From the Village pump: Academic Year 2002, "Pietro Annigoni" Prize award of 3000000 Italian Lire as the best International Student. The prize award ceremonies were recognized and published on the Firenze daily newspaper.

I just have a quick question. When we are copyediting a page for grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc., are we supposed to delete the template at the top of the page when we are done? I know that it is supposed to be removed after a page is "Wikified," but I wasn't sure about general cleanup templates. Thanks! HusikaSN 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unsure about the job you did on the article, leave it in place and wait for a second opinion. If you are confident that the article is now properly edited and wikified, then remove the copyedit tag. Trusilver 04:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles in Category:Wikipedia grammar check that are not listed on this page. For ease of maintenance, I would recommend dropping the listings on this page and just going by the category listings. If necessary, a bot could be used to distinguish the old from the new, but there's not that many on the list at any one time, and they can be added to Template:Opentask on a rotating alphabetical basis to make sure no individual articles stay in the category for too long. -- Beland 02:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, all of the articles listed have either been fixed or tagged and added to Template:Opentask. This WikiProject seems to be defunct, so I implemented my suggestion and moved the main collaboration point on listings to Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit. I also consolidated the project pages to be a little more useful and not quite as dusty. This project mostly only still exists as a place to ask grammar questions, though no one has done that yet. I did create a pointer from Wikipedia:How to copy-edit, so maybe traffic will pick up. It would also be a good place to propose a method for systematically identifying articles in need of copyediting, a task which I will leave to others. -- Beland 13:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:gcheck and Template:cleanup-copyedit seem largely redundant. The latter has a nice bounding box, the former has better instructions. Should they be merged? -- Beland 02:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I personally would like to see a merge. I'm actually surprised there's a template devoted specifically to grammar - most of the articles I've encountered that had grammar issues needed general copy-editing as well.

The one issue I see is that the templates automatically include the articles on the appropriate Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit or Category:Wikipedia grammar check pages. If we merge the two, we'll need to be sure the auto-generated pages don't end up broken. CKlunck 03:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I was bold and merged the templates, taking the best from each...actually, I updated the help links to a new page specifically about copy editing. I also stopped making mention of this WikiProject, because the listings here appear to be defunct. -- Beland 13:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When viewed in Mozilla 1.7.5, this project page is a little broken. Unless the page area is large enough, the horizontal yellow copyediting box overlaps with the vertical purple resources for maintenance and collaboration box. Internet Explorer gets around the problem by leaving a large gap so that the horizontal box is just below the vertical one. Is this a Mozilla bug, a wiki bug, or just a problem with the design of this page? --Open4D 15:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Language and grammar desk is now open for questions on English grammar and usage, similar to the Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia:Help desk. Assitance in answering questions would be appreciated. Ground Zero 21:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, should I just put my name on the mainpage if I would like to join the Grammar Squad or do I have to do something else? Useless Fodder 23:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question. I do lots of small edits for grammar, spelling, punctuation and general readability (my mother was an English teacher; we got this stuff drilled into us when we were quite young), so I'd like to join the team.

Septegram 14:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have that question as well, but apparently, it hasn't been answered for several months. Can someone please give us an answer? -- VGF11 03:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you can just put your name on the list and then begin copy-editing. (late reply, I know, and I apologize) Best regards.--Song 18:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but I was wondering if it would be appropriate to have a section on common grammatical errors. I'm not talking about spelling so much as putting commas, periods, question marks, etc. before the closing quotation mark. We all have pet-peeves, and although it's not always right to correct styles because they bother you, many annoyances are also incorrect. I'm not going to correct someone who uses the British spelling of color; colour is technically correct. However, using the word "two" when "to" is needed is an error that should be corrected. So, should there be a page devoted to common errors? Also, if I am posting this in the wrong place, please let me know. Msmays 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Wikipedia:How to copy-edit has that. If not, go ahead and put it in. (I apologize for the late reply.) Best regards.--Song 18:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a userbox, the one below is an example, it's not a serious attempt at a userbox.

--Richman271^talk/_con 23:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with a sentence in a Wikipedia article. I'm not a native speaker so maybe I'm wrong. The sentence is as follows:

With a total of over 40 million speakers this is the most numerous of the 3 groups, as well as most spread globally and the only group that has members which are official, national and standard languages.

