This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Corinne and any (talk page stalker). It has been a quiet weekend. I put Planned Parenthood in the GOCE hopper just now in anticipation that one of these months it will get a G.A. review. If you are interested, pop on by. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax I finished copy-editing the article; hope you approve. I wanted to ask you and Rothorpe about this sentence from the first paragraph:
Planned Parenthood reports that it consists of approximately 174 affiliates and 700 health clinics in the United States and abroad.
I just wonder whether "consists of" is the best verb or verb phrase to use here. I think of "consists of" more with either tangible materials or small entities. This is a huge organization. I'm wondering whether "comprises" would be better, or "is made up of" or "includes" or something else. Any thoughts? Corinne (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne and any (talk page stalker), I agree with you and I like your idea of "is made up of" best. Good work on the PP article. Thank you so much. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. Per your great suggestion I changed consists of → is made up of.
Please dive in with edits, additions, and providing references to new material. Just do it! I am struggling with finding and adding good prose to the Planned Parenthood#Planned Parenthood Global section and would appreciate any research and adds you can make. If you hang a link in this form:
on anything you find and add, then later I can fill in the missing ref parameters so the reference is not a bare URL. Thanks! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The Planned Parenthood Global section a bit listy - are there any countries where some notable activities have taken place that can buff the section a bit?
Working on it.
Added more prose about global work. Checkingfax {Talk} 12:41 am, 8 February 2016, Monday (8 days ago) (UTC−8)
Additions removed by editor Joel B. Lewis. Digging in again. Checkingfax {Talk} 2:17 pm, 8 February 2016, last Monday (7 days ago) (UTC−8)
Added more prose and references to section. Checkingfax {Talk} 3:17 pm, 8 February 2016, last Monday (7 days ago) (UTC−8)
Ok, that is looking better - the material of para 2 is a good add, but the first sentence I find jarring. I am thinking it should be structured highlighting the agency's priority and then community response. The para can be trimmed too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 7:56 pm, 8 February 2016, last Monday (7 days ago) (UTC−8)
OK, working on it. Cheers! Checkingfax {Talk} 1:19 am, 12 February 2016, last Friday (4 days ago) (UTC−8)
Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
⇐ To me, this painting captures the essence of coldness. Sca (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Sca Thank you for the painting! I don't think I had heard of Korovin before. Is there an article on him? I'll have to look. Yes, I see what you mean. The haziness of the moon makes me think it might be snowing a little, but not enough to hide the moon. I'm puzzled by the light in the lower left quarter of the painting. It looks a little yellow – is that a glow from the light within the cabin? Thanks again! - Corinne (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see that. I just know this painting wants me to fire up the samovar and open a bottle of Водка. Alas, where I live it got up to 60 F today. Sca (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
PPS: Remember, cold is a relative term. Also, there's no such thing as "cold temperatures." Sca (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, no, I hadn't seen the horse. Thank you for pointing it out. I see it more readily in the small version of the painting here. When I first saw it, I immediately clicked on the image and saw it larger, and I didn't notice the horse. It just looked like more dark objects such as wood. Wow. I can't believe I didn't see it. I just copy-edited the article on Konstantin Korovin and I see some other paintings there I like. I also skimmed the article on his brother, Sergei Korovin. Did you read the last sentence in the Sergei Korovin article? If it was really said by somebody, it would be nice to find a citation. Corinne (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Didn't know of Sergei. Interesting. Sca (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
KE discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Jytdog I just stumbled across the on-going discussion at JW's talk page and now on yours, and in your last comment on your talk page you included two external links to the WM blog as two different examples of what you saw as good and poor responses, Max and Lila's. However, when I looked at them, they looked the same to me, with the same date at the top, and I didn't see Max's name anywhere. Am I missing something, or did you provide two links to the exact same thing instead of two different things? I looked at them because I wanted to see what you meant. Corinne (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, i fixed it. what max wrote is the first comment on what lila wrote - the permalink is here. :) Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
KE discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Jytdog I just stumbled across the on-going discussion at JW's talk page and now on yours, and in your last comment on your talk page you included two external links to the WM blog as two different examples of what you saw as good and poor responses, Max and Lila's. However, when I looked at them, they looked the same to me, with the same date at the top, and I didn't see Max's name anywhere. Am I missing something, or did you provide two links to the exact same thing instead of two different things? I looked at them because I wanted to see what you meant. Corinne (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, i fixed it. what max wrote is the first comment on what lila wrote - the permalink is here. :) Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Ssbbplayer I'm glad you changed it back to tornados. I saw your other comment in response to 7&6=13 re the IP. You wrote, "Thanks. I did actually did this to one IP..." Perhaps you won't mind if I tell you that it should be "I did actually do this to one IP". As you probably know, "I did do [something]" is another way of saying "I did [something]". With the former, you are simply emphasizing it. "Do" is the Simple Form of the verb to do, and we always use the Simple Form (infinitive without to) after the modal auxiliary verbs (do, does, did, will, would, can could, shall, should, may, might, must, etc.). It would look like this with a different verb: "I did close the door"; "I did return the book"; "I did say 'hello'". Corinne (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). Hi Corinne. Did you know that 7&6=13 cannot be pinged with a template unless you wrap the equal sign with four curly braces? You can ping 7&6=13 with four square brackets without using the curly brace workaround, but only in this format: [[user:username]]. PS: I think his/her nickname is actually 7+6=Thirteen? But I get your gist UPDATE: I just checked and there is a user 7+6 is thirteen, and there is a user 7&6=thirteen. So it is the latter we are talking about, and it is the latter that needs the curly brace workaround in order to receive template pings. Template pings (like the "U" ping) sent without curly braces around the equal sign will go vanish into the Ether. 7&6=thirteen has probably missed hundreds of pings since there is no confirmation or rejection of malformed pings. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Checkingfax. I think you might have mentioned it somewhere. Have you told 7&6=13 about this? S/He probably knows about this, but if s/he doesn't, s/he might like to know, and might consider changing or modifying his/her user name. Since this was a mini-grammar lesson for Ssbbplayer, I didn't really want to ping 7&6 here, but thank you for the information anyway. (I was concerned that Cerme would not receive a ping (see the "Trajan again" section here) since his/her user name is red, so I left a note on his/her talk page.) Did you see the question I asked you at the IRC/GOCE discussion? Corinne (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. Did you realize this section name is "Dot"?
Yes, I told 7&6= about the issue and I proved it in a double test to them but they seemed indifferent. I don't think usernames that have such issues should be accepted by the system as being a valid username. I was lucky to even know about the equal sign issue—a matter I only learned about by reading up on the {{tlx}} template and its limitations—and then much later pulling it out of my brain archive and extrapolating it as a possible limitation with usernames too.
For me red usernames are my cue (if I notice it) that I typed in the username wrong. Like I type in Corrine a lot and it goes red but many times I fail to notice it. Betty Logan by choice has a red username, although s/he is a longtime registered user. One cause of red usernames (this vexed me at first, speaking of my own username) is that your username will remain red as long as you have not created a user page. The easy solution for new users is to put even a single image or word on their user page and save it. By the way, I just showed Betty Logan's red username to you and provided a link to her user page but without pinging her by using the {{noping}} template instead of the {{u}} template. Using noping provides a link to the user's user page without pinging them to the discussion. Cheers! PS: If you go to Betty Logan's user page you will see that s/he has requested its deletion several times. One workaround for her would be to create a Redirect from her user page to her talk page because if you go to her user page you might assume that her username is not even registered. Check it out. FYI: She likes to have her username red so she can spot her own contributions easier on lists (like Page history or User contributions). There are many long-time users that do not have user pages and it is doubly confusing because their username is red and their user page implies they are not even registered. I added a noping to user Zwege Nase at the top of this page too. PPS: I just did a page preview and Betty Logan's username shows up blue when using the noping template but s/he still has no user page. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne if you did a {{noping|7&6=13}} even if you surround the equal sign with four curly braces the noping will not link to any user page because there is no user in the system with that user name. And if you tried {{noping|7&6=thirteen}} does not even show up (it vanishes from the screen), but {{u|7&6=thirteen}} would have to be sent in the format of {{u|7&6{{=}}thirteen}} to be a valid ping. The systems is so fickle that 7&6{{=}}Thirteen would not work either because of the upcased T in thirteen. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
O.K. But I am unlikely to ping 7&6 even though I've never had any issues with him/her. We don't seem to edit the same articles. Why don't you tell Cerme that s/he could just add one image or one word to his/her user page and save? Maybe s/he thinks that s/he has to put a lot there and can't be bothered or has no idea what to put there, so doesn't try. Yes, I am aware the section heading is a dot. I learned that from Hafspajen. I thought it might be a way not to draw attention to the post; I never want to embarrass an editor w/ a grammar lesson. Corinne (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Again on Trajan.
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Dear Corinne: the editor Zwerge Nase, who reviewed my GAN for the article Trajan, asked for details in the section on the Correctores. I added various details, and as Zwerge Nase had asked for more using of the primary sources, I added a quotation from Dio of Prisa Oration 38. Problem is that Dio - as almost all of his contemporaries - was above all a rhetorician and therefore hopelessly verbose. Follows the section of the text which includes the quotation:
Roman authorities liked to play the Greek cities against one another[64]- something about which Dio of Prusa was fully aware [follows quote]: "by their public acts [the Roman governors] have branded you as a pack of fools, yes, they treat you just like children, for we often offer children the most trivial things in place of things of greatest worth [...]In place of justice, in place of the freedom of the cities from spoliation or from the seizure of the private possessions of their inhabitants, in place of their refraining from insulting you [...] your governors hand you titles, and call you 'first' either by word of mouth or in writing; that done, they may thenceforth with impunity treat you as being the very last!"[65][66] Nevertheless, these same Roman authorities had also an interest in assuring the cities' solvency [...]
The relevant issue being as follows: the quote, no matter how necessary in order to supply the article with the "flavor" of Trajan's times, is a fine specimen of a kind of big-worded rhetoric that makes the section entirely unbalanced. I fear clipping the (already edited) quote far to much; at the same time, I think that as it is, it's far too long. Any suggestions? Your knowledge on the subject would be greatly appreciated! RegardsCerme (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Cerme, for your confidence in me. I'm not an experienced FA reviewer, you know, but I'll offer my opinion anyway. I don't think the quote is too long. It perfectly expresses (from the point of view of a Greek) the situation of the Greeks under the Romans. I formatted it already. It will be the only blockquote in the article, and you mentioned Dio of Prusa several times. I deleted the word "nevertheless" after the quote, though; I don't think it was necessary. I also think it would be helpful if you:
gave a reason why the Romans "liked to play the Greek cities off each other" (beginning of the paragraph), and if you:
indicated, just before the blockquote, whom Dio of Prusa was addressing (i.e., speaking to).
You'll see that I changed a few "no-break space" and en-dashes to templates which I have learned from Checkingfax are preferable. See the "Templates" section at the top of my talk page. They're easy to remember by the mnemonic. For example, "nbsp" is "no-break-space", and "nsndns" is "no-space en-dash no-space", i.e., an en-dash with no space either side of it, and "snds" is "space en-dash space", i.e., an en-dash with a space either side of it. (Be sure to enclose them in the pair of double curly brackets.) I also changed a few instances of "page" in references to "p." followed by a no-break space, but if you prefer that the word be written out in full, let me know and I'll change them back. If you like the "p." for "page" and "pp." for "pages", let me know and I'll change the rest of them (or you can). I also made a few changes in wording to improve the flow and make the sentences more concise. I hope you approve. If not, feel free to put them back. Corinne (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne and Cerme. {{nsndns}} is an alias (shortcut) for {{en dash}}. Another alias to {{en dash}} that I find easier to remember is simply {{ndash}}. Click on the en dash link to the left to see the various aliases to en dash. Or, you can always use the main template: {{en dash}}. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax Oh. More templates to learn, but they're all easy to remember. I wish I knew the keyboard shortcut for en-dash and em-dash on my computer. Do you know them? Corinne (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne.
