Jump to content

User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 27

Archive box

Calling all you geniuses! Does anyone know how to make the number 22 show up in the box? The archive itself, User talk:Rothorpe/Archive22, is searchable there, I've checked. Rothorpe (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought the problem was that the search template had to be at the top, so I added that, but it didn't change anything. (I guess the search template only has to be at the top of the current talk page -- but I did see it at the top of Archive 21 in edit mode; that's where I copied it from.) I'm pretty sure that the problem is that there is no space between "Archive" and "22" as there is between "Archive" and "21" in Archive 21. However, I don't know how to change that. The only thing I can think of would be to make a new page with it spaced correctly. An admin could go in and change the heading, though. User:Vsmith can you fix it? CorinneSD (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant! Huge thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It was just a matter of Move-ing it and correcting the error. Thanks for spotting that. Rothorpe (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. I don't know how to move pages. How did you do that? CorinneSD (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

See 'More' next to View history? Put your mouse over that and you should see 'Move'. From there you get a page which shows what to do. Rothorpe (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh...Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Now you tell me. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wallace Roney page

Hi Rothorpe! Wallace Roney has asked me to help him to edit the incorrect content about him on the wikipedia site. Every time I made the edits, Rothorpe changed it. Finally Mr. Roney contacted Wikipedia and asked that the edits be allowed with reference to him or even to his website - www.wallaceroney.com .. Here is the content of the edit he asks for.###


\\ Can we at least call me a African-American Progressive Jazz Trumpeter, I studied with Sigmond Herring for 3yrs, take out that lie about Eugene Ormandy, and I made my first record at. 15 yrs with Nation and Haki Mahbuti, and at that time met some of the greatest musicians in the world including Bill Hardman, Valerie Ponomarev, Woody Shaw who befriended him, Johnny Coles and Freddie Hubbard! He played with Cedar Walton Quartet with Billy Higgins and Sam Jones and Philly Joe Jones at 16 yrs with the encouragement of his High School teacher Mickey Bass and also began a friendship with young guitarist Rodney Jones through his relationship with Dizzy Gillespie. He joined Art Blakey's big band in 1980 but didn't go to Europe to obey my Father's wishes, Joined Art Blakey Jazz Messengers in 1981 replacing Wynton Marsalis making a record Killer Joe with Art Blakey. Played with McCoy Tyner Billy Harper Walter Davis and Chico Freeman all in 1982 Freelancing through lean times between 1983-85 played on Kenny Barron's record Phantoms and asked to rejoined The Jazz Messengers! During that time made a record with Tony Williams and Tony loved the rapport so much he decided to build a band around Wallace who at that time was hanging frequently with his mentor Miles Davis which started in 1983 when Davis heard Roney the Radio City Performance for him in which Davis also performed and got a honorary degree from Fitz University. Roney had to choose between the Messengers and Williams band and choose Williams because he felt he was help building it from the ground up, and Tony's insistence on playing forward thinking! From then that led Roney to play in the historic concert at Montreux where Miles for the first time since the late sixties played straight ahead jazz, and asked Roney to play with saying "I want you to do this with me, because you play just like me, only perfect! We going to be like King Oliver and Pops, but I'm King Oliver because I'm the Chief!!!" Afterwards Roney played with VSOP which Roney said is the Greatest Band he's ever played with!!! And played with Ornette Coleman who he had been playing and studying with since 1983 when he played Ornette's symphony The Sacred Mind of Johnny Dolphin. He played with Ornette again in place of Don Cherry at Ornette's request and NOT as a replacement for Wynton Marsalis as Francis Davis erroneously said in his book without asking Ornette, his source was Stanley Crouch! Davis has since apologized. Since then Roney has been dedicated to contribute to this artform he loves by leading his band and playing to the highest level the music demands and passing on and inspiring the young artist while learning himself the lesson of the masters before and lesson of right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crysr007 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support the content you wish to add. Vsmith (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The reference to Eugene Ormandy was removed on 20 January. Rothorpe (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ananda Coomaraswamy

I was just looking at the latest edits to Ananda Coomaraswamy - [1] and [2]. I lookedk at them both in Revision History and in the article itself (this is in the lede). The editor first added material (seems sourced), then deleted part and changed the quotation marks. I haven't looked into the appropriateness of the material, including the deleted part, or the placement of the quotation marks, but, looking at the sentence in the lede, there seems to be a kind of non-sequitur feeling about the two halves of the sentence. The first part says:

  • In particular, he is described as "the groundbreaking theorist who was largely responsible for introducing ancient Indian art to the West",

and the second part says:

  • whose "multifaceted writings ... and most mature works adeptly expound the perspective of the philosophia perennis by drawing on a detailed knowledge of the arts, crafts, mythologies, cultures, folklores, symbolisms, and religions of both the East and the West. [boldface added]

The adjective clause beginning "whose..." should be expected in some way to support or explain what comes before it, but here, it seems to go off into a different direction. What do you think? Shall I ask User:Joshua Jonathan what he thinks? You're the writing expert, but this is JJ's field.

