Inglok

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Inglok! Thank you for your contributions. I am TBrandley and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 16:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Inglok, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Inglok! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi Inglok, thank you for your recent contributions. Just a couple of things: most articles tend not to use the Oxford comma. The MOS does not direct one way or the other, but it does ask that consistency is held throughout the article, whichever is used. If both styles are used, the article just turns into a mess. The other thing is categories. This page explains that "each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C". That is to say, if Sylvia Plath is put in the cat of 'American women poets', she should not also go in 'poets', 'American poets', or 'American writers', which are parent categories. The idea is that if you are looking via category, you go to the parent category first, say, 'Poets', then you see there 'poets by Nationality'. You can then see 'American poets' and finally 'American women poets'. That is why all the American female novelists were in the 'American female novelist' cat but not also listed under 'American novelists', which would be a duplication. I hope that makes sense. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm honoured that you take in interest in my work and would write such a lengthy and considered message. Could you direct me to where I have a added serial comma? Thanks, Inge. Inglok (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy editing here. Your work is appreciated. This would be an example of a serial comma. No biggie. Span (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I just lost my reply to you so excuse me if I seem short. First the categories. I assume you're unaware of the small storm this has created in the media. There was an editorial on this in the New York Times and it's been picked up by newspapers around the world. I'll direct you to the talk page. I can understand the need to place articles in categories, but we should be careful to avoid partial treatment which in many people's eyes constitutes sexism. If women novelists are to be excluded from the main category then it is only fair for male novelists to have the same treatment. Now the commas. To quote the Oxford Guide to Style, "use commas in place of conjunctions to separate elements in a list of three or more items." The comma before and or or is known as a serial comma or Oxford comma. Commas are also used to set off appositives. If the appositive is not essential, that is to say, if it is not restrictive, then commas are required. The Chicago Manual of Style gives this example: "California State University, Northridge, has an enrollment of ..." The month-day-year style of dates requires two commas when it is run into a sentence: "The ship sailed on October 6, 1999, for Southampton". They are also required for place-names in text: "Waukegan, Illinois, is not far from the Wisconsin border". These last three examples are not serial commas and are not subject to consistency within articles. Some of this is set out in the Manual of Style and some of it is here. My addition of commas therefore was correct. Please let me know what you think. Inglok (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have read Inglok's comments but agree with Spanglej about the preferred non-use of the serial comma. In these two instances - Roger Lewis and William Cleaver - the context is clear without the serial comma. Wikipedia's own article about serial commas suggests that they are more American than British I would suggest that editors refrain from using them where possible in British-subject articles. - Fantr (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a serial comma because it's used as part of a list. I only mention it because you've made so many comma edits. I saw the changes to the articles before I heard about the daft media storm or saw the talk pages. I have now put my views elsewhere, so won't go into them again here. We should wait for consensus to be hammered out before making cat changes to articles. I very much hope that the deluge of editors to American novelist articles are going to stick around to clean up the mess and work out the detail of policy change when everything's calmed down. Somehow I doubt it. Best wishes Span (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not sure I was clear in what I said. I'm not sure I'm that great at explaining, either, so please be patient. I apologise if any of this is obvious, but I'd rather say it all so you can follow me. Right, serial commas. These are optional.

A sentence with a serial comma:

Correct: The good, the bad, and the ugly.

And without a serial comma:

Correct: The good, the bad and the ugly.

Now the appositive. For some good explanations of appositives, see this and this. Then see the examples in my last response from "Commas are also used to set off appositives" onwards.

Correct: London, England, is the largest city in Britain.

Incorrect: London, England is the largest city in Britain.

When we put them together we need to retain the rule for appositives.

Correct: William Cleaver was Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford, an academic, and bishop of three sees.

Correct: William Cleaver was Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford, an academic and bishop of three sees.

Now I've changed the order of the items in the list.

Correct: William Cleaver was an academic, Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford, and bishop of three sees.

Incorrect: William Cleaver was an academic, Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford and bishop of three sees.

The last example is wrong because the appositive of Brasenose College, which in this case is Oxford, is missing the closing comma which lets us know the appositive has finished. This isn't a serial comma as such. Our language doesn't accommodate two commas in the same place, we have to make do with one. Therefore my purpose when adding commas where I have has been to put them where they are required for the sentence to be grammatically correct. I was adding a comma to close the appositive, not adding a serial comma.

