User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 13

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Hippocrates

What do you think of the change to verb tenses in Hippocrates?CorinneSD (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't check the reference, so I don't know if the rumour was contemporaneous. I would probably have put 'was lying', not 'were', but I don't like 'lied'; continuous seems an improvement. Rothorpe (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Mal'ta-Buret' Culture

I was reading some recent edits to the article on the Mal'ta-Buret' culture. The editor added a new section on "Relationship to American Indians". In a paragraph in that section, we find the following:

"Mal'ta suggests that the Upper Paleolithic population of western Eurasia may also have spread into in Siberia and contributed to the physical characteristics of some early American Indians which are dissimilar from the East Asians who contributed most of the genetic heritage of the indigenous people of the Americas."

In the middle of the sentence it says, "which are dissimilar from the East Asians....". Shouldn't that be "dissimilar to the East Asians"? It is "similar to". I wouldn't think that the prefix "dis-" would alter the preposition that follows. Just thought I'd check with you. Feel free to fix it if you think it needs changing.CorinneSD (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the minefield of prepositions. When I was a kid, we had to learn to say 'different from' instead of 'different to'. Nowadays, there is also 'different than', but I'll stick to 'from'. And here is 'dissimilar to' altered to 'dissimilar from' for reasons presumably not dissimilar. Indeed it sounds dreadful. Rothorpe (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Fermi paradox

I was looking at the latest edits to Fermi paradox, yours and others made just before and after yours. I saw where you got rid of the imperative, which is fine. But I was reading that same paragraph and I felt that something else was not quite right:

"It may be that technological extraterrestrial civilizations exist, but that human beings cannot communicate with them because of constraints: problems of scale or of technology; because they do not wish to communicate or their nature is simply too alien for meaningful communication, or perhaps even to be recognized as technology. There are immense differences between a blue whale and a common ant, both from the same planet."

After "...human beings cannot communicate with them because of constraints:" there is a kind of list of constraints, each separated by a semi-colon from the one before it:

• problems of scale or of technology;
• because they do not wish to communicate or their nature is simply too alien for meaningful communication, or perhaps even to be recognized as technology".

Just judging from the punctuation, it seems that there are two items in the list. Ignoring for the moment the stylistic issue of lack of parallel structure ("problems..." is a noun phrase and "because...." is an adverbial clause), the second item, besides being awfully long, has a problem. It seems to be about communication. I understand, "because they do not wish to communicate or their nature is simply too alien for meaningful communication", but "or perhaps even to be recognized as technology" seems just tacked on. What is this referring to? Is it "their nature is...too alien to be recognized as technology"? Does that make sense to you? Wouldn't "their methods (or means) of communication are too alien to be recognized as technology" make more sense? What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would; indeed I gave up there for those exact reasons. I'll leave you to sort it out... Rothorpe (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I revised the entire paragraph. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you've nailed it exactly. (I can see now that it needed expanding, while my tendency is to pare down.) Rothorpe (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

German mediatization

I just noticed a few edits to German mediatization by an IP editor. The last one changed "a Myriad" to "a myriad". Here's the sentence:

"A myriad of Catholic foundations closed down."

1) I thought "of" was not necessary after "a myriad", and 2) is "a myriad" even the right word here?CorinneSD (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's a rather old-fashioned improvement on the ubiquitous 'multiple'. But I think you're right about 'of'. I'd just go for a boring, inconspicuous 'many'. Rothorpe (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought the whole paragraph was kind of boring. One short sentence after another with no transitional words or phrases. I decided to put three sentences together and make one sentence.CorinneSD (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Rothorpe (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Chocolate

I've been going over some recent edits to Chocolate. Most of them are quite good. I just wondered about the following:

It was: "The seeds of the cacao tree have an intense bitter taste, and must be fermented to develop the flavor."

It is now: "The seeds of the cacao tree have an intensely bitter taste, and must be fermented to develop the flavor."

My question is, is there a difference in meaning between "have an intense bitter taste" and "have an intensely bitter taste"? I think there is. I think the first one means "have an intense and bitter taste" and the second one means that the bitterness alone is intense. But is this just quibbling? Or does it by "rules of grammar" have to be adverb + adjective?CorinneSD (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that's a genuine distinction. It shouldn't have been changed. Rothorpe (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I changed it back and made one other edit.CorinneSD (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all very good. Rothorpe (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh

An editor has just added a laudatory phrase to another laudatory phrase describing a person in the article on Bangladesh. I'm not saying that either phrase is incorrect. I just wonder whether (a) either phrase is inappropriate for WP, and (b) whether "citation needed" should be added – after the first phrase, after the second phrase, or after each of the phrases.CorinneSD (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, two tags, why not? Rothorpe (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I decided instead to leave a comment on the article's Talk page.CorinneSD (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Frederic William Henry Myers

About two days ago I saw a large number of edits to Frederic William Henry Myers. I saw some issues with syntax, punctuation and word choice, but there were a lot of edits to content, too. Since I wasn't sure about the content, I just left it. If you have time, would you take a look at all those edits? I had gone through the article several months ago and thought I had left it in pretty good shape.CorinneSD (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the article or its subject, but the changes certainly look OK. Any particular concerns? Rothorpe (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, you saw, and corrected, the error in punctuation at "however", and I think substituting "but" was an improvement. It just seemed like a lot of changes. But I guess it's all right now. Thanks for looking at it.CorinneSD (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! Rothorpe (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Lee Strobel

Can you take a look at the second paragraph in the section "Other Books" in the article on Lee Strobel? After the long list of names is the following phrase:

"defending their view of the historical reliability of the New Testament".

It seems to me that "defending" is ambiguous. Is it clear to you who is doing the defending? Is it Lee Strobel or the other individuals? I would guess that it is the individuals in the list. If it is, wouldn't it be clearer if it said, "who defend their view (or views?) of the..."?

Also, I see em-dashes with spaces either side. Which would you prefer, en-dashes with spaces, or em-dashes with no spaces? Feel free to edit, as always.CorinneSD (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I had forgotten you were talking about dashes, and have already unspaced the em ones. As for defending, it seems deliberately ambiguous, but that's OK, because you can be sure that they are defending and he is helping them. Rothorpe (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

Which is more proper: "In 1949 the family was offered" or " In 1949 the family were offered". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course the singular is more grammatical, but I think both are acceptable. By the way, congrats on your Hendrix GA. Rothorpe (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks; I think its a nice little article. Is the family a collective noun that is most often considered singular in the UK? If you had to use one or the other, which would you choose? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the more formal the register, the more likely the use of singular, and that would influence my choice, be it consciously or unconsciously. Rothorpe (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So, would you revert this edit as introducing ungrammatical prose, or would you leave it as is since both are acceptable? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have made the edit, but I wouldn't bother to revert it either. Rothorpe (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's good advice! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki types

You might enjoy seeing the "illustrations" of Wiki types on User talk:Bladesmulti's talk page. There were some other pictures there but they were removed due to copyright concerns, but the ones that are now there are also fun.

