User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 7

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Parmenides
I wonder if you could look at the latest edit to this article on Parmenides. The editor changed "BCE" to "BC" in the caption of the picture at the right, but I noticed that "BCE" appears throughout the article. Shouldn't it stay "BCE" even in the caption if the article uses "BCE"?CorinneSD (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Change them all to BC! BCE is rubbish... Rothorpe (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not fond of BCE and CE, either, but they are becoming more common. Also, I thought I read something in WP that said if an article is mainly in BCE/CE, to leave it (all consistent), and if an article is mainly BC/AD, to leave it (all consistent).  Are you advocating changing all BCE/CE's to BC/AD's wherever I see them?  Or just in this particular article? (There were a lot of them in this article!).CorinneSD (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done! We'll see what happens. Rothorpe (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Mumbai - History - Early history
In the third or fourth paragraph in the section "Early history" in this article on Mumbai, I came across this sentence:


 * "The Pathare Prabhus, one of the earliest known settlers of the city, were brought to Mahikawati from Saurashtra in Gujarat around 1298 by Bhimdev."

I thought "one of" didn't go with "settlers" and "were". I wasn't sure whether "Prabhus" was singular or plural, so I decided to click on the link at "Pathare Prabhus" (and found some problems in the first two sentences of that article which I wanted to ask you about but am afraid I'm bothering you too much).

I found that it was a group of Hindus who lived in Bombay, so I guess it's plural, but I still think "one of the earliest known settlers" is wrong. Which is best:


 * "one of the earliest groups of settlers in the city" or


 * "an early group of settlers in the city" or


 * "early settlers in the city"?CorinneSD (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd go for "Among the earliest settlers..." Rothorpe (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh...Why didn't I think of that? Too much editing, not enough reading.CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Mumbai - European rule
At the end of the first paragraph in the section "European rule" in this article on Mumbai, we read:


 * "The Portuguese were actively involved in the foundation and growth of their Roman Catholic religious orders in Bombay."

The sentence doesn't seem to go with the other sentences in the paragraph, and there is no transition between the previous sentences and this one. The sentence seems to go better with the next paragraph. Do you see a good place for the sentence?CorinneSD (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's OK actually. The sentence is essential; the paragraph that follows is like a parenthesis following on from it. Rothorpe (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K.CorinneSD (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I've made a small edit to the etymology section. There is a ref for 'baim'. What do you think now? Rothorpe (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the revision history, and I saw the reference you added, but it seems to be for information in the last paragraph about a scholar rejecting the notion that "bahia" was ever even a part of the name Bombay, not for baim in the previous paragraph. There is a reference for baim (#24, I believe) but it only says the name of the author and a page number.  I don't see any specific statement (from a published source) about baim.  If it's there, could you tell me where to look?  I thought you were going to do some sleuthing regarding baim.  I see you changed "seems to reject" to "reject", which is fine; did you actually find it in Portuguese WP (which I could read, too, by the way)?  That's a good way to check sources written in other languages.
 * I did, yes; interesting that you know Portuguese too. When I said I would do some sleuthing about 'baim', I hadn't seen the reference. But I'll certainly have a look through the history if you think it'd be good to see who added it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be good, but I thought you meant sleuthing to find out whether baim is really an archaic Portuguese word. As I mentioned above, neither the sentence itself nor the reference specifically state that it is an archaic Portuguese word.  The sentence states that it is an archaic word but does not state that it is an archaic Portuguese word.  You could say that it is understood, but I think the sentence should state it; it is important because the point of the latter part of that sentence is that, unlike the incorrect bom bahia,  baim is possibly the source of Bombay and that the source is from Portuguese.  I was just saying that, before adding that information we ought to be sure that it is an archaic Portuguese word.  I was trying to find it in a list of archaic (or modern) Portuguese nautical terms, but haven't yet seen it.CorinneSD (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have another question: In that last paragraph, does "bahia", "bay" have to be in parentheses?  Wouldn't it make sense if it read, "...the noun "bahia" ("bay"),.."  or  "...the noun "bahia", "bay", ..."?  Also, see my thanks on my Talk page.
 * Good point, I've changed it. Rothorpe (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you think of the sentence I wrote but wasn't completely happy with: While this calls into question this etymology...., it is also true that....  I don't like seeing "this" twice.CorinneSD (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd forgotten your qualms there; having read the sentence so many times, I'm quite used to it. I think it's okay & the repetition didn't grate, still doesn't. Rothorpe (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. I suppose we could use passive voice:  "While this etymology is thus called into question,....", but I'll leave it as it is.CorinneSD (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, please change it if you prefer. WP:Be bold, you don't always have to consult. Rothorpe (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. Did you see my new note above, about baim?CorinneSD (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Rothorpe (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, I have another question I forgot to ask you before. The second sentence in the paragraph we have been discussing (the second-to-last paragraph in the Etymology section) reads:
 * "This is based on the facts that bom is Portuguese for "good" and baía (or the archaic spelling bahia) means "bay"."
 * Is it necessary for "facts" to be plural just because there are two Portuguese words? I have rarely heard, "...based on the facts that".CorinneSD (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Now I'm going to look in the history to see if there is anything about 'baim' to be found there. I have already googled the word in vain. Rothorpe (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally tracked it down to an anonymous user at 18:16 on 2 October 2007. I've forgotten how to link to diffs, sorry, perhaps you could put in a link if you know. Mainly it is the addition of: "However, it is possible possible [sic] to find the form baim (masc.) for little bay in sixteen century Portuguese." So a dead end. Rothorpe (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yikes! (twice): 1) my typo above (discussion instead of discussing) which I fixed, and 2) that terrible sentence.  I'm going to keep looking for baim.  I don't know how to "link to diffs".CorinneSD (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Navaho
I read something in a small box toward the end of your User Page that said something about Navaho. Do you speak Navaho? Wow!CorinneSD (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it says I don't speak Navaho (note the zero). I can't recall what inspired it, but I put it there as a joke a long time ago. Rothorpe (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

New Delhi
I've just started reviewing this article on New Delhi. I wonder if you would mind looking at this paragraph (not far from the beginning of the article):


 * According to Mercer, New Delhi is the most expensive city in India for expatriates in terms of cost of living, figuring 113th in the list of 214 cities. Reflecting the growing global economic clout of the Asian region, have been ranked among the 75 top centres of commerce in the world. The World Cities Study Group at Loughborough University rated New Delhi as an "alpha- world city". In 2011, Knight Frank's world city survey ranked it 37th globally.

