User talk:Erutuon/2017

Archives

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

Pellaea atropurpurea

Hello. Thanks for this edit. I had, prior to my edit, read MOS:WORDSASWORDS and determined that in this case, the second sentence best applies:

"When italics could cause confusion, quotation marks instead may be used to distinguish words as words. Use one style or the other in a given context; do not apply both styles at once to the same terms, or switch back and forth between the styles in the same material." — MOS:WORDSASWORDS

I figured in general, articles that have several italicized latin binomial names, then quotes shall be used to distinguish words as words, thus my choice to use quotes. Thoughts? 71.81.74.166 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you're right. I noted that passage too, and made a change to an edit to Use–mention distinction. I prefer using italics for mentions and quotation marks for glosses (meanings). I'm not particularly worried about italics being ambiguous in this case, because the taxonomic name isn't in the same sentence, and it seems clear that the words being italicized are English and not Latin. But if you want to change back to quotes, that's fine with me. I find it best to not get overly invested in little details. — Eru·tuon 03:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Good advice! I plan to leave it as is. Mostly just asking input for future reference. Thanks. 71.81.74.166 (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ancient Greek grammar (tables with transliteration)

The article Ancient Greek grammar (tables with transliteration) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No content; transcludes the top of another article, but that has no lead section, so effectively transcludes nothing. Left over after a merge or move perhaps?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Audio files of Hindi pronunciation

Hi Erutuon, Thanks for your audio files for Hindi plosives at Hindustani phonology, diff's version at retrieval. I've added it to talk page for Help: IPA for Hindi and Urdu. When you have the time, could you see if it can be used at talk page for Help:IPA for Sanskrit, for Sanskrit pronunciation too, Thanks, by User 2know4power (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I was not very clear in my edit summary. I don't speak Hindi or Sanskrit myself. The soundfiles were created by AmritasyaPutra. I found him because he uploaded some of the soundfiles in the Commons category Hindi pronunciation, and then asked him to record the minimal sets. He has now been blocked, unfortunately. You may be able to find someone else who has uploaded soundfiles by visiting some of the soundfiles in the Commons category. — Eru·tuon 09:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Erutuon, thanks for your work in creating this and also these. Very useful for 'dental Vs retroflex' consonants. Thanks again for your helpful suggestions, by User 2know4power (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Hello Erutuon, Thank you very much for the great work you do for Wikipedia (articles, pages created), especially the articles in languages, plants and templates. Your valuable works, help to make Wikipedia a treasure trove. Thanks, 2know4power (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Anemone hupehensis

I agree with you in principle that content should refer to the species not the genus, so I completed the process on Anemone hupehensis and moved the rest of the genus material to the genus page. Unfortunately your template substitution did not work since it was being called from within the text. So I reverted it.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed the instance of the template so that the Bibliography section had the right taxon and the link in the footnote works. Kind of clunky solution, but it is better than calling "The Plant List" a last name. — Eru·tuon 00:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sequence of tenses

This article really deserves attention from a Latinist, but the Greek section could use expansion as well. The Latin especially needs to be rewritten quite badly, and I thought you might be a good person to do it. Cheers! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Pipa

Sorry for reverting your edit, but it seems that there are differing opinion on how it should be pronounced. Maybe there is a difference in dialect, but it is how I would pronounced it. However, if you are certain that yours is the correct version in standard Mandarin, then by all means change it. Hzh (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

After listening to some people speaking, it seems that many do speak as you indicated (although there are a few variations, sometimes by the same person). I checked 4 dictionaries and it's evenly split. On balance I think I'll change it to the way you suggested. Hzh (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hzh: I have no personal knowledge of the pronunciation; I was just copying the pronunciation that was given in the infobox {{Chinese}}. Actually, Wiktionary says both pronunciations are used, and the one with two second tones is perhaps the more correct one (see 琵琶), so probably both pronunciations should be listed. — Eru·tuon 01:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Lerwick

Regarding your edit, are you sure that ⟨ᵻ⟩ is the appropriate symbol? In Australia, the vowel would still be /ɪ/ because of the following velar (though I'm not sure about North America, Ireland or Norfolk). Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: I could be wrong; I don't have the phoneme /ɪ/ in my pronunciation at all. If Australia has the vowel because of the following velar, is there any way to determine which phoneme it's an instance of: /ə/ or /ɪ/? — Eru·tuon 18:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of phonetic realization. AFAIK, Australian /ə/ is a mid-to-open vowel, never higher, so it's either equal to STRUT or closer, but not as close as /ɪ/. That alone tells you whether you should write /ə/ or /ɪ/. In addition, in compound words, you can analyze their parts separately. But yeah, I can't think of any minimal pair for /ə–ɪ/ in unstressed positions that would be appropriate for AuE. There's it /ət/ vs. it /ɪt/, but the latter is a stressed form...

