This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Hi, Corinne. I note your pottatea template image update. Good work. I think it would be cool if that lovely image could be refactored onto a transparent background. What do you think? See if one of your Wikipals can float one onto the Commons to try out. I played with an online converter but I was not happy with the output. I can ask my sister to do it for you, if you wish. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
20:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Cropped version
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
02:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
20:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
05:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For your contributions in making Anbe Sivam a GA! Thank you! — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
Various foods in a
delicatessen in Rome, Italy
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Pecan pie • Gates of hell Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Hi, Corinne. I liked the comma, but it has been removed several times by an editor who does not appear to be a vandal in any way shape or form. Your take? You probably re-added it most recently?
By the way, there is a double RfC on whether names including Sr. and Jr. should have a comma before and/or after the Sr. and Jr.
All my life I assumed commas were the only way to go, but I have now waffled. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
20:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
05:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Hi, Corinne. I know you had a fraction question but I cannot find it. Does this help:
MOS:FRAC? Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
18:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Corinne;
In his recent message
at 10:19 pm, today, our colleague Checkingfax mentioned you in the sentence: "Corinne, if she will be so kind, will do any fine tuning to fill in any divots." Since I am not familiar with the GA review process, I don't understand precisely what this means, but it certainly implies that my lateness in applying final contributions to the ML article will be causing you to have to update some formal records, perhaps related to the GA review process itself.
In that case, I apologise most sincerely for causing you additional work, especially at a time when you thought this GA review was now behind you and that you could therefore move on and make progress with your other projects.
Please know that I am very sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused you, Corinne.
With kindest regards;
Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)(
guestbook)
22:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
[cc:
Checkingfax,
Natalie.Desautels, and
Sainsf
P.S.:
Checkingfax has now elucidated the mystery of 'divots' for me—a non-golf player, obviously...
—
at 11:50 pm, yesterday; so, please ignore the above section, Corinne. Better still, please transmute my earlier apologies to the new purpose of seeking your forgiveness for polluting your alerts/messages indicators yesterday, repeatedly...
.
With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)(
guestbook)
23:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
[cc:
Checkingfax,
Natalie.Desautels, and
Sainsf]
Hi, Corinne. Thank you so much for your great edits and suggestions during the
Michael Laucke
Good Article review process. Please keep them coming. We are making great progress, but I desperately need your help to smooth things out. In spite of the GAR, I want the article to be the best that it can be, even for unraised issues. Get out your weed whacker. Natalie put out the word for a
barn raising and you were the only one to helpfully respond. Keep up the good work. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
20:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
(I am going to refactor these so they look closer to an actual DYK hook) {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
09:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Checkingfax, Sainsf, and Pdebee: Hi, Corinne. User:Checkingfax and others have suggested submitting a DYK proposal now that the Laucke article is eligible. One of the rules is that the submission must be made within seven days of a GA status achievement, so we have until April 15th.
It would be great to have your thoughts on the sentence structure, flow, syntax, and so on. But if you are busy, I of course fully understand and we can submit it as is, as the reviewers are apparently skilled and advanced, and are among the upper echelon of wiki-world. So here are the 'hooks', as required, which I came up with after getting a feel for what DYK is about; DYK values the unusual it would seem. Each quote is well under 200 characters, as required. I didn’t know the correct format for the photo, nor how Checkingfax or I will go about submitting it, so I just included the info and link. I understand that, generally, several close alternative versions are submitted to the reviewers, which you will notice:
DID YOU KNOW:
Photo: (needs to be licensed and uploaded to the Commons. Note: might not scale down per DYK image guidelines) Caption: Michael Laucke, age nine, with his yacht
Many thanks. Kindest regards, Natalie -- Natalie.Desautels ( talk) 08:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
10:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Hi Corinne. ...tis I again. May I once again prevail upon your good nature and extend an invitation for you to visit a poll and vote here. Of course please feel free to ignore my request if time is too short (and I'll just go away ). This vote is for a small issue—the insertion of two navboxes into Michael Laucke. User:Checkingfaxand I thought it would be good policy to go through the democratic process of putting this issue to a vote.
Thanks you so much in advance for your kind consideration and for your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. With utmost respect and kind regards, Natalie Natalie.Desautels ( talk) 07:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne, User:Checkingfax suggested more consistency in the use of writing numbers in the Laucke article and I agree. I've read a few articles such as How to Write Numbers and Rules for Writing Numbers and it seems there can be quite a difference in the interpretation of the rules, at times unclear and ambiguous unlike, say, ...Wikipedia's policies (specifically on the subject of navboxes). Seriousness aside, some sources suggest numerals from 1 to 9, others suggest numerals from 1 to 99, and there are other 'please yourself' notions as well
If you would be so kind as to make a few suggestions, I'll be able to pick up the baton from there. I've indicated below the havoc I might wreak if left to my own devices.
