Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:40, 19 November 2016

I don't know how this talk page works but for you to say my few words of clarification "does not fit well" is vague and senseless - I am still waiting for clarification what specifically you mean? What wording would you find acceptable for adding that little bit of information? Soaringbear (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Vertical garden from Lalbagh flower show, August 2013 Royal gardens of Reggia di Caserta, Italy Sunken garden at Butchart Gardens, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada Garden at Colonial Williamsburg the Moon 4th quarter, 46% 15 January 2025 From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34 This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. #wikipedia-en-copyedit

{{quote|quote=<poem>Their names discover what their natures are,
More hard than stones, and yet not stones indeed.</poem>|source=I.i.181-2}}

This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2015)

Coffee production in Cuba – Robusta coffee beans at a coffee plantation in Viñales valley in Cuba Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Coffee production in Cuba Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Goods and services • Marie Serneholt Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2015)

The First Geneva Convention (1864) is one of the earliest formulations of international law. Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: International law Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Coffee production in Cuba • Goods and services Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2015)

Princess Leia with characteristic hairstyle cosplayed. Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Princess Leia Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: International law • Coffee production in Cuba Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

talkback copyediting

Talkback copyediting

Nomination for Misplaced Pages schwag

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

This week's article for improvement (week 43, 2016)

The attic at a factory Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Attic Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Noise • Spelling bee Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot 00:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Response (copy-edit)

Hello Corinne, excuse me for my belated response; I can talk and understand Persian well, but I can't read/write it at all. So unfortunately, I'd be unable to help you with such a question. Did someone else manage to help you out though? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem, LouisAragon. I will ask the editor who made the request for the copy-edit. You ought to try to learn to read and write Persian. I taught myself. It's not that difficult. Just learn the alphabet and the various forms (initial, medial, and final) for the letters (some letters just have one or two forms, so it's not that bad). Then learn the few combinations of two letters that represent one sound (such as aleph and i). Most letters just have one sound. There are more than one letter for a few sounds, such as "s", "z", and "h". You just have to memorize which one to use. (The "s" in particular reflects the origin of the word.) If you already know the language, it will be easy to learn to read and write.  – Corinne (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks alot for the tip! I appreciate it, and I will definetely remind it. Yeah, many people told me that I should learn it, especially given that I can already speak it, but I'm unfortunately really busy/occupied with other stuff. You just taught yourself the entire language out of sheer interest or? Regardless of the answer, that definetely deserves a big thumbs up. Learning new things in life, of which languages are probably a prime example, always require us to show a certain amount of perseverance and will -- regardless of the natural talent to learn new things that is. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 44, 2016)

Street food vendors at a roadside market just outside of Hua Hin District, Thailand Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Street food Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Attic • Noise Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot 00:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Orangutans

EEng I hadn't looked at your user page in a while, so I was looking at the pictures and reading the captions, etc., just now. I noticed that in the caption for the image at the left in the section "Museum of Separated At Birth, Pt. 3", you have "organutans" instead of "orangutans". Given the subject matter of nearby sections, it might have been intentional, but I thought I'd point it out in case it wasn't. Of course, it probably doesn't matter either way... ;)  – Corinne (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Corinne, congratulations on your sharp eye. You are on my list of Approved and Trusted Talk Page Stalkers, authorized to fix stuff like that on my user page without having to ask. If somehow your change is misguided, rest assured I'll simply set things right with a gentle explanation. Remember, WP:BEBOLD (though it's true that when it comes to an editor's user page, a bit of circumspection needs to be blended in). EEng 18:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

EEng What did I write that was so bad that it needed to be reverted in the discussion regarding pull quotes on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style? Am I not supposed to add comments? Were my comments off-base in some way? Please tell me so I can learn from this.  – Corinne (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You're talking about this edit . Well, if you click Next edit you'll see Mirokado immediately reverted his removal of your comment, which must have been inadvertent. EEng 02:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh... I hadn't seen that. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Mithraism

Ian.thomson I just wondered what you thought of these edits, and the ones just previous to them by the same editor, to Mithraism. After all the changes, I wonder if the only really useful change will turn out be the addition of "Greek/Latin". Are the slight changes in wording an improvement, or not?

