User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 18

Cabeiri

What do you think of the last two sentences in the second paragraph of the lead in Cabeiri? I think they could be improved. CorinneSD (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I changed a comma (or a dash?) to a colon; the last sentence seemed OK. Rothorpe (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

All good edits. I guess the sentences are all right. What do you think about "the accounts...vary" and, in the next sentences, "The number...varied"? CorinneSD (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's OK, the repetition of 'vary' isn't a problem for me, but do have a go at rephrasing if you wish. Indeed the accounts could differ. Rothorpe (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)---So I changed it. Rothorpe (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I like "vary", and I don't mind the repetition. I was just wondering about the change in verb tense -- the first one is present tense and the second one is past tense, and I couldn't see a reason for the change. CorinneSD (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, right, so I've made the second one present too. Rothorpe (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Good. I'm wondering whether "differ in the number and sexes of the gods" should be "differ in the number and sex of the gods". Why is "sex" plural? CorinneSD (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Because there are two! Ahem, I think the word 'number' sort of suggests a plural to go next to it. Perhaps 'number and sex' suggests serial number or some such. Rothorpe (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Rhubarb

Hello, Rothorpe -- I need your opinions. Please read my comment at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Rhubarb, and then see all the changes at Rhubarb. Please comment either here or on Sminthopsis84's talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It's very complicated, but I note that someone reverted your edit. Did you ask why? Rothorpe (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I left a note for Sminthopsis84 (did you read it?), and Sminth then deleted an entire section of the sentence so that it read all right after that, so I didn't have to bother asking that editor. I was very puzzled by that because the way it was worded made it sound like rhubarb commerce was compiled (at least that's the way I remember it -- something like that), when it was an herbal manual that was compiled. I would have fought for my version if Sminth hadn't changed the sentence. CorinneSD (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did read it, hence 'complicated'. So all is now well? Rothorpe (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'm enjoying the very pleasant day -- not hot, humid, or windy, and listening to the birds singing. CorinneSD (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, good. Rothorpe (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot

Hello, Rothorpe! If you have time, would you take a look at the latest edits to Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot? Besides the space missing before the newly added professor, the other edits have some problems with verb tense and punctuation. They might have been made by a non-native speaker of English. I don't know whether they add to the article or not. CorinneSD (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's a ref, so I'd be inclined to leave well alone. Rothorpe (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

In such cases, to copyedit or not to copyedit? To do so seems to lend it legitimacy. Rothorpe (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've thought that several times, too. That putting something into well-written English adds legitimacy when, if one leaves it alone, it might be undone by another editor. CorinneSD (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad you agree. Rothorpe (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Mount Ossa (Greece)

I just read the short article on Mount Ossa (Greece) and came across something that is not quite right. It's the last phrase in the first paragraph in the lead, regarding height. The way it is worded, it sounds like the height refers to the Vale of Tempe. But the Vale of Tempe is a deep gorge, so I don't think the height figure was supposed to refer to the Vale. Don't you think the height figure is for Mount Ossa? If you think we can confidently assume that, the sentence needs to be re-arranged. CorinneSD (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Rothorpe (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thessaly

In the first sentence in the section Thessaly#Ancient history, it says "around 6000-2500 BC". I'm wondering whether the word "around" is necessary. That's quite a span of years, and they're round numbers, so I think it's obvious that they're approximate years. I know circa, or c., would mean "around", but I don't even think that's necessary. I think "between" before the years would be better. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I like the vagueness of 'around'. At that distance, big is hazy. Rothorpe (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I'll leave it. Boy, could "around 6,000 BC" be 5,000 BC? CorinneSD (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

For me, yes. Perhaps not for an ancient historian. Rothorpe (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Webster

Could you please look at the latest edit to Daniel Webster? I don't know whether it is a good edit or not. CorinneSD (talk) 22:23

It's just a change of picture of Webster. I don't know what the reason might be; normally one would be given. Rothorpe (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Blanking of page

When I saw that you had blanked your talk page without replying to any of my comments/questions, I thought you didn't want to chat with me any more. CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was a particularly angst-filled archiving this time. I always think it should be easier every time; instead the reverse. Still, all's well... Rothorpe (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've figured out how to do it easily. (This works best when you have two windows open so you can copy from one and paste into the other.)