Many thanks once again for your precious help. Kindest regards, Natalie -- Natalie.Desautels ( talk) 17:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
19:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Natalie.Desautels Well, I'm always partial to words, but I agree with Checkingfax that generally only numbers 1–9 are spelled out, but in this article I think only the single digit numbers 1–5 need to be spelled out, but it's not good to mix "1, 2, 3, 4, and 5" with "six, seven, eight, nine, ten" in the same list or section. So, for the ones you listed above, I would leave them all as they are with the exception of the one that starts "The 24 tracks employ". I would leave "24", but change the others. I also don't think the colon is needed there. Would you agree, Checkingfax?
Since I saw two items in your list, above, that contain "24 tracks", I decided to take a look at that section again. I'm going to copy three sentences here:
On 12 September 2001, Laucke released a CD called Flamenco Road; it consists mainly of his own compositions in the new flamenco style, which he also arranged. The recording uses 24 tracks, arguably the only recording in this style to employ such elaborate instrumentation. The recording took place in five different studios in Montreal, each chosen for its particular acoustics. The 24 tracks employ: 5 guitars...
I'd like to point out two different things:
1) You have "the recording" twice. I believe that in the first instance, the phrase is just a synonym for "the CD". If it is not, and you really mean "the recording process", or "the process of recording the CD", then "uses" should be in past tense: "The recording used 24 tracks", or even "The recording required the use of 24 tracks". It is clear that the second instance of "the recording" means "the process of recording the CD", so that's not a problem. However, it is a problem (conceptually) if you mean something different by the first use of "the recording" and the second use, and if you do mean something different, I recommend not using the same phrase.
2) There really should be a way to avoid using "24 tracks" twice. I'm thinking that if you re-arrange the sentences so that the two sentences about the tracks are next to each other, or even joined into one sentence, you can do that. How about something like this? --
Debt is the amount of money that is owed or due.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Delicatessen • Pecan pie Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Hello, Corinne.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: 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 talk using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Checkingfax I was looking at the latest edit to Baldus de Ubaldis, and I saw em-dashes in date ranges, so I changed the em-dashes to en-dashes using the "ndash" template. Then I looked at the en-dashes, and it looks like there is slightly too much space between the en-dash and the subsequent "1", so I tried changing the "ndash" template to just a regular en-dash (from the bottom of the edit window), and it looked the same. Then I tried the "no-space-en-dash-no-space" template {{nsndns}}, and it looked the same. Then I remembered kerning, and I remembered reading something about kerning on WP, so I looked for something. The only thing I found was how to add a tiny space in Help:Advanced text formatting (which is an interesting article if you haven't seen it). So I looked at the actual WP article on Kerning. That article is a bit overwhelming. Can you see if there is anything one can use to remove, or slightly reduce, spacing between an en-dash and a following "1" (which is what kerning usually does)? – Corinne ( talk) 02:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
11:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)I'd like to hear opinions on the necessity of adding a comma after "In + year", or "In + month + year", at the beginning of sentences. I see it added often in WP articles. Regarding the former, I feel strongly that a comma is not needed at all, unless the following phrase is parenthetical and between a pair of commas. Regarding the latter, I think a comma is usually not needed. I agree with the addition of a comma by Coemgenus in all the places s/he added them except in these particular situations. I copy-edited this article several months ago, and I omitted the commas after "In + year" and probably also "In + month + year", but a lot of editing has taken place since then.
The reason why I think a comma is not needed is that in speech, native speakers normally do not pause after the year. Also, the comma is not needed to ensure clarity (unless it is the first in a pair around a parenthetical phrase). So, why add punctuation to slow down the reader? The comma should be used judiciously as a means of avoiding confusion and ambiguity and to make the sentence structure clear to the reader. I think it is really old-fashioned – 19th century style – to use commas where they are not needed. Is there a guideline on MoS stipulating that a comma be added? Is this a British English/American English style difference? I cannot comprehend the constant adding of unnecessary commas.
