User talk:Erutuon/2016

Archives

2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012
2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016
2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020

especial

Hello Erutuon! I've heard [ɛsˈpɛʃjəɫ], this pronunciation is wrong. Fête Phung (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enemion biternatum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Follicle. 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) 10:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Köppen climate classification

I see you have reverted my additions to the article. Your argument is fair enough, however it fails in three major points. First, the same issue exists for USA and Canada, there are multiple cities from both countries, even multiple cities from the same State/Region. Second, the percentage of Dfb climate is the same in the United States. 3) Turkey is an ideal place to study the transitions of climates, this is why authors have chosen to display multiple cities from Turkey for other continental types such as hot and warm dry summer continental climates. In order to counter balance that, presenting multiple cities would be a sound argument, just like how Miami, West Palm Beach and Naples comparison is used from South Florida. Thinking tropical climate cover only 1% of the country, then in your logic we should delete them as well. Berkserker (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with you adding more Turkish examples of different climates. I just don't see the point of adding three examples of the same climate from neighboring provinces. It would be like trying to add an example of Cfa, Dfa, and Dfb from each county in the central and eastern US, because Turkish provinces are similar in size to US counties (or maybe larger counties?). It's redundant, and if we do the same for every country around the world, there will be a huge number of examples, more than we need. — Eru·tuon 17:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I understand your concern, this is why I preferred to discuss. In fact I was going to add two instead of three, therefore I agree three examples would be too many. However the reason why I wanted to add multiple cities was to counterbalance the other categories since more than one example was given from Turkey for the dry counterpart. The reason why authors preferred to give more than one example for the region is due to the diversity in climates. Eastern Anatolia is an ideal region in the world to study Dfa, Dfb, Dsa, Dsb, Dfc climates. This explains why there is at least one example for each climate type from an odd country, out of all the countries in the world. By the way Erzurum province for instance is slightly larger than New Jersey :) (but you are right there are some really big counties in the US) Berkserker (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be great to have one example of every climate that occurs in Turkey. By all means add any that are missing.

What do you mean about adding multiple cities to counterbalance examples of dry climates? Which examples of dry climates are you referring to? I don't see any examples from Turkey in the list of semi-arid climates (BSk). — Eru·tuon 17:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-arid climates (BSk) in Turkey occur only in small locales with microclimatic conditions (the map is incorrect). It is negligible. What I was talking about are dry summer continental climates (actually a type of humid continental climate), with warm and hot summer subtypes. Two examples are given for each (Dsb and Dsa), therefore in order to counter balance the 2+2 dry summer types, adding two from the all year round precipitation variety would be logical, since it is equally widespread in the country. This geographical region is diverse in hemiboreal and boreal climates, therefore editors have chosen to give multiple examples from Turkey. If you have realised there is only one example from the Mediterranean climate (Csa), even though it is also a widespread climate type along the southern and western shores. The issue isn't really about presenting multiple examples from one odd country, it is rather about the article focus. Berkserker (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I just saw that another Csa example has been added since last week. It is really irrelevant to add two of the same, when there isn't really a purpose. I am taking Izmir out, as it is very close to Athens, better to keep Antalya instead. Berkserker (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That is a better criterion for selecting an example. I just chose Izmir because it was bigger. — Eru·tuon 17:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Some user has added it in the last minute debunking my claims and thrashing my argument above :) Now after the change, I hope my argument makes more sense to you. In fact there are many redundant examples throughout the article from the same state/country/region such as Madrid and Seville; Sacramento and Los Angeles; Portland, Washington and San Francisco (geographically very close), to name a few. However some of these "multiple examples" are necessary for comparison, especially in climatic category defining regions such as the Caucasus. Therefore I strongly believe we need to add the second city for the Dfb type. Anything other than the continental climates for Eastern Anatolia/Caucasus is really unnecessary, and I agree with you. Berkserker (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there's more redundancy to remove. However, the cities you mention are farther apart and have more distinct climates than Erzurum and Kars. I looked at the distances on Google Maps, and Madrid and Seville, as well as Sacramento and Los Angeles, are between 300 and 400 miles apart; Portland and San Francisco are between 600 and 700 miles apart. Geographically, I think California is about as long from north to south as Turkey is from east to west. And even though these cities belong to continuous regions of the same climate type (according to the maps on Wikipedia, anyway), they actually have very distinct climates. For instance, San Francisco has freakishly cool summers, while Portland has warm summers. Erzurum and Kars, on the other hand, are less than 200 miles apart, and very similar in climate. The other factor is that these cities have very recognizable names. — Eru·tuon 18:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way Tbilisi just falls short of being classified as continental, due to not meeting the cold winter condition. We need to change it on the city page as well. Berkserker (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You are stuck with the distance issue for some reason. My argument was never about distance. In fact it is inversely proportional with distance. The region is category defining in the sense that very close regions can differ in climate. You can have a huge country like Russia having 90% of its total area being covered by two climates, in that case only one example is enough. The same is true for most of Canada. However areas like the Caucasus and South Florida exhibit different climates in a very limited area. This is why I believe it is absolutely necessary to counterbalance the 4 dry summer types with 2 wet summer types. The other 4 had to be included in the article because they mainly occur in Turkey in the entire globe. If we do not include the wet types, then it will be a biased point of view. Plus Kars and Erzurum have different precipitation regimes. Erzurum has an irregular precipitation regime, increasing and decreasing throughout the year, while Kars has a summer predominant precipitation regime, even though this has nothing to do with the point I'm making. Find other category defining regions with almost endemic climates, and I will accept anything you put on the opposite end of the scale, giving two examples. Berkserker (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Also I never said San Francisco should be removed, in fact I used it as an example to prove my point, because San Francisco exhibits a microclimate. In that case Seattle and Portland are redundant, with identical precipitation and mean temperature values. As for the "more recognisable names", I would say according to whom? It would be a prejudice to claim one is more important than the other: to whom, to what is it more important? Even assuming one is more important than the other, this isn't an article about which city is more popular globally. It is important to cite examples that are more relevant scientifically. For example I disagree with you adding three more Canadian cities for the subarctic climate, bringing the total to four, for the same reason I described for Russia. I believe one example is sufficient, at most two. However I never attempted to remove them. In that sense we would need to list at least 4 Turkish cities for Dsa and 4 for Dsb, as these are almost endemic to the region, plus subarctic climate isn't endemic to Canada. My point is we should respect fellow editors' revisions unless they are ridiculous and extremely redundant, and I gave you many reasons why they should be included, as someone experienced in the topic. I even decreased the three examples to two, after our discussion. I hope all this discussion is satisfactory for you, as I gave a lot of time and effort to help you understand my changes to the article. Berkserker (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, I don't think the Koeppen page is meant to be representative. It is fine if the number of examples is not proportional to the area that a climate covers in a certain nation. So there may need to be several dry-summer Turkish examples but only a few even-precipitation ones. Turkey gets special fame for having continental dry-summer climates.