Also, while at first I thought the linking of "CIMRM" in the section Mithraism#Lion-headed figure was appropriate, I see that the full name of the text is introduced in a later section, Mithraism#Earliest archaeology. Shouldn't the first mention of a text be written out in full (and linked)? Or do you think it's all right the way it is?  – Corinne (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Glancing over all the changes (in isolation) before I rush off for lunch, I'd figure "mostly harmless." But you're right about CIMRM. I don't remember the exact link, but IIRC, "first mention should be a spelled out Wikilink" is part of the manual of style. It'd be nice to put the initials after it just to be clear what it is when we use the initials throughout the rest of the article (can't remember if it's in the MOS, probably not forbidden by it). I also see where you're coming from regarding the "Greek/Latin," we should probably be clearer that it is a Latinized form of Ahriman (since the Greek form was the slightly different Areimanios). Otherwise, *shrug*. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Well, it didn't stop there; soon after, things became exceedingly strange; and then even stranger - . Haploidavey (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Haploidavey Oh, dear. S/He has certainly chosen some arcane subjects to edit. I'm glad you're keeping an eye on this. Thank goodness you noticed; otherwise a lot of science articles would become unreadable. This editor looks like a non-native speaker of English who has a science background, and is well-meaning but does not have an accurate sense of his/her writing abilities. If s/he keeps going, maybe someone needs to drop him/her a note.  – Corinne (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 45, 2016)

A sword dance performance Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Sword dance Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Street food • Attic Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot 00:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Sol Invictus

LouisAragon I was just looking at the latest edits to Sol Invictus, and I'd like to ask you about something:

1) The editor changed "274 AD" to {{sm|a.d.}}274. Can you tell me:

(a) What that template is, and

(b) how it represents an improvement?

2) Can you or User:Natalie.Desautels explain something to me? The editor changed "A" to "À", apparently correcting the French. I can understand that. But the editor changed "," to ":" before the final phrase. I thought that "à propos" meant "regarding", but Google translates it as "about". I don't understand the title of the article. Is Paul Fest a person? Why would "about Paul Fest" or even "regarding Paul Fest" be there? Is the change from "," to ":" correct? I cannot access the source. It appears that the editor knows what s/he is doing, and probably has access to the source, but can someone explain the title of this work? It's in Note 31.  – Corinne (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

(occasional watcher) I've no idea what advantage the template claims to offer; hitherto I've been blissfully unaware of it. A sandbox test produces a small a.d.. Fine, assuming such a thing's ever needed (though the dots are depracated in the current WP:MOS).

For the rest: "regarding" or "about" seem near enough; and Paul. Fest. = Paul the Deacon's commentary/epitome of a particular passage by the grammarian Festus (or more accurately, Paulus' epitome of Festus' epitome of Flaccus - see De verborum significatu. Haploidavey (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging LouisAragon again because I messed up the user name earlier.  – Corinne (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Haploidavey. I don't think the MOS would recommend the small A.D., but right now I can't find any reference to it. The information about Paul. Fest. is interesting. While I believe I had heard of Festus, I had never heard of Paul the Deacon. I look forward to reading those articles. I think if I had seen periods/full stops after "Paul" and "Fest", I would have realized they were abbreviations, but maybe not what they stood for. Thanks again!  – Corinne (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC) Baffle gab1978 or Miniapolis, do you know any guideline regarding the use of the small A.D.? I haven't seen it much, and I don't think it should be used, but I can't find anything that covers it.  – Corinne (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Aha! I do remember seeing "smallcaps" before. They're used to accurately render unicase Latin text (from inscriptions on monuments - coinage and whatnot); so not a commonplace. See last item at MOS:SMALLCAPS. Haploidavey (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Corinne, been very busy these past few days. Only seeing your message right now. I wouldn't use that template, simply (I guess) because there's no WP that says that it should or has to be used. We want to keep some sort of consistency throughout all articles after all. Thus, in other words, not really an improvement so to say. But definetely an edit made in good faith obviously. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Led/lead

Hi, Corinne. Have you noticed the extraordinary number of instances of "led" (past tense and past participle of the verb "to lead") mis-spelled as "lead"? Maybe some editors are assuming the verb conjugates like the verb "to read". This mis-spelling is now quite common in other media, even in quality newspapers. I've corrected some hundreds of cases, but I'm sure there must be thousands more. Searching for phrases which are particularly likely to be mis-spelled (such as "was lead", "been lead" and "lead to believe") saves time, but I've just about run out of examples. The next step would have to be a search for just the word "lead", which brings up tens of thousands of hits. Any suggestions? Maybe a bot could identify likely candidates? 185.14.214.94 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

