User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 24

Divine Comedy
Hello, Rothorpe! I have a few questions for you about Divine Comedy:

1) In the section Divine Comedy, I think there is some inconsistency in formatting of titles, particularly the English titles. They appear in italics with quotation marks, or just italics, or regular (Roman) font with quotation marks. I don't know if some of these are short works, or short parts (such as chapters) of longer works. Can you figure it all out? Are they all correct?
 * I don't think I've ever looked at the MoS about this for more than a brief glance. Anyway, Manual of Style/Titles suggests that I must start by removing inverted commas sround "Islamic eschatology...". Please see if you agree before I go on. Rothorpe (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to that part of the MoS. I hadn't seen that section before. If I read it right, since this title is not well known, the English translation of this title should not be in quotation marks, as you said, but should also be in regular (Roman) font and in sentence case. (I wonder, then, if "Divine Comedy" should be in regular font or italics. I guess not, but what do you think?) - CorinneSD (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I hadn't read it properly, and it's not a recognised title, so as you say. Divine Comedy in italics, as a recognised title of a whole work is right, I think. Rothorpe (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

2) The first sentence of the second paragraph in Divine Comedy is:


 * Love, a theme throughout the Divine Comedy, is particularly important for the framing of the sin on the Mountain of Purgatory.

I'm just wondering whether all those "the's" are needed. You have to read before this to get the full picture. I'm wondering whether the second "the" ("the sin") is necessary. It's true that it means the specific group of sins that are on the Mountain of Purgatory, but still... Perhaps it should be,


 * for the framing of the sins on the Mountain of Purgatory, or


 * for the framing of sin in the Mountain of Purgatory.

- CorinneSD (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think just a generalised 'sin' goes best, so number 2. Rothorpe (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Old Saxon
Hello, Rothorpe! What do you think of this edit to Old Saxon? Normally, I approve of writing out numbers in full when possible, but in this case, it's a translation of a German title, and the German title has the numbers, not the words for the numbers, so I don't know... CorinneSD (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're surely right. And 'seventh Century' looks awful. Rothorpe (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating
In response to a comment I just left on the talk page of Radiocarbon dating at Talk:Radiocarbon dating, the same editor changed et al. back to "et al." However, at the same time, the editor wrote "coworkers". When I see "coworkers" I think of cows. I prefer "co-workers". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Moo, yes, I always change that. Rothorpe (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 *  What do you think of this edit to Radiocarbon dating? Be sure to read the sentence about Libby right before "In 1960". (a) Do you think it makes sense to connect the two sentences with "and", or do you like two separate sentences? (b) Do you like "in 1960" at the beginning of that sentence or at the end, as it was? CorinneSD (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. Regarding (b), I always think that putting the date first in a sentence puts more focus on it and putting it at the end of the sentence puts less focus on it, and I don't think focus on the year is needed here. I think it makes more sense to put the focus on the fact that Libby was awarded the Nobel prize for work he began in the 1940s. CorinneSD (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  Just thought you might be interested in this. CorinneSD (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Computer has just brought this to my attention. Strange. Anyway, I agree with you: it was much better before, for reasons stated. Rothorpe (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

La Laguna Cathedral
I need your help in figuring out the correct capitalization in this section heading in La Laguna Cathedral. See. I know most words after the first word in a section heading should be in lowercase, but is "Chapter House" a formal name of a building that should be capitalized in the heading? Is "Icon Museum" a similarly formal name, or should it just be "icon museum"? CorinneSD (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very hard to say, but if they have been uncapitalised ofr a long time, why change them? Plenty of good changes to make there, anyway... Rothorpe (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You didn't mind the change from 'icon museum' to 'icons museum'? Rothorpe (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I left a question on my talk page at User talk:CorinneSD but got no reply, so I just left a note on the talk page of this IP editor. CorinneSD (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, the actual name, quite right. Though somehow I don't think you'll get a reply. By the way, did you get my email of 9 Feb? Apologies if you've replied & I've mislaid it... Rothorpe (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I see I did get a reply (on my talk page). I am really puzzled. This editor (who appears to be a non-native speaker of English) did not see that the actual name of the museum is right there in the reference, "Museo de los Iconos". The only thing I can think of is that the English word "actual" does not mean the same as the Spanish word "actual". In Spanish, en el actual means "in the present", not "real". So maybe they thought I meant, "What is the present name?", but even with that, they could have supplied the Spanish name of the museum. Perhaps the editor is not a Spanish speaker. Do you like the idea of giving the museum name first in Spanish and then giving the English in parentheses after it? How about "Museum of Icons"? Re your question about an e-mail, I'll have to go back into my e-mail and see. I don't remember now. That was almost three weeks ago. At our age, we're lucky to remember what happened three days ago. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Museo de los Iconos (Museum of Icons) would do the job perfectly. Indeed, clearly not an native Anglophone, nor Hispanophone probably. That meaning of 'actual' seems to be there in all the Romance languages; I wonder when it got changed in English.
 * At our age, yes. Perhaps I should get rid of my prejudice against smileys (horrid name). ;) does seem an improvement on an exclamation mark (too jolly) or ellipsis (too arch). Rothorpe (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not crazy about the yellow circle smileys, but I kind of like the punctuation ones. I haven't gotten off WP and to my e-mail yet. CorinneSD (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's probably how my prejudice began. No hurry. WP is very addictive. Rothorpe (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As you'll see below. From moo to moose. CorinneSD (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Moose
Because of light-hearted discussions about moose on User:Sca's talk page at User talk:Sca, I looked at the article on Moose. I came across the following sentence in the middle of the fourth paragraph in the section Moose:


 * The word "elk" remained in usage because of its existence in continental Europe but, without any animals locally to reference the word to, the meaning became rather vague to most ancient speakers of English, referring to "large deer" in general.

