User talk:Corinne/Archive 2

An ounce is a sixteenth of a pound. The most commonly used non-SI pound is exactly 0.45359237 kilograms. A kilogram is 1,000 grams. Huon (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, I seem to have misunderstood you. Sorry for the less-than-helpful formulas, but you seem to have figured out yourself how to make the {{convert}} template convert grams into ounces. Huon (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you.

talk

) 00:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Today I made an edit to the article on Pánfilo de Narváez undoing an edit that added some details (including "losing an eye") to the very beginning of the lead in this article. I thought the details were rather minor and would be better left to articles about the two expeditions. At the time, I didn't know whether there were separate articles for each of the two expeditions, but I thought there probably were. My edit was undone, and then I reverted again (something I had never done before), after I had seen some of those details in the body of the article. After seeing my edit undone, and a comment by the editor on the Talk page, though I still disagreed, I made no further comment.

Then, later, the editor added quite a bit more information to the lead and made a few other edits. The editor seems to know something about the topic, and I think generally it is fine to add information to an article, but, apart from the fact that the added material needs some editing for syntax, word usage, punctuation, etc., I feel that the lead (which the editor calls a summary) is now too long relative to the rest of the article, which is rather short. I may not know what a lead should look like, but it seems to me that some of the information just added ought to go in the body of the article.

I don't want to get into an argument with this editor who seems to be pretty sure of himself/herself. My area of interest is in good writing, and I have spent my time on WP editing to improve the writing of articles. What do you think?

I'm seeing a red link. Do you have a correct link for that article? Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The link is

WP:LEAD or indeed look at high quality biographical articles of the same length you will notice that Leads are generally several paragrapgs long and give a ful summary of the content in the article. The correct solution to the problem you perceive would be to expand the body of the article with additional information from reliable sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·

22:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, I will leave it to others to decide whether the lead is too long and detailed or not. I just want to say that when I made my first edit undoing your edit, you had added two details that were not placed in context; you added the context later. (I still think the fact of losing an eye is not important enough to be at the beginning of an article on an early explorer of the Americas, but that's my opinion.) Secondly, after reading the material you have added, I would like to suggest that you work on text you intend to add to an article first. The quality of your writing leaves a lot to be desired; it is full of all kinds of mistakes. When you add text like that, you are doing half the work; you are leaving it to others to correct the mistakes and bring the article to the level it should be on WP.

talk

) 00:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what makes this a collaborative encyclopedia. I am good at researching and adding well sourced factual content, and following wikipolicies about article structure and content. I leave it to others to work on the quality of the prose. Go ahead and improve the quality to make it up to your standards. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Corinne, I just read the article (sorry it took me so long), but I have to agree that there is far too much detail in the lead section. It violates summary style. I'd say the article has to be rewritten, with a summary lead and then the detail now in the lead transferred to a section called "expeditions" or something like that. Coretheapple (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

We may want to move this conversation to the article discussion space. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, I'm back. When I get a moment for the required concentration... Rothorpe (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Why did you do this??? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Btw, thank you for this edit. I was debating whether or not to revert that, so thank you for taking action! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you. I couldn't figure out how to revert Moonraker's edits without reverting your (correct) edit, so I worked backward from yours. Sorry. That's the first time I have reverted a whole bunch of edits at once. I had left a message on M's Talk page (did you see it?), hoping for a dialogue, but since I received no reply, I couldn't stand it anymore and reverted all of them. (I had worked for quite a while on the entire article about three weeks ago, leaving it in what I thought was good shape.) But a few of M's edits were all right, so, after I reverted (undid), I made a few individual edits generally reflecting the few of his/her edits which were all right. If you disagree with any of my edits, please let me know. By the way, I just looked at your Talk page (forgetting for a moment that I should reply on my Talk page), and I just want to say that I love your Talk page! (Why split the infinitive under the pigeons? Sigh...the poor infinitive is getting split more these days, but I'm old-fashioned and like the infinitive un-split...). Also by the way, I've seen several of your excellent edits.

