User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 8

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Re: Your opinion, please
Hello, I think it was fine originally – the capitalization of "Moon" and the context made it clear what was meant, and it sounds alright to me – but I wouldn't have gone so far as to revert your edit. In other words I don't think it's that big a deal. Graham 87 02:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The screen reader doesn't read the caps unless I tell it to (I use speech but not Braille). But even without the caps, it's clear to me which moon is being referred to. Graham 87 02:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Metallurgy
I had reviewed the article on Metallurgy and made a few edits yesterday. Today I see a small edit, changing "world" to "global" (not, I believe, reverting anything I wrote). I'm wondering whether I agree with this edit. I thought I'd ask you. I kind of like "world" here. To me, "global" is better used with politics or abstract concepts. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly I wouldn't have bothered. I suppose the idea is that 'global' is more obviously an adjective. Rothorpe (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you seen my exchange here? Rothorpe (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw it. I'm sorry.  I guess I should have responded. I think I posted a note on the Talk page of the person who made that change.  Since I didn't get a notice on my Watchlist, I forgot about it.  I feel like changing it back to "world".CorinneSD (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, my gosh. I just saw the discussion on Reatlas' Talk page, to which you have contributed.  I will read it now.CorinneSD (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I reckon you can change it back to 'world' now. Rothorpe (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Andaman Islands
I had done some editing to Andaman Islands a few days ago, so I've been watching the article since then. What do you think of the latest edit to that article? I'm wondering why the editor used Roman numerals to indicate the century. I thought that was a little odd. Also, I wondered if the link to "cynocephaly" was necessary. Finally, I wondered whether the verbs in the two phrases should really be in present tense, as they are now, or past tense. Do you think this edit is constructive?CorinneSD (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, 'thirteenth century' is normal. The cynocephaly link I suppose counts as educational. I think the present tense is OK for writings that one can access. Rothorpe (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Rothorpe (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Vanuatu
Did you see the recent edit to Vanuatu about the origin of "Ni-Vanuatu"? (It wasn't something I had changed or edited.) It is interesting, but the editor gave no citation. Who's to say which is the correct etymology?CorinneSD (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Who indeed, but otherwise all OK. Changing the subject, did you see my question above, at Metallurgy? Rothorpe (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Creating Archive 1
I thought I followed your instructions for making my Archive 1, but


 * when I highlighted all the material in my Talk page except for the material at the very top and the very bottom that I had not put there (Welcome to WP at top), I did not see an option to "Cut", so I just clicked on "Copy", and then clicked on the red link you gave me, then pasted the material,


 * after pasting the material, I saw that all the formatting was gone -- headings did not appear as headings, indentations and bullets were gone, and


 * I saw in my Watchlist a red exclamation point next to an "N" at the left side.

I must have done something wrong, but I don't know what. Everything is still in my Talk page, as it was before. Do I have to undo something?CorinneSD (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I confess I've never learnt how to use Copy. I just create the blank archive page, highlight the contents of my talk page and, holding down the mouse button, pass the text from one window to another. Takes a while... Rothorpe (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the !N - just means 'New'. Rothorpe (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, I forgot to mention EDIT mode! Rothorpe (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I remember I do know how to use Copy. But will I remember that next time I have to do it? Rothorpe (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. I want to undo what I did and start over, but I couldn't figure out how to undo it.CorinneSD (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I just went to Archive 1, went to Edit, then cut all the stuff I had pasted before, the stuff with no formatting, and saved the change. Then I went to my Talk page, went to Edit, highlighted everything, right-clicked, left-clicked on "Cut" in the little menu that opened up, saved the change, then found my Talk page/Archive 1 in my Watchlist, opened it, went to Edit, right-clicked, left-clicked on "Paste", and saved the change.  So everything that was in my Talk page is now in the Talk page/Archive 1.


