before I changed it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, excellent rewording. Regarding an earlier edit, did you know uncountable 'sport' is normal in BrE? Rothorpe (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't. I hope you changed it back. CorinneSD (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Rothorpe (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Macrotis
Hello, Rothorpe! How are you? I've been so busy during the last week that I haven't had time to look at WP. I'm now catching up on my watch list. I left a comment at User talk:Sminthopsis84, and I wonder if you would look at the edits, too. You're welcome to comment either there or here. You know I value your judgment. (The reason I left it there was because I had read that article after seeing a picture of a bilby on Hafspajen's talk page that Sminth had left there, and I didn't know what a bilby was, so I read about it.) CorinneSD (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Corinne, welcome back. Computer problems on and off, plus a cold, bringing out the hypochondria in me. Now to investigate the mysterious bilby. Rothorpe (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All's well, made a minor edit. Perhaps the title should be in the lead though, what do you think? Rothorpe (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Chilham
I see the same editor changed "is centred around Market square" to "is centred on Market square" again. I guess this editor feels strongly about this. Shall we just leave it now? CorinneSD (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, otherwise it's slow-motion edit warring. Keep watching though, someone else might agree with us. Rothorpe (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

David Lloyd George
What do you think of the latest edits to David Lloyd George? I can't judge the history, but why is "sole" better than "only"? CorinneSD (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course 'sole' isn't better than 'only'. Rothorpe (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Ananias and Sapphira
What do you think of the latest edit to Ananias and Sapphira, removing "being accused of"? It changes the meaning slightly. CorinneSD (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly does: it finds them guilty. Rothorpe (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

John Forbes Nash, Jr.
I just wondered what you thought of the latest edits to John Forbes Nash, Jr.. An IP editor, 14.139..., changed the order of information about his two relationships with women from:

1) wife, 2) earlier relationship with another woman

to

1) earlier relationship with another woman, 2) wife.

Granted, it is now in chronological order, so that is usually desirable. However, it was in order of "most important relationship first", "less important relationship second".