Do you have a Mac or a PC? Let me know. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I have a PC. When I first saw "noping" recently, I thought it was the present participle of some new verb to nope, from "Nope, I didn't see it." Corinne (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. I forgot to ask: Desktop computer or laptop computer? If laptop, do you have an external number pad? One that is external to the lettered keyboard? Or is the number pad embedded in the lettered keys? Like is there a subscripted number on the J, M, N, and I keys but not on a separate number pad? (I know all keyboards have a top row of numbers, with a row of function keys above those.) Noping gets me every time too. In my head I read nope-ing not no-ping. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Corinne and Cerme. I balanced an unbalanced brackethere. Can you please confirm that this was a correct edit on my part? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank you for improving the article on Jainism :) Nimit (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Checkingfax I just finished a two-day copy-edit of Jainism for GOCE. I told the requester that I would read it through again tomorrow and perhaps leave some questions for him. There is a table in the section Jainism#Stages on the Path in which I think some things could be done to improve the appearance of the text in the left-hand column:
1) There should be a space right after each number. I could have added it, but I thought I'd first ask you for help. (I think the space – in some of them – might have been omitted in order to fit more letters on the first line; but perhaps not.) I think the left-hand column should be a little wider. The right-hand column could be a little narrower, but not too much narrower.
2) When part of the term (in the left-hand column) has to go to the second line, is there a way to format it so that the word on the second line doesn't begin at the left-hand edge of the box but instead is indented slightly, what I would call a hanging indent? It would look so much neater if there were.
There is a table in the section Jainism#Cosmology that looks a bit better than the other one, but I still think could be improved.
1) I'm all for the use of color, but I think the green is a bit too dark. What do you think?
2) I think the line separating the columns should be a bit more visible even in the header row; maybe if the color is lightened a bit, those lines will appear more clearly.
3) I think if the fourth column ("Average height of people"), and perhaps also the third and fifth columns to a slight extent, were made narrower, the first column could be made wider and accommodate the terms on one line instead of two. Then the heading "Name of the Ara" would be on one line instead of two. What do you think?
I'm going to remove the "GOCE in use" tag for now. I'm also going to ping the requester, Capankajsmilyo so he can see this and comment if he wants to. Corinne (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. I will be AFK for a bit but wanted to dash off a partial reply to you so you can reply to me. What is meant by "There should be a space right after each number."? You mean the written out numbers?
The columns widths in this case are automatically adjusted based on the content within them as the table creator did not speficy any special styling.
You can force some extra non-breaking spaces and gang them together by using the {{spaces}} template. Put a pipe and a number after the word spaces to specify how many spaces to add, i.e.- {{spaces|3}} would add 3 non-breaking spaces in a row. Click on the spaces link to the left to see the limitations of the spaces template (like how many spaces you can gang up).
To created a small hanging indent you could try: {{nbsp}} to create a one-space indent, or you could use the {{spaces}} template to add more than one non-breaking space. You cannot gang up {{nbsp}} templates. They will collapse. So, use the spaces template if you need to gang up more than one space in a row.
The green header may violate the color contrast guidelines in MOS:ACCESSIBILITY. I would also like to see the three tables in the article have the same header color, or at least ones that are complementary on a color wheel.
I do not know how to darken table separation lines and it may not be possible with the "wikitable" being used. See if you can research it. Try putting WP:Wikitable in the search box on any page, or try Help:Wikitable in the same search box.
The columns can only be made narrower if they are hardcoded with styling parameters or if line breaks are forced in the text using {{brk}} templates. Otherwise the column with automatically adjusts to what is in the column or in the column header (whichever is wider). As a hack workaround you can also force columns to be wider in an unformatted wikitable by using the {{spaces}} template to gang a bunch of spaces after the longest phrase in the column. Cheers! PS: This reply became more than a dashing. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Checkingfax. (What does "AFK" mean?) I'll just reply to your question about a space after the numbers, then I'll go look at the rest. In the left-hand column, each item starts with a number followed by a period/full-stop: 1., 2., 3., etc. Right after the period/full-stop there should be one space before the text starts. Some of the boxes have the space, but others do not. I think all should have the space. But since that is a minor issue that can be easily fixed, I thought I'd figure out all the rest first. Corinne (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. AFK=Away From Keyboard. You were absolutely correct so once I found the right section I added a space after 10., 11., 13., and 14., here. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. You can make the table separators wider. Try .25, .5, .33, 1, 2, 1.5, 3, etc. I set up a test area for you to try background colors (for headings) and to test table border sizes here: User:Checkingfax/sandbox#Practice tables. Feel free to muck them up. If you Preview your edits you can keep trying until you get it right, or you can Cancel if things go bad. To change the border size just change the border= number. It's probably in pixels or in em. Whatever you do, it's OK to save your changes. It is your table testbed area.
In wikEd there is a button that looks like a calendar. Click on that button and it will start a blank table where your curser was just before you pressed the button. Then you can fill in the cells and headings, etc. Go ahead and create a test table in that section too. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Jainism article copy-edit
(Moved from below to keep material about Jainism article together.) Checkingfax I decided that I've done enough with the article, so I put the GOCE template on the article's talk page. Corinne (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikitable instructions need copy-editing
Checkingfax I'm now looking at the information at WP:Wikitable. I'm actually now at Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/2, and in the table explaining step-by-step the various aspects of a table, I found a few errors, but I can't figure out how to correct them. Perhaps you can. They're in the explanation at the right for "new cell in a row". It reads:
New cells each start with either a new line and a single mark |, or may be several cells can be places consecutively on the same line between double marks.
I've highlighted the errors in bold. "May be" should be "maybe", and "can be places" should be "can be placed". Can you fix these? How do you edit this? I couldn't see how. After I finish reading, I may have to ask you more questions if I don't understand exactly how to change the column widths and the color of the header row in that table with the bright olive green in Jainism (or maybe I'll ask you to do it; it's a bit much for me to figure out). Corinne (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC) O.K. I've finished reading that information. I didn't go to "Help", but I don't want to. It's too complicated for me. Can you work on the tables? Corinne (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved from below to keep thread together.
Hi Corinne. They allow subpages on Help pages (and on Wikipedia pages, user pages, etc.) and that table is on a subpage called: table 2
They call it to the page you showed me by surrounding the subpage name in curly braces and adding a leading forward slash like this: {{/table 2}}. That is called "transcluding" a page.
I am going to let you make the changes so you get the attribution for the edit. Cheers! PS: Articles since they are in the Wikipedia main WP:namespace are not allowed to have subpages. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I made a number of changes to make the instructions clearer. What do you think? There seems to be an extra </code> visible in edit mode. Corinne (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. Your changes to that tutorial were spot on. Good job. I thought the exclamation marks were hard to distinguish from the vertical bars so I labeled each as such (and linked the first mention to their germane Wikipedia article). I also decided to add some copy about how to close the table since that cell was empty. It might help a visually impaired person who is trying to get up to speed on tables. For the wee bit I added it sure was tedious. Working within a table takes a lot of page Previews to make sure your table edits will render as intended. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you, Marek69! That was very nice of you! Corinne (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Free now
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Corinne, do you still work on Hofberg? Greets --Tschips (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Tschips No, I haven't looked at it for a while. I thought you were going to work on it. Let me know when you'd like me to read it. Corinne (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne, I found this description of the Bad Aibling history. You could feed it to the google translator to get an idea of the events related to the city and to the hofberg. Greets --Tschips (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you want to, take a look at the article about Molly Sandén. Any improvements are welcomed :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for the help and suggestions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
TAFI
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Corinne. Thanks for the poke. No, I had not stopped in for a while. I was puzzled by the request to edit an article that does not exist; not even as a redirect. I voted on a few, and promoted a couple, but because I was the promoting vote I did not tag them as Approved. How would we improve the list article you submitted? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I was puzzled by that and by the long list of links to references. Perhaps the poster misunderstands the purpose of the TAFINOM page. Regarding the List of German painters, I thought the tags contained at least one specific suggestion; also, if we follow the warning at the top of the page as seen in edit mode, all the red names should be removed. Finally, if the page has not been updated in a while, there may be more German painters who deserve at least a stub article and then the name added to the list. Did you look at all the nominations on the page? I'm going to add one more right now. Corinne (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. I have not gone back to look, but does your nom include all those suggestions for ways to improve the list article? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax Well, maybe not all of them. I guess I should add them. Corinne (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Checkingfax I am just now starting a GOCE copy-edit of Kazi Nazrul Islam. Would you mind looking at a hidden note to editors that is right after the infobox material? Is there anything you can do to resolve the problem that the editor who posted the note saw? Corinne (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. I went to check then made a couple of edits. I forgot to stand down. I did not notice the in-use template until after I saved my edits. I am sorry. Maybe we should add a red border to that template? It really blends in nicely as it stands.
I agree those templates that are rem'd out are huge and having two of them is over the top especially when compounded by a long infobox and lots of images. If there are wikilinks within the article basically linking to the same info, the boxes become redundant. Another thing is: They are usually placed right below the infobox which is usually about 300px wide while those navboxes are about 220px wide. If they widened those to line up with infoboxes, then they would take up less vertical space. Win/win. They also contain, IMHO, TMI The editor was bold to rem those two out, but kind enough and wise enough to leave an edit notice of why. I wonder what those boxes are called? I think boxes are kind of cool but they do dominate. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
PS: We're not allowed to 'hide' article prose but I wonder if we could hide those templates? Collapse them by default, with a 'show' link. They do it in infoboxes and with poems. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
CheckingfaxI didn't know with whom I had an edit conflict just now, but since I had made quite a few edits which would be difficult and time-consuming to repeat, I decided to copy the entire article (in edit mode) and paste, in order to override those edits. I edit a long article in sections, in this case approximately a third of the article at a time, and it would have been the last third on which we had an edit conflict, but since I wasn't sure where I had started that last third, I copied and pasted the entire article (edit mode, that is). I hope you don't mind and that you can repeat your edits. Thank you. Now I will take a look at your comments just above. Corinne (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about regarding the infobox and the hidden note to editors. You've already taught me about enough things this week; save explaining this one for another time. Can you take care of whatever the problem was? I changed quote boxes to regular quotes a few times. Corinne (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. The Nazrul article is a can-o-woms with all the corridors the quote boxes and images make that surround the prose. It will be hard to remedy, but converting the box quotes to blockquotes will help with fixing that conflict. The article does not have enough room for all those boxes and images. That is why Baffle Gab1978 rem'd out those two additional boilerplate "infoboxes". I feel the two additional infoboxes should remain rem'd out until the article is expanded to the point where it has room for them. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. The Nazrul article had a portal at the bottom and I went to the portal (by clicking on the portal link in the portal box) and the image within the portal had that Polaroid look to it as it was a "thumb" but had no caption, so I removed the thumb parameter so the image would look better in the portal. Removing the thumb parameter removed the large border at the bottom and the smaller border on the other three sides. I also noted that the thumbnail image for the portal was a puzzle piece. That means there is no image assigned to the portal so I add one as you can see above. It's not very good but is all I could find and it was fun figuring out how to do it. Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) set me on the path to figuring out how to add images to portals and to portal alias names. I created an alias version of the portal as you can see below the main portal version as Islam's nickname is Nazrul. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Great! What's a portal? Don't you think we should ping the author of the article? Vinegarymass911 might be interested. Corinne (talk) 00:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Custom signature
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Corinne. I notice you are adding the snds template to your signature. Did you know you can do that customization automatically?
You cannot add templates to custom signatures, but you can add the gist using HTML escape codes as shown below.
You do this in Preferences by changing the text in the Signature box.
Insert this string: – [[User:Corinne|Corinne]] ([[User talk:Corinne#top|talk]])
(be sure to copy the above string while viewing this string normally, not while viewing it in edit source view, or in see changes view)
Check the box for: Treat the above as wiki markup
Scroll to bottom of page and click on: Save
Scroll back up the page and look at the display of Existing signature:
It should look the way you want it to. It should render as: – Corinne (talk)
Going forward, whenever you use the four tildes your signature will include the snds in essence. If you instead want em dash, you can replace ndash with mdash. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax Thank you! I just started using that template. The en-dash wasn't so necessary when I signed at the end of my own sentence, but when I signed at the end of an example of possible wording, I wanted my signature to be clearly separate from it. I will follow your instructions. Thank you. Corinne (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I followed the steps you gave me. I just used the signature above regarding the March 8 article summary in my reply to Montanabw, and the en-dash ended up at the end of the line and "Corinne" at the beginning of the next line. How come they got separated? – Corinne (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
User page
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Baffle gab1978 What happened to your user page? I saw that you had requested that it be deleted? Why? I hope you're all right. – Corinne (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC) I forgot Baffle gab can't get pings. Jonesey95 What happened? – Corinne (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I have explained on my talk page Corinne. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Does this one appeal to you? - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Dank
Yes, it does. I'll get to it later this evening. I saw your note somewhere earlier today but forgot to reply – I've been distracted by trying to finish reading two books in the last few days. Corinne (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Great work, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Dank and Montanabw I see the summary has been completely re-written...that's fine, but I'd like to comment on these two sentences:
Percherons were bred in Great Britain beginning in 1918; in the United States, they accounted for 70 percent of the draft horse population by the 1930s. Their numbers declined substantially after World War II, but the population later rebounded.
