User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Landscape

I made some edits to Landscape -- most were punctuation, and maybe I added or changed a word here and there. But after I saved my changes, I looked at the article and saw some of the paragraphs I had worked on were indented. They look like block quotes, but I couldn't see specific sources mentioned just before them, except for one. Now I'm wondering if maybe I shouldn't have made any changes at all in those indented paragraphs. They didn't look like block quotes in edit mode. Would you mind looking at all my edits and seeing if there are any I should put back the way they were? Thank you CorinneSD (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, your description is what I have just seen. Presumably they are quotes, yes, though one would expect more attributions. But you don't seem to have changed any wording in any of them, so I wouldn't worry about it. Rothorpe (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Gary Cooper

An editor who is doing a lot of good work on Gary Cooper just changed "yearlong" to "year-long" and "big city" (used as an adjective) to "big-city". I wondered what you thought of those. I've never seen "big city" hyphenated. I may be wrong, but I thought when "yearlong" was used as an adjective, it was one word. CorinneSD (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I prefer 'year-long' with the hyphen, otherwise it reminds me too much of 'headlong'. I suppose the idea of 'big-city gangsters' is to avoid making the gangsters themselves sound big, but I agree it's unnecessary.Rothorpe (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Then I'll leave them as is. CorinneSD (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Christmas traditions

After reading the entire talk page of Christmas traditions (Hafspajen had directed me to a recent discussion at the end of the page) -- sometimes the talk page is as interesting as the article -- I just skimmed the article, mostly looking at the pictures. I noticed a lot of unnecessary capital letters in the captions. I'm wondering if you feel like working on that. Just a mini-project. CorinneSD (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Rothorpe (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy!

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

Thanks, Paine. Happy Christmas and New Year to you too. Rothorpe (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy!

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! CorinneSD

Thanks, Corinne. Happy Christmas and New Year to you too. Rothorpe (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

West Frisian language

Which is correct -- c. or ca.? CorinneSD (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

C. That's the traditional version I remember from days of yore. Ca. is deprecated, as the MoS puts it. C. is prettier and shorter! Rothorpe (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

JorisvS Rather than simply reverting your edit, I thought I would ask you what you think. See the first item in the table at WP:MOSABBR#Miscellaneous shortenings. CorinneSD (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

They're all used and personally I prefer "ca.", but apparently Wikipedia prefers "c.", so feel free to revert. --JorisvS (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

JorisvS, I prefer "ca.", too, but I guess Wikipedia likes the shortest versions of abbreviations. CorinneSD (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ian Fleming

You might be interested in the comment I put at Talk:Ian Fleming. CorinneSD (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm watching. Rothorpe (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Rothorpe! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Have a great 2015! Rothorpe (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri

I need to ask you something. I was looking at the latest edit to Dante Alighieri when I noticed the following sentence, which appears at the end of the second paragraph in Dante Alighieri#Life:

• This suggests that Alighiero or his family may have enjoyed some protective prestige and status, although some suggest that the politically inactive Alighiero was of such low standing that he was not considered worth exiling.

1) I am trying to figure out a way to avoid the use of "some" twice in the sentence;

2) also, I wonder if "prestige and status" is not a little wordy, and whether one word would suffice here.

I thought of these possible re-wordings:

(a) This suggests that Alighiero or his family may have enjoyed a degree of protective prestige although some suggest that the politically inactive Alighiero was of such low standing that he was not considered worth exiling.

(b) This suggests that Alighiero or his family may have enjoyed some protective prestige although it has been suggested that the politically inactive Alighiero was of such low standing that he was not considered worth exiling.

(c) This suggests that Alighiero or his family may have enjoyed some protective prestige; on the other hand it has been suggested that the politically inactive Alighiero was of such low standing that he was not considered worth exiling.

(d) This suggests that Alighiero or his family may have enjoyed some protective prestige; on the other hand it has been suggested that the politically inactive Alighiero was not considered worth exiling.

Or some other wording. Any thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at this yesterday but the little computer wasn't behaving itself. I thought: why not just omit the first 'some', as such things are never absolute. But now I'm not sure that would read well. Anyway, of the above I prefer (d). Rothorpe (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Cebu City

Toward the end of the section Cebu City#Education is a paragraph that begins "Other noteworthy institutions". There are a lot of spaced hyphens in this paragraph. I'm wondering if they should be changed to spaced en-dashes or unspaced hyphens. CorinneSD (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I've made a couple of tweaks there. The problem is the institutions use endashes as part of their name, irritatingly, in order to tack on 'University' after being upgraded. Rothorpe (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec

Hello, Rothorpe! I've just finished reading the article on Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. In the section Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec#In popular culture, I noticed that all or most of the items in the list are complete sentences, but all except the last one are without a final period (full stop). Don't you think there should be periods there? If so, do you want to add them? CorinneSD (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've put them in. Also, it looks as if 'most well-known' is here to stay, though I continue to resist it. Rothorpe (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess I must have become accustomed to it because I didn't even notice it. I think it's because it follows the pattern of long adjectives: most popular, most expensive, etc. But you're right; it should be "best-known". CorinneSD (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Good! I'll keep on correcting it. Rothorpe (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean that "least well-known" should be "least-known"? CorinneSD (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely! Rothorpe (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