(I also wonder whether using such a phrase as "philosophia perennis" in the lede of an article isn't a little over the head of the average reader.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The addition overloads and distracts from what was a neat introduction. But yes, do ask JJ about the content: maybe it should go somewhere. Rothorpe (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It;s a blurb from a publisher; just remove it. It's spam. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Joshua Jonathan. Shall I just undo those edits? If not, I'm not entirely sure what to remove. CorinneSD (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with a wholesale reversion of the blurb. Rothorpe (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Good. (I'd forgotten about this.) CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita

I've been asked to do a final review of Cucurbita at FAC (see my contributions for the link). I've gotten as far as the section Cucurbita#History and domestication. I want to ask you about the following sentence, which appears in the second paragraph in that section:

  • Later, more accurate, dating using accelerator mass spectrometers provided more specific dates.

Having grown up reading 18th and 19th century English literature, I probably added the commas around "more accurate". Now, upon re-reading the sentence, I'm wondering whether either or both are needed. I thought it would read more smoothly without that second comma after "more accurate", but I don't know whether, if I remove that one, I ought also to remove the first comma. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Both commas are needed. Take away one, and the parenthesis is not closed; in fact 'later' would become adverbial, detached from 'dating'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, O.K. Thanks. Then I was right before when I added the commas (about three weeks ago). (I see so many instances of commas used when they are not needed and missing commas when they are needed that I start to forget what's correct.) CorinneSD (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed... Rothorpe (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, just below that sentence, I abbreviated "circa" to "c." in "circa 8,000 years BP". I put a no-break-space between the "c" and the "8,000", but now I'm wondering whether there should be a space there at all. I can't remember if the "c" is supposed to be right up against the number or not. CorinneSD (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a space is necessary, though I'm having trouble finding evidence... Rothorpe (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe in an ancient history article. CorinneSD (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Euclid has spaces. Rothorpe (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Sophocles too. Rothorpe (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. It's funny how I see these kinds of dates all the time and never noticed whether there was a space or not. CorinneSD (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think in informal use most people would omit the space. Rothorpe (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Never seen that use of BP before. I suppose it's slightly shorter than 'ago'. Rothorpe (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's used for times way in the past. See Prehistory and Before Present. CorinneSD (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting, thank you. I was going to joke that that's an easy system, because it's always the year 0, but actually it's from 1950, so I can think of it as BM (before me). Rothorpe (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Very funny. :D -- or BR -- Before Rothorpe. CorinneSD (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
(Blush.) Rothorpe (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The third sentence in the section Cucurbita#Culinary uses is the following:
  • Although the stems and skins tend to be more bitter than the rest of the flesh, the fruits and seeds of cultivated varieties are quite edible and need little or no preparation.
I looked up "bitter" in Wiktionary - [3], and it lists both "bitterer" and "more bitter" as the comparative forms. I've noticed a trend toward using "more + Adj." even for adjectives that traditionally have been considered "short adjectives" that used -er for the comparative. I prefer using the -er form. I think since the comparative form of "bitter" is not used often, we don't hear either form very often. Which do you prefer? What would you do here? CorinneSD (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I like it. I doubt anyone will change it back. Rothorpe (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The -er forms are, er, more elegant. Rothorpe (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree. I'm glad you like it. I was making other edits and decided not to wait. Hope you don't mind. CorinneSD (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I was a bit slow there. Rothorpe (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Humboldtian Model of Higher Education

As you can see from my talk page, Hafspajen has asked me to go over an article entitled Humboldtian model of higher education. I did, a little while ago, and made a few minor changes. I have a few questions which I will ask the main editor, Serten II, probably tomorrow. I'm also going to go through the article once more because I think, since the writer's native language is German, there may be a few places where it sounds like a translation and is a little stilted. Right now I'm tackling the first sentence in the lede:

  • The Humboldtian model of higher education (German: Humboldtisches Bildungsideal, literally: Humboldtian education ideal) is a concept for academic education, seeking a holistic combination of research and studies.

I think "is a concept for academic education, seeking a holistic combination of research and studies" is one of those sentences that sounds like a translation. I'm planning to change "a concept for" to "a concept of", but after that, I need your help. Instead of the participial phrase, "..., seeking..." I want to both change the verb and change the construction to an adjective clause:

  • is a concept of academic education that...

Here, I am not coming up with the right words. (Part of the problem may be that I just don't know for certain what the concept is, in spite of having read the article already.)

  • is grounded on a holistic combination of research and studies.
  • is predicated on a holistic combination of research and studies.
  • is based on a holistic combination of research and studies.
  • strives for a holistic combination of research and studies.
  • aims for a holistic combination of research and studies.
  • emphasizes a holistic combination of research and studies.

or something else. Any ideas? CorinneSD (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Aspires to"? "Seeks"? They're all more or less good, and I can't choose. "Is grounded in"? Or simplify: just "is"? "Combines holistically"? Spoilt for choice, but none seem ideal. Sorry! Rothorpe (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Another sentence is the first sentence in Humboldtian model of higher education#Background:

  • Humboldt's model was based on two focuses of the Enlightenment: the individual and the world citizen.

(I separated this from the next sentence because there were two colons in the same sentence); there could be other ways to join the two sentences, though.)