1) I create a new page by putting CorinneSD/Archivewhatever number in the WP search bar. Leave it in Edit Mode.

2) Then I highlight everything on my talk page (in edit mode), right-click the mouse so that a little menu opens up, click "Copy", then go to the other window where I have created a new page, and paste into the edit window, and save.

3) When I'm sure it transferred O.K. and I have saved it, then I go back to the first one (the old talk page), highlight everything on my talk page again (in edit mode), right-click the mouse, and click "Cut". Then I type at the top, "Welcome to my new talk page. Feel free to continue any discussions started in Archive whatever -- the number I just created." Then I click Save.

3b) Instead of clicking "Copy", then "Paste" in the new page, you could just click "Cut" and then "Paste", but then if it somehow disappears, you can't get it back (unless you haven't gotten out of your talk page edit mode yet; you could just click "Cancel" and start again). CorinneSD (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I more or less try to remember to do. Thanks: I'll be sure to consult it next time. Rothorpe (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Charlotte Corday

I was looking at a series of edits made to Charlotte Corday as mobile edits when I saw what I thought was a clear error in punctuation. I changed it back to the way it was. Then I saw the link was red. I searched for the WP article (through the disambiguation page for "Vera"), and I saw that the title of the article, which is the title of an Oscar Wilde play, was indeed "Vera; or, the Nihilists". So I undid my own edit. But I am astonished. I've seen many story or play titles that have two alternate titles. They are always "X, or Y", with a comma after the first title. I'm astonished that Oscar Wilde would punctuate it this way. Perhaps the semi-colon -- and a comma after "or" -- were more common in his day. CorinneSD (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had this problem somewhere on WP recently. I probably concluded there were several ways to do it. Certainly, the historical tendency is to simplify punctuation. Rothorpe (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Guyana

Hello, Rothorpe! Can you tell me why Jaguar changed American spellings to British spellings at Guyana? I know about WP:ENGVAR, but Guyana is in the Western Hemisphere, not far from the U.S. Is it because it used to be a British colony? The other criterion for changing spelling to the other variant is that the article is already predominantly in one style, but I wonder whether it could have been in predominantly British style if so many words are being changed. CorinneSD (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, British in Guyana. They play cricket too! Rothorpe (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Epacris impressa

I was asked by Cas Liber to go over an article that is up for Featured Article. It is Epacris impressa. I have found only a few minor issues which I corrected. I have a few questions I'm going to leave at the Peer Review page for the article Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Epacris impressa/archive1. I may have questions later, but certainly you can read and reply at that page, but I have one question now for you. It is in, I believe, the second-to-last paragraph in the section Epacris impressa#Variation in flower colour and length. It is this sentence:

"The question has been raised over whether these different forms are becoming incompatible."

I just wonder whether you think this is all right as it is. It sounds all right, but I was wondering whether "as to" would be better than "over". The two authors of the article may be Australian, so I don't know whether "over" is more common there. Also, is "The question" all right? Not "A question"? CorinneSD (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best without anything: The question has been raised whether..., which makes sense of 'the' over 'a'. Now I'll go and look at your other links. Rothorpe (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Slightly puzzled as to why you changed 'Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania' to 'Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania,' - it rather suggests that Victoria is part of South Australia. Are you a fan of the serial comma? I am only when it resolves ambiguity. Rothorpe (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I agree with you on the "whether" issue. I'm sorry, but I could not find that edit (and don't remember making it). I searched in the revision history carefully and couldn't find the edit. CorinneSD (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it wasn't you, apologies. I've fixed it anyway. Rothorpe (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Pyrenees

Hello, Rothorpe! If you have time, would you look at the latest edits to Pyrenees? Normally, I like to find a verb other than BE if I can, but in this case I kind of like it. I suppose "form" is technically more correct, but there are several instances of the word "from" there, so "form" and "from" is a lot of "fr_m's". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk)`

I agree. Rothorpe (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Parthenon

Hello, Rothorpe! I just started reading the article on the Parthenon. I wanted to ask you about a sentence near the beginning of the lead:

"It is the most important surviving building of Classical Greece, generally considered the culmination of the development of the Doric order".