Pinging Coemgenus, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Dank, Rothorpe, Drcrazy102. – Corinne ( talk) 01:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Corinne. The current collaboration of the Google Doodle task force is: Please be bold and make this a valuable reference for interested readers! Opt-out instructions Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the task force. This task force is part of Today's articles for improvement. Opt-out instructions |
---|
The Million Award | ||
For your contributions to bring
Planned Parenthood (estimated annual readership: 1,793,486) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wow, Checkingfax! Thank you so much. What an honor! – Corinne ( talk) 01:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Vanamonde93 I was just looking at your copy-edits to Termite. I wonder if you would mind discussing this edit. While I agree that the way it was before your edit:
was cumbersome, the way it is now:
(a) has a plural subject ("relationships") with a singular verb ("is"), and
(b) I believe that what is still rudimentary is not relationships but rather scientists' understanding of the relationships. The word "knowledge", which was in the sentence before your edit, is close to the word "understanding". However, I am not advocating going back to the way it was. I'm trying to figure out a way to include the word "understanding" without making the sentence cumbersome. I thought of:
Any thoughts or ideas? – Corinne ( talk) 18:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2) I was looking at the edit previous to this one, in which you changed "the" to "these" before "worker termites"; that was an improvement, but I wondered if perhaps the sentence as a whole could be improved. Here is the sentence as it is now, with the sentence that precedes it:
I think, regarding the second sentence:
(a) It would be good to avoid having to repeat "worker", and
(b) I'm not sure the "while" clause conveys the right meaning. It seems to place too much emphasis on a fact that has little to do with what is being contrasted, and comes between the information Burkemore1 is trying to contrast.
(c) A third consideration is avoiding the use of "while" twice.
How about this? --
In contrast, worker termites, which constitute the majority in a colony, are diploid individuals of both sexes and develop from fertilised eggs.
This minimizes the fact about worker termites being the majority of individuals in a termite colony and places the focus on the contrasting information. – Corinne ( talk) 19:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Your other edits are excellent. – Corinne ( talk) 19:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Dank I really struggled with this one. My first, easy edits to streamline sentences brought the character count down to 1140 – too low, so I selected another piece of information from the article to add. That brought it up to the high 1200s, so I began to cut again, bit by bit, sorry to have to change things like "A grey bird,..." to "It is grey". Sigh... Maybe it should go back to my initial streamlined version before I added the extra information (about "coteries") from the article. I'll leave this up to your more experienced judgment. Any suggestions to make this easier (for me) next time are welcome. – Corinne ( talk) 01:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Corinne.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Debt • Delicatessen Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Bede735 I've decided to start a new section just to make it easier to access.
14) In the third paragraph in the section Olivia de Havilland#Early films, 1935–37 is the following sentence:
I wonder if a different sort of punctuation should be used after "would have a profound impact on de Havilland's career". Instead of a comma, perhaps either a colon or an em-dash would set the second half of the sentence off better.
or:
– Corinne ( talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
15) In the middle of the third paragraph in Olivia de Havilland#Early films, 1935–37 are the following two sentences:
I think the second verb in the first sentence needs to be in past tense to be consistent with the tenses used just before and after it. I was at first just going to change "cannot" to "could not":
However, then I thought (a) "could not" is visually long (a subtle consideration) and (b) conveys negative possibility (as does "cannot"), whereas I think something slightly different might be needed here. So then I thought about:
So, which do you prefer?
Bede735 I keep reading this sentence over and over. I've changed my mind on this. I think "failed to mask" is too negative, and "could not mask" conveys the right meaning. Another possibility – and this would bring it back to present tense, reflecting a discussion about the film/characters, which, as you said, should be in present tense – is "do not mask". It's simple, direct, short, and clear. What do you think? – Corinne ( talk) 02:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Or: "are unable to mask". – Corinne ( talk) 02:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Upon further thought, it has to be in past tense, not just for consistency's sake. These sentences are not a modern critique of the movie; they are describing the experience of movie-goers at that time. So: "did not mask" or "were unable to mask" are best. – Corinne ( talk) 03:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, what do you think about adding the phrase, "It was later revealed that" before "That on-screen attraction reflected their actual feelings at the time."? --
– Corinne ( talk) 02:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. I guess I'm finished reading the article now. Would it be all right with you if I added the Guild of Copy Editors notice (about a completed copy-edit, with date) to the talk page? – Corinne ( talk) 02:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
– Corinne ( talk) 02:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
16) In the second paragraph in Olivia de Havilland#Early films, 1935–37 is the following sentence:
Regarding the last part of the first clause, "with a penchant for making excuses for his average play", shouldn't "his average play" be "his average playing"? If not, then this use of "play" is new to me. – Corinne ( talk) 02:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
17) In the second paragraph in Olivia de Havilland#Movie stardom, 1938–40, you have the word "dizzy" three times:
*In Michael Curtiz's romantic comedy Four's a Crowd (1938) with Errol Flynn, de Havilland plays Lorri Dillingwell, a dizzy rich girl being romanced by a conniving PR man looking to land an account with her eccentric father, one of the wealthiest and most hated men in the country. In Ray Enright's romantic comedy Hard to Get (1938) with Dick Powell, de Havilland plays another dizzy, spoiled rich girl, Margaret Richards, whose selfish desire to exact revenge on a gas station attendant leads to her own comeuppance. While de Havilland was capable of playing these dizzy characters in light comedies, her personality was better suited to stronger and more dramatic roles, and tended to betray "an intelligence too obviously superior to her material", according to Kass.