I hope this is clear now. Inglok (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the categories. I'm leaving them alone for the time being. We'll see what happens with the consensus, I suppose. And apologies for not indenting. I couldn't work out how to do it over many lines. Inglok (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, having thought about it, I probably didn't need to give that long explanation. A simpler way to think about it is this. On WP:COPYEDIT, it says: "Location constructions such as Vilnius, Lithuania require a comma after the second element, e.g., He was born in Vilnius, Lithuania, after the country had gained independence." Now, when the penultimate item in a list is a so-called location construction, if we want to abide by this rule, the comma should stay. Inglok (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Thanks for laying it all out. Span (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It may help you to find a clear-as-possible way to put this in an edit summary. Most of us don't know what 'appositives' are. Would you say that the comma is closing a clause? Span (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I could say in an edit summary to make this clear and to avoid, and I suppose pre-empt, discussions about grammar and punctuation. In my view it's straightforward, everyday English. Having to explain it – going right back to the basics of language – has been an unexpected challenge. I suppose I could try harder than simply 'added commas', but I honestly think there needs to be more laid down in the Manual of Style so anyone in my position can point to one document that has approval from everyone. Not enough is said on the use of commas and some of what is said is unclear.

Here is a quote explaining apposition from the Oxford A–Z of Grammar and punctuation by John Seely: "Placing a noun or noun phrase next to another in a sentence so that it explains or amplifies it." And here is the example he gives, which includes a restrictive appositive: "The writer Michael Viney left Dublin 13 years ago". He goes on: "Here the short phrases the writer and Michael Viney work in parallel. They are said to be in apposition to each other." I just found this article on apposition, which explains the difference between the restrictive and non-restrictive. Inglok (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Prince Harry

Unless there is a specific reason for using the oxford style commas they don't belong in articles. As the editor who's edits have been undone (by three users now) the onus is on you to justify the change in the articles talk page rather than just restoring your edit. Please see WP:3RR which you will be in danger of hitting soon if you persist on reverting. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an oxford comma. Please see the discussion above. The wording on the article currently means that Charles is the Prince of Wales and the Prince of Diana. Is this correct? Do you have sources for this? Thanks :-) Inglok (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I also posted a message earlier on your talk page but you haven't responded to it yet. Inglok (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in getting into a pedantic discussion about the use of the comma (as it stands it is written in correct British format). If you wish to gather consensus for your change you need to take it to the articles talk page. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with your reply. This isn't a pedantic discussion. By calling it pedantic, you imply it is inconsequential, and if it were we would not have got to this point. The use of commas is important in making oneself understood. Their incorrect use can, and often does, lead to sentences which do not have their intended meaning, as in this case. I spoke to User_talk:Fat&Happy and we came to something of an agreement about the comma here. Please read the preceding discussion I had with other editors about the mechanics of appositives and make an attempt to understand how they work. There is already consensus on the use of appositives, just as there is consensus on the use of capital letters at the start of sentences. Thanks. Inglok (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edit, I rejected the Pending Change because I was uncertain, verging on disagreeing, that it was correct use of , with and. I have modified the problematic phrase and I think it is far better. Leaky Caldron 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the new wording is better, but the problem hasn't been fixed. It is now this sentence that is ungrammatical (parentheses and non-restrictive clause removed for clarity):

Prince Henry of Wales is the younger son of Charles, Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales.

I will attempt again to explain why a comma is missing. Since having joined not long ago I've been adding commas to articles where they have been missing. These are commas that are required to set off non-restrictive appositives. Here are some examples:

London, England, is the largest city in Britain

Charles, Prince of Wales, is a member of the British monarchy

She was a student at Magdalen College, Oxford, for five years

I'm on holiday from June 1, 2013, onwards

There are many occasions on Wikipedia where the second comma isn't present, thus making the sentence ungrammatical, and often distorting its meaning. The second comma isn't optional. It must be present for the sentence to make sense. I'll demomstrate with some lists.

The first sentence below contains a serial comma, the second doesn't. The serial comma is, of course, optional. It's not required for most sentences to make sense. (In some cases it helps but let's not get into that now; let's not complicate things.)

He was educated at Eton College, Rugby School, and Magdalen College, Oxford.

He was educated at Eton College, Rugby School and Magdalen College, Oxford.

Now let's say that our fictional student, he, whoever he is, didn't go to Eton at all but instead continued his studies at the Sorbonne.

He was educated at Rugby School, Magdalen College, Oxford, and the Sorbonne.

That's a list with three items. The comma after Oxford is required because it closes the appositive of Magdalen College which is Oxford. This comma can't simply be removed. Without it, the sentence's meaning is different.

Now let's apply this to the sentence in question.

Prince Henry of Wales is the younger son of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Diana, Princess of Wales.

Please understand why the absence of a comma in such a place is wrong. This is not a "pedantic discussion". And my edits are not "an attempt to enforce one variety of English on articles it doesn't belong to". This is all standard British English.

I'd quite like to get the bottom of this and to come to some agreement.