I was just wondering if there weren't a more concise way to say "the culmination of the development of the Doric order". I was thinking of something like "the zenith of the Doric order" or "the culmination of the Doric order". Any thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly needs clipping. Either of your suggestions would do nicely. Rothorpe (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I chose "zenith". It's more interesting, and I think WP articles need some more interesting vocabulary.

Yes, all good changes.

I have a few other questions about the article Parthenon:

1) In the second sentence in the lead, the sentence begins:

"Its construction began in 447...."

I'm wondering whether the sentence would be clear enough if the word "Its" were removed:

"Construction began in 447....."

I notice that the same sentence contains another "its" and the next sentence has "it". I thought it would be nice to reduce the number of "it's" and "its".

Yes, fine.

2) In the second paragraph in the section Parthenon#Etymology, I see "In 5th-century building accounts" and "the 4th-century BC orator Demosthenes". I know that a hyphen is needed for "foot" and "inch" when used as an adjective: "a six-foot-tall man", "a four-inch-high statue", but is a hyphen necessary in these cases, with "century"? Written out, it would be "In the fifth-century building accounts" and "the fourth-century BC orator Demosthenes". Do we usually use a hyphen there? The number "5" with "th" looks odd followed by a hyphen.

It reads perfectly well without, yes, and looks fussy with.

3) The first sentence in the section Parthenon#Function reads:

"Although the Parthenon is architecturally a temple and is usually called so, it is not really one in the conventional sense of the word".

I wonder about "is not really one in the conventional sense of the word". What conventional sense? Conventional in 450 BC or conventional today? I just think it's a little odd.

No, I think it's clear enough, if it means it wasn't used to worship the goddess.

4) The first sentence of the first paragraph in Parthenon#Older Parthenon reads:

"The first endeavor to build a sanctuary for Athena Parthenos on the site of the present Parthenon was begun shortly after the Battle of Marathon (c. 490–488 BC) upon a muscular limestone foundation that extended and leveled the southern part of the Acropolis summit".

Do you like the word "muscular" here? I think it's a little odd. What do you think of substituting a word like "substantial", "solid", or "massive" here? (I like "solid".)

I think solid. A muscular foundation is a little hard to envisage.

5) The first sentence of the second paragraph in the section Parthenon#Older Parthenon reads:

"The existence of both the proto-Parthenon and its destruction were known from Herodotus, and the drums of its columns were plainly visible built into the curtain wall north of the Erechtheum".

Do you like the wording of the second half of this sentence? I wonder about "were plainly visible built into".

Do you think perhaps a word or two is missing here? CorinneSD (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Do improve it if you can, but I don't think it's too bad in context. Rothorpe (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I just made a few changes that we discussed, but I haven't changed this last one. I noticed something, though, in this sentence, which begins:

"The existence of both the proto-Parthenon and its destruction were known from Herodotus..."

This is the first time "proto-Parthenon" is mentioned (it's also mentioned once later in the article and in a note at the end of the article). However, before this, the words "Older Parthenon" and "Pre-Parthenon" were used. Even if "proto-Parthenon" means the same thing as "Pre-Parthenon", I don't think this would necessarily be clear to an average reader.

(a) Does it mean the same thing?

(b) If so, why change terms in the middle of a section without explaining it? If not, what do you suggest? Either way, what do you suggest? CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If you follow the lonk to Older Parthenon, it's pretty clear that they're the same thing; however, you might want to make it clearer. Rothorpe (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

South Africa

Which is correct: "epic Portuguese poem" or "Portuguese epic poem"? See latest edit to South Africa. CorinneSD (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, 'Portuguese epic poem' is correct. Rothorpe (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Antioch

I just started reading the article on Antioch. Here is the second paragraph in the lead:

Founded near the end of the 4th century BC by Seleucus I Nicator, one of Alexander the Great's generals, Antioch's geographic, military and economic location, particularly the spice trade, the Silk Road, the Persian Royal Road, benefited its occupants, and eventually it rivaled Alexandria as the chief city of the Near East and as the main center of Hellenistic Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period.