1) The word "population" appears twice in fairly close proximity. I wonder if there is a way to avoid using one of them.
2) The two halves of the first sentence seem barely related, so I don't see a reason to join them with a semi-colon. The first clause is about breeding the horse in Great Britain. The second is about the percentage that the breed represented in the U.S. twelve years later. The way I had it before, there was a clause about breeding the horse in the U.S. before the information about the percentage in the U.S., providing a bit of a transition: breeding in Great Britain → breeding in the U.S. → percentage of Percherons relative to total horse population in U.S.
3) The second sentence is not a particularly interesting fact. I thought the sentence about the horses being shipped back to France was more interesting, but that is not there anymore.
4) Toward the end, you have "for draft work, pulling carriages..." The reason I left out "pulling carriages" was because I thought "draft work" included pulling carriages, but, if not, that's fine. But I think for the average reader, "draft work" is meaningless. More meaningful is "farm work", "forestry", or logging, and, of course, "pulling carriages". Corinne (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
You two are welcome to continue working on this. I'll have another look closer to the TFA day. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
1) OK to fix. 2) Punctuation no big deal, do as you see fit. I chopped some of the registry stuff because we had to chop something and I felt that date of registry was unrelated to percentages (really, the registry formed BECAUSE there were already so many) 3) it's interesting, but many other horses got shipped to France during WWI, so it's not unique to the Percheron, 4) Lighter horses can pull carriages too, for example, see Combined driving. I don't object to explaining "draft work" but it's all of the above, so not sure if room for the whole laundry list... Montanabw(talk) 04:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Dank and Montanabw I'm wondering about two things related to these sentences:
The breed is still used today under saddle, and for pulling carriages and heavier draft work. In France they are also used for food.
1.I never heard the expression "under saddle" in my life until this summary. What's wrong with: "is still used today as a saddle horse", or "is still used for riding"? I just saw a statistic yesterday that Checkingfax supplied saying that 25% of WP's readership is between the ages of 10 and 18. Why not use plain English in our summaries?
2.The second sentence starts with the pronoun "they". The only plural noun in the sentence that precedes this one is "carriages". I'm sure people don't eat carriages, but still, the reader has to connect "they" to "Percheron horses" through "the breed". I don't think the addition of the word "also" in this sentence takes care of the concern that it might appear that in France Percherons are only used for food. Perhaps if we change "the breed" to "Percherons", and join the sentences as follows, it might read better:
Percherons are still used today for riding and pulling carriages, for heavier draft work and, in France, as food. – Corinne (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm open to fixing it that way. They are not primarily riding horses, that's the problem I'm having. "Riding horse" is fine if "under saddle" is too jargon-y. (They aren't of "saddle horse" type precisely... just like wrestlers can do ballet, doesn't mean they should do so in public!) They ARE ridden, but that's because there is a fad of riding draft horses, not because they are bred for it. I wonder if we should just pitch the whole horsemeat thing, it plays into the stereotype of the French people as eaters of horsemeat, plus, many draft breeds are used for meat in Europe, not just these. Montanabw(talk) 00:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw Oh. I see. I think after your latest edits it's fine now. I agree with your cutting out the part about Percherons being used for food in France. I think it unnecessarily added a negative note to the summary. – Corinne (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Just glad to see it run, too bad Dana boomer isn't editing any more, this was her FAC. Montanabw(talk) 03:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The blue of wiki-links
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Checkingfax I ran across something interesting and wondered if you had seen it. Tony1 has figured out a way to select the shade of blue, or, in fact, any color you want, for wiki-links. See User:Tony1#Tone down the bright blue of wikilinking. The blue of wiki-links doesn't bother me unless there are a lot of links. If there are a lot, the blue can get distracting. How about you? – Corinne (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
After all these years I'm used to the less garish link-colour. You're reminded of the default when visiting other WMF sites. Tony(talk) 02:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Tony – Does Wikipedia in general have a softer shade of blue for wiki-links, or is it just that you have selected a softer shade of blue for your own viewing of Wikipedia articles, etc.? – Corinne (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC) P.S. I enjoyed looking at your user page. Your dog looks like a delightful companion. – Corinne (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne and Tony1, for my laptop I need the contrast of the default blue, however I do have a script installed that makes redirected links display into a light green. I have found this JavaScript to be remarkably helpful when creating wikilinks. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
That puppy is very demanding! Unfortunately the ability to change the garish bright blue to something less disruptive to reading is not included in our preferences. Even so, it would be better to tone it down a little for readers, who don't normally log in and select preferences. Tony(talk) 12:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)�
Google Doodle task force collaboration for 29 February 2016
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Jonesey95 I saw your comment following the "Partly done" tag at the Coropuna request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests page. You're right that I was tired after I had finished copy-editing the article, but I think it would have been nice if you had left me a note here, or even on the talk page of the article where I had left a list of issues for the requester to look at (which in itself took quite a bit of time to write), instead of on the requests page. Your list of things that I had not done and that needed fixing embarrassed me in front of all the other copy-editors and the editors who regularly post requests! Also, a lot of those things I don't know anything about, such as the minutiae of reference formats. I guess if I am responsible for fixing those things I'll have to study up on them, but you could have told me that here, too. I thought the requesting editors were responsible for the references. Finally, even after I post the GOCE tag saying the copy-edit is finished and the "Done" tag at the requests page, I often go back to the article and read it once through again to find anything I've missed, usually the next day. – Corinne (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I would actually appreciate it if you would remove the "Partly done" tag and the details that followed it from the GOCE requests page. – Corinne (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for hurting your feelings. Reviewing copy-edits by GOCE members, especially those for Requests, is a responsibility of the coordinators. My intent was to prevent the Request from being archived before the copy-edit was complete by my standards as a coordinator. The items I listed, except for the convert template, should not require any technical knowledge. I did not comment on the reference fixes, since they do not affect the prose copy.
I am also often worn out after completing a first pass of copy editing. Some articles are such a mess! I recommend waiting a day or so before marking the request as complete. There is no hurry and there is no deadline at Wikipedia. Thanks for all of your edits. As I said, you did some major copy-edits on that article, and I know from painful experience that a second (or at least a rested) pair of eyes can find things that I have missed on a messy article, despite my initial best efforts. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Jonesey95 for your apology and your kind remarks. Thank you, also, for removing the "Partly done" tag and the details from the requests page. I know all about the various conversion templates, including the adjective form, the form with the en-dash in the middle for a range, and the number (-1, 0, 1, 2, etc.) to limit the number of decimal points. If I neglected to format those correctly, it was because I was tired, and I think I would have seen and corrected them on a second read-through. If you want to, go ahead and fix what needs to be fixed. Since I had seen some statistics on the average time taken to complete copy-edits, I thought there was an effort to speed the time up; that's why I posted the "Done" tag after my first (fairly thorough) copy-edit of the article. Now that I know there is no hurry, I will wait to post the "Done" tag, and the "GOCE copy-edit completed" tag, until I've read the article through once or twice more. Before I joined GOCE, I had already been copy-editing articles for about two years. I now have 19,028 edits, all done since I started editing on WP in September 2012, and nearly all of those are copy-editing. I didn't think I was supposed to touch anything in the "cite" form of the references, but I guess I can change "p" to "pp" if it's more than one page, or vice versa; I hadn't even noticed that until recently. I guess it's just the "ref name" in which I'm not supposed to change anything. I never did much with references, except formatting text and spacing, and nobody ever said I had to do more. So, you can trust me with conversion templates, and I'll pay more attention to references from now on, and I'll delay posting the tags until I'm really finished. Thanks again for your kind and courteous reply. – Corinne (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Consistency of date style in articles
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Corinne. I have been having fun making dates consistent in articles. It used to be overwhelming, but now I found a script to do the rote work. How do you unify dates? First off is figuring out what the default date style is. Sometimes I change the dates then it looks wrong, so then I revert to the other style (mdy vs dmy). The date script has a couple of quirks: 1) I have to toggle wikEd to off (easy) or its efforts are neutralized; 2) It does some "common fixes" that I don't always agree with (so I revert them); 3) Each time the script is fired it adds another edit-summary. So, if I fire it before toggling wikEd off, then turn wikEd off and fire it again, that is two edit summaries...meaning I probably will delete one edit summary.
I then use wikEd to alphabetize categories. You just highlight all the categories (but not the DEFAULTSORT: key) and then hit the wikEd A→Z sort button and pow, it's done. But you have to remember to toggle wikEd back on if it is toggled off from running the MOSNUM DATE script. Otherwise the A→Z button is not even there. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax Wow! You've been busy! You didn't tell me what the date script was that you've been using. Also, where is the wikEd A to Z sort button? I guess you enjoying using these gadgets to get these tedious tasks done. I think I have enough things to keep me busy without doing these (although I suppose one could argue that they are part of a thorough copy-edit). How do you determine what the original date style is? Is it the very first time an article appears, or is it the version of the article when it was first rated C-class? If it is the latter, how do you find that version? I'd also like to ask these same questions regarding determining which style of English the article should be in. Corinne (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. It is Wikipedia:MOSNUMscript. I would suggest running it as one of your first tasks so it does not overrule and modify any of your ndash or nbsp template insertion efforts. You will need to toggle wikEd "off" to run MOSNUMscript.
The wikEd toggle on/off button is above the edit window. Hover your mouse until you find the button labeled "use wikEd instead of classic text area" (looks like the image above). When you are done with MOSNUMscript you can toggle wikEd back on by pressing the same button. Button popped in is "on" and button popped out is "off". On my screen the set of buttons with the toggle button are on the top/right of my edit window. The buttons are hideable and might be hidden, but should not be by default. The buttons are in blocks. The block with the toggle on/off for wikEd is called the "control button" block. If you hover on the hide arrow you can read the basic function of each block of wikEd buttons.
When wikEd is toggled on there are a whole bunch of buttons above the edit window. One of them is "sort alphabetically" (hover your mouse on the buttons until you find it). It is the button with an A on top of a Z with a downward pointing arrow to the right of the A and Z.
You can see the AZ sort button in the screenshot above (click on it for a larger view if needed).
To determine the datestyle to use, I look for a datestyle tag near the top or bottom of the article; lacking that I look for the preponderance of use in the article (and by doing an edit-source to look at the datestyle used in the preponderance of references). As a last resort, I click on the "page information" link on the left side of the screen, click on the link for the original article version, then click through to subsequent versions until one shows some use of dates. The problem is there may have been a consensus discussion on the talk page to change the datestyle. If it is my call I defer to dmy as that is used by 90% of the world. yyyy-dd-mm and yyyy-mm-dd styles are deprecated or incompatible, except in rare circumstances. C-class would be a could benchmark. Another thing, if you click the date script it will show you a preview, and if it looks like it changed too many dates, then you can click on another date format and see how that looks. I don't stress on it too much since it is just a quick click to change back and forth from one datestyle to the other. I usually pick "ALL dates to dmy" or "ALL dates to mdy". This will change dates in the body, in tables, and in references. If I click the MOSNUMscript links more than once, then I go down to the edit summary box and delete the extra edit summary entries.
For English style, again I look for a template at the top or bottom of the page announcing a preference. Then I look at the subject matter of the page. Also, who authored the page. Article 5M by Casliber was launched in Australia about an Australian plant by an Australian editor so it went straight to Australian English and metric units front and center. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax Can you tell me (a) why the information that was at the top of my talk page (including # of page watchers, for example) is no longer there, and (b) why the word "maintenance" is now at the top left? Can you fix these things for me?
