User talk:Corinne/Archive 18

I was puzzled by that and by the long list of links to references. Perhaps the poster misunderstands the purpose of the TAFINOM page. Regarding the List of German painters, I thought the tags contained at least one specific suggestion; also, if we follow the warning at the top of the page as seen in edit mode, all the red names should be removed. Finally, if the page has not been updated in a while, there may be more German painters who deserve at least a stub article and then the name added to the list. Did you look at all the nominations on the page? I'm going to add one more right now. Corinne (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I have not gone back to look, but does your nom include all those suggestions for ways to improve the list article? Cheers! {{u|

Talk

} 22:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Well, maybe not all of them. I guess I should add them. Corinne (talk

) 23:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

CheckingfaxI didn't know with whom I had an edit conflict just now, but since I had made quite a few edits which would be difficult and time-consuming to repeat, I decided to copy the entire article (in edit mode) and paste, in order to override those edits. I edit a long article in sections, in this case approximately a third of the article at a time, and it would have been the last third on which we had an edit conflict, but since I wasn't sure where I had started that last third, I copied and pasted the entire article (edit mode, that is). I hope you don't mind and that you can repeat your edits. Thank you. Now I will take a look at your comments just above. Corinne (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about regarding the infobox and the hidden note to editors. You've already taught me about enough things this week; save explaining this one for another time. Can you take care of whatever the problem was? I changed quote boxes to regular quotes a few times. Corinne (talk

) 03:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. The Nazrul article is a can-o-woms with all the corridors the quote boxes and images make that surround the prose. It will be hard to remedy, but converting the box quotes to blockquotes will help with fixing that conflict. The article does not have enough room for all those boxes and images. That is why Baffle Gab1978 rem'd out those two additional boilerplate "infoboxes". I feel the two additional infoboxes should remain rem'd out until the article is expanded to the point where it has room for them. Cheers! {{u|

Talk

} 05:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. The Nazrul article had a portal at the bottom and I went to the portal (by clicking on the portal link in the portal box) and the image within the portal had that Polaroid look to it as it was a "thumb" but had no caption, so I removed the thumb parameter so the image would look better in the portal. Removing the thumb parameter removed the large border at the bottom and the smaller border on the other three sides. I also noted that the thumbnail image for the portal was a puzzle piece. That means there is no image assigned to the portal so I add one as you can see above. It's not very good but is all I could find and it was fun figuring out how to do it. Northamerica1000 (

Talk

} 03:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Great! What's a portal? Don't you think we should ping the author of the article? Vinegarymass911 might be interested. Corinne (talk) 00:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I notice you are adding the snds template to your signature. Did you know you can do that customization automatically?

You cannot add templates to custom signatures, but you can add the gist using HTML escape codes as shown below.

You do this in Preferences by changing the text in the Signature box.

1. Insert this string:  – [[User:Corinne|Corinne]] ([[User talk:Corinne#top|talk]])
   1. (be sure to copy the above string while viewing this string normally, not while viewing it in edit source view, or in see changes view)
2. Check the box for: Treat the above as wiki markup
3. Scroll to bottom of page and click on: Save

Scroll back up the page and look at the display of Existing signature:

It should look the way you want it to. It should render as:  – Corinne (talk)

Going forward, whenever you use the four tildes your signature will include the snds in essence. If you instead want em dash, you can replace ndash with mdash. Cheers! {{u|

I have explained on my talk page Corinne. Cheers,

Baffle gab1978 (talk

) 03:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Does this one appeal to you? - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Dank

Yes, it does. I'll get to it later this evening. I saw your note somewhere earlier today but forgot to reply – I've been distracted by trying to finish reading two books in the last few days. Corinne (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Great work, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Dank and Montanabw I see the summary has been completely re-written...that's fine, but I'd like to comment on these two sentences:

• Percherons were bred in Great Britain beginning in 1918; in the United States, they accounted for 70 percent of the draft horse population by the 1930s. Their numbers declined substantially after World War II, but the population later rebounded.

1) The word "population" appears twice in fairly close proximity. I wonder if there is a way to avoid using one of them.

2) The two halves of the first sentence seem barely related, so I don't see a reason to join them with a semi-colon. The first clause is about breeding the horse in Great Britain. The second is about the percentage that the breed represented in the U.S. twelve years later. The way I had it before, there was a clause about breeding the horse in the U.S. before the information about the percentage in the U.S., providing a bit of a transition: breeding in Great Britain → breeding in the U.S. → percentage of Percherons relative to total horse population in U.S.

3) The second sentence is not a particularly interesting fact. I thought the sentence about the horses being shipped back to France was more interesting, but that is not there anymore.