The reason I added more Canadian examples was that some Canadian provinces and territories were not represented. Perhaps more Russian examples should be added, I don't know. Or perhaps there should be only a few Canadian examples. We may need other editors' input to decide this issue.

There are many areas with diverse climates, if you look at the Koeppen map. I don't have time to look for examples right now, but I spotted Ecuador, South Africa, Ethiopia, and the Himalayas and related mountain ranges. — Eru·tuon 19:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

If number of examples are supposed to be proportional to area, perhaps there should be more Dfb Dfc examples from Russia. I don't think the number of Russian examples for each climate is proportional to the area the climate covers in Russia. I guess there are four of the d examples and only one of the other climate types. Not proportional. I'd rather not have tons of Russian (or Canadian) examples, so I don't want proportionality. What do you think of this argument? — Eru·tuon 20:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, even though I disagree with putting many Dfc examples from Canada, I am not going to attempt to change it. You may have seen something I don't, therefore I am going to respect it. I will contest ideas only when they are inaccurate, such as the Tbilisi case. Also please note that I never said Anatolia is the only climatically diverse region in the world, indeed there are other regions. If my argument was about showing the diversity of climates in Anatolia, I would have debated to put "many examples" from all climates types from Anatolia. You can find almost any climate in Anatolia, with the exception of tropical and arid climates. However, I am opposed to the idea that a general article should aim to portray all these differences, and this was why I took the initiative to eliminate the multiple Med. climate examples from Turkey. This is the aim of country specific articles. However, the situation here is different. The situation in Anatolia and the Caucasus is climate defining for humid continental climates, just like South Florida is for transition between subtropical and 3 tropical climates. Out of all the vast tropical regions in the world, an example each has been given, which are almost from the same spot, a huge ratio compared to the entire globe for these climate types, even though they aren't endemic to the region. In fact the densest cluster in the article. However it is climate defining, therefore I strongly support the South Florida case and the purpose of this article is to define climates and show their differences, rather than showing which country has a greater climate extent. This is why in any climatology textbook, you will find clusters from around the world showing these differences. Because climate is all about the data, it has nothing to do with distances. Two places on the same seamless climate range can be 3000 miles apart, having very similar precipitation and mean temp, while a certain locale may have 10 times the difference within 5 miles. For example San Francisco Bay Area is a great example for this. If my aim was to portray many examples for the wet summer continental climates from the same country, then I would propose putting an example 600 miles away from Northeastern Anatolia (Kastamonu), which would fit your bill. However I think putting Kastamonu would be redundant and not climate defining, because the climate defining region is the Caucasus not Turkey. You need to look at the Caucasus region without manmade borders. Hence, you putting Armenia and Georgia (even though the climate was incorrect) examples is helping this cause greatly. I think if you want the article to improve, first you need to change the category of your own addition (Tbilisi), as it is the only city with an inaccurate categorisation in the article. But you are quicker at changing my reasoned and accurate edits instead. I waited so you could proceed with your own changes after the warning, again due to the same reason (respect), but I see you haven't changed it yet, it has already been there for so long, and I am going to change it now, along with the continental examples from Anatolia. I am expecting the same respect I am showing you, therefore please do not revert my edit a third time. After we are done with defining humid continental climates, you are very welcome to debate over other climates and examples, as I would be glad to collaborate. Berkserker (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry about not correcting Tbilisi, but I first have to verify that it is semi-arid as you say, and I am not a math person and do not like to do the calculations when I can avoid it by simply copying what is in another Wikipedia article. (Another site, Weatherspark, says it's humid continental, but it's quite possible you're right.) — Eru·tuon 04:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

By my calculations, Tbilisi's threshold for semi-arid would be 512 mm, and average annual precipitation is 517 mm. So, it's humid continental, not semi-arid, as the article says, right? Or did I do something wrong? — Eru·tuon 04:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I had said it is subtropical, not semi-arid :) Berkserker (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Tbilisi is a very green region, actually valid for most of the country. In Georgia you can find some of the lushest and most varied temperate forests in the world. Vegetation is the main determinant for the Köppen system, especially for semi and arid types. In fact hey formulated these calculation methods and categories based on the vegetation of regions. Quoting from the article "The system is based on the concept that native vegetation is the best expression of climate. Thus, climate zone boundaries have been selected with vegetation distribution in mind". As to validate this, we can make the calculation for Tbilisi. Threshold for Tbilisi is 398, the precipitation (517) is well above the threshold. Berkserker (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't reading clearly. It was right there in your message. Of course you're right, Tbilisi is subtropical. Sorry, I'm stressed out by our conversation, and I don't have energy for a response regarding anything else today. — Eru·tuon 05:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem :) I have seen the little warning on your user page, so I am always trying to approach as understanding as possible, to eliminate stress. So do I have your consent to edit the continental section of the article now? :) Btw, we now have a vandal fighting over the climate of Tbilisi, so I may need your help when you feel like it. :) Cheers! Berkserker (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A "vandal"? I'm sorry but you're the one who's doing original research on here. My content has a reference, your only reference is yourself and your supposed climate expertise. That's not how Wikipedia works.--Damianmx (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice spying :) Your actions qualified as vandalism because you kept reverting edits numerous times without discussing on the talk page, let alone the insults I had to bear. You may not agree, but you have to follow the Wikipedia etiquette, and be respectful to others. Despite all the abuse, you can see how patiently I am still explaining my point on your talk page, even though you chose to delete my first comment. I am not here to declare war on you, just asking you to collaborate peacefully. Berkserker (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Meanwhile I want to point out to an article talking about the same thing I was telling you earlier today about the Western-centric issues of Wikipedia. Check the gray box in the article. [1] Berkserker (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Berkserker: Okay, I had to take a break from our conversation for a few days to think things over. I'm fine with you adding Kars again. I can see it is different from Erzurum, perhaps because Erzurum is closer to the region of Dsb. I am still concerned that listing cities that are relatively close together will set a precedent that will allow the lists to get too large, though, so I need to understand your reasoning on why these cities are "climate-defining". I'll post more later, when I have time. I have to get off the computer now.