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And the homosexual relationships, which were still earlier, remain last, which rather defeats the point. Rothorpe (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh. Yes. Did you like it the way it was? Or do you think a strict chronological order should be achieved? CorinneSD (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought the reverse chronological order was marginally better. Rothorpe (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ay. I'll have to figure out how it was. I'll do that tomorrow. CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Anise
Hi, Rothorpe! Could you please first read my comment at User talk:Sminthopsis84 and Sminth's reponse, then look at the last edit or two to Anise? At this point I'm not even sure what my original concern was, but I do see spaces around em-dashes there. Maybe there are too many links, too. Could you check that? (I just added a "2" because when I checked the link, it led to an earlier section on Sminths' talk page headed "Anise" -- which of course you're welcome to read also.) Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC) CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Silk
Hello, Rothorpe! I've been reading the article on Silk. In the section Silk, I saw in Edit Mode that the word "permissibility" (twice) appears with a red underline, which often indicates that it is either a misspelling or not considered a word. I looked "permissible" up in Wiktionary, and saw several forms, but not "permissibility". Then I searched for just "permissibility" and found it. If it's in Wiktionary, why would the word be underlined in red like that? CorinneSD (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not underlined in red in my browser, or at least not in Google Chrome. I also have Explorer, but that has been giving problems. In fact, so has Chrome: the Insert function has disappeared from edit mode.
 * Sorry, I forgot about the above section, Anise. Do you still want me to investigate? It all seems a bit complicated. Rothorpe (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Having said which, I've reverted the edits there. Rothorpe (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! You're back! I just finished reading and working on Silk. I left a lot of questions for Omnipaedista which you might like to read. CorinneSD (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. As you know, we of the UK of GB and NI dare to write 'US'. Rothorpe (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't know that. Brits are comfortable with no periods for those abbreviations and we're not (except perhaps for UK), but you also don't use periods after titles like Mr., Mrs. and Dr., whereas we always use a period after titles. I wonder why the difference. CorinneSD (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A printer was short of them one day (perhaps there was a war on) and rationed their use to end of sentence only. Others liked the look and copied it. Americans noticed and deplored the barbarity. Such is fashion. Rothorpe (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Rothorpe, you know I can't always tell when you're joking and when you're serious. I believe you're joking (about a printer being short of periods one day), but if there is any truth to it, would you please tell me? I just saw an interesting user name. It's the last comment on Sminthopsis84's talk page. Judging from the writing in the comment, I think it may be a non-native speaker of English. CorinneSD (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I imagine it would have started something like that; perhaps there is a record of how and why.
 * Follow the link and you'll see what RoRo's native language is. Rothorpe (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, we don't always omit after Mr Rothorpe (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean, Brits are not always consistent?? ;) CorinneSD (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Persian calligraphy
I was just looking at the latest edit to Persian calligraphy, and I saw something that made me pause, and I thought I'd ask you about it. The editor added a wiki-link which seems all right, but the text after the added material, inside the double square brackets, which is what will appear in the text of the article, says, "initiation of Islam". I wonder whether "initiation" is really the right word. Perhaps "introduction of Islam" [into Persia] would be more accurate. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, 'initiation of Islam' sounds like pure EFL to me. 'Introduction' is correct. Rothorpe (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Screen Tests
Hi, Rothorpe, I'd like an expert opinion on something, if you have a chance. At the Talk page for the Screen Tests article, I've listed a bunch of names that could possibly be added to the list, but I'm not sure if the list is supposed to be selective or comprehensive. Rosekelleher (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Expert, me? I don't know, but your idea of adding those you have bolded seems about right. Rothorpe (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Doh!
I see you did look in, while I was editing. Thanks! I'm done now. Feel free to change whatever. Rosekelleher (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks fine. Rothorpe (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing box
On the editing page, the box of special characters for inserting symbols has disappeared. Rothorpe (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:VPT is the best place to ask about this. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  18:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll give it a try. Rothorpe (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And it worked! Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Jules Massenet
Hello, Rothorpe -- I wonder if you would mind reviewing my edits to Jules Massenet made yesterday. Also read my comments and Jerome Kohl's responses at User talk:Jerome Kohl, which I just read today. Then I went to the article to change "Le Mage" back to "Le mage" and found that an editor had not only changed that back already but undid most if not all of my edits. They are mostly minor edits and since many are punctuation you have to look carefully to see them. Whatever you decide about them, I would be interested to know your reasoning.


 * I changed "some miscalculations" to "a few miscalculations" because I felt that "some miscalculations" was vague and not the best writing. I think "a few" or "several" or "a number of" is better writing. (I wouldn't mind being corrected on the best one of these to use, depending on the actual number of miscalculations.)


 * I removed a comma before a subordinate adverbial clause. I had always thought and felt that a comma was not needed before a subordinate adverbial clause when it followed an independent clause.


 * I changed semi-colons to commas in a list of opera houses which performed a certain opera. I think semi-colons look silly when it is a list of short items.


 * I added a comma before the word "respectively". I thought that was standard.