talk

) 01:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you back! I did see your post on Moonraker's talk page. Some editors need a little more time than others to respond. We're all volunteers and sometimes have little time to spare. Many of Moonraker's edits were either harmless-but-unnecessary, or they actually weakened the text, especially the -ing verbs. At first I did a double take when I saw your revert, "Paine" → "Pain", because I thought I had messed up, since many spell Thomas' father's name "Pain" to keep him distinct from Thomas. But the text was about Thomas, so I had to scratch my head. Thank you for bringing the SI to my attention. I guess Star Trek spoiled a lot of us with "to boldly go". I fixed it. Thank you again for your blushworthy comments about my talk page! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

PS. There is one more thing – I saw that you changed The Age of Reason from a book to a pamphlet. So I checked into it to find that its article also calls it a pamphlet. I have opened a discussion on its talk page in case you would like to weigh in. To go boldly – isn't that what it's all about? !>) Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I grew up with Star Trek, too, and only later did I realize it was a split infinitive. Or boldly to go. Doesn't have the same ring, does it? The only reason I changed "a book" to "a pamphlet" is because the article in the link said it was a pamphlet. I have no idea whether it was a book or a pamphlet.

talk

) 16:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, either, which is why I opened the discussion on the article's talk page. The lineup goes:

• Common Sense = 56 pages
• The Age of Reason = 220 pages
• The Rights of Man = 256 pages

So TAoR has 164 pages more than CS and has 36 fewer pages than TRoM. This leaves it as either a smaller book form or a rather bulky pamphlet. I think it's a book; what do you think? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting figures! Just going by the number of pages, it seems that "The Age of Reason" and "The Rights of Man" are both books. However, it is possible that they (or at least "The Age of Reason") were called pamphlets for other reasons -- perhaps the appearance, perhaps the way they were sold. I wonder if there is somewhere else we can look to find out what scholars call them.

talk

) 22:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the punctuation of the last paragraph correct? Rothorpe (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it is not incorrect, but I don't like it. I don't like the use of semi-colons for single words or short phrases. I would say,

• "....., a felony, ..........., ............., and ............" or

• "....., a felony, and .........., .........., and ............", or

• "....., a felony, as well as .........., .........., and ...........".

–

Perhaps you'd like to choose: I don't feel at home with AmE legal terms. Rothorpe (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I decided to use an en-dash (there was a hyphen there), plus "as well as", and I see now that there were only two items after that, not three. By the way, each state has different terms for these types of crimes.

talk

) 00:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, many thanks. I couldn't have done it. Rothorpe (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. You did not wait very long for a reply!

• I think you added words that were unnecessary, making the article less concise.

There is of course a balance to be struck between good English and conciseness. If conciseness is always put first, we can end up with prose which sounds like people talking in a bar.

Thank you for your courteous and thought-provoking replies. I'll give you an example of what I mean by an unnecessary word. You added "encouraged and" before "participated" near the beginning of the article to describe what Paine did for the American Revolution. To me, "participated" is enough at this point. A good part of the article explains how he participated in it, making it obvious that he encouraged it. Also, generally, I think we encourage a person, not a political movement. If you still feel a word is necessary here, we could think of an alternative such as "instigated", or "actively participated", or "helped move along". Any ideas?

• I think you unnecessarily changed "he" to "Paine" too many times. When there is no other single male person mentioned nearby, it is clear that "he" is "Paine".

Perhaps I am old fashioned, but at a good school I was quite often red-pencilled for using "he" or "she" to refer to a subject in a previous paragraph.

I was taught the same thing, and generally agree with the rule. However, I think a lot of the paragraphs in this article (and, indeed, in many WP articles), are too short. Perhaps people think it improves readability. Thus, in a biographical article, short paragraphs necessitate using the last name over and over again, which I find annoying. I thought that, when there is no ambiguity, using "he" would be all right. I would go along with changing some "he's" back to "Paine" in places where the last use of "Paine" is far back. What do you think?

• I do not think the word "the" is necessary before "debtors' prison".

Not an easy call, but clearly "debtors' prison" is an improvement on "debtor's prison"!

I definitely do not think "the" was necessary before "debtors' prison", but you are probably right that "debtors' prison" is an improvement on "debtor's prison". Right now I don't have an on-line dictionary to check that, but, of course, logically the plural makes more sense. I think part of my lack of certainty is because in the U.S. we have had no debtors' prisons, so it is not part of our usual vocabulary. I've only read about it in literature, and it has been a while since I have read 17th & 18th century literature.