I interpret this to mean that the other two groups neither have one or more of: official, national or standard languages. Yet I know that in at least one of the other two groups there indeed is an official and national language (I'm no linguist so I won't even try to interpret the standard one which may or may not apply). The original author/editor of that article has already reverted my change (I simply dropped the and the only group that has members which are official, national and standard languages part). He says I am wrong and insists on the plural (I suggested he add multiple if that was his intent). If anything I feel his argument could be on the and at the end of the sentence.

Anyhow, how would you interpret this? Could someone suggest a rewrite, assuming one is needed? Lastly, the other editor is I believe also ESL like me. If needed I'll also post the internal link (if someone else wants to edit the sentence).--Caranorn 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a total of over 40 million speakers, this is the most numerous of the three groups. Also, it is the most globally spread group and the only one containing members which speak the official, national and standard languages.

This rewrite is more clear; however, the underlined part sounds improper and the bolded section, which I don't fully understand without seeing its context, may be incorrect.-- VGF11 04:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that in many Wikipedia articles, instead of just putting past events in past tense, "would" is used. Here is an example from the Bryan Berard article:

During the next season, he would undergo seven eye operations, miraculously improving his vision in the eye to 20/600. He started working out again in April 2001 and would start skating again months thereafter. He would later be fitted with a contact lens that allowed him to meet the league's minimum vision requirement of 20/400.[1]

He would then enjoy successful one-year stints with both the Boston Bruins and Chicago Blackhawks before signing with the Columbus Blue Jackets before the 2005-06 season. As a result of his perseverance, Berard would be awarded the Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy for his dedication to hockey in 2004.

Basically, I think this is completely wrong to write like this. "Would" should be used for hypothetical past situations, like "I would have taken out the trash if it hadn't rained." But I don't know exactly what rule this violates, or what to call this mistake. I would like to be able to let editors know, on their talk pages, about this common error so they can fix it. Does anyone know exactly what is wrong with using "would" this way? --Muéro^(talk/c) 19:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the use of "would" here discusses an event in the future in reference to a point in the past, as the word "will" in reference to the present. Its use isn't necessarily "wrong" in all cases. Peter O. (Talk) 19:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand. Do you mean that, in this example, Berard, while injured (the past), intended to win the Masterton Trophy (the future)? "Would" is a modal auxiliary verb, which indicates the subject's attitude toward the action of the verb. The modal auxiliaries "will" and "would" involve the subject's intention to complete the action of the verb. --Muéro^(talk/c) 20:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Would" retains its original sense of "future-in-the-past" tense, as well as its commoner modern use as a conditional mood. See English modal auxiliary verb#Would. "Would" is not grammatically incorrect in the Bryan Berard example, but it is poor style. I'd find it acceptable in the following example (each sentence could introduce for a whole paragraph or section):

In 1780, he met Jane Smith, whom he would marry in 1790, and went into business with her father. In 1784, he sailed for Venezuela. In 1796, his son John was born.

It is correct because, immediately after mentioning the 1790 marriage, the discussion reverts to the earlier timeline. If he never sailed to Venezuela, the example might better read:

In 1780, he met Jane Smith, and went into business with her father. In 1790, he married Jane Smith. In 1796, his son John was born.

If, on the other hand, he never went into business with Jane Smith's father, the example might read:

In 1784, he sailed for Venezuela. In 1790, he married Jane Smith, whom he had met in 1780. In 1796, his son John was born.

The bottom line is, it's normally best to mention things chronologically, in which case you never need the "future-in-the-past" sense of would. However, it can sometimes aid exposition to describe something out of sequence (just as using "had met" in the third example is "past-in-the-past"). In the Bryan Berard article, the use of "would" is superfluous as the events are in sequence. To me it reads like a retrospective eulogy, where the effect is to frame later accomplishments against earlier adversities. Such a tone is inappropriate in Wikipedia. jnestorius^(talk) 15:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to replace 'would' where it is not in the proper context (future-in-the-past). When in doubt, replace it. So that passage would be written as:

During the next season, he underwent seven eye operations, miraculously improving his vision in the eye to 20/600. He started working out again in April 2001 and began skating months thereafter. He was later fitted with a contact lens that allowed him to meet the league's minimum vision requirement of 20/400.[1]

He then enjoyed successful one-year stints with both the Boston Bruins and Chicago Blackhawks before signing with the Columbus Blue Jackets before the 2005-06 season. As a result of his perseverance, Berard was awarded the Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy for his dedication to hockey in 2004.