...Unless of course the contrast is among a lot of well-knowns. Rothorpe (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean you can't have a "least-known" among a group of well-knowns? CorinneSD (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, but 'least well known' would make more sense there. Rothorpe (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Pierre-August Renoir

Before I read the article on Toulouse-Lautrec, I read the article on Pierre-August Renoir and made a few minor edits. Now, I see another editor has undone one of my edits in which I omitted "his" from "his first acclaim" and reversed the order of the two halves of the sentence. I feel my version is better, but I want to ask you what you thought. The other edits made at the same time by that editor are not undoing any of my edits. (I had seen "old-fashion" but left it; I wasn't sure if it was a special term in book printing.) CorinneSD (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I left a note on the editor's talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The sentence has been re-written and now sounds much better. CorinneSD (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was all OK. Rothorpe (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

H. L. Mencken

I undid an edit at H. L. Mencken that added links at the word "satire" and "Sinclair Lewis" in a "See also" section, and they were undone. I feel like adding the link to Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Regarding the Sinclair Lewis link, I think, since it's in a See also entry, it is not necessary to understand the article. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, but rightly or wrongly I regard See also as a bit of a free-for-all so would tend to let it go. Rothorpe (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I just looked for any other instances of the word "satire" in the article and found only one. It's in the middle of the section H. L. Mencken#The man of ideas. It's not linked there. MOS says a word should be linked in the lede, if it appears there, and can be linked at first mention in the body of the article. So, by that guideline, the instance I found should be linked, and, if it is, the other one would not need to be linked. But I'm not going to bother with it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I went there to link it myself, but decided immediately that it would look silly in context. It's a common enough word, after all. Rothorpe (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. CorinneSD (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

T. E. Lawrence

I've just finished reading the article on T. E. Lawrence and making a few minor edits. I wanted to ask you about a few things:

1) At the beginning of the second paragraph in T. E. Lawrence#Middle East archaeology (and one other place) is the following:

• Lawrence studied History at Jesus College, Oxford.

I wonder if "History" has to be capitalized. (It's capitalized in the other location as well.)

I don't think it has to be, but I've noticed that school subjects often are, especially in the context of degrees. (More replies tomorrow.) Rothorpe (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

2) Later in that same section, in the paragraph that begins, "In December 1910", is the following sentence:

• As the site lay near an important crossing on the Baghdad Railway, knowledge he gathered there subsequently proved to be of considerable importance to the military.

If you look at my edits in the Revision History, you will see that I added "he" before "gathered" and moved "subsequently" from the end of the sentence to just before "proved". I didn't like the adverb "subsequently" at the end of he sentence.

(a) Do you approve of that move of "subsequently" to closer to the verb? If not, I'll put it back.

(b) If so, what do you think of changing "subsequently" to "later"?

No, I think what you did is fine. Rothorpe (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

3) At the end of the fifth paragraph in T. E. Lawrence#Middle East archaeology is the following sentence:

• In 1913 Lawrence and Woolley brought back to Oxford for a trip Dahoum and the foreman Hamoudi.

Does this sentence sound all right to you? It almost sounds as if a non-native speaker of English wrote it. Also, "Dahoum and the foreman Hamoudi" are mentioned out of the blue. Dahoum (with a link) is mentioned much later in the article. What do you suggest?

Yes, very EFL. Put them in the right place after 'brought' and link both. I wouldn't bother to remove the later link. Rothorpe (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

4) In the block quote in the section T. E. Lawrence#Fall of Damascus, there was a double hyphen between "lectures" and "film shows". I thought double hyphens were not to be used and that either a spaced en-dash or an unspaced em-dash should be used instead. I changed it to an unspaced em-dash. Now I'm wondering whether "film shows", with the accompanying participial phrase, is an explanatory or alternate description of the lectures (in which case an en- or em-dash would be correct) or a combination term, like "lectures/film shows" (in which case a slash or hyphen might be correct). What do you think?

It's explanatory, so the em-dash is correct. Rothorpe (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's all. CorinneSD (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, hope that answers your questions. Rothorpe (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