I would be more comfortable if a list were created in Humid continental climate with even more Dfb examples from Turkey (as well as other places around the world). There should be more detail in the main article on the climate type than the overview article. But currently the main article on the climate type doesn't have a list at all. Neither do some of the other climate type articles. They need more work. Also, perhaps the article on the Climate of Turkey should also have a list. — Eru·tuon 21:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I have similar concerns that it will encourage people to add multiple cities from other countries. However, in order to that they need to present the same reason, and explain why they are climate defining. Otherwise it will against the article consistency and be rejected. After a trial phase, if such "nationalist" behaviour persists, we should decide on some guidelines and post on the article talk page, so that people can understand that the examples given should be consistent with article flow and logic. After all it is an article that defines the climate types and their respective criteria. Berkserker (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been thinking about the same thing. I think countries should have their own climate type lists, that would be very informative. After our focus on the Köppen article and finalising the revisions, I think we should continue with the country climate articles, and perhaps even some of the notable cities that have their own climate articles. Berkserker (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the -3 C isotherm is no longer used since the early 1900s. If it was still used most of Europe and USA woulnt have any regions with a continental climate. For instance Boston (29 F) is warmer than Bishkek (27 F), thus would be classified as subtropical. Berkserker (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmph, then the text should be updated. It presents the -3 C isotherm as the standard. — Eru·tuon 08:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it needs to be updated. Actually for years it presented the correct 0 C isotherm providing the discussion alongside it, however it seems that someone decided delete that from the article.. Berkserker (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Even with the 0 C isotherm, NYC for instance falls short of meeting this criterion, since has a Jan mean of +0.33 C making it subtropical. If you ask me it is still inaccurate as the climate of New York and cities like Tampa or Orlando are completely different. This issue needs further revisions, however for now we can only use the 0 C isotherm. Berkserker (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of wish C was split in two: perhaps one category with coldest month between 0 and 10 C, the other between 10 and 18 C. In theory, coldest month above 10 C allows tree growth through the winter, while below 10 C does not, just as having the warmest month above 10 C allows some woody plant growth in the Arctic and Antarctic regions and alpine zones. I'm not sure where this isotherm would cut across the US. I don't remember where to find a map of the average temperature of the coldest month... — Eru·tuon 08:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the split of the current humid "subtropical" climate into two - temperate and subtropical; where the true definition of subtropical (climate of the subtropics) to be used for the warmer version makes a lot more sense. I had thought about the same isotherm 10 C as a possible identifier, however it needs further climatological research. Perhaps in the future we will have a new scheme. Berkserker (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In a couple of decades the humid subtropical zone will expand into a significant portion of France, starting from the Southwest (has already taken over some of SW France), therefore will start contradicting the initial split between oceanic and subtropical climates, since Köppen used the climate of Western Europe to describe the oceanic climate. Only then, I guess, climatologists will wake up to make the necessary revisions. What I am trying to say is, the revision needs to be made both to Cfa and Cfb, possibly Cfa inching its way into Cfb while being divided into two to create room for the climate of the subtropics. Berkserker (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey what's up? A few days ago I discovered a page that has been abused and vandalised for over 5 years. I tried to reason with the user, but to no avail. I had to report the activity, and very clearly described the situation. However the only resolution I got was a page protection which locked in the vandalised version. Now the admin who was involved in this case is recommending a third opinion, even though I know this isn't an issue of dispute resolution.. Since you are one of the editors involved with the Köppen article at the moment, I wanted to ask you to get involved in this case. You can see my discussion with the admin here on his talk page. [2] Berkserker (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised it looks like vandalism to you. It looks fairly intelligent to me, but it may be OR on the part of the editor. Perhaps a constructive way to proceed would be to ask for sources on the statement that there is contention on whether Miami is tropical or not. (If the article weren't protected, you could use Template:Citation needed.) If nobody besides the editor considers there to be uncertainty, then that section should be rewritten or removed. I do find interesting the discussion on tropical plants. It's true that some of them do not tolerate temperatures below 40 F (4 C). I think basil is in that category. There are others that do not even tolerate 50 F (10 C). Miami may be atypical and different from some more stably tropical areas that do not experience such low temperatures, like Hawaii. However, editors should not be coming up with this idea on their own, if it is not in a source. — Eru·tuon 17:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The thing is he came up with it on his own, and presented as if there is a general debate whether it is tropical or not. There is no climatological system that defines such data on cold fronts as subtropical, and an average of 20.2 C sits well in the tropical range in all climatological systems. Cold fronts happen in all non equatorial tropical climates, and it isn't specific to Miami or South Florida. The sources he presents are simply about the already known characteristics of the region. Plant or animal hardiness of a given species can not describe a climate since all species have different hardiness levels, there is not a solid line, it is a relative issue. Then another user can debate that since coconut palms grow to maturity in the Tampa region, then Tampa has a tropical climate. These are all personal points of view. "Tropicalness" is determined by mean temperature and by average annual minimum temperature (average of annual record lows), rather than the effects of a once in a century cold period (that period in 2010 was the coldest since at least 1940). You can see the average annual minimum maps on USDA plant hardiness zone maps, the 0 C isotherm passing through hardiness zone 10a, [3] lying closer to the 10a-9b line (roughly two thirds). In addition, coastal southestern Florida even has a warmer climate (microclimatic) due to its close proximity to the gulf stream. You know I take my time to discuss all kinds of topics, you personally have experienced this yourself. My problem with him wasn't his will to present his original ideas either, it was his blatant arrogance in avoiding a conversation and just reverting, and not taking scientific sources seriously. It was this behaviour that classifies the situation as vandalism. Berkserker (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that counts as vandalism. Maybe obstructionism or something. He is not deliberately trying to damage the article, but inserting potentially relevant content and just refusing to engage with your criticism and name his sources. It would be more constructive if you tagged unsourced statements in the article and waited to see if he can provide sources. — Eru·tuon 18:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. First he has surpassed 3RR and is edit warring. Second I believe he is deliberately trying to damage the article. I didn't come to this conclusion from his interaction with me, but from his interactions with so many other users over the course of 5 years. Insisting on original work without presenting sources or a discussion. Edit warring is vandalism. If you look at similar cases on the admin board you can see what I'm talking about. A similar thing is taking place on animal sizes, where people are trying to promote their "favourite monster", providing figures without sources or simply citing unreliable sources. Recently I had interactions with two other users, with whom I tried to communicate instead of reporting them. It was other users who reported them and one was warned while the other was blocked. You can ask @Damianmx: for instance, how we ended our conversation despite all that happened beforehand. He/she even brought back the deleted section on their talk page. What I am trying to say is I am one of the last people to report any activity. I try to resolve conflicts by communicating with the user. Berkserker (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and I always tag singled out information that are unsourced, even encourage other users to do so, in order not to unnecessarily delete information. You can ask @Mike.BRZ: for instance, even during a cleanup I had contested the idea to delete information without tagging first, the same goes for removing huge chunks of information from an article. However this time the situation was so absurd and a half of the article was given to it with a title of its own, that had been maintained against all ideas of multiple users over the course of 5 years. It was just too obvious what the intension was, as well as changing the focus of the entire article. Berkserker (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the editor is behaving badly, but the page on vandalism specifically says edit warring is not vandalism. I'm not faulting your behavior on talk pages, and I know you have had a lot of patience with me, but rather I just think deleting content is sort of an invitation to an edit war. (It looks like your first edit on the article itself was a deletion.) Sometimes it is more fruitful to tag unsourced content and wait for the editor to provide sources. If they don't, then the content can be deleted and because unsourced statements are tagged, it will be much clearer why it was deleted. — Eru·tuon 04:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I was in fact writing you about the same thing at the same time :) because I had forgotten to reply to that portion of your last message. Berkserker (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I see this as an example of hoaxing vandalism. Yes, 3RR/edit warring is a separate topic. I believe this example has both edit warring and hoaxing vandalism presented in an original research cloak. Berkserker (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I begin to understand. I was confused as to which part of the deleted content was unsourced and probably fabricated, because some of it did after all have sources. Perhaps the editor himself and others looking in will also be confused. So I still think tagging things would help. But maybe the editor will understand your point as you talk on the talk page. — Eru·tuon 04:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Lol, why did you change the order of this paragraph? I was actually writing this right after my "favourite monster" post, before you had a chance to ask :) Berkserker (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Oops! I was trying to put the posts in a more understandable order, but I must've done something wrong... — Eru·tuon 04:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Lol no problem :) Berkserker (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