Cheers, Inglok (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice note on my Talk page. Yes, I do find that being polite generally speaking works better than its opposite. (tentative grin) Unfortunately this place attracts a wide spectrum of people, representing an even wider spectrum of ... er ... spectra (if you see what I mean) and lots of us seem to believe that getting in your face and SHOUTING a lot is the way forward. I guess some enjoy this, or at least see it as a necessary evil, whereas aggression and rudeness is often the reason that I will walk away from an article or topic or, at times (and, I sometimes wish, for ever), the whole project. On the other hand lots of editors are civil and pleasant, so thank you for being patient and nice about this comma issue. One problem I see is that people are simply not understanding you: you are talking about the appositive comma and they assume that you are simply a bit un-clued-up and are misusing commas and in particular shoving in a sort of serial or Oxford comma where it is not required. This is, to be honest, precisely what I thought when at St Paul's you wrote: "Lisa Jardine of Queen Mary, University of London, has written yadda yadda etc" and I "corrected" it to "Lisa Jardine of Queen Mary, University of London has written yadda yadda etc". It is still causing me some pain, and to be absolutely happy I would need to go and read up on some sources myself, but in truth I am now afflicted by a horrible sinking feeling that it's simply that you are better educated than I and as a result you know a Clever Punctuation Thing that I do not. I was hanging on to a forlorn hope that it was a BrE/AmE usage thing but I then spotted your statement above that This is all standard British English and that's scuppered that one. Anyway, I have reverted myself at St Paul's as you will have seen. I still don't really feel fully engaged with this issue: I keep looking at it and it can look wrong either way for me now. I suspect, though, that if I don't just give up and walk away I will end up agreeing with you ... tsk! Oh dear, I have written too much now ... apologies, thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, DBaK. Inglok (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello, I have no opinion one way or another about who is right about the use of commas. In such cases, it is often the case that there is no 100% right answer, as usage is evolving and varies among different English speaking countries. What I do know is that we simply don't allow edit warring over such issues. Three editors have told you by reverting that they disagree with you. You need to stop now, and discuss the matter on the talk page. If you continue edit warring, you may well be blocked from editing. Please stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to this comment, I think everything now written on this page and here speaks for itself. Inglok (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Inglok:

Although I'm "just" a Yank and a colonist, I heartily agree with your positions on not only appositives but also the serial or Oxford commas, which we on this side of the lake call also Harvard commas, and I heartily admire your perseverance, patience, and good humor and nature in pursuing those matters.

Cheers!

Doc. DocRushing (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. You've cheered my day! Inglok (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Apology

As I was falling asleep last night it clicked with me the point you were making about the commas, I understand now where you are coming from, please accept this as an apology for my abrupt nature yesterday, I was unusually cranky but that is no excuse. Thank you GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 08:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, GimliDotNet. Inglok (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The not-an-Oxford-comma-barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		You deserve a barnstar, Inglok, for your civility, patience and grace under fire in the name of decent grammar. Thank you for your work and teaching us about commas. Span (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Spanglej. Inglok (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Commas

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I am still dithering about the extra comma chez the Carlton Hotel, but I think on the whole I agree with you. On another comma-related matter (recherché but not unimportant in its way) you might be entertained by the exchanges on English-v-American use of commas here Best wishes, Tim riley (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Inglok (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks, everyone. I didn't reply sooner because I felt disheartened. I just wrote some long replies but lost them because of an edit conflict, hence this new section. Also see [1]. Inglok (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on in there. You're doing good work. Span (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Inglok (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A further conversation

For anyone who isn't sent to sleep by non-restrictive appositives, you might be interested in this conversation continuing at the Teahouse here. Inglok (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Pics

Could you please leave the sizing of the Lee Rigby pic at thumb rather than making it a tiny "upright"? There is no rule that requires enforcing here, and there is more than enough space, since it is at present the only picture. As an art historian who values the image as a mode of communication, it truly bugs me when images are reduced for no good reason.

Thank you for tidying up a couple of my errors of spelling etc, and improving the expression.

Amandajm (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, Amandajm, but I haven't altered the size or formatting of the picture at all. Inglok (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Harry Yount

Thank you very much! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! Inglok (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Blue is the Warmest Color

Any insight into your unexplained change of mind here? Thanks. Film Fan 11:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I read the preceding discussion and noted your responses, such as "you don't know what you're talking about" and one all in captal letters. I think that tipped the balance to WP:POINT. Inglok (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha, so you based your decision on your aversion to my attitude, rather than the subject of the discussion. Good form... Film Fan 21:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

May 30

No problem. I had looked for something like DOY but couldn't find it. Thanks! 87Fan (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, zen. Isn't it nice when everyone's civil? Inglok (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again

Hello Inglok,

Harry Yount was approved as a Good Article today. I really appreciate your copy editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Inglok (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Washington, D.C., in the American Civil War

I declined the speedy delete of this redirect because I think that Washington, D.C. in the American Civil War actually looks better as a title, notwithstanding the fact that appositives are normally set off by commas. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Washington, D.C., in the American Civil War looks better, so we disagree. But that we think one way or the other is more aesthetically pleasing shouldn't be the reason it is changed or not. As it stands the title is grammatically incorrect and the article's title is inconsistent with its content. I urge you to change your mind. Inglok (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This has been moved now. I put the request in again and someone else did it. Inglok (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Inglok (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit and Commas