 Your opinion is welcome also. CorinneSD (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Your edits looked fine to me. I don't know what Tim's initialism means. Rothorpe (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Do you mean the "ulc" in his edit summary? I believe that means "upper/lower-case" and refers to that change back to lower-case "m" in "Le mage". I realize that most of my edits are a matter of preference in style, so I guess it's not that important. CorinneSD (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I did read your exchange with Jerome by the way. Maybe he will comment here. Rothorpe (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you ask, I have examined the recent edits and find Tim Riley's reversion a little heavy handed. I would say that about half of the changes really are a matter of preference, but several are unambiguous errors. Removal of the hyphen in the unit modifier, for example, is directly contrary to MOS:HYPHEN, and most of the commas Corinne changed were valid corrections which have now been undone. As far as the semicolons are concerned, I agree that they should not have been used the way they were, but this may just be a personal allergy; some people prefer them under those conditions. However, that particular sentence has got way too many "ands" in it, and the now-removed commas at least helped prop it up. It would be better to re-write it, breaking it up into two or three shorter sentences.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I was in the process of putting my edits back in, one by one, with detailed edit summaries, and had almost finished when I saw User: Tim riley had reverted his own edits to my edits. I was glad to see that and thanked him. I was also glad to see that my revision of that sentence that had the semi-colons and was too long had remained the way I left it. However, I just saw that Tim Riley changed two of my edits back: he changed "though" back to "although" and "a few" back to "some". Tim, I don't understand your edits. I provided detailed reasons why "though" is better there than "although" -- (a) it is shorter, so the sentence flows more quickly (I had also removed an unnecessary comma there), and (b) there is another "although" two sentences later. It's best not to repeat a word if possible. Also, in my opinion, "some miscalculations" is not elegant writing. "Some" is quite vague so does not convey much information. One of the other indefinite quantity adjectives which are slightly more precise would be better. Which one depends upon the true number of miscalculations. I chose "a few", but in my edit summary I suggested alternatives would be "several" or "a number of". Why do you insist on "some"? CorinneSD (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hector Berlioz
I've been reading through several articles on composers. Now I'm on Hector Berlioz. So far, I just have one question for you:

In the first paragraph of the section Hector Berlioz, the second sentence begins:


 * His father, Louis Berlioz, a respected provincial physician and scholar who is widely credited for first experimenting and recording the use of acupuncture in Europe,...

I paused at "for first experimenting and recording the use of acupuncture".

I think it should be "for first experimenting with and recording the use of acupuncture". I didn't think "experimenting...the use of acupuncture" or "experimenting...acupuncture" made sense. What do you think? If you agree that "with" should follow "experimenting", do you think "and recording the use of" should be set off with a pair of commas? CorinneSD (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, put in the 'with'; I don't think commas are needed. Rothorpe (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Owen Jones article
Hi Rothorpe; I noticed you reverted my removal of a reference in the Owen Jones article. I removed the reference because it followed the only line in the Personal Life section (which reads Owen is gay and lives in London, and neither London nor Owen's sexuality are mentioned in the link in the reference. I've removed the reference again.Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I seem to have confused the two references. Apologies. Rothorpe (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, I realise it was all in the good cause of reverting the bad edit that someone else did :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was, thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Gnosticism
I was just looking at the latest edit to Gnosticism, and I wanted to ask you what you thought of it. An editor put the word "archons" in italics. I looked the word up in Wiktionary, and it is there as an English word. Normally, I think, English words do not have to be in italics. Thus, the only reason to italicize it would be to emphasize it. What do you think? Is italicization appropriate here, or not necessary? CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a style I associate with Wikipedia, the introduction of a (presumed for the reader) new word in italics. So you don't much like it either. I'll let you do this one... Rothorpe (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I found two other instances, so three in all, with various combinations of quotation marks and italics. Can you look at all three and tell me if regular font, not capitalized, is right for all of them? (Even if you think I did the right thing, I think someone will come along and change them at some point.) CorinneSD (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll support all your changes there. Rothorpe (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. We're the lower-case brigade. I noticed that it's written lowercase now. Sigh... I like hyphens. CorinneSD (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too. I still join a lot of words up with them, though I tend to leave alone things like lowercase and semifinal, I suppose because they seem inevitable. Rothorpe (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately. CorinneSD (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Patience Wright
What do you think of the latest edit to Patience Wright? An editor added "Wright". I think that was her married name. I think just the maiden name might be sufficient here. CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite so: I've removed it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita
I'm reading the relatively new section in Cucurbita, Cucurbita, at the request of User:HalfGig. I've just made a few edits to Cucurbita. I have come across a sentence that doesn't sound right but I don't know how to fix it. It is the following sentence, which appears in the last paragraph in Cucurbita:


 * In 1952, Stanley Smith Master, using the pen name Edrich Siebert, wrote "The Marrow Song (Oh what a beauty!)" to a tune in 6/8 time. It became a popular hit in Australia in 1973, and by Adge Cutler and The Wurzels in Britain on their 2003 album "Cutler of the West".