Does anything strike you as not quite right? I wonder about "particularly the spice trade, the Silk Road, the Persian Royal Road". Those three items are not exactly examples of "geographic, military and economic" locations. I don't know. Do you see what I mean? Do you have any suggestions? Perhaps the addition of a word or phrase? CorinneSD (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the spice trade needs moving to begin with. Rothorpe (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

'...the main center of the spice trade and...'? (Sorry, hate this laptop. Normal service will be resumed I hope tomorrow.) Rothorpe (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Cherub

I posted a comment with a lot of questions about Cherub to Hertz1888 on my talk page. I just wanted to invite you to join in if you wish. Some of the questions are the kind I would normally ask you, but others are specific to the topic, and I think this is Hertz's field, so I put all my questions together in one place. CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Lots of yesses. Suggest you make some edits. Rothorpe (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I ought to, but I thought there might be reasons for some of them. I'll look at it again tomorrow. I still have to get to Parthenon again. CorinneSD (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Epacris impressa 2

The article Epacris impressa is almost ready to be considered for Featured Article status, and one of the two editors who created the article, Cas Liber, has asked me for my comments, which I am compiling now. (I'll get the link to you here in a minute.) I have a question, in the following sentence, which is in the middle of the second paragraph in Epacris impressa#Taxonomy:

"Found on Mount William in the Grampians, Mitchell remarked that it was "A most beautiful downy-leaved Epacris with large, curved, purple flowers, allied to E. grandiflora but much handsomer."

would you say that "Found on Mount William in the Grampians" is a "hanging participle" (even though it's a past, not a present, participle)? Shouldn't the thing that is "found" immediately follow the participial phrase? Of course, the botanist Mitchell was not "found on Mount William in the Grampians". Is it clear enough, or should it be re-worded to something like, "After it was found on Mount William in the Grampians," or "After finding it on Mount William in the Grampians" (if he did in fact find it)? CorinneSD (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely dangling. Yes, the latter if 'twas he, otherwise the former. Rothorpe (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. I've left a note for Cas Liber. CorinneSD (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Epacris impressa/archive1#A few comments from CorinneSD. CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at the exchanges regarding the participle at the Featured article candidates page and I realized I had said "hanging participle" when I should have said "dangling participle". (I saw your reply, above, but didn't make the connection until today.) I don't know why I said "hanging participle". I think I was tired, and it has been a while since I've thought about these. CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I just assumed it was an accepted variant. Rothorpe (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Tacitus

Hello, Rothorpe! Would you mind looking at the latest edits to Tacitus? In the last one, it looks like a quote was modified. Since the original was in Latin, perhaps this editor was translating from a Latin source. However, if this quote was taken from a published book in English, shouldn't the quote stay the way it was in that source? The rest of the edit I cannot judge. Perhaps you can. CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's all new stuff, and in the last one he is just making a correction of what appears to be his own interpretation, so I'd leave it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ferdinand Magellan

Do you think the phrase "in history" is needed? See the latest edits to Ferdinand Magellan. Also, do you like the wording of that sentence in general? CorinneSD (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, 'in history' is boyish and superfluous. But I'm completely puzzled by 'to west'. Rothorpe (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw your edits. What's "Alcaide-Mor"? In Central America, an alcalde is a mayor. Does this mean "Moorish mayor"?

'Mor' is an abbreviation of 'maior', I've just discovered by googling e.g. Port WP. So it's a maior mayor. Rothorpe (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I just saw this. Now, that's funny. Maybe it means an important mayor. CorinneSD (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Must be. There was a minor mayor somewhere as well. Rothorpe (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you remove "in history"? I guess I'll do it.