In the middle of the sentence you'll see that there is an extra "to". I wonder which is better:


 * without any animals locally to reference the word, the meaning...


 * without any animals locally to provide reference for the word, the meaning...

or some other wording. CorinneSD (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Belated interjection: How about "without any animals locally to refer to"? Sca (talk)
 * That's good, but did you see below? Rothorpe (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the two are different. Isn't the first there just to form the infinitive? Rothorpe (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Or did you just mean the repetition was unfortunate? In which case the second would do fine, but I do think it's OK with two to's too. Rothorpe (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess I don't understand the phrase at all. I realize that the first "to" is to form the infinitive, but what is the purpose of the second "to"? Do you use the verb "reference" like that? The situation is that moose became extinct in Britain 3900 years ago, but the word continued in the English language because there were still moose on the continent, but over time, since there were no moose in England, people's understanding of the meaning of the word became vaguer and vaguer because there were no moose around. I've never seen this construction, "without any animals...to reference the word to". I've heard something like, "without any animals which would provide a reference for the word", or "without any animals to provide a reference for the word", or "with no animals to serve as a reference for the word", or something like that. CorinneSD (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Didn't we discuss this verbal use of 'reference' before? But I can't find it in my archive box. Anyway, I think all your versions, substituting the noun, are much better. Or just 'without any animals for the word to refer to', perhaps. Rothorpe (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't remember ever discussing this before. Maybe we did, but I don't remember. Since this is only about the moose, I think it would clearer to use the word "moose" instead of "animals": "with no moose around to serve as a reference" is the clearest. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be fine. Rothorpe (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Most abused words — How about clearly (with a comma)? Seems to introduce many polemical sentences, ostensibly strengthening whatever dubious contention is being aired.
 * PS: Added a thought here. Sca (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Clearly': I haven't been annoyed by it on Wikipedia, but it does remind me of a new expression beloved of English politicans: 'I am clear that...', which presumably means the same thing at greater length. Rothorpe (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the old news biz over here, the question "Are you clear?" meant, "Can I give you something else to do?" Ditto for the question, "Are you gainfully employed?" Sca (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard, "I am clear that...". It sounds ridiculous to me. I prefer, "It is clear to me that..." or "I understand that..." Or maybe the politician is really thinking, "Am I making myself clear?" I often hear, "Clearly,..." If it's not overused, I think it's all right. It's a short way of saying, "It is clear that...", which can be useful in summarizing. CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with all that. I think the politician uses the phrase because it seems to to say simultaneously 'it is clear' and 'I am making myself clear'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And by combining those two, s/he becomes unclear. CorinneSD (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Let me make this perfectly clear..." – Richard Milhous Nixon
 * Sca (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Back to the moose
Another editor put 'living animals alive', perhaps a typo for 'living animals around'. 'Without any living animals to serve as a reference' would surely be enough. Rothorpe (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I intended, as using "moose" in that particular phrase runs the risk of confusing a reader into thinking that the animals were called "moose" in Ancient England.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, I'm fine with that. Rothorpe (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great pictures on your page---drawn by you, I gather? Rothorpe (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I scrounge the internet and libraries for the most arcane of prehistoric organisms.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apokryltaros Have you thought of drawing (or arranging) the extinct dinosaurs in one place showing their relative sizes? I'm thinking of that really huge dinosaur found in southern South America. CorinneSD (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've considered it, though, I need more practice with dinosaurs, especially since all of my non-avian dinosaur pictures are all now woefully out of date.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are they out of date? CorinneSD (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Only a few of the theropods have feathers, most of them have pronated hands when they shouldn't have, or are otherwise at least ten years old.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Zucchini
Hello, Rothorpe -- I need your opinion on something. Can you read my comment of 3 March 2015 at User talk:Sminthopsis84 (and look at the edit to which I provided a link)? You can respond here or there, whichever you think is more appropriate. CorinneSD (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be a parenthesis, though remaining where it us now, joined to the preceding sentence. Rothorpe (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, better to remove, I've left a note there. Rothorpe (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This will make you smile.
Check this out: User talk:Hafspajen. CorinneSD (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, nice bit of G&S. Couldn't make out too many of the words unfortunately - getting aurally challenged in my old age. But now to the above... Rothorpe (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't make out all the words, either. I think I understood about a third of the words. But it was clever and fun to listen to. CorinneSD (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Something