Hi Corinne. Thank you for the heads-up on Xtools gadgets being down. Mine is down for maintenance too. I hope they bring it back. I really like it even though it has not been fully robust for awhile. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Baffle gab1978 I saw User:Jonesey95's response to my comment on your talk page regarding Al-Shaykh Al-Mufid, and it was helpful, but it didn't address two things that I think needed to be addressed: 1) that the editor requested a particular editor to do the copy-edit, which I don't think should be allowed on the Requests page, and 2) that the editor s/he asked do the copy-edit did not post a "Working" template. Corinne (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Well it's not disallowed per WP:BEANS but it's unusual and sometimes demanding; in other words they can ask but they can't demand or expect a particular editor to jump to attention. It seems the second question was answered [the requester's talk page]. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
An addition for your bag of tricks
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Corinne. Here are several web colors (not all of them) bundled up in a nifty collapsible template you can put in your bag of tricks at the top of this page (omit the tlx and the four extra curly braces surrounding the equal sign that show up in edit-source):
Notice how there is an RGB next to each color name too that shows you the RGB (red, blue, and green light) values in Hexadecimal or Decimal numbers. You can tweak those numbers to change shades between those that are shown. Hex goes: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, a, b, d, e, f, so it can have more values than base-10 (it is base-16). The colors are also shown in decimal-codes too where the RGB values vary from 0 to 255 depending on their density, and you can tweak those numbers too in order to achieve a perfect color. Cheers! PS: You might notice that white is Hex: FF FF FF or Decimal: 255 255 255, whereas black is Hex: 00 00 00 or Decimal: 0 0 0. Since it is light, white is the "strongest" color, not black. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Coropuna
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Jonesey95 I was just looking at your recent edits to the article, and of course they are all very good; you caught several things I had missed (one or two were to sentences that were added after I finished working on the article.) I found it interesting that you tend to add words (such as "of" and "that") whereas quite a few editors tend to leave them out (leaving a kind of terse journalistic prose); I usually add them, too, but not always. I just wanted to mention something. I see you changed "which" to "that" twice for restrictive clauses. Until I started edited on WP, I always used "which" for non-restrictive clauses and "that" for restrictive. When I started editing articles on WP, I was astonished to see "which" used so often for restrictive clauses. I was actually puzzled when I realized that, overall, the word "that" seemed to be used infrequently. I have since discovered that "which" is often used for restrictive clauses by speakers of British English, so I think that would explain it. I found the following discussions of this very point in:
I think you might find this entire short article interesting: [1].
Thus, in spite of what I learned, it appears that "which" or "that" can be used for restrictive clauses (and if "which" is used for a restrictive clause, the clause should not be set off with commas). I don't know if you are an American English or British English speaker, but judging from your membership in Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon, you're probably a speaker of Amer.Eng. as I am. I'd be interested in your opinion regarding this, and whether you feel it is important to change all instances of "which" used for restrictive clauses to "that", even though "which" is apparently acceptable to speakers of British English. – Corinne (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I advocate changing "which" for restrictive clauses to "that" when the article is written in American English. In articles written in British English, I usually change some of them to avoid the use of "which" several times in succession, but not all of them, in deference to the apparent acceptability of the word in British English. – Corinne (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I know only the American English rule that I was taught, but I am aware that some which/that distinctions are a matter of style, like serial commas. In the Coropuna article, I changed two instances that looked "just plain wrong" to me; most of the time, I leave them alone if they seem reasonable, but I could not justify leaving those two.
I do not claim to have perfect knowledge of English grammar and style. I have a keen eye for detail and consistency, though, and I try hard to leave an article better than I found it. Thanks for the note. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Happy Maha Shivaratri!
Wishing you, your family, and your dear ones a very happy Maha Shivaratri! Keep yourself very happy and joyful, away from sorrows and worries in this moment, something which Nataraja teaches!
PS: I don't know whether you are aware of this festival or not, but i'm sure you will be happy with this gesture of WikiLove. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Google Doodle task force collaboration for 8 March 2016
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Just a quick, sad note: one other person was helping out at TFA, and she just resigned today, citing stress. I had picked out a category of articles to give her and was giving her all the ones in that category ... without being careful to keep the ones where there's been previous drama, either with a nominator or over issues related to the lead. I'm going to be more careful going forward with the ones I give you ... if I see any difficult issues, I'll handle it myself. Just letting you know. Thanks for your work at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Dank I'm sorry to hear that. Thanks for sharing it. I'm glad to continue writing the summaries, though when I see the edits you make after I have finished, I often think, "Why didn't I see that?" – Corinne (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It means a lot to me that you approve. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings, Corinne! I would like to thank you very much for all your efforts on the copyedit of the article about Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927. I think that your input has significantly improved the article. Best regards, --Gligan (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Greeting, Checkingfax! I still haven't created the article regarding the Treaty of 927 because I have very little free time left lately but I intend to write it in the weeks to come. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your edits on the article :) Regards, --Gligan (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for your spot-on efforts to copy edit the Planned Parenthood article directly resulting in its promotion to Good Article status. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Here is a userbox to paste onto your user page if you wish: {{User Good Article|Planned Parenthood}}
Checkingfax That's very generous of you. I put it on my user page just now, but I feel I don't deserve it. I only did a little copy-editing. You did the lion's share of the work on that article, so you deserve all of the credit. – Corinne (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Corinne, you might be interested in this from The New Yorker. Sca (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Sca Thanks, Sca! How are you? Yes, that article is interesting. Can you tell me what you think this quote from Michael Mandiberg means?
"We really resent the outcomes-focussed, neoliberal drive in all things," he said. "How do you quantify community? How do you quantify the empowerment of intersectional feminists?"
(a) Who's "we"?
(b) Do you see an "outcomes-focussed, neoliberal drive in all things"? What does that mean, and why would "they" resent it?
(c) I guess they feel that community ought not be quantified, but what does community (quantified or not) have to do with a "neoliberal drive"?
Do you see an "outcomes-focussed, neoliberal drive in all things"? What does that mean, and why would "they" resent it?
– No idea. But I thought the statistics re WP males/females were ... troubling. Sca (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Sca I did, too. I wonder what the reason is. I think there may be various reasons. – Corinne (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the "contentious and sometimes hostile user culture" has a lot to do with it. I encounter it constantly at WP:ITNC. – Sca (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
PS: One good thing about U.S. journalism is, women have long been accepted as part of the workforce. I worked for the AP in the early '70s, and in our fairly small 'line' bureau were two women who were well-respected by their half-dozen male colleagues. Sca (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). (d) "The textbook definition states: The view that women experience oppression in varying configurations and in varying degrees of intensity." Now they really lost me. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Corinne, re women and Wiki, the friend who sent me the New Yorker piece just sent me this one from BBC. (I wonder what Emily Temple-Wood's username is.) Sca (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
That's straightforward. I like the transparency. Sca (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Advice
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Tryptofish I hope you don't mind that I recommended asking you for advice at User talk:AustralianRupert#Fake Editors. I didn't mean to point to your experience; rather, I thought you might be able to advise this editor on how to avoid trouble. If you prefer that I remove my comment, I'll be glad to do so. – Corinne (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. No problem. I'm glad to try to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Ferdynand Ruszczyc
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
You certainly put a great deal of thought into that translation...more than I usually do! I'll definitely come back before I finish my list of Polish painters to see if anything can be inserted into the existing text comfortably. Thank you. Feel free to visit my User:WQUlrich/sandbox to see what's in progress. WQUlrich (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
WQUlrich Thank you. I hope I didn't convey the impression that I did the translations. I didn't. I worked from poor translations (possibly made with translation software) provided to me, I believe, by Hafspajen. – Corinne (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't quite catch that. I've encountered Hafspajen before, but I don't recall the context. My translations (except Spanish, which I can do myself...mostly) all start on Google Translate, then get paraphrased. I've become fairly adept at interpretation. Indo-European languages all work reasonably well, though. Finnish and Hungarian were challenging. Turkish was a mess. There are some Japanese painters I'd like to do, but the "translations" are impossibly bad.WQUlrich (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
WQUlrich Interesting. I wonder if there is a Japanese-speaking (or at least -reading) editor who can help. I wonder how translations from Chinese are. If they are any better than translations from Japanese, I wonder, if you could first translate something from Japanese to Chinese, and then from Chinese to English, if you would lose too much in the process. One editor I have found helpful with regard to Chinese history is Hzh. S/He may even know Japanese. – Corinne (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Chinese is even worse. (I tried it out of curiosity).WQUlrich (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The two Ray Charleses
Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Rothorpe I've made a few changes. What do you think? I didn't like "our Ray". It sounded like a mother writing a letter to her friend about her son, too informal. I just re-arranged the sentence so this [Ray] Charles was the subject of the sentence ("he"). Also, I changed "Ray" to "Charles" to continue referring to him by his last name. I removed "out" in "going out to the West Coast". That's typical language for Americans on the U.S. East Coast: "going out west", "going out to the West Coast", but I don't think "out" is necessary and would make no sense to someone not from the U.S. East Coast.
I had never even heard of this Ray Charles. Interesting. – Corinne (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hello to you both. The first sentence seemed a bit clunky so I had a go at altering it - please feel free to revert or make additional changes. SláinteMarnetteD|Talk 20:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
MarnetteD Hello, MarnetteD! It was great to hear from you. Your edits are definitely an improvement. I made one small change. If you don't like it, please feel free to revert or change it. Happy St.Patrick's Day to you both.
I found this lovely photo of a four-leaf clover. Four-leaf clover – Corinne (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Your change is excellent C. I have a funny (to me anyway) quirk of trying to avoid using the same word twice in a sentence but I couldn't come up with another word than "work" in that line. Any ideas? Thanks so much for sharing the pic!! MarnetteD|Talk 21:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I knew it needed a rewrite but couldn't get there. Many thanks to you both! Rothorpe (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
You are welcome R. I'm glad to be of help. MarnetteD|Talk 21:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Rothorpe You're welcome, Rothorpe. MarnetteD I forgot to mention before that I don't think that your habit of avoiding the use of a word twice in a sentence is either strange or quirky. I think, unless a word is repeated deliberately for effect, that is a way to achieve variety, which is a good quality in writing. – Corinne (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Another wonderful change C. I was having a mental block with this. Occasionally, when trying to solve the Sunday NYTimes crossword, I'll put it down - go and do something else - come back and the right answer will pop to mind. That didn't work this time so I am glad for your edit. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
New section on user page
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Checkingfax I decided to collect all the barnstars, and two "Precious" awards from Gerda Arendt, that I have received since I started editing on WP and put them all together. I wanted them to be in a hatted section like the Featured Pictures section at the bottom of my user page. I put them hatting template at the beginning, but when I looked at it in Preview, none of them appeared. I decided to save them since it had taken me some time to find them and copy and paste them there. I think there is probably something wrong with the break between each section and there are probably other things wrong, too. Can you take a look at it and add whatever needs to be added so that it looks nice when one clicks "show"? – Corinne (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. This task slipped my mind until I saw it again a few minutes ago. OK, I have started something over there. Remember you can change the background color of the hatted sections. Of course you already know you can change the hat title name. Also, you can create section headers for each category on your user page and if you get four or more sections the system will build a table-of-contents for you, or you can force one with a TOC template. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Ceramic art
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Checkingfax Still looking for a teapot... I've looked at around ten articles so far. I just saw an external link in the "Porcelain" sub-section of the larger section on Europe in Ceramic art#Europe. I clicked on it and it led nowhere. – Corinne (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. I found an archived version of it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sagaciousphil It's good to see you back again, Sagaciousphil. I'm sorry you went through a rough patch recently. With Hafspajen no longer editing, we need editors like you who are interested in art and culture. I was just copy-editing Weald, and in that article there is an image of a painting by a painter named Benjamin Haughton. The link is red, and there is no article on him. (There is a short article on a politician named Benjamin Haughton, but I don't think it is the same person.) If you are looking for a new project, you might consider writing an article on the artist. Good luck and best wishes to you as you get back to editing. – Corinne (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Corinne. I just thought there should be an article for Lady MacRobert and may do one for her husband too if I can get motivated. Haughton the artist died in 1924 and Haughton the politician was a member of the Seanad Éireann until 1928 so it's definitely two different men. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Jytdog I'm sorry if I inadvertently put back into the RR article material that shouldn't be in it. I don't understand very much at all about the article. It's just that I saw a recently added "citation needed" tag had been removed by an IP editor and figured that the whole thing was not a good edit. I really meant to support you and BYK. I'm sorry if I made a mistake. I'll make more of an effort in the future to avoid making edits when I don't know the subject matter. – Corinne (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
A small gift for you
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I made a floating pot of tea for you that you can park on your talk and/or user page. Copy this to the top of the page and save it: {{User:Checkingfax/pottatea}}
If the image is too big or too small you can adjust it here by decreasing or increasing the pixel count and saving your change (right now it is 125px): User:Checkingfax/pottatea
Checkingfax Thanks! I added it to the top of this page. Can I change the image of the teapot to another teapot? I'd like to find a prettier teapot. If I want to make it a bit smaller, say, 123px or 120px, where do I add that? – Corinne (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Find a prettier teapot and when you have copied the image name to your clipboard go to this page: [[User:Checkingfax/pottatea]], go to the top of the page, and click on the "edit source" tab and overwrite the existing image name with your image name, change 125px to 123px or 120px or whatever. You can Preview your change before you save it and the new size will show up at the bottom of the preview page. Cheers! PS: When you first land on it the template page looks kind of weird but when you click on edit-source you will see what to do. Be sure to save your changes when you are happy. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! During my search for a different teapot image, I came across American tea culture. In this article I found this image of Paul Revere:
Doesn't he resemble the American actor? I wonder if they're related. – Corinne (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. He looks like very much like Jack Black to me. Have you looked at the Commons category for teapots? I used the image from your "This user likes tea" userbox at the top of your User page ... but I chose the version of the teapot image that was on a "transparent" background. I searched the file name on the Commons and it came up with two choices: One on transparent background; one not. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. Just so you know: you can put any image you desire into that template—be it a tea cup, potted plant, flower, perfume bottle, geode, motorcyle, hat, etc. Enjoy. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax Thanks! I'm puzzled, though, by the fact that I have to save the change I make to the template you developed (and to which you provided a link) in order for the picture to change on my talk page. Doesn't that change the template you designed? On another issue, thank you for your reply on Apokryltaros' talk page. I can't believe you don't remember that you compiled a rather extensive list of example conversion templates, all with the same measurements, with the template visible at the left, and the output at the right. If it wasn't you, then I don't know who it could have been. It was about four days ago! – Corinne (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC) P.S. Why is the template "pottatea" at the top of this section red now when it was blue before? Is it because I saved a change I made to your template? Was I not supposed to save that change? If not, then I don't understand what I was supposed to do. – Corinne (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. The pottatea template is in my user namespace. I did not want to be so presumptuous that you would like the idea so I put it in my space instead of yours. You are the only one using it. That is why you are free to change the image as it will not impact anybody elses use of it. It is parked in my user namespace as a template but it transcludes to your page(s) by putting my subpage name for the template in curly braces on your page. Pretty cool stuff.