If I may stalk a little here, I thought a bot could perhaps be used for this too, but I have no idea how they work. Rothorpe (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, 185 and Rothorpe. I have also noticed that misspelling, and when I come across it, I correct it. I don't know anything about bots. Maybe Redrose64 could help here. I think it would be pretty difficult to develop a bot to correct misspellings of irregular verb forms. First of all, there are regional variations in past tense and past participle forms. Second, unless specific phrases like the ones you mentioned above are included in the code of the bot, how is a bot to figure out whether the past tense or the past participle is needed, which regional form is appropriate, whether the sentence is using the historical present tense even in an article about something from the past, in which case the bot shouldn't correct it to the past tense, etc. It's got to distinguish between main text and a quote, which could contain a tense different from the surrounding sentences, and whether the subjunctive is being used. I'm wondering whether tutorials on how to edit on Misplaced Pages, and maybe also the WP:Manual of Style – perhaps in the Grammar and usage section – should contain a link to English irregular verbs, in which there is a good list of forms. You could also look at it this way: mistakes like that are another reason why good copy-editors are needed on Misplaced Pages.  – Corinne (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Wise words. Humans forever! Rothorpe (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You would file a request at WP:BOTREQ. However, they would probably turn it down, since spell-check bots are almost always refused (see WP:FDB#Fully automatic spell-checking bots) - bots simply can't judge context, and Corinne has described most of the many pitfalls involved. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no way this would be approved, as even if you could somehow exclude quotations (which would be a prerequisite and is a lot harder than it sounds) the false-positive rate would be astronomical. (George Harrison was lead guitarist for the Beatles, if the pipe was installed before 1950 it is likely that its lining would have been lead, Brion Vibber was lead developer of Mediawiki, the primary cause of the decline in inland waterfowl populations has been lead poisoning from shotgun pellets.) Even unequivocal typo fixes like "cemetry", "targetted" and "agression" need to be manually reviewed when being fixed as there are occasions when the apparent error is actually correct, let alone a situation like "lead"/"led" where both spellings have multiple meanings and are correct in multiple contexts. The closest thing to a bot you could possibly get approval for would be a WP:AWB script in which you manually reviewed every substitution for context, and even then you'd quite likely find yourself blocked unless you were very careful to check every change. ‑ Iridescent 09:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting using a bot to make any changes itself, rather it would present a list of candidate articles for an editor to review. The simple Misplaced Pages search process doesn't allow, for example, excluding "a lead", "the lead", "lead" preceded by a number, as in "a 3-2 lead", "lead vocal*", "lead guitar*", "lead role*" (where the asterisk is a wildcard), and many more. A program could use these tests to filter out many correct spellings from the candidates list. The list would still contain many false positives, as did my searches for "was lead", "been lead" etc. There are currently over 300,000 articles containing the word "lead"; it would be utterly impractical to review them all manually. However, if a bot, or some other type of program, could eliminate articles where "lead" is probably the correct spelling, the remainder might be manageable. (I strongly suspect it's impractical, but I thought I'd ask the experts just in case it's not.)

In order to illustrate the magnitude of the problem, I counted the number of corrections to this specific mis-spelling I've made over the past few months, at this IP address and the other one I've used. (See Special:Contributions/185.14.214.94 and Special:Contributions/87.81.205.186). The total comes to 1254, and that's just the "low-hanging fruit"! 87.81.205.186 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

David Gregory (journalist)

I'm wondering what you think of my change to the above. Please change it back if it reads badly to you. Rothorpe (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe Of course you are right; present perfect is needed with "since 2016", so your edit is definitely an improvement, and it reads well. I'm not sure whether "since 2016" is really needed yet since we are still in 2016. If it is removed, then the "currently serves" wording would work. If you or others think the "since 2016" is necessary, then "has served" is correct. The only other possible change – not very different – would be to start the sentence with "since 2016", which I think places less emphasis on the time period and more on the position:

• Since 2016 Gregory has served as a CNN political analyst.