 * - User:Rothorpe just what do you think about this ? Hafspajen (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I read parts of it and then skimmed the rest. I think that concept that Valo-something wants to make into an article is kind of ridiculous. CorinneSD (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Rothorpe (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I know nothing about language thing, so I might miss here something, I don't know...  but I know my definitions, and do you know how may time this was on? like 5 times and now again. I can't take this any more. Hafspajen (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, and  Rothorpe - if you agree, why don't you at least tell them? I feel am going to throw up if I go anywhere near that page gain, I have been trough this discussion already five times all over different Wiki-pages and talk pages. Also same thing here check my last edits. What do you think? Hafspajen (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added my opinion. Rothorpe (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I would have to study the issue – read the pertinent articles ( and by the way, besides Celibacy, what are they? – and the various discussions before coming to any definite conclusions. Does that discussion to which you pointed yesterday appear to be going in that editor's favor or the opposite direction? Perhaps it is already being handled by other sensible editors. I never knew this was a topic about which there could be so much disagreement and so much written. To me, there are not many things about human behavior that are not within a person's control, so to say that something is "involuntary" has got to be supported by science. To say that a person is "forced" to do (or not do) something can be supported by evidence. So, just offhand, without having read the articles or discussion, the phrase "involuntary celibacy" is almost an oxymoron . Celibacy is voluntary, so "involuntary celibacy" is illogical. CorinneSD (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I did studied the issue, I read currently teology at the university. Beside all my other diploms, yeah. And indeed, the phrase "involuntary celibacy" is an oxymoron, because celibacy is voluntary, so "involuntary celibacy" is illogical. I was fighting this for two years now but there are at least five editors who ganged together, plus socks, who try to insert this into the article, who go and ask for new possibilities to try to recreate, add and start this all over again and again, until all editors drop down by sheer exhaustion and leave because they feel that they have said everything over and over again, but nobody gives a fuck about it but just goes on with this crazy carousel - faciliated by admins who don't get the fact what a pain in the as is fighting ewhit these oxy-morons is, like for example, and that other admin - who just puts up the arena and say, oh an other round of this doesn't hurt. I say it hurts. It hurts the efforts of all sane editiors who try to fight this idiotism, some don't even have the patience to tell the same arguments to these thick-heads all over again - and what an idiot all this make you feel about yourself - but left and never returned. As I did, yesterday. Because one cant fight this all over again abd again without cmmong to some poit when one say: this is useles, let the oxy-morons rule. But then Wikipedia is not a reliable site - probably because things work the way they do. Hafspajen (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, how about an article on Involuntary frustration? Rothorpe (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * CorinneSD (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ' and ' We have a few more weeks before it will be warm enough to be outside, so maybe you have the time for one more skirmish. Do you have the patience to help Hafspajen out on this? Start reading a line or two after the beginning of this section, and look at the link Hafspajen provided in his/her first comment at the word "here". Also see the talk page of the article on Celibacy at Talk:Celibacy sections 38, 39 and 40. This may be a case of, as Hafs suggests, a group of editors banning together to keep pressing for their ideas to be included in an article and not stopping until other editors tire and give up. (I just realized that what I read yesterday at Hafs link ("here") was one of those sections on the Celibacy talk page.) CorinneSD (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Gosh. Hafspajen (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Anton Bruckner
Hello, Rothorpe! I have just started reading the article on Anton Bruckner. I have a question for you. The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede is the following:


 * Unlike other musical radicals, such as Richard Wagner or Hugo Wolf who fitted the enfant terrible mould, Bruckner showed extreme humility before other musicians, Wagner in particular.

I paused at "or". Normally, in examples following "such as", we would see "and". I wonder if "or" is correct here because it follows "Unlike other musical radicals". I don't think it is, but I thought I'd ask you what you thought. CorinneSD (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Also, if we change "or" to "and", I would add a comma after Hugo Wolf so that the adjective clause beginning "who" is enclosed in a pair of commas. CorinneSD (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine because, as you suggest, 'unlike', being a negative concept, can be followed by any number of examples. (How time flies: my string of edits there was in Nov-Dec 2011. I didn't touch that sentence, and fit > fitted is the only change in it since.) Rothorpe (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All right. I'm still not totally convinced, but I'll defer to you. I don't think a comma is needed before "such as", do you? I think it should go straight from "other musical radicals" to "such as Richard Wagner". CorinneSD (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. Why did you change "fit" to "fitted"? I would use "fitted" when it's a more active sense. "Fit(s) the mold/mould" is very common. CorinneSD (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't change it; it's the only visible change in the sentence since 2011 when I last edited the article. Do change it back, and yes, remove the comma. Rothorpe (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