I have noticed that user namespace templates show up as redlinks even though they are valid pages. Do not know why that is. Templates in the official template namespace show up blue if they are live templates. Feel free to save changes to the template. If it breaks we can undo, or fix.
I will keep jogging my brain to come up with that convert chart you mention. I only have two test places: sandbox and sandbox/testkitchen. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Weald
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Checkingfax I just made some copy-edits to Weald, and I wanted to know what you thought of the italicized line at the beginning of the Weald#History section. Does that belong there? – Corinne (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, I changed the formatting of a quote from blockquote to the quote template, but I forgot what you told me to do at the end when there is a reference. I just added a pair of curly brackets at the end after the reference. Should I have done something else? Can you check it for me? – Corinne (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corrine.
Some of the following notes in the early part of this section are taken from the High Weald website.[6]
I wonder if "taken from" means "copied from"? Unfortunately the citation [6] is a rotted link and they did not properly cite the link with all metadata so there is no good way to find an archived version of it. Additionally, [6] was already a Google version of the page mentioned, compounding the rot issue. I poked around on archive.org but did not find anything archived, even by looking at the complete list of archives for that website. I shall look deeper later. I am off to the train station. You done good with the blockquote. You only need a second (or third) pipe if there is an attribution, or if you want to attribute the source, in which both cases will result in a new line, a hanging indent, and a quotation dash (similar to an em dash). Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. According to Earwig's copyright violation detector the Weald article has a super high confidence degree of vio. The article is on the left and the possible source is on the right of the report. Sometimes it is a {{backwardscopy}} situation and therefore a false alarm. Would need to figure out which came first, the website or the article. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax (Just saw this.) Yikes. How do we figure out which came first? I suppose we could go to the website where the article appears and see if there is a publication date attached to it, but I couldn't figure out what the website was. – Corinne (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. There is a Wikipedia tool called Wikiblame that is supposed to tell you exactly when something was added to an article. Getting to Wikiblame is very easy, but I have never gotten it to return any results.
An editor would have to be very cocky or inexperienced to do such a blatant direct copy/paste as we are seeing reported in Earwig's.
The website, if it copied from Wikipedia is supposed to attribute us. All our work is free to copy—if we are properly attributed. I guess you could email the website and ask them. The site Earwig's is getting the hit on from is this one.
There is probably a copyright violation bureau within Wikipedia where you could report that our page is being copied without proper attribution then the bureau would investigate and put out a cease and desist. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sca Wow. Going back to our Germanic linguistic roots with zie. Hmm. Interesting. – Corinne (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Sca I don't know for sure if I was looking at the same thing you were, but it seemed to me that she didn't dwell on the absence of the gender-neutral pronoun in English, rather, she focused on what some people have been using instead of "he" or "she". Perhaps that's a trivial distinction. I'm fine with "he" and "she" and the related pronouns "him", "her", etc., and I don't like the use of "they" as a singular pronoun. – Corinne (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm with you on that, but there seems to be somewhat of a trend toward they, which to old me is jarring on the grammatical ear. Sca (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The Wikipedia Library
Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.
There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP.
Hi Corinne. This is the newest database in The Wikipedia Library (TWL) and I thought it would interest you. If not, please pass this message along to somebody who would benefit from it. TWL has over 50 databases now, all with free access to qualified Wikipedians. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments
Hi Corinne. I gave myself an account to Alexander Street today, logged in, and watched a 30-minute Crittercam video by Pilot Whales produced by National Geographic. It was gorgeous and moving. I was just testing the login process. Guffah. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Would you like to have a look at this one? - Dank (push to talk) 01:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good. Mine rarely go over 1175, so I did a slight trim. - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Btw, I'm about to replace some of the technical terms with common terms ... stalk instead of stipe, for instance. I've made the same changes to other mushroom articles at TFA. You're welcome to do the same with future mushroom articles, or not, either way. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Dank Oh...good idea. I just realized that, after my edit combining those two sentences, now there is "though" and then "Although". If you think that's a problem, we can put the sentence back the way you had it. – Corinne (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Dank I saw the change you made regarding "Podaxis". How in the world did you figure that out? I'm really impressed. You know about botany, too? – Corinne (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that, I've switched one of them to "but". I don't know a lot about funguses (just what I read on Wikipedia!), I'm just saying that the species isn't unrelated to everything else called stalked puffballs, because it's related to other species in its genus of stalked puffballs. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Dank I know you keep in mind readability for the average reader when you're doing these summaries, an effort with which I completely agree, so I just want to share a thought. I was just looking at your most recent edit to the April 8, 2016, featured article summary that we've been working on, and while I don't see any problem with the re-organization of the sentence, I think this clause, "it is the species most commonly associated with its genus", is a bit technical for an average reader and means very little. The only way I can see that it would mean something would be to add the name of the genus after "genus".
Sure, I can do that. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Otherwise, I would consider deleting it. What do you think? (Also, I remember reading similar statements about "its genus" in other summaries, and I think they are meaningless to a non-expert. The non-expert would learn something only if the genus is named.) – Corinne (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Comprise
Latest comment: 8 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion
Giraffedata, Rothorpe, Checkingfax, Sca, and any interested tps's, I'd like to open a discussion regarding the use of the verb comprise. I noticed that in this recent edit to David Rolf, Giraffedata changed "comprised of" to "composed of". I read both the Wiktionary entry for comprise and the Merriam-Webster entry for comprise carefully. I have heard "A is comprised of B, C, and D" all my life, and both entries indicate that usage has been shifting to this use of the verb. See especially:
In the Wiktionary entry: the last sentence of the first bulleted item in the Usage Notes;
In the Merriam-Webster entry:
Sense 3, including the example sentence;
the Usage Discussion; and
the Did You Know? section, especially the last sentence.
I feel that since "A is comprised of B, C, and D" is quite common in the U.S., it should at least be allowed to stay in articles written in American English. I also think there is a slight difference in meaning between "A is comprised of B, C, and D" and "A is composed of B, C, and D". Compose has more of a sense of a merge of parts. For example, in compose, Definition 1, see the hidden quotation by Bishop Sprat. I would never use "comprised" there; only "composed" works.
But, the question comes down to whether WP wants to adhere to the traditional usage of comprise or accept a formerly unacceptable but increasingly acceptable usage. What are your thoughts? – Corinne (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Will there ever come a day when no one objects to "comprised of"? Rothorpe (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Rothorpe WelSeattle-based fast-food workers nonprofit advocacy group compriosed of civil rights and immigrant activists, labor advocates, neighborhood associations, and religions leaders.l, that's an interesting article. Not just the last line, the whole article. – Corinne (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Looks like there'll always be supporters and detractors. Rothorpe (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. I wrote my last comment before reading the last sentence of that article. Hmmm. I was reading the last paragraph in Comprised of#Evaluation, and it came to me that there is another English verb that has two meanings opposite to each other, depending on how it is used. Can you think of it? Is it infer? – Corinne (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
'Cleave' is one. 'Infer' when used to mean 'imply' is regarded as wrong. Rothorpe (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
There are many more. They are called autoantonyms. The one I hate most is "rent", because there isn't any alternative unambiguous phrasing. However, note that not one of the known autoantonyms is self-opposite in the way "comprise" is (if you consider this disputed usage), where you can swap the agent and the direct object of the action. A fact never infers the speaker and a house never rents the landlord. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear all. Here is my reply. These are the correct uses of comprise and compose that are germane to this edit:
... Seattle-based fast-food workers nonprofit advocacy group comprised of civil rights and immigrant activists, labor advocates, neighborhood associations, and religions leaders.
and
... civil rights and immigrant activists, labor advocates, neighborhood associations, and religions leaders compose the Seattle-based fast-food workers nonprofit advocacy group.
With comprise, the whole comes first, then the parts. With compose, the parts come first then the whole. Nice catch Corinne. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Now you can tear me up. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed I shall. Exactly the wrong way round. Rothorpe (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
No, it's right. The traditional saying is "the whole comprises the parts; the parts compose the whole." It's not strictly true that the whole comes before or after the parts with either word, by the way, because (without resorting to the corrupted version of "comprise") you can use a participle to turn it around: "A is composed of B, C, and D" or "B, C, and D are comprised in A". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Composed of, and comprised of are redundantly redundant. It is composed, or comprised, without the of being needed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's any question of whether the newer usage should be allowed to stay in Wikipedia, because nothing is entitled to stay in Wikipedia. We try to have the best possible wording at all times, so anyone who encounters an article and thinks he has a better wording can and should edit it, without having to pay any special respect to the existing wording or whoever wrote it. So the only thing we have to discuss is whether there are cases where "comprised of" is superior to every alternative wording.
Incidentally, there is no difference in the acceptance of "comprised of" in the U.S. vs anywhere else. There are large numbers of people who hate it and large numbers who don't mind it everywhere.
Finally, and I don't mean to criticize anyone for bringing up the subject here, but if you're interested in a discussion of this usage in Wikipedia, there are many thousands of words of that on my own talk page going back eight years and involving about 100 editors, and three lengthy discussions of it during that time on the talk page for the Wikipedia manual of style. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
AP Stylebook –
• Compose means to create or put together. It commonly is used in both the active and passive voice: She composed a song. The United States is composed of 50 states.
• Comprise means to contain, to include all or embrace. It is best used only in the active voice, followed by a direct object: The United States comprises 50 states. The jury comprises five men and seven women.
There you have it, straight from Mount Olympus – or maybe Mount Sinai. ⇒
The United States of America comprisecomprises 50 states
or
50 states compose the United States of America
In neither case would "of" be appropriate. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax That's interesting: you used the plural form of the verb with "the United States of America". Most Americans would use the singular form. It's one country. Also, I'm sure passive voice could be used with at least one of your example sentences. You would probably approve of, "The United States of America is composed of 50 states," but not "The United States is comprised of 50 states".