Offtopic: When it comes to the /ə–ɐ/ contrast, the former vowel reaches the openness of the latter only when word-final. As you know, /ɐ/ appears only before consonants. There's also the issue of the linking/intrusive r, which blocks the schwa-lowering, showing that it's allophonic. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Somali

Regarding Talk:Somali phonology#Front and back series, I have access to Saeed 1999 who seems to answer at least some of your questions. He also has a different vowel chart. If you're interested in improving the article, write me an email. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Greek's existing descendant

Hello, I see that Ancient Greek is one of your interests. But have you ever tried studying Modern Greek (like, the one spoken in Greece and many others today)? — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 13:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, if one gave you a relatively narrow IPA transcription of a non-English word, would you be able to pronounce it convincingly like native speaker would? — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 13:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I've never tried learning Modern Greek; about all I know is a little about the pronunciation and a few of the words that have changed since Ancient Greek. There's less to motivate me than with Ancient Greek, in which I'd like to read various things, like Thucydides.

I don't know, really. I don't get the chance to test my pronunciation very often. — Eru·tuon 19:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

I reverted your edits because this[1] is an invalid rationale for such changes to the lead section. Other wikis are not source and you can't refer to them as a source. Turkish Wikipedia call it Basra Körfezi. Then should we add it too?! Arabic name was added on 10 Oct 2016[2], it's unsourced too and I removed it. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Mentioning Turkish is bizarre: Turkish is not a language spoken by large numbers of people in nations neighboring the Gulf, as far as I know, while Persian and Arabic are. I am not sure why one language spoken near the Gulf (Persian) should have its name for the body of water mentioned, and not the other (Arabic). However, you can do what you want, because I don't have the energy to engage in this ethnic war. Remove the name in the language of the Arab shores of the Gulf if you like. — Eru·tuon 18:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, responding to this edit: I'm quite aware of the policy regarding common names in English; but how does that relate to the question of whether the Arabic name should be included? — Eru·tuon 18:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's an invalid rationale to use the title chosen by the editors of the Arabic Wikipedia, but I was puzzled that an Arabic name was included, but it was not likely the most common one. And I find it odd to not include the Arabic name, since the Gulf neighbors Arab nations as well as Iran. — Eru·tuon 18:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well:

• I restored the accepted revision. You can browse the discussion archives to see related sections about the name. It's not my decision but it's a consensus among the involved editors. The summary is: "Persian Gulf is the name of this gulf in English" and there several topics why they removed "Arabian Gulf".
• "Arabian Gulf" is just a political name and it's mentioned in the lead section and other sections of the article. So how do you want to use it? You can rewrite the lead and use that name but you should clarify it. Even if I don't revert your changes, other editors will revert your changes for sure. Just see the revision history of the article.
• I agree that using only Persian name and excluding Arabic name look odd. In my opinion, even the Persian name of that gulf is unnecessary in the lead because there is a section (Name) for it on the article. but as we know there are some En-WP rules that allow the editors to use non-English names.
• My suggestion: If this is an important issue for you, then open a new section on talk page and discuss your concerns there. Maybe other editors suggest a better revision for the lead section.
• Plus, I was on rush and your useful edits were reverted too. I didn't review your changes carefully. Sorry. --Wario-Man (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: I didn't add "Arabian Gulf" as an English name; that would be ridiculous, because nobody uses that name in English. I added it as the translation of the Arabic name. I looked at a few of the discussions, and I saw nowhere where it was agreed that the Arabic name should not be given alongside the Persian. But I don't really care to engage further at the moment. Wikipedia is too political. I will leave the article as it is. — Eru·tuon 00:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

English language

Regarding your revert of my edit removing italics from a line of English text in English language, I can understand your reasoning, but I still disagree, for several reasons:

1) I don't think the formatting in Wikipedia articles has to match the formatting in linguistics textbooks or articles; in WP articles, other than emphasis, italics is usually used for foreign language text;

2) to help the average Wikipedia reader, English text should stand out as different from the text in the other – in this case closely related – languages; and