I have a few questions:


 * 1) Why "expatriates"?  It's not expensive for native Indians?
 * Expats might be after different things. In any case, there's a footnote specifically referring to them.


 * 2) In the second sentence, the subject of the main clause is missing, but I don't know what the subject should be!  (and the verb is plural!)
 * Again, would set me sleuthing, as it looks like an accidental removal. But not just now. Unless you care to have a look?


 * 3) In "alpha- world city", isn't there an unnecessary space and/or hyphen?  I don't even think the hyphen is necessary.  "Alpha-world" doesn't mean much.
 * As above. Could be Indian English, I thought, but...


 * 4) Why is "Knight Frank's" italicized?  I clicked on the link, and it is a company!
 * Agreed, undo. Rothorpe (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I cannot find the paragraph I cut and pasted just above. Where is it?CorinneSD (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Abecedare has removed it, calling it puffery. Rothorpe (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to have a go at this paragraph?CorinneSD (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Or just let me know what you think, and I'll make the changes. Either way.CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Oh, also, if you are interested, you can read the comment I posted on the Talk page of the article (New Delhi). I didn't want to bother you too much, but you might have some ideas.CorinneSD (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Coincidence, I was just about to suggest we have these conversations on the talk pages of the articles rather than switching between our talk pages. That would mean other people could come in too, of course, so if you just want to consult me... But all this switching is tricky, and my connection is rather slow tonight. I shall now read the beginning of this section properly for the first time. Rothorpe (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd rather just ask you, if you don't mind. I don't want to argue with people who don't know what good writing is.  I ask questions regarding content on the Talk pages of the articles.  I agree that switching back and forth between our Talk pages is difficult.  If you prefer, we can use my Talk page instead of yours, if you don't want to clutter up your Talk page.CorinneSD (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As you wish. Getting the orange message is nice! How about alternating, separate subjects in different places? Rothorpe (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind posting my many questions on your Talk page; I just thought you might. If you prefer, we can alternate.  Let's try that and see how it goes.  I have posted another question on the New Delhi article below.CorinneSD (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the stuff you have posted there is for one who knows the subject, not for me... Rothorpe (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

New Delhi
In about the fifth or sixth paragraph, we read:


 * "The National Geographic's Traveler Magazine describes it as "one of the Ultimate Cities of a Lifetime to visit and explore."

I was just wondering whether you think "ultimate", "cities", and "lifetime" need to be capitalized. There is a reference, and there seems to be an article with that as the title, but here, is the capitalization necessary?"CorinneSD (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The link sent me to 'Ultimate City Guides'. Anyway, the quoted capitals are needless. Rothorpe (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

New Delhi - Establishment
The last sentence in the fourth paragraph in the section headed "Establishment" in the article on New Delhi reads:


 * "Named after Prince Arthur, 1st Duke of Connaught (1850–1942), it was designed by Robert Tor Russell, chief architect to the Public Works Department (PWD)."

I had already spent some time editing all paragraphs up to this point. This sentence had read, "Named after The Prince Arthur" (with a link at "The Prince Arthur"). I clicked on the link, and the article was headed "Prince Arthur" (no "the") and I did not see "The Prince Arthur" anywhere in the article. So I deleted "The". I didn't think it was necessary. (The only place I saw "The Prince Arthur" was in a disambiguation list of two items (because there was 1st Duke of Connaught and 2nd Duke of Connaught) at the bottom of the page.)

My question is, was I right in deleting "The" in this sentence? CorinneSD (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely, yes. The use of the article is very formal, and not encyclopedic. Rothorpe (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. Good.  Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

New Delhi - Establishment
The second sentence in the third paragraph in the "Establishment" section in this article on New Delhi is as follows:


 * "Indeed, the Delhi Town Planning Committee, set up to plan the new imperial capital, with George Swinton as chairman and John A. Brodie and Lutyens as members, submitted reports for both North and South sites."

My question is, does "Lutyens" have to have a link? His name is first introduced as "Edwin Lutyens" in the previous paragraph, and that has a link.CorinneSD (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's called overlinking indeed, so yes, remove it. Rothorpe (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Another editor who seems to have a good knowledge of New Delhi and Delhi has just left me a note saying he or she would review the article to correct many errors in content, and has suggested I wait a few days before continuing to copy edit.CorinneSD (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. Rothorpe (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard Feynman
I just saw an edit to Line 131 of this article on Richard Feynman. The editor moved a period to outside quotation marks at the end of a sentence, which is all right, but then I saw that the quotation marks were around "The Feynman Lectures in Physics". I was just wondering whether the quotation marks were even necessary since the name of the lecture series was capitalized. Aren't the caps enough? CorinneSD (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They would be, but they're not quotation marks, they're italics - which look very similar in the markup - and that's WP's style for lecture series. Incidentally, I was just looking last night at the Simplified Manual of Style, which I hadn't seen before, worth a perusal. Rothorpe (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank-you. I had only looked at the text showing the orange minus on the left (removing ,") and the blue plus on the right (adding ",).  It looked like regular text, and the quotation marks looked like real quotation marks, unlike the slightly spaced quotation marks (' ') for italics seen in the space where one makes edits or types comments. I learned something.  Next time, I'll look at the edit in the article before I ask about it. Congratulations on receiving a Barnstar.  Well deserved. CorinneSD (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You're the only one I ever gave a barnstar -- and now twice :)
That's very magnificent of you, thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well deserved! I might pop down to my local pub The the Black Horse to raise a glass to you for your help on Little Tich. Now let me think, is that correct way of writing the name?  --   Cassianto Talk   17:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (Sips wine.) Yes, it's "The Black Horse" in the adverts, and it's "The Beatles" on many a website. I don't know whether you saw Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles. Rothorpe (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did yes. Poor old, he must've gone and sat in a darkened room with a bottle of whiskey after that! --   Cassianto Talk   17:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A bottle of whiskey? Well yes, but thankfully I had much help from my friends (both with the mediation and the whiskey drinking)! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka
I just started reviewing this article on Sri Lanka. I found these sentences near the beginning of the article:


 * "Sri Lanka has a documented history that spans over 3000 years. Its geographic location and deep harbours made it of great strategic importance from the time of the ancient Silk Road through to World War II."