How about this version? Berkserker (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's still a little weird, because my message was posted before yours, but it's fine. — Eru·tuon 06:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Great example from Georgia! They also have a really famous carbonated water brand of the same name, so famous that it like the San Pellegrino of CIS countries. Berkserker (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I loved the picture in the article! It looks like a beautiful place to visit. Perhaps someday if I ever have the money... — Eru·tuon 17:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I would really recommend Borjomi carbonated water, has such a unique taste! Have been drinking since I started going to Ukraine back in 2007. It is almost addictive. Berkserker (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Honolulu is again one of those places that do not represent the categorisation and its respective calculation. Another example why semi-arid classification should be revised. I believe we will see many more changes to it in the near future. Berkserker (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Köppen climate classification, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chubut. 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) 11:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CalPhotos

Template:CalPhotos has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Minor ranks in taxoboxes

Hi, see Template:Taxobox/doc#Classification, in particular "Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted."

We've tended to be pretty strict about omitting minor ranks in WP:PLANTS. Taxoboxes aren't intended to show all levels in a classification, but to give a navigational overview. Ranks which don't have and aren't likely to have articles and aren't discussed in the text aren't of any use to readers. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't aware of that, and I'll keep that in mind. As for Conyzinae, it should be listed in the taxobox for Erigeron once that genus's relationship to Conyza is mentioned in the text. — Eru·tuon 06:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, minor ranks discussed in the article can be added to the taxobox, although I'd still urge restraint. As a plant enthusiast, I'm interested in these details, and I've been reverted on the addition of minor ranks in the past by more long-serving plant editors. I've become convinced that the question should always be whether the taxobox provides a useful summary and navigation aid to readers, and over-complex taxoboxes just confuse non-experts. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Generalissmo

This word does not appear in the infoboxes of other generalissmos. It was add by this Pro-Chiang sockpuppet [4] and I was trying to revert his edits.--Uaat (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I meant you should describe reasoning in your edit summary, but this is fine too. I see a few cases among those listed in the article on Generalissimo where the word appears in the infobox (Alexander Danilovich Menshikov, Francisco Franco, Emilio Aguinaldo), but most of them don't have it in the infobox. You're right; it doesn't belong at the top of Chiang Kai-shek's infobox, since it's just a nickname given by the Western media. Perhaps there is another honorific that is or was actually used. — Eru·tuon 08:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Theresa May#Pronunciation

As the above-mentioned discussion could use some more input, I'm inviting all active members of the phonetics project to participate. Ardalazzagal (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Categorization of the Flora of the United States

My understanding is that the category hierarchy should be strict, and since the United States is not entirely within North America as the latter is defined in the WGSRPD, Category:Flora of the United States can't be a subcategory of Category:Flora of North America. However, this doesn't seem entirely satisfactory. I've wondered about introducing a category for the "continental United States" which would be a subcategory of North America and of the United States. But this may be too complicated to keep maintained, as editors may not understand it. I'd be interesting to know what you think. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Well, first thing is that "continental United States" would likely include Alaska, while "contiguous United States" would not. Perhaps contiguous United States would be better, because (I think) it consists of several WGSRPD regions, whereas Alaska is a fragment of Subarctic America. I don't think editors would have trouble understanding it, if it had a map similar to the ones in Category:Flora of North America. There doesn't seem to be such a map yet, though. — Eru·tuon 22:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right: "contiguous United States" would be better, as it's the union of a clear set of WGSRPD regions. There would be quite a lot of work required to recategorize plant articles; I'm still not sure how worthwhile it would be. (The map should be easy to create.) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it would require all that much work, actually. The regional categories for the contiguous United States don't have all that many articles in them; at most 400 something, at the least less than 100. (Definitely a lot fewer than the species that actually exist in those regions.) So, I imagine they could be quickly recategorized with AutoWikiBrowser (though I am not sure exactly what functions to use). The bigger work is categorizing all the plant articles that aren't yet in the appropriate regional categories. — Eru·tuon 18:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Acer saccharum

Greetings! Can you help adding a quotations for the following sentence at Acer saccharum:

The flowers are in panicles of five to 10 together, yellow-green and without petals; flowering occurs in early spring after 30–55 growing degree days. The sugar maple will generally begin flowering when it is between 10 and 15 years old. The fruit is a pair of samaras (winged seeds). The seeds are globose, 7–10 mm (9⁄32–13⁄32 in) in diameter, the wing 2–3 cm (3⁄4–1 1⁄4 in) long. The seeds fall from the tree in autumn, where they must be exposed to 90 days of temperatures below −18 °C (0 °F) to break their coating down. Germination of A. saccharum is slow, not taking place until the following spring when the soil has warmed and all frost danger is past.