But your version is fine, and probably better.  – Corinne (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very reassuring. I think 'since 2016' was probably added with the passing of the next six weeks in mind, so I'm inclined to leave it. Rothorpe (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit dispute over an inline wiktionary link

Hi Corinne, could you look at this edit in which I reverted the removal of a wiktionary link? I don't understand the other person's point of view, and would be glad of an opinion from a skilled copyeditor such as yourself. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84 I apologize for the delay in responding. I've been a bit busy. I saw your comment and had to give it some thought. I looked in WP:MOS and found a few relevant statements. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Linking, the section called "Overlinking and underlinking", specifically the third bulleted item under "What generally should be linked":

Articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions/phrases—but you could also provide a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link. If there is no appropriate Misplaced Pages article, an interwikimedia link to Wiktionary could be used.

The question would be whether the adjective "grisly" could be called a technical term, an example of jargon, or a slang expression or phrase. Unfortunately, I don't think "grisly" falls into any of those categories.

On the other hand, later in this article, in the second paragraph of the section "What generally should not be linked", we read:

A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked:

• Everyday words understood by most readers in context. (etc.)

The questions here are (a) whether "grisly" can be considered an everyday word, and (b) whether it is "particularly relevant to the context in the article". I think the word is on the broad border between a commonly used word and an unusual word. It's a somewhat unusual word. As for (b), I think "grisly" is "particularly relevant to the context in the article", so on that basis, linking to the Wiktionary entry might be justified.

If you look down lower in this Manual of Style article, you will see a section headed "An example article", shortcut WP:COMMONWORDS. It takes an article and gives examples of what to link and what not to link. The first bulleted item recommends linking terms that are quite technical. The third bulleted item recommends not linking a term ("United States") because that article is too broad and has no direct connection to the topic of this example article (supply and demand). The fourth bulleted item recommends not linking a term ("wheat") that is "a common term with no particular relationship" to the article on supply and demand. We need to look at the second bulleted item:

Consider linking "price" and "goods" only if these common words have technical dimensions that are specifically relevant to the topic.

Because the topic of supply and demand is on a somewhat technical (economic) subject, the phrase "technical dimensions" is important here. In a less technical subject such as politics, I think "technical" can be dispensed with, and we can understand the guideline to say:

• Consider linking only if they have dimensions/meanings other than the obvious ones that are specifically relevant to the topic.

Then the question is, does the word "grisly", a somewhat unusual (which really also means somewhat common) word, have dimensions or meanings other than the obvious ones that are specifically relevant to the topic? I think the answer is no. "Grisly" means grisly.

Then we ought to consider readership. According to User:Checkingfax,

• 25% of our readers and editors are between the ages of 10 and 17; 50% between 17 and 35; 25% between 35 and 85.

I think we need to keep that first group in mind as we edit articles, and young readers may not be familiar with "grisly", and not understanding the word may prevent these readers from grasping the full reality of the situation in Bangladesh. The link would definitely help these readers. It would also help non-native speakers of English, of which I suspect there are many among Misplaced Pages's readers, and I believe you may have had these readers in mind when you added the link, and I can understand that.

So, I think linking "grisly" to the Wiktionary entry is a judgment call here. On the one hand, if we don't link the word, we leave the choice to look the word up in a dictionary or on Wiktionary up to the reader, and we're declining to make it easy for the reader. On the other hand, unless the article is bordering on being over-linked in general, one link to Wiktionary should not be a problem, unless one has a particular objection to adding links to Wiktionary. If it were my choice, I would not link "grisly" to Wiktionary because I think it is common enough that most readers would understand it, and the word is not being used with an unusual meaning. I see that FreeKnowledgeCreator removed "grisly" entirely saying it was "unnecessary editorializing", and I also have to agree with that. I hope this helps.  – Corinne (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, thank you Corinne, for a wonderfully thoughtful reply. Those other edits that you made to polish the page are very nice, and would be unlikely to have ever occurred without your efforts (it's nice to see "which" changed to "that" when appropriate!). (I am surprised that the contentious word has now been entirely removed, and am happy to see it so.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 46, 2016)

A woman wearing a dress Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Dress Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Sword dance • Street food Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot 00:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

teaching English to speakers of other languages
... you were recipient no. 1032 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Thank you, Gerda! What a nice surprise! I can't believe two years have passed so quickly. How are doing these days? I don't know any details, but I read a while ago that you were not well. I hope you are feeling and doing better. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)