Four editors -- 74, JJ, Arildnorby, and myself, have been mentoring Bladesmulti for about a month now since he was blocked for a while. The other three are helping him/her learn how to edit without getting into edit wars and how to judge sources, and I am helping him/her improve his writing (ie., his English). He/She recently asked me to explain when to use "that" and when to use "which". I know "that" is used to form both noun clauses and adjective clauses. I know "which" is used only to form adjective clauses and is used when the noun is the object of a preposition ("This is the report for which I need a table of contents") and for a non-restrictive adj. clause (the one that is set off by commas). But it has been a while, and I don't have a grammar book. Can you refresh my memory on something? Isn't there a situation when "that" and "which" are equally acceptable? Besides the situations I mentioned above – noun clause ("that"), object of preposition ("which") and non-restrictive adj. clause ("which") – are there any other situations when "that" is required over "which" and "which" is required over "that"?CorinneSD (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

All I can suggest is the restrictive adjective clause: "There are several cases which require immediate investigation." That's a British tendency, I've been told, so it may not be what you were thinking of, and in any case "..that require..." sounds better to me. Rothorpe (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!CorinneSD (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cistercians

How are you doing, Rothorpe? I hope all is well. Yesterday I saw an edit to Cistercians in which an editor changed a section heading from "Constitution and rule" to "Constitution and Rule", ie., capitalizing "rule". Preparing to undo that edit and refer the editor to the right place in WP:MOS, I searched for the right place and couldn't find it. I asked for help on my Talk page and received the right information. The link I was given is Wikipedia:MOSCAP#Section_headings. Then I went back to look at the edit again and realized that "rule" is used in a special sense here, not the ordinary sense of the rule of government or a monarch but the rules and regulations of a religious order. I did not know if that made any difference in the need to follow the rule in WP:MOS regarding capitalization in section headings. CorinneSD (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, thanks, and you? I don't think there is any reason to capitalise it there, as it is not part of a title. Similarly I'd remove the capital in 'Rule of St Benedict' in that section, in which 'rule' is mostly uncapitalised, as for example in 'Cistercian rule'. Rothorpe (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine, thank you. I made the change to the section heading but could not find "Rule of St. Benedict" in that section. Where is it? Thank you also for catching and removing that extra word (I think it was "and") in the other article whose title I don't remember. I had rearranged the sentence and hadn't seen that extra word. Do you feel like looking at a comment I left on the Talk page of Polymath? Perhaps you can figure out a way to make the paragraph more concise.CorinneSD (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I followed the link, and Rule of St Benedict is a book, so of course no change - or perhaps it should be italicised. Wasn't it at Polymath that I removed the extra word? Anyway, I got your 'thanks' - thanks! I thought the paragraph was otherwise OK, but don't let that stop you from improving it. Rothorpe (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As you may have seen, my edit was undone by an editor named Eric. At his suggestion, the exchange on his Talk page has been copied to the talk page of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just catching up with this. Is there any need for 'R/rule' in the subheading at all? Rothorpe (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of what I was wondering, but I didn't state it that clearly. If I understood him correctly, Eric seems to think that the heading is correct in that it represents something in the section, but that something in the section needs to be made more explicit, or information needs to be added to better reflect the heading.CorinneSD (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, looks like you need further editors. Rothorpe (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I was surprised to discover

that you had changed some band names at Bobby Graham from The Kinks and The Who and probably a few others to . . ...... well you know what to. So what was that about? I don't have my good resources here but I am pretty sure that the The is a part of their names and should be in caps. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to put an edit summary, which would have been per MOS. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article). Rothorpe (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yucatan

If you have time, would you read the exchange on my Talk page about Yucatan and then give me your advice on how to proceed, undo edit on Indigenous peoples of the Americas or leave it as is? CorinneSD (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree the accent is unnecessary in English, and the article should be moved to 'Yucatan'. If you want to take on the accent police, I'll support you! Rothorpe (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

According to Huon, who responded to my request for help on my Talk page, it is WP policy at WP:COMMONNAME not to include the accent. So I feel justified in undoing that edit. I don't know what you mean by "the article should be moved to 'Yucatan'. This edit was made in Indigenous peoples of the Americas. – CorinneSD (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The Yucatán article should be moved to Yucatan. Rothorpe (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Move impossible, for the usual reasons (redirect), but I've removed the accent in the Indigenous article. Rothorpe (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh. O.K. You've been bold. Did you read Huon's most recent comment on my Talk page (and mine)?CorinneSD (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have now,and I agree with you both. Again, we'll see what happens. People get very attached to accents. It is part of the resistance to assimilation that minorities feel, perhaps. But English, with its weird spelling (I before E except after W), can at least boast it has no accents, or could if people didn't insist on importing them. Rothorpe (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and 'the Argentine' was archaic even at the time of the Falklands war - I had Argentinian students in London around that time. Rothorpe (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hypnosis

Would you mind looking at the latest edits to Hypnosis and the discussion that has begun on the article's talk page? I don't know if "Hypnosis has been defined as" is inappropriate language for WP. I think it is all right since later it says more recent research has given rise to newer definitions, but I don't know. I just know I don't like the new sentence for the two reasons I gave (on the talk page). I think self-hypnosis can be introduced and explained later in the article and doesn't have to be mentioned at the beginning of the lead/lede. I'd appreciate your opinions.CorinneSD (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, he/she's responded to that last one. I rather like the new snappy opening. Let's see where it goes. Rothorpe (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Away! Rothorpe (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Franciscans

Do you agree with the most recent edit to Franciscans deleting the word "those"? I'm just not sure. CorinneSD (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, better. Rothorpe (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Chantays, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Move requests

• Uncontroversial page move requests should be listed in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. The instructions will show as comments when you start editing it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that. Rothorpe (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hematite

Hi, Rothorpe -- Another question for you: I've just started reading the article on Hematite. In the first paragraph in the section Hematite#Etymology and history, I see the following sentence:

"The color of hematite lends it well in use as a pigment."

Something about this sentence did not sound right. I wonder if the preposition should be "for" or "to" rather than "in". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you back! It's certainly a garbled idiom. Shouldn't it just be "lends itself to use as"? Rothorpe (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes! I fixed it. I don't know why I didn't think of that.

If you have time, could you look at my last question in the section "Hematite" on my User talk:CorinneSD page? I have already fixed all the links (my other questions). I received a response from Technical-something saying it should probably be a hyphen, but before I change it, I thought I would ask you what you thought: en-dash or hyphen? CorinneSD (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's correct, spin and orbit being equals, spin with orbit. You'll see that if you follow the link. Rothorpe (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. I didn't think of following the link. I also got another response on my Talk page saying that it should be an en-dash, as you said. CorinneSD (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Jupiter trojan categories

In response to the result of the Requested move at Talk:Jupiter Trojan, Headbomb has started a move request to have the categories moved to his preferred location: Wikipedia:Category deletion policy#Current nominations. --JorisvS (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the notification. Rothorpe (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to email me at: turvszwyx at hotmail dotcom. Rothorpe (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Today's featured article on marine band

In the first line of today's featured article on the marine band, I see "ad-hoc". Is that supposed to be hyphenated? I didn't think so. If not, and you want to make the correction, please do. I don't want to mess with a featured article. CorinneSD (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Good to see someone has fixed it. Rothorpe (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