I'm not enamored of "based on two focuses". However, since I only have a vague idea of what the Enlightenment was, I don't know a better word to use. Can you think of something? CorinneSD (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Based around"? "Two concerns"? Ah, the joys of translation... Rothorpe (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I think what follows "a concept" should not be an active verb ("strives for", "aspires to"). People strive for, or aspire to, things. I think it should be a verb that is something like "means", "includes", "combines", "embodies", "requires", "is based on", etc.
How about "attempts to achieve"? -
  • The Humboldtian model of higher education (German: Humboldtisches Bildungsideal, literally: Humboldtian education ideal) is a concept of academic education that attempts to achieve a holistic combination of research and studies.
- CorinneSD (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that would do nicely. Rothorpe (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Swedish language

I've been looking at the article Swedish language (after reading an exchange between Kwami and Peter Isotalo on Kwamikagami's talk page). As usual, I've already made a few small copy-edits. I have come across a sentence I want to ask you about. It is in the second paragraph in the section Swedish language#Old Swedish:

  • Early Old Swedish was markedly different from the modern language in that it had a more complex case structure and that it still retained the original Germanic three-gender system.

I'm wondering whether "and that" for the second difference (last part of sentence) is sufficient. I know that when it's a noun clause as in, "I know that you like music and that you play the piano," the second "that" is really needed (even if the first one is left out), but this sentence is different. It's "in that". Is this sentence worded correctly, or should "in" be repeated: "...and in that....". Or could "that it" be left out: "and still retained..."?

Which is best?

  • as is
  • add "in" before the second "that": "...and in that it still retained"
  • take out "that it": "and still retained"

CorinneSD (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The third! Brevitas! (I like to try these before looking at your suggestions.) Rothorpe (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
So you look first? That's good. Would you prefer I not supply any suggestions? CorinneSD (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
No, no. It's pleasing to coincide. Rothorpe (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Do you know any German? I've been trying to help a German speaking editor but am having a lot of difficulty. See User talk:CorinneSD#Language issue. CorinneSD (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
A bit. My first girlfriend was German, and I still have the Langenscheidt dictionary she gave me. But Romance languages are much easier. Rothorpe (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you feel like changing some hyphens to en-dashes at Neanderthal#Origins? I'm kind of tired after spending more than an hour on Society of Jesus. CorinneSD (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll investigate. Rothorpe (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
A brief glance didn't show me any hyphens. But I shy away from anything mechanical. I think I told you how I did my shoulders in at Citizendium. Never fully recovered. However, it reminded me of something I've often seen in edit summaries: "Fixed dashes using a script". I went and had a look at WP:Scripts but it seemed rather complicated. Rothorpe (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll do it tomorrow. I remember you told me you had problems with your shoulders, but I don't remember your saying it had anything to do with Citizendium. Too many hours of editing there? CorinneSD (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Specifically too much bolding, which I did manually instead of using the mouse, I suppose as a leftover from my days with a typewriter. Successive apostrophes can be bad for you. Rothorpe (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Liberal Christianity

Would you mind taking a look at this group of edits to Liberal Christianity? [4] I agree with some of them but not others. CorinneSD (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, about two thirds good, one third bad. Do go ahead: I expect we'll mainly agree. Rothorpe (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll do this tomorrow. CorinneSD (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

ITN for Rod McKuen

--SpencerT♦C 02:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Conrad

What do you think of this edit? [5] Before you do anything, look at editor's user page. CorinneSD (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's OK, though maybe a bit unAmerican, my experience of comma use suggests. Nice picture too, but isn't that a dragonfly? Does it feel insulted, having 'The Earwig' written above it, I wonder? Rothorpe (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't notice that. I just saw that s/he was an admin, so hesitate to revert. I just think that either "In..." or "On..." with a date, especially in the British style, no comma is needed. When speaking that sort of sentence, I don't think we would pause there. CorinneSD (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I know I have added commas after DMY dates, but only for clarity, so I wouldn't have bothered there. (Brits use both styles, by the way: for a moment I thought you were referring to comma usage.) Rothorpe (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I was. What made you think I wasn't? I also asked Paine Ellsworth for his opinion. See User talk:Paine Ellsworth#Joseph Conrad. When you say "Brits use both styles", are you referring to date styles or use of commas? If you're your referring to date styles, that's a surprise. You're saying that Brits sometimes put the month, then the day, then the year? CorinneSD (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
That's right. What is not British is the omission in speech of the, as in 'February fourth', but we say either 'February the fourth' of 'the fourth of February', and write it either way. There's a mention on my user page, I think. My second thought had been that you were referring only to plus or minus comma. Rothorpe (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Oil shale in Estonia

Which do you prefer: interwar or inter-war? See my comment at Talk:Oil shale in Estonia#History (again). My comment is not specifically about that spelling, but now that I see "Interwar Estonia", I'm wondering whether I prefer "Inter-war Estonia". CorinneSD (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the hyphen is clearer. Rothorpe (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, good. I hadn't remembered seeing "interwar" without a hyphen. I appreciate your support, but your "Hear, hear" gave support to a different issue than this one, which is fine, but you might want to support my suggestion regarding the spelling -- but, actually, I made another suggestion, and if that suggestion is followed, the word may not even be used. CorinneSD (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I assumed that the link you gave above was wrong, there being two sections called 'History', déjà vu there! Where do I find the bit about the spelling? Is it in that section after all? I couldn't see your name there. Rothorpe (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I just added "(again)" after "History". I hadn't realized that there was another section titled "History". Now, the link I provided should lead to the right section. CorinneSD (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
While looking at Virginia Woolf, I saw "inter-war", with a hyphen. CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I can only see it without one, in interwar period, so you must have meant the opposite. Looking again at your comment re Estonia, looks as if we'll have to accept that that spelling is widespread. Rothorpe (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Attis

An editor changed "are" to "is", rightly I believe, in Attis, but upon reading the entire sentence, I found it a little awkward. It's the second paragraph of the lead:

  • The 19th-century identification with the name Atys encountered in Herodotus (i.34–45) as the historical name of the son of Croesus, as "Atys the sun god, slain by the boar's tusk of winter,"[4] is mistaken.