River Phoenix
Hello, Rothorpe -- I've just finished reading most of the article on River Phoenix. As usual, I made a few copy-edits. I changed the formatting of a quote from pull quotes to a regular blockquote per MOS:Blockquote. It had been in two separate paragraphs, and in changing it to a blockquote it became one paragraph, and I couldn't figure out how to separate the two paragraphs. CorinneSD (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Here's the link to the edit:. CorinneSD (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I imagine blockquotes just aren't intended to be splittable. Which methods did you try? I tried the two obvious ones, but each gives a double line space in the middle. I can't think of a third that seems likely to work. Rothorpe (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you help? (Note that I have just returned from a week of not editing because of problems with my computer which have now been fixed; I haven't looked at this article since I posted this comment to Rothorpe.) I'd like to add to my comment that perhaps the source should be checked to see if it was really separate in the original; also, perhaps not all of the quote is needed.) CorinneSD (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Split as two quotes. Does that work? Vsmith (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I see you just used the open and close parts of the blockquote template twice, once for each paragraph. I wish there were a way to reduce the space between the two paragraphs slightly. By the way, it seems that something has changed when you go to thank someone for an edit. Now it says, "Send public thanks for this edit?" Before, it just said, "Send thanks for this edit?" or something like that. Do you know what the reason was for adding "public"? Did someone object to having their "thanks" visible to others? This new shortened question, "Send public thanks for this edit?", is ambiguous. It could mean, "[Shall we] send [to the] public [your] thanks for this edit?" instead of "[Shall we] send [the editor] [a] public thank-you for this edit?" So, clarity of meaning was sacrificed to make it clear that the "thank-you" will be visible to other editors (is it, actually? I don't ever remember seeing notifications at the top of any other editor's talk page.). CorinneSD (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have just thanked Corinne for this edit, and I can see 'thanked' in the edit history; can anyone else? If so, that would be 'public'. The space in the blockquote still looks bad to me. Rothorpe (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rothorpe, thank you for your thanks. Do you mean the Revision history of the article on River Phoenix? If you do, I don't see it there. CorinneSD (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, in the history of this page. It says 'thanked' next to the entry for 15:33 today. Rothorpe (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh. So someone would have to look there to see the "thanks". It's accessible, but not very visible. Do you think it was worth making the question more confusing by adding the word "public" to it? CorinneSD (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't have any problem understanding it. But at first you took it to mean 'Send the public your thanks...'? Rothorpe (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  Do you know any way to make the space between the two paragraphs of the blockquote in River Phoenix a little smaller? (See above discussion, more toward the beginning of this section.) CorinneSD (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that looks much better. Thanks! What do you think, Rothorpe? CorinneSD (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Rothorpe (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Fire temple
I just wonder what you think of this edit to Fire temple:. The edit was made a while ago, but I just saw it again as I was looking at the latest edit  (not sure about that one, either). I think "from the point of view of both archaeology and sociology" (or something like that) to "archaeologically and sociologically" (which, while both grammatically correct and more concise, seems vague with regard to meaning). What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was exactly my feeling. It won't do. And the other is obtrusive, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Steve Hunter
Thanks for your improvements to the infobox I put up on Steve Hunter, however I think my original background was correct as posted per: Template:Infobox musical artists. Thanks again for you work. BuffaloBob (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, you're right. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers. Rothorpe (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Cinnamon
What do you think of this edit to Cinnamon? Do you agree with the edit summary? I'm also going to ask Sminthopsis84 for his/her opinion since s/he is a botanist. (I sometimes think the word "very" is a boring word. Also, I believe, as qualifiers, "quite" and "very" have different meanings, with "quite" beings slightly less intense than "very"; would you agree?) CorinneSD (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it all depends on the adjective that is qualified. So while my English teacher Alan Brownjohn would keep the numbers secret, we all knew that 'Quite good' was 7, 'Good' was 8 and 'Very good' was 9. But 'distinct' is treated as an absolute, so 'quite distinct' = completely so or as near as dammit, while 'very distinct', like 'very dead' has no real meaning. That's how I see it anyway. An odd aspect of language, this, that 'quite' is more or less than 'very' depending on the word following. Rothorpe (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And, yes, 'very' is often used as a filler that adds nothing: I thought it was (very) interesting. Rothorpe (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both the revert and the explanation. I knew "very distinct" didn't sound right, and that I had heard "quite distinct" before, and it sounded right, but I couldn't have explained it as well as you have. Yes, "quite" is an interesting word. Another absolute that I sometimes hear qualified is "unique". I hear, "It's really unique." CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As opposed to only moderately unique. 50 shades of uniquity... Rothorpe (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * CorinneSD (talk)
 * You and have a reply at her talk page. (A word to the wise is infuriating ~ Hunter S. Thompson)  Fylbecatulous talk 23:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates
You might be interested in WP:Featured picture candidates. Scroll down a bit to see the nominations. There are quite a few. You click "Edit", then you can type "Support", "Oppose", or leave a "Comment" or even ask a question. If you don't want to vote, you can just look at the images and read the comments. CorinneSD (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm off to have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Blake was a highly unique artist for his time." Ahem. Rothorpe (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * After the long list of current nominations (just scroll down), you'll see the ones that are already closed. It's interesting to see the ones that were promoted versus the ones that were not. CorinneSD (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What's EV? Educational value? Rothorpe (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought it meant, but it means "Encyclopedic value" - value in an encyclopedia. If you look at that page (link is above), you'll see a small menu at the right. If you click on Featured picture criteria, you'll see what to look for. CorinneSD (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Homeland of Indo-European languages
I saw this link to a new book or paper (didn't stop to see which) on the talk page of another editor. It's on a topic I find very interesting. I thought you might be interested in it. It traces linguistic evidence to pinpoint the origin of the original speakers of Indo-European. It is a little arcane, but clearly written, and if you take it slowly, you will come to their conclusion. I have read about half of it. If you click on "PDF" on the left side, it will open up as a PDF document. Then you just scroll down slowly to read it. You can also easily enlarge it. If you move your mouse to the lower-right part of the screen, you'll see about five or six things you can click on. You can click on the "+" symbol to zoom in (make the text larger). When you get to the chart, you can right click and choose "rotate clockwise" and read the chart horizontally. A long time ago, I read a book titled, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, which used both linguistic and archaeological evidence; I believe the author came to the same conclusion as these authors have, but I won't know for sure until I finish reading. Here's the link:. (You might also be able to download it and read it later. I'm not sure. If you do download it, try to download it as a PDF file so you can enlarge the text as I described above.) P.S. Hope you don't mind I told Fylb about our discussion; didn't want him/her to misinterpret your comment at FP. CorinneSD (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll investigate this tomorrow. No, of course I don't mind. Rothorpe (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Supposedly, the Lithuanian language is related to Sanskrit, and "is one of the most important sources in the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European language." But apparently this putative relationship is contested by Indian scholars. Sca (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll look at that link, but I think it is ridiculous. It has been established that Sanskrit is an Indo-European language, and that Lithuanian is also. Of all the modern Indo-European languages, Lithuanian retains the most noun cases and inflections. CorinneSD (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Rosalind Russell
Do you agree with this edit? Unless I missed it, it does not say (before this) that she was a comedienne, so the "In addition to her fame as a comedienne" is not really needed, is it? I think it is mentioned later in the article that she played some comedic roles, but that's not the same as being a comedienne, is it? CorinneSD (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed not. It is clear that she is an actress, nothing more by that stage. Rothorpe (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to find agreement here, but I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing more by that stage". I looked at it again, and this is just the lede. There is no indication of time period there. Do you still think it should be reverted? Do you want to do it? I'm afraid of the editor's response. CorinneSD (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant; done. Rothorpe (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverted, and rightly: comedy is mentioned in the lead. How did I miss that? Rothorpe (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say she was a comedienne. It says she played a "fast-talking reporter" in a comedy. I don't think that's enough to call her a comedienne at this point in the article. CorinneSD (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I remember now. Do you want to revert? Comment on the talk page there? Or shall I revert and point to this page? I agree it sounds premature to call her a comedienne there, but it's a subtle point. Rothorpe (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know the best approach. Do you mind if I ask User:Rwood128? CorinneSD (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The citation supports the claim, but "in addition" is totally wrong, as you say. The fact that she was a comedienne has to be introduced first. I'll do the re-wording, or support your changes. Rwood128 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead. Is an actress who plays comedic roles necessarily a comedienne? I thought a comedienne was a woman who made a living only in comedy, or is that a comic? Was RR really a comedienne? CorinneSD (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think words like 'comedienne' are exclusive. Think of other fields. Wynton Marsalis is a jazz musician and a classical musician; that he is both doesn't make him less one or the other. Rothorpe (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD once again I was too hasty. The opening sentence of the lede does establish that she was famous for roles in comedies. Rwood128 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, to be precise, it says only that "known for her role as fast-talking newspaper reporter Hildy Johnson in the Howard Hawks screwball comedy His Girl Friday". That's one comedy. It does not indicate that the other movies mentioned right after that were comedies. But it's not that important. Thanks for your replies. CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