R. I have as much respect for you as any editor here at WikiP. Especially the help and advice you give CorinneSD almost daily. Indeed, I watchlist your talk page to continue to learn things. I also understand the point that you were making with the edits on LR's article. However, does that mean that every article which mentions an episode of The Simpson, The Waltons (or, say, a chapter of Les Miserables) going to have the first word put into lower case? There is also WP:EGG to consider as that would change the title of 100s of 1000s of TV shows, films, books, songs, poems etc. Many thanks for your fix. I was going to change it to "and in the 1960's series The Avengers episode "Dressed to Kill" " but you got done first. Yours matches the entry with Steptoe and Son so it is better. Thanks for your time and if anything in the edit summary or here causes offense I apologize wholeheartedly as that is not my intent. Best wishes for your 2015. MarnetteD|Talk 01:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind words and constructive approach. The short answer to your question is: No, because that's not what I did. If we're talking about an episode of a series and we use the definite article, then 'the' is there because 'episode' follows: 'the episode'. So the question is how to avoid it clashing with a second The when that's how the name of the series begins. The answer is to omit the The of the series. But of course, as we can't hear capital letters or lower case we may assume we are hearing the The of the title; but we aren't. So in the examples you give: the Simpsons episode, the Waltons episode, yes. The names of the series become adjectives and drop the The. I suppose one might also talk about a Misérables chapter, but the fact that Les means 'The' is usually ignored, so 'a Les Misérables chapter' would be more common, I reckon, though less elegant for my money. Hope that answers your question. Rothorpe (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. It is much appreciated.MarnetteD|Talk 02:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure. And a happy 2015 to you too! Rothorpe (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Joe Williams (jazz singer)

A page you previously contributed to, Joe Williams (jazz singer), had many prior revisions deleted due to copyright issues. For details please see Talk:Joe Williams (jazz singer). Your prior version may be temporarily restored upon request if you need it for reference to re-incorporate constructive edits that do not make use of the copyright infringing material. Please feel free to leave me a talk message if you need this done. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

IP reverts

@CorinneSD: @MarnetteD: @Paine Ellsworth: An anonymous contributor at Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style has reverted my edits, which were only attempts to restore a long-standing status quo that he/she had changed. I don't disagree with everything, just feel that most of it is unnecessary (e.g. en- to em-dashes), and the claim in the last edit summary, that American dictionaries only give the spelling 'nonbreaking' is particularly absurd. Any comments? Rothorpe (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree with your assessment. The last edit summary is both iffy (to say the least) and violates WP:ENGVAR - although I don't know how much that applies to a MOS. I would say that it is worth a thread on the talk page or even at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) if needed. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support and assessment. Rothorpe (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I undid all the edits. I don't agree with any of them. I provided links for each except for "versus" since there was no more space in the edit summary box. I think "vs." is fine there. CorinneSD (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! Yes, I think 'versus' is like 'circa', never spelt out under normal circumstances. Rothorpe (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. In my edit summary, I said "Comma after year [is] not necessary to illustrate [date] style". I was thinking that I would even go back and remove the comma after the year in the American-style date because it doesn't always have that comma. A semi-colon, colon, or period might follow it, but I think it may be a good idea to leave it there simply to get people to put a comma after the year if it is in the middle of a sentence. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was why I agreed with the IP to put it in: leaving it out there encourages leaving it out elsewhere, and there's already far too much of that on Wikipedia; in fact it's a mistake so common that I often can't be bothered to correct it when it occurs in isolation (hangs head). Who decided the day should come after the month anyway? George Washington? Rothorpe (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I'm glad we agree on that (but the IP editor had moved the comma to outside of the template (so would not appear in green), and a comma is not needed after that phrase beginning with "Both". It's only needed to show the date style so should be within the template, as it now is. (I know we agree on this because I saw your edit moving the comma back into the example.) Do you think a hyphen is needed between "trimmed" and "down" in "a trimmed down version"? I don't think it is. CorinneSD (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding the date style, the full British date style is "the 31st of December", which I believe can be reduced to "the 31st December" or even "31st December" (correct me if I'm wrong -- I really don't know). The full American style is "December the 31st", which is reduced to "December 31st". Between "the 31st December" and "December 31st", the latter is shorter. "31st December" and "December 31st" are equal in length. Logically, "the 31st [day of] December" is clearer than "December [the] 31st [day]", but in terms of speed, the American style is quicker to say. But to me, it makes more sense to say the month first. It first narrows down the field to one of the twelve months; then one only has to listen for the number of the day. While doing that, there's little chance the month will go out of one's head. When one says the number first, one must keep the number in mind as one continues to listen for the month, kind of like keeping a lot of words in mind while waiting for the final verb in a German sentence, so to me, it requires more mental work. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I know that, per WP:BADDATEFORMAT using "st", "nd" etc in dates and ordinals is deprecated here at WikiP. Now this may not be relevant to what you are discussing CorinneSD so my apologies if this confuses things. I wanted to mention it just in case it was relevant. Cheers to you both in these last few hours of 2014 (depending on where you live) :-) MarnetteD|Talk 18:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Marnette. I guess I wasn't clear, but when I added the "st" to 31, I was referring to the way dates are read, that is, spoken, not the way they are written. We were wondering where the difference originated, and I was just speculating about the possible reason. If you have any ideas or information, I'd love to hear them. Also, I wish you a Happy New Year! CorinneSD (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. Things for over my head so often that the friction has caused a bald spot heehee. I don't know the origins of the difference but if any of R's talk page watchers do I will be interested to learn about it. Thanks for your wishes CSD! MarnetteD|Talk 19:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As I say on my user page, both styles are acceptable in both varieties of English, and Wikipedia's hardening of the distinction must have originated in transatlantic edit wars, as there is no doubt that one is more common here and the other there. I like your rationale, Corinne, though I felt like cheekily asking 'then why not put the year first?'---but a year is a big, astronomical thing. The beginning, though, was a bit confusing, as it wasn't immediately clear whether you were referring to spoken or written. British says 'the first of January' or 'January the first', and no other version is normal. In my experience, American adds 'January first' to those. Rothorpe (talk) 04:09, New Year's Day 2015 (UTC)