Thank you, Bryan and everyone for your comments. Bryan, of course you are right. I'd like to ask you all what you think of all the examples in the article Comprised of of writers using "comprised of". Were they simply mistaken, or were they the first instances in a slow change in usage? – Corinne (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, not the way Americans would say it (and many people in Latin America consider themselves Americans because they consider Central and South America to be part of "America" – a big surprise to me when I first heard it – so they might object, too), but really, "the United States comprises 50 states", or the other one, but I doubt you'll find one American who actually says that. Americans normally say, "the United States is made up of 50 states" or "the United States has 50 states", so this is not a good example to illustrate comprise and compose. Can you think of something else? – Corinne (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi y'all. I rarely use America. I guess "the U.S. has fifty states" is what I would say. I was only going along with the AP example, which I think is a miserable example. Comprise and compose are probably best left to other uses. Online I found "eight islands compose Hawaii", which is correct and active. The reverse of that would be "Hawaii comprises eight islands" (not "Hawaii is comprised of eight islands"}. The other examples I found online used "the United States" and "a pack of cards" as the big Kahuna part of the sentence. Getting back to the original edit, how do you feel about "religions leaders"? Bryan mentioned "whole comprises the parts"—mnemonic: Water Closet Toilet Paper (WCTP). OK, whack away. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Surely "religions leaders" is a typo (or auto-correct) and the writer was thinking "religious leaders".
As for examples, the concrete example I always use is an axe. An axe is composed of a handle and a head. A handle and a head compose an axe. An axe comprises a handle and a head. A handle and a head are comprised in an axe. (By the way, these aren't four interchangeable sentences. They have different nuances and I don't think you'll ever read any but the first in the real world). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The works of major novelists, intellectuals and essayists have included "comprised of", followed by quite a few examples. Are you saying they were all wrong? You won't admit the possibility that the language is changing? – Corinne (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot. I don't normally pay attention to that article because it was created by militant defenders of "comprised of" for the purpose of countering all the scholarly articles that tell you not to use it (of which my own essay is becoming the most often cited). But I took a look and yes, those are all wrong according to the traditional meaning of "comprise". The ones before about 1970 are not even controversial - anyone at the time would have called it an error and the writer would probably have admitted it. We know this because as you see in these examples, the usage goes back hundreds of years, but the data show it appears only rarely (as rarely as any other common mistake, like "could of") until about 1970. At that time, a wave of permissiveness swept the English speaking world and this was one of many usages that people stopped correcting so ardently.
So yes, the language is changing. Comprise=compose is much more common now than it used to be and it is possible that some day no one will remember it's wrong. Like "he goes" replacing "he goeth". But we're not there yet -- great numbers of people are still offended by this usage and since it doesn't add anything to the language, the obvious best choice to please everyone is just not to use it. When every person who was taught that this is an error is dead, maybe we can stop talking about it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I hear you. But using "they" instead of "he" and "she" really bothers me, and yet many people use it and even encourage its use. Regarding "comprise", I never even heard the verb used in active voice, by anyone, until I started editing on WP. Maybe it's more common in British English. – Corinne (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Sarawak
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Checkingfax I'm in the middle of copy-editing Sarawak. It's a long article, and I just took a break and am about to resume editing. I wanted to ask you about two things (so far):
1) I sometimes see a hyphen or a spaced en- or em-dash (showing just the dash, no &, etc., no template) in references, as in the title of a book. Can I safely change those to the templates for spaced en-dashes, or should I leave them alone? In this article, I've seen quite a few like that, but have left them alone.
2) About a third of the way through the article, a bit after WWII, I saw (in edit mode) around a quote in a reference, a pair of open curly brackets, and then a pair of closing curly brackets, that had that red shading that indicates something is amiss. I couldn't figure out what was wrong. Can you see if you can find it and tell me what, if anything, needed to be done? – Corinne (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. Wow. That is a long article.
Here is the scoop on those font templates when used within a CS1 or CS2 style citation template:
So, use the old style of nbsp, ndash, mdash, etc. (ampersand in front, semi-colon following). It will take three HTML escape codes to create one spaced en-dash. To that end I have starting leaving them be, or copying the string of three to my clipboard and pasting it in.
An editor tested all the font templates and declared then COinS safe and altered the unsafe message to say COinS safe, but another editor changed them all back to being unsafe. I was excited when they were all declared safe, but it was a fleeting joy.
I cannot find the red error. Maybe my text highlighting is not fully engaged at the moment. Can you please copy and past a snippet of the reference so I can do a find for it? Did I answer all your questions? PS: In order for an article to pass FA, it has to include uniform datestyle (mdy or dmy) so it would be helpful if you ran the date script as your first task on each article after you decide on the correct date format. Do not stress on which style as it is easy to change back. Just do a good faith effort to decide the proper datestyle and then run the script. You have to disable wikEd first, which is easiest to do down in the edit window rather than up in the top right corner. Trust me on this; I tried it the other way since the top right is quicker to get to when you are first editing. Right after pushing the all dates to ... button you can go up or go down to reenable wikEd. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax Oh, dear. I may have put in one or more of the templates you gave me in something within a citation. Now I have to go back and find them. If forget how to disable WikEd in the edit window. Can you remind me? (I guess that place will also be where I re-enable it later, right?) I found that curly braces spot. It's in the second-to-last paragraph in Government and politics (and I don't mean the italicized "negeri"; it's right after that). – Corinne (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Now I remember. I did something this time that I don't usually do. Before reading the article (and copy-editing as I went along), I went through the article from beginning to end and added the no-break-space template wherever I saw one was needed (probably didn't see all of them, but a lot), including between "page" and the number, as in the paragraph in Sarawak#The Brooke dynasty that begins "The Brooke dynasty ruled Sarawak for a hundred years". Can you look at the references in edit mode and tell me if that is the kind of place I shouldn't use the templates? Is it when the reference is enclosed in a pair of curly brackets? (When I first started editing WP, and for a long time after that, most of the references were in the <ref>...</ref>, what, code? Is that what it is called? Now, I'm seeing more references that use the curly brackets. I need to know, is it whenever the references are enclosed in curly brackets that I shouldn't use the templates for no-break-space, en-dashes, etc.?) By the way, many of the quotes in the references in this article are filled with spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors, but since they are quotes, I can't correct them. See the paragraph in a reference in that Brookes dynasty paragraph that begins "Personal rule with heavy dose of parternalism [sic]", and read the entire quote. – Corinne (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Do not remove them. Easy to fix using wikEd find/replace. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
WikEd logo
Hi Corinne. It is the one with the pencil. Do not run MOSDATE yet or it will remove all your nbsp templates. I tried to disable wikEd at the top right of a page once but then I had a stew trying to re-enable it, so I went back to using the pencil button down in the edit window. Button depressed is on, button popped out is off. So, yes, you disable and re-enable with the same button (it is a toggler).
I will go find the curly brace in red part.
Reference metadata within four curly braces (total of four) is called a citation template. References without any curlys are called plain text references. ref /ref without curlys is just a wikitext way of tagging references so the system knows to render the contents into footnotes. ref starts the footnote, and /ref closes the footnote.
So, any citation with four curlys should not have the font templates nested within them.
Some citations just use parens and no ref /ref. Only suitable for really short refs. These are also "plain text" refs.
We are allowed to correct quotes if it does not change the meaning. I saw a (sic) tag the other day in a reference and I was going to correct the spelling and remove the sic tag but then I realized it was a book or article title. Changing the spelling of that would make it harder to find in a Google type search, but I did not want a bot to fix it, so I used a {{sic}} template to make the misspelling unfixable by a bot and the template would give other editors pause to correct it. Thinking about it now, maybe it was not misprinted title, but it was typed in wrong by the editor who originally created the citation. It is on the page Apartheid. American is misspelled as Amercian (sic) or such, IIRC. So I guess it would behoove us to find out if the Title or Quote in a ref is editor caused or publication caused. The goal of citations is to support verifiability and to prevent ref rot. If the quote includes a sic we should dig deeper and try to remove the sic tag. Quotes in citations I believe are so we can quickly verify a fact from the citation.
The way you use the sic template to preserve a word is like this: {{sic|Amer|cian}}. That way a bot will not process it. At least that is how I interpreted the usage instructions for the sic template. Click on the blue link in the template to read up on it. There is a similar template called {{not a typo}}. I have never used it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, Corinne. The only thing I can suggest is to change ''negeri'''s to ''negeri''{{'}}s then do a Preview of the page to reset your text highlighting and see if the four curly braces stop being highlighted in red. The extra four curlys will invoke the apostrophe template: {{'}}. Click on that to see its usage. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
UPDATE: I just got self-schooled. Try: ''negeri''{{'s}} as the {{'s}} template will keep the italicized negeri from crashing into the 's part. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
TFA
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Corinne and any (talk page stalker). How does ALT7 strike you? What do you see jarring as far as MoS goes? What about grammar? The hook has to be punchy. It has to be under 200 characters. The (pictured) part is excluded from the character count, as is the ..., but the ? is counted, and finally spaces are counted. Bing has a good counter. The count is made from the reader view, not from the source view. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
Checkingfax Thank you for adding the templates to my list, above. When would you use a breaking spaced en-dash? Corinne (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear Corinne. I never use the {{snd}} template but that template preceded my template and was my impetus for creating the {{snds}} template as I took umbrage to the breaking space that the snd template forces. Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
So, do you think it would ever be useful? If not, I'm going to remove it from the list. Corinne (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe in a infobox if you want to be sure the phrase can collapse based on the width of the infobox so the phrase does not push the infobox to make it wider (coordinates that are non-breaking widen the infobox many times). Can I try an experiment with your collection area to make it collapsible so it does not take up so much room on your Talk page? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Speaking of additions ... have a looksie at User:Drcrazy102/sandbox/User talk:Corinne where I fixed up some coding issues in the table up above, linked some templates, etc., etc., ad nauseum amounts of etc. I love fixing the small things which have no real effect unless we try to make your talkpage into a Featured Userpages Candidate. Your choice to use or not, and feel free to delete at any time through CSD. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Ooo...Checkingfax Thank you! I like the way you organized things in those colored bars that I can click on, and thank you, Doctor Crazy for working on it (though I don't see what is different about it, besides the new hidden format Checkingfax added; can you tell me what is different?). I have a few questions:
1. Checkingfax -- Can you make a third bar (choose a color like pink or orange) that is just for "Useful external links" or "Useful links to references", whichever you think sounds better. Now, the external links are buried in the middle of the templates. (By the way, for some reason, when I click on the Merriam-Webster link, it doesn't go to M-W. I always have to type "Merriam-Webster" into the website address bar.)
2. For the instructions on how to create a diff for non-adjacent edits, I'd like to add a sentence that tells exactly where and how to find the version number for each of the two non-adjacent versions/edits. If I click on an edit in the revision history and I see two version numbers in the URL, which one do I choose to create the diff? Or is it better to open up the diff so that I will only see one version number ("prev&oldid123456789"), and use that? It's when there are two version numbers that I wouldn't know which one to choose for a non-adjacent edit, i.e. which number for the earlier version and which number for the later version. (I doubt that I will ever have to create this kind of diff, but I thought my "helpful things" might help other editors like me who don't understand all this stuff, so I want everything really clear.)