...and what by Adge Cutler and The Wurzels? Either I'm misunderstanding the sentence, or something is missing. I know you've edited a lot of articles regarding music groups, so I thought you might be able to either explain this to me or fix it. CorinneSD (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks as if a 'recorded by' was carelessly omitted. I'll go and have a look. - Done.
 * I've just seen for the first time your Earth prompt from yesterday. Rothorpe (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed I'm in favour of mixing the usages there, according to naturalness in context, no foolish consistency. Rothorpe (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not express this at the discussion on the talk page? CorinneSD (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm so shy... Rothorpe (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it. I was about to provide you with the exact link to the discussion when I saw your comment. CorinneSD (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Did you see that Grandma called out that editor for making all the changes (removing "the") when a discussion about that very issue had already begun? This is the same editor who insisted a few months ago that "while" should only be used when it is two actions occurring simultaneously, not as a synonym of "whereas", and s/he made the same change from "while" to "whereas", twice, in the Earth article. I changed both of them. Rather than putting "while" back in, I re-worded the sentences so neither word is needed. CorinneSD (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the beauty of the semi-colon. Rothorpe (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany
I was just looking at an edit to Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany made by User:Sminthopsis84 (a good edit, by the way) when I saw in the paragraph below that a sentence which struck me as unclear:


 * Despite the female commissioner, prayers like Obsecro te that use different gendered forms in Latin for the owner's voice use the masculine form, something found in some other books commissioned by females, though others feminize the forms.

If "prayers like Obsecro te" use "different gendered forms in Latin for the owner's voice", then why do they use the masculine form? What uses the masculine form? Am I missing something? Sminth, your opinions are welcome, too. CorinneSD (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can see this section in a google book, it says that the prayer contains a few nouns and pronouns that identify the gender of the supplicant. I don't know which ones those would be. I agree that the statement is unclear to an ordinary wikipedia reader! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I read that and kept reading a little, and it says that the pronouns indicate that the supplicant was a male. If that is so, then the original text there is a little unclear also. It should have said that right away: identify the gender of the supplicant as a male. But apparently, sometimes the pronouns indicate that the supplicant is female. If you, and Rothorpe, will read that, and if you agree, then we can clarify it in the WP article, something like this:


 * Prayers like Obsecro te, which are written in Latin, contain words such as pronouns that indicate the gender of the supplicant. More often than not, the words indicate that the supplicant is male, even if the supplicant is female, suggesting that the prayer books are were intended to be passed on as an heirloom that males will would be able to use. This is true of the Obsecro te in the Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany. CorinneSD (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seems that must be what is meant. Rothorpe (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is much clearer and I agree that it seems to be correct. Someone who knows what "voice" normally means when discussing Latin text might have no difficulty with the original, but I think most readers wouldn't have a clue. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I inserted the suggested paragraph (above) into the article with a few small changes indicated in bold face, above. I initially thought that a statement (regarding the books as heirlooms) that I only realized later was only visible in Edit Mode, was visible, so I thought I had to consult with both of you to see whether my paraphrase was close enough before choosing one and deleting the other. Then, after saving my edit, I realized that that statement was not visible, so I undid my edit, made the same edit again, and shortened my edit summary. I was also a little confused about the presence of two 's, and whether I had left the ref in the right place. CorinneSD (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri
Hello, Rothorpe! - Do you agree with the latest edit to Dante Alighieri? An editor changed "most probably" to "probably". I know concision is preferable to wordiness, but there is a slight difference between "probably" and "most probably". I think "most probably" works in certain contexts, and the leanest wording is not always the most meaningful. I'm not advocating for either one. I wonder if you'd look at it and make a determination. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting one; I've undone it. Rothorpe (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

 I'm sure by now you've seen the latest edit to Dante Alighieri, changing "The exact date of birth" to "His exact date of birth". I'm wondering whether it would sound better as:


 * The exact date of his birth...