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi! At the moment, I am working through List of Minnesota trees by scientific name, doing many of the same fixes as I did at Acer saccharum, but I will plan to figure out what the source for that text is. — Eru·tuon 19:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! I noticed you were editing the paragraph, so I thought you might have better knowledge on the matter. Anyway, the source seems to be Copeland & McDonald (2001), but I've got an impression that it's mistakenly all sourced to the one single source, i.e. people have kept adding new stuff to the paragraph without proper references.

The page range also needs some specification, as now it's reported from the page 194 forwards, and the book has 467 pages !!! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the page history, and the book was added by Hardyplants as a citation for the seeds being viable for only a few days. Then an IP user changed the text to its current form. I wish I could check to see what the book actually says; the IP probably falsified the reference. — Eru·tuon 18:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Basswood

Hi, I'm puzzled by your edits related to Basswood. I see you have an interest in editing this area, while I'm just here because your edits are triggering errors that I patrol for. In this case, the hatnote on top of the Tilia article is telling a lie because it says that "Basswood" redirects here. I patrol for dishonest hatnotes. It seems to me that it should redirect there because the lead of that article tells me that basswood is another name for, or the common name for, Tilia. Now the Tilia americana article, which you redirected Basswood to, tells me that the common name for that is American basswood (maybe it should be basswood American), i.e., Tilia == basswood and americana == American. Seems clear to me. Also, you have added partial title matches to Basswood (disambiguation). You're misleading us to believe that there are just two species of Tilia. What about everything else at Tilia § Species? Aren't those basswoods too, or is there another name for them? Noting the section just above this one, I was coincidentally thinking of Maples too, as in, by your logic, why doesn't Maple redirect to Acer saccharum because most people, when they hear "Maple", think of Sugar Maples, you know, the trees that make the syrup. Why aren't those the primary topic for Maple? wbm1058 (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Oops, I should have also updated the hatnote at Tilia. I'm sorry, I am making a mess. But my reasoning is that basswood is really only used for North American species in the genus Tilia (or the one North American species, if T. caroliniana and T. heterophylla are considered varieties); European species such as large-leaved and little-leaved linden are never called basswoods as far as I know, even here in North America. GRIN does not mention "basswood" as a common name for T. cordata or T. platyphyllos. The word Tilia was Latin for the European species of lime or linden. Then, when Europeans discovered America and its flora, it became the word for the closely related trees commonly known as basswoods. Sugar maple isn't the primary topic for maple because the great majority of the species in the genus Acer are called some kind of maple, and the word was used for European species before it was used for North American ones. — Eru·tuon 22:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Oh, so only three Tilia species are actually called "basswood", and the others are never called by that name? If that's true, then the article needs to make it more clear that "basswood" is not another name for, or synonym of, Tilia.

That's what I wrote before your reply. I'm actually more familiar with lindens than basswoods. Knew a lot more about trees when I was a boy scout, many many years ago. Most I've forgotten, unfortunately. wbm1058 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I see the Linden dab clarifies things, and has been stable in that configuration for a while now. So you can follow that model. Also, please do include the red-linked species, and follow that with a blue link back to the Tilia article. I think moving Basswood (disambiguation) → Basswood may be the way to go, consistent with Linden. It's a pretty radical move to change the primary topic for Basswood from Tilia to a specific species, I think it's better to force a disambiguation. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That does make sense. However, it seems that GRIN considers Tilia heterophylla and T. caroliniana to be varieties of T. americana (the USDA does as well, so probably T. heterophylla should be merged into T. americana instead. — Eru·tuon 23:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No opinion on that, you're more the expert on the scientific names.

Hmm, American linden, a common name for Tilia americana... so there is some overlap between "linden" and "basswood"... they aren't three distinct subgroups of Tilia. As I said, I think I've mostly heard these trees called lindens, not basswoods. I don't know if it's possible to map where one name is more commonly used than the other... wbm1058 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think the names are geographically asymmetric, so to speak: linden is sometimes used for the North American species, but basswood is not used for the European species. (And maybe lime is almost never used in North America at all?) — Eru·tuon 23:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think lime trees are what the citrus fruit grows on ;) wbm1058 (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed the merger. Now to see if anyone disagrees with it. — Eru·tuon 23:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Searching the Internet for this topic is interesting. The Ngram shows that "basswood" is by far the least common usage, though there are still lots of sources that use that name. I saw one that said, Linden is the name given to basswoods used for shade in urban areas. wbm1058 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If I may, WP:Plants naming guidelines and common both recommend in this situation to go with the binomial name, T. americana. This avoid the entire miasma of vernacular names that have nothing to do with specific species.--Kevmin § 00:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Right, the article should be named under the binomial name; what we are discussing is whether basswood should be a redirect or a disambiguation page. — Eru·tuon 01:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Specific citation templates

The citation templates you've been creating, like {{Silvics}}, are problematic as they stand because they do not enable WP:CITEVAR to be followed. All such templates need to allow at least a choice between CS1 and CS2. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Hmm, I will look into it. I suppose {{PLANTS}}, {{eFloras}}, and {{GRIN}} also need to be fixed. If parameter names for {{Citation}} are the same as for {{Cite web}} and {{Cite encyclopedia}}, there would simply have to be a way to change the template name. — Eru·tuon 08:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's simpler than that. Just use {{citation}} with mode defaulting to CS1 but allowed to be CS2. Thus for example:

• {{citation |mode=CS1 |last1=Smith |first1=John |date=1996 |contribution=Spelling |encyclopedia=All about everything |publisher=Bloggs |publication-place=Erehwon |pp=12–36}} → Smith, John (1996), "Spelling", All about everything, Erehwon: Bloggs, pp. 12–36 {{citation}}: Invalid |mode=CS1 (help)

• {{citation |mode=CS2 |last1=Smith |first1=John |date=1996 |contribution=Spelling |encyclopedia=All about everything |publisher=Bloggs |publication-place=Erehwon |pp=12–36}} → Smith, John (1996), "Spelling", All about everything, Erehwon: Bloggs, pp. 12–36 {{citation}}: Invalid |mode=CS2 (help)

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Done! Thanks for the help! — Eru·tuon 18:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi! Could you redirect from Help:IPA for Syriac to Help:IPA for Aramaic, please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.45.242 (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Done! — Eru·tuon 20:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Average record highs and lows

Thank you for leaving an explanation on why you reverted these edits. Rather than get into an edit war, I'd like to discuss this. This is Wikipedia, not the NOAA. Wikipedia has evolved into a starting research point for many users. This includes a diverse group such as climatologists, college students, primary school students etc. Most people reading the chart basically want to know the average high and lows of a location during a given month, then perhaps the average precipitation for specific month and/or year. This additional information unnecessarily muddies this. Climate tables should be clear and concise. If I have to look at a climate table for Miami for more than 2 minutes to make sense of the table (which I did), something is wrong. I'm sorry, but detailing average record highs and lows for each month serves a marginal purpose. Plant hardiness zones can be indicated in the text above the chart if it's necessary. I would love to have Wikipedians discuss and vote on these specific aspects of the template...which by the way is a very useful template to have.G. Capo (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@G. Capo: Well, I would recommend starting the discussion somewhere; maybe at Template talk:Weather box, though I'm not sure how many people watch that page. Not sure where a better place might be. Removing stuff from a template's documentation is probably not the best way to get policy changed. — Eru·tuon 03:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Classical versification

Hi, Erutuon! Thanks for commenting at Template talk:Lang. I noticed your user page note about "a general article on Ancient Greek and Latin poetry and its meter". I may be interested in collaborating on such a project, if you'll have me (I would not lead, but can contribute). My credentials are not great: I took a couple years of Latin, but that was a long time ago, and I'm now functionally illiterate (well, in Latin). But I have a lot of reading, and some writing, about metrics and versification under my belt. At the moment, I'm in a loose collaboration with Anagram16 on replacing the quite inadequate Alexandrine with a suite of articles with a genus/species relationship:

• Alexandrine (not done)
  • French alexandrine (not done)
  • User:Phil wink/English alexandrine (not done)
  • Czech alexandrine
  • Polish alexandrine

I think this suggests some of the hierarchical (summary/detail) structure you're looking for. I gotta finish this before taking on another project, and I'm a little lazy, but it'll happen.

I haven't done a lot of quantitative work on Wikipedia, but I did write a robust (and wasted) proposal for Wikidata (User:Phil wink/Quantitative scansion code) which might serve as a typographic quarry. Let me know if you're interested. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Phil wink: Hmm, I'm not sure if I'm interested or capable of actually doing what I wrote about on my user page. I've only really studied dactylic hexameter. I have read some Greek lyric poetry as pronunciation practice, but I don't really understand how it works. As far as interest goes, I will probably feel more motivation when winter comes around. Something about the cold makes me want to go back to Ancient Greek and Latin. So, let's see what happens then. — Eru·tuon 10:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

Hi, I see that you have been improving some of the bird articles, which is very welcome. I'm unsure, though, of your reasoning that genus etymologies should not be on species' pages

• My understanding is that articles should be able to stand alone, and not require reference to another article for completeness
• I've routinely added complete etymologies to articles I've got round to editing, some 300-400 so far, including around 60 :Featured articles. This practice has never been challenged before, even in the furnace of FA assessment

If you can point me to where the decision you are working to was made, I can see if I think it's valid. If so, I can stop wasting my time (still around 200 etymologies I was intending to do) and find something else to work on, or stick to non-US species I've no intention of edit-warring on this, but I'd like clarification for obvious reasons

Incidentally, I like the transliteration script you use, I'll have to look at that

Jimfbleak (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And obviously, for me, the least desirable outcome is that you undo the hundreds of edits I've made, I assume that we would ask for comment at WP:Bird before you do that Jimfbleak (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Well, my reasoning for not including the etymology for the genus name in every species page is that it avoids a lot of redundancy. If the etymology of Catharus is included in every page for all the species in the genus, that means it's being repeated 13 times in 13 different articles. And if the articles are being printed, and all the species are placed close together, the repetition would be clearly visible and annoying. (However, I'm not sure how the alphabetization would work; if Gray-cheeked thrush were alphabetized at G and Hermit thrush at H, they would be very far apart. They'd have to be alphabetized under "Thrush" to be close together.)

Redundancy is also a problem when the etymologies aren't accurate or complete, because then multiple pages have to be updated to correct it or fill it out. With Catharus species, the Greek script would have to be added to every species page, taking multiple edits. It would be much simpler to have the etymology on the genus page; then only one edit has to be done.

And the species pages should be about information on the species in particular, not the genus. The genus name only sometimes relates to the species in particular: when the name either clearly describes all or most members of the genus (Campanula, "little bell", which describes the shape of the flowers of many species in the genus, but not others, such as Campanula poscharskyana) or it describes one member in particular (Catharus, which describes the clean plumage of the Orange-billed nightingale-thrush). In the case of other species in the Catharus genus, the genus name doesn't relate to a characteristic of the species, and it's irrelevant to describing the species in particular.

The Greek transliteration I like to use is used on Wiktionary, and it unambiguously represents all the aspects of the Ancient Greek script. Wiktionary has modules that automatically transliterate; it would be neat if Wikipedia had that too, but sadly we don't.

Anyway, I'll avoid deleting any more genus etymologies from species pages until there's consensus. — Eru·tuon 20:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I think sticking with the status quo is appropriate until a consensus decides otherwise. I must say that I was unsure whether to add the Orange-billed nightingale-thrush bit to species pages and probably should have left it at just the translation of Catharus. I'll bear that in mind when I next reach a species that has an extended definition or a reference to some blood-soaked story from Greek mythology. I think The genus name Catharus comes from the Ancient Greek katharos, and guttatus is Latin for "spotted". would have attracted less attention, and would have left the ref intact. In the current form it has two pages of Jobling incorrectly referencing one fact. I think in general it's better to modify a correct and referenced fact rather than remove it, unless it's clearly inappropriate (and since it's contested here, that's obviously not the case)

I tend to take WP:FA as my guide to good practice. With several highly experienced edits crawling over every word, you have to get it right, and, as I said before, half an etymology would be criticised there.