As you will see, the word "as" is used twice. How would you fix this? Would you just add "in" after the second "as":

Yes, 'as in' or 'as found in', and/or add brackets (parentheses). Rothorpe (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I decided to remove "as" altogether and put the quote into brackets/parentheses, but I'm not sure I like the look of the brackets/parentheses. Perhaps a pair of en-dashes? What do you think of my removal of "as"? CorinneSD (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It looks fine but change it if you like. Removal of 'as' is good. Rothorpe (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

T. E. Lawrence

What do you think of this edit (and edit summary)? [6] CorinneSD (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of motive, it's good because it unrepeats 'out of wedlock'. Rothorpe (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. I hadn't seen the first instance of it. CorinneSD (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Society of Jesus

I had read this entire article a few days ago and made a few copy-edits. I was just looking at the latest edits to Society of Jesus. They seem all right, but I want to ask you what you think, specifically the second one in this group: [7]. I think it is probably more elegant; before, it was one long, cumbersome sentence, but now the word "where" appears twice. I was trying to figure out a way to avoid that without reverting or changing too much. I thought about changing the second "where" to "when", but I don't know. Thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How about 'where they might be required to live in extreme conditions'? Rothorpe (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes -- more concise. Do you want to make the edit, since it's your wording? Also, regarding the first one in that group (I was mistaken; the "where" edit was the second one), I don't know if block quote format is needed for a single sentence. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. I don't know about block quotes, just tend to accept them, so do change it if you think that would be better. Rothorpe (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I just looked at the MoS at MOS:Blockquote again, and it said to put quotes of 40 or more words in blockquote format. I went back and counted the words in that quote, and it is 49, so I guess it's O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Good, it looks fine to me. Rothorpe (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Gertrude Bell

What do you think of this group of edits? [8] I don't know about the first one -- need your opinion on that -- but the editor obviously did not know how to put in a conversion template for distances and temperatures. I can do that, but first I need to know what you think about the first one (utilising vs. using). Also, I don't know what the last one is or what it should be. CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect you feel 'utlising' is marginally better; I suspect so do I. I'm afraid I can't help with the last one. I'll let you get on with the converting, anyway. Rothorpe (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out how to put into words the difference in meaning and usage between "utilising" and "using"; it's not easy to express, but I know there is a slight difference. To me, "utilising" means "making good use of", using certain specific skills or knowledge to accomplish something. "Using" seems more prosaic, vaguer, less elegant...I don't know. We use a can opener to open a can, utilising our knowledge of how kitchen gadgets work. Something like that. What do you think? I'll ask someone else about that last item. CorinneSD (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Vsmith Can you help regarding the last item in a group of edits in Gertrude Bell? See the link at the beginning of this comment. CorinneSD (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the difference to me! Yes, that's it exactly. So it would indeed be preferable there. Rothorpe (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I was just kind of thinking out loud. I figured you knew what the difference was but would also find it a challenge to explain, and that you would correct me if I were wrong. CorinneSD (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed. 'Making good use of', specifically, nailed it nicely. Rothorpe (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed the conversion and repaired the book citation. I rather agree with you on utilised, will leave that for your pleasure. Vsmith (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yazata

I just wondered if you consider these edits [9] to Yazata an improvement. CorinneSD (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

On the whole yes. Rothorpe (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Etruscan civilization

Hello, Rothorpe -- I wonder if you would read the comment I left a few days ago at User talk:Omnipaedista#Etruscan civilization. Omnipaedista replied that it sounds fine to him/her, but I'd like your opinion. To me, the sentence is not clear. CorinneSD (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I'd remove the repetition ('land') and change to 'committed'. Rothorpe (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Rothorpe I'm glad you agree, but I'm not clear on what you recommend. I'm going to copy the relevant parts of my comment here so we can look at it:
I was just looking at Etruscan civilization, and I came across a sentence that I was thinking about re-wording to improve clarity and conciseness, when I realized that something didn't sound right. It is this sentence, which appears in the middle of the Etruscan civilization#Military section (one paragraph):
  • Like many ancient societies, the Etruscans conducted campaigns during summer months, raiding neighboring areas, attempting to gain territory and combating piracy as a means of acquiring valuable resources, such as land, prestige, goods, and slaves.
1) I paused at "and combating piracy". Wouldn't "and committing piracy" make more sense?
2) "attempting to gain territory" is presented as one of three participial phrases, but it sounds an awful lot like "combating/committing piracy as a means of acquiring...land". Isn't there a bit of repetition there?
I was thinking of breaking this long sentence up into two clauses:
  • Like many ancient societies, the Etruscans conducted campaigns during summer months: they raided neighboring areas in an attempt to gain territory and combated/committed piracy as a means of acquiring valuable resources such as land, prestige, goods, and slaves.
Or something like this. (How would committing piracy yield land?) CorinneSD (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You recommended removing the word "land". Then you said change to "committed". But right now, it would replace the participle "combating". If I made no other changes, that would result in an ungrammatical sentence. Are you saying I should add a comma after "attempting to gain territory" so that what follows is a new verb phrase? Or are you saying I should use my re-worded version that uses a colon after "summer months" and continues "they raided...and committed piracy..."? In other words:
(a) Like many ancient societies, the Etruscans conducted campaigns during summer months, raiding neighboring areas, attempting to gain territory, and combating committing piracy as a means of acquiring valuable resources, such as land, prestige, goods, and slaves.
or
(b) Like many ancient societies, the Etruscans conducted campaigns during summer months: they raided neighboring areas in an attempt to gain territory and /combatedcommitted piracy as a means of acquiring valuable resources such as land, prestige, goods, and slaves.
- CorinneSD (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I was looking at your last suggestion of 4 Feb, where you already have "combated/committed", so the second version here, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at this latest edit [10]. The edit is all right, but when I continued reading, I saw that the whole paragraph has problems:

  • The architecture of the ancient Etruscans adapted the external Greek architecture for their own purposes, which were so different from Greek buildings as to create a new architectural style. The two styles are often considered one body of classical architecture. The Etruscans absorbed Greek influence, apparent in many aspects closely related to architecture. The Etruscans had much influence over Roman architecture.

In the first sentence, the adjective clause doesn't clearly follow "their own purposes". The next sentence seems either to contradict the first sentence or have no clear connection to it. The third sentence seems to repeat the first part of the first sentence, but is otherwise not very well written. In the fourth sentence, "had much influence" isn't ideal. Do you want to work on it, or shall I? CorinneSD (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I couldn't save it, and that apart from not knowing anything about architecture. What style, what purposes? It says nothing concrete at all, it's just waffle. Rothorpe (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I'm going to ask Hafspajen. S/He's an architect. CorinneSD (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Hafspajen, can you help just with this last edit? CorinneSD (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Tangut people

I was just looking at the latest edits to Tangut people. An IP editor struggled to get the wording right in this [11] and two subsequent edits. This editor changed this:

  • The origins of the Tangut Chan can also be traced deeper, than it was previously believed: information on Bao-tang Wu-zhu...

to this:

  • The origins of the Tangut Chan can also be traced more deeply, than it was previously believed: information on Bao-tang Wu-zhu...

Now, in those pairs of equally acceptable adverb forms: slower - more slowly, quicker - more quickly, etc., I'm often happy to choose the more traditional "more" form. But here, I'm not sure "more deeply" is correct. I think this means "The origins of the Tangut Chan can also be traced back deeper [into the past] than was previously believed. The editor later removed "was" before "previously believed", which is all right.) "Deeper into the past" is like "further into the past". I think this is a comparative adjective form, not a comparative adverb form, so should not be "more deeply", which ends up modifying the verb "traced". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like an editor thinking, 'oh, better have a clear adverb there', whereas as you say the adjective is more accurate and evocative. Rothorpe (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I just realized that the word was in a block quote. Unless the editor checked the original source, the word should not be changed. I don't know how to find the original text. Should I just change it back, or should I ask someone to look at the original and see what's there? CorinneSD (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
How did we miss that? It's not good English, though ('deeper, than it was previously believed'). Can you find someone who can view the original? Rothorpe (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan Can you view the original text to see what is there? - CorinneSD (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. It was "deeper". I've also corrected the link for the source. Bets regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Pietism

I was reading the article on Pietism when I came across something I want to ask you about. It is the following sentence, which appears in the section Pietism#Forerunners:

  • Amongst them were Christian mystic Jakob Böhme (Behmen); Johann Arndt, whose work, True Christianity, became widely known and appreciated; Heinrich Müller, who described the font, the pulpit, the confessional and the altar as "the four dumb idols of the Lutheran Church"; theologian Johann Valentin Andrea, court chaplain of the landgrave of Hesse; Schuppius, who sought to restore to the Bible its place in the pulpit; and Theophilus Grossgebauer (d. 1661) of Rostock, who from his pulpit and by his writings raised what he called "the alarm cry of a watchman in Sion."

I paused at "who sought to restore to the Bible its place in the pulpit". I thought perhaps it should be:

  • who sought to restore the Bible to its place in the pulpit.

I don't know if these mean the same thing or not, but I thought restoring something to the Bible an odd concept. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a conventional structure garbled, one wonders why. It happens! Rothorpe (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Age of Enlightenment

What do you think of this edit to Age of Enlightenment? [12]. I understand removing an unnecessary wiki-link, especially since it is not the first mention of the name, and removing Newton's dates, but I don't understand adding "Sir" to the name in a list of philosophers. The name does not have "Sir" in the title of the article on Isaac Newton. Where do you think is the best place to name Newton with the title of "Sir"? CorinneSD (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Outside the article on Newton himself, I'm not sure it's needed at all. But it certainly shouldn't appear after first mention. Rothorpe (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, "Sir" appears four times in the article: twice in the lead, once in a caption, and once in a table. The first instance in the lead is linked to the article Isaac Newton. Do you recommend removing all four instances, all instances save the first one, or all instances save the first one and the caption? CorinneSD (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The last of those, I think. Rothorpe (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
If you like, I'll make the edit myself. Just a suggestion. Rothorpe (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Go ahead. CorinneSD (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. Rothorpe (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of this edit? [13] Sigh... little by little, all the color is going out of the prose in WP articles. CorinneSD (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it's a cliché. I'll be 65 this year, and I'm feeling tenderer all the time. Rothorpe (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Are all clichés to be avoided at all times in WP? The sentence is making the point that he was relatively young to be appointed a professor of mathematics at a university. CorinneSD (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Chard