I don't mind "His date of birth", but I don't like "His exact date of birth".

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, 'The' is better style, so I've reverted it. Rothorpe (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been changed back. That's the trouble with these 'matter of taste' edits. In Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, which I've been copyediting on and off since it happened in 2007, a person has changed 'The diappearance' to 'Her disappearance', which seemed to me quite unnecessary, too. Rothorpe (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You may not have noticed that in my suggested version, above, I added "his", which had not been there, and is now also not there. I think "the exact date of his birth" makes more sense than "the exact date of birth" and might meet with User:Gossamers' approval. CorinneSD (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it seems I missed that. Will you make the edit? Rothorpe (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankie Fraser
Thanks for the corrections you made to the death section in the article Frankie Fraser it looks much better after your small changes to my edit Thanks Friend Zafiraman   Lets talk about it  04:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's very nice of you to say so. Thank you! Rothorpe (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The World Is Not Enough (song)
Hi, Rothorpe -- I don't know if you saw, but yesterday I made a lot of copy-edits to the Featured article, The World Is Not Enough (song). I wonder if you would look at an edit made today changing back one of them to the way it was before. Now it is the second-to-latest edit. I had thought the participial phrase construction would make the sentence flow more smoothly and be more elegant. This editor changed it back to two separate clauses. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Two separate statements, says the edit summary: yes, I see the point, though I wouldn't have bothered to change it back. But the editor would argue that being well received by reviewers and reaching the charts are two entirely different things. As you know, it's not only in pop music that what the critics say and what the public like are not necessarily the same. Rothorpe (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I still don't like the sentence. I think it's too long, with that "with" phrase tacked on at the end. I would have separated it into two sentences with "It also reached...", but I'm not going to bother with it since it's not my area of interest. Thanks for looking at it and for your thoughts. CorinneSD (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, two sentences, you said, but I forgot about that while trimming it; I've put in a semi-colon, as the ideas are not unrelated; see what you think. Rothorpe (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Even before I look at it I know it's O.K. I had thought of a semi-colon before but didn't mention it. Some people don't like to see "and" disappear in favor of a semi-colon. CorinneSD (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * O.K. I just looked at it. I like the use of the semi-colon. After your paring, the sentence is now concise. I just hope other editors agree that "the top ten of four" conveys sufficient information. We'll see. CorinneSD (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed we shall. Rothorpe (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Elwyn Roy King
I was skimming today's featured article, Elwyn Roy King, and I noticed something I thought might need correcting. It's in the caption of the photo at the left in the section Elwyn Roy King. It has "low–level", as an adjective, with an en-dash. Shouldn't that be a hyphen? Go ahead and make the edit if you feel it's needed. CorinneSD (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite so, I've changed it. Rothorpe (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Goliard
Rothorpe, I have a question about Goliard. I'm ask you this because you're the expert in capitalization vs. lower-case. User:Jerome Kohl, as the music expert, you might like to weigh in also. I just made a few minor copy-edits to the article, and as I was reading through the article (once again), I realized that, with one or two exceptions, the word "Goliard" is capitalized throughout the article. I wonder if it needs to be capitalized.