"Through to World War II" didn't sound right. I was considering just removing "to". That would go all right with the past tense verb "made", but then I thought, why only through World War II? Is it no longer of great strategic importance? What do you think?
 * Removing 'to' would turn it into American English. Maybe that's why 'through to' sounds odd to you. To me it implies 'all the way up to', emphasising the length of time. As for WW2, I'm inclined to take it at face value: it was a pretty momentous war; but, yes, an explanation would be nice. Maybe there is one later in the article.


 * We would say "from the time of the ancient Silk Road up to World War II" (never "through to") -- but that means up to the beginning of World War II, or


 * "from the time of the ancient Silk Road through World War II" -- which means up to the end of World War II.
 * Indeed, 'through' is not the same as 'through to'. Rothorpe (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of a time when we would use "through to". We would say:


 * "all the way through to the end," or "all the way through the summer to the end of September," etc.CorinneSD (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * .Yes, this is quite clear now. Rothorpe (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, at the end of the second paragraph in the section headed "Etymology", we read:


 * "The name Ceylon still appears in the names of a number of organisations; in 2011, the Sri Lankan government announced a plan to rename all of those for which it is responsible."

This is just a minor point, but I thought I'd ask your opinion. I wonder if "all those over which it has authority" would be better than "all of those for which it is responsible".CorinneSD (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, Ceylon, Bombay... I digress. Yes, I think that would be blunter. Rothorpe (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, such beautiful names. But is blunter good?  I just thought a government can only re-name an organization if it has authority over it.  I suppose one could say a government is responsible for an organization, but I didn't think it was as accurate as "has authority over".  "Responsible for" seemed a little weak.  If blunter is not better, I'll leave it as it is.CorinneSD (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By 'blunter', I meant more accurate, calling a spade a spade, so better; 'responsible' for' is indeed weak, schoolspeak almost, implying it has done something that it should change. Rothorpe (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. O.K.  I'll change it.  What do you think of the change in the second paragraph under "Ancient"?CorinneSD (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the piped link, that's a good compromise. Rothorpe (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thanks. What's a piped link?  I deleted "various" from the link and left "constructions" in parentheses so I wouldn't have to change the title of the linked article. By the way, did you see my short note above re "through to"? CorinneSD (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict. The pipe is the |, as above. Rothorpe (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Rothorpe, but I still don't know what you mean. What do you mean, "as above"?  I didn't put in a piped link there.  Do you mean the link that has two items in it?  That was there already.  I don't even know what it is or how to type it.  Why would someone put in a piped link, and how does one make a piped link?  How does one make the vertical line? Why would someone put in two items divided by a vertical line (pipe?), and which one shows up in the article, the first item or the second item? CorinneSD (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The vertical line is the pipe. So you didn't type it, sorry. Clear now? Rothorpe (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, now I know that the vertical line is the pipe. I'm sorry.  I didn't mean to irritate you.  I just didn't know what you meant by "as above"?  I guess I'll have to look at WP mark-up to learn more about it.CorinneSD (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, sorry if I sounded irritated. As above: you can see the pipe | in your signature next to "00:21...", because a bracket [ somehow got erased. Rothorpe (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. I see it.  I'm going to put the bracket back.  Thank you.  By the way, when I wrote, "I didn't put a piped link there...That was there already", I meant in the article, at "various constructions" (before I took out "various"), which is what I thought you were referring to.CorinneSD (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, right, I see. Rothorpe (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka - History
I meant to post a comment on my Talk page but instead posted it on the article's Talk page. If you have time, could you look at it? Thanks.CorinneSD (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka
Now that I am about halfway finished reviewing the Sri Lanka article (finished Flora and Fauna), I realize that there is some inconsistency in the use of British and American English spellings. I see "Colonization" (I had written "Colonisation" in my comments, but when I realized the article had "Colonization" I changed the spelling in my comments to match the spelling in the article). Later, I saw British spelling in the text of the article. Do you feel like looking to see where the preponderance is, and fixing the inconsistencies? CorinneSD (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, this is not my scene. Anyway, 'colonization' is perfectly good British or American. Rothorpe (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. I thought "colonisation" was the British spelling.CorinneSD (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, both are used in British English. Rothorpe (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Split infinitives
I just wondered what you thought about split infinitives, with an adverb between "to" and the simple form of the verb. I don't like them.CorinneSD (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * One tends to avoid them. Sometimes they are effective when used knowingly, though 'to boldly go...' is the only example that comes to mind. Rothorpe (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See the first paragraph in the article on Polymath: to correctly...CorinneSD (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, neither my eyes nor the computer can find it. Rothorpe (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry! It's in the first paragraph of the article on Michael Servetus.CorinneSD (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right! That's a good one, I think, as 'correctly' is important. Moving it wouldn't improve the sentence. Rothorpe (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. So the best approach is generally to avoid split infinitives, but occasionally to allow them when they are effective and the adverb is important and goes well with the verb.CorinneSD (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. Rothorpe (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ruth Ellis
Really must disagree about the use of unknown names in the lede, especially in the opening sentence. You say it 'doesn't do any harm'. We don't talk that way in journalism or advertising, where I'm a veteran practitioner. Unknown names are literally meaningless words, and have no place upfront. They simply get in the way, and lose readers. Valetude (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the trouble to comment here, but I must disagree. Wikipedia is a paperless encyclopedia, not journalism or advertising. Rothorpe (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Pyrenees
I'm nearing the end of the article on the Pyrenees. In the section "Fauna", we read:


 * "The Pyrenean Desman is found only in some of the streams of the northern slopes of these mountains; the only other members of this genus are confined to the rivers of the Caucasus in southern Russia."