True, maybe the word comedienne should be in this first sentence, and the other plays identified as comedies. I have little doubt that she was a comedienne, as the other two works were also comedies. Your instinct is proving to be correct. Rwood128 (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD, I went ahead and made a change. Rwood128 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

T. E. Lawrence
I'm going to ask two of you -- Rothorpe and -- what you think about the discussion at Talk:T. E. Lawrence. Both comments seem quite reasonable to me, but I don't want to make the edit without consulting with you. Since the two editors are IP editors, they may be hesitating to make edits or waiting to hear from other editors. Do you know enough about T. E. Lawrence, or can you glean enough from the article, to make a determination on this and perhaps make the edit? CorinneSD (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * CorinneSD, yes, the comments are reasonable. The reader can come to his or her own conclusion, based on the subsequent thorough discussion.Rwood128 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rwood128 Thanks. Rothorpe? CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, remove 'consensual', it just confuses. Rothorpe (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

...It's back! Rothorpe (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I am puzzled. How can a source that is unclear on the issue be a good one? What do you and  think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You could start by replying to the edit summary on the talk page. Rothorpe (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The later discussion refers to T. E. Lawrence claiming in letters that he had been "sexually abused", which I read as rape. There then follows the suggestion that Lawrence either invented or exaggerated this episode. However, many of his biographers believe it to be true. I can therefore understand why some editors see the sentence as correct. However, it is confusing and needs to be clarified, to read something like this: 'The only evidence that Lawrence was ever sexually intimate was his claim in letters that he was sexually abused, therefore presumably raped.' (Maybe with, in addition: "Some biographers, however, doubt Lawrence's reliability' – but is it really needed?). You can possibly do this without going to the Talk page, as it is a clarification. But you can make use of my words.


 * CorinneSD, it is always interesting working with you. Rwood128 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and it interesting to work with you (and, of course, Rothorpe), too. CorinneSD (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * CorinneSD and Rothorpe, I have been further involved on the Talk page, but can you take over any subsequent editing that might be needed? Rwood128 (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot to acknowledge this. I'm watching the article. No sign of Corinne today. Rothorpe (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Divine Comedy 2
You might be interested in a comment I just left at Talk:Divine Comedy. Do you know anything about the Divine Comedy? What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I can't find your comment. Not that I know anything about the DC either. Rothorpe (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sorry. I left out the link to the page where I left a comment. I left it for Omnipaedista because s/he knows a lot about Mediterranean history and culture. It's at User talk:Omnipaedista. CorinneSD (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. The huge title is an absurdity, and has no place in the lead. Rothorpe (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, but there have been some intervening edits. I don't know exactly what to do. Do you want to make the edit? CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't want to dive in and maybe be out of my depth. But I shall voice my opinion on the talk page. Rothorpe (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  Do you want to weigh in here, too, and perhaps make the edit? CorinneSD (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . Thanks for that (and welcome to my talk page). Rothorpe (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. Rwood128 (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Tacitus
Hello, Rothorpe! I was looking at a set of edits to Tacitus. Here they are:. I was thinking that one of them could be improved still further. It was changed from:


 * He served in the provinces from ca. 89 to ca. 93 either in command of a legion or in a civilian post. He (and his property) survived Domitian's reign of terror (81–96), but the experience left him jaded and perhaps ashamed at his own complicity, giving him the hatred of tyranny which is evident in his works.

to:


 * He served in the provinces from ca. 89 to ca. 93 - either in command of a legion or in a civilian post. He (and his property) survived Domitian's reign of terror (81–96), but the experience left him jaded and perhaps ashamed at his own complicity, giving him the hatred of tyranny which his works make evident.

(I put the relevant clause in italics and removed the reference (only here) so that it is clearer in edit mode.)

Normally, I approve of using a verb, but in this case I think the adjective works better. I think "which his works make evident" unnecessarily transfers the focus from "his hatred of tyranny" to the action in the clause. I wonder also whether the adjective clause "which is evident in his works" would sound better if it were:

(a) changed to "...giving him the hatred of tyranny that is evident in his works" or

(b) shortened to: "...giving him the hatred of tyranny evident in his works".