 * But, now, do I create a link in my Talk page to my Talk page/Archive 1? What do I put in the link?  Is that the only way for me (from now on) to access my Archive 1?  Because I don't see it anywhere except in my Watchlist.CorinneSD (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. You can see how I've done the links to archives at the top of my talk page. - Incidentally, thanks for the support at Reatlas's page. Rothorpe (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We were typing at the same time. I did go to your Talk page, clicked on Edit so I could see how you made the links to your archives, and then I typed at the top of my Talk page.  It is there, but it is red, and says "Page does not exist", but when I go to my Watchlist, it is there.  What am I missing?CorinneSD (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The elusive space! I've put one in. Rothorpe (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What space? I saw that the link is now blue.  Did you do that? CorinneSD (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Rothorpe (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it the space between "User" and "talk"? Also between "Archive" and "1"?  I'll have to remember that for next time.  Thank you for doing that.CorinneSD (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right, between User & talk. Pleasure. Rothorpe (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Disko Bay
I was reading the article on Greenland, and I clicked on a link to Disko Bay and began reading that article, too. I wanted to ask you about two things in the "History" section, including the following sentence:


 * " It is important because without its resources the settlements might not have lasted as long as they did."

I feel that "It is important" is not exactly right, particularly the "it". Is "This is important" better? Or do you have a better suggestion?
 * I really don't know. It's such a small change, what can I say? In alternative-word cases like this, please make the change first if you possibly can, then tell me about it. Tiny changes from one correct English to another rarely cause anyone problems. Rothorpe (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Second, a little later in that section, it says something like, "There was such a massive shift in temperature". I just thought "massive" was not the best word for that spot. I thought there might be a better adjective. I thought of "great", but that's a bit ordinary. Perhaps "significant", or "tremendous". Can you think of a better adjective than "massive"?
 * Have you got a thesaurus? I have, but since we're moving at the weekend, it's been packed in a cardboard box. But again, if you think there's a better word, make the change first. Having seen your very impressive reply on Reatlas's talk page, you are clearly at no loss for alternatives! Rothorpe (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got an old Roget's Thesaurus, and I had a subscription to an on-line dictionary/thesaurus, but not right now; that's why I've been asking you for synonyms. I guess I could use the old book thesaurus for now.CorinneSD (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Note the interesting reference to Rudyard Kipling toward the end of the article.CorinneSD (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Right! (Made a formatting change.) Rothorpe (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how Kipling knew about Disko Bay.CorinneSD (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Deltaterrasserne
I came across this short article on Deltaterrasserne from the Greenland article. At the end of the first paragraph it says "culture cultures". I think there may be a problem with the link. Do you want to take a look at it?
 * Yes, you're right, change it.