Do you agree with the latest edit to Carl Sagan? An editor removed "its doors" in the phrase "opened its doors", leaving just "opened", with an edit summary saying "removed filler words that add nothing". If you read the sentence, I believe this was the opening of a center, and Carl Sagan's wife was there at the opening. To me, simply "opened" could mean "opened for the day", when it should mean "opened for the first time". I think "opened its doors" conveys that. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, it concretises it nicely. You can undo IP edits like that without a summary, though perhaps I should have left one... Rothorpe (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Dolphins

On March 13, an editor removed the word "dolphins" from a paragraph in the section "Vocalizations" in the article on Dolphins. It was a slight improvement, but upon reading the entire paragraph, I realized that the paragraph was not very well written. It is full of somewhat vague statements, and there are a few errors, including a switch from present tense to past tense toward the end. I left a message on the talk page of a person who has edited the article in the past but have received no reply. I don't know enough about dolphins to know how to fix the sentences. Also, this last part of the paragraph seems to be unsourced. Do you want to take a look at it and see if you can fix it, or do you know any editor who knows about marine zoology? CorinneSD (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, no marine biologists of my aquanintance. I agree with you and have made a small change... Rothorpe (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at it. Your edits are certainly an improvement. However, the paragraph I was concerned about is the last paragraph in the section "Vocalizations". I have copied it here. It seems to have been written by a non-native speaker of English. Do you want to have a go at it?

"Dolphins tend to travel in pods, upon which there are groups of dolphins that range from a few to many. Although they are traveling in these pods, the dolphins do not necessarily swim right next to each other. Rather, they swim within the same general vicinity. In order to prevent losing one of their pod members, there are higher whistle rates. Because their group members were spread out, this was done in order to continue traveling together."

"Upon which"? "Are traveling"? "...there are higher whistle rates"? What does that mean? Then the unexplained switch to past tense in the last sentence. "In order to continue traveling together"? or "to enable them to continue traveling together", perhaps. CorinneSD (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly non-native. I think I understand it though (e.g. the amount of whistling increases). But unscrambling it... Your suggestion at the end is an excellent start. Do that and I promise to jump in. Rothorpe (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Upon further review of that paragraph, the other paragraphs in the section "Vocalizations", and the section "Social behavior" a little above that, I have decided that the entire paragraph is unnecessary. There is one reference connected to the second sentence ("Signal masking is when other similar sounds (conspecific sounds) interfere with the original acoustic sound.[67]"), but that second sentence seems unrelated to anything else in that paragraph, and I don't know where else it should go.

The whistles are discussed earlier in the "Vocalizations" sections and pod size, behavior, and need for the whistles are discussed in "Social behavior". Would you go along with removing the paragraph? Do you have any thoughts about the second sentence? CorinneSD (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. It could be said that at such a distance there is no harm in repeating information, in a different section, with a different emphasis. As for the second sentence, perhaps it should just be extracted and placed below, with a note on the talk page? There is some very repetitive stuff further up which made me cringe. Rothorpe (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, now BabyNuke has come to the rescue. Rothorpe (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I think the article is much improved, don't you? Where do you see repetitive material? CorinneSD (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm too forgetful and lazy to answer this! Rothorpe (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it was 'known to engage in'. Rothorpe (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess I was too lazy to look for it at that moment, too. I'll look...when I get around to it. CorinneSD (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Lesley Molseed

Are you still watching Murder of Lesley Molseed? What do you think of the latest edit, changing "sidekick" to "partner"? I think "sidekick" is a more interesting word. CorinneSD (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Undid. Rothorpe (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. I love your laconic answers. (I used Wiktionary to find just the right word.) CorinneSD (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Webster's unfinished legacy

I'm glad you changed the spelling of the British and American pronunciations of "dictionary" back to the way you first had it. I didn't say anything when you changed them because it's your talk page and I didn't want to interfere, but now that you've changed it back, I thought I'd let you know. I think they make more of a wry impact because the spelling is closer to the way the word is actually spelled. CorinneSD (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see I had the 'sh' spellings for almost three hours. Yes, principle of minimal contrast, maximal impact. Thanks for your comment now; I would have appreciated it then, I'm sure. Are you holding back on any other helpful criticisms? Rothorpe (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I read your User page a long time ago. I have followed your occasional edits (and have commented to you on one or two). I'll read through the page again and see if there are any other issues (but I seem to remember that I thought it was quite well written). CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, on another slightly related issue, I know (from studying linguistics) that languages do not remain static; they are constantly changing. However, I still cringe when I hear "less problems" (instead of "fewer problems"), "If I would have known, I would have...." (instead of "If I had known, I would have..."), and "sunk" used as past tense (instead of "sank"). CorinneSD (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius

I just saw that an IP editor removed the comma after the second in a list of three items (is that called the logical comma?). I believe that comma is more British usage than American (but I am getting to like it). Would you undo something like that, or just leave it? CorinneSD (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's called the Oxford, or serial comma. An American novelist at Citizendium likes it and drew my attention to it, but perhaps it is more common in BrE. Anyway, I think there are times when it is better to include it, but it's not usually necessary. So I wouldn't normally revert the edit either way. Rothorpe (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Solomon Islands

I just saw a series of editors by a new editor to Solomon Islands. To see all of them, you have to keep going back in the Revision History. They are not well written, and I think it is all in an effort to include an explorer's wife. (1) Is that necessary? and (2) Would you undo the lot or just correct the verb in the final edit? CorinneSD (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

They're unsourced, so I'd revert the lot. Rothorpe (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Copper

I had spent some time editing Copper, and now I see two more edits. The first one, by Bahudara, I like, but the second one, changing my "instead" to "and does not", I do not like, and I don't agree with the edit summary, either. What do you think? Do I need to ask a person with a science background? CorinneSD (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to agree with the new edit. 'Instead' does set up a false contrast: there is no situation being invoked where one thing happens or the other does. You could say this is being too literal, I suppose, but I can't think of a better alternative. Rothorpe (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed that it was your 'instead'. Yes, I was wondering if it was a BrE/AmE thing, and the user who changed it, Spinningspark, is British. (Has a very nice user page; but I spotted a semicolon typo.) Rothorpe (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. I don't see why you and Spinningspark call it a false contrast. To me they mean the same thing. It is exclusive. Copper reacts with something, but unlike iron (and other metals), it reacts not with water but with oxygen. Instead of reacting with water, it reacts with oxygen. I think the "instead" construction is just a more elegant way of saying "Copper does not react with water. Copper reacts with oxygen." "Copper does not react with water, but it does react with oxygen." "Copper does not react with water but instead reacts with oxygen." It is a contrast -- even though it doesn't explicitly say so, it contrasts copper with many other metals that react with water. CorinneSD (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, chemistry was my worst subject at school by far, and you sound convincing, so I think you should make the change. Rothorpe (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll see from the exchange under "Copper" on my Talk page that I was wrong about it (and you were right, in spite of your difficulties with chemistry -- which, by the way, was also my worst subject in high school). However, even after the additional information provided by Spinningspark, I still didn't understand some things and asked a few questions but haven't received a reply. So much for my foray into science. CorinneSD (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always good to know that one is right, especially about something one doesn't understand. Rothorpe (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ramones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roxy Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ancient history

Hi, Rothorpe -- I had placed a comment regarding the ancient Persian civilization on the Talk page of the article on Ancient History in early February and today received a reply. However, the reply didn't help me much, so I wrote out three possibilities. I'd appreciate your opinion. CorinneSD (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed further edits to the article. First I undid the very last one. Then I realized that all the edits made by Xave... were not an improvement, so I restored it to an earlier point. The sentence about the Sassanid empire is still there. Perhaps it is all right the way it is. If not, it only needs a minor tweak. CorinneSD (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought they were bad edits as I went through them, and was pleased to see you undid all but the first. The zenith paraphrase is the neatest. Rothorpe (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I just saw today on my Watchlist a notice that that editor (Xavexgoem) had requested and received protection on his/her User page and Talk page. When I clicked on his/her User page, it just says "Retired -- this user is no longer active on Wikipedia", and the Talk page is no longer accessible. I hope my edit reversing all those edits wasn't what precipitated that decision. CorinneSD (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I fear you have done Wikpedia a great service. Rothorpe (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your masterfully expressed sarcasm quite took my breath away. Do you really mean it, or is it just that you don't care what his/her motivation was?