What do you think of this edit to Chard? [14] At first, I was going to simply revert, but then I saw the repetition. I'm wondering if "healthy" would work in one of the two places and "healthful" better for the other, to eliminate the repetition but still be accurate. CorinneSD (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So 'healthful' is American? It's utterly weird to me! Rothorpe (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, you don't hear it very often, and I can't remember ever using it myself -- maybe "a more healthful diet", but I think I'd say "a healthier diet". I just looked it up on Wiktionary, and it's there (but was astonished to see comparative form "healthfuller", in addition to "more healthful"). I tried to look it up on Merriam-Webster but the link at the top of my talk page doesn't work. Can you look it up and tell me what you find? CorinneSD (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It's there, but we are spared weird comparatives: healthfully and healthfulness are the only derivatives. It sounds like something an advertising campaign would come up with. As for your MW, can't you just eliminate the icon and type in the address again? If I understand properly, that is. Rothorpe (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, not an icon... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/healthful
I see you got to the website and definitions. (When I entered everything except /healthful into the address bar, I got an error message as I had when I clicked on the link on my talk page. When I typed it again but without /dictionary, I got directly to the website.) I've been trying to figure out how best to copy the definition and paste it here when I saw that you had already gotten to the definition. While reading through all the examples, I realized I had heard the word more than I thought. Perhaps it's only used in American English. I wonder if we should remove "healthfuller" and any similar superlative form from Wiktionary. CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, let's give Wiktionary the treatment! Rothorpe (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I've never edited anything on Wiktionary, but I know you have, so would you make the changes? CorinneSD (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't, as it would mean removing a whole entry. It has only been edited by bots since it was created by a person who... well, if you care to investigate you'll see what I mean. Anyway the right thing seems to be to leave a note at the tearoom, so I think I'll do that. Rothorpe (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
However, assuming Wiktionary tolerates no ageism: http://www.wordsense.eu/Citations:healthfuller Rothorpe (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Oooh... That's interesting. So it's not an Americanism after all. CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Do you know anything about wine? See my comment at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Wine tasting. CorinneSD (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, not a clue. Rothorpe (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

New England

At the beginning of the third paragraph in New England, do you think "colonies" needs to be capitalized? They were just five four (Vermont, though part of New England today, was not one of the original thirteen colonies) of the original thirteen colonies and were neither countries nor, as a group, a governmental region. CorinneSD (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I see in the article on New England Colonies that the name of individual colonies had "colony" capitalized, and later in the article, in New England Colonies#Commerce, I see "New England Colonies", but I wonder whether "colonies" has to be capitalized there nor not. I can understand individual colonies being capitalized because they were somewhat independent of each other, but I don't understand the word being capitalized in the phrase "New England Colonies". Maybe I need to ask someone who is familiar with American history. CorinneSD (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The See also section of New England Colonies has several similar examples, suggesting historians treat them as proper nouns. Another opinion wouldn't be a bad thing, though. Rothorpe (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

W. H. Auden

Would you mind reading my question to Rwood128 at User talk:Rwood128#W. H. Auden and give me your opinion as to the best format for Auden's mother's name? CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll agree it's necessary to show his mother had the Auden name. There are various possibilities, but there should be a 'née'. Perhaps in brackets after the married name is best Rothorpe (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Or commas indeed, as suggested. Rothorpe (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I followed Rwood's suggestion and used Fowler's in the edit summary. I thought Auden should be in the mother's name. In the U.S., we usually just put the mother's maiden last name right before the married last name, but I guess the form with née is proper for academic material. CorinneSD (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Right. It looks good. Rothorpe (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you removed "who published as W. H. Auden" from the article. I got a little confused when I was in the middle of reverting; I knew I wanted to remove "W. H." after "Wystan Hugh", and I saw "who published as W. H. Auden", but I thought it was something that editor had added, so I thought I was removing it. I didn't realize I was putting it back in. CorinneSD (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Good, glad we agree about that. Rothorpe (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Cake

Hello, Rothorpe -- I assume you like to eat cake occasionally. You might be interested in Talk:Cake#Cake as a dessert?, posted in response to my edit [15], and the comment I added. - CorinneSD (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Giacomo Meyerbeer

Do you agree with this edit in Giacomo Meyerbeer? [16] CorinneSD (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Rothorpe (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't either. How do we explain it in an edit summary? I think "by" goes with a verb: he was assaulted by..." but "of" goes with a noun: "the assaults of", "the insults of", etc. Is that a rule that I can cite? Or do I not even need to justify the revert? CorinneSD (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
'Better with noun' would do it. Rothorpe (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Urban design

Hello, Rothorpe! Can you please review this and the subsequent edit to Urban design? [17] See spaces added in section headings, among other things. CorinneSD (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to revert, though an edit summary would have been nice. Removing red links might make sense if they've been there a long time, but the spacing in the headings is a pointless imitation of the automatic version, as it only makes a difference on the markup page. Rothorpe (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Tacitus