Also, even if one of these two words is removed, I notice that in both paragraphs in the section "Early Paleo-Eskimo cultures" in the Greenland article and this phrase in the Disko article both have "culture" in lower-case. I thought that, if it is the name of a culture, it should be capitalized, in both places. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In such cases, I look around Wikipedia to see what is normal usage. Probably lower case for cultures, I would have thought. Rothorpe (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Paleo-Eskimo cultures. Rothorpe (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Greenland
In the "Norse settlement" section in the article on Greenland, could you take a look at the last sentence in the first paragraph? It says, "entered into a personal union". I don't think that could be right. What do you think it should be?CorinneSD (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know, perhaps a royal wedding? Research needed... Rothorpe (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See Personal union. Rothorpe (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks.  I had never heard that phrase used in a political sense.  I still think it is strange to use it in a political context.CorinneSD (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * New to me, too. Rothorpe (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Disko Bay 2
I made a few more edits to the article on Disko Bay to improve conciseness and cohesiveness, but I have a question. In the first paragraph in "History", it says "Eastern and Western Settlements". (I made "Settlements" plural). In the third paragraph, it mentions the settlements (with just the word "settlements"), all lower-case. I can live with that, but toward the end of the third paragraph it says, "the Eastern settlement". I'm wondering whether, for consistency, that should be "the Eastern Settlement", or whether I should change "Eastern and Western Settlements" in the first paragraph to "Eastern and Western settlements". I'm leaning toward the latter, because I don't think the settlements were named in the same sense as towns are named today – that is, formally, in in writing. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, lower case. Rothorpe (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea
If you have time, could you look at the last edit to the article on Papua New Guinea? Not only is it grammatically incorrect, but it is imprecise and has no reference. Should the whole thing be reverted, or should the grammar just be corrected?CorinneSD (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Revert. Rothorpe (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Somebody got to it before me and reverted it.CorinneSD (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Music therapy
I just saw an edit to the article on Music therapy in which the editor removed three articles that had been added. The edit summary says, "rm drury COI". I suppose "rm" means "removed", and "drury" is the last name of the one of the articles' authors (lower-case), but what is "COI"? Also, why were the articles removed? Just trying to learn something.CorinneSD (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * COI is 'conflict of interest'. The implication is that Drury is self-promoting, or has some kind of vested interest. Rothorpe (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the Americas
I've been reading the article on Indigenous peoples of the Americas. For the most part, it is well written. I haven't read every word. I just wanted to ask you about punctuation in the "History - Migration into the continents" section. Near the beginning of the long paragraph, and in the short paragraph that follows, there are dates such as "40,000—16,500". I notice they have an em dash. I thought an en dash might be better than an em dash, but I didn't know if that was a standard thing in writings on paleontology. Also, I think the last date has an extra space. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, they're wrong, and should be changed to unspaced en dashes. Rothorpe (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Parmenides
If you don't mind, could you look at the last edit to Parmenides. I know no Greek, and I know very little about Parmenides. It seems that someone was trying to offer a different translation of a statement of Parmenides', but the last one sounds more tortuous than the one from it was changed.CorinneSD (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you'd be justified in leaving a summary saying the earlier version is more succinct, as there doesn't seem any significant difference in meaning. Rothorpe (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.CorinneSD (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted an edit made, I believe, by the same person, and left a second summary. I was just wondering if you knew what kind of user name that is -- with many letter and number combinations.  A little odd.CorinneSD (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no idea why it differs from the all-number ones. Rothorpe (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, which is correct: "a statement of Parmenides" (no apostrophe) or "a statement of Parmenides'" (one apostrophe)? – CorinneSD (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think both; I prefer the former. Rothorpe (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Colonia del Sacramento
I've been reading the article on Colonia del Sacramento, having gotten there from the article on Uruguay, and I came across the following sentence, which is the second sentence in the second paragraph in the "History" section:


 * "It then transferred to Portuguese control again, being later incorporated in Brazil after 1816, when the entire Banda Oriental (Uruguay) was seized by the government of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves and renamed the Cisplatina province."

My question is: in the phrase, "being later incorporated in Brazil after 1816", is "in" the best preposition here? I don't think the town was incorporated in the way some modern towns (and companies) are. I think it means "became a part of" Brazil. I was thinking that "incorporated into" or "incorporated within" would be better. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Incorporated into" sounds most natural to me. Rothorpe (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Colonia del Sacramento 2
In the section "Urban...", I see the following sentence:


 * "The Portuguese Old City - 16 ha large Barrio Histórico - was enclosed by a fortification wall across the peninsula in the site of present day Calle Ituzaingó."