If an etymology is incorrect, you are right that it could involve multiple pages, but that is the case when taxonomy changes, as it now frequently does, with sometimes several tens of species changing genus or family

I'm not trying to do etymologies for every species, I have a hit list, and there are no more Catharus thrushes to do. The only US thrush left is the American Robin

I'm not sure of the relevance of the alphabetisation, but normal practice is Thrush, Gray-cheeked and Thrush, Hermit, leaving only Veery to rot up the system

FWIW, Jobling is generally accepted as the last word on bird etymology, and the only clearly wrong etymologies I've seen are a couple where someone's used a Greek or Latin dictionary or historical text to come up with something that looks plausible but is wrong

Anyway, thanks for your cooperation, Jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with the view that the etymology of the genus name should not be repeated on every species page. This creates massive redundancy when the genus has many species, and hence hugely increases the task of maintenance, when the number of active editors is falling. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Oops, I never responded to your last message. I was feeling overwhelmed at the time. Anyway, I don't mind that Hermit thrush mentions the orange-billed nightingale-thrush in the course of describing the etymology of the genus; it's including the genus etymology at all that I object to. I think genus etymologies should be described on genus pages and species epithet etymologies on species pages, except when a species happens to be the origin of the genus etymology.

I looked at a few Featured Articles on birds, and it does seem that they usually describe the genus name. Still, two FAs on nuthatches need {{lang|grc|}} around the Greek etymon of the genus name, as well as an acute accent on the first vowel (just added that with AWB). There are likely other little errors or omissions in etymologies around Wikipedia, and it is hard to clean them all up when the etymologies are repeated on several different pages. Having the etymology only once would be simpler.

The relevance of alphabetization is that, if all the thrushes in genus Catharus are described in order (Thrush, Bicknell's; gray-cheeked; Thrush, hermit; Thrush, Swainson's), and the etymology "Catharus is from the Ancient Greek word for 'clean'" (or something like that) is repeated in each, it will be kind of annoying. — Eru·tuon 05:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I don't think it's policy, whereas making self-contained articles is normal practice. Unless you can point me to a wider discussion on this, it remains just your opinion. You can always initiate a wider debate, obviously including all living creatures, since there is no obvious reason why birds should treated differently to other animals, plants, fungi or bacteria. It should also, in principle, include other repeated information, not just etymologies. However, as a compromise, I've slightly changed my practice since you raised the issue. For the remaining species on my to-do list (now completed), if they are primarily North American, I've added an etymology only for the species article and not the genus article (with one genus exception), so for many of the US passerines later in the sequence than Catharus, the problem shouldn't arise.

I for got to thanks you for improving the Greek script (: Jimfbleak (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

“foot” pronunciation

Hello ! You just reverted my edit on Germanic umlaut, saying that the pronunciation of “foot” was /fUt/, and not /fu:t/. Cambridge pronunciaton guide seems ok with it (dictionary.cambridge.org/pronunciation/english/foot) and wikitionnary also. However, I ALWAYS said it /fu:t/ So, how to know when <oo> is said /U/ or /u:/ ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeKowz (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@BeKowz: Actually it's even worse: ⟨oo⟩ can also be /ʌ/, as in blood, though that's much rarer. I don't know of a rule. It's a grapheme that is pronounced unpredictably due to two sound changes that seem rather random (see Phonological history of English high back vowels). — Eru·tuon 17:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Module cats

I don't know what the official position is, but I cated Language-related modules by analogy with Category:Hatnote modules which is cated in Hatnote templates. I can see the logic - a template is just our name for a chunk of code, which a module is as well. But - whatever, I just care that it's off the list of categories without categories... Le Deluge (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Templates/modules

Looking at Category:Pages with script errors there are a couple of your recent changes that have popped up there. Template:EFloras is now broken in Dicentra canadensis, Primula parryi and Rhododendron minus var. minus, while Template:Average temperature table/color is broken in Climate of California. Washington (state) and was broken in Climate of Spain (I reverted the change in the article there). There may be others; there is sometimes a lag before articles appear in the category.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for pointing these errors out. I had forgotten to restore the function used in {{Average temperature table/color}} to Module:Weather/sandbox; now it's available again. Dicentra canadensis and Primula parryi had bad input that the template did not recognize before now, and the error at Rhododendron minus var. minus suggests I need to make a change to Module:eFloras. — Eru·tuon 08:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I see the colours now work in Climate of Spain but they are wrong: various shades of red for cool to warm temperatures.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

They're the same colors used in {{Weather box}}, I'm pretty sure; they look orange to me. Perhaps there should be a different color palette for sea temperatures, though.... — Eru·tuon 08:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

And Climate of California is still broken: it’s in the category and the table is not coloured as it says it is, even after purging to pick up the Template/Module change.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Aha, I had changed the convert function in the module without accounting for it. It should now work.

I checked the colors in Climate of Spain, and it appears to be using the correct color palette, the one that is supposed to be the original one from {{Weather box}}. — Eru·tuon 09:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I messed up by not keeping an eye on the pages that use Module:Weather/sandbox. I'll do that from now on. — Eru·tuon 09:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Why is it using Module:Weather/sandbox? The sandbox is meant to be used for testing versions of the main template/module before it goes live, in the case of changes that need testing before they are rolled out, which for some templates is all changes, if the template is complex, highly used, or protected.