3. I don't understand why I can't put the Signpost and the archives box to the right of the Table of Contents. I've asked other editors to do that and they couldn't do it. There's a lot of white space, and I have to scroll down a bit to get to my "useful things". If the Signpost and the archives box were higher up, I wouldn't have to scroll down so far. I'd even be willing to remove the pictures if that would help. Corinne (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I just re-read DrCrazy's comment just above, and I see you fixed some coding, etc. Checkingfax, if you want to incorporate any improvements in things like that into the new arrangement you made, feel free to do so. Corinne (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. Here are 500 named colors you can play with. Click on the blue link to the right of the color and it will take you to a better table of colors. You can replace the colors I chose for you with a better one from this list. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. The M.W. link puts me on the M.W. home page and with my insertion point ready to type in the search box. Is it still broken for you? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. The number after oldid= is the revision ID for the page you are looking at. Take the oldid= from one page and compare it to the oldid= for another page and you can compare the Diff between the two. The largest number will be the newest version number. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax I just saw that BabbaQ had left a comment on your talk page asking you to take a look at an article that s/he is presumably working on. I wanted to mention that this editor has several times asked me to look at articles, and I have usually done so, but (a) s/he may be bypassing the GOCE Requests page, either because s/he doesn't want to wait his/her turn (it sometimes takes a few days or a week or so before someone accepts the assignment) or because s/he thinks the article is not yet ready for a GOCE copy-edit, which is fine, but (b) if you look at User talk:Corinne/Archive 17#Articles, you'll see that s/he does not respond to pings, and (c) in response to a request for a copy-edit at the GOCE Requests page about two weeks ago, I carefully copy-edited Sweden Democrats and left detailed comments at BabbaQ's talk page, and I have yet to see any response. I left a further comment when I saw s/he had archived the page. See User talk:BabbaQ/Archive6#Sweden Democrats. I just don't understand his/her lack of response to questions and comments I've posted after copy-editing articles for him/her. Corinne (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. I sense BabbaQ is female but who knows and who cares on the Internets. S/he did thank us for our efforts on the page about the murder of the young lady (see above). I got some feedback from her on a couple of articles I edited but generally I do not. I notice s/he canvasses a lot of editors to inspect her pages. I do not do a GOCE job on pages. I leave that to your team and I jump in with very minor technical cleanup and any remaining low-hanging fruit. Not responding to the Sweden Democrats editing project is very troubling. In the Planned Parenthood GA review I am careful to keep my replies lively so the GA reviewer knows I am actively participating in the review. I fear getting redlighted for not moving forward. I did get impatient when three months had passed and nobody grabbed PP to review it for GA so I asked an admin if he knew anybody that could take it on and he personally jumped right on it which I thought was admirable (user Casliber). Casliber (Cas Liber) is a DYK, GA, FA producing machine from both sides of the fence. Cheers! PS: Some of BabbaQ's editing annoys me but s/he is non-responsive to addressing it when I point out my concerns to her which I gently back up with policy, guidelines, essay, or common sense. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax I know that "p." and "pp." should have a period after them when they have one or more actual page numbers after them: "p.12" and "pp.136–137" or "pp.136, 175", but should they have a period after them when the number precedes them toward the end of references formatted in the "cite ref" template? I've never bothered too much with references as I copy-edit articles, and no one ever said I neglected to do something in a reference (until yesterday), but I need to learn what to fix if I'm responsible for them. See this group of edits to Coropuna. I don't recall seeing a period after "p" and "pp" when the number precedes the "p" or "pp"; if the period is needed, then I just never saw it. – Corinne (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax Thank you! I'm just curious about a few things: 1) How did you learn so much about editing, particularly about templates, formatting, references, etc.? I suppose I would learn it if I added content. Have you been adding content, writing articles, etc.? If not, how did you learn so much, and not only learn it but be able to explain it so well? I'm really impressed, and grateful that you share your knowledge with me. 2) How is it that you are able to spend the time you do on WP? Are you retired? 3) I'm a little amazed, both at the content, also impressive, and your sharing it. – Corinne (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Greetings from Natalie ~ Parser error and lost message
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Natalie.Desautels Thank you for notifying me of your comment to the Leonardo editor. I hate to tell you this, but I think it read better before the edits. It's not that important, though. Next time, if it's an article you yourself are working on, you might consider asking me or Rothorpe to review the edits. See R's talk page. – Corinne (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Fixed ping. – Corinne (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Natalie.Desautels From your lack of response here, I'm wondering if I have upset you in some way by my comment. If I have, I am sorry. You're such a lovely person that it is the last thing I would want to do. The edits were not bad (if they were really bad I would probably have reverted the entire group of edits). I just didn't think they were an improvement, but I didn't feel strongly enough about it to revert or start a discussion with the editor. I left a note here so you would know how I saw the edits, but it's just an opinion, nothing more. You know you are free to disagree with me. I didn't think there was much chance the other editor would see this comment since I've had virtually no interaction with him/her, but if s/he happens to see it, it would not be so bad. I've been exchanging opinions about edits with Rothorpe for several years now. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree, but I very much respect his opinion. I hope you are well and not upset with me. I suppose I should have kept my opinion to myself this time. – Corinne (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Corinne:Hi Corinne. Somehow the parser of Wikipedia's programming language didn't work as designed (in spite of the fact that it's 84% garden variety PHP), and I didn't receive your message of 19 March 2016. Beside Wikipedia notifications, I configured my preferences to send me emails for many types of notification. But as Bill Gates said about cyber transmissions, "It works most of the time; even a phone call doesn't go through from time to time". So being unaware, I couldn't be upset, but I could never be anyway; and I will always appreciate you sharing your thoughts and ideas with me. It is always a great pleasure to hear from you, and flattering, actually. Sometimes, I miss the body language, voice inflections and feeling of live communication which we don't have cybernetically (if that's a word). But as Tim Berners-Lee said (the man who started it all), you can sometimes tell more about a person's interests through his cyber activity than speaking face to face. So beside the wonderful impression I've had since our first contact, your user page gives us a further glimpse and we see nothing but beauty. Yours must be one of the most beautiful WP user pages; I mean, certainly many are interesting, but your choice of photos is breathtakingly beautiful.
Your suggestion to consider asking you or Rothorpe to review edits is very attractive to me; I will certainly avail myself of this learning opportunity, not abuse it, and I'm sure many revelations will ensue . I read some of Rothorpe's user page which was very interesting to me; his remarks were knowledgeable and intelligent, but also balanced, fair, human and at times humorous, and presented a temperament well suited to my nature.
Editor AndrewOne, who made the Leonardo edits discussed above, also contributed to Michael Laucke and redid the entire lead section. I really liked the result, but my taste could probably be brought into question since, as I once mentioned, my language studies were in my other mother tongues (French and Spanish, but also German and Latin) but, alas, not in English. I do very much love English literature and perhaps my lack of formal training makes its refinements all the more fascinating to me. But I digress ( as I am wont to do ). By the way, is it "wont' or 'want' in the expression I just used? The web shows both.
I'd love to know your thoughts on AndrewOne's Michael Laucke lead section edits here, whenever you have a moment. Thank you so much for writing to me. Tous mes meilleurs vœux, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Natalie.Desautels I'm so glad you were not upset by my comment. Thank you for your nice comments. It is "wont" in that expression; you had it right. Just from reading your comments, one would never guess you were not a native speaker of English; you write quite well. Regarding the M.L. article, I read the changes carefully. I think for the most part Andrew did a good job. I like the fact that he moved most of the quotes about M.L. further down; they should not have been in such a bunch so early in the article (I'm far from an expert in writing leads, but, to me, they make the lead look like a book jacket, a bit promotional). I also like the fact that he put things more in chronological order. There are two things I think could be improved. I'm going to copy that section here and add emphasis and remove the reference numbers:
In the early 1970s, Laucke shared a New York City loft with Paco de Lucía, an acclaimed Spanish guitarist who introduced Laucke to flamenco. In 1982, he was selected by Andrés Segovia to perform for the PBS network at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, after which he became Segovia's only Canadian pupil.
Laucke is credited with having broadened the repertoire of the guitar with over 100 transcriptions. He has also studied with classical guitar players including Andrés Segovia, Julian Bream, and Rolando Valdès-Blain.
You can see that it says he was "a pupil of Andres Segovia" and then he "studied with Andres Segovia", so basically saying the same thing twice. If the first one was only to study flamenco, and the second one was to study classical guitar, then that could be explained all in one sentence. If making that distinction is not necessary, then say he was a pupil of, or studied with, Andres Segovia once. Then you can say he studied with other classical guitar players (but not mention Segovia again).
I'm also thinking that, unless you are telling M.L.'s life story, in chronological order, where every event is important, it might be good to rearrange this sentence:
In the early 1970s, Laucke shared a New York City loft with Paco de Lucía, an acclaimed Spanish guitarist who introduced Laucke to flamenco.
The way this is worded, there is a lot of focus on his having shared a loft. I think the important point is that this is the point in his life where he was introduced to flamenco. There are (I believe) two basic parts to M.L.'s musical development/career: flamenco and guitar, and flamenco came first. So you might wish to rearrange this sentence to introduce the first part:
Lauke was introduced to flamenco by acclaimed Spanish guitarist Paco de Lucia when the two shared a loft in New York City in the early 1970s.
Do you see how, by putting the information last, there is less emphasis on sharing a loft and less emphasis on the year? You can then say he became a pupil of Andres Segovia, from whom he really learned to play flamenco (express it as you wish) and classical guitar.
If you move the sentence about M.L. having studied with classical guitar players, then this sentence:
Laucke is credited with having broadened the repertoire of the guitar with over 100 transcriptions.
will not seem out of place and will be closer to the information about his career statistics. (For the average reader, including myself, who may not know what "transcriptions" means, you might consider either linking the word or using a more ordinary word such as "recordings"). Well, that's all. I'd be glad to look at it again when you've worked on it. – Corinne (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC) P.S. I noticed you changed the heading from a period to words. It's fine – that's why I didn't change it back – I learned that from Hafspajen (a wonderful editor who is no longer active) when I want to create a section but either don't have a particular heading in mind or don't want to draw attention to it. But what you wrote as a section heading is fine. – Corinne (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Corinne and Checkingfax: Hello Corinne, I very much appreciate your wonderful suggestions above for the Michael Laucke article. Although I've been very busy on a translation project (outside of Wikipedia), I am certainly eager to implement all of your recommendations, with a few adjustments, if not later tonight then hopefully tomorrow. I did not make the distinction between the classical and flamenco guitar concert periods sufficiently clear, and other editors were understandably confused as well. Admittedly, it is unusual for a classical guitarist to master both styles, and so this necessitates clarity all the more. (In fact, classical guitar master Segovia disliked flamenco very much, calling it tavern music. Flamenco legend Paco de Lucia did like classical guitar, but not Segovia's style) Time is too short at the present moment, but I did at least manage to add the following:
the Early career section : "Although Laucke played both classical and flamenco guitar music from an early age, he performed in public mainly on classical guitar until about 1990. At that time, some flamenco works began to appear in his classical music programs and from 1990 his concerts were exclusively comprised of flamenco and new flamenco works."
the lead section : "He performed mainly on classical guitar until about 1990 and from 1990 his concerts were exclusively comprised of flamenco and new flamenco works."
Needless to say (Hm, they say one should never say this), I would love to have your comments on these small changes. very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Corinne, I was finally able to find the time to implement the changes to Michael Laucke you so kindly suggested on March 22nd, 2016. Seemingly small, the result of these adjustments is, I believe, better flow and improved clarity. I am eager for you to look at it again whenever it may be convenient for you and as time permits of course. best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Checkingfax, I tried my hand at {{Notes}} for the first time. It just wouldn't behave so I brought the code into play manually. It does work, but the syntax might not be correct. I intend to add other "Notes" as they seem to be a handy one-click way to add interesting information right on the page. (I wonder how many people use the right-click context menu to "Open link in new tab" as opposed to potentially losing one's place.) Do you happen to have knowledge about "Notes"? Many thanks, as always. best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Natalie.Desautels. Are you talking about the {{notes}} alias template for {{noteslist}}? No, I have never used it. I do not cite very many books. When I do, I usually am citing a Google book and use the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books. You drop in the book URL, hit the load button, tweak the output a bit, generate the citation link again, and copy and paste it to your article. Takes about 30 seconds to build out a fully dressed book citation with doi, isbn, page numbers, authors, ref name, url, title, volume, edition, and so on.
I use right-click to open links in new tabs. I hate losing my place. I think you can also ctrl+click on links to open a new browser or tab. I like tabbed browsing. There are editors I bump into that are experts with notes. I shall steer one your way the next time I see one. PS: When I check my watchlist I right click on any page I want to view, and continue doing that until I reach the end of the watchlist, then I go view the Diffs. If I do them one by one I lose my place in my Watchlist. Corinne, and Natalie: How many pages are n your watchlists? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello again Checkingfax, I created the Michael Laucke discography and filmography in a sandbox with the name you suggested so that it will be easy to move into mainspace. Moving what are essentially several tables will make the main article look less cluttered. I think it's almost ready, save for the infobox. Do you concur? best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Checkingfax Yes, I was referring to {{notes}}. My usage of this template seems to be presentable now. Many thanks. I just used the Google books tool you suggested on Warren Buffet. I think it took less than 30 seconds; amazing!