I wonder if you know what "16 ha large Barrio Historico" means. I thought "ha" might be some kind of abbreviation for "hectare", but it still wouldn't read exactly right. Judging from other sentences I have tried to improve, I think, perhaps, a non-native speaker of English wrote this (which is fine), but I need help figuring this one out.CorinneSD (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You could ask User:Daarznieks, a Latvian speaker, who wrote it. Rothorpe (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I did, earlier today.CorinneSD (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Synesthesia
In the article on Synesthesia, could you take a look at the last sentence in the second paragraph in the section "Prevalence and genetic basis"? It says the sex ratio is 1:1:1. I thought there were only two sexes. How could it be "1:1:1"?CorinneSD (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, looks like a brainstorm. (Incidentally, I have synesthesia, but have never thought of reading this.) Rothorpe (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a very interesting article. Will you fix the 1:1:1?CorinneSD (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried, but when I typed 1:1:1 into the box, it didn't find it. Reason: it actually says 1.1:1 - fooled us both. Rothorpe (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Might be better expressed as "only 10% more females than males"? (The body of the Simner et al. (2006) Perception paper is pay for view, of course, alas). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, yes. And it should have said 'almost equal'. Rothorpe (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that, too. Why not say "a nearly equal ratio of females to males of 1.1 to 1"?  Then the numbers are clear.  Sorry I misread 1.1:1.  I didn't notice that one was a period.CorinneSD (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made a rough stab. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Rothorpe (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Lilium
If you have time, could you look at the last edit to Lilium? A lot of material was removed, and I don't know whether that was correct.CorinneSD (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that somebody else just reverted that edit.CorinneSD (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERA
Regarding your edits to Parmenides, please see WP:TALK and WP:ERA and note this arbitration case. Editors do not get to decide which style is "rubbish".--JimWae (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose CE isn't so bad, if one must change a harmless tradition for the sake of multiculturalism, but tacking an E on to BC is irritatingly pedantic and cluttered, and I'm pleased that it took almost a month to be reinstated. Rothorpe (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ...agree with Rothorpe. I am not familiar with this stupid "EBC" or whatever it is.  For hundreds of years it has been BC/AD and suddenly we have to scrap that just so we don't offend.  A sad sign of the times! --   Cassianto Talk   19:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I also prefer BC and AD because that's what I grew up with. BCE is not BC with an E tacked on.  It means "Before the Common Era", so if one uses CE, it makes sense also to use BCE. I think we ought just to let a writer use what he or she feels most comfortable using, and then leave it like that.CorinneSD (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what it means. But the result is a tacked-on E, and that is why it is so annoying. Rothorpe (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hypnosis
I saw a few edits made tody to the article on Hypnosis. The last one or two are, I suppose, all right, but I wanted to tell you that an editor changed British spelling to American spelling in about the third-to-last set of edits made on October 16. I thought WP policy was not to do that but to leave the spelling as it was. I didn't look at the edits just before that.CorinneSD (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Another case for reverting, but German Joe beat me to it. WP:Overlink is worth a look. Rothorpe (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link to Overlink. German Joe reverted an edit that added an unnecessary link, but previous to that is an edit that changed a lot of words in British spelling to American spelling, but I don't see that they were reverted.CorinneSD (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, now done. Rothorpe (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Andaman Islands
Could you look at the latest edit to Andaman Islands? I don't see how that can be called an improvement.CorinneSD (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit summary mentions reverting a sock, so I'll investigate tomorrow. Rothorpe (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What's a sock?CorinneSD (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Sockpuppet. Rothorpe (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Isadora Duncan
Someone made a silly edit to Isadora Duncan. I went into the text under "Personal life" and saw that at least two headings are now buried in the text; they've lost their formatting. Can you fix them? They are "Later life" and "Death". I don't know how big to make those headings. Are they independent, like "Personal life", or should they be smaller headings under "Personal life"?CorinneSD (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted them - in cases like that, just go to the history, select the last good version, Edit and Save. The formatting is done with the equals signs, just like Isadora's name at the top of this section, if you're seeing it in Edit mode. Rothorpe (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou Sander's User Page
A while ago you corrected some stray commas on my user page, for which I was thankful. I just looked at yours. It inspired me to add something to mine, which I think you might get a kick out of: "In the early days of personal computers, The Chicago Manual of Style was doing a poor job of dealing with the new range of computer-related material. I made some suggestions to the editors, and they incorporated them into their next edition. I've alerted the Oxford English Dictionary to a missed meaning of pigstick, but I don't know if they've accepted it." I'm not the copyediting/grammar/usage expert that you are, but I DO appreciate the field. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the information, and for the compliment. I confess that before looking them up I didn't know any meanings of 'pigstick', one word or two. Rothorpe (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the definitions of 'pigstick'. I think the one I found that wasn't in OED was some sort of stick at the top of a sailboat's mast, holding a yachting pennant or something. It was amusing that the UK is a seafaring nation with presumably a lot of yachting experience, lore, etc., yet they missed a definition that is right down that alley. BTW, there is a fascinating book about the OED, where it came from, etc. I read it a while ago, but I don't remember its name. You'd probably like it. Lou Sander (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably I would but I can't remember the last time I read a book, avid reader though I once was. Internet RSI shoulders and living in Portugal are my main excuses. Rothorpe (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the Americas 2
I took up my reading of this article on Indigenous peoples of the Americas again, and I wanted to ask your opinion about something. In the last paragraph in the sub-section "Pre-Columbian era" in the larger "History" section, "Pre-Columbian" is in quotation marks when referring to the Norse who settled on the North Atlantic coast of what is today Canada. I wonder whether the quotation marks are necessary. That time really was Pre-Columbian by either definition outlined in the first and second paragraphs of this sub-section. The quotation marks seem to minimize the presence of the Norse. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, looks like a relic from when the term had not before appeared in the article: remove. Rothorpe (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the Americas 3
In the first paragraph in the section "European colonization" in the article on Indigenous peoples of the Americas, I found the following sentence:


 * "But the loss of lives was exacerbated by violence on the part of colonists, who frequently perpetrated massacres on the indigenous groups and enslaved them."