• "British writer Edmund Burke" is correct. "The" is not necessary before "British writer".

Neither is incorrect, but "British writer Edmund Burke" strikes me as very journalistic.

Here, I think it may be a case of American vs. British English. "British writer Edmund Burke" sounds normal and correct to me in this place in the sentence. I think if the article were focusing more on Edmund Burke, we would probably use "the". But if you feel it should be there, go ahead and put it back.

• Paine "became deeply involved" in the French Revolution is better than "Paine became a participant" for two reasons: 1) "became deeply involved in" is much more interesting than "became a participant in". 2) When there is a choice between using a verb (or verb form) and a noun, the verb (or verb form) is usually the better choice. You could change "became a participant in" to "participated in", but that does not give any idea of the degree to which he participated, as the other phrase does.

I don't agree at all. I dislike "deeply involved" because it does not seem to me to mean anything in the context of a revolution. "Involvement" is a very nebulous concept.

Really. Hmm. You think "participated" or "was a participant" conveys more information? I thought "deeply involved" said it just right. Perhaps "actively involved" would be better. If you don't want to use "involved", can you suggest a better verb or verb phrase?

• "Firing", that is, "being fired", is American English. "Dismissal", meaning "firing", is British English. To most American ears, "dismissal" means when a teacher dismisses his or her students at the end of class or at the end of the school day. It is true that Paine was born in England. However, he was a major figure in the American War of Independence (or American Revolution), so I suggest the American "firing" or "fired" be used.

Two nations divided by a single language! Being "fired" sounds like journalistic purple prose to me, but I gather that to you "dismissal" has a different meaning. Do we not have a universal word for this?

I think "was dismissed from his job" is all right. "Dismissal" carries the other connotation I mentioned. There's always "was asked to leave" or, as Paine Ellsworth suggested jokingly, "canned" (which is very colloquial in the US but not appropriate for the article). But do you want to use "was dismissed from his job" in both places? What do you think?

I went ahead and changed "fired" to "dismissed" (twice) and "firings" to "dismissals". I wonder what was meant by "corporate colonists". Moonraker had changed it to "colonial corporations", I believe, and I had changed it back, but I wonder whether it really means "colonial corporations". I don't even think there were any corporations in colonial America. Does anybody have access to the source mentioned just after this:

" It was reported that his oppressors in the English corrupted monarchy, judiciary, banks, and corporate colonists were directly responsible for these dismissals, terminations, retaliations, business sabotages, and threats to throw him into debtor's prison." (Oops; got to change "debtor's" to "debtors'"; will do it now.)

talk

) 00:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Blessings, Moonraker (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing from you. By the way, do you see the message below this about the link to Alford? I had tried to put in the link that you had added, but I guess I didn't do it correctly. Do you feel like fixing it? Thank you.

talk

) 16:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Canned" always worked for me. !>) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 05:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that. You know you are welcome to weigh in on the discussion.

talk

) 16:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

'Canned' sounds very American and colloquial to me. But 'sacked' is perhaps too British. Rothorpe (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, CorinneSD – yes, I was kidding about "canned". The only others I can think of are "discharged", "let go" and "handed a pink slip". The two top contenders are probably "dismissed" and "fired". I find both equally viable, although since this took place in England, that might give "dismissed" a wee bit more weight. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

See my note above regarding "dismissed".

talk

) 00:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I changed "debtor's prison" to "debtors' prison", but as I made the edit, I realized that I had seen "debtor's prison" many times and "debtors' prison" hardly ever. I decided to do a search on the internet (not just WP), and I found many results with "debtor's prison" and only one or two with "debtors' prison". Now I am completely puzzled.

talk

) 00:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Debtor's prison", no contest. Also, "debtors prison" would work, perhaps even better. What you are up against is that as some readers go through the article, no matter what form they see, they will change it to whatever form they think it should be. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 14:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you. I thought it was right to begin with, but doubt entered my mind when I read Moonraker's comment (with a link!), second bulleted item above (all points copied from comments I had left on Moonraker's Talk page), Moonraker's comments below each item. Moonraker's replies were thoughtful, well-written, and in some cases persuasive, so I thought perhaps I had been wrong.

talk

) 15:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe it has now been fixed by another editor.

talk

) 22:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)