I realize that this may be a certain stock character type in films, but, even so, it would be better style to use a different word for at least one of them. Also, I think the word is a bit dated, which is all right if one is familiar with the way it is used. I believe it was used in the 1930s, 1940s and perhaps 1950s to describe a woman who was (a) not particularly bright, and (b) somewhat flighty or scatterbrained, both of which are stereotypical and somewhat sexist today. People familiar with the use of the word, probably mostly from movies from the 1930s and 1940s, will understand what is meant, but readers from other cultures may not know this common meaning. If the word is not linked to an article that would explain it, then perhaps it needs to be linked to an on-line dictionary definition such as [[wikt:dizzy|dizzy]]. Perhaps just remove the third instance of "dizzy":
or:
How about the addition of "certainly" before "capable", and "such characters"?
Do you really need "in light comedies'? What's wrong with just "such characters" (or "these types/kinds of characters")?
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Thank you for improving the Olivia de Havilland article. Sincerely, Bede735 ( talk) 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC) |
Steak
à la carte
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Fame (Irene Cara song) • Debt Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 02:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
03:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Hi, Corinne. I would encourage you to take a look at
this important IEG proposal. If you like it, please add your support and rationale. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
18:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Add these to any other WMF page such as:
<H1>This is a soft redirect to:</H1> <H1>'''[[en:User:Corinne|Corinne's home Wiki]]'''</H1> <hr>
<H1>This is a soft redirect to:</H1> <H1>'''[[en:User talk:Corinne|Corinne's home Wiki]]'''</H1> <hr>
This will make your red name blue on Meta, and folks can find your home Wiki. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
18:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax Thank you! I put the first one, but I don't know if I need to put the second one. There was already a welcome message there, and my user name was blue, when I clicked on the link. What is "hu-wiki"? What is "R/L text"? – Corinne ( talk) 02:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. I saw two comments on the nominate for a T-shirt page that I hadn't seen before. I think both were from N.D., one about my nomination and one nominating you. I think I added a comment in support of your nomination. – Corinne ( talk) 02:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
05:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
19:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
01:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Hi Corinne, Thank you so much for your fine edits, which always manage to fascinate me, on Jean-Luc_Montminy.
I must have been unusually tired because I see some French 'génie de la langue' creeped into my English version, specifically where I wrote '613 projects, where he does the voice-over' and you corrected it to '613 projects in which he did the voice-over'. The former is typical of French construction where we would say 'où il fait le doublage'. So I'm somewhat surprised at myself since, most of the time, I ask for your help when the English is, well, English, and I instinctively feel that the sentence can flow better and be clearer, but don't quite know what to do to make it so.
I've created an article on a deserving young guitarist called Kyuhee Park, and have a question about one sentence, to wit:
I am trying to say that 'she took first prize in the ...National Korean Guitar Competition in what was to become a string of first prizes' and I am trying to find a way to avoid saying 'first' twice, which would sound awkward. So I purposefully omitted 'first', simply saying she 'won', but that does not communicate all the information I want to convey. warm regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 00:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
02:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)@ Checkingfax and Corinne: Regarding the Jean-Luc Montminy article, I will choose "... 613 projects in which he did the voice-over". "For" gives me the impression of a more objective involvement in a project that is already under way. (But that's just me ). "In" makes me think of someone intricately involved, as one would be in voice-over work. Also, common usage seems to be 'voice-over' or even 'voiceover'; I like the former. I see that Checkingfax already attended to this correction article-wide.