Of course, that's just me. And I know this is way late, so it probably dosen't matter any more. Best regards.--Song 20:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys how are you going? So we've got this article, which failed GA status. However, currently the issues have been fulfilled, except for grammar. I also know that prose is really important to reach FA status. That is why, I'd like to request you all to improve the article, because from the peer review, it is very close to GA and FA status. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers -- Imoeng 05:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it still needs copy-editing, you can ask for it to be worked on specifically here, in the correct section, and someone will get to it. Best regards.--Song 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do all the cool copy-editors hang out here?  :-P I've been working on Sasha (DJ) and it needs an experienced set of eyes to get over a couple lingering concerns from its previous FAC regarding word redundancies and awkward phrasing. Do you folks help out with this kind of stuff or do you mainly work on articles more desperately in need of attention? Any help would be muchly appreciated. Thanks! Wickethewok 18:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it still needs copy-editing, you can ask for it to be worked on specifically here, in the correct section, and someone will get to it. Best regards.--Song 21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is more proper: " Selous' Mongoose " or " Selous's Mongoose ?" -- VGF11 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen them both used very often, so it's most likely personal, or in this case Wikipedia's, preference. I don't know if Wikipedia has a specific preference, but if you decide to use it one way in an article, it is then generally considered proper to continue in the same style throughout the article. Foxjwill 23:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

The League of Copyeditors has started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you would like to join or help, visit our project page for more information. Our participation drive aims to help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:

• Select an article to copy-edit from the backlog. After your copy-edit, list the article in the articles ready for final proofread section.
• Select a different article to proofread from the articles ready for final proofread section.

Thanks for your help! BuddingJournalist 09:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some testing/vandalism happened on the project mainpage - in the "Articles that need checking" section. I'm loath to edit a project front page being an inexperienced editor, but it looks wrong to me ? Cricketgirl 16:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a little grammar dispute with User:TheTruth2. He keeps removing the word "the" from wrestling PPV articles where events were held at the Kemper Arena. He is making it so the articles say "event X took place on date Y at Kemper Arena". I tried giving him examples of why that is wrong (like you wouls say "this event took place at the White House" even though it's technically just "White House"). Could anyboy here help? TJ Spyke 05:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kansas City Star calls it Kemper Arena. KPIX in San Francisco refers to Oracle Arena. The Iowa Stars play at Wells Fargo Arena. There’s no rule that says an arena will always take the definite article, but there’s no rule that says it never will, either. For instance, the Milwaukee Wave play at the U.S. Cellular Arena. --Rob Kennedy 04:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

We're having a discussion on the Earth article's talk page about whether it is more appropriate to say "the Earth" or just "Earth" on an article that is specifically about the planet. If possible, would some grammar experts be willing to clear up the confusion? The conversation is located at: Talk:Earth#.22Earth.22_vs_.22the_Earth.22.3F. Thank you! — RJH (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been requested to copy-edit a Good Article awaiting Featured Article status. Is there any special protocol that needs to be followed during/after editing an article of this type? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abernethyj (talk • contribs)

Not as far as I know, just moving the article down to the 'Final Proofread' section should be fine. Best regards.--Song 19:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first post so forgive me if I should accidentally transgress into doing no faux pas, but it's my considered opinion that "Earth" is considerably less presumptuous than "the Earth". How are we to know for sure that in a possible purplexingly infinite "Multiverse" there would be no other Earths? Maybe the least presumptuous of all ways to say it might instead be "the earth", where the "earth" in "the earth" means the oh-so-thin soil on which we actually live?

Blagoblag out.

I felt that either form is acceptable as both refer to out planet, however when the form "the earth" is used, "earth" should not be capitalized. When using the word "Earth" alone without the "the" it should be capitalized. --96.232.59.113 (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Without "the," the word "Earth" is a name, the name of our planet. "The earth" refers to the same thing, but sort of more by description and not by name. It has always been my feeling that saying "the earth" is more scientific, while saying "Earth" is almost religious.