What do you think of this edit to Tacitus? [18] Notice that what follows is not a list of titles but a list of topics. CorinneSD (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite so, do revert. Rothorpe (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this all right? [19] I guess this editor didn't like "by him". Do you like "Other of his writings"? Also, is "oration" more correct than "oratory"? CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear me, I thought. then I came back here and saw that was what you were saying. Well, I've reverted... Rothorpe (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, editor has reverted me and taken charge there. Rothorpe (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Dougweller I've pinged you because you are interested in history and are a good writer. An editor has been making changes to Tacitus. Rothorpe and I have done some reverting, but this editor is persistent. This editor may have some good points, but has left a syntactical error, which of course can be fixed if the edit was a good one: This edit [20] left: "His work has been read for its moral instruction, dramatic narrative, and for its prose style, but it is in the area political theory that he has been and remains most influential outside the field of history." -- "Of" is missing before "political theory". (The sentence is also lacking parallel structure, but that was there before.)
2) I kind of like using "a political theorist" rather than "political theory", even if the sentence has to be reworked. Rothorpe, what you do think of this sentence as it was? [21]
'In the area of' is a bit of a cliché; yes, better before. Rothorpe (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
3) Do you agree with this change? [22]
Tacitus was long enough ago for this (the greatest) to be as good as a fact, perhaps. Rothorpe (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
4) Do you agree with this edit? [23] CorinneSD (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, seems pedantic. Rothorpe (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just too busy. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) In my humble opinion that editor needs to be watched closely as I believe he is messing things up in that article. His change from "oratory" to "oration" was very telling. His ear needs to be sharply grasped and pulled to the talk page. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 02:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth When you feel up to it, how about reverting all of his/her edits? I will support you. CorinneSD (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Oh, I see you already did. CorinneSD (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Rothorpe or Paine: Shall I copy specific edits and our reasons why each was better before to the article talk page at Talk:Tacitus#Reverts back to Valentine's Day now, or wait and see if the editor responds first? CorinneSD (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
My (clouded) answer would be to wait and see if and how Snow Rise responds to my rad revert. – Paine  03:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Benjamin Haydon

What do you think? [24] (Note that there are two groups of edits in this one edit.) If you approve, a typo has to be fixed in the first group -- "the Haydon". In that one, I thought "the young artist" was rather nice. I don't know about the rest. CorinneSD (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear, as my mother would say. Well, at least removing the hyphen was correct. Rothorpe (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD, I suggest that you go ahead – boldly – and rewrite as appropriate. I'd guess that the result will be better than either of these two versions. Rwood128 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I can believe in that. Rothorpe (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both for the compliment ;). Regarding an edit that was made, I need to ask you something. The editor removed the hyphen from "well-known" in "Haydon became well-known". I looked at the MOS and in MOS:HYPHEN found this paragraph:
  • A hyphen is normally used when the adverb well precedes a participle used attributively (a well-meaning gesture; but normally a very well managed firm, because well itself is modified); and even predicatively, if well is necessary to, or alters, the sense of the adjective rather than simply intensifying it (the gesture was well-meaning, the child was well-behaved, but the floor was well polished).
In "Haydon became well-known", "well-known" is obviously used predicatively, but is it more like "the child was well-behaved" or more like "the floor was well polished"? CorinneSD (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It's more like 'well polished' as it's synonymous with 'much'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. "Haydon became much"? CorinneSD (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, to clarify: well polished is synonymous with much polished; well known is synonymous with much known, whereas well behaved... Rothorpe (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh. I see. That's an interesting way to check it. Thanks! But according to that paragraph in MOS, copied above, if "well" precedes a participle used attributively, it should have the hyphen? "He is a well-known author", for example. Is that right? CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the well-known author is well known, that's the rule I've been following. Rothorpe (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It just seems a little odd. CorinneSD (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You would omit the hyphen in both? Not count it as a compound? As with: the more interesting book was more interesting? You don't agree with the MoS section you quoted above? Rothorpe (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC) (Sorry if my tone sounds a bit challenging, but I wonder how you analyse it.)
Well, first let me say that I don't understand your example, "the more interesting book was more interesting". I would not use a hyphen for the "more interesting" before or after the verb. Second, I understand the distinction between "well-meaning" and "well polished", but I think (conceptually), "well-known" is more like "well-meaning" than like "well-polished"; the meaning of the two words "well" and "known" have melded into a quasi single word. What about "well-mannered"? Also, contrary to what you thought, I'd be more inclined to use the hyphen between "well" and "known" both before and after the verb. I think it's odd to make a distinction between its use attributively and predicatively, at least for "well-known" and "well-mannered". But of course I would follow the rules. CorinneSD (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, 'the more interesting book was more interesting' does not, as you say, have hyphens, which I was contrasting with the two versions of 'well-known'. Interesting that you'd prefer hyphens in both versions there. But isn't there normally a contrast between attributive hyphen and predicative no-hyphen? The short-sighted man was short sighted? No, I think there should be a hyphen in both cases there. Where are the examples when I need them?! Rothorpe (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well-mannered is a good example of keeping the hyphen. Rothorpe (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Keeping it even when used predicatively?