I changed "by violence by colonists" to "by violence on the part of colonists" because I didn't like two "by" phrases in a row, but I still think the sentence could be improved, and I wanted to ask you for your ideas.

1) Should "the loss of lives" be "the loss of life"?

2) Is "exacerbated" the best word to follow "the loss of lives" or "life"?  Is this really the best wording?  How about "Further loss of life" or "More lives were lost"....?

3) Isn't "violence on the part of colonists" and "frequently perpetrated massacres" a bit redundant?  I know enslavement is a kind of violence, so perhaps the writer was introducing violence in the first half of the sentence and then giving two specific types of violence -- massacres and enslavement -- in the second, but I thought perhaps the sentence could be made more concise.  Any ideas?CorinneSD (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's very long-winded, euphemistically motivated, perhaps. I like your suggestions, but I think the passive voice is mostly to blame. Rothorpe (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the Americas 4
The last two sentences in the sixth paragraph in the section "European colonization" in the article Indigenous peoples of the Americas seem to me to be irrelevant to this article. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I can't see what purpose they serve. Who cares about the rotten Europeans? Rothorpe (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You know I didn't mean that. I meant that the susceptibility of Europeans in Europe or Africa to diseases of Asia or Africa didn't seem to belong in an article on Indigenous peoples of America.CorinneSD (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, twas a joak. You're right. Rothorpe (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yogi
I just saw an edit to the article on Yogi in which the editor changed both "Yogi" and "Yoga" to lower-case, saying that the emphasis was unnecessary. I have always agreed with you that unnecessary capitalization should be changed to lower-case. However, I noticed that both words appear often in this article and are often capitalized. I don't know whether there is a good reason for the capitalization or whether it is a case of "unnecessary capitalization". Could you take a look and decide whether they should all be lower-case or all be capitalized? – CorinneSD (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny, just been looking at the rather similar word Yeti, which is capitalised throughout, which is questionable ('So finally, Mr. Yeti, I presume?') - but, yes, neither yogi nor yoga should be capitalised. However, if Mr Yeti were a yogi, one could address him as Yogi Yeti. Rothorpe (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha-ha. :) Isn't Yeti another word for the North American Bigfoot? Bigfoot is always capitalized.  Did you look at the Yogi article?  Look how many times "Yogi" and "Yoga" are used.  Are you saying all should be changed to lower-case?CorinneSD (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see no reason for capitals. Unlike Bigfoot & the Abominable Snowman, who are clearly cryptid persons (discovered a new word today). Rothorpe (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yogi
If you have time, could you look at the last sentence in the "Hinduism" section in the article on Yogi? The last part of the sentence is:


 * "and is not sheerly by willpower alone."

Something struck me as odd. Besides the fact that "sheerly" looks wrong (I have rarely seen "sheer" in an adverbial form, and I'm not even sure the spelling is right), "sheerly" and "alone" seem redundant. Shall I


 * delete one of them -- which one? -- or
 * change "sheerly" to "merely"? or what?  And I wonder if a verb (past participle) is needed.  Any suggestions? – CorinneSD (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, how about 'And is not achieved by willpower alone'? Changing an adverb to a verb, unusual. Rothorpe (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "And is not achieved by willpower alone" is fine. What do you mean by "changing an adverb to a verb, unusual"?  I wasn't suggesting changing any of those words to a verb or verb form.  I was suggesting adding a verb, which you did with "achieved".CorinneSD (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And I subtracted the adverb 'sheerly'. Rothorpe (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Green children of Woolpit
I came across this very interesting article, Green children of Woolpit, from the article on Woolpit. I read it all the way through. There were very few problems. I just have a question: in the section "Historical explanations", shouldn't "battle" in "battle of Fornham" be capitalized?CorinneSD (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think if you tack 'of Somewhere' on to a Battle, it becomes its name and should be capitalised. Rothorpe (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K.CorinneSD (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Woolpit
In the section "St. Mary's Church" in the article on Woolpit, is the following sentence:


 * "A well, which like the church is dedicated to Mary, is found in a meadow near the eastern end of the church; local tradition held that there was once a chapel next to the spring; the church contained a Marian shrine as described above."