Regarding the sentence we were discussing just above, about the Sassanid empire, in the last paragraph in Ancient history#Ancient Persia, I was about to change it to the one with "zenith" when I re-read the sentence just before it. I think it would make the sentence sound too similar to the previous sentence, and redundant. I think the word "achievements" makes the sentence more specific, so the two sentences go from general to more specific. I decided that the best wording would be:

"In many ways the Sassanid empire witnessed the highest achievements of Persian civilization", just changing "achievement" to "achievements". I then made a few further edits to the paragraph. CorinneSD (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, in the last sentence of that paragraph, do you like the word "formation", or would "development" be better? CorinneSD (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all your changes, but I reckon 'formation' really means that and not 'development'. Rothorpe (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I think the edits were well intended, and there were signs of promise, but they were better reverted. Needed more practice, but threw in the towel instead. Rothorpe (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Suriname

I just made a few copy edits to the article on Suriname in a paragraph that is under discussion on the Talk page of the article. I am not concerned with those issues. I just have a question: is the word "socioeconomic" now used without a hyphen? It is hyphenated there (and not within a quote). Before I removed the hyphen, I thought I'd check with you. Also, in a sentence just before that term, about three lines into the paragraph, it says that Weller, or Welker, says that "the history of the term seems to be tied to the history of ...." I'm wondering if the first "history of" really needs to be there. CorinneSD (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the first 'history' makes a proper distinction. Neutral about the hyphen. Rothorpe (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

George Raft

A comment was just added to the last section of the Talk page on George Raft, adding to a discussion that began in 2008 (in the section just above the last one). The last comment makes sense. Would you like to weigh in on the best approach to this, and perhaps make the decisive edit? CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems it'd make a good footnote. Rothorpe (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know how to add a footnote. CorinneSD (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, watch me! Rothorpe (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that you added the footnote, but I don't understand it. When I click on it, it goes to the footnotes (number 1). When I click on that, it goes to the pertinent page in Google books. That is, I guess, what's supposed to happen. But I don't understand how you added the footnote. When I click on "Edit" at the footnotes, all I see is the word "Reflist" and then a list of bulleted items (which appear below all the numbered footnotes when not in Edit mode). Where is the actual numbered list of footnotes that one can edit? And where did you get all that information about the Google book with all those numbers and symbols? CorinneSD (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Mysterious, isn't it? But the place to look is not in the list at the bottom but at the note at the top. There you will see I have simply copied the link given on the talk page. Hope that's clear. Rothorpe (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it the one at "Sister Eva "Katie" Ranft" or at "1900 census for Ranft Family"? How did you know which one to use? CorinneSD (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. It's just the link given on the talk page, pasted across. Até amanhã! Rothorpe (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Burma

I noticed in the article on Burma that in the second paragraph in the section on "Etymology" there is a lot of pronunciation information for "Burma" and "Myanmar". For some reason, my computer does not show the Burmese script; instead, I see a series of boxes. But that's all right; I don't need that information, but I wonder whether all that pronunciation information belongs in "Etymology". Usually, that kind of information is right at the beginning of the article, and I see some pronunciation information there. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the lead would be too cluttered if the pronunciations in Burmese were included, and since there is obviously need for an etymology section, it might as well be inclusive. I'd like to know what he grave accent on the 'a' in the IPA means, though. Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the series of Burmese words for the Republic of Myanmar in that Etymology section, in what looks like IPA letters and diacritics, and saw what I believe is an "accent grave" in a word like "paidaunze" or something. If you click on the word, it opens up a window headed "IPA help for Burmese". In the right-hand table, the one for vowels, you will see the "a" sounds near the top. The second one has that "a" with an accent grave in the column "Burmese examples" or "examples in Burmese". The English equivalent is in the far right column, and it says "might". So I guess Burmese ài is like our "long i", almost like a diphthong of "long i" plus "e": ah ee, so the à by itself must sound like our long "i" or a very open "a" (as in "father"). Before I saw that, I skimmed the WP article on the IPA. Even looking at the information on vowels, I could not find anything about an "a" with an accent grave on it. I don't even understand how the IPA helps one if one doesn't already know the sounds of the vowels in the vowel chart. CorinneSD (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was exactly what I did and thought. There is also a è, I see. Somewhere in Wikipedia there may be an explanation. Rothorpe (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Chocolate

I just noticed that an editor added the tag "Fact" (I guess meaning "Citation needed") to the article on Chocolate. I read the sentence where the tag was placed and then did a little searching on WP. I found some dates for the earliest consumption of cacao beans in the Americas in Cocoa beans#History. I am not sure whether another WP article can be used as a source, but perhaps the same source that is used in that "History" section could be used for the "Chocolate" article. CorinneSD (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right that WP is not to be used incestuously, and your suggestion sounds good. Rothorpe (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Pali

Yesterday I saw an edit to the article on Pali in which an editor added some information. Before I fixed any grammatical errors, I wanted to check with a linguist to see if the content was all right. You might want to look at my comment and his/her response at User talk:Kwamikagami. Then I went back to the article and started to fix just those two errors and ended up revising more of the paragraph and even leaving a long note to editors (visible in Edit Mode). This is all in the section Pali#Pāli & Paiśācī in the larger section "Origin and development". (a) Could you review my edits (and note to editors) in case you have any suggestions or comments, and (b) something doesn't seem right in the relative size of the headings and sub-headings there. The sub-heading "Pāli & Paiśācī" is the same size as the heading just above it. Can you take a look at that? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, will do. Rothorpe (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The present tense 'it is not considered' suggests to me modern grammarians. I think you have done as much as one can there. If there's no response, you could ask the editor directly. Rothorpe (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Surat

On March 19, 2014, I made some edits to Surat. There is an exchange under the heading of "Textiles" on the article's Talk page. I took the information regarding the adjective "Surti" (describing textiles made in Surat, I believe) from another editor's (SillyBunnies') reply and added a link at "Surti". It goes to a disambiguation page. I didn't know which of the two items to put into the link to disambiguate the link, so I left it. then on March 20, 2014, I got a notice that the link requires disambiguation. I asked Dougweller for help but received no reply. Do you want to look at it? I don't even know if either of the two items on the disambiguation page for "Surti" is the right one. One is for people and the other for a dialect. Can a third item be added there (adjective for anything from Surat), just on the say-so of the editor SillyBunnies? CorinneSD (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think you need a link there, as Surti is just the demonym for Surat, there's no article on Surti textiles, and there's already a link to the dab page in the infobox at the top. Rothorpe (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