Here's an interesting resource: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/capitals.htm (under the Proper Nouns section) — according to that, you do not capitalize "earth" unless mentioning other celestial bodies in the same context. Althepal (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been requested to copy-edit a Good Article awaiting Featured Article status. Is there any special protocol that needs to be followed during/after editing an article of this type? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abernethyj (talk • contribs)

Not as far as I know, just moving the article down to the 'Final Proofread' section should be fine. Best regards.--Song 19:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly help in Copy editing Kaziranga National Park which is currently in FAC. I had put it up in WP:LOCE in April 2007, but still now no one have noticed. I need your urgent help in cpediting the article, as i am not so good in doing it. The article has no other issue but cpedit, i gurantee u that a fine refinement will help a lot. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have my apologies for the late reply. I cannot copy-edit it at this time, but if you request copy-editing here I'm sure someone will get to it. Best regards.--Song 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question I've been pondering for a while: I'm a non-native contributor to the English wikipedia. Although confident about the content I add, I often find myself wondering if the English I write might sound stylistically silly or unsophisticated to native readers. My question now is, is it OK to request a copy-edit of my own stuff by inserting the copyedit template or are authors barred from requesting such for their own work, like they're prohibited to remove AfDs from their own work? thanks Funkysapien 00:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. That'd be just silly! :) Asking for a copy-edit is perfectly reaonable. My only note is, there is a substantial amount of backlog (articles needing copy-edited) and your articles may not be edited for quite a while. We will eventually get to them, but if you want it done faster I suggest asking an editor in particular to edit them. Such requests can be made on the editor's talk page. Hope this helped. Best regards.--Song 20:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is a civil—yet intense—discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, regarding the verb tense to use in the introductory sentence of Wikipedia articles on products that have been out of production for many years. Some say that the Wikipedia articles on old model cars or 25-year old cameras which begin with sentences like "The Nash Rambler was a North American automobile produced by the Nash Motors" are demonstrating perfectly acceptable usage for a mass-produced item, even though some of the cars may still exist. Others say that, because there are still some of these cars still in existence, such an introduction should be replaced with "The Nash Rambler is a North American automobile produced by the Nash Motors"; use of the past tense in such a case, it is asserted, would be grammatically incorrect. Others do not necessarily reject the use of the past tense in describing automobiles, but state that it is not germane to the subject of articles on videogame consoles.

I think many of us would be very grateful for the advice of persons who not only have no personal interest in these articles, but who also are persons who take really know English grammar and take it seriously. I am a party to this debate, and have strong feelings about what is correct, but I also know that I don't know everything about writing. I submit our dispute to your greater wisdom. Unschool 04:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, anyone have anything to say on this? We'd like some help. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can change tense in this sentence, with the separator "that": The Nash Rambler is a North American automobile that was produced by Nash Motors (not "the Nash Motors", unless you say, "the Nash Motor Corporation) from 1957-1961 etc." Later in the article, there should probably be something like, "Car Collector Magazine estimates that there are still approximately 3,000 Ramblers in use or in collections." -- to justify the present tense "is". As for video game consoles, I have no knowledge of the topic, but if the topic is "Pong is/was a video game produced by Atari, with 2k RAM", well, are there really any still around and operating? Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. We came to a consensus on use of verb tense over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, where in a general sense any subject that was released is spoken of in present tense when describing it in the abstract, past tense for discussing an event in the subject's history, and past tense when describing a subject that was not released. (Examples: "The NES is a video game console, which was released by Nintendo in 1985.", "Star Fox 2 was a game produced for the Super NES. It was never released.", "The PS3 is being sold worldwide.", etc.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a brilliant idea! ... hey, wait a minute, that's exactly what I suggested... no wonder it looked so good! </kidding> Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. :) I was just pointing out that we came to that conclusion separately. :) Thank you for the kind response, though. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then it must be correct! :) Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the following sentence, should it be "compared with" or "compared to": "Unemployment in London is at 2.2%, compared with/to 3.4% nationally"? Epbr123 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"—Usage note The traditional rule about which preposition to use after compare states that compare should be followed by to when it points out likenesses or similarities between two apparently dissimilar persons or things: She compared his handwriting to knotted string. Compare should be followed by with, the rule says, when it points out similarities or differences between two entities of the same general class: The critic compared the paintings in the exhibit with magazine photographs. This rule is by no means always observed, however, even in formal speech and writing. The usual practice is to employ to for likenesses between members of different classes: A language may be compared to a living organism. But when the comparison is between members of the same category, both to and with are used: The article compares the Chicago of today with (or to) the Chicago of the 1890s. Following the past participle compared, either to or with is used regardless of whether differences or similarities are stressed or whether the things compared belong to the same or different classes: Compared with (or to) the streets of 18th-century London, New York's streets are models of cleanliness and order." Dictionary.com. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occasionally I will have to put up with an editor removing the word "the" from before arena names. The most recent case is Survivor Series (1991) where an editor changed it from "from the Joe Louis Arena" to "from Joe Louis Arena". To me that is grammatically wrong and doesn't sound right. The last editor to do this tried to justify their actions by saying we shouldn't use it just because the arena name is "Joe Louis Arena" (although that would be like saying we should use "at White House" rather than "as the White House" since "the" isn't part of the name). Am I correct? Maybe this would finally settle matters. TJ Spyke 05:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same user has started up again. Can someone please confirm which one is grammatically correct? TJ Spyke 20:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friends! I've been working on the backlog of articles needing copy edit for the past couple of weeks, and there are far too few of us working on it to catch up with the increasing number of articles tagged for copy-edit. At my last count there were 4,243 articles needing copy-edit, representing a backlog stretching as far back as January 2007, with around 400 articles being tagged per month.