I changed "member" to "members" because the verb ("are") was plural, but I'm wondering whether maybe both should be singular, "the only other member of this genus is confined..." because, when I clicked on the link for "Pyrenean Desman", I read that there is only one desman in Russia, the Russian Desman. I think that's one member of the genus "Desman". To use the plural, "members", is to refer to individual animals. Would I be correct to change "members" back to "member" and the verb to the singular form?CorinneSD (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, yes. Also, I notice that at the target article 'desman' isn't capitalised... Rothorpe (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Polymath
I noticed your note on Corinne's talk page. I can appreciate why you were struggling! A couple of days ago an editor did a drive-by revert to a months-old version of the article. See my explanation on Corinne's talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Coffee
I just started reading the article on Coffee, and I came across a sentence that sounded odd. It is the second sentence here:


 * "Coffee is slightly acidic (pH 5.0–5.1[1]) and can have a stimulating effect on humans because of its caffeine content. It is one of the most consumed drinks in the world."

What do you think of the second sentence? CorinneSD (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd guess you're objecting to 'consumed' in that position. Rothorpe (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I guess it is because I more often hear it with an adverb: "one of the most widely consumed drinks...", or "one of the most frequently consumed drinks...", or "one of the most commonly consumed drinks...".  Would you approve of one of those adverbs?CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, by 'in that position', I suppose I meant 'after "most"'. It's a matter of common style vs brevity. How about both win and we change it to 'popular'? Rothorpe (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean so that it would read, "It is one of the most popular drinks in the world"? That's fine with me.  It is definitely more concise than the construction with an adverb, and it means the same thing.CorinneSD (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right, glad you agree. Rothorpe (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Coffee
I noticed that the name of a city in Yemen is spelled two different ways in the article on Coffee, "Mocha" at the end of the "Legendary accounts" section and "Mokha" at the beginning of the next section. There is a link to an article where both spellings are given at the beginning of the article, but in the text of the article it is "Mocha". Does it matter?CorinneSD (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the more common spelling should be used, that's the WP consensus. Probably 'Mokha' was added by someone who hadn't seen 'Mocha', or didn't care. Rothorpe (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K.CorinneSD (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Japan
I just started reading the article on Japan, and I noticed something that I don't know what to do about. It is in the second paragraph of the article. I saw that "Honshu" is written two different ways in the same paragraph, the first one just like that and the second one with a diacritic mark above the final "u". Do you have any idea which form is more correct?CorinneSD (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd always favour the version without the accent. One of English's virtues is its lack of accents - as an EFL teacher, you will know what I mean. I had to keep silent at Citizendium the other day when someone added an accent (perfectly correctly, of course) to 'debut'. Rothorpe (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Regarding adding an accent to "debut", do you mean in an article written in English?  I've never seen "debut" written with an accent.  Why would you remain silent (if the article was in English)?  (Just curious.  No big deal.)CorinneSD (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't find it - there's more activity over there than I thought. But I've seen it many times in English; perhaps it's a British thing. Rothorpe (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll challenge it if I see it again, stir things up a bit. Rothorpe (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What is Citizendium?CorinneSD (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a wiki, an alternative to Wikipedia, where people use their real names, so there's no vandalism. You'd be very welcome. Rothorpe (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Durian
I read the article on Durian a day or so ago and made a few edits. Today I see a few edits that had nothing to do with the edits I had made, but, upon reading them, I don't find them to be an improvement, and some verge on the inappropriate. The editor has no Talk page. I wonder if you could take a look at them and let me know what you think.CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, and reverted them, with a summary. That's easier to do with anonymous editors (IPs), of course... Rothorpe (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Tea
I've been reading the article on tea and have gotten about half-way through. I wanted to ask you about the first sentence in the third (short) paragraph near the beginning of the article:


 * "Tea has been historically promoted for having a variety of positive health benefits."

I wonder about the placement of the adverb "historically". I don't like it after "has been". To me, the phrase "historically promoted" suggests a specific, unique action, like "tea has been advertised". I thought about, "Tea has historically been promoted..." or even, "Historically, tea has been promoted..." I also wonder whether "historically" is needed at all. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Best at the beginning, but, yes, exterminate it. Rothorpe (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it with 'long'. Rothorpe (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. I have another question about the tea article.  It is the second-to-last sentence in the section "Health effects".  There is a quote that begins "iced tea".  I should know this, but I wonder, shouldn't "iced" be capitalized (not because it is iced tea but because it is the first word in a (quoted) sentence)?CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, we don't know that it's the first word in the sentence - there may be something leading up to it. Rothorpe (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All right. I'll leave it as is.CorinneSD (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Tea
In the same article on tea, in the first paragraph in the section "Blending and additives", I came across the following sentence:


 * "Blending may occur in the tea-planting area, or teas from multiple areas may be blended."