For 'thank' read 'bravo'. Rothorpe (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I gave you credit on the Talk page of the article. (But I thought the word demonym meant the word that is used to refer to the people of a country (or other place), and (as I explained to SillyBunnies) that the adjective for things (like cuisine, customs) was not always the same as the demonym.) CorinneSD (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for my careless usage, and thanks for the credit! Rothorpe (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Mumbai

Would you mind taking a look at the discussion regarding the name of Mumbai in two different sections on the article's Talk page? I'm not trying to get into an argument. I just don't understand editor K...'s reasons for removing a chunk of material from the article (which just happens to be a part that you and I had worked on several months ago, just re-wording what had already been there). To me, just the fact that there are some "citation needed" tags in that material (possibly even placed by myself) is not a sufficient reason to remove all of it. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. What do you think of K's latest suggestion, of a single-paragraph version? Rothorpe (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll always lead toward conciseness. It still isn't clear to me what K wanted to keep. I responded on the Talk page. I hope I wasn't too far off. CorinneSD (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, I'll keep watching. Rothorpe (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Would you mind looking at the latest edits to Bangladesh? I cannot judge the change from "Bangla" to "Bengali" (although I seem to recall recent discussions that support the use of the English term "Bengali" over the Bengali name "Bangla" in the article, and anyway, there will be other editors who can judge that), but I wonder why the change from "while" to "although" in one instance and from "while" to "whereas" in another instance. I think some people think that "while" has only one meaning and is only to be used for expressing two actions taking place simultaneously, while I feel that the other use is an elegant and concise way of expressing "although" or "whereas". Also, be sure to look at the single edit made just before these edits by the same editor. CorinneSD (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Now not the latest edit, but one and two previous to the latest. CorinneSD (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As the editor, I can explain. "Bengali" is the dominant term for the dominant language of Bangladesh, as also mirrored in the location of the article Bengali language. As for "while": that means 'during the same time as' and is often used to mean "although", which introduces a clause that expresses a concession. Potential semantic ambiguity is not 'elegant', and there is certainly no need for it. Any other things you'd like me to explain? --JorisvS (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I had no problem with the change from "Bangla" to "Bengali". I still disagree with you regarding "while". Here are the four definitions from Wiktionary:

Conjunction

1. During the same time that. [quotations ▼]

He was sleeping while I was singing.

2. Although. [quotations ▲]

This case, while interesting, is a bit frustrating.

2013 September 28, Kenan Malik, "London Is Special, but Not That Special," New York Times (retrieved 28 September 2013):

While Britain’s recession has been deep and unforgiving, in London it has been relatively shallow.

3. (Northern England, Scotland) Until. [quotations ▼]

I'll wait while you've finished painting.

4. As long as. [quotations ▼]

While you're at school you may live at home.

In the second quotation for definition #2, "while" introduces a subordinate clause. While you could substitute "although" or "whereas" for "while" here, of the three words, "while" is the shortest word so it interrupts the flow of the sentence less than the other two, particularly if the subordinate clause follows the independent clause:

"In London the recession has been relatively shallow while Britain's has been deep and unforgiving."

I'm glad you chimed in here, but I think "Any other things you'd like me to explain?" is a bit disrespectful to both Rothorpe and myself, both of whom have long careers in teaching English and writing. There can be differences of opinion on matters of style, you know. CorinneSD (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed it was 'wrong', it isn't. The only thing is that there English has alternatives that spell out which meaning is intended.

Re the explaining: I only meant to ask if you'd like to hear my reason(s) for other points in my edit. --JorisvS (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. I had misunderstood. Sorry. So you're saying that since "while" can mean (at least) two different things, it is better to use a conjunction that means only one thing, to avoid the slightest chance of ambiguity? Rothorpe, what do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Basically, yes. In fact, I have even occasionally encountered situations where the intended meaning was truly ambiguous. --JorisvS (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand. But if you look at that example above about the recession, you will see that in this case "while" combines the meaning of "at the same time" and "although". To me, that is not ambiguous; it means that "while" has a richer meaning than "although". But I realize that in some cases, it is important to convey only one meaning. Usually, one can tell by the context whether "while" means "at the same time" or "although". Are you saying that you cannot tell from the context which meaning it is (or whether it means both, as in the example above), in those two instances in the article? And if not, is it crucial that it means "although" and not "at the same time"? CorinneSD (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No, in this article it was straightforward enough. I only intended to say that in principle there exists the potential for ambiguity, and not just in theory. In the case a combination of those two meanings is intended, let me suggest simply writing that out: "although at same time". When using "while" for this case the intended meaning is nearly always hard to extract. If by 'richer' it comes down to 'let the readers decide which they prefer', then I'd like to characterize it quite differently, because it actually lowers its communicative value. --JorisvS (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's more important to avoid muddy ambiguity than to achieve rich ambiguity. Rothorpe (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

O.K., O.K. The truth is that I usually go for the least ambiguous choice, too (as you know, Rothorpe). But look at these two changes:

1) Was: "While the Prime Minister is formally appointed by the President, he or she must be a member of parliament who commands the confidence of the majority."

JorisvS changed "while" to "although". That's all right, but I think it is clear here that "while" means "although" (and not "at the same time". Basically, the sentence is saying that the Prime Minister is appointed by the president but must also be an elected member of parliament. I believe this is an unusual combination. I think the problem is not the use of "while" but the construction of the independent clause. The emphasis must be on the fact that he/she is an elected member of parliament. The addition of "also" would make the sentence clearer:

"While the Prime Minister is formally appointed by the President, he or she must also be a member of parliament who commands the confidence of the majority."

But I won't argue with the change to "although".

2) Was: Outside the Hill Tracts, the largest tribal groups are the Santhals and Garos (Achiks), while smaller groups include the Kaibarta, Meitei, Mundas, Oraons, and Zomi.

JorisvS changed "while" to "whereas". I don't see any ambiguity here. "While" here means "[and] at the same time,...". I think "whereas" is a synonym of "while" but sounds more legalistic. I think "while" is perfectly acceptable here.

Well, that's my opinion. CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, 'whereas' is clunky and, as you say, legalistic; I wouldn't have changed it. Rothorpe (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I should also add that I found the sentence above, "While Britain’s recession has been deep and unforgiving, in London it has been relatively shallow," a good example of 'while' having both its meanings, no problem there. Rothorpe (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. Don't you think the first sentence from the article, ""While the Prime Minister is formally appointed by the President, he or she must be a member of parliament who commands the confidence of the majority" is similar (especially if "also" is added to the independent clause, "While the Prime Minister is formally appointed by the President, he or she must also be a member of parliament who commands the confidence of the majority.")? Or do you think it's not similar enough and "although" is better here? CorinneSD (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a good example of concessive 'while' with a hint of time. Rothorpe (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Then you agree with me that "while" was appropriate for the two sentences, and that the one did not need to be changed to "although" and the other did not need to be changed to "whereas". JorisvS, if you're reading this exchange, has the discussion persuaded you? CorinneSD (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No. We really should be saying what we mean to say, not hinting at things. --JorisvS (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not hinting at things. One of the meanings of "while" is "although". They are synonyms. If the additional meaning of time makes sense, too, then there is no ambiguity. It means both. That's what Rothorpe meant when he wrote, just above, "I think it's a good example of concessive 'while' with a hint of time." (The concessive 'while' means "although".) If both meanings (concessive and time) make sense, then there is no reason not to use "while" in that instance. Regarding the other sentence, "Outside the Hill Tracts, the largest tribal groups are the Santhals and Garos (Achiks), while smaller groups include the Kaibarta, Meitei, Mundas, Oraons, and Zomi," it should be clear that "while" does not mean the same as in "While Johnny was watching television, his mother was cooking dinner." But it also doesn't mean "although". "While" is the perfect word to combine these two clauses. CorinneSD (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