I only have 23 items in my Watchlist, but I haven't been using it in a disciplined way, preferring browser bookmarks instead. That way I can better organize pages by putting them into specific pathways, or categories (now called folders ). PS. I made some good progress on the Michael Laucke discography and filmography. I think it's about ready to be moved. very best wishes, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
That is funny stuff, Corinne. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, now that made my day! ...very charming and funny. I hope you either get a full refund on your purchase price or get a Catananche-caerules plant that doesn't grow so tall. best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. It is nice not to be put through the wringer. The whole Wikipedia process is a moving target. An article is written by a non-committee and really needs a total rewrite but if anybody rewrites an article then it will get reverted. Take Apartheid for instance. It is a long article, with many page views, and has been edited by many editors. Yet, upon review by an outside professional he deemed the article as embarrassing as if were put together by a non-committee. LOL. That is what we are: an editing non-committee where everybody throws up edits to see what sticks. Nobody is capable of a rewrite, unless it is an obscure title and they are left alone to do their thing. Changedforthebetter or Changedforbetter is an editor that focuses on Friends articles and brings them to GA status. Nobody bothers her on those pages while she shreds them of fan cruft and makes a lot of edits. Conversely, s/he is protective of those pages and does not appreciate a lot of help during her pushes.
So what do we do? We turn to Peer Review: Editors make suggestions and they get implemented, albeit imperfectly because they are being implemented randomly. There is no expert straw boss to manage the project. Then a copy editor like you is called in and a meticulous copy edit is made but not much is removed or added: The article is pretty much status quo, but is now more encyclopedic.
So the article goes to GA review and another editor rides reign over bringing it to GA but maybe they are not a grammarian. So, the article advances, but it retreats from its meticulous copy edit. After GA approval it goes to DYK and deteriorates further from a copy edit standpoint, as sections have to be removed, or references have to be added so the article will support the DYK hook. Time for another Peer Review and GOCE round.
Then the article goes to FA review and gets gilded, supposedly. But, going forward even anybody tries to polish an approved FA their edits are subject to reversion for tampering with an FA, like FA is now hallowed ground.
Another problem with Wikipedia is the edit conflict. If we want to edit on a busy article, especially a breaking article topic, we have no chance to insert helpful edits. Putting up an "in use" even for 12 minutes leads to cries of "in use abuse". It would be nice if we could all edit in real-time, or if we could check articles out for an agreed upon amount of time so our edits do not get lost in the Ether.
I once spent 10 minutes editing an article but had to redo them 8 times so it took me 80 minutes to get my edits to stick. I have had other such instances on busy articles. Even on talk pages I have problems of edit conflict while composing, but on talk pages it is easier because you're inserting a block of text rather that little dispersed edits all over an article. Section editing in articles can avoid edit conflicts, if we save our section to the clipboard and then go back in to insert the whole section at once.
In articles when there is an edit conflict and my edit is intricate and took a long time, I open a new window, look at the edit history, see what was added, merge it with my edit, then overwrite the page. I never nuke somebody's edit during an edit conflict. There is no basis for doing that even if we have an "in use" template up. Unfortunately "in use" is just an honor system to alert polite editors to stand down, if they notice the "in use" notice. It is best for us to put the "in use" at the very top of the page. I have only used "in use" a few times, but I have suffered from a few edit conflicts for not using it. I wish an "in use" banner displayed automatically as soon as we pressed the edit button so then folks would know we were in the article editing away. The mods will not allow a page locking system; only the honor system.
I agree, it is nice to see that your meticulous copy editing was not for naught. I guess the flow should be: build article → improve article → peer review article → GOCE edit article → GA review article → DYK review article → peer review article → GOCE edit article → article → FA review article → GOCE edit article. Take a nap. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd be glad to look at it after I finish copy-editing two other articles. – Corinne (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
History of South America
Hi Corinne, thanks for your edits to the article on History of South America, it certainly can use the attention. However I think that copyeditng probably will not suffice, and we were just discussing nuking it back to nothing and building it up from scratch on the talkpage. Simon Burchell and MarshallN20 made good suggestions on how to rebuild the article, and I believe Marshall is working on it in his sandbox. I mention this just to avoid annoyances if your recent copyedits end up not being part of the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Maunus Thanks for telling me. I had promised Marek69 that I would copy-edit the article after I finished copy-editing Sarawak, and the request was still at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, so I began work on it. Do you think the request should be put on hold for a while, or even withdrawn? Then I would be free to accept another assignment on the Requests page. – Corinne (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
No, he is of course in his right to request copyedits to the content he copied. But it looks to me as if there is a consensus forming on the talkpage that major structural changes are needed. ON the other hand, it might take a long time for editors to get around to actually overhaul the article, and meanwhile your copyedits are certainly an improvement. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
MaunusO.K. Thanks. Then I guess I'll keep working on it. I don't think I'll finish it this evening, though. It might take me a day or two more. – Corinne (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Corinne. In "Morphemic pleonasm", it says that "publically" is an acceptable alternative to "publicly" in American English. Would you agree? I have never seen it. Is it common or, as perhaps with some of the examples given in the article, eccentric bordering on wrong? Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Rothorpe I read that section, and skimmed the rest of the article. Interesting article. I can't say for certain, but I think I've seen both spellings, with "publically" less often than "publicly". I think it is not a very common word. When would you use it? "He was publicly humiliated..."? I think the adjective "public" is much more common. I'm just thinking, you know, in the 1700s and 1800s, when the U.S. was growing through westward expansion, and there were many settlements far from the larger east coast cities, I'll bet that variant spellings developed and persisted. It's just a thought. – Corinne (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Publicly humiliated, shamed, scorned, scolded, yes, something unpleasant, that's typical. Must be an acceptable variant in AmE then. I used to think that it was wrong because there was no word 'publical', but language ain't that logical. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The traditional spelling is "publicly", but since most "ic" adjectives turn into adverbs by (illogically) adding "ally", (e.g. "basically"), people have often misspelled it as "publically", and like many errors in the last 50 years, it has become quite acceptable - just do a web search. (I read that section, by the way, and it just looks like someone's musings based on personal experience).
In the context of Wikipedia editing, however, the question is moot, because our standard isn't "acceptable"; it's "best possible". I'd have to go with "publicly" as the best possible just because I give low weight to usages that were invented by ignorance, but on the other hand, publically is more consistent with the rest of English - well, kind of. If it's really not used outside the US, though, that seals it - "publicly" is best. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Bryan, for your thoughts. Kwamikagami Is there anything of value there in the section linked in this section heading? What's your opinion regarding that -ally spelling for adverbs derived from adjectives that do not end in -al? Is there a linguistic reason for that common spelling, or spelling alternative? – Corinne (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
It's the orthographic equivalent of paradigm leveling. The OED has several illustrations of "publically", which it says is pronounced the same as "publicly". Can't tell if they're US or UK, and no linguistic difference. — kwami (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Pretty much the same thing is going on with orientate and preventative: the extra syllable presumably makes them seem somehow more ‘normal’ to those who use them, by analogy to other words they perceive as being similar (despite their being differently constructed). Both forms are often deprecated but very common nonetheless. What distinguishes these from publically is that the difference is audible.—Odysseus1479 05:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Corinne. It's been a while. How are things going with you? I have this article planned as my next GA. I've listed it at the WP:GOCE/REQ. Do let me know if you are willing to do a thorough copyedit by pinging me. Thank you. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 14:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Ssven2 - I'm fine, thank you. I'm enjoying seeing spring flowers begin to bloom. I'm currently copy-editing Sarawak, and another editor asked if I would copy-edit something like History of South America, and I said I would do that next. I'd be glad to copy-edit your article, and I will, unless another editor accepts the assignment before I get to it. (If that happens, and you'd still like me to look at it later, let me know.) – Corinne (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Ssven2 I'm glad you reminded me; I haven't forgotten and I will get to it. It looks like you moved this section below the Today's Article for Improvement notice. I'm guessing you did it to ensure that I would you your reminder, but I would prefer it if you would not re-arrange sections on my talk page. I always see – and even look for – new comments on my talk page, so I wouldn't have missed your reminder. Thanks! :) Actually, for the future, it really is best if you request a copy-edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Don't worry if the list looks long and that it will take a long time. I pick and choose which articles to copy-edit based on what I find interesting. Other editors choose other types of articles. It doesn't always go in the order in which the request appears on the page. But I will read your article very soon, and thanks again for reminding me. – Corinne (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks, Corinne. BTW, I had posted the article at WP:GOCE/REQ and only then approached you for the copyedits. Anbe Sivam is listed under the article "Green-head ant" at the GOCE/REQ line. — Ssven2Speak 2 me 00:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Ssven2 Oh...Sorry about that. I hadn't looked at the list. – Corinne (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, do you have anytime to do a quick check if any improvements could be made to the prose? There's definitely no major concerns thanks to your excellent copyediting awhile back, but I just wanted to see if you could make any suggestions or such before I nominate it. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Cristóbal Bencomo y Rodríguez
Bencomo was the driving force behind the creation of the University of La Laguna and the creation of the Diocese of San Cristóbal de La Laguna. But he not creates the university (because it was created with a royal decree) nor the diocese (was created by Pope Pius VII).--88.9.96.203 (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
O.K. I understand that you don't want to use "create" or "created" or "founded", etc. However, while the phrase "was the driving force behind" is both grammatically correct and colloquial (good English), it is somewhat vague. If you want to use the phrase, I think it would be good to explain how he was the driving force, what he actually did, etc. – Corinne (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Cristóbal advises the king to college founded. He also advised the king to support the founding document of the diocese, which was founded by Pope Pius VII. I think you can seek help from a bilingual user. This is the article in Spanish: Crisóbal Bencomo y Rodríguez. Thank you. (Forgive me for my writing but do not speak English).--83.51.151.31 (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I know enough Spanish that I could translate the article myself. I think you need to re-think your participation on English Wikipedia. Your English is not good enough to translate articles, and it is more work to figure out what you are trying to say than to translate the article myself. Besides spending some time improving your English, you might best contribute by being available to assist any editor who undertakes the job of translating an article from Spanish to English. You could join one or more of the WikiProjects and make it clear that you would be happy to help any editor who wants to translate an article from Spanish to English. Right now, I am copy-editing other articles. When I finish those, I will think about taking on the job of translating the Bencomo article. If and when I have questions, I will ask you. – Corinne (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
OK thank you very much.--88.10.62.210 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 28 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 17–23. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here!
May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in March, April, and May 2015, and all request articles, begins May 1. Sign up now!
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis, and Baffle gab1978.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Thanks so much! It was a fun article to write. You're right, it should've said "name". However, I don't think the statement should be there at all, as it is only true according to a very trivial set of criteria. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar
Bonjour! I am just so delighted to send you this very well deserved Teamwork barnstar for your wonderful participation, and kind help in achieving GA status for Michael Laucke; it was just so rewarding to work together, and beautifully educational for me. I would be amiss not to mention my appreciation, and admiration for your kind demeanor and refinement. ...excited about the possibility of the next one...and you got to practice a little French as well . Time to celebrate with a nice croissant, as we French are wont to do }. Oh, ...and we also learned that a guitar cannot grow, even if you water it. (It's ok guys, it's an 'in' joke between Corinne and me). My warmest, heartfelt thanks. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
You cannot grow a guitar—you can tune a guitar, but you cannot tune-a-fish Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Corinne. You're reminding me of the Circus Trees (see example above) which I almost went to see once, but it was a Sunday, the parking lot had no shade, and I had not made prior arrangements for dog kennel boarding; couldn't leave the furballs in the Jeep. The circus trees were in the boonies and neglected until a local grocery store chain owner bought them, moved them, and created "Gilroy Gardens" which has rides for the kids and trees for the adults. Many of the trees are still not on view. The grafter did things other botanists are still trying to figure out. Gilroy Gardens started out being called Bonfante Gardens but the BOD decided Gilroy was more recognizable and would draw more folks. The place almost went belly up. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
UPDATE: I just checked and there is a user 7+6 is thirteen, and there is a user 7&6=thirteen. So it is the latter we are talking about, and it is the latter that needs the curly brace workaround in order to receive template pings. Template pings (like the "U" ping) sent without curly braces around the equal sign will go vanish into the Ether. 7&6=thirteen has probably missed hundreds of pings since there is no confirmation or rejection of malformed pings. Cheers! 
Corinne (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Approved. How would we improve the list article you submitted? Cheers! 
Done. No problem. I'm glad to try to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Portrait of Paul Revere, by John Singleton Copley
J. B. in 2011
The Wikipedia Library
. Your choice to use or not, and feel free to delete at any time through CSD. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Artist Peter Cook seated in a living garden chair (see Tree shaping)
Topiary house
A needle and thread at Bonfonte (Gilroy) Gardens in California