4) Toward the end, you have "for draft work, pulling carriages..." The reason I left out "pulling carriages" was because I thought "draft work" included pulling carriages, but, if not, that's fine. But I think for the average reader, "draft work" is meaningless. More meaningful is "farm work", "forestry", or logging, and, of course, "pulling carriages". Corinne (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You two are welcome to continue working on this. I'll have another look closer to the TFA day. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

1) OK to fix. 2) Punctuation no big deal, do as you see fit. I chopped some of the registry stuff because we had to chop something and I felt that date of registry was unrelated to percentages (really, the registry formed BECAUSE there were already so many) 3) it's interesting, but many other horses got shipped to France during WWI, so it's not unique to the Percheron, 4) Lighter horses can pull carriages too, for example, see Combined driving. I don't object to explaining "draft work" but it's all of the above, so not sure if room for the whole laundry list... Montanabw^(talk) 04:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Dank and Montanabw I'm wondering about two things related to these sentences:

• The breed is still used today
  under saddle, and for pulling carriages and heavier draft work. In France they are also used for food
  .

• Percherons are still used today for riding and pulling carriages, for heavier draft work and, in France, as food. – Corinne (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm open to fixing it that way. They are not primarily riding horses, that's the problem I'm having. "Riding horse" is fine if "under saddle" is too jargon-y. (They aren't of "saddle horse" type precisely... just like wrestlers can do ballet, doesn't mean they should do so in public!) They ARE ridden, but that's because there is a fad of riding draft horses, not because they are bred for it. I wonder if we should just pitch the whole horsemeat thing, it plays into the stereotype of the French people as eaters of horsemeat, plus, many draft breeds are used for meat in Europe, not just these. Montanabw^(talk) 00:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw Oh. I see. I think after your latest edits it's fine now. I agree with your cutting out the part about Percherons being used for food in France. I think it unnecessarily added a negative note to the summary.  – Corinne (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just glad to see it run, too bad Dana boomer isn't editing any more, this was her FAC. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

After all these years I'm used to the less garish link-colour. You're reminded of the default when visiting other WMF sites. Tony (talk) 02:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Tony – Does Wikipedia in general have a softer shade of blue for wiki-links, or is it just that you have selected a softer shade of blue for your own viewing of Wikipedia articles, etc.?  – Corinne (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC) P.S. I enjoyed looking at your user page. Your dog looks like a delightful companion.  – Corinne (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne and

Talk

} 04:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

That puppy is very demanding! Unfortunately the ability to change the garish bright blue to something less disruptive to reading is not included in our preferences. Even so, it would be better to tone it down a little for readers, who don't normally log in and select preferences. Tony (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)�

Jonesey95 I saw your comment following the "Partly done" tag at the Coropuna request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests page. You're right that I was tired after I had finished copy-editing the article, but I think it would have been nice if you had left me a note here, or even on the talk page of the article where I had left a list of issues for the requester to look at (which in itself took quite a bit of time to write), instead of on the requests page. Your list of things that I had not done and that needed fixing embarrassed me in front of all the other copy-editors and the editors who regularly post requests! Also, a lot of those things I don't know anything about, such as the minutiae of reference formats. I guess if I am responsible for fixing those things I'll have to study up on them, but you could have told me that here, too. I thought the requesting editors were responsible for the references. Finally, even after I post the GOCE tag saying the copy-edit is finished and the "Done" tag at the requests page, I often go back to the article and read it once through again to find anything I've missed, usually the next day.  – Corinne (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I would actually appreciate it if you would remove the "Partly done" tag and the details that followed it from the GOCE requests page.  – Corinne (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for hurting your feelings. Reviewing copy-edits by GOCE members, especially those for Requests, is a responsibility of the coordinators. My intent was to prevent the Request from being archived before the copy-edit was complete by my standards as a coordinator. The items I listed, except for the convert template, should not require any technical knowledge. I did not comment on the reference fixes, since they do not affect the prose copy.