I have rarely seen a sentence with three complete sentences separated by semi-colons. Do you find this acceptable? Or should it be broken up into two sentences, one with one clause, the other with two clauses separated by a semi-colon? If the latter, which two clauses should remain together?
 * Are either of the semicolons merited? Wouldn't they make nice clean sentences?

Also, in the third clause, "the church contained a Marian shrine as described above", doesn't "the church" really mean "the chapel next to the spring"? If so, then shouldn't the word "chapel" be used to avoid confusion with "St. Mary's Church"? If not, and "the church" really means "St. Mary's Church", then that clause should definitely be separate and not joined to the previous clause. Do you want to take a look at this?CorinneSD (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the chapel as separate from the church, and presumably much smaller, but, yes, it's a bit unclear. I suppose you could mention it on the talk page. Rothorpe (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I broke up the sentence into three short sentences, as you suggested. Then I determined that the third one of the three, "The church contained a Marian shrine as described above", really did refer to St. Mary's Church.  The shrine is mentioned earlier in the article.  I moved it to the first paragraph in that section which describes the church itself.  The second paragraph seemed to be more about the immediate environs of the church building.  However, there was still something unclear, so I left a message on the article's Talk page (the first and only message!). – CorinneSD (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you have an interlocutor there... Rothorpe (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. It was nice to hear so promptly from someone who really knew the area.CorinneSD (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, lucky. Rothorpe (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Woolpit 2
Also in the article on Woolpit, in the second-to-last paragraph in the section on "History", I found the following sentence:


 * "The area of the parish is 2,010 acres (8.1 km2); the population in 1831 was 880, less than half agricultural."

I'm wondering whether a population can be called "agricultural". I think "rural" might be a better word, but I thought I'd ask you what you thought.CorinneSD (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. Rothorpe (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, no, doesn't it mean they were farmers and farm labourers? Rothorpe (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It probably does mean that. It's just that I had never heard a population described as agricultural.  But I guess it's all right.CorinneSD (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Potash pit
In the article on Potash pits, which I got to from reading the article on wool, I wonder why "potash" in "Potash pit" is capitalized several times in the article. Even the mineral "potash" near the beginning of the article was capitalized until I changed it to lower-case. Also, in the section on "Scouring" in the article on wool, both "Potash pits" and "Potash" are capitalized. Is there something special about potash and potash pits that they need to be capitalized?CorinneSD (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, looks like a classic case of someone capitalising a word they're not much familiar with. Rothorpe (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fixed this one, as a penance for suggesting you use two talk pages. Rothorpe (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Wool
In the third paragraph in the section "History" in the article on Wool, I found the following sentence:


 * "Both pre-industries were based on English raw wool exports—rivaled only by the sheepwalks of Castile, developed from the 15th century—a significant source of income to the English crown, which from 1275 imposed an export tax on wool called the "Great Custom"."

I already made one edit to this sentence, deleting "which was" before "a significant source of income". Besides being a bit long, there is something in this sentence which is not clear, and that is "Both pre-industries". If you read the paragraph, you will see that there is a lot of information before this sentence. I suppose it refers to the production of wool cloth in Provins and in central Italy, but it requires a leap to connect these. Provins is in France, and both Provins and central Italy are somewhat distant from England, where the "English raw wool" apparently came from (all the way from England to central Italy??).