Seleucid Empire

Hello, Rothorpe -- Do you agree with Omnipaedista? See User talk:Omnipaedista#Seleucid Empire. CorinneSD (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I had heard of the term, but then I realised it was only because of Thomas Hardy's novel The Dynasts. 'Archaic', the remover calls it; yes, 'ruler' would be much more natural. But if he insists on keeping it (and it looks like he might), a link to Wiktionary would help. Rothorpe (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you put the link? I'm not sure how to do it. CorinneSD (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought I knew but my attempts all failed. Rothorpe (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Cardoon

Rothorpe, can you check the name of the park in the latest edit to Cardoon? CorinneSD (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it exists. Rothorpe (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I know, but I wanted to you check whether the additional words are needed. CorinneSD (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the full name is Parque Natural de Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina, according to Google. Rothorpe (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Robin Maugham, 2nd Viscount Maugham

Would you mind taking a look at the latest edit to Robin Maugham, 2nd Viscount Maugham? I don't understand the unexplained deletion of a book title. CorinneSD (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleting without an edit summary is never acceptable. Rothorpe (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct placement of periods and commas

About a week ago I put in my two cents regarding a discussion that had already been closed on the talk page of Ian Fleming in Talk:Ian Fleming#Another opinion. SchroCat and Cassianto have disagreed with me. The discussion somehow got transferred to my talk page (I don't remember how). See User talk:CorinneSD/Archive 11#Commas and periods inside or outside of quotation marks. Those two editors consider the matter closed, so I just dropped it, but I see that Anomalocaris has continued the discussion. I don't know if you want to take the time to review the original discussion, my additional comment, then the discussion on my talk page, and then respond to Anomalocaris's latest comment, or whether we should just advise A to forget it all. SchroCat and Cassianto's minds have already been made up, so there's no persuading them. CorinneSD (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked at this a while ago, and found it a bit of a maze. Will now review. Rothorpe (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, once again I can't see what Anomalocaris is driving at. You're welcome to try to explain here, if you feel there is a difference between the BBC one and the others. Rothorpe (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. ;) In a little while. In order to do that I'll have to review everything, and I want to take a break now. CorinneSD (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No hurry. And that caused an edit conflict, so that my treatise on date formats has been discarded. Probably just as well! I'm taking a break too. Time to grapple with stategy at chess.com (i.e. stare at the screen for a bit). Rothorpe (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You didn't have to lose what you typed. When you see "Edit conflict", you go all the way to the bottom of the page, highlight what you had typed, [maybe left-click once in that highlighted area to place the cursor, but may not be necessary], then right-click, click "Copy", move to the end of the edit window at the top of the page, type {{ec}}, then right-click, click "Paste", and save. I hope you'll re-type your thoughts when you have time. CorinneSD (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'll refer to that next time it happens, but it's not a procedure I can memorise for long. Anyway, date formats covered below. Rothorpe (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this is the dots and inverted commas section, oh well... I shall review all that tomorrow. Rothorpe (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: I've had another look and, goody, it seems we are on the same side. It hinges on the definition of 'fragment': they are mistaken in thinking that the punctuation must be moved outside the inverted commas just because what is left of the quoted utterance is no longer a complete sentence. Right? Rothorpe (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is their belief, and their understanding of "complete sentence" is "the entire sentence that is in the original text", not "grammatically complete sentence". So I would say you are right: "they are mistaken in thinking that the punctuation must be moved outside the inverted commas just because what is left of the quoted utterance is less than the full sentence in the original". Moving the comma or period to outside the final quotation marks when the material being quoted is an incomplete sentence is something I have been doing, a concession to the "logical quotations" guideline that I saw here in WP's MoS; it's not done in American style. The thing they are arguing is that if the material being quoted is not the entire sentence in the original -- a fragment in their view -- the period or comma goes outside the quotation marks even it it is a grammatically complete sentence. This is what I disagree with. They quoted three British style guides. I just read them again carefully. It seems to me that they each say something very different. The Gowers guideline says the exact opposite of the Guardian guideline. I have no problem with the BBC guideline, if "complete sentence" is interpreted as being a grammatically complete sentence, and I think that is what was meant because of the contrast to "a word or phrase" in the second half of the sentence. Another thing I'd like to point out is that in all the reading I've done on WP, I've never seen the style mentioned in the Gowers and Guardian guidelines. I've consistently seen the style mentioned in the BBC guideline and the WP MoS guidelines, if "fragment" is interpreted as less than a complete sentence, and I think it should be, and is, because that's the way WP articles are punctuated. We'd have to change the punctuation in a million WP articles to conform to SchroCat and Cassianto's style. I went through the table in the discussion that was closed and found that I agreed with Anomalocaris in every instance. I believe SchroCat and Cassianto are completely misinterpreting the guidelines, so their punctuation is wrong in every instance. SchroCat may have issues with Anomalocaris; I don't know what transpired before, but if his/her attitude toward me is any indication, it shows he/she is not very open to views different from his/her own. CorinneSD (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of writing in various places here on a subject to which I'd hitherto given little thought. But I certainly agree with what you and Anomalocaris say about logical quotes, at least until we get to the style guides, when I find concentration becomes difficult: I read Gowers and one or two others years ago, but had never heard of the Chicago before WP. It's absurd to expect us to respect an original text we can only imagine. Rothorpe (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, SchroCat suggested it was necessary to look at the quoted material in its original context to determine whether it was the full sentence from the original text or only part of it. I had never heard that punctuation was related to that. To me, punctuation is more related to grammar (and phrasing). Did you read the three statements from Gowers, the Guardian, and the BBC on my talk page (Archive 11)? To me, they all say something different, and the only one that matches WP MoS is the BBC statement. CorinneSD (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at all of them. Each time I read them they say different things. But only the LQ principle matters here. Rothorpe (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Rothorpe!