Modus operandi: Open article from link. Read a bit, make any obvious copyedits. Open new window, own talk page, consider Corinne's observations. Respond accordingly with further edits and/or own observations. Rothorpe (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked again at the line containing "to west". It says with a strange word beginning with "p" that he was the first to sail around the world "to the [Far] east...and to west". That's a strange way to get credit for sailing around the world. I don't know if it's even correct. If anything, I think it should say "to the west", not "to west", unless it's just "to east and to west", but it's not. I wonder whether we should check the actual history of his voyages. CorinneSD (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not the only bad use of 'west': see the picture caption, for example. What/where's the strange word beginning with P? Rothorpe (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh...That's why I always see one or two minor fixes first. I need to be patient. CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

'Fraid so, I'm a tortoise. Rothorpe (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's me. Cute, eh? Rothorpe (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that. This one's cute, though. It's a baby tortoise:

Baby tortoise, less than a day old

and maybe being a tortoise is a good thing; tortoises live long lives, maybe because of low stress. CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The word is "periplus". It's in the middle of the first paragraph of the article. I had never seen nor heard that word before. I see two strange uses of "west" in that paragraph: "by the west" and the one we have already referred to, "to west", and two strange uses of "west" in the info box. I've never seen so many strange uses of such a common word in one article before. CorinneSD (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You've never been to Portugal. Rothorpe (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Why? Do they misuse the word often? It's English. Where would you see or hear it misused? CorinneSD (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article is on Magellan, and those 'west' mistakes remind me of the kind of things I used to have to correct in Guimarães etc. Rothorpe (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Aaagh...! An editor has apparently made an effort to clarify this section but despite the addition of words it is no clearer than before. Do you want to make an effort to improve the sentence? (I think the details of his voyages are in the article.) CorinneSD (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Can I leave that to you? Rothorpe (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked Omnipaedista. He/She changed "periplus" to "circumnavigation", which is fine (and of course I agree with your edit changing "around" to "of"), but I don't understand his/her other edits. See User talk:Omnipaedista#Ferdinand Magellan and feel free to weigh in. Am I wrong? Have you heard "by west" and "to west"? And do you like the change to capital "w": "by West" and "to West"? CorinneSD (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree; awaiting response. Rothorpe (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Lesley Molseed

What do you think of the latest edits to Murder of Lesley Molseed? I'm astonished at the interest people take in this article. CorinneSD (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Too many for one edit, to start with. As I say on my Citizendium page, ...shrug... Rothorpe (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you see all the edits just made to M of L M? They were made by the same IP editor whom you reverted a few days ago. Is "enquiry" British English? CorinneSD (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, enquiry is BrE, but the i- version is used as well; I forget if there is a distinction. Rothorpe (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Tyre

A little while ago I read the article on Tyre. Even after reading all the information at the beginning of the article, I still cannot figure out how it is pronounced. How do you say it? CorinneSD (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Same as 'tire'. Did you know that 'tyre' is the British spelling of the thing on a wheel? Now I'll go and look at the article. Rothorpe (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's what I thought, but I wonder how it got to be "tire" from the pronunciation in all those languages as more like "tour". I just got a bot message about a messed-up conversion template. When I see just metric measurements, I often add a conversion template, but I guess I messed this one up. I've got to find it. Maybe it's been fixed already. CorinneSD (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Upsilon is tranliterated as y, indeed that's how it's pronounced in Modern Greek (and capital upsilon is a Y already). Hence also the name ípsilon in Portuguese. Rothorpe (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So I guess "upsilon" is not the English letter or sound of "u". Why is upsilon transliterated as "y"? The letter "y" in English can have at least two sounds. CorinneSD (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it was the capital upsilon, which looks like a Y, which then got pronounced like other Ys. I happen to know that in modern Greek pronunciation, upsilon is pronounced like Y/I. Rothorpe (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Marsh

I just noticed that some edits have been made to the article on Marsh, which is one of the articles I carefully read and to which I made a few edits a few months ago.

The IP editor made a silly change from small to large and then undid it.

The one before that, Gig.., changed a few things that I remember writing. I can go along with leaving out "that is" before "free from fish", but I don't agree with the other edits. I need your support (and opinion) here.

• Changing "Salt water marshes are found around the world in mid to high latitudes, wherever there are sections of protected coastline" to:

"Saltwater marshes are found around the world in mid to high latitudes, wherever sections of protected coastline occur.

I suppose they're about equal, but I like the "there are" construction. It leaves "sections of protected coastline" in the reader's mind. I notice there are some editors who just don't like the "there is/there are" construction at all. In this case, which do you prefer?