3) other Wikipedia articles generally have the English text in Roman (regular) font. See Frisian languages#Text samples and Frisian languages#Comparative sentence. The article on Middle English is inconsistent, with most showing Roman font for modern English and only one sample showing italics.  – Corinne (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: It is true that italics is often used for foreign-language text, but the relevant principle in this case, as explained at MOS:WORDSASWORDS, is that words, phrases, or sentences in a Latin-script language being mentioned should be italicized. Examples, even in English, are a subcase of that. The inconsistency in the articles you mention, in which all the examples except the English one are italicized, should be corrected, either by italicizing all the examples or putting them all in plain type. (It is actually common for examples set off from the regular text, in bullet points or whatever, to not be italicized.) — Eru·tuon 02:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't think entire lines are the same as single words, for which italics are often used (MOS:WORDSASWORDS). It is "words as words", after all. It's like when we say: The word meet has several different meanings. Also, see English language#Proto-Germanic to Old English. The one line in modern English is in Roman font. Finally, I just realized that the example sentences in English language#Classification are formatted with both a bullet and a number. I don't think both should be used. I am puzzled by your last sentence, above. If that is true, wouldn't it tend to support my view that italics are not needed since these examples are "set off from the regular text, in bullet points or whatever"?  – Corinne (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I read the policy of "words as words" as referring to words or to longer collections of words (phrases or sentences). If they're being mentioned rather than used, they should be italicized or enclosed in quotes (depending on which works best in a given situation).

I guess I would remove italics when the examples are on one line with no other text before or after them, but when there's a language name before them (as in Frisian languages § Comparative sentence), it makes sense to italicize the example to distinguish it from the language name. Either way, it should be consistent: all the examples, English and non-English, should be either italicized or not italicized. — Eru·tuon 03:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I could go along with that, and I would much prefer no italics for any of the lines of example text. I think a lot of italic text is hard to read.  – Corinne (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:H:lat

Template:H:lat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Char

Template:Char has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sanskrit syllabics

"Continuant" or not is irrelevant. The question is whether the consonant can serve as a vocalic center for a syllable which taps and trills can. cf. Czech for example.

But perhaps more to the point, there is a reliable source that contradicts you so... Shaav (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Shaav: Well... okay. I can recall examples of syllabic continuants, usually sonorants, but not really of stops of taps. — Eru·tuon 08:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: it certainly usually is sonorants and generally you're not wrong. The difficulty comes from our desire to discretize something (+/-continuant) that is fundamentally not. The information that allows us to hear and distinguish consonants is carried on transformations of (usually) vowel formants. Every sound produced by our vocal tract has formants (even just plosive releases)—what makes vowels ideal vocalic centers is that they have a lot of energy because they are voiced (usually) and are minimally constricted which means that formants and their transformations can be conveyed maximally. The degree to which any consonant can effectively serve as a vocalic center is a basically a function of the amount of energy its producing and its signal-to-noise ratio. So naturally, sonorants are favoured; voiceless stops are definitely not. Taps and trills still have quite a lot of energy behind to them and even though the airflow is interrupted, one of the things that distinguish taps and trills is the speed of that interruption. That's one of the reasons that we still perceptually often lump them together with other liquids. Naturally, however, since they are less ideal candidates for syllabicity, you'd expect them to be rarer cross-linguistically, and they are. Phonologically, their behaviour can be ambiguous and on a language-to-language basis, you might expect them to behave more like continuants. The converse is also true; sometimes the other liquids can behave more like non-continuants phonologically depending on the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaav (talk • contribs) 09:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot or script to remove tie bars

Hi, I was just wondering concerning tie bars in IPA (such as t͡ʃ or t͡s) can be removed by you or some not from IPA templates, especially if a guide for pronunciation of articles? — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 23:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: I had trouble understanding your question. Are you asking if I can automatically (through AutoWikiBrowser or something) remove tie bars from language-specific IPA transcriptions when the help page for that language does not use them? If not, could you rephrase? — Eru·tuon 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I meant to say. I was just trying to hurriedly type my question I didn't think properly. — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 00:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It should be possible. In AWB I can get a list of pages transcluding a template (for instance, {{IPA-ru}}) and then skip pages if they don't have the tie bar, or remove tie bars using regex. — Eru·tuon 06:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Code error

As a coding experiment, I typed the numbers 1, 2, 7, 12, 15, 21, 25 in the first header in my sandbox. I used Module:User:Awesomemeeos as a backend. It should return as 'một, hai, bảy, mười hai, mười lăm, hai mươi mốt, hai mươi lăm', but apparently, it's not showing that. What's wrong with my code? — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 23:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Strange. I can't see any errors. I would recommend calling mw.log(text) in between the gsubs and see if there's any reason why gsub is not working. — Eru·tuon 00:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Classical Latin pronunciation Aeneid

Hey, thanks for the audio sample! Just one little thing, the "c" in "cano" should be pronounced without aspiration. Pt.GM (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pt.GM: I appreciate the comment. You could be right that there's too much aspiration there. However, Latin didn't have a phonemic distinction between aspirated and tenuis stops, so there could have been some aspiration. (There are other errors in my pronunciation... oh well.) — Eru·tuon 21:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Thanks for your answer! I suggested it was unaspirated because at the time of the Roman Empire, Greek loanwords as "machina" had an aspirated "k" and was transcribed as "ch" and not only as "c". This fact and because the Romance languages don't have aspiration at all in their consonants, I concluded that Latin likely had no or at least little aspiration compared to languages like today's English or German. What is your opinion? I assume you're a native English speaker, right? :) Pt.GM (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

that recording

Hello Mr. Erutuon, why that last recording doesn't work anymore? Fête Phung (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fête Phung: Huh? It works for me. — Eru·tuon 18:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, please correct templates in Quebec_French_phonology#Vowels and the template in Quebec_French_phonology#Consonants, thank you. 65.38.84.103 (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Request