For (in?) the Kyuhee Park article, ALT 3 seems a good choice. "At age nine, she won first prize in the Youth Division of the National Korean Guitar Competition, followed by a string of first prizes in national in international competitions". So, as one says these days: "Like!" . kind regards, Natalie
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Hi, Corinne. I note your pottatea template image update. Good work. I think it would be cool if that lovely image could be refactored onto a transparent background. What do you think? See if one of your Wikipals can float one onto the Commons to try out. I played with an online converter but I was not happy with the output. I can ask my sister to do it for you, if you wish. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
20:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Cropped version
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
02:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
20:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
05:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For your contributions in making Anbe Sivam a GA! Thank you! — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
Various foods in a
delicatessen in Rome, Italy
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Pecan pie • Gates of hell Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Hi, Corinne. I liked the comma, but it has been removed several times by an editor who does not appear to be a vandal in any way shape or form. Your take? You probably re-added it most recently?
By the way, there is a double RfC on whether names including Sr. and Jr. should have a comma before and/or after the Sr. and Jr.
All my life I assumed commas were the only way to go, but I have now waffled. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
20:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
05:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Hi, Corinne. I know you had a fraction question but I cannot find it. Does this help:
MOS:FRAC? Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
18:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Corinne;
In his recent message
at 10:19 pm, today, our colleague Checkingfax mentioned you in the sentence: "Corinne, if she will be so kind, will do any fine tuning to fill in any divots." Since I am not familiar with the GA review process, I don't understand precisely what this means, but it certainly implies that my lateness in applying final contributions to the ML article will be causing you to have to update some formal records, perhaps related to the GA review process itself.
In that case, I apologise most sincerely for causing you additional work, especially at a time when you thought this GA review was now behind you and that you could therefore move on and make progress with your other projects.
Please know that I am very sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused you, Corinne.
With kindest regards;
Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)(
guestbook)
22:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
[cc:
Checkingfax,
Natalie.Desautels, and
Sainsf
P.S.:
Checkingfax has now elucidated the mystery of 'divots' for me—a non-golf player, obviously...
—
at 11:50 pm, yesterday; so, please ignore the above section, Corinne. Better still, please transmute my earlier apologies to the new purpose of seeking your forgiveness for polluting your alerts/messages indicators yesterday, repeatedly...
.
With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)(
guestbook)
23:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
[cc:
Checkingfax,
Natalie.Desautels, and
Sainsf]
Hi, Corinne. Thank you so much for your great edits and suggestions during the
Michael Laucke
Good Article review process. Please keep them coming. We are making great progress, but I desperately need your help to smooth things out. In spite of the GAR, I want the article to be the best that it can be, even for unraised issues. Get out your weed whacker. Natalie put out the word for a
barn raising and you were the only one to helpfully respond. Keep up the good work. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
20:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
(I am going to refactor these so they look closer to an actual DYK hook) {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
09:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Checkingfax, Sainsf, and Pdebee: Hi, Corinne. User:Checkingfax and others have suggested submitting a DYK proposal now that the Laucke article is eligible. One of the rules is that the submission must be made within seven days of a GA status achievement, so we have until April 15th.
It would be great to have your thoughts on the sentence structure, flow, syntax, and so on. But if you are busy, I of course fully understand and we can submit it as is, as the reviewers are apparently skilled and advanced, and are among the upper echelon of wiki-world. So here are the 'hooks', as required, which I came up with after getting a feel for what DYK is about; DYK values the unusual it would seem. Each quote is well under 200 characters, as required. I didn’t know the correct format for the photo, nor how Checkingfax or I will go about submitting it, so I just included the info and link. I understand that, generally, several close alternative versions are submitted to the reviewers, which you will notice:
DID YOU KNOW:
Photo: (needs to be licensed and uploaded to the Commons. Note: might not scale down per DYK image guidelines) Caption: Michael Laucke, age nine, with his yacht
Many thanks. Kindest regards, Natalie -- Natalie.Desautels ( talk) 08:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
10:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Hi Corinne. ...tis I again. May I once again prevail upon your good nature and extend an invitation for you to visit a poll and vote here. Of course please feel free to ignore my request if time is too short (and I'll just go away ). This vote is for a small issue—the insertion of two navboxes into Michael Laucke. User:Checkingfaxand I thought it would be good policy to go through the democratic process of putting this issue to a vote.
Thanks you so much in advance for your kind consideration and for your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. With utmost respect and kind regards, Natalie Natalie.Desautels ( talk) 07:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corinne, User:Checkingfax suggested more consistency in the use of writing numbers in the Laucke article and I agree. I've read a few articles such as How to Write Numbers and Rules for Writing Numbers and it seems there can be quite a difference in the interpretation of the rules, at times unclear and ambiguous unlike, say, ...Wikipedia's policies (specifically on the subject of navboxes). Seriousness aside, some sources suggest numerals from 1 to 9, others suggest numerals from 1 to 99, and there are other 'please yourself' notions as well
If you would be so kind as to make a few suggestions, I'll be able to pick up the baton from there. I've indicated below the havoc I might wreak if left to my own devices.
