Talk:Homogeneity and heterogeneity

Merge proposal

Straightforward proposal to merge a stub into more encompassing article, at least until enough material exists to justify breaking out the stub topic again. bd2412 T 17:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

First, let me say, just be bold, go ahead and do the merge. Second, I know there are disambiguation pages, but perhaps it would be good to have all those topics in this article with a summary. Kind of opposite to WP:SPLIT. That is when an article becomes to large it is recommended that sections be split off into their own articles, with a summation in the original article (if your not familiar with how it goes). In this case, the other articles are already in existence, just have summaries here. What do you think? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I will try to work them all in. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

\

Wiki Pedia honestly your not helping plz staphh and tell me the EXACT def of HomoGeneous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.139.130 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Heterogeneity

For this section I used Wikitionary definitions. These are good (I like them). However, these will have to be backed up by references eventually. In addition, I did some editing in the other sections. Assuming that a general overview is desired in the introduction, I changed some words - to keep it general (non-specific) there. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Homogeneity and heterogeneity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728124025/http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=Heterogeneity&use1913=on&use1828=on to http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=Heterogeneity&use1913=on&use1828=on
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728124031/http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?action=search&word=heterogeneous&resource=Webster%27s&quicksearch=on to http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?action=search&word=heterogeneous&resource=Webster%27s&quicksearch=on

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Need somebody w/ Roleback to revert TONS of Vandalism

If you look at the history of the article, it is obvious that significant vandalism has occurred and no one has reverted it. The article edit history is completely messed up and requires manual reversion or specialized vandalism reversion add ons. Also a block should be put on the user ip vandal. I am relatively inactive and do not know how to clean up this sort of stuff. If any of you could do something to help please do immediately. WikiRay360 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone from the teahouse has reverted it back to its pre vandalized state. It's all good now. 2601:1C0:4680:846C:7D9A:37F3:9E2E:364D (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oh okay, that's good, the page had been half blanked for over a month
• WikiRay360 (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Excluded middle

Equality holds or it does not hold. There is no grey in a logical proposition. The law of excluded middle has been developed to magnify the principle. In the case of binary relations between two sets A and B, the relation has been called homogeneous when A = B. An editor has insisted that a heterogeneous relation might possibly be homogeneous. That is an absurdity, regardless of a skewed reading of a textbook. — Rgdboer (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

“homogeneous is often mispronounced”

Hi, NEDOCHAN! Can you sharpen up the URL, for the Cambridge source? so as to take the reader straight to the video clip you mention? I completely missed it when I tried exploring the URL you cited. I came away puzzled and baffled. I imagine others would too.

And - a reason I looked in the first place was tht I was slightly surprised to find the term “mispronunciation” in Wikipedia, an encyclopaedic context. I’d normally expect something less value-laden. You’re right, of course, tht the term is in use. The concept itself is obviously important - fairly central, really! - in the context of language-teaching. And it may be tht it’s used in the source, too? - I couldn’t tell! (I wanted to see: that was a reason for clicking the URL.) Either way, I’d try to avoid the term within the article if that can be done straightforwardly. (If only to minimise dismay for Wikipedia readers who are learning, through us, tht their own usage heretofore has been mistaken!)

“A” reason, I say, because the other reason is tht homo- and heterogeneous are important terms and important concepts. So it’ll be worth getting this right!

I’m seeing you’ve added another source, grumpmeister (while I’ve been writing this). I think the way to go, though, is to sharpen up the Cambridge reference. Grumpmeister takes us into swamps of opinion, WP about Original Research, Reliable Sources etc.

- SquisherDa (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Yes I have been trying to clear it up in light of your entirely reasonable suggestions. I suppose the point is that it's a good idea to point out that the word is rarely pronounced as it should be, in that it ends in what is a homophone of 'genius'. You're right in that to say it's a mispronunciation of something incorrect could be misleading, as it's the correct pronunciation of the wrong spelling. I'd like to think the point is made correctly, now, though I won't object to tweaking, while maintaining that I think the fact that people almost invariably pronounce the word wrongly should be made.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi again! I’m learning about this as we go; and rather enjoying it. It looks as if the whole story - out there in Anglophonia, I mean - is a rather delightful study in lexical change: /homogeneous/ (adj) > */homogeneise/ > /homogenise/ (verb), > /homogenous/ (adj, backformed), .X. /homogeneous/ (adj, established specialised usage, different meaning) > /homologous/ (adj, synonym to specialised meaning)! (I’m using /slashes/ for italics, by the way, not for phonemics . . you’ll have noticed that!)

Thanks for bringing the whole thing to my attention!

Meanwhile though, back home on Wikipedia Island, I’m not sure your new changes have yet really fixed the problems. Revisiting the Cambridge site I’ve found where to click for the pronunciations (US + UK) - and no, my idea of citing a ‘sharper’ subpage URL doesn’t apply.

On my earlier visit I was expecting something bloggy, discussing pronunciations, usage and change. I didn’t grasp at all tht it was a demonstration tht you were citing, of the established pronunciation, and I skipped over the whole top strip as screen-clutter. Maybe a remark directing the reader to click on the speaker icon at the top of the screen will save others repeating my mistake? We would include it just before the final </ref> (or the ]? - experiment will tell.) Something similar has been done with the Oxford reference which precedes it; though someone has left a spare ] there to trip over.

And Grumpmeister has to go. He’s an opinion, not a “Reliable [WP-type] Source”, and so is not admissible to /support/ article content. And however much he may convince you and/or me, our views are simply “Original Research”, and so not admissible article /content/.

Do you want me to make changes?

- SquisherDa (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Entirely happy for you to amend as you see fit while maintaining my view that the inclusion itself should be retained. NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

links for the opening parenthetical references.

i think a lot, if not, all, of them should be linked. Thoughts? Electricmaster (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Be bold and remove them; "Uniformity (chemistry)" has some merit in the context. Added in 2020 [1] but went unnoticed. No such user (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)