I am also often worn out after completing a first pass of copy editing. Some articles are such a mess! I recommend waiting a day or so before marking the request as complete. There is no hurry and there is no deadline at Wikipedia. Thanks for all of your edits. As I said, you did some major copy-edits on that article, and I know from painful experience that a second (or at least a rested) pair of eyes can find things that I have missed on a messy article, despite my initial best efforts. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jonesey95 for your apology and your kind remarks. Thank you, also, for removing the "Partly done" tag and the details from the requests page. I know all about the various conversion templates, including the adjective form, the form with the en-dash in the middle for a range, and the number (-1, 0, 1, 2, etc.) to limit the number of decimal points. If I neglected to format those correctly, it was because I was tired, and I think I would have seen and corrected them on a second read-through. If you want to, go ahead and fix what needs to be fixed. Since I had seen some statistics on the average time taken to complete copy-edits, I thought there was an effort to speed the time up; that's why I posted the "Done" tag after my first (fairly thorough) copy-edit of the article. Now that I know there is no hurry, I will wait to post the "Done" tag, and the "GOCE copy-edit completed" tag, until I've read the article through once or twice more. Before I joined GOCE, I had already been copy-editing articles for about two years. I now have 19,028 edits, all done since I started editing on WP in September 2012, and nearly all of those are copy-editing. I didn't think I was supposed to touch anything in the "cite" form of the references, but I guess I can change "p" to "pp" if it's more than one page, or vice versa; I hadn't even noticed that until recently. I guess it's just the "ref name" in which I'm not supposed to change anything. I never did much with references, except formatting text and spacing, and nobody ever said I had to do more. So, you can trust me with conversion templates, and I'll pay more attention to references from now on, and I'll delay posting the tags until I'm really finished. Thanks again for your kind and courteous reply.  – Corinne (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne. I have been having fun making dates consistent in articles. It used to be overwhelming, but now I found a script to do the rote work. How do you unify dates? First off is figuring out what the default date style is. Sometimes I change the dates then it looks wrong, so then I revert to the other style (mdy vs dmy). The date script has a couple of quirks: 1) I have to toggle wikEd to off (easy) or its efforts are neutralized; 2) It does some "common fixes" that I don't always agree with (so I revert them); 3) Each time the script is fired it adds another edit-summary. So, if I fire it before toggling wikEd off, then turn wikEd off and fire it again, that is two edit summaries...meaning I probably will delete one edit summary.

I then use wikEd to alphabetize categories. You just highlight all the categories (but not the DEFAULTSORT: key) and then hit the wikEd A→Z sort button and pow, it's done. But you have to remember to toggle wikEd back on if it is toggled off from running the MOSNUM DATE script. Otherwise the A→Z button is not even there. Cheers! {{u|

Checkingfax Wow! You've been busy! You didn't tell me what the date script was that you've been using. Also, where is the wikEd A to Z sort button? I guess you enjoying using these gadgets to get these tedious tasks done. I think I have enough things to keep me busy without doing these (although I suppose one could argue that they are part of a thorough copy-edit). How do you determine what the original date style is? Is it the very first time an article appears, or is it the version of the article when it was first rated C-class? If it is the latter, how do you find that version? I'd also like to ask these same questions regarding determining which style of English the article should be in. Corinne (talk

) 21:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The wikEd toggle on/off button is above the edit window. Hover your mouse until you find the button labeled "use wikEd instead of classic text area" (looks like the image above). When you are done with MOSNUMscript you can toggle wikEd back on by pressing the same button. Button popped in is "on" and button popped out is "off". On my screen the set of buttons with the toggle button are on the top/right of my edit window. The buttons are hideable and might be hidden, but should not be by default. The buttons are in blocks. The block with the toggle on/off for wikEd is called the "control button" block. If you hover on the hide arrow you can read the basic function of each block of wikEd buttons.

When wikEd is toggled on there are a whole bunch of buttons above the edit window. One of them is "sort alphabetically" (hover your mouse on the buttons until you find it). It is the button with an A on top of a Z with a downward pointing arrow to the right of the A and Z.

You can see the AZ sort button in the screenshot above (click on it for a larger view if needed).

To determine the datestyle to use, I look for a datestyle tag near the top or bottom of the article; lacking that I look for the preponderance of use in the article (and by doing an edit-source to look at the datestyle used in the preponderance of references). As a last resort, I click on the "page information" link on the left side of the screen, click on the link for the original article version, then click through to subsequent versions until one shows some use of dates. The problem is there may have been a consensus discussion on the talk page to change the datestyle. If it is my call I defer to dmy as that is used by 90% of the world. yyyy-dd-mm and yyyy-mm-dd styles are deprecated or incompatible, except in rare circumstances. C-class would be a could benchmark. Another thing, if you click the date script it will show you a preview, and if it looks like it changed too many dates, then you can click on another date format and see how that looks. I don't stress on it too much since it is just a quick click to change back and forth from one datestyle to the other. I usually pick "ALL dates to dmy" or "ALL dates to mdy". This will change dates in the body, in tables, and in references. If I click the MOSNUMscript links more than once, then I go down to the edit summary box and delete the extra edit summary entries.

For English style, again I look for a template at the top or bottom of the page announcing a preference. Then I look at the subject matter of the page. Also, who authored the page. Article 5M by Casliber was launched in Australia about an Australian plant by an Australian editor so it went straight to Australian English and metric units front and center. Cheers! {{u|

Talk

} 01:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax

Can you tell me (a) why the information that was at the top of my talk page (including # of page watchers, for example) is no longer there, and (b) why the word "maintenance" is now at the top left? Can you fix these things for me?

Hi Corinne. Thank you for the heads-up on

Talk

} 02:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)