Many thanks once again for your precious help. Kindest regards, Natalie -- Natalie.Desautels ( talk) 17:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
19:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Natalie.Desautels Well, I'm always partial to words, but I agree with Checkingfax that generally only numbers 1–9 are spelled out, but in this article I think only the single digit numbers 1–5 need to be spelled out, but it's not good to mix "1, 2, 3, 4, and 5" with "six, seven, eight, nine, ten" in the same list or section. So, for the ones you listed above, I would leave them all as they are with the exception of the one that starts "The 24 tracks employ". I would leave "24", but change the others. I also don't think the colon is needed there. Would you agree, Checkingfax?
Since I saw two items in your list, above, that contain "24 tracks", I decided to take a look at that section again. I'm going to copy three sentences here:
On 12 September 2001, Laucke released a CD called Flamenco Road; it consists mainly of his own compositions in the new flamenco style, which he also arranged. The recording uses 24 tracks, arguably the only recording in this style to employ such elaborate instrumentation. The recording took place in five different studios in Montreal, each chosen for its particular acoustics. The 24 tracks employ: 5 guitars...
I'd like to point out two different things:
1) You have "the recording" twice. I believe that in the first instance, the phrase is just a synonym for "the CD". If it is not, and you really mean "the recording process", or "the process of recording the CD", then "uses" should be in past tense: "The recording used 24 tracks", or even "The recording required the use of 24 tracks". It is clear that the second instance of "the recording" means "the process of recording the CD", so that's not a problem. However, it is a problem (conceptually) if you mean something different by the first use of "the recording" and the second use, and if you do mean something different, I recommend not using the same phrase.
2) There really should be a way to avoid using "24 tracks" twice. I'm thinking that if you re-arrange the sentences so that the two sentences about the tracks are next to each other, or even joined into one sentence, you can do that. How about something like this? --
Debt is the amount of money that is owed or due.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Delicatessen • Pecan pie Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Hello, Corinne.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: 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 talk using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Checkingfax I was looking at the latest edit to Baldus de Ubaldis, and I saw em-dashes in date ranges, so I changed the em-dashes to en-dashes using the "ndash" template. Then I looked at the en-dashes, and it looks like there is slightly too much space between the en-dash and the subsequent "1", so I tried changing the "ndash" template to just a regular en-dash (from the bottom of the edit window), and it looked the same. Then I tried the "no-space-en-dash-no-space" template {{nsndns}}, and it looked the same. Then I remembered kerning, and I remembered reading something about kerning on WP, so I looked for something. The only thing I found was how to add a tiny space in Help:Advanced text formatting (which is an interesting article if you haven't seen it). So I looked at the actual WP article on Kerning. That article is a bit overwhelming. Can you see if there is anything one can use to remove, or slightly reduce, spacing between an en-dash and a following "1" (which is what kerning usually does)? – Corinne ( talk) 02:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
11:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)I'd like to hear opinions on the necessity of adding a comma after "In + year", or "In + month + year", at the beginning of sentences. I see it added often in WP articles. Regarding the former, I feel strongly that a comma is not needed at all, unless the following phrase is parenthetical and between a pair of commas. Regarding the latter, I think a comma is usually not needed. I agree with the addition of a comma by Coemgenus in all the places s/he added them except in these particular situations. I copy-edited this article several months ago, and I omitted the commas after "In + year" and probably also "In + month + year", but a lot of editing has taken place since then.
The reason why I think a comma is not needed is that in speech, native speakers normally do not pause after the year. Also, the comma is not needed to ensure clarity (unless it is the first in a pair around a parenthetical phrase). So, why add punctuation to slow down the reader? The comma should be used judiciously as a means of avoiding confusion and ambiguity and to make the sentence structure clear to the reader. I think it is really old-fashioned – 19th century style – to use commas where they are not needed. Is there a guideline on MoS stipulating that a comma be added? Is this a British English/American English style difference? I cannot comprehend the constant adding of unnecessary commas.