Keep up the good work, it's appreciated to see small items fixed that contribute so much to the readability of articles. Koncorde (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Koncorde. Inglok (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

Hi Inglok, I see you make this kind of change a lot. [2]. Can you run the rationale past me, please? Span (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, Span. It's appositives again, I'm afraid. I quote here at length from Mind the Gaffe by Larry Trask, a linguist:

Here is an example of a preposed appositive: the Harvard University palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould. In this example, the name Stephen Jay Gould is accompanied by an appositive placed in front of it: the Harvard University palaeontologist. Such appositives commonly pose two sorts of difficulties.

First, it is essential to include the article the. Far too often, we encounter preposed appositives with no article: Harvard University palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould is the co-proposer of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This irritating journalistic usage has no place in formal writing: if you must use a preposed appositive at all, make sure you include the word the.

Second, preposed appositives should be used sparingly, if at all, and they should be short. Some writers, and above all science writers, constantly clog their pages with monstrosities like the following, apparently under the illusion that they are writing in English: University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople physical anthropologist Alice Haney argues that human populations, or 'races', are only about 40,000 years old, but Southern Illinois University at Carbondale evolutionary biologist Jaap van der Velde and Free University of Barcelona palaeontologist Arantxa Villaverde do not agree.

The constant use of these awful things can quickly reduce your reader to tears. If you believe you must provide so much information about people's professions and affiliations, then spread it out by using more sentences. The dreadful example above might be rewritten as follows: Alice Haney is a physical anthropologist at the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople. She argues that human populations, or 'races', are only about 40,000 years old. But others disagree. Among them are Jaap van der Velde, an evolutionary biologist at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, and Arantxa Villaverde, a palaeontologist at the Free University of Barcelona.

This is still far from English, but at least it looks like English.

(What he calls a preposed appositive is also called a false title.)

In the third and fourth paragraphs he talks about longer preposed appositives, but I think his point is clear. I share his opinions. I think it's sloppy jounalistic usage, and it grates on me. When I read it, it sounds like the rushed, snappy, snazzy stuff you might see on American cable news, with swooshes almost reaching out of the screen and a tanned, young 'anchor' with a square chin and dazzling white teeth asking pointless rhetorical questions. It stands in stark contrast to the sober writing you might find in a printed encyclopedia. Some people say it's just current English and it's fine. Many don't, as can be seen at False title. It certainly rankles the more conservative reader. I think for this reason alone it should be avoided. As many authorities on the English language have said before, avoid anything new until it is widely accepted. Inglok (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I get it, however it's important not to use tortuous sentences in order to avoid false titles. I suppose titling is used because it is easy to read and conveys it's meaning directly. Snappy, as you say. While I don't defend the massacre of English, readability is a great virtue with WP articles as they are mostly skimmed by readers look for particular information. Span (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There is the rare occasion I have some sympathy with your position. Sometimes it looks OK. But we have Simple Wikipedia for people who like simple, snappy English. I will try not to torture sentences. But often they are tortured already, and I am simply putting them right. I always hope that after I have had a go at some writing, people will find it easier to read, even if it does contain a few more commas (to which some people are strangely averse). Commas, after all, are there to aid reading. I think the non-restrictive appositive makes for far better reading than does a preposed appositive. Inglok (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Strange- I've never seen the insistence of a definite article in this case...and it has dropped out of use so much that it does look a bit forced. I have found User:Tony1/How to improve your writing helpful, if you haven't seen it already and will ask tony to take a look at this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting issue I've wrestled with before. My inclination is to omit the diectic "the", sometimes, for job title (or commercial name of a group) + name. Here, the orientation to the speaker-now axis is pretty well done by the context in the sentence. It seems to flow more smoothly without, and is widely used practice (perhaps this grammatical innovation began in the US, decades ago—I'm unsure). The whole nominal group ("Australian rock band Powderfinger") seems to become the name, not just "Powderfinger"; otherwise, a comma is more likely ("the Australian rock band, Powderfinger"). Likewise, "Congress has done a good job of wrecking the revised plans of the Trade Secretary Joanna Thompson." (sans comma) Tony (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If I may jump in with a few points—as you say, this is mostly used with names. Originally, it was mostly used with people's names, but now we see it with other proper names, such as that rock band or things like "Table Rock Lake and nearby tourist mecca Branson" and "Pacino, star of iconic film The Godfather". It's very hard to find things like "the building was full of carcinogenic substance asbestos." With common nouns, most people feel that the "the" is necessary.

Hardly anybody ever says this in conversation.

There's a convention that the comma means the appositive is non-restrictive; thus "the Australian rock band, Powderfinger" would be used only if Powderfinger is the sole Australian rock band. Many people don't follow that convention or notice the presence or absence of the comma, though. My impression is that it's used and noticed more in the U.S. and maybe Canada than elsewhere.