Isn't the sentence a little awkward (and not very clear), with active voice in the first half and passive voice in the second half? Also, instead of "the tea-planting area" perhaps "in the area where it is cultivated" or something like that would be better. Any thoughts?CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Must say I dislike the vogue use of 'multiple' for 'many'. Rothorpe (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Same here.CorinneSD (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed a few things in those two paragraphs in "Blending and additives".CorinneSD (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw your suggested edit to "Tea may be blended...". Normally, "the same area as" is correct, but here, I don't like the sound of "as it is cultivated".  How about, "Tea may be blended with other teas from the same area of cultivation"?CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't too happy with it either; that's certainly an improvement. Rothorpe (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka
Is the last edit to Sri Lanka correct? It was a change from br to br/ in a reference.CorinneSD (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The new line looks much better. Rothorpe (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What do "br" and "br/" mean? I looked through WP Mark-up and couldn't find an explanation.CorinneSD (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They switch the line break on and off. Rothorpe (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. May I ask how you were able to see what it looked like before the change was made?  You said above that "the new line looks much better".  How did you know how it looked before the change?CorinneSD (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not in a reference but in the infobox. Go to the history, click on 30 September, and you can see there's no new line after "(Administrative)". Rothorpe (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you!CorinneSD (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Coffee
I saw an edit for the article on Coffee that said "changed the article feedback activity log". What does that mean? Also, when I click on it, there is only a list, and the green button in my Watchlist doesn't change to blue. It stays green.CorinneSD (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure, though I have seen the article feedback notice on some pages. Rothorpe (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Surat
In the article on Surat, there have been one or two recent edits. I was looking at the text of the article itself to see what was accomplished and I noticed an unusual-looking heading. I don't know if it was a result of the recent edits or not. I wonder if you could take a look at it. It is "==Economy==", just below the colorful table in the section headed "Climate". Is that supposed to be like that?CorinneSD (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone was messing around there; I've fixed it. Rothorpe (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Tierra del Fuego
I just went through a long list of recent edits to the article on Tierra del Fuego, which I had gone through and edited a few weeks ago. It does not seem to be a wholesale revert of my edits, but rather worked through slowly and selectively. However, many seem to be on sentences that I had revised. I remember working on those sentences. (When I work on an article, I spend quite a bit of time on it and don't leave the article until I am really satisfied with how it reads.) I found a few edits that were an improvement, but on the whole, I feel many were unnecessary and a few made things worse. I also found a few places where the editor neglected to remove a phrase that should have been removed when re-working the sentence. I didn't get to work reverting or changing anything. I thought I would ask you to take a look at the edits first. Take your time. There are a lot. By the way, generally, I feel that no comma is needed after a short initial prepositional phrase at the beginning of a sentence such as "In 1868" or "During that period". How do you feel about that? Also, generally, I feel commas are appropriate in a list of phrases in a sentence rather than semi-colons. How do you feel about that? This person added commas (some of which I might have deleted a few weeks ago) and changed commas to semi-colons (some of which I might have changed several weeks ago). But the main thing is the re-worked sentences.CorinneSD (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take my time and look at this one later. Rothorpe (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I jumped in and made a few changes, but you may wish to make some more, reverts included. As for those early-sentence commas, I rather like them, but I notice Americans tend to avoid them; rarely does it seem to make much difference. Where exactly is the list of phrases you mention? And please point me to any other specific areas. Rothorpe (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius
I don't know if you are watching the article on Marcus Aurelius, but I wonder if you could take a look at the latest edit to this article. The editor changed the fourth (last) name of Marcus Aurelius to something I've never seen. I don't know the history well enough to know for sure whether it is correct or not, but I'm guessing that you do. It just seemed odd.CorinneSD (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Vandalism, but it's been fixed. Rothorpe (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Lilium
In the article on Lilium (Lilies), in the section headed "Names", I found the following sentences:


 * "The term "lily" has in the past been applied to numerous different flowering plants, often with only superficial resemblance to the true lily, including lotus, ranunculus, tulip, iris, anemone, agapanthus, zantedeschia, daylily, and others. All English translations of the Bible render the Hebrew shūshan, shōshan, shōshannā as "lily". For instance, the "lily among the thorns" of Song of Solomon may be the honeysuckle."

I have three questions for you:


 * 1) Are both "numerous" and "different" necessary?  If you think not, which one would be best kept and which deleted?
 * Drop 'different' (if you like).


 * 2) Shouldn't the Hebrew words be in italics?
 * Yes.


 * 3) There's something wrong with the construction of the last two sentences. I don't see how the last clause is an example of the sentence beginning "All English translations".  What should be changed?  Shouldn't "For instance" be before "All English translations"?:


 * "For instance, all English translations of the Bible render the Hebrew sh, sh, and sh as "lily", but in fact, the "lily among the thorns" of the S of S may be the honeysuckle."CorinneSD (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have to say I think it's OK. Rothorpe (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC) - But your change may be an improvement. (I don't seem to be very decisive today.) Rothorpe (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can look at the paragraph again tomorrow. The example should be to illustrate that other plants that are not really lilies are often called lilies.  The example just happens to be taken from the Bible.  At least that is the way I understand it.  I'll leave it for now.CorinneSD (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with your changes and have added one of my own. Rothorpe (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Tierra del Fuego
Is it possible to revert some of the edits in that long list of edits but not all of the edits? If so, how would I go about doing that?CorinneSD (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I just realized that some of those edits have already been reverted. Did you revert them?  I didn't see the reverts in the edit history.  What am I not seeing?CorinneSD (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going through the article again. I have a question.  One of that editor's edits was to add "Catholic" after "Salesian" in the first paragraph in the section "Colonization and extinction of Native Americans (1860–1910)".  Could you look at it?  I don't understand why "Catholic" is necessary.  Isn't "Salesian" enough?CorinneSD (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Finished going through the article. Made a few more edits.CorinneSD (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you see my reply in the other TdF section above? Will have a look at the article now. Rothorpe (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did see it. Thank you.  I also saw your reply just above.  I still think "For instance" belongs before the sentence about the words in the Bible (as I typed, above), but I don't want to argue.  That's why I didn't reply to your comment.CorinneSD (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, now, searching for 'instance', 'Hebrew' and 'Bible' in the article yields nothing. Did I remove them? Anyway, please make any changes you like - I recall not being very sure about that. Rothorpe (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I don't know how I got things mixed up.  This sentence with the Hebrew words is in the article about lilies, Lilium.CorinneSD (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Easiest thing in the world, I'd say. You're not the only scatterbrain around here, you know. Rothorpe (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just saw this.CorinneSD (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got rid of 'Chile workers' and revived an older version there. Rothorpe (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To revert old edits, click on Undo next to the edit in the history. If undoing is not possible because of edits made since, it'll tell you, but of course you can still change it back to an older version 'manually'. Rothorpe (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Salesian' would be enough if (unlike me) one is already acquainted with the term. I suppose the editor wanted to spare people from having to click on the link, but there is always the argument that that's what the link is for. Rothorpe (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have come across many terms and names that I am not familiar with, and if I'm curious to know more, I click on the link. I think the Salesians were founded by St. Francis de Sales.CorinneSD (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, fine. Rothorpe (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to delete "Catholic". I'm just interested to know what you think.CorinneSD (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, I think it helps. Rothorpe (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Rogue comma
Thanks for telling me about it. I'm a reasonably literate person (Yank style), but I don't know what that is. I have a certain feel for what a Brit calls a bracket, but I'm not authoritative on it. The bottom line is that I'd like to fix the rogue comma, but I don't know how to find it. Or the bracket, either. Lou Sander (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. There are three instances of "," preceding a space and "(", which I don't think can ever be right. So if you search for ", (". What pedantry! Rothorpe (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ki Hajar Dewantara
I started reading the article on Indonesia, and I clicked on a link to another article, one on Ki Hajar Dewantara, and I have begun reviewing that one. So far, I have found and fixed several problems in the first three or four paragraphs, but I have come across a sentence that I do not know how to fix and I thought I would ask you for your suggestions. It is in the middle of the first paragraph of the article:


 * "... and pioneer of education for the native Indonesia in Dutch colonial times."

I know "the native Indonesia" is not right, but (a) there is a link and I don't want to disturb a link without first checking with you, and (b) I assume it should be "for native Indonesians", but "indigenous commoners" appears in the very next sentence. Not too repetitious? CorinneSD (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, not too repetitious, it's far enough away. Anyway, the first sentence is a mess, and sorting out the dates of birth & death is one of my specialities... Rothorpe (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You've done a great job. CorinneSD (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Indonesia
Later in the article on Indonesia, in the middle of the large second-to-last paragraph in the section "History", there seems to be a problem. There is a whole line of red text. Perhaps you can sort that out. Also, just before that line, there is a sentence I want to ask you about. It is something like, "However, it was a farce." I wonder if that is appropriate for a WP article.
 * I'll investigate the red line, which is a robotic alert. As for the 'farce', I'd tend to agree, but if the whole article is in that register... Rothorpe (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I can't figure that out. The code seems to be in order. Rothorpe (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In the last paragraph in the section on "History" in the article on Indonesia, I came across the following sentences:


 * "Political and economic instability, social unrest, corruption, and terrorism slowed progress; however, in the last five years the economy has performed strongly. Although relations among different religious and ethnic groups are largely harmonious, sectarian discontent and violence has occurred."

I have two questions:


 * 1) I wonder whether "the last five years" is really helpful in a WP article.  It becomes out of date and incorrect (unless updated yearly) as time passes.  Wouldn't a phrase that indicates the starting point such as "since 200-" be more informative?
 * Quite. The usual opt-out is to use "As of..." and the year. Then, in the next century... Rothorpe (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 2) Is the verb "has occurred" correct in the last clause?  "Sectarian discontent and violence" seems to be a plural subject.  Also, I wonder if that is the best verb to use.  Perhaps "have continued" or "have continued to occur" would be better.  What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, any of those would be better. Rothorpe (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I put "have persisted".CorinneSD (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)~
 * Applause. Rothorpe (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I am puzzled by something. The last sentence in the lead section in the Ki Hajar Dewantara article reads,


 * "He was confirmed as a National Hero of Indonesia by Indonesia's second president, Sukarno, on 28 November 1959."

In the article on Indonesia, Sukarno is described as Indonesia's first president:


 * "Two days after the surrender of Japan in August 1945, Sukarno, an influential nationalist leader, declared independence and was appointed President." (middle of second-to-last paragraph in "History")

and General Suharto as its second president. Am I reading something wrong?CorinneSD (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article on KHD is a disaster, written in what used to be called 'broken English' - though you don't need me to tell you that. But I'm inclined to ignore articles like that. There is a notice (tag) one can put at the top, but I don't know the name offhand. Rothorpe (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Indonesia - Foreign relations and military
In the middle of the first paragraph in the "Foreign relations and military" section in the article on Indonesia, it says that Indonesia was "a founder" of the Non-Aligned Movement. Shouldn't it be "a founding member"? Also, in the last sentence of that paragraph, it says, "western Europe". Shouldn't "western" be capitalized?CorinneSD (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of the TV news cliché 'the size of Western Europe' for any moderately large country that viewers are imagined to be unaware of. In that case the capital seems appropriate, but in Wikipedia, I'd say, no, there's no country or continent of that name---though that might be my British parsimony with capitals. 'Founding member', yes. Rothorpe (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thank you.  (But I swear I've seen "Western Europe" or "Western European" many times; maybe it's an American thing.)CorinneSD (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note how I deviously avoided using the word 'American'... Rothorpe (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to see what the differences are between British and American English. It's not just vocabulary, verb forms, and spelling.  I noticed earlier you used "specialities".  Americans say "specialties" (with the accent on the first syllable).  Regarding that red line in the Indonesia article, is there anyone we can ask to fix that?  I forgot how to ask for help. Is it "helpme" in double curved brackets?  Or should I just leave it and let someone else deal with it? CorinneSD (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I knew the word Specialty as a record label, but wasn't sure whether it was a variant or the normal AmE form---indeed I almost wrote it, being a fan of conciseness (big difference!). Sorry, I don't know about 'helpme', though it sounds right. Rothorpe (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's just 'help' in the brackets - I tried it out. Rothorpe (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Bread
I was reading the article on Bread and came across this sentence near the beginning of the section on "Types":


 * "Bread is the staple food in Europe, European-derived cultures such as the Americas, the Middle East, North Africa and Southern Africa, as opposed to East Asia whose staple is rice."