I'd like to clarify "Both pre-industries". Just thought I'd ask you for your ideas.CorinneSD (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My ideas: 0. I'm inclined to put a clarify tag by it. Unless you feel like raising it at Talk? Rothorpe (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I made a few more small edits to that paragraph to make it more concise but am left with the ambiguity of "Both pre-industries". I left a note on the article's Talk page.CorinneSD (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Burma
I just saw an edit to the article on Burma in which the editor updated figures based on the most recent report. I have no idea what those figures represent or what the report was, but I noticed the date 2018 near the beginning of the new material. I wonder whether that is a typo or not, and whether it should be 2013. Can you tell? The editor has no Talk page.CorinneSD (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The only 2018 I can find is in the markup---is that the one? Rothorpe (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see it when I look at the revision history and see the "before" and "after". Is that the mark-up?  If it is, then yes, that's the one I meant.  The year changed from 2011 to 2018.  But I can't tell if that was intentional or not.CorinneSD (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right. I don't see any way to discover if it's a typo, short of asking the perpetrator. Rothorpe (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Tea
I noticed a recent edit to the article on Tea. It added a note to one box in a table. Since it was the only such note, I decided to move it from the table to an existing footnote (#4) just below the table. However, I am note sure that the punctuation is correct and I wondered if you would take a look at it. Specifically, it already had 'tea'-water. Since in footnote #3 above it has "tea-leaf", it seems the punctuation is not consistent. I don't know which to change, if either. You may find other punctuation issues, as well. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I would have reverted the addition with an apologetic edit summary. 'Although tea is only used' isn't clear to me. Rothorpe (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't clear to me, either. I thought it meant that normally, the word "tea" is only used (as opposed to "tea-neeru" or something, whatever it was.  All right.  Next time, I will revert the edit with an edit summary saying that it wasn't clear.  Thank you for the advice.  What shall I do now?  Go back and revert both that edit and mine, or just leave it? – CorinneSD (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Time for a be bold, I'd say: revert with an edit summary to the effect that the addition was incoherent and badly formatted (I'm feeling less apologetic today). Rothorpe (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Pali
Shall I undo the recent edit to Pali or attempt to put it into intelligible English? If I revert, what should the edit summary say? I think the problem is more than just poor English.CorinneSD (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No ref, so could be made up. Undo, noting unsourced. Rothorpe (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Solomon Islands
I've been working on the article on Solomon Islands and have gotten to the "Politics" section. (By the way, I learned something new: the name of the country is "Solomon Islands", not "the Solomon Islands"; they were very specific about that.)  If you have time, could you take a look at the first paragraph in this section? I have two questions:


 * First, the word "parliament" alternates: capitalized, lower-case, capitalized, lower-case.  I suppose when it is capitalized, it refers to the parliament of Solomon Islands, and when it is not, it is referred to generally, but I think it is confusing.  What do you suggest?
 * Quite so. In such cases, I always remove the capitals, as the examples are generic, not names. Rothorpe (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Second, in the sentence right in the middle of the paragraph where it states that the Governor-General is chosen by Parliament, that comes right after saying the monarch is Queen Elizabeth II. Thus, to me, it is unclear whether "Parliament" refers to the English Parliament or Solomon Islands Parliament.  I think it means Solomon Islands Parliament.  If you agree, I will add "Solomon Islands" before "Parliament" so there is no ambiguity. – CorinneSD (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it just alternates randomly even there. Following the link to Governor General is quite interesting. Rothorpe (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, this seems to be a matter of taste: there are capitalisers and non-capitalisers and that's what gives rise to the mixtures. The reason I'm a non-capitaliser is that having to do it every time - for consistency - is a lot to ask of a community of writers, as opposed to just one, so best to keep the default, which would normally be no caps. Thinking aloud here; I hope it makes sense. Rothorpe (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Well, in the U.S., "Congress" is always capitalized when referring to the U.S. Congress. It would only be lower-case when speaking very generally, or referring to some other kind of congress.  Isn't the same true with the word "Parliament"?
 * It certainly can be. I'll have another look.


 * Regarding my other question, you didn't find ambiguity (Solomon Islands Parliament or English Parliament?) in the first use of "Parliament" after the mention of the queen?CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, complete change of mind here. Yes, there is ambiguity, and yes, I'll add a capital... Rothorpe (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that you had added a capital P to parliament, but to me, in only that place, because of its location after mention of Queen Elizabeth II, the ambiguity was as to which Parliament was meant -- the English Parliament or the Solomon Islands Parliament. To someone who doesn't know, the English Parliament could just as well choose a Governor-general as the local Parliament.  Is it clear to you that it means the Solomon Islands Parliament?  If it is, I'll leave it alone.CorinneSD (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the context makes it clear that it's the SI parliament. The queen is mentioned right at the beginning of the section, and the toppling occurs at the end. Rothorpe (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Solomon Islands 2
In the second paragraph in the section on "Politics" in the article Solomon Islands, I found the following sentence:


 * "The head of government is the Prime Minister, who is elected by Parliament and chooses the other members of the cabinet."