"World-famous Russian-American rockers the Red Elvises" doesn't tell you whether there are other world-famous Russian-American rockers, whereas other ways of saying the same thing do—at least if the reader knows the conventions. On the other hand, I believe some people feel that the "the" implies there's only one, regardless of commas.

Leaving out the "the" almost certainly did begin in the U.S. over a hundred years ago and was popularized by Time, as you can see at "False title".

As long as people are talking about this, I'll mention that despite having a slight POV on this disgusting and unidiomatic piece of faddish journalese, I think "False title" could use an NPOV title. However, I haven't been able to find one. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

1D

Hi. Could you go trough the One Direction article, the fourth most viewed article on the English Wikipedia in 2012, and polish where you see fit? I would really appreciate it, having noticed your work on the Netherlands article. Kind regards. Robin (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Inglok (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Ping me if you ever need a favour. Robin (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the offer. There's just something about the article. I think there needs to be a better reference for what is currently the first reference. This is a link to, as you know, the band's management company. I'm not sure it's a reliable third party, though, since they aren't impartial. Inglok (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I know. That's why I added the 'as noted' part. I can't use it for the One Direction discography article, a featured list. Robin (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you should say "according to" instead of "as noted by". It's a better way of showing the reader that you are giving responsibility to someone for what is said. "According to" is like saying, "they say it's true; don't blame me". "As noted by" is like saying, "this is true, and they think so too". Inglok (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I always thought the two meant the exact same thing. Thanks. 1. Robin (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

	Kindness
	Thank you for the Heart and greatly improving my contribution PatrickGuadalupe (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Patrick, that's very kind. Inglok (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow!

I just got a little red heart! I'm glad that somebody loves me! I'm sitting here, freezing cold, hunched over a great pile of books, with my computer running so slowly that I have time to go and make coffee while it saves one book title. Well, maybe not coffee, as it is 1.00 am. Twinings Camolmile and Spearmint Tea! Thanks for the message! Amandajm (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Amanda. I, too, am an enemy of shoving parts of a sentence into adjectives when a plainer way of writing will suffice. A "1630 Inigo Jones-designed facade"? Who writes such ugly English? Inglok (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your tweaks to St Paul's! Amandajm (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

False title

Hi. I reverted your edit of false title for now because the pattern in the article was to use a "false title" about sources who approved of them but not about those who didn't. In addition to any amusement value, this is sort of NPOV (though I share your loathing for them). What do you think? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Hi Inglok, I've just noticed your edits and wanted to say how impressed I was. You are doing a fantastic job, I hope you keep it up. Let me know if I can ever be any help. WormTT(talk) 08:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been

Recommended to me by user:Amandajm as a copyeditor, short story long, I wrote Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War a while ago and got it to GA. I honestly think it is mainpage worthy and want to nominate it for FA, would you have time to look over it and perhaps scrub it up? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this soon. Inglok (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

whats wrong with you that you keep deleting our inclusion to Finland? there is only 1 english news source that is independent and run by foreigners in Finland (myself is English) and that is finnbay. Why do you keep deleting that from the page? the link of yle you keep injecting there is owned by finnish gov and they do pure propoganda + racist agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.204.139.11 (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The link to the FINNBAY article simply isn't important enough for the Finland article. And the same for the direct link to the FINNBAY website. Inglok (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Changing maintenance dates

Please do not make edits like this. Edits that change nothing in the appearance of an article are depreciated unless there is a significant reason for them, this is because such changes can make a large difference in the edit history making it more difficult to see significant changes to the article, the second reason is in this case you change a date which for anyone looking at the current version implies that the template was added in August 2013 rather than September 2010. -- PBS (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by 'depreciated'? Who or what depreciates them? The word is usually used to mean that something lessens in value, but that is not the case here. Which brings me to my second point. The edit was entirely proper, and I will continue to make such edits. The date in the template is updated when the date formats are checked. The template does not retain its original date. Please see the Template:Use dmy dates page. I also can't see that the edit made a 'large difference in the edit history making it more difficult to see significant changes to the article". Please correct me if I'm wrong on any count. Inglok (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for the copyedits at United Nations, particularly the update on the number of G77 nations. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Khazar2! Inglok (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Your position on apposition

Keep up the wonderful work! Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopaedic resource rather than a journalistic aberration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Iryna! Inglok (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that any negative experience of Wikipedia has not put you off. Systemic biases and easily bruised egos are bound to rear their heads, particularly when long-time Wikipedians begin to blur the lines between their areas of expertise and Renaissance Man/Woman-like erudition. Please feel free to drop by and say hello (regardless of whether you're feeling persecuted at the time or not!). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wells Cathedral grammar