But it does not always mean both, so people have to infer what exactly is meant, which is especially so if both meanings are sensible: then the possibility of ambiguity becomes real. As I said above, I have come across instances where both meanings were sensible and was rather difficult to find out which of the two was actually intended. In that case "whereas" is good and is not legalistic (check Wiktionary). --JorisvS (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Kuiper belt

Now, at Kuiper belt, I made a change from an incorrect 'conversely' to what I thought was a neutral 'while'. The structure was "A; however, B. Conversely C". But C contradicts A, not B, so I changed it to "A; however, B, while C". Joris, you changed that 'while' to 'and'. I don't think it's an improvement. The two disagreeing ideas are not parallel, and 'while' was supposed to signal that. Rothorpe (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it had to be changed, because B and C indeed do not contradict each other, but do contradict A. However, aside from simultaneity, 'while' can indicate a concession or opposition (in this latter case being synonymous with "although" or "whereas"; regardless of our views on whether to use it or not). Now, as you've remarked yourself, there is no opposition between B and C, so 'while' does not seem particularly suited either. I don't consider my replacement solution ideal, but at least it indicates the relationship between B and C better. I've now tried another solution. What do you think of that? --JorisvS (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I appreciate you are trying, but it is no more similar than it is converse---it is another. I'm not suggesting 'while' as a concession or opposition, but as a figurative simultaneity, as for example: Joris is reading Marsden's opinion over here, while Corinne is reading Jewitt's different opinion over there. Rothorpe (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Figurative simultaneity", wow. Maybe that is indeed how 'while' gets occasionally used in such construction. But figurative wording is not becoming of an encyclopedia; precise, unambiguous wording is. --JorisvS (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Rothorpe, for removing "Similarly". This was a good place for "while", but no word is better than "Similarly". Joris, you must not have done much reading of great literature in English. You don't seem to understand the meaning of, or correct usage for, "while". The three basic uses are:

1) although;

2) at the same time -- literally -- two actions happening at the same time or two actions that happened at the same time

3) at the same time -- figuratively -- two things that are true at the same time (but action is not necessarily involved). It means, "and, at the same time,...".

It is this third use that you are having trouble understanding. Sometimes, the third use overlaps with the "although" meaning. In this case, the writer wants to convey both the "although" meaning and the figurative "true at the same time" meaning in one word. I can see you object to this overlapping of meaning. But at least try to understand the figurative "true at the same time" meaning. It is a very common use of "while". Instead of writing, "X is true [not necessarily using those words], and, at the same time, Y is true," one can write "X is true while Y is (also) true." "Tom likes sports while Jim is more interested in science."

"Whereas" is used for the figurative "at the same time" meaning of "while", with a slight additional connotation of contrast, but it is a stronger, heavier word than "while". It is used to discuss law, rules, agreements, or when one wants that slightly stronger meaning of contrast. Instead of clinging to your view, try to be open to learning something new. For instance, you might ask why no word is better than "Similarly" in the Kuiper belt article. CorinneSD (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "whereas" is more formal ('heavier' if you will), but that's no problem, because an encyclopedia should use formal language, not informal language. What is it I have trouble understanding exactly? I admitted that it is used as such, didn't I? And I don't see an "although" meaning in A vs. (B & C) as that in the Kuiper belt article. The point I have been trying to make is that, given a choice between two correct words, we should opt for the one with the most specific meaning. Is that really so bad in your opinion? --JorisvS (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

But "while" is perfectly acceptable in formal English. There is a range of formality, however, with gradually increasing levels of formality. Have you ever read a legal document? It is dry, not particularly interesting, and not as easy to read as a well-written non-fiction article in a book or good quality periodical. That's the extremely formal language used in documents. I really don't think you want Wikipedia articles to be written in that style.

Also, if the sentence is well-written (well-constructed), the reader ought to be able to discern the meaning of "while" with no problem. I agree with you that if there is any ambiguity, it should be cleared up.

It is still not clear to me whether you understood the figurative temporal (time) meaning of "while" -- two things are true – they are different, but both are true at the same time. I gave you an example. It is really a very common use of "while". Occasionally, there is a situation where both the concessive meaning of "while" – "Although X, Y." or "Y although X." – and the figurative temporal meaning are true. It's not that it's either the concessive meaning or the temporal meaning and the reader has to figure out which one it is, it's that both are true. I think the example from the Bangladesh article (see discussion just above) about the president being appointed but also having to be a member of parliament is a good example. But that does not happen often, and if you prefer, you can choose to avoid using "while" in those cases. I can understand your wanting to avoid that possible ambiguity. However, substituting "although" for "while" is not always correct. Putting in "although" makes that clause subordinate to, or dependent upon, the other. If that is not really the relationship – and I don't think it is in the case of the president being appointed by the prime minister (or whatever it was) – then "although" would be incorrect. It would be more correct to use a coordinating conjunction (and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet) which makes the two clauses equal in value and neither dependent upon the other. I'm just saying that "although" is not always better than "while". Sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn't.

I read the Kuiper Belt article and saw the changes. I'm going to re-read those changes now to refresh my memory, and then come back to this. CorinneSD (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I just re-read the section. The adverb "conversely" to introduce David Jewett's comment was clearly not correct. His comment was not opposite to Brian G. Marsen's comment. It was another viewpoint on who should be given credit for discovering the Kuiper belt. Rothorpe put "while" before the second (Jewett's) viewpoint and linked the two sentences. You changed "while" to "and". While it is true that Jewett's viewpoint is another -- ie., additional, viewpoint -- so "and" might seem appropriate there, it is also true that it is a different viewpoint -- Jewett disagrees with Marsden -- and "while" contains the meaning of "and, definitely different, but also true" that the conjunction "and" does not have. "While" has a richer meaning than "and", that is, it has more meaning in it than "and". Adding the adverb "Similarly" is not correct. It ignores the fact that Jewett disagrees with Marsden. Jewett's statement is only similar in that he is expressing an opinion about the same issue, but there is nothing similar about the two men's opinions. So, the alternatives are to join the two men's comments with "while" or keep them as two separate sentences with no adverb. They are just two examples of the disagreement about giving credit for the discovery of the Kuiper belt. Marsden says this. Jewett says that. Or Marsden says this, while Jewett says that. CorinneSD (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Swamp

Could you look at the latest edit to Swamp? I don't know if "saltwater" is better than "seawater" (although I kind of like the word "seawater"), but I never thought of "saltwater" as two words, unless perhaps as an adjective, as in "saltwater taffy", a kind of soft, chewy candy made and sold at the seashore in New Jersey. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just checked. Even in Salt water taffy, "salt water" is two words. CorinneSD (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And look in the section "Ingredients" in the article on Salt water taffy. It even defines "salt water" as "seawater". CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, not an improvement, I'd revert. Rothorpe (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Elaeis guineensis

I saw a recent edit to Elaeis guineensis and had a question about a word used in the edit, so I posted a question at the editor's Talk page. The editor is Llewelyn-something. (I tried to create a link but wasn't successful.) I wonder if you would just read it and offer your opinion, either here or there. Thanks.