Besides being grammatically incorrect (probably needs "and in" after Europe), I thought, "Is the Middle East a European-derived culture?" I never heard that before. Also, only small segments of the population and culture of Africa are European-derived. I'm wondering whether the second phrase shouldn't read, "European-derived cultures such as those in the Americas, etc." or something else that would make it clear that those European-derived cultures are only one of many cultures in those areas. Any ideas?CorinneSD (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Europe & E-derived cultures such as those in..." Rothorpe (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wheat
I was skimming the article on Wheat, and, to the right of the section on "Plant Breeding", I saw a photograph of sheaves of wheat. The caption says, "Sheaves of stooked wheat". I never saw the word "stooked". Is that a real word? I thought perhaps it should be "stacked wheat". If it is incorrect, I don't know how to edit the caption of a photograph. If it is a real word, I'd love to know what it means (and what the infinitive is!).CorinneSD (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it is in Merriam Webster online, but not in that sense & I've never heard of it. Vandalism? Fancy looking through the history? Or just change it. Rothorpe (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Editing captions is no different from any other, though you have to make sure you're in the right place. Look for 'Image'. Rothorpe (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Forget it, Wiktionary has it. Rothorpe (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked up the verb "stook" in Wiktionary and it said, "to make stooks". Then I looked at the definition for the noun.  It said, "a bundle or pile, especially of straw".  I think "Sheaves of stooked wheat" is like saying "bundles of bundled wheat".  But...I'll leave it.  Somebody must have thought it sounded right.CorinneSD (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's "Sheaved and stooked wheat", which I think is OK. Rothorpe (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But what is the difference, I hear you ask. I suppose the picture goes some way, but perhaps we should redlink 'Stook' for an article...? Rothorpe (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting me. I didn't have the article in front of me.  Perhaps there is a slight difference and only someone with knowledge of traditional farming techniques would know.  Also, perhaps it is a regional difference.CorinneSD (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I linked it - and got blue! Rothorpe (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Who would ever guess there was an article on "stook"! Very interesting.  So sheaves go into making up a stook, or sheaves are stooked.  Nowadays, in the U.S., most hay is rolled up into big rolls, and often covered with white plastic.CorinneSD (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. Rothorpe (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Tierra del Fuego
Would you mind looking at some recent edits to the article on Tierra del Fuego? On October 5 I made some further edits to this article. I moved the information on the founding of the Anglican missions (including the date of 1869) to early in the section where the topic was first mentioned, and I left an explanatory note specifically explaining that move. This editor today reversed that and made several other edits, some of which are all right, but one of which I wonder about (the sentence explaining that there was another English family, too). I am a little upset about that first edit since I had worked so hard to make the article clear and thought that my moving the date of the founding of the Anglican mission to earlier in the sentence (so the information was not split between two places) was a pretty good edit.

Also, I wonder about "K... Island of the Falklands". Is "of the Falklands" necessary, or even correct? If it is necessary, I think "in the Falklands" would be more correct. Please let me know what you think.CorinneSD (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is complicated, but firstly I'm inclined to say, why not just move the date back as you had it, with a nice edit summary? Investigating further... Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no source for the family edit, nor indeed for any of the changes. Rothorpe (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly it should be 'in the Falklands', not 'of', and I'm inclined to change it, but I'll wait for your comments. Rothorpe (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to see you've cleared that up. I didn't know that 'Argentine' had replaced 'Argentinian', sigh. My students in the days before the Falklands war chased them all back home (and the one who lived in London and was my girlfriend) called themselves Argentinians, never mind etymology. But my point is that 'Argentine Ushuaia' is not like 'American Samoa', as there is no, say, Chilean Ushuaia or independent Republic of Ushuaia. So I still feel a rewording is needed, because that is the current implication, which is why I brought in the 'the'. Rothorpe (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the article given in a link by the person who made that edit from "Argentinian" to "Argentine", and I happen to disagree with it. There are many examples of borrowings from one language into another, where the word changes both form and case in the new language.  Native speakers adapt the word to fit their own language.  I think it is pedantic to insist that "Argentine" (because it closer to the Spanish adjective "Argentina" than "Argentinian") must be the adjective form in English.  I'm thinking about arguing for "Argentinian" (paralleling "Chilean", "Brazilian", "Uruguayan", etc.).  I want first to think of some examples of my first point (changing form and/or case when it is incorporated into a new language).  If you think of any let me know and I'll use them in my argument, somewhere.
 * I'm thinking. I had to stop myself putting 'what rot!' on the talk page of that essay. Its premise is enirely false. What happens in one language has no bearing on what should happen in another. Rothorpe (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding that phrase, "[the] Argentine Ushuaia", I'm not sure "Argentine" (or "Argentinian" for that matter) is needed at all. I think this is far enough into the article that it should already be clear that Ushuaia belongs to Argentina.  If it is not clear, it can be made clear in more straightforward fashion than just tacking on an adjective before it.  I can't go back and re-read the entire section right now, but I will, and perhaps you could, too, to determine whether "[the] Argentine" is necessary.CorinneSD (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to think that it is necessary, because Ushuaia hasn't been identified as belonging to anyone. Here's my suggestion:


 * The gold rushes of the late 19th century led to the founding of numerous small settlements by immigrants, such as Ushuaia (Argentina, founded 1884), Río Grande (Argentina, 1921), Porvenir (Chile, 1883) and Puerto Toro (Chile, 1892).