Hello Inglok, I want to thank you for your very sensible comments about the use of "which" and "that". Reporting Eric for edit-warring may not have been the best strategy but I understand how his habitual incivility may have provoked this. As you may have noticed, I have become yet another recipient of his continual abuse. He is now sooking because of a comment I made which he took as a reference to himself. What incredibly blatant hypocrisy! You may have also noticed the blatant hypocrisy and bullying I've been on the receiving end of from an administrator after I made a simple comment about the so-called "consensus". Contrast the administrator's bullying of me with his/her very palsy-walsy comments on Eric's talk page instead of warning or blocking him for his repeated incivility. How such biased people ever become administrators is beyond my comprehension. Administrators like this should be challenged and stripped of their position for the ways they abuse their position. Anyway, all the best. Don't let people such as Eric and that administrator get in the way of intelligent and unbiased editing. Cheers, Anglicanus (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Anglicanus, I advise you read my comment at my talk page as it most certainly applies to you too. I'm happy to debate matters of incivility or what administrators should and shouldn't be doing. Administrators who are abusing their position are desysopped by the arbitration committee, and I'm one of the members of that committee, so would be happy to discuss the matter with you. Worm^TT(talk) 09:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and for the link to the arbitration committee. I am more than a little angry at present with the hypocritical manner I've been treated by that administrator. I don't mind receiving an appropriate rebuke on my own talk page for any incivility on my part but the administrator's bullying and patronising response on the edit-warring report page was way out of proportion. The fact that he or she doesn't understand this is very concerning. If I had any confidence that the arbitation committee would appropriately sanction the administrator then I would consider making a complaint. At the end of the day, however, what other people do is their own problem rather than mine. But I also suggest that you might keep an eye on the administrator for repeated problems of this kind. Dealing with bullying administrators makes Wikipedia especially unpleasant. Cheers, Anglicanus (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss this with you as well, and I hope you and I can come to some settled solution to this. However, it does require you, I think, to at least admit that your comments amounted to incivility and to withdraw them. If one does not do that, then escalation is always a possibility, as you have shown it to be for your reaction to me. For what it is worth, I apologise to you, but you should read and understand WP:BOOMERANG, and try to ensure that you do not use such language or even make accusations of hypocrisy against me when I was purely concerning myself with the behaviour of people who were criticising Eric in this case. Shall we discuss the matter further? I am willing to do so, and willing to be flexible here.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your voice of support, Anglicanus. It is much appreciated. I have updated the Wells Cathedral talk page and the administrators' noticeboard. Inglok (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Complaint

I have complained about User:Eric Corbett's rudeness and bullying on the Wells cathedral talk page. [3] This isn't very well linked.

I apologise unreservedly. I reread the OED and agree with you entirely. But regardless of whether you were right or wrong over the grammar, the repeated insults were out of place. Amandajm (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Links to Wikisource.

When you made this edit you altered an dash to an ndash between two dates. The problem is that if you do this to dates ranges that link to articles on other wikis you break the link. In this case you changed the value in the {{DNB}} template from:

• "Herbert, Thomas (1606-1682)" . Dictionary of National Biography. 1885–1900.

to

• "Herbert, Thomas (1606–1682)" . Dictionary of National Biography. 1885–1900.

As you will see if you click on them the second one does not work as expected. There are scores of these templates some of them are listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikisource/Citation Uniformity you will find more in Attribution templates and there will probably be lots more in other places. For this reason changing the dash in templates has to be tested before the changes are saved if you are unaware of what the template does. -- PBS (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for all your work. I hope you hang in with the Wikipedia community, with all its flaws. You are a valued contributor. Span (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Commas and parentheses on appositions

Hello! I've reverted several of your recent edits in which you added commas following parenthetical appositives or abbreviations (ex. University of California, San Francisco). If the appositive or abbreviation is already set off by parentheses, there is no need for the additional punctuation of a comma. Either parentheses or commas is generally fine, but including both is incorrect. WildCowboy (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Inglok (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct...my apologies. I was focused on the parenthetical bits instead of the campus name. It reads oddly to have a comma there, but it is technically correct. I'll revert my reversions. :) WildCowboy (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, WildCowboy! Inglok (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

David Lloyd George

I just reviewed all your edits to David Lloyd George and I wanted to discuss them with you. The many changes from hyphens to en-dashes are, of course, fine. However, I disagree with quite a number of your edits and, because of all the correct edits to punctuation, I did not want to do a wholesale revert of all the edits.

1) Adding "the" before title + name as in "In 1913 Lloyd George, along with the Attorney-General Rufus Isaacs, 1st Marquess of Reading...", which you did quite a few times, was entirely unnecessary and is, in fact, not colloquial in American English. If you add "the", then the name itself (as "Rufus Isaacs" here) would be an appositive and would have to be enclosed in commas. With "the", it sounds very strange to me. Would you say, "He consulted with the President John Smith" or "He consulted with President John Smith"? I hope it would be the latter. I urge you to remove all the "the"s that you added. (By the way, I had gone through this article a few months ago.)