Also, I noticed that the word "church" is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not; it's about 50-50. I know that it should be capitalized when referring to a specific church already mentioned in full, and lower-case when referring to the church in general (right?), but I don't see a specific pattern. Can you take a look and see if each instance of the capitalization of "church" -- capitalized or lower-case, whatever it be -- is correct? CorinneSD (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I'll let the music expert pronounce on goliard/Goliard first, if you don't mind. Rothorpe (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've decapped all the churches! No need for capitalisation when there is no contrast or name involved. Rothorpe (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the Goliard question. I have always seen it capitalised but, strictly speaking, this should only be done if it is a proper noun, or a noun derived from a proper name. Do I remember correctly that this group is supposed to be named after some legendary individual named Golias? If so, or if they are named for a geographic region or location, this would explain why it is usually capitalised. The issue of whether to capitalise "church" should be decided by the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Traditionally, when the Catholic Church is meant, it is capitalised; if it is referring merely to some building consecrated for religious services of any Christian sect, it is lowercased. However, tradition is old hat, and Wikipedia moves with the times.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's funny: I can't recall that my memory has ever been faulty before. Having now checked some sources (namely the Oxford Companion to Music and the New Grove), it appears that "goliard" is normally lowercased.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The lower casers are taking over. Rothorpe (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, i do believe that is god's honest truth.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, all very interesting. If "Goliard" is to be changed to "goliard" throughout the article, I think, Jerome, it should be you who changes it; all the music experts watching the article will defer to you; you can also better justify it in any edit summary. CorinneSD (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Flattery will get you nowhere, but if you are reluctant to do this yourself, I will do the dirty work.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I seem to have done it. If that causes uproar among the Goliards' descendants, we can reconsider. Rothorpe (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you went ahead, Rothorpe. I've also heard, "Flattery will get you everywhere." CorinneSD (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds familiar. Rothorpe (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

George Robey
1) I've been reading today's featured article, George Robey. I wanted to ask you about a word in the last paragraph in the section George Robey, in the larger section "Career peak years". It says "unbeknown". I had never heard that used. I had always heard "unbeknownst". I suppose it is a modern version of "unbeknownst". Which do you prefer? CorinneSD (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Unbeknownst' sounds even more archaic. 'Unbeknown to' isn't so unusual, at least in British English. Rothorpe (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I'm really puzzled. I'm trying to think of whether I have ever heard "unbeknown to...".
 * Must be an Am/Br thing. Rothorpe (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

2) What do you think of "until towards" in this sentence, which appears in the last paragraph in George Robey?


 * He combined his civilian duties with work for a volunteer motor transport unit towards the end of the war, in which he served as a lieutenant.

CorinneSD (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a misreading of 'unit', as your copy shows! Had me fooled though, and I decided it would be (have been) acceptable, if a little odd. Rothorpe (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, my gosh. I've been editing and reading for quite a few hours; I guess my eyes are getting tired.CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be it. Have a nice rest. Rothorpe (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You might like to read User talk:Cassianto. CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Right. We'll see if someone answers your points. I worked a bit on Robey in January and February, at Cassianto's invitation (just been checking my archives). Rothorpe (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been outvoted. CorinneSD (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I liked your version, but I recall their points were well made. Rothorpe (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Fire temple
Just wondered what you thought of the latest edits (several) to Fire temple by an editor named Roast Coffee. I'm not referring to the removal of a hyphen but to the two edits before that. CorinneSD (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on either. Rothorpe (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not, either. User:Joshua Jonathan What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made a few changes. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * More edits. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oil shale in Estonia
I posted a question for you at Talk:Oil shale in Estonia, about half-way through the section, regarding whether a hyphen is needed or not, and I pinged you. Did you see it? CorinneSD (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just now (computer problems again). Yes, oil and shale are closely associated: no need for hyphens. Rothorpe (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. Did you leave a note there? CorinneSD (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Rothorpe (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