Pinging Coemgenus, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Dank, Rothorpe, Drcrazy102. – Corinne ( talk) 01:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Corinne. The current collaboration of the Google Doodle task force is: Please be bold and make this a valuable reference for interested readers! Opt-out instructions Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the task force. This task force is part of Today's articles for improvement. Opt-out instructions |
---|
The Million Award | ||
For your contributions to bring
Planned Parenthood (estimated annual readership: 1,793,486) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wow, Checkingfax! Thank you so much. What an honor! – Corinne ( talk) 01:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Vanamonde93 I was just looking at your copy-edits to Termite. I wonder if you would mind discussing this edit. While I agree that the way it was before your edit:
was cumbersome, the way it is now:
(a) has a plural subject ("relationships") with a singular verb ("is"), and
(b) I believe that what is still rudimentary is not relationships but rather scientists' understanding of the relationships. The word "knowledge", which was in the sentence before your edit, is close to the word "understanding". However, I am not advocating going back to the way it was. I'm trying to figure out a way to include the word "understanding" without making the sentence cumbersome. I thought of:
Any thoughts or ideas? – Corinne ( talk) 18:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2) I was looking at the edit previous to this one, in which you changed "the" to "these" before "worker termites"; that was an improvement, but I wondered if perhaps the sentence as a whole could be improved. Here is the sentence as it is now, with the sentence that precedes it:
I think, regarding the second sentence:
(a) It would be good to avoid having to repeat "worker", and
(b) I'm not sure the "while" clause conveys the right meaning. It seems to place too much emphasis on a fact that has little to do with what is being contrasted, and comes between the information Burkemore1 is trying to contrast.
(c) A third consideration is avoiding the use of "while" twice.
How about this? --
In contrast, worker termites, which constitute the majority in a colony, are diploid individuals of both sexes and develop from fertilised eggs.
This minimizes the fact about worker termites being the majority of individuals in a termite colony and places the focus on the contrasting information. – Corinne ( talk) 19:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Your other edits are excellent. – Corinne ( talk) 19:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Dank I really struggled with this one. My first, easy edits to streamline sentences brought the character count down to 1140 – too low, so I selected another piece of information from the article to add. That brought it up to the high 1200s, so I began to cut again, bit by bit, sorry to have to change things like "A grey bird,..." to "It is grey". Sigh... Maybe it should go back to my initial streamlined version before I added the extra information (about "coteries") from the article. I'll leave this up to your more experienced judgment. Any suggestions to make this easier (for me) next time are welcome. – Corinne ( talk) 01:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Corinne.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Debt • Delicatessen Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Bede735 I've decided to start a new section just to make it easier to access.
14) In the third paragraph in the section Olivia de Havilland#Early films, 1935–37 is the following sentence:
I wonder if a different sort of punctuation should be used after "would have a profound impact on de Havilland's career". Instead of a comma, perhaps either a colon or an em-dash would set the second half of the sentence off better.
or:
– Corinne ( talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
15) In the middle of the third paragraph in Olivia de Havilland#Early films, 1935–37 are the following two sentences:
I think the second verb in the first sentence needs to be in past tense to be consistent with the tenses used just before and after it. I was at first just going to change "cannot" to "could not":
However, then I thought (a) "could not" is visually long (a subtle consideration) and (b) conveys negative possibility (as does "cannot"), whereas I think something slightly different might be needed here. So then I thought about:
So, which do you prefer?
Bede735 I keep reading this sentence over and over. I've changed my mind on this. I think "failed to mask" is too negative, and "could not mask" conveys the right meaning. Another possibility – and this would bring it back to present tense, reflecting a discussion about the film/characters, which, as you said, should be in present tense – is "do not mask". It's simple, direct, short, and clear. What do you think? – Corinne ( talk) 02:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Or: "are unable to mask". – Corinne ( talk) 02:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Upon further thought, it has to be in past tense, not just for consistency's sake. These sentences are not a modern critique of the movie; they are describing the experience of movie-goers at that time. So: "did not mask" or "were unable to mask" are best. – Corinne ( talk) 03:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, what do you think about adding the phrase, "It was later revealed that" before "That on-screen attraction reflected their actual feelings at the time."? --
– Corinne ( talk) 02:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. I guess I'm finished reading the article now. Would it be all right with you if I added the Guild of Copy Editors notice (about a completed copy-edit, with date) to the talk page? – Corinne ( talk) 02:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
– Corinne ( talk) 02:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
16) In the second paragraph in Olivia de Havilland#Early films, 1935–37 is the following sentence:
Regarding the last part of the first clause, "with a penchant for making excuses for his average play", shouldn't "his average play" be "his average playing"? If not, then this use of "play" is new to me. – Corinne ( talk) 02:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
17) In the second paragraph in Olivia de Havilland#Movie stardom, 1938–40, you have the word "dizzy" three times:
*In Michael Curtiz's romantic comedy Four's a Crowd (1938) with Errol Flynn, de Havilland plays Lorri Dillingwell, a dizzy rich girl being romanced by a conniving PR man looking to land an account with her eccentric father, one of the wealthiest and most hated men in the country. In Ray Enright's romantic comedy Hard to Get (1938) with Dick Powell, de Havilland plays another dizzy, spoiled rich girl, Margaret Richards, whose selfish desire to exact revenge on a gas station attendant leads to her own comeuppance. While de Havilland was capable of playing these dizzy characters in light comedies, her personality was better suited to stronger and more dramatic roles, and tended to betray "an intelligence too obviously superior to her material", according to Kass.