2) You changed the spelling of quite a few words so that the article is consistent for British spelling. Since the article is about a British politician, that makes sense. That would include changing words spelled "-ize" to "-ise". But, to me, "co-operate", with a comma, is old-fashioned spelling. Isn't "cooperate" acceptable in modern English writing? Also, "prewar", without a hyphen, is an acceptable spelling for the word, along with "pre-war". I think there were a few more, but I can't think of them now. – CorinneSD (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to my talk page, Corinne. I'll answer your second point first because it's more straightforward. In British English the hyphen is generally preferred. The main British dictionaries list all these words with the hyphen, including the OED.

Now your first point. I'm afraid you are completely mistaken:

Attorney-General is an office, not a title, so your first example is erroneous.

"... not colloquial in American English": let's return to this later. Talking about the other things first will make this more clear.

"... then the name itself would be an appositive and would have to be enclosed in commas." No, restrictive appositives are not set off by commas.

In your last examples, you are confusing titles and restrictive appositives. Inglok (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You may be right, but I need to ask you two things:

1) What does "along with the Attorney-General Rufus Isaacs" mean? It is meaningless to me if "Attorney-General" is an office and not a title.

2) What is a "restrictive appositive"? I have never heard that phrase before. CorinneSD (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a section on apposition in your book The New Oxford Guide to Writing on page 297: "Comma with Appositives". But I wouldn't recommend reading it because it's wrong. The first example Kane gives is a defining relative clause, not an appositive. And an appositive isn't just any "word or construction", as he says; it is a noun or noun phrase.

I'll quote now from a couple of basic books on grammar.

Apposition

Placing one noun or noun phrase next to another in a sentence so that it explains or amplifies it. For example:

The writer Michael Viney left Dublin 13 years ago to live a life of peace and self-sufficiency in a remote house.

Here the short phrases the writer and Michael Viney work in parallel. They are said to be in apposition to each other.

In the example above, the sentence would work grammatically with only one of the phrases:

The writer left Dublin 13 years ago to live a life of peace and self-sufficiency in a remote house.

Michael Viney left Dublin 13 years ago to live a life of peace and self-sufficiency in a remote house.

But neither of these alternative versions is very satisfactory. The first leads us to ask, 'Which writer?', while the second prompts: 'Who is Michael Viney?'

— John Seely, Oxford A–Z of Grammar & Punctuation (2009)

Appositive A noun phrase which immediately follows another noun phrase of identical reference. Appositives are typically non-restrictive: the reference of the first noun phrase is clear, and the appositive serves only to add further information. In writing, an appositive of this sort must be set off by commas. The phrases set off by commas in the following examples are appositives of this sort: Mexico city[, the largest city in the Americas,] suffers from fearful pollution; His newest book[, the last one in the series,] concludes the saga. In each case, removal of the appositive would leave a sentence which is both grammatical and sensible. But an appositive can also be restrictive (required for identification of the reference of the first noun phrase). Such an appositive is not set off by commas in writing. An example is Shelly in the sentence I'm writing a biography of the poet Shelley. Here, removing Shelley would leave a result which is impossible to interpret: we would have no idea which poet was being referred to.

— R. L. Trask, The Penguin Dictionary of English Grammar (2000)

(Note that a noun phrase can be one word)

You can see an example of a restrictive appositive in my first sentence above: "your book" and "The New Oxford Guide to Writing" are in apposition. I decided not to use commas to produce a non-restrictive appositive because it's almost certainly not your only book. But I could have used commas because omitting the title of your book would still have made sense, because you mentioned the book earlier and you would have known which book I was referring to. Inglok (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. Now I see what a restrictive appositive is. I had known all along what an appositive was and the difference between the two types of appostives and how to punctuate them; I had just not remembered what the two types were called. However, I disagree with you in your judgment that Kane is wrong. He says, "A appositive is a word or construction [italics mine] which refers to the same thing as another..." Thus, a noun clause can be an appositive, and in that first example,

The argument that the corporations create new psychological needs in order to sell their wares is equally flimsy.

"that the corporations create new psychological needs in order to sell their wares" is a noun clause and is an appositive. The noun clause is "the argument". It is not a relative clause, which is either adjectival or adverbial.

To me, there is a difference between "The writer Michael Viney" and "Attorney General Rufus Isaacs". In the first one, "The writer" is a profession. In the second one, "Attorney-General" is a title – a political title. Therefore, I don't think the word "the" is needed before "Attorney-General". But it may be an example of British English usage, and the article is now in British English style, so I won't argue further about this. CorinneSD (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed your recent edits. Below one of the most recent of them, I saw in the section "Versailles 1919", the following sentence (which you did not edit):

"Lloyd George represented Britain at the Versailles Peace Conference, clashing with the French Prime Minister, Georges Clemenceau, the US President, Woodrow Wilson, and the Italian Prime Minister, Vittorio Orlando."