I don't like the sound of "is elected...and chooses", but I haven't figured out a better wording. I have a question about the word "other" in the phrase "the other members of the cabinet". I don't know much about the parliamentary system of government, but is the Prime Minister a member of the cabinet? In the presidential system, the president chooses the members of his (or her) cabinet. The president is not a member of the cabinet, so the word "other" would not be used before "members". Is the word "other" correct in that sentence?CorinneSD (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's the PM and his/her cabinet, separate. So, yes, no 'other'. Rothorpe (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I removed "other". Now it says, "...and chooses the members of the cabinet".  I really don't like hearing two "the's":  the members of the cabinet.  I wonder if it would be clear enough if it just said, "...and chooses the cabinet" or "and chooses his cabinet".  Another possibility is, "...and chooses the members of his cabinet", but some people might object to "his" (and not "his or her").  What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, "chooses his cabinet" is fine. Rothorpe (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Very distrait tonight. Still getting used to new house since Saturday, that's my excuse. "Chooses the cabinet." Rothorpe (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean distracted or distraught, or both? Moving is always stressful.CorinneSD (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, distracted definitely. Distraught now only occasionally---that was worse before the move. Tonight I'm pleased about it. Rothorpe (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Elaeis guineensis
In the article on Elaeis guineensis, or oil palm, in the second paragraph in the section "Planting", I found the following sentence:


 * "An alternative to germinated seed, once constraints to mass production are overcome, is tissue-cultured or "clonal" palms, which provide "true copies" of high yielding DxP palms."

I'm wondering if the verb "is" is correct. The subject is "An alternative", which is singular, but the subject complement (is that right?) is plural ("palms"). Or should I change "...palms" to "the tissue-cultured or "clonal" palm" to make it singular? Or just leave it as is?CorinneSD (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your change: 'is...palms' is horrible. Rothorpe (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I decided to change "is" to "are" to go with "palms" and because changing it all to singular would mean having to change the subsequent phrase to singular, which would not sound so good in the singular. So, it is now, "An alternative to...... are...palms..."  What do you think?  Is it all right now?
 * Indeed, it reads very well.


 * Also, the fourth paragraph in the "Planting" section has a list of English words that are all in quotation marks. I don't think the quotation marks are necessary.  What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove! Rothorpe (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Elaeis guineensis 2
In the "Cross-breeding" section, how do I get the three dark blue bullets over to the right side of the picture?CorinneSD (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I put the same number of colons in front of each. You can add as many as you like. Rothorpe (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. That's simple.  Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Indonesia
If you have nothing else to do, .), could you look at the last few edits to Indonesia and tell me what happened? It looks like a lot of material was deleted, but I'm not sure whether it was restored or not.CorinneSD (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A person put in a load of links to other articles, which were rightly removed as 'list-cruft'. Rothorpe (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thank-you.  (What is "cruft"?  Never heard that word.)CorinneSD (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Time for a new page... Rothorpe (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cruft, yes, part of the wiki jargon. Rothorpe (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

San Blas Islands
In the article on San Blas Islands, in the second paragraph in the section on "History", there is a reference to the traditional clothing of the Kuna people, their molas. I did a search on WP to see if there was an article on molas. First, I got to a disambiguation page. Then I got to an article on molas. It was called Molas (art form). I went back to the San Blas Islands article and tried to put a link to that article. I tried all sorts of combinations of molas, molas (art form)| molas, molas (art form)}mola]]s (with the double square brackets, of course)  and could not get a blue link. Do you want to try?CorinneSD (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem: molas. Looks like you forgot to use the singular in the first part. Rothorpe (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is precisely what I did.  I put the "s" on the outside of the brackets on the second "molas" but used the plural in the first "mola".  I didn't know I couldn't use the plural there.  Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. The part before the | must always exactly match the name of the article. Rothorpe (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)