Happy New Year!

Rothorpe,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. CorinneSD (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, igualmente. Only 5 hours to go here... Rothorpe (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius

I was just looking at the latest edit to Marcus Aurelius. Although the way the sentence was before the edit was made is not ideal, I'm not crazy about the resulting sentence, either. I can imagine that I left the sentence that way when I went through the article with a fine-toothed comb a year ago. I was trying to see how the article looked when I last edited the article in December 2013, but I can only see the parts I edited. Is there a way to see the entire article as of December 31, 2013? CorinneSD (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Go to View history and scroll down until you come to that date, and then click on the date in the list. I had to click on 'Earlier 50' a couple of times. Rothorpe (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a change from bad to worse. Rothorpe (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I went way back to October 12, 2009, and found the entire sentence. I think that somewhere along the line the first part of the sentence got cut off. It now makes perfect sense. CorinneSD (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, good sleuthing. Rothorpe (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nutmeg

Hello, Rothorpe! Happy New Year!!! When you have time, would you mind reviewing the recent series of edits to Nutmeg? You'll have to go through them slowly; there are quite a few. I'm not sure I agree with all of them. Here is another editor who doesn't like the "There is/There are" construction. I don't know what the best course of action is here. Also, Sminthopsis84, what do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Same old story, too many edits in one. I'll support changing some of those. Rothorpe (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the "there is/there are" construction is a perfectly acceptable construction in English, and not less elegant or academic than "X exist/exists". I also think "Thence" is concise and still in use. I'm going to change a few things back. CorinneSD (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think those are fine now that you've worked on them. (Indeed, there were too many edits in one, and they were quite mechanical. Could we perhaps outlaw copyediting, as in these changes that I reacted to?) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for dealing with that. Rothorpe (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84 I just went through all those edits at Systema Naturae. A few of them are all right, like changing "nineteenth century" to "19th century", but a number of them I would have left as they were. There are a few that I can't judge, such as proper reference format. What do you both recommend:

(a) Undo all of them in one revert, and Sminthopsis84 go back and fix the few that were all right; or

(b) let me or Rothorpe manually change those items that were all right before the edits were made back to the way they were (I think it's about 2/3 should go back and 1/3 are all right). CorinneSD (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It is probably pointless because the IP person is unlikely to come back to notice, but I prefer to leave an elaborate explanation in an edit summary for each (type of) change in the hope that the person might learn something. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Rothorpe!

Happy New Year!

Rothorpe,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Sent using mass message sender. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from User:Northamerica1000/Mailing list.

Many thanks, and the same to you. Rothorpe (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Enneagram of Personality

I saw a reference on Bladesmulti's talk page to Enneagram of Personality. It looks like an interesting article. I thought you might be interested in reading it. CorinneSD (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, fascinating, thanks. I'd never come across the enneagram before. Rothorpe (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Michael Tippett

I just glanced at the summary of today's featured article on Michael Tippett on the Main page and saw something that didn't sound right. I left a note at Talk:Michael Tippett#Conciseness. What do you think of it? (I haven't yet read the article.) CorinneSD (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Pierre-Auguste Renoir

What do you think of the change from "Pierre-Auguste" to "He" at Pierre-Auguste Renoir? Is it clear enough that "He" is Pierre-Auguste Renoir"? Just before that is "....Rubens to Watteau." CorinneSD (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's OK, because the sons that follow are clearly designated Renoirs. Rothorpe (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Olive Schreiner

I noticed that there was no period at the end of the last sentence in the third paragraph of the lede in Olive Schreiner. Where does the period go -- before or after the parenthetical citation? CorinneSD (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

After (normal rules apply to inline citations). Rothorpe (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

André Le Nôtre

Rothrope and User:Hafspajen I just started reading the article on André Le Nôtre. In the first paragraph of the lede is the following sentence:

• Most notably, he was the landscape architect who made the design and construction for the park of the Palace of Versailles.