I notice that "the French Prime Minister" is followed by a comma, then the name of the French Prime Minister, Georges Clemenceau. Other pairs of "the" + title and the name of the person separated by a comma follow. This is what I would expect if the title is preceded by "the".CorinneSD (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have passed judgment so quickly on Kane. My ultimate reference book for grammar is The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002), which is about as authoritative and current as you can get. This makes clear the difference between appositives and complements (see ch. 5, § 14.3, on page 448). However, some older grammars have a broader definition of apposition, which I suppose means Kane wasn't so wrong after all. For the purpose of linguistic currency, though, I'm sticking by my nomenclature.

Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on the rest. It's ultimately a question of style, not grammar, whether one includes the definite article or not. Constructions such as writer Michal Viney, philosopher Edmund Burke, politician Nigel Farage, prime minister Winston Churchill, footballer David Beckham, Italian leader Silvio Berlusconi I think are journalese and therefore unencyclopaedic. They are even less colloquial. Nobody would actually say simply philosopher Edmund Burke unless they happened to be on television or radio.

Here is one last example.

Among the many great figures of the twentieth century was the British prime minister Winston Churchill, whose leadership and ingenuity helped defeat Nazism.

Here, the British prime minister is one noun phrase (NP) and Winston Churchill is another NP, and together they form two NPs in apposition. It's restrictive (or "integrated", to use the linguistic term) because Winston Churchill wasn't the only British prime minister in the 20th century.

And one last quotation.

Here is an example of a preposed appositive: the Harvard University palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould. In this example, the name Stephen Jay Gould is accompanied by an appositive placed in front of it: the Harvard University palaeontologist. Such appositives commonly pose two sorts of difficulties.

First, it is essential to include the article the. Far too often, we encounter preposed appositives with no article: Harvard University palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould is the co-proposer of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This irritating journalistic usage has no place in formal writing: if you must use a preposed appositive at all, make sure you include the word the.

Second, preposed appositives should be used sparingly, if at all, and they should be short. Some writers, and above all science writers, constantly clog their pages with monstrosities like the following, apparently under the illusion that they are writing in English: University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople physical anthropologist Alice Haney argues that human populations, or 'races', are only about 40,000 years old, but Southern Illinois University at Carbondale evolutionary biologist Jaap van der Velde and Free University of Barcelona palaeontologist Arantxa Villaverde do not agree.

The constant use of these awful things can quickly reduce your reader to tears. If you believe you must provide so much information about people's professions and affiliations, then spread it out by using more sentences. The dreadful example above might be rewritten as follows: Alice Haney is a physical anthropologist at the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople. She argues that human populations, or 'races', are only about 40,000 years old. But others disagree. Among them are Jaap van der Velde, an evolutionary biologist at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, and Arantxa Villaverde, a palaeontologist at the Free University of Barcelona.

This is still far from English, but at least it looks like English.

— Larry Trask, Mind the Gaffe

(Larry Trask was American.) Inglok (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything you have said and with Larry Trask. But you did not respond to my question about whether you distinguish between, "the writer Michael Viney", "the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould", and "the prime minister Winston Churchill" on the one hand and "Prime Minister Winston Churchill" on the other. In other words, when it is an actual title, as in "Prime Minister Winston Churchill", I still do not think "the" is necessary. I think "the" is necessary to distinguish between people. And by the way, when would you ever say (or write), "the prime minister Winston Churchill"?CorinneSD (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Anjem Choudary, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Between the cracks...

Much embarrassment. A message to me on Facebook some years ago got filtered out and I only found it now. It probably is by now hopelessly out of date, but your text read:

Hello, Jon.

I just saw some comments of yours on the Merriam Webster website on the entry for 'as of'. One was particularly interesting – the one that began, "I got embroiled in a WP editors' argument". I was looking at the entry because I think I am also about to embark on such an argument on Wikipedia. I have been looking for ammunition before I reply. My British English dictionaries define 'as of' as 'from' only. I have seen it to have many more meanings: 'on', 'in', 'at', 'from', 'since', and 'until' (a certain time), and 'at the time of'. A look through the Corpus of Contemporary American English and the many instances of 'as of' on Wikipedia shows as much. 'As of' is ambiguous and therefore useless. Yet it's all over Wikipedia and elsewhere. It's such a shame.

I'm Inglok on Wikipedia. I tried to replace some instances of 'as of' in the article on the United States (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=next&oldid=558116720) but it was quickly reverted. I was wondering where on Wikipedia your 'argument' was. Perhaps it can shed some light on my situation.

Many thanks,

My humblest apologies. What you say makes sense to me anyway. Must go now, but rattle my cage if anything still is relevant.

Ciao for now JonRichfield (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)