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * All are fine, just a matter of taste. I would leave it as 'which is evident in his works'. 'Tyranny evident' would be a bit rapid after the fairly lengthy 'giving...' phrase. Rothorpe (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Wetland
Hello, Rothorpe! What do you think of this edit to Wetland? I think the way it was,


 * ....(bogs and fens both being types of mire)

is better than the new version:


 * ...(bogs and fens are both types of mire). Maybe I would remove "both" and possibly also change the parentheses to a comma before the phrase. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, '(bogs and fens being types of mire)' is fine. Rothorpe (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC) ('Voice issues'??)


 * I assume you mean


 * (bogs and fens both being types of mire),


 * which is what was there before the edit. Just "(both being types of mire)" will not work because there are two other types of wetland in the list that precedes this. (Do you think it sounds better with "both" or without it?) I don't understand why that editor wrote in his/her edit summary, "Problems with voice". Is it voice, or aspect? I thought "voice" referred only to active versus passive voice. Aspect, I believe, refers to perfect, indicative or subjunctive, doesn't it? I don't believe the choice between a participial phrase ("being types of mire") or an indicative sentence ("Bogs and fens are both types of mire.") is a question of voice or aspect. What is it? CorinneSD (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm agreeing with you that 'both' should be removed, and that otherwise the previous version should be restored. Indeed it is not voice but the difference between participle and indicative; I don't know a shorthand way to say that, but 'voice' is wrong. (Phrase v. clause perhaps. Aspect can also be continuous. Indicative and subjunctive are moods.) Rothorpe (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation


Hello, Rothorpe,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you were one of the very first testers of VisualEditor, back in 2012 or early 2013. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work better for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list •  Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter  •   Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind if I reply here. I very soon abandoned VE, as I found it irritating and unreliable. I'm afraid the details are long forgotten. Teething troubles, probably, but I'm very happy with the non-visual editor. Rothorpe (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Loren Eiseley
Hello, Rothorpe! Would you mind looking at this group of edits to Loren Eiseley? I don't think it's an improvment. The next three edits by an IP editor go in a circle and change nothing, so I was thinking about reverting to the version before this edit, but I noticed the addition of the name of the mother. What do you recommend? CorinneSD (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I always see red at "most well known", and agree that the first group of changes smack of edit for edit's sake. And you think all the new stuff is dispensible? (I'd never heard of Eiseley.) Rothorpe (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the picture, Hafs. You guessed right that I thought Loren probably looked a bit like that. Rothorpe (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just saw this, too (after I saw Morus, below). I'll have to look at it again to answer your question. We read Loren Eiseley in high school. CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 *  What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll check in the morning when I have more time and energy. Rwood128 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to revert is probably too harsh as the Josie.jensen09 edit does contain some new information. I think more, and better citations, are possibly needed. Rwood128 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you think of this edit? Either way, a comma should probably be added before "considering". CorinneSD (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. I prefer the earlier verison, more direct. Rothorpe (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Morus (plant)
Here you have two editors in a row who can't write. Do you feel like rescuing the sentence? CorinneSD (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, so I euthanised it instead. Rothorpe (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just saw this. I don't know how I missed it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
  copyediting

Thank you for your great copyediting, spontaneous, thorough, engaged, evaluating alternatives, to the point, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Three years ago, you were the 70th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Gerda. It's nice to be appreciated. Rothorpe (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Notes on formatting
Hello, Rothorpe! I always look at your edits to your user page because I know I'll see fine tuning of an already excellent page. I was just looking at your last edits. Would you mind if I shared some thoughts? I'm going to copy the paragraph here for ease of discussion:


 * There should also be no spaces around an em dash (a spaced em dash means that there is a — missing), unquoted ellipsis, or hyphen/en dash in the case of years (1234–1432), but not where the hyphen - here - is being used as a dash—though an em dash – or en – cuts more of a dash—nor, for clarity, between days (1 January 1234 – 31 December 2345).

1) I don't understand this part at all:


 * a spaced em dash means that there is a — missing.


 * Perhaps I'll put in a footnote to explain this, but I'd like to ask first if you've been puzzling over it for a long time. I'm hoping it might 'click'.


 * No. I haven't been puzzling over it for a long time. I read your whole page a long time ago, but not recently, so I just saw it when I read your most recent edits. I still don't understand it. But see additional note below.

2) If I understand the sentence correctly, you are saying:


 * There should also be no spaces around an em dash..., unquoted ellipsis, or hyphen/en dash in the case of years (1234–1432), but not where the hyphen - here - is being used as a dash—though an em dash – or en – cuts more of a dash—nor, for clarity, between days (1 January 1234 – 31 December 2345).

I find this sentence confusing. You are really saying "There should be no spaces around X, Y or Z, but not where the hyphen...is being used as a dash..."

So you've got two negatives: "There should...be no spaces...but not where..."

I really don't understand that.


 * Addtional note regarding this. I know what you are trying to say. I just think using two negative constructions is not the best way to express it. If you could change "but not where...", I think it would be clearer. CorinneSD (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, see what you think now. Rothorpe (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

3) Also, I would have thought that you would make it clear that a hyphen really shouldn't be used as a dash in mid-sentence, and I don't see that.

4) I think when you say, "though an em dash...cuts more of a dash" is like saying it is all right to use a hyphen as a dash, but an em or en dash looks better. Is that really what you want to say? (See (3), above.)

5) I think that the people who stand to benefit most from the advice on your page are those who are not already expert at writing and punctuation. Therefore, I think the points you are making should be made in a way that is clearer, with each point made separately (although I think you inclusion of a sentence that illustrates the use of the unspaced em dash and the spaced en dash is a good idea). I also think "cuts more of a dash" may be confusing for the readers I am thinking about. CorinneSD (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they can look it up/guess. I don't want the page to be too unchallenging. I'm very grateful for your appraisal, and I think it's better now. Rothorpe (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. It's really nice to get feedback. I thought I'd do some rewriting of the page rather than answer everything straight away. But I've already responded to one point above (see after two bullets). More to follow as I ponder. Rothorpe (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here it is now:


 * Nor should there be spaces around an em dash (a spaced em dash is used, for example in tests, to indicate that there is a — missing), or unquoted ellipsis, or en dash in the case of years (1234–1432); spaces are used for clarity between days (1 January 1234 – 31 December 2345). Nor should there be spaces when the hyphen - thus - is being used as a dash – though it really shouldn't be: an em dash—or em—cuts more of a dash.