Yes. Rothorpe (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean things like "He is a six-foot-tall man" vs. "He is six feet tall"?
Yes, that's exactly the kind of thing. Thank you! Rothorpe (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I was also thinking of a piano piece I used to play when I was in high school: "The Well-Tempered Clavichord". Speaking of "well-tempered", how about: "We need to use well-tempered steel", and "That steel is well tempered"? "She's a good-tempered child", and "That child is good tempered" or "That child is good-tempered"? Which is correct? Also, "good" is an adjective, and "well" is an adverb. There must be something special about "well" + adjective. What about "well-meant"? "It was a well-meant gesture", and "The gesture was well meant" or "The gesture was well-meant"? CorinneSD (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The last is synonymous with 'the gesture was meant well', isn't it? Which is how I'd justify omitting the hyphen there. Rothorpe (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
But see 'well-meaning' in the MoS example you quoted. Rothorpe (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It should be 'the gesture was well-meant' (=good) in contrast with 'the floor was well (=much) polished', I think. Rothorpe (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
And 'the child is good-tempered' because 'good' is an adjective. Rothorpe (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Neanderthal

Paine Ellsworth, Rothorpe (I'm pinging Paine because he has been working on this article.) - Regarding this recent edit to Neanderthal [25], is this an example of the British tendency to use the plural form of the verb with collective nouns such as "government", "orchestra", "family" and "community" where Americans would use the singular? Most Americans would consider "a minority" to be a singular noun, but it looks like someone had considered it a plural noun. What is to be done? Do we follow the variant of English that is predominant in the article? CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd use the plural there, so whatever the variant is. Rothorpe (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Caroline Webster Schermerhorn Astor

What do you think of the adverbs in the middle of the infinitive in this sentence in the last paragraph in the section Caroline Webster Schermerhorn Astor#The gatekeeper?

  • For this reason, Astor was reluctant to call upon the Vanderbilt girls. In 1883, however, Astor was forced to formally socially acknowledge the wealthy socialite Alva Erksine Smith, first wife of horse breeder/railroad manager William Kissam Vanderbilt, thereby providing the Vanderbilts, the greatest "new" fortune in New York, entrance into the highest rungs of society.

- CorinneSD (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where they'd fit better. Sometimes it's best to boldly and blatantly split the infinitive. Rothorpe (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In 1883, however, Astor was forced formally to acknowledge socially the wealthy socialite Alva Erksine Smith...
  • In 1883, however, Astor was forced to acknowledge socially and formally the wealthy socialite Alva Erskine Smith...
- CorinneSD (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, Forced Formally; Socially, the Wealthy Socialite... The second isn't isn't so bad. You didn't think to put them at the end? With a 'both', perhaps:
That's good. Since it's your version, why don't you go ahead and make the change? CorinneSD (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I went to do that, but it wouldn't work, there being a lengthy adjectival phrase in between, so I tried another version, decided it made no sense, went to revert that, but User:SNUGGUMS got there first! Rothorpe (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether both adverbs are really necessary. I think one would suffice. CorinneSD (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Let me guess... Removing 'socially' would get rid of the repetition with 'socialite'. Rothorpe (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't come to a decision on which should go, but you're right about that. And anyway, how does one "socially acknowledge" someone? If one acknowledges another person, it is by definition social. Do you think someone will object to the removal of "socially"? CorinneSD (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
One never knows, but yes, how about acknowledging is a social act as the edit summary? Rothorpe (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Delayed feathering in chickens

Here's an article you are unlikely to come across. I've had it on my watchlist for a long time and only rarely see an edit to it. I saw an edit to the article, Delayed feathering in chickens, [26], and I was about to make some changes to similar items throughout the article for consistency when I thought I had better check with you first to be sure this one is correct. If it is, then I plan on changing:

  • the caption to the first image
  • any other instances of "one-day-old chick(s)"
  • from "10-12 day-old chicks" (which sounds like a number of day-old chicks) to "10- to 12-day-old chicks" (which is ten-, eleven-, or twelve-day-old chicks -- I believe that is what was meant).

-- CorinneSD (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a very necessary hyphen. Rothorpe (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius

What do you think of this edit to Marcus Aurelius? [27] - CorinneSD (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Like changing 'limousine' to 'car'? Rothorpe (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
But why? Some editors like to simplify the language whenever they come across an unusual word. I prefer a more varied vocabulary. A tome is a book, but doesn't it carry the sense of a large or important book? CorinneSD (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. Of course it should be changed back. Rothorpe (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Clark Terry

One of my all-time favourite jazz trumpeters (flugelhorners!). Do you think there is any point in nominating for RD? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

(Thinks hard.) RD? Recent deaths? Surely, an important figure. Rothorpe (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes indeed. An immense figure, in my opinion, who played with all the greats - Ellington, Basie, Monk, Webster, Quincy Jones, Ella, OP, Dizzy, Dinah, Holiday, Sarah Vaughan, Coleman Hawkins, Zoot Sims, Milt Jackson....! And was also a great jazz educator. In my book a genius. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
And he forgave Miles Davis for stealing his money! Rothorpe (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Really? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
1950, during Miles's junkie period. Rothorpe (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Before you nominate the ref tag should go, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eve Pollard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elle. 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) 09:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rothorpe/Archive_23&oldid=1141416738"