I wonder whether "who made the design and construction for" should be changed to: "who designed and constructed":

• Most notably, he was the landscape architect who designed and constructed the park of the Palace of Versailles.

(Hafs, it is a rule of good writing that one should, whenever possible, use the verb form of a word rather than the noun (or adjective) form: designed rather than "the design"; constructed rather than "[the] construction".) It is clear that he designed the park, but "constructed" would have to be understood as meaning "oversaw the construction of". If you feel we should use the more accurate phrase, it would read:

• Most notably, he was the landscape architect who designed and oversaw the construction of the park of the Palace of Versailles.

What do you think? If you agree it should be changed, which do you prefer? CorinneSD (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• He designed the constructions, to be precise. He never did any manual work with it. Constructed sounds ... like he would. Hafspajen (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• I mean, he did "oversaw the construction of" - but I think this meant to say he designed the different constructions, namely fountains, irrigation, pumps, technical solutions and so on. Hafspajen (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying he designed the park and designed the constructions in the park? And that we should understand "constructions" to mean objects and necessary mechanical contraptions for the park?

If so, "designed the constructions" does not make much sense in English, so we would have to search for a better word or phrase. In addition to saying he "designed the park", do you want to be specific and mention all those things that you just mentioned, or do you want to include a word or phrase that summarizes all those things? CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

he BOTH designed the park and designed the constructions in the park. He was a landscape architect. That's a tricky thing - it is planning, aesthetic and functional design, location, management and maintenance of the site - all in one, a large scale landscape planning. Is making designs, plans and working drawings, specifications of work, cost estimates and time schedules, bothanics, monitoring the realisation and inspecting the construction of the design projects; - including management of other consultants such as engineers, gardeners, architects and planners. He did all this. Is it this to any help? Hafspajen (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"...Who designed the park ... and the constructions within it"? Rothorpe (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Or "...and (oversaw) its constructions" or "and the constructions it contained"...

(edit conflict) Andre le Notre. How about this: "he designed the park at the Palace of Versailles"? That avoids the confusion regarding the word "constructions". Details can be given later in the article. I notice that the section on Andre le Notre#Versailles is rather short. Perhaps details can be added there. (Rothorpe, hope you don't mind this discussion on your talk page. I put it here because it had to do with wording, but Hafs is the landscape architect.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind. Leaving out 'constructions' seems sensible. Rothorpe (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. Hafspajen (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles Invite

	Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet! Todo list:

Thanks, done. Rothorpe (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Paideia

You might be interested in reading the comment I just left at User talk:Omnipaedista#Paideia. CorinneSD (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I clicked on the link, and it took me to the first section under that name, and it was only after making some edits that I discovered the second, which you forgot to call 'Paideia 2'! It should be lowercased, certainly, and I'm not sure if the italics are necessary, even though I added some. Rothorpe (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Oil shale in Estonia

Hello, Rothorpe! I've been working on helping to get Oil shale in Estonia ready for FA status. Most recently, Beagel and I have been working on Oil shale in Estonia#Water usage and pollution. I have a question for you. The first sentence in that section (a sentence I wrote) is:

• Both groundwater and surface water that has flowed into mines has to be pumped out in order for mining to proceed.

I'm wondering whether the verb after "mines" should be the plural "have" because the subject, "Both groundwater and surface water that has flowed into mines", is plural, or whether it can stay singular because water -- even if two sources originally -- when combined, is uncountable. For comparison, with the plural verb, it would read:

• Both groundwater and surface water that has flowed into mines have to be pumped out in order for mining to proceed.

I'm also wondering whether it would be better to start with a sentence saying that groundwater and surface water that flows into mines accumulates in mines, and then say that this water has to be pumped out:

• Groundwater and surface water that flows into mines accumulates and must be pumped out in order for mining to proceed.

What do you think? Beagel, feel free to chime in. CorinneSD (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How about "Any ground or surface water that has accumulated in mines has to be pumped out in order for mining to proceed."? That makes the subject clearly singular. Rothorpe (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. That's a good sentence. However, I would really like to say first that these two types of water accumulate in the mines before I say they must be pumped out. I think that's a better introduction to the section. CorinneSD (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, then: "Ground and surface water accumulates in mines and has to be..." Rothorpe (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Good. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I've gotten it the way I want it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's good. Rothorpe (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

MOS

Per MOS, the numerical format you reverted was entirely appropriate. It has therefore been reverted to. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? That's not how I understand WP:NUMERAL. Care to cite? Rothorpe (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, really. :) What part are you referring to? Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Following the link above, "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." That means that 7 and 2 should be changed. "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words." So eleven and twelve for consistency.Rothorpe (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I would refer you to the lead in to that phrase. It begins with the word "Generally ..."

And then below, following the language you quote, it continues:

Notes and exceptions:

...

• Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures:

...

  •  There were 3 deaths and 206 injuries (even though 3 would normally be given as three) or Three died and two hundred six were injured (even though two hundred six would normally be given as 206), not There were three deaths and 206 injuries

....