My computer thinks it's 2007
On this laptop, to get to Wikipedia every day, I first have to correct the clock, as when I switch the computer on it shows a date and time in 2007. I thought this would be easy to fix permanently but I can't discover how. Can anyone help? Thanks.---Rothorpe (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No. That sounds like an issue with your computer, not with Wikipedia. The website can be viewed no matter what time your computer clock shows. Your edits will be dated by server time, not by your computer's time, too. Huon (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it insists I change the clock before I can see Wikipedia. There's no problem with other websites, e.g. RationalWiki or Citizendium. Reasons are security, it says. However, if I use Explorer rather than Chrome, it still mentions security, but then lets me through, so that's OK. Rothorpe (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue seems to be that your browser doesn't recognize Wikipedia's security certificate if its date is newer than your system time. That's not a Wikipedia issue, but a browser setting on your end. There are three ways around it: Firstly, of course, you can work with a correct date. Secondly, you should be able to set an exception for Wikipedia and tell your browser to show it even if the certificate is not recognized. Thirdly, you can use http://en.wikipedia.org instead of https://en.wikipedia.org and use a non-secure connection, which of course won't come with a certificate. Huon (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The first option works, of course, or I can use the other browser. The second, I don't see how to do that; and the third, again it is insistent, the 's' won't be removed. But thanks for trying to help. Rothorpe (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Buddha's hand
I made a few copy-edits to Buddha's hand after seeing a photo of one on Sminthopsis84's page. I just saw an editor changed "is comprised of" to "is composed of". Which is correct? Or is there an even better word? CorinneSD (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Common mistake, that, at least in BrE. I learnt: 'is composed of' or 'comprises'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC) (Yes, cute fruit.)
 * I think we've talked about this before. "Is comprised of" (or even "are comprised of") is common in the U.S. while "comprises" is not. Also, "is comprised of" and "is composed of" have slightly different meanings. To me, "is composed of" is used when it is actual materials, usually mixed or blended to form something else. I think "is comprised of" is more abstract, so more suitable for this sentence. CorinneSD (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember now. 'Comprise' is indeed more abstract. Rothorpe (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's also 'consists of', which as it happens I have used in the following. Rothorpe (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Gainsborough
I was just looking at the pictures in Thomas Gainsborough and happened to read a few paragraphs in the middle of the article, and, as usual, have a question for you, actually two questions. If you'll look at the last paragraph in Thomas Gainsborough, you'll see the name of somebody followed by a title: "Michael Pearson, 4th Viscount Cowdray". I'm wondering whether there shouldn't be a comma after "4th Viscount Cowdray". My other question is whether the "She" at the beginning of the next sentence is clear. It took me a second to realize that "she" referred to the object of the portrait and not to "Michael Pearson, 4th Viscount Cowdray". Is it clear enough to you, or would it be better to use the name instead of the pronoun: "Mrs. Villebois"? CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, yes, I would have a postparenthetical comma there. I think the pronoun is clear, given (as you say) careful reading. Rothorpe (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. I've got to read the article carefully from beginning to end, maybe tomorrow, but I just saw something just above this. Is "full length" in the phrase "full length portrait" supposed to be hyphenated? Feel free to add the hyphen if you think so. CorinneSD (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, a most desirable hyphen. Rothorpe (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Gary Cooper
I've made a few edits to Gary Cooper (I didn't read the entire article), and I have two brief questions for you. In the last paragraph in Gary Cooper, a house is described with this phrase before it:


 * 6,000 square foot mansion"

I believe some hyphens are needed, but I forget where they should go.


 * One could argue that it is already clear enough. But it's true I usually put both hyphens in those, though many would put one only before 'square'. Rothorpe (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think a hyphen is definitely needed between "square" and "foot". That makes it an adjective. CorinneSD (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly support the maximum quota there then. Rothorpe (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the last sentence in that same paragraph, I wonder whether "here" should be "there". CorinneSD (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've altered that. Rothorpe (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And was thanked, so thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I'm here to ask you about an edit made just today. An editor changed "western" to "Western" twice, once in "western history" and the other in "western painting". With the first one, I could see, maybe, the history of Westerns -- the movie genre -- but I don't even think that needs to be capitalized, but if it means the history of the U.S. west, then I don't think it should be capitalized. I actually think the phrase should be reworded so that it is clear which meaning is meant. Why do you think the editor thinks it needs to be capitalized? Same thing regarding "western painting". CorinneSD (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've come across this before, and I agree, capitalise neither. As a genre, yes, some put Western, just as some put Jazz, which is worse, as with music genres in general, compare classical music and Classical poetry as in Homer & Virgil. As for western painting, the West as a place, particularly during the Cold War (nice ones) I would think is the origin. But that doesn't need the clarification of a capital either. Rothorpe (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Except for titles of movies or other proper nouns, I also think "western" does not need to be capitalized. I just looked through the article and found all the instances of "western". The capitalization is inconsistent -- sometimes capitalized, sometimes not -- but mostly capitalized. I'm thinking that if I go through and change them, someone will object. I would need to have my justification ready. I skimmed MOS:CAPS. There is the main policy in the first paragraph, but there is not much specifically regarding geographical regions (as nouns or adjectives). Besides just providing a link to MOS:CAPS, can you think of any other support we could offer? CorinneSD (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wkt:western... I've tried various conbinations, but I can't remember how to link to Wiktionary. Wikipedia's "sister project" certainly supports the case for lower, though. Rothorpe (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I keep useful links at the top of my talk page. You'll see the link to Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster, and other things. Here is the link to Wiktionary: http://www.wiktionary.com