 * A bit repetitive, but clear, I'd say. (I didn't deliberately avoid the Argentinianine problem.) Rothorpe (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not crazy about that construction. It is possible that the settlement was founded before it became part of one or the other nation.  Putting them together implies that the settlement was founded and immediately became part of a nation.  Let me take a look at the section again now.CorinneSD (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. I realized once again that it pays to re-read the text, and read it carefully.  I realized two things.  From the paragraph right before the one in question, I learned that the settlements were all founded after the Boundary treaty was signed in 1881, which determined the boundary between Chile and Argentina.  After clicking on the link to Rio Grande, I learned that it was in Argentina.  Thus, I changed, "Argentine Ushuaia...and Rio Grande" to "the Argentine settlements of Ushuaia...and Rio Grande", paralleling the later phrase "the Chilean settlements of ... and ...".  (I decided not to combine the settlement dates for Ush and RGr, necessitating the use of "respectively" twice.)  Thus, you get the definite article that you suggested before "Argentine".  I think it is clear and correct now.  What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's OK now.
 * Regarding the adjective, it would all be so much easier if we used "Silver". :)CorinneSD (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ho ho! Rothorpe (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting technical moves
Hi Rothorpe, I've carried out the technical request you filed. You actually listed it under "Contested technical requests," so I had to double-check the page history to make sure someone hadn't contested it without leaving a rationale. In the future, you can leave new requests right under the "Technical requests" heading. --BDD (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, I saw that and wondered about it - but it was too late, sorry! Rothorpe (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Coffee
I noticed a recent edit in the article on Coffee that I wanted to ask you about. It is a minor thing, but I thought you would know the answer. Someone had changed "overextraction" to "over extraction", and then someone else changed it back to "overextraction". I know that it normally takes some time for two words to become one word. Usually it is hyphenated for a time, and then some of those hyphenated words lose the hyphen and others do not. I have never seen the word "overextraction". On the other hand, I think "over extraction" does not look right, either. I suggest "over-extraction". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, except to point out that 'over extraction' cannot be right, as that would simply mean 'above extraction': for 'over' to have its 'too much' meaning, it has to be joined somehow. Rothorpe (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Bread
I noticed a few days ago that it appears that a professor is using this article as a class editing project. (I didn't know if that was appropriate or not.) Today, I see an edit that adds quite a bit of detail regarding the Eucharist (I don't know if that edit was done as part of that class project or not.)  I wondered if you thought it was a bit too much information for this particular article. Just thought I'd ask your opinion.CorinneSD (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See also the last comment on the Talk page of the article.CorinneSD (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, I've put it on my watchlist. Rothorpe (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Andaman Islands
I just started reading the article on Andaman Islands. I've made a few minor edits, but in doing so I noticed quite a few problems that a visible only on the editing page. I don't know how to fix them, but I thought you might.

Also, in the first section after the lede (lead?), I read an odd sentence that said "Hanuman, the Malay form of Hanuman". Logically, the first word should be slightly different from the second word, right? Then, while reading the hidden information that is visible when editing, I saw a few lines below that a rather casual comment that said, "Handuman the Malay from [sic] Hanuman". Can you make head or tail of this?CorinneSD (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I followed the link to Hanuman, and there it says the Malay form is Andoman, so I think that's just a slip that can be corrected. Rothorpe (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Andaman Islands
In the "Chola" section in the article on the Andaman Islands, in the last sentence, it says the "Sriwijaya empire (a Malay-Hindu empire based on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia)". There is a link at "Sriwijaya". I clicked on it, and it goes to an article headed "Srivijaya" (with a "v" after "Sri"). In the first line, I read that "Sriwijaya" (with a "w") is the Thai word for that empire. I wonder why the Thai word is used in the article on the Andaman Islands. The Andaman Islands are mostly part of India, and partly part of Burma, and the empire itself was in Indonesia. Wouldn't it make more sense to use the Indian or Malay name of the empire, "Srivijaya" here?CorinneSD (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. (I think it says the w version is Indonesian, he adds pedantically.) Rothorpe (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are saying "Yes" to -- my question, "Wouldn't it...?"? But I realized on a second look that you are right.  "Sriwijaya" is Indonesian.  I had been confused by the punctuation in that list of alternative (alternate?) names.  But are you saying that, even thought "Sriwijaya" is Indonesian, "Srivijaya" makes more sense?CorinneSD (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the V form should be used in the article. Rothorpe (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Polymath
I believe this article on Polymath is the article that someone (Coretheapple?) said she was reverting to an earlier version and we said we would wait until he/she did this. Well, I just saw a few edits today and got going on it again. I put a comment on his/her Talk page regarding changing "he or she" to "the person" (which change I disagreed with). Then I fixed on error -- putting a space between "science" and "and", then got going editing the verbose paragraphs. I only got as far as the first paragraph in "Related terms". I cut out a lot of unnecessary words and re-arranged some sentences. There is still work to do, in the whole article. Could you look at that paragraph if you have time? It still needs work. For one thing, why is "Humanism" capitalized early in the paragraph and not capitalized later in the paragraph? Which one is correct? Perhaps you will see other things that could be improved.CorinneSD (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See the exchange on Polymath on Coretheapple's Talk page. Early in the article, is "the arts and science" correct?  or should it be "the arts and [the] sciences" as it is more often today?CorinneSD (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in context it seems all right actually. Rothorpe (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm continuing to edit. I just can't leave poor writing as it is.  In the second-to-last paragraph in the section "Related terms", I found the following sentence:


 * "The term seems to be used especially when a person has made lasting contributions in at least one of the fields in which he was actively involved, and when he had a universality of approach."


 * I feel that the phrase "and when he had a universality of approach" is poorly written, and poorly connected to the rest of the sentence, and approaches meaninglessness. Do you know what was meant?  And do you have an idea of how to incorporate the thought (if it should be incorporated) into the rest of the sentence?


 * Also, in the last paragraph in the section "Related terms", I found the following sentence:


 * "This designation may be anachronistic, however, in the case of persons such as Eratosthenes whose reputation for having encyclopedic knowledge pre-dates the existence of any encyclopedic object."


 * Do you think this sentence is necessary? (Also, I don't know why "encyclopedia" couldn't be used instead of "encyclopedic object".)  I kind of think the sentence is really unimportant.  What do you think?   CorinneSD (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree in both cases, remove. From what Coretheapple says, a lot will need rewriting/excising. Rothorpe (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)