Epeefleche (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, it's 50:50 and clearly you prefer the figures... Rothorpe (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup. And -- as with similar issues such as dates (where for example October 10, 2010, and 10-10-2010 are both acceptable), where we have a rule that the first usage should prevail (WP:DATERET) and editors shouldn't quibble over it (as no doubt they have better things to do), I think that's a sensible approach anywhere that acceptable formats are in place. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:Epeefleche I don't even know what article you are discussing. I would just like to make a point about the adverb that you pointed to as introducing the sentences that Rothorpe quoted from MOS: "Generally, ..." If you read the definition of "generally" on [1] -- I believe we should be looking at Definition 2 -- "generally" means "as a general rule; usually". So,

As a general rule, or usually, in article text:

• Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. (etc.) Numbers are words. There is no reason not to spell out the words for numbers unless it is a large number all by itself, or possibly in an article dealing with mathematics, chemistry, physics or engineering that contains a lot of numbers. CorinneSD (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a general rule, followed by an exception to the general rule. Exceptions are not extensions, but rather ... exceptions ... rules that in the indicate circumstances are contrary to the general rule. Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm confused. Again, I have not seen the text in question, but are you saying that, since exceptions to rules are allowed, you feel comfortable making edits that conform to the exceptions rather than the general guideline, or rule? CorinneSD (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The text is the first paragraph of Charlie Hebdo shooting. I continue to think that words would look better. Rothorpe (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. CorinneSD (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Eugène de Rastignac

I've just finished going through Eugène de Rastignac and changing all the hyphens and colons to en-dashes preceded by a no-break-space. However, I had a little difficulty with the formatting of the sub-sections within the long list. A previous editor had used a "break" template (br enclosed in carats), which I found difficult, so I removed some (maybe should have removed all of them, but I was concentrating on the dashes). It was hard to tell where paragraph breaks should come in some of the longer passages, and what kind of font or heading formatting there should be on the one that says "problems due to the book's having been finished by another writer" (or something like that). It said "problems", but I only see one problem, so I changed it to "problem". (Hope I didn't inadvertently delete a problem.)

Can you look at it? You're better at section and heading formatting than I am. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks good to me, although the key at the top needs formatting similarly, and some italicization needs doing/changing. Rothorpe (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I worked on it a little more. Is there anything I've missed? CorinneSD (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, very good. I've made a couple of minor changes. Shame about the edit summary... Rothorpe (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What edit summary? And regarding MOS:NUMERAL, above, am I missing something? Maybe I really don't understand the issue. What article was this in? I really thought the other editor's last comment was confusing and unhelpful. CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I was waiting for him to reply so I sent you an email. Rothorpe (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In my edit summary I mentioned 'the' instead of 'a'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Swift

Did I misunderstand something at Jonathan Swift? See [2].CorinneSD (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I sympathise, but really there was no such thing as Irish nationality in those days. Rothorpe (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you changed that back. Even if there was such a thing in those days, doesn't the term in the text have to match the reference that goes with it? CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Presumably, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

C. P. Snow

I was just reviewing two sets of edits at C. P. Snow. Most of them are all right, but I wanted to ask you about one of them:

You'll see at [3] that this editor changed "a 1959 lecture" to "a lecture given in 1959". I suppose they're both all right, but for the lede I prefer the more concise version. The edit also introduced a second "in" to the sentence. This lecture is described in more detail in C. P. Snow#The Two Cultures.

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite so, and I've changed it back. Rothorpe (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Giacomo Meyerbeer

Hello, Rothorpe! I just started reading the article on Giacomo Meyerbeer. I have a question. I'm going to ask Jerome Kohl what he thinks, also, since he's the music expert. It's about the following sentence, which appears in the middle of the second paragraph in the lede:

• His public career from 1831 until his death, during which he remained throughout a dominating figure in the world of opera, was summarized by his contemporary Hector Berlioz, who claimed that he 'has not only the luck to be talented, but the talent to be lucky.'

I'm just wondering what you think about "during which he remained throughout". Is that for some reason better than "throughout which he remained"? I'm also wondering whether "from 1831 until his death" should either be preceded by a comma or be made into an adjective clause: "His public career, which lasted from 1831 until his death, ... but then the other adjective clause, regardless of how it's worded, can't follow. Maybe the sentence would sound better without that intervening adjective clause. The way it's worded now, the "during which" sounds as if it could be referring to "his death". I don't know. Any ideas? Or should we just leave it alone? CorinneSD (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Since we already have 1831 in the previous sentence, we could change it to 'then'. I thought of 'throughout which he remained' too, yes, surely preferable. So I'd make just those two changes. Rothorpe (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. I'll work on it tomorrow. CorinneSD (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you mentioned my name, I thought had better check in. I don't see that any music expertise is relevant to this question, and I certainly have no special knowledge of Meyerbeer. As far as the grammar and syntax questions are concerned, I concur with what Rothorpe says.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. Rothorpe, I decided to add "lasting". See how it looks now. What do you think of putting the participial phrase first so that the adjective clause follows "public career" and not "his death"?