There has been more than one country called Guinea---Equatorial Guinea and Guinea-Bissau come to mind---so here 'generic' must apply to the whole 'Guinea' region. Rothorpe (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

You may be right, but I still think the term, without any additional explanation, is vague. And who knows whether the "generic" area of Guinea is coterminous with (i.e., has the same outlines as) those two countries combined? CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention New Guinea, of course... Rothorpe (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:LlywelynII responded to my query on his/her talk page in beautifully written English. I'm just wondering if there is a synonym of "generic" that would be more appropriate for geography. I don't presently have access to an on-line dictionary to look for one. Something like "overall" or "all-encompassing".... CorinneSD (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It could be simply omitted without any loss of meaning: 'the name for the area'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You're perfectly right. I don't know why I didn't think of that before. I should have given you credit in the edit summary, but I figured that's not customary. CorinneSD (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ancient history

I just re-worded the caption under a photo in Ancient history. Do you think I captured the correct meaning in my revision?

Yes, but I've juggled it a bit more.

Also, in the section "Pre-history" (not far from the beginning of the article), I noticed a link at the word "fire" (I noticed it because some editor changed the spelling of "fire" and another editor reverted it, just an edit or two back from the latest edit). I wonder whether that is an unnecessary link. I read the guidelines at WP:OVERLINK. It says not to link words that are understood by most readers, unless they are particularly relevant to the article. Even though "fire" is a commonly understood word, is the link justified because it is related to the early history of man and civilization? CorinneSD (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Does the link help the reader of 'Prehistory'? I think not, so it can go, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Burma

I saw an edit to Burma in which an editor changed "On 10 October 2013" to "In October 2013", re-worded the rest of the sentence, and added a link. Since I could not judge the correctness of the link, I asked Omnipaedista to judge the edit, particularly the removal of a precise date, which I thought was odd. I see he put the date ("On 10 October 2013") back in but did not change anything else. Now I'm going to ask you whether you think the re-wording of the sentence was an improvement. It seems to me that it was simpler and more direct before and is now kind of convoluted. Before: X announced.... Now: It was reported that X had announced.... What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the ref contradicts the exact date. Otherwise, it's unnecessarily indirect, I agree. Do you fancy looking at the ref? Rothorpe (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(I wasn't questioning Omnipaedista's edit. I was just wondering about the rest of the sentence.

Yes, I was commenting on the IP's change to reported style: not an improvement. Rothorpe (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC))

I found the article in the reference. The information is from an article from a newsletter or magazine in Myanmar. The article is titled "Myanmar to Adopt Metric System" and it was published on 10 October 2013. So, we can see that the date of 10 October 2013 was correct. Here it is:

Myanmar is preparing to adopt the metric system or the International System of Units (SI System) as the country's official system of measurement, according to the Ministry of Commerce.

One of the reasons is to streamline the weight measuring process in exporting agricultural products such as rice, beans and maize for which various measurement systems have been widely applied, according to Dr. Pwint San, Deputy Minister for Commerce.

"In exporting rice and other agri-products, kilograms is the common measurement unit, but Myanmar has used FPS (foot-pound-second) and CGS (centimetre-gram-second) Systems in measuring goods. Therefore, initiatives will need to be launched to replace them with the SI System, and to achieve the widespread use of metric units among farmers, sellers and the whole country at large," said Dr. Pwint San.

The deputy minister discussed the subject in parliament after MP Aye Naing of Sinbaowel Constituency asked for legislating on measurement units according to international standards.

"Weight and other measurements as well as quality indices to be legislated under the law for standards should lead to a position convenient for international trading. Now there are opportunities for Myanmar to trade with European countries and the United States, and so the standards used in our country should match with those used in the others," he added.

The deputy minister also pointed out the clumsiness of using different measurement systems. Unnecessary costs and delays also occur when weights have to be re-measured, and goods have to be re-packaged; especially when trading with countries who do not accept certain measurements.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Science and Technology has been tasked with announcing the metric system as the official measurement system of Myanmar.

It looks like Dr. Pwint San, Deputy Minister for Commerce, is explaining the reasons for the change. If you look at the last paragraph, it looks like the Ministry of Science and Technology was given the authority to announce "the metric system as the official measurement system of Myanmar", but since Dr. Pwint San is the Deputy Minister for Commerce, couldn't be said to have announced it?

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly he could, but I imagine there are different levels of officialdom involved, and the MST announcement is the real deal. Rothorpe (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

In the effort it took to find and copy that article here and then pose my question, I didn't even catch that Dr. San was from a different ministry from the Ministry of Science and Technology. So thanks for mentioning that. The first paragraph, "Myanmar is preparing to adopt the metric system or the International System of Units (SI System) as the country's official system of measurement, according to the Ministry of Commerce," seems to say that the Ministry of Commerce announced (on 10 October 2013) that Myanmar was preparing to adopt the Int'l. System of Units (SI System)." The last paragraph says that the Ministry of Science and Technology "was given the authority to announce", but probably had not yet announced, that Myanmar will adopt the metric system. A fine distinction, it seems to me. CorinneSD (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, bureaucrats doing their usual thing. Rothorpe (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going to shorten and simplify the sentence (the one I wrote to you about in the first place), but I realized that I could not tell from that article whether Dr. San had actually announced something on 10 October 2013, so I left a note on the article's Talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, good luck in getting a reply. Rothorpe (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Mirth, mischief and mayhem as the Prime Minister goes live!

There is a whole lot of mirth and mischief going on as Sir George performs for the first time in his brand new article. Aside from being a bit fat, the article is more than likely full of missed links, dodgy prose, iffy images and pathetic punctuation, all of which I expect to be carpeted for by my wonderful peers. A glance at my efforts would be most welcome if you could afford the time. Cassianto^talk 19:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on finishing it. I'll see if I can find a nit to pick... Rothorpe (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

There you go. Excellent article; I managed to find a few things to correct. Rothorpe (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! As always, your diffs have been an education for me. If you get time, could you pop over to Sir George's talk page where I would appreciate your thoughts on a BrEng question. Hope your well! Cassianto^talk 23:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, done. 'Shakespearian' seems the most common option. Rothorpe (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, now adopted! Cassianto^talk 00:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Since when I've decided I prefer 'Shakespearean', but there you go. Rothorpe (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Milton H. Erickson

Rothorpe, would you mind looking at the latest edits to Milton H. Erickson? I cannot judge the change in format for the page number, but I'm interested in the other edits. "Citation needed" tags were added, but it almost seems as if the anecdotes came from the reference just mentioned before the anecdotes. What do you think? Also, if those are quotes from the reference, nothing should be changed in them, right? To me, all caps (LAST) shows oral emphasis on the word (as Erickson was making his humorous point) better than quotation marks ("last"). CorinneSD (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You may well be right, but without the books, how can we tell? Still, you could try removing the tags (cn ones are particluarly obtrusive), summarising what you said here, and see if anyone objects. Rothorpe (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nutmeg