I realize that this may be a certain stock character type in films, but, even so, it would be better style to use a different word for at least one of them. Also, I think the word is a bit dated, which is all right if one is familiar with the way it is used. I believe it was used in the 1930s, 1940s and perhaps 1950s to describe a woman who was (a) not particularly bright, and (b) somewhat flighty or scatterbrained, both of which are stereotypical and somewhat sexist today. People familiar with the use of the word, probably mostly from movies from the 1930s and 1940s, will understand what is meant, but readers from other cultures may not know this common meaning. If the word is not linked to an article that would explain it, then perhaps it needs to be linked to an on-line dictionary definition such as [[wikt:dizzy|dizzy]]. Perhaps just remove the third instance of "dizzy":
or:
How about the addition of "certainly" before "capable", and "such characters"?
Do you really need "in light comedies'? What's wrong with just "such characters" (or "these types/kinds of characters")?
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Thank you for improving the Olivia de Havilland article. Sincerely, Bede735 ( talk) 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC) |
Steak
à la carte
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Fame (Irene Cara song) • Debt Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 02:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
03:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Hi, Corinne. I would encourage you to take a look at
this important IEG proposal. If you like it, please add your support and rationale. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
18:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Add these to any other WMF page such as:
<H1>This is a soft redirect to:</H1> <H1>'''[[en:User:Corinne|Corinne's home Wiki]]'''</H1> <hr>
<H1>This is a soft redirect to:</H1> <H1>'''[[en:User talk:Corinne|Corinne's home Wiki]]'''</H1> <hr>
This will make your red name blue on Meta, and folks can find your home Wiki. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
18:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax Thank you! I put the first one, but I don't know if I need to put the second one. There was already a welcome message there, and my user name was blue, when I clicked on the link. What is "hu-wiki"? What is "R/L text"? – Corinne ( talk) 02:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. I saw two comments on the nominate for a T-shirt page that I hadn't seen before. I think both were from N.D., one about my nomination and one nominating you. I think I added a comment in support of your nomination. – Corinne ( talk) 02:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
05:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
19:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
01:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Hi Corinne, Thank you so much for your fine edits, which always manage to fascinate me, on Jean-Luc_Montminy.
I must have been unusually tired because I see some French 'génie de la langue' creeped into my English version, specifically where I wrote '613 projects, where he does the voice-over' and you corrected it to '613 projects in which he did the voice-over'. The former is typical of French construction where we would say 'où il fait le doublage'. So I'm somewhat surprised at myself since, most of the time, I ask for your help when the English is, well, English, and I instinctively feel that the sentence can flow better and be clearer, but don't quite know what to do to make it so.
I've created an article on a deserving young guitarist called Kyuhee Park, and have a question about one sentence, to wit:
I am trying to say that 'she took first prize in the ...National Korean Guitar Competition in what was to become a string of first prizes' and I am trying to find a way to avoid saying 'first' twice, which would sound awkward. So I purposefully omitted 'first', simply saying she 'won', but that does not communicate all the information I want to convey. warm regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 00:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
02:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)@ Checkingfax and Corinne: Regarding the Jean-Luc Montminy article, I will choose "... 613 projects in which he did the voice-over". "For" gives me the impression of a more objective involvement in a project that is already under way. (But that's just me ). "In" makes me think of someone intricately involved, as one would be in voice-over work. Also, common usage seems to be 'voice-over' or even 'voiceover'; I like the former. I see that Checkingfax already attended to this correction article-wide.
For (in?) the Kyuhee Park article, ALT 3 seems a good choice. "At age nine, she won first prize in the Youth Division of the National Korean Guitar Competition, followed by a string of first prizes in national in international competitions". So, as one says these days: "Like!" . kind regards, Natalie