 * It's better, but I still don't understand, "to indicate that there is a — missing". Do you mean, "to indicate that there is a word or phrase missing"? If so, why not use the words?
 * That's right. I like to make people think. I've been thinking, though, of inviting feedback, but I'm not sure of the best place to put it. Rothorpe (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (Having trouble with the mouse.)


 * Regarding the last sentence, it's better than before, but:


 * when you say, "or em", are you just giving an alternative way of saying an em-dash? If so, I understand that, but what I don't understand is why you don't give a spaced en-dash as an equally acceptable alternative. CorinneSD (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That was a typo; hope it makes sense now. An em dash, or en (as just before illustrated). Rothorpe (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Rothorpe! I've been looking at your edits to your user page. In "British pronunciations under threat", I saw: resëarch (AmE rêsearch). Why do you have a diaeresis over the second "e" in "resëarch"? Also, what does "Pedia and Pendium" mean? CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Pedia and Pendium is a reference to Wikipedia and Citizenscompendium, aka Citizendium, and also to Edgar Allan Poe's delightful tale "The Pit and the Pendulum". The diaeresis is to show that the stress in BrE (at least the one we olduns speak) is on the second e, and it has the same sound as in sëarch or bürn or fïrst or wörk. Did you see the list just before? It shows all the accent variants I invented. Rothorpe (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh. Thank you for the explanation. It's your user page, and you can write whatever you want on it, but perhaps you'll humor me a bit more. For my own understanding, I don't understand why you use a diaeresis. According to Diaeresis (diacritic), a diaeresis is normally used over the second vowel in a sequence of two vowels to show that the two vowels are to be pronounced separately, as in naïve or Chloë. To show stress, I think we'd ordinarily use a accent mark before the stressed syllable, no? AmE 'research, BrE re'search, or informally AmE résearch, BrE reséarch or research'. And anyway, in your own pairing, you have an accent cironflex over the first e in the AmE pronunciation: BrE resëarch (AmE rêsearch). Why not use the same accent over the second e in the British pronuncation: resêarch? CorinneSD (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (...So 'resêarch' would be pronounced re-sêe-rch. Rothorpe (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC))

I started from the standpoint of one of those publications that uses no diacritics (naive, facade, fiance, fiancee; not to mention people called Chloe or Andre) so that I could use accent marks in a completely new way as pronunciation guides. So the diaeresis isn’t a diaeresis; in fact it was inspired by the identical German umlaut mark, which shows a somewhat similar sound in that language (ër, fürther ïrksome wörk for the sërvants...) The ê has a different sound; actually, both AmE and BrE say rêsëarch, but the stress is different in the traditional BrE one: resëarch. Does that clarify? Rothorpe (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you've developed your own pronunciation guide. You are assigning new sounds to the diacritics. CorinneSD (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Rothorpe (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Minimalist
He wasn't born yesterday you know, or even nine years ago. or can we expect a historical series? I found your edit here a bit minimalist! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh well, there's a Clarkson above, a Clarkson to the side and a Clarkson right underneath. Next thing you know, he'll be on the telly! Rothorpe (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not if me and Tony can help it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Peterhouse, Cambridge
Hello, Rothorpe! I saw on your user page that you were a Petrean, so I started to read Peterhouse, Cambridge to learn more. I have two questions for you (so far):

1) In the first paragraph in the section Peterhouse, Cambridge is the following sentence:


 * The Church of St Peter without Trumpington Gate was to be used by the scholars.

I'm puzzled by the use of the word "without" before "Trumpington Gate". I suppose it probably means "outside of", but since the word has two basic meanings - "outside of" and opposite of "with" - why not just use "outside of"? I notice that "outside of" is used in the previous sentence, also with Trumpington Gate.
 * Yes, that must be the reason. It's a non-standard usage, but I imagine most people reading will understand.

2) In the very next paragraph, there are two sets of dates: 1354-55 (if I remember correctly) and 1391-2. The format is different. Shouldn't the format be consistent? Which do you prefer? CorinneSD (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think the 1391–92 format is preferable. Rothorpe (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, 'Petrean' is a word I never heard when I was there. Rothorpe (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So why did you use "Petrean" in the little box (user box?)? CorinneSD (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The magazine they send me uses the word regularly, and I do keep up with the times in some respects... Rothorpe (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC) + I didn't make the user box, just copied it.