 * I looked at the latest edits by Bede and decided to leave a comment on the article's talk page at Talk:Gary Cooper. Feel free to chime in (even if you disagree with me). CorinneSD (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll be watching, third attempt to type that... Rothorpe (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think trying to persuade others to put "western" in lower-case is a losing battle. CorinneSD (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. The Western article itself is about 95% capitalised. Rothorpe (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ananda Coomaraswamy
Hello, Rothorpe! -- What do you think of the latest edits to Ananda Coomaraswamy? CorinneSD (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Better-looking dashes would be nice, and probably most readers will understand 'English'. Rothorpe (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Veronica Cooper
I've just started reading the article on Veronica Cooper. The second sentence of the lede is:


 * She was the wife of the actor Gary Cooper and mother of painter Maria Cooper Janis.

I'm wondering about the lack of consistency in the two phrases:


 * the actor Gary Cooper

and


 * painter Maria Cooper Janis.

I'm thinking either both should have "the", or neither. What do you think?
 * There's actually a double-disjunct: the wife, the actor, mother, painter. But I'd be inclined just to add another 'the' before 'painter'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the first sentence in the lede, do you think the comma is necessary? CorinneSD (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the section Veronica Cooper, does "the Sleepwalking Countess" have to be capitalized? CorinneSD (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed not. I went ahead and made all the changes you suggested. Rothorpe (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Pleyel et Cie
I wonder if you would mind reading a comment I left yesterday at User talk:Jerome Kohl about some edits that had been made at Pleyel et Cie and the reply he left today after making one edit. I deplore the changes made by that editor. If passive voice is not to be used, we might as well give up editing on WP. Would you mind telling me what you think, either here or there? CorinneSD (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that passive was better there, and will support a revert. Rothorpe (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, wonderful! But I left my comment for User:Jerome Kohl because I wasn't sure about the other things in that edit. Also, now there is an edit by Jerome. But I think if I revert back to the way it had been before that edit, Jerome would take care of any incorrect details. CorinneSD (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure Jerome can do that. For the Passive Liberation Front, Rothorpe (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Activate the Passive! Rothorpe (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support (and humor). It's ironic because I am an advocate for using the active voice when passive voice is unnecessary. It's knowing when to use active and when to use passive that's the key -- and you know. CorinneSD (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That's right. Rothorpe (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Have been reverted. See comment at Pleyel et Cie. CorinneSD (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A very detailed comment. To be fair, I read the article again without examining any of the edits, and I didn't spot any jarring actives where passives would have been better. So, while I continue to deplore mindless activity, I don't see any point in arguing about this. Rothorpe (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * All right. I'm not going to bother with it any further, but I do see two sentences that I think were fine in passive voice: "He was joined by his son" is better than "His son joined him" and "A small number of pianos were manufactured" is better than "The company manufactured a small number of pianos". CorinneSD (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. But I don't see what we can do, apart from making a direct challenge. Rothorpe (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not worth the stress. CorinneSD (talk) 01:01, 17