• Lasting from then until his death, his public career, throughout which he remained..."CorinneSD (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, excellent. Rothorpe (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

One more question: to cut down on syllables in this long sentence, what do you think of changing "throughout" to "through" or back to "during"? I think "during which he remained" says the same thing as "throughout which he remained". I also think "throughout" (the way it was before -- "during which he remained throughout") is not necessary because the verb "remained" expresses that. CorinneSD (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, back to 'during'. Rothorpe (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Conrad

Hello, Rothorpe! I just started reading the article on Joseph Conrad. I paused at the first sentence in the second paragraph of the lede:

• While some of his works have a strain of Romanticism, his works are viewed as modernist literature.

I wonder whether the use of "his works" twice in the same sentence could be avoided or somehow differentiated.

• While some of his works have a strain of Romanticism, his works as a whole are viewed as modernist literature.

• While some of his works have a strain of Romanticism, his oeuvre as a whole is viewed as modernist literature.

or something else. Any ideas? CorinneSD (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

2) I have read most of the article. I made just a few minor edits; mostly I just added a no-break-space before en-dashes. A few times I changed em-dashes to en-dashes to keep it consistent throughout the article. However, after I stopped reading and editing and saved and then reviewed my edits in the revision history, I realized that I had changed some em-dashes in a block quote to en-dashes. I'm not sure if it is all right to change punctuation in a quote like that. This quote follows this sentence: "In a letter of late December 1897 to Cunninghame Graham, Conrad metaphorically described the universe as a huge machine."

If you think I should change those back to em-dashes, I will. CorinneSD (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think there's any difference in meaning between the two dashes, so no problem with the consistency you have introduced. As for 'his works', I've used a pronoun, hope you like! Rothorpe (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Excellent. CorinneSD (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You're probably watching this article, but just in case you aren't, I wanted to ask you about a few edits made since we talked, above. Nihil novi's edits seem fine, but an editor named Jemima made a few edits right before Nihil novi. See [4]. I know this editor probably thinks s/he is improving the wording (under "Literary career"), but don't you think there is a slight difference between "negligible" and "limited"? And this fact is crucial to the arguments being made at this point and just after. (Nihil novi later re-worded this.) Also, I wonder about the edit just above that, saying one of the reasons Conrad gave up the sea was a lack of available ships. I find that hard to believe -- both that there was a lack of available ships and that that would have persuaded Conrad to give up the sea. He was a ship's captain by that time. It's also unsourced. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, negligible is vastly more than limited. I'd have thought that the unavailability of ships would have been quite a well-known feature of Conrad's life (I can't comment on whether it makes sense or not), and that's probably why it's unsourced. But of course you can always challenge it with an inline tag. Rothorpe (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I don't know if you are being serious or not with your first statement. I should have thought "negligible" is a quantity slightly less than "limited", but, even though I think there is a difference, I suppose "had only limited personal acquaintance" is better worded than "actually had negligible personal acquaintance", and for that reason I guess it should stand. CorinneSD (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No joking intended: I simply meant that negligible was vastly more negative than limited; much smaller, in other words. Still, I agree it sounds all right now. Rothorpe (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's good. CorinneSD (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Landscape

Rwood128 has been doing a lot of good work at Landscape. S/He just made a new section, Landscape#The Romantic era in Britain. The first sentence is the following:

• A change in the perception and evaluation of landscape was one mark of the entrance into the era of British Romanticism.

I'm wondering if it might be possible to make this sentence more concise, and I'm hoping either or both of you can help. I wonder if "was one mark of the entrance" couldn't be shortened to "marked the entrance".

I'm also wondering if "A change in the perception and evaluation of landscape" couldn't be made more concise. Perhaps "evaluation" could be left out, and the verb form of "perception" could be used. It's important (for me to understand the sentence) to know whether "the change..." followed the entrance into the new era, preceded the entrance to the new era, indicated, marked, or heralded the entrance to the new era.

Perhaps:

• A change in the way people perceived landscape marked the beginning of the era of British romanticism.

Any thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I hate to disagree, but I think every element in the sentence, even if it seems wordy, is necessary. (At my school, Wordsworth was compulsory!)Rothorpe (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've simplified the wording. I was working on this got called away. Hope this is better, but will check/edit further what I've transferred from other pages. Rwood128 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you actually meaning to say "British Romanticism reflects the change in how landscape is perceived and valued."? Moriori (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wallace Roney

Rothorpe, could you please STOP re writing my life on Wikipedia!!!! It's wrong and when my people try to correct it with accuracies about my life, you change it back!!! I cannot stand behind this and will speak out against this. Unless I can have my life corrected and correctly represented in Wikipedia!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedawn60 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 22 January 2015

Hi, Wallace, it's an honour to have you complaining on my page. But, hang on, how do I know you are Wallace Roney? For all I know, you could be Wynton Marsalis. (Aagh!) Fact is, your Wikipedia article is not your autobiography, it's a summary of what reliable published sources say about you. I could say the same: could you please stop rewriting Mr Roney's life, Bluedawn60. So get your people to put in some references to books and journals, okay? I'll be very happy to help. Have a nice year! Rothorpe (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)