I'm with you. Rothorpe (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Changing "This form of marsh is defined by the fact that, although it is a freshwater marsh, it is still affected by the tides" to:

"This form of marsh, although it is a freshwater marsh, it is still affected by the tides".

Besides the fact that this is a terrible sentence (having the subject twice -- "this form of marsh" and "it"), it does not contain the point that is made with the other version -- the reason why this type of marsh is called a "Freshwater tidal marsh".

Do you support returning this to the way it was? If not, perhaps this simpler version:

"Although considered a freshwater marsh, this form of marsh is affected by the ocean tides".

Yes, simplest is best. Rothorpe (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Changing "They are also the most diverse of the three types of marsh" to:

"They are also the most diverse of the three types of marshes".

Isn't the singular, "marsh", correct here? I don't think the plural is necessary, do you?

Yes, those 'types of plurals' constructions are horrible. Rothorpe (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Changing "Although they are regularly flooded, in the summer they are often dry" to:

"Although they are regularly flooded, they are often dry in the summer".

I think I remember specifically moving "in the summer" from the end of the sentence to just before the independent clause. This editor has moved it back. While I know it may just be a style choice, I think the last thing in a sentence is what the reader is left with and so is more important. I think the time of year is less important than the adjective "dry". What do you think? Which do you prefer? CorinneSD (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Right again. Rothorpe (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks for your support. I'm going to make the changes. CorinneSD (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to ask you about two things:

1) Do you like the version with "that is" or without "that is" (free from fish) that I mentioned at the beginning, above?

No need for it. Rothorpe (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

2) There was another edit by this editor that I forgot to ask you about:

• Changed "Restoration can be done on a large scale, such as by allowing rivers to flood naturally in the spring, or on a small scale by returning wetlands to urban landscapes" to:

"Restoration can be done on a large scale, such as allowing rivers to flood naturally in the spring, or on a small scale by returning wetlands to urban landscapes".

I think the word "by" is necessary. What do you think?:Agreed.

3) Also, I'm going to change "90%" back to "90 percent". Do you agree with that? CorinneSD (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No! What's wrong with the cuddly space-saving symbol? Also there's the percenters v the per centers. Rothorpe (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it, but I like words better than symbols. Regarding the word, I haven't seen per cent in a long time. CorinneSD (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

4) Also, what about the change from "Prairie pothole region" to "Prairie Pothole Region"? Is that the name of a specific protected area that needs to be capitalized?

Why didn't you just click on the link? It's a region, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If it weren't for the change from "fresh water" to "freshwater" and "salt water" to "saltwater", and this last item, I could undo all the edits at once. CorinneSD (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the good mixed in with the bad... Rothorpe (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Deferent and epicycle

Would you mind looking at the latest edits to Deferent and epicycle? I undid the last edit. Although the edit summary said, "Improved grammar", the edit made the sentence ungrammatical. But I need your opinion on the previous edit. The editor removed a few words from a sentence with an edit summary saying "Removed peacock words". I know what peacock words are, but in this case I think they add something important to the article. I could go along with leaving out "famous", but I think "with incredible accuracy" is important. Perhaps "with a high degree of accuracy" would be more encyclopedic. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Right again, not peacock, the point. Rothorpe (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you just undo the edit, thus putting back in both "famous" and "with incredible accuracy", or would you leave "famous" out? CorinneSD (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd leave out 'famous' as unnecessary. Rothorpe (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you see that another editor made a few more edits? It made it more academese and now the fact that it was named after Ptolemy is completely gone. What do you advise on this one? CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I made the change, so now it says "to a remarkable degree of accuracy". But after I saved it, I wondered whether "with a remarkable degree of accuracy" would be correct. Which do you like better, "to" or "with"? I think I still like "to", but I want to know what you think. CorinneSD (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I much prefer 'to'. Do you have a reliable source that says it was named after Ptolemy?!?!?!? Rothorpe (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No, but I think the sentence was referring to the "Ptolemaic system of astronomy" mentioned in the previous sentence. I can't imagine that the "Ptolemaic system of astronomy" was not named after Ptolemy, but perhaps it is not necessary to say it. Also, the article is on "deferent and epicycle", not the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, so the edit removing that was probably right.