Could you read my comment re Nutmeg on my Talk page? User talk:CorinneSD. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your points are well made. So many edits in one 'edit'! Rothorpe (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Surat

Hello, Rothorpe! I hope all is well with you. I just noticed a few edits made by an editor with no talk page. I removed two links at "diamond" and "silk" that I thought were unnecessary. I read through the section on Surat#Culture and festivals and before I tackle fixing the obvious errors, I thought I'd ask you whether the additions should remain. They seem to be unsourced. Do details about cultural festivals and cuisine all have to be sourced? What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine, and you? I really don't know how obvious these references are to readers, but if you think something needs a citation, why not just put in a 'cn' tag? Then a bot will come along and date it and you can see what happens. Rothorpe (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine, thank you. I saw you made a few minor edits to the article, so I decided to go ahead and work on it. I added a few "clarification needed" tags and notes. Hopefully, the editor who added the material will see them. I suppose I should, as you suggested, also add "citation needed" tags. CorinneSD (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those hidden notes you use are a very good idea. Never done one myself... Rothorpe (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I find that editors who are interested in that topic respond more quickly to those note than to a comment on the Talk page of the article. They are especially useful in helping someone who has just added new material. CorinneSD (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'll try to remember that. Rothorpe (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Wetland

I saw a silly edit (adding a space) in Wetland, so undid the edit, and then re-read that whole section ("Definitions") and made a few small edits. I'd like to know what you think of them, and I have a question. At the end of the last sentence of the section, it says, "throughout the wet season". I'm wondering whether "throughout" is necessary. I had changed "remain" to "will persist" (changing the verb to "persist" and then putting it into future tense to parallel "will saturate"), and I think "through" makes sense after the verb "persist". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting change; yes, I think it would work. Rothorpe (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I made the change. CorinneSD (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, what do you think of the colon followed by a capital in the first paragraph? I would have put one or the other, but not both. Rothorpe (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Either one would do. I removed the colon. CorinneSD (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Plain Words

Having bought the new edition of Plain Words last week I am working on the article, with slightly manic zeal. When I've finished, might you, I wonder, be interested in running a critical eye over it? I may even put it up for formal peer review. Either way I should greatly value the input of someone I know has a feel for and a delight in the Eng Lang. (Afterthought about "learnt" etc, my four pet shibboleths are "focused", "biased", "budgeted" and "benefited" – but I digress, no apology required, constant digression being the saving grace of senile reminiscence.) Tim riley (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, flattery will get you everywhere. I had a look at the old article and was surprised it was so short, so I'm off to peruse the work in progress now, yum yum. As for those four verbs, I assume you're referring to the undoubled consonants, which are American, I believe. As I always say, old Noah didn't go far enough. Focust and biast would've been impressive, though budgittid and benefittid perhaps a trifle excessive. Rothorpe (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Art glass

I just noticed an edit to Art glass in which an editor corrected the spelling of the word "otherwise". However, the line itself seems incomplete to me. It's in a list of three items in Art glass#Art glass decorating techniques. Should be be, "Colors intermixed or otherwise combined"? (joined? utilized? employed?) What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like historic vandalism. I'll do some sleuthing. Rothorpe (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, no. It was added like that, 18:37, 3 October 2012, by User:Markdarrly. Perhaps he'll be along to amend it, now I've mentioned him. Otherwise... Rothorpe (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, he won't, as he's not been around since 2012. So much for my Sherlock Holmes act. I don't know what word to suggest. Rothorpe (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, "combined" is awfully close to "inter-mixed", so perhaps "employed", "utilized", or even "applied" would be better. CorinneSD (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

But perhaps it just means not intermixed, in which case 'otherwise' is sufficient. Rothorpe (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's about decorating techniques, this item about decorating glass with colors, so the colors have to be added somehow. I think "or otherwise" leaves the reader hanging. Maybe it's a British idiom? How about "or otherwise incorporated"? CorinneSD (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that'll do nicely. Rothorpe (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Arthur "Guitar Boogie" Smith

Sorry. I appreciate your catching my error. Obviously I would have known what that sloppy edit meant if I had actually looked at his birth and death dates.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologise, anyone can make a mistake like that---and that bit's been removed now anyway. Rothorpe (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Tierra del Fuego

What do you think of the links added at Tierra del Fuego? Is that a case of overlinking? CorinneSD (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought so, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

I noticed an edit to Sri Lanka in which an editor added a citation. I cannot judge the citation at all, but I noticed two things in that same paragraph about which I wanted to ask your opinion:

1) Should "Frescoes" be capitalized in "Sigiriya Frescoes"?

2) Should "Rock" and "Fortress" be capitalized in "Sigiriya Rock Fortress"?

And I think one of these phrases is missing the definite article "the"; I need to go back and look at it. CorinneSD (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's "Sigiriya Rock Fortress". I think it needs "the" before it. Go ahead and make any needed edits. CorinneSD (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

They're not capitalised at the Sigiriya article, so no. Anyway, as you suggest, I'll make any necessary edits. Rothorpe (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Done.

I see you made the corrections. They're fine, of course, but would you take another look at the sentences? I see an unexplained shift from present tense in one sentence to past tense in the next. It is possible that the gardens, etc., were there in ancient times are are no longer there, and the moats, etc., still are there, but I think if that is the case there should be some explanation or indication of that. CorinneSD (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "...were gardens, ponds..." That's the only past verb before the subject changes to the hospital. I reckon we have to take it on trust, assume its implication that they are no longer there is correct. Someone with first-hand knowledge has witnessed their absence, or will do so. Rothorpe (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

All right. I'll leave it. CorinneSD (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Morus (plant)

I noticed a few edits to Morus (plant). There is now a spelling error ("purifing", when it should be "purifying"), but before I correct that I decided to look at the edits just before that. I'm not sure about them. It seems the first sentence about food colorant is unsourced, and I'm not sure whether the re-wording of the rest is an improvement or not. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

'May prove useful' is a bit tentative, but 'hold potential use' is too odd. 'Are potentially useful'? Rothorpe (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Made some changes. What do you think? (By the way, the "clarification needed" tag was placed there by me a while ago. Now I finally understand the whole section and was able to clarify it.) CorinneSD (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, excellent. Rothorpe (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius

An editor just changed the spelling of a word at Marcus Aurelius. The new spelling is definitely American English. I don't know if the old spelling is correct, or British English spelling, or what. CorinneSD (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the British spelling. Rothorpe (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Then should the edit be undone? CorinneSD (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If the rest is in British, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It's such a long article... I skimmed it to look for British spellings and found none except "haemmorage" or something like that in an early section on Hadrian-something. (I think American would be "hemmorage".) So, I'm going to leave the edit as it is. CorinneSD (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You missed the -ours?! Rothorpe (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I did. Where are they? Or I'll just trust you that they're there, and you can undo the edit and put the word back the way it was. CorinneSD (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't you know about the 'find' tool? Via the three horizontal bars in the top right? That's very useful. Rothorpe (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't know about that. I was wondering why there wasn't a search tool. I'll take a look at it. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)