This article was copy edited by Corinne, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 13 November 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
This discussion has been copied from Rothorpe's talk page with his permission:
Rothorpe, what do you think of the many edits to Thomas Bailey Marquis made by an editor, ending with [1]? I think some are an improvement, but others take the color out of the prose and make it very dry and bare. Corinne (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your description. The edit summary 'tighten' for a change from 'though' to that overused word 'however'? Some are OK, but a fan of 'simple English', I fear. Rothorpe (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In another article, I had changed some "although's" and "however's" to "though's", and they were changed back. When I raised the issue, I argued that "though" was perfectly acceptable and that it sped up the flow of the sentence and drew less attention to itself than "although". I was told that "though" is no longer used in British English, and that it was an Americanism! I deplore the lack of variety in WP prose. I only see "although" and "however". I never see "though" or "even though", and rarely see "nevertheless". Spinningspark what do you think? Corinne (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're so right. 'Though' is often the ideal solution. Rothorpe (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I'm glad you agree. I will come to you the next time someone changes "though" (when it's just the right word -- of course not to be overused) back to "although". Now, regarding the dry bones editing, how much effort should we put into resisting it? Shall we discuss it with the editor? Change a few of those edits back? I'm all for conciseness, but not dry, colorless writing that is so spare that it's uninteresting. Corinne (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be wary of confronting the editor. Maybe there's a third way with some of those edits. But change back if need be. Rothorpe (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with you on the "though" issue, although I'm not inclined to start a fight over it personally. It is certainly not an Americanism, it sounds perfectly natural to my Britsh ear. If you feel strongly, you could revert and under the WP:BRD principle it is then for the other editor to argue a case. I think you have a more important point on the "dry" nature of some of those edits, that last one you linked is a prime example. It completely loses the flavour of Liberty thinking that even Marquis' most wild idea is worth investigating. This is all too common on Wikipedia—sacrificing meaning for the sake of standardisation. The FA criteria requiring "brilliant prose" has always made me laugh, no one will ever get brilliant prose past an FA review, they want dry boring prose.
This conversation would be better moved to the article talk page SpinningSpark 09:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Spinningspark, for your thoughts. I will move this to the article's talk page if Rothorpe concurs. I just want to clarify that my comment about the replacing of "though" with "although" was with regard to a different article. Corinne (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