Climate change
What do you think of this comment at Talk:Climate fiction? Do you agree with the editor who posted the comment? CorinneSD (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The hyphen is okay, I suppose, but I don't think I would have put it in. 'Climate change' is a well-known phrase and there is no ambiguity. Rothorpe (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the editor. I don't think all two-word adjectives (adjective phrases, I suppose you could call them) need to be hyphenated. CorinneSD (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Woolf
You might be interested in this addition to the Virginia Woolf article:. An editor has added, just below the infobox, the only surviving recording of Virginia Woolf's voice. I listened for seven minutes, but it goes on. (Occasionally, there are pauses or brief breaks in the recording, but keep listening because it continues.) I was struck by her pronunciation of the word "that". It is pronounced with a very broad "a" sound, like "cat", and very like American pronunciation, and very different from the "a" sound when she pronounces "past". In American English, these two words rhyme (at least as far as the vowel sound goes). I also found it interesting the way she slowly begins to personify words (collectively), and I think she has it right on the mark when she says that words really only exist in the mind, and in relation to each other. But I didn't have the patience to listen to the whole thing. CorinneSD (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll be interested to listen to this, but it's not convenient here just now. Rothorpe (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  If you haven't listened to it yet, just a suggestion: before you listen to it, turn up the volume on your computer just a bit. CorinneSD (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have her on in the background—unfortunately even at maximum volume it's very quiet, as I expected, as I'm used to the computer's unloud radio. No surprise, she uses the 'received pronunciation' that I heard on the BBC throughout my youth, and which is entirely familiar. Not much different actually from how 'posh' people still talk, or from my own speech at grammar school and Cambridge. Yes, thát rhymes with cát, but not with fàst or làugh, when Virginia or the rest of us Angles are saying them, but of course you Americans say á for all four of those, reserving the à sound mostly for before r: làrge, càr, right? Well, she's stopped now, which is a relief, as it was too quiet to follow properly. Rothorpe (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right about the pronunciation of "a", except that before an "r" it's slightly different, since we pronounce the "ar" almost like "ah-er" (sliding from "ah" to "er") with a very strong "r" sound. The à sound, as in BrE fàst, is also spelled with an "o", as in "stop", "nod", etc. I've heard BrE speakers on television, such as in the British mysteries and dramas, and I don't remember hearing such a strong, broad "that" as I heard on the recording. Virginia Woolf almost emphasized it. CorinneSD (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll have another listen in the dead of night when there's only the hum of the computer and the whine of my tinnitus for Virginia to contend with. Rothorpe (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Listening again, I do wish it could be louder! That pronunciation of 'that' is typical of an RP speaker of her time, almost like *thét. Yes, British English has a sound for ó as in hót that doesn't exist in American, which, as you say, pronounces it like fàther—which is the non-before-r exception I was trying to think of yesterday; in BrE it rhymes with ràther, but you Americans say ráther. Because we don't pronounce post-vocalic r, the American pronunciation of 'hot' is much the same as the British pronunciation of heàrt. Rothorpe (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Firishta
I'm in the process of reading the article on Firishta, an Indian historian. I came across a sentence I want to ask you about. It's in the paragraph immediately following the list of chapters in the section Firishta:


 * At least one historian, Peter Jackson, explicitly states that Firishta relied upon the works of Barani and Sarhindi, and that his work cannot be relied upon as a first hand account of events, and that at places in the Tarikh he is suspect of having relied upon legends and his own imagination.


 * I'm wondering if "he is suspect of" is acceptable English. Do you think it is "Indian English", or is it just wrong? CorinneSD (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just wrong. Rothorpe (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * O.K. Thanks. I fixed it. (However, we do use "suspect" as an adjective: "His story is suspect." Is "suspect" perhaps an alternate past participle that is used as an adjective similar to sink, sank, sunk/sunken: "The ship has sunk" and "We're diving for sunken treasure"? "He is suspected of making it up." and "His story is suspect.")CorinneSD (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Right, I remembered that use of 'suspect' afterwards. It does indeed have that past-participle quality. (I see I put in a hyphen without thinking there. Overdoing it, probably.) Rothorpe (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 'Suspect' is not much used attributively, unlike most of those words. A suspect story? Yes, but 'doubtful' or something else would be more likely. Rothorpe (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think "he is suspected of having..." sounds all right (that is, the way it is now), don't you? CorinneSD (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Cynocephaly
What do you think of this edit to Cynocephaly? There are two issues: 1) Does it belong in the article? (I don't see any source.) and, if so, 2) it needs some copy-editing. CorinneSD (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unsourced trivia at its most heinous, banish! Rothorpe (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thessaly
Do agree with these edits to Thessaly? CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No. 'These things all happened in the past.' for edit summary smugness. Rothorpe (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "Biscuit-taker". I assume by biscuit you mean what we call a cookie, but if that is so, I still don't understand. Though some people argue that many of the events included in the Odyssey really happened, I think it is generally understood as literature, and when we talk about events in literature, we usually use present tense, right? But I didn't know about the other items. CorinneSD (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Apologies for the British English, I should have suspected that you wouldn't understand. And my attempts to link to Wiktionary have failed (see above). Please fix it if you know how. Anyway, it seems you might say 'take the cake' to mean the same. Rothorpe (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think we would say, "That edit summary [really] takes the cake for smugness." I'll see if I can fix the Wiktionary link now. CorinneSD (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I found the expression "take the biscuit" in the list under "Derived terms/Terms derived from biscuit" in the "biscuit" definition page. I clicked on it to open the "take the biscuit" page. Then I highlighted the address (https, etc.), clicked "Copy", then "Paste", above, with single square brackets around it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a picture of biscuits in the U.S. Biscuits right out of the oven are delicious! CorinneSD (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, yummy. They look like the scones one gets in English teashops. (We'll see if that one takes us to the right place.)
 * Well done with the link. I'm sure there's a way to do it like a wikilink, but that's the sort of thing one does occasionally and thus never actually learns. Rothorpe (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Yes, that's about the sort of extablishment. I could instead have linked scone. Rothorpe (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the consistency is just about the same, but scones are slightly sweet and biscuits are not. They're just flour, water, salt, a little butter or other shortening, and (I think), baking powder. I don't make them. I just eat them. Occasionally. CorinneSD (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds right (well, I meant for scones). Yes, like me. I eat everything and make nothing. Rothorpe (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE COMMENT
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (7th nomination)... Hafspajen (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Rothorpe (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)