However, now, after that edit, I noticed that "it was formalized...by Ptolemy" is now in both the first and second paragraphs of the lead, and I don't think it needs to be said twice. Do you want to work on it, or shall we ask User:Vsmith to help? CorinneSD (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, do ask him, I don't know how to unrepeat there. Rothorpe (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vsmith: Can you help us here? CorinneSD (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Reordered and tweaked wording to address the redundant stuff and place what it is before who did it. I see deferent is absent from the lead - hmm... Anyway, tweak or redo as needed. Vsmith (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Cornus (genus)

I just started reading the article on dogwood: Cornus (genus). I have a question for you:

In the first paragraph after the lead is the following sentence:

The name "dog-tree" entered the English vocabulary by 1548, and had been further transformed to "dogwood" by 1614.

I'm wondering about this part:

"had been further transformed to "dogwood" by 1614".

I think the word "further" is not necessary. It wasn't transformed before this, so it's not a further transformation. I also think the second independent clause could be changed to a participial phrase, as follows:

The name "dog-tree" entered the English vocabulary by 1548, transforming to "dogwood" by 1614.

Even "transforming" could be changed to "becoming":

The name "dog-tree" entered the English vocabulary by 1548, becoming "dogwood" by 1614.

I also think "entered the English vocabulary" could be changed to "entered the English language":

The name "dog-tree" entered the English language by 1548, becoming "dogwood" by 1614.

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was behind you at every stage there, though I would use the past perfect with 'by'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Then would you use the active verb "had become" instead of either the active "had transformed" or the passive "had been transformed"? CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This must be a Br/Am thing, sigh. To me it should be 'had entered the English vocabulary by 1548'. Better without 'the', perhaps? Rothorpe (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the sentence again:

"The name "dog-tree" entered the English vocabulary by 1548, and had been further transformed to "dogwood" by 1614".

I see that you are focusing on the first half of the sentence. I had been focusing on the second half. You want the verb "enter" in past perfect: "had entered the English vocabulary by 1548", because of the "by" phrase. I think "the" is needed.

Regarding the second half of the sentence, are you happy with "and had been further transformed to "dogwood" by 1614"? I thought we agreed to leave out "further", so it would be:

"and had been transformed to "dogwood" by 1614.

My question now is whether to change "had been transformed to" to either

• had become" or

• had transformed to". CorinneSD (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I liked 'becoming'. I would use the past perfect only in the first part. Rothorpe (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but that doesn't go with the past perfect in the first part. Let's just change 'by' to 'before'. Rothorpe (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I made the change. Now, after looking at it, do you think it would sound better without "the" before "English vocabulary"? I can't decide. I like "entered the English language", but you said you preferred "English vocabulary", so the question is whether we include or leave out "the". There's also "became part of the the English vocabulary", but if we use that, then we wouldn't want to use "becoming" later in the sentence. If you like "became part of the English vocabulary", or "became part of English vocabulary", then perhaps we can use "transforming" later. What do you prefer? CorinneSD (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was conflicted over this too. But when just now I went to have a look to see how it read, I thought: fine. Rothorpe (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Mespilus germanica

In the article Mespilus germanica, I don't understand the Nabokov example in the list at the bottom of the article of references to the fruit in literature. CorinneSD (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Mispel is Mespilus mispelt, no? Rothorpe (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh... I didn't even think of "Mespilus germanica". I was thinking of medlar. All through the article, the word "medlar" is used. You're very smart! CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it helped that I hadn't noticed 'medlar'; indeed, had never heard of it. Rothorpe (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't, either, and I'm surprised. It seems that it was a commonly known fruit over a wide area for centuries. CorinneSD (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ronald Crane

I just read the short article on Ronald Crane and made a few minor edits. I also re-worded an entire paragraph at Ronald Crane#Death. I just want to ask you whether you think "retorted" is too strong a word for a man on his death bed. I thought it captured the humor of the story, and connected the story to his life's work, better than "asked" or "replied". CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You improved it considerably. Rothorpe (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)