That is perhaps why these problems are arising. Articles and templates in articles should never link to the sandbox version of a template or module, to stop problems like this and other problems arising from untested code and incautious edits. Sandboxes are meant for testing and experimentation. Module and Template sandboxes in particular are meant for trying out code; another editor could come along and erase all your changes to try out their own. Normally that would not be a problem, but in this case it could break articles.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne: It is possible, but unlikely, because I'm the only one working on Module:Weather/sandbox. It is somewhat irregular for a sandbox to be used in articles, but it happened with Module:Convert/sandbox earlier. Perhaps I should create a separate submodule that can remain unchanged until I have finished work on Module:Weather/sandbox and merged it with Module:Weather. — Eru·tuon 00:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The best thing is while working on the sandbox restrict your tests to non-article pages. Module:Weather/testcases or Template:Weather/testcases obviously, or dedicated test pages which can include sections or copies of whole articles for testing. This can be useful in particular when you are concerned about performance, and want to see the impact of introducing a template across an article will have on its load time. There is no need to do testing in live articles, and lots of reasons its a bad idea.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: Well, the style attribute-generating function being used in Climate of California is fully developed (and rather simple) and needs no more testing. The problem was that I was merging the other functions (table row-generating functions) into the module without making sure all the pieces fit together. — Eru·tuon 01:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Module coding standards

Thanks for your work creating modules. As I was looking at them, I notice a few issues regarding coding standards:

• You accidentally use global variables a lot. If you start all of your modules with require('Module:No globals'), you'll get an error anywhere that you accidentally do this.
• The export table that gets returned from top level should be called "p". You've been varying between calling it "f" and "export".
• If a string contains either single or double quotes, use the other kind to enclose it to reduce the need to escape. For example, do foo('<span class="someClass">') and foo("can't find it") rather than foo("<span class=\"someClass\">") and foo('can\'t find it'). (If the string contains both kind of quotes, use whichever one it has less of.)

Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Thanks for the information. Is the use of p a Wikipedia-specific custom? I had been vacillating, but the last few times I used export because it's used on Wiktionary (for instance, in Module:grc-translit). — Eru·tuon 03:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, "export" is a Wiktionary-specific thing. AFAIK, pretty much every other wiki uses "p" (as does the software when working in the console). Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Ah, okay. I'm curious, partly because I'm interested in etymology: does p stand for something? — Eru·tuon 03:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think it stands for "package". Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Module:Language performance

I notice you added Module:Language, via {{Wikt-lang}}, to List of Greek and Latin roots in English. Unfortunately it seems to have serious performance problems: the CPU time for the page has gone from about 2 seconds to about 20, a ten-fold jump. I only noticed it as it added the page to Category:Pages with script errors because the scripts were timing out. A purge fixed that but it will occur again. The template does not seem to be doing anything different to what was there before, it’s only doing it far more inefficiently. I don’t know if it can be fixed in the module, otherwise I would suggest backing out the changes, which have done nothing except make the page much slower to load.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's very slow now. I think the best solution would be to split it, though. I should propose that on the talk page, or just go ahead and do it. Even before the addition of all the templates, it was over 300 kilobytes. As to {{wikt-lang}}, it adds lang attributes as well as linking to Wiktionary. Much of the Ancient Greek wasn't appropriately tagged. — Eru·tuon 19:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: The article has been split into three pieces, so the scripts don't time out anymore. The pages are still slow, but not horribly slow. — Eru·tuon 22:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Greek and Latin roots in English/P, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pace. 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) 10:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching Haleakala mistake

Thanks for catching my mistake on Haleakala. I was looking at the average low, not the mean temperature. It has one month with an average low just below freezing and so I mistook that for a mean monthly temp. Redtitan (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Redtitan: No problem. I remember doing that more than once myself... — Eru·tuon 20:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Erutuon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Erutuon. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

conditional linking templates

Hi, I see you've recently touched Germanic strong verb and seem to speak template, so perhaps you can answer me something. The recent edits to the inventory section have left the page in an untenable state: no-one is going to update the links present on the page when the set of verbs that has a reconstruction on Wiktionary changes, and so the two are inevitably going to drift out of synch. But seven paragraphs of redlinks would be distracting. What seems best is a template which renders as a link to Wiktionary of the requisite sort if its target is present, and simple black text otherwise. What, if you know, would be the best way to achieve that? Thanks. 4pq1injbok (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That would be a wonderful feature, but while there is a way for a module (see WP:Lua) to check if a page on Wikipedia exists, I don't think there's a way to do interwiki checks. I could create a page on Wiktionary with the same list of verbs and add links to it; then the ones without entries will show up as red. Existing Wiktionary links will remain functional, I'm pretty sure; I can't think of a plausible reason why an existing Reconstruction page would be deleted. — Eru·tuon 05:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I've created the list at wikt:User:Erutuon/Germanic strong verbs. I really should figure out how to make Template:wikt-lang link to reconstructed forms... — Eru·tuon 05:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Too bad, and thanks! (An old reconstruction which is completely superceded by newer ones could be deleted, couldn't it? I agree this wouldn't happen in Proto-Germanic though.) 4pq1injbok (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Shah

Hello, Erutuon -- Having just read the notice at the top of your interesting user page, I have no wish to add any stress to your life, so feel free to ignore this or delay responding. I was just looking at your recent edit to Shah, and I was puzzled why you changed Shahanshah to the version with the s-caron in the Shah#History section. I realize that the short version (Shah) that appears just before "Shahanshah" should be consistent with the longer version, and they were not consistent before your edit, but to most English speakers, the version with the s-caron makes little sense. I can understand using the version with s-caron at the beginning of the article, but after that, I think the version with "sh" should be used for comprehensibility, in both the short and the long version of the title, except, perhaps, in a specific discussion about the etymology.  – Corinne (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, good to have some feedback. I changed sh to š because there seemed to be no rhyme or reason determining which symbol was to be used in a given place. If you wanted to change most of the cases of š back to sh, that would be fine. Probably you're right that s-caron is incomprehensible to most readers. Perhaps š could be used immediately after text in the Persian alphabet, sh elsewhere? — Eru·tuon 06:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Question on Latin short a

Hello, sir. I have read your user page to see you have done some work on the page Latin spelling and pronunciation. I have a question with a line on the page. Currently, under the section "Table of Orthography," in the table "Pronunciation of Latin Vowels," the English approximation to the Latin short a is "similar to u in cut when short." However, the "Latin phone" and audio say that the phoneme is [a], which is similar to the "a in cat." Was "u in cut" a typo? I am only confused. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the pronunciation of cat differs between dialects. The RP pronunciation of cat is probably the most similar to the Latin short a. American cat has a front vowel that is often not fully open and is sometimes diphthongized. Cut is usually a near-open central vowel in General American and RP, so it is close to the Latin pronunciation in both dialects (as well as in the English of Australia and New Zealand). The only difference is that the Latin vowel was fully open rather than near-open. So I think that's why cut was chosen. — Eru·tuon 03:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, sir.LakeKayak (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)