So if any of you are free and feel like helping out, head over to the category page! :) -Samuel Tan (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all! I've been trying to gauge interest in a taskforce or even a wikiproject dedicated to maintaining and working on the category of articles needing copy edit, which has backlog reaching to January 2007. Already there are a few people interested in the idea; if you're interested or want to help, drop a note at my talk page! When there are enough of us interested, we can put up a proposal for the wikiproject and start working out the details. :) --Samuel Tan 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Albert Pujols, I have recently been butting heads over grammar with a new user, User:Cardinals10WS (who may be using sockpuppets), and I would like other opinions from established users on what should be a simple matter.

Here's the frustrating background: The issue is which word, better or best, to use in the phrase "[Albert Pujols] is widely regarded as one of the [better/best] players in the game today." I have laid out my concerns and reasoning several times: at Talk:Albert Pujols, at Cardinals10WS's talk page (only to be met with page blankings), on my talk page and on the talk page of one of the new single-purpose accounts. What I have gotten is largely a silly edit war in which the new user(/users?) changes the long-established wording in the article from "best" to "better" by claiming in an edit summary to be making "grammatical corrections". My attempts at discussion have not met with much reasoning: just [1] and [2].

A form of this question has been asked at Talk:Degree_of_comparison#Question, and "one of the best" was supported. So, to the question: Which degree of comparison should be used for one of the top current hitters in baseball? Is Albert Pujols "one of the best players" or merely "one of the better players"? Thanks in advance. I can clarify anything further if necessary. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without even looking at the discussion, the "better/best" contrast is most pronounced in direct comparisons: If you are comparing two persons, things, ideas, etc., "better" is appropriate. "Between Pujols and Smith, Pujols is regarded as the better". If you are comparing three or more, "best" is used. "Of all the players in the game today, Pujols is unquestionably the best".

However, your example is not a direct comparison, but rather merely placing Pujols in a set or class of persons (good players). Therefore, saying that he is "one of the better players" or "one of the best players" are both *grammatically* correct. However, the latter carries a stronger connotation: "One of the better..." puts him in the upper levels of the game (top 20%? 15%? 30%?), while "one of the best" puts him in the elite; as being among the very best. (Top five or ten percent? All arbitrary numbers, just trying to illustrate the point.) If this isn't enough information to settle the issue, I could actually go *read* the article and discussion. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Unimaginative Username. That's rather what I thought, but I wanted to have a discussion to point to so this silly edit war can stop. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I just read the edits you pointed to. It was this distinction that was missed by your critics -- the distinction between an individual and a class. They are right that there can be only one "best player", but I'm sure they'd agree that there also can be only one "best team". *But* -- a "team" is a certain group or class of players, just as the set "the best players in baseball" is a group or class of players. So it is perfectly proper to refer to AP as being in that class, i. e., that he is "one of (the group defined as) the best players in baseball". (For what it's worth, the adjectives that do not have superlatives include "perfect" and "unique" -- "Pujols is one of the most unique or perfect players..." You're either perfect or you're not; you're either unique or you're not. However, you can be "nearly perfect/unique", and "more nearly perfect" than someone else... Just a bonus point.) Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "most unique" really grates on my ears. Some permissive dictionaries say it's an acceptable use now, likening "unique" to "unusual", but it's certainly clearer to use more vivid language. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather alarmed to discover that (using the search string "most populated" site:en.wikipedia.org -User -talk) over 1,000 articles have this hideous creation. (The -User -talk eliminates talk pages and user pages.) I've gone through about 100 articles and templates, changing "most populated" to "most populous" and moving the page if needed), but there's still a lot of work to be done. Anybody willing to help stamp out this specific ugliness? Horologium (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if there is a way to clean up a paragraph dealing with 2 people of the same name (first name is the only name ever given) that doesn't force me to reuse a addative information within commas every time, thus inflating the size of the paragraph a whole lot. Here is the paragraph I'm trying to reduce:

The girls return to the same city Konami once lived in, forty years later. Just after they arrive, Mai, the middle sister, mistakes Konami's daughter, Mai, for Konami herself. Mai, Konami's daughter, hates that she was named after Konami's friend, Mai, the middle sister. Mai, Konami's daughter, is acts as an introverted loner because she watched late her mother wait for Mai, the middle sister, whom she considered a friend to return. When Mai, the middle sister, meets Mai, Konami's daughter, Mai, the middle sister, tries to become friends with Mai, Konami's daughter, but Mai, Konami's daughter, brushes her off at first until some fellow classmates hide her sketchbook and she finds Mai, the middle sister, searching through rubbage for it. After that, Mai, Konami's daughter, opens up to Mai, the middle sister, and some other classmates who return the sketchbook. Mai, Konami's sister, tells Mai, the middle sister about her mother how she waited for Mai's, the middle sister, return. This ironically, this has the opposite effect on Mai, the middle sister, as it reopens her wounds about the impact their journey has on those who are left behind.

The tense in a sentence in the Jehovah's Witnesses article has been changed, with the editor making the change helpfully explaining his reason. I think he's wrong. I can't find any support for his stance in a Google search of grammar websites, or a copy of Fowlers English Usage, but then again I can't find anything that directly supports my preference either.

Here's the sentence as it reads now: "As their interpretations of Scripture continued to develop, Witnesses were told that saluting the flag or standing for the national anthem are forms of idolatry."

I think that because the tense is initially established as past (continued to develop, were told) the following phrase should read "Witnesses were told that saluting the flag or standing for the national anthem were forms of idolatry." It seems awkward and downright wrong for the tense to change mid-sentence.

The editor who altered the tense claimed it was a progressive aspect verb and gave this explanation: "When something (considered to be) absolute (ongoing) is determined in the past, it is still correct to use a present verb, because the subject is always in the present. e.g. Scientists discovered that the universe is big, rather than was. In the specific instance, they decided that anthems and saluting are (always) idolatry, not just that it was idolatry at the time."

Is he right or wrong? Any thoughts would be appreciated! LTSally (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My (far too late to be useful) opinion is that the editor who corrected you is partly correct. When the event spoken of is no longer true in present, real, time, then the verb is always backshifted, as: "I like my work: - George Washington said that he liked his work. When the event is still true in present, real time, then the verb may or may not be backshifted. Both forms are correct as: "I like my work" -I spoke to my daughter yesterday and she told me that she liked/likes her work. Incidentally, there is no progressive aspect of a verb in your quotation gramorak (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion turns on a point of grammar. Talk:Victoria line#Requested move Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to this:

Is Hinduism regarded as one of the world's oldest religions?

Or is it simply regarded one of the world's oldest religions?

I was confident when I edited that sentence but now I'm not so sure. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 12:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarded as... no question. wadester16 03:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does one refer to it as the town of Brunswick or the Town of Brunswick? wadester16 03:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered a computer program for easier copyediting. See Intelligent Editing - Cleaner, Smarter, Better Documents.
-- Wavelength (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some questions and would like input on the use of the narrative present verb tense in Wikipedia article text. Please comment at WT:MOSBETTER. — AjaxSmack 01:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. When an acronym ends in S (e.g. SAS), would it be SAS's in possessive form or SAS'. Cheers. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

There is a minor friendly debate to reach consensus about the correct way to capitalize certain terms; as there are few people working on the article, it would really help if a few others could add their opinions, in Talk:Pentecostalism#Proper_names. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  09:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself being accused of edit waring for correcting "data is ..." to "data are ..." Please join the discussion in the Hard Disk Drive Talk page; perhaps some folks interested in grammar can help Tom94022 (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People: I've summarized at Talk:Magical girl#hyphenation: "magical girl" and "magical-girl": summarizing discussion for convenience an issue concerning common names, compound adjectives and accepted usage in the articles dealing with a recognized concept in manga/anime. Perhaps we've just talked past each other, but User:Malkinann and I would appreciate comments. Thanks. -- HoundsOfSpring (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} You could make spelling proofreading in the section "Awards and honors" of the article "Hebe Camargo"? The verbal placements which I suspect are wrong are all below in bold:

• 1990 — "The face of São Paulo"
• 1994 — “Citizen Paulistana” from the Câmara Municipal
• 2002 — "Tribute in Portugal"
• 2007 — "Special Award", for Prêmio Contigo!
• 2009 — “Title of Professor Honoris Causa” of the Universidade FIAM-FAAM
• 2010 — "Award LIDE 2010" of the Comitê Executivo do Grupo de Líderes Empresariais
• "Best Interview" of the Associação Paulista dos Críticos de Artes
• “Best auditorium program presenter” of the Brazilian Academy of Letters

These verbal placements are correct? Otherwise, could correct? --Gustavo1997 (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GCE. —fetch·comms 01:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject English dialects? I've been thinking about creating a group of Wikipedians to more-or-less enforce WP:ENGVAR—the standards of allowing different national varieties of English on the English Wikipedia. Responsibilities might include:

• Tagging talk pages of articles with the appropriate tag from Category:Varieties of English templates
• Requesting creation of/creating editnotices for national varieties of English (e.g. Template:Editnotices/Page/George Orwell bibliography.)
• Patrolling pages to enforce WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN.
• Mediating disputes about English dialects.
• Taking requests for checking pages to ensure that they conform to a national standard (maybe this could also be a step in the WP:GA/WP:FA process?)
• Creating and employing scripts or semi-automated tools to check articles for English dialects (such as User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB.js.)
• Creating, maintaining, and promoting Bable userboxes and related categories for English dialects and grammatical style.

User:Radiopathy is also interested and generally focuses on checking pages for conformance to British English. Would anyone else be interested in assisting with English dialect issues like this? Are there any Australian, Canadian, or South Asian Wikipedians who would also be interested in making conformity for their own national English variations as well? Please respond here with any feedback you have about the plausibility of this proposal or your interest in it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any relevant WP policy for editors who clearly are not native English speakers and write terrible prose? I'm not trying to be a dick, but I'm in the midst of a content dispute with an editor at International child abduction in Japan and, on top of his POV pushing, I can't always understand what he says on Talk and, adding insult to injury, I am conflicted as to whether I should copyedit his factually POV edits for grammar for the sake of a readable article (so he has something to revert me to) and then rewrite them to be NPOV and accurate (and still readable.)--Cybermud (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed, just about everywhere on Wikipedia, that periods and commas only show up after a quote mark. For example: Jack said, "I ate eggs for dinner". However, proper convention is to place periods and commas inside the final quote mark. (See http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/ rule #5). Thus, proper English would be: Jack said, "I ate eggs for dinner." Sometimes I see punctuation outside of the quote marks on Wikipedia and feel the urge to correct it, but then I remember that it's like that everywhere and my edits will only lead to a lack of consistency. So, why is it almost like an unspoken rule to have improper period and comma placement on Wikipedia? Althepal (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you gave states that it is describing US English and that other forms differ. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm describes the difference between US English and the English of UK, Canada and others about this. Let's say: periods go inside but full stops go outside :) I think the right thing to do is stick to the form of English in which the article was first written. --Stfg (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I gave wrong advice. See Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation_inside_or_outside. --Stfg (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the grammar references I've been able to find say that an adverb should go after an auxiliary verb but before the main verb, as in "On Sunday morning he would usually read a newspaper". But I often see things like "On Sunday morning he usually would read a newspaper", including in books by scholarly authors. Please can anyone tell me if this a difference of regional variants, or what? --Stfg (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language --Stfg (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello All,

I made what I thought to be a simple, obvious grammatical correction here. My edit was reverted, and I am now told that "they" can be used as a singular pronoun in today's politically-correct linguistic landscape. While such a suggestion sounds like poppycock to an old fuddy-duddy like myself, I suppose I should check with the experts. Who is correct? Is the "singular they" a commonly-accepted element of our evolving language? Many thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Now"? "Today's"? Singular they has been around for centuries. Angr (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the colloquial, sure, but every English teacher I've ever had taught me that using the "singular they" in writing was grammatically incorrect. Of course, that was waaaaaay back in the 1980s. Things might have changed since folks stopped writing with feather quills and ink. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Angr; there's not much I can say about that issue that you can't already find in our article on Singular they. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also recency illusion. The article mentions singular they as its first example. Hans Adler 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]