If you don't mind, would you please review my code for Module:User:Awesomemeeos/turkish/narrow (also check User:Awesomemeeos/sandbox/turkish#Module_tests) and see if you can clean it up as much as possible? It would be greatly appreciated and any ambiguous issues I will try to resolve. It's just for my coding practice and reference now — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 12:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: Sure, I can take a look at it. The module tests seem to be using the wrong module name at the moment. I'm creating a basic testcases module to which you can add more examples to test the module. — Eru·tuon 21:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just kinda messy with all those regex lines — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 21:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: I added spaces at the beginning and end of the string while the substitutions are happening (they are removed at the end of the function) so that you don't have to write separate "^x" and " x" or "x$" and "x " cases. If you need to do a string-initial or string-final substitution, you can do "^ x" or "x $", but that is not needed in most cases. I'm explaining this because you restored the "x$" → "h" substitution, which is not needed now. — Eru·tuon 22:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for interrupting you again, but with the line (59) text = gsub(text, "[iyɯueø]$", {["i"] = "ɪ", ["y"] = "ʏ", ["ɯ"] = "ɯ" .. tack, ["u"] = "ʊ", ["e"] = "ɛ", ["ø"] = "œ"}), apparently, it's not working. Please see User:Awesomemeeos/sandbox/turkish#Module_tests and the strings tyɾkt͡ʃe, neɾede and cendi to refer to what I mean. — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 04:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Woops, I think it's because of the spaces that surround the string. Have to use   instead of $. It should work now. — Eru·tuon 04:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

At the end of the code of Module:User:Awesomemeeos/turkish (not the narrow one) I'm trying to implement the rules of Sezer stress (the rules of it should be above) — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 21:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Good job!

You added a function for the Sezer stress, however, is it possible to call that function with the parameter |pos=prop instead? Thank you! — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 02:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

My plan is to also use a hyphen after a certain syllable to indicate stress — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 03:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you give an example of what you mean about a hyphen? I don't know of a hyphen being used in IPA.

What do you mean by |pos=prop? There currently isn't a template for this module... You mean like {{#invoke:User:Awesomemeeos/turkish|phonemic|pos=prop}}? I don't get what the parameter stands for... — Eru·tuon 03:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

1. When one enters multiphrase words with different stress, e.g. bu-gün nasıl-sınız, hyphens may be used.

2. Yes, that's what I mean. The parameter prop stands for proper nouns. — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 04:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ahh. I don't know how Turkish stress works exactly, but you can set under what conditions the Sezer rule applies, or what part of a word.

I used the lc function from the Turkish language object because the usual (English) one will convert capital I to i (or lowercase i to I) when switching cases. Whenever neither of those letters is included, the English casing rules will not cause problems. — Eru·tuon 04:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Someone noticed!

First thanks for the thanks. I was not sure anyone would notice. The Ledum article is rather obscure. I found it trying to identify an image, a generic white rhododendron (I think).

Now about your gnome work. I really appreciate your changes in metric conversions. I have done a few myself. My favorite was a reverse - Pin. Us Americans are really not that fluent in m/cm/mm. I have physics and math degrees but still convert mentally.

Your conversion was "convert centimeters to fourth-inches, half-centimeters to eighth-inches, millimeters to sixteenth-inches, meters with two decimal points to feet-inches". I would not use this much precision. Luckily a cm is very close to 2 1/2 inches and a mm is very close to a 1/4 inch. I would change the conversion to: "convert centimeters to half-inches, half-centimeters to fourth-inches, millimeters to fourth-inches, meters with one (or more) decimal points to feet-inches". User-duck (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

WHOOPS! I got it backwards (an example of my problem). Your conversions may not be precise enough! Keep up the good work!User-duck (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@User-duck: I'm not all that mathematically minded, but I was making sure that adjacent metric values aren't mapped to the same inch value. In order to achieve that, the chosen inch increment has to be more precise than the metric one. So, for instance, if you convert centimeters to half-inches, then both 2 and 3 centimeters map to 1 inch (2–3 centimetres (1–1 in)), whereas if you use quarter-inches, they map to 3⁄4 and 1+1⁄4. A quarter inch is about 0.6 cm, so it's a little more precision, but it gives distinct inch values for each centimeter value, so there isn't a chance of ranges looking nonsensical. I was also looking at how, if you use the next highest power of two, the inch values will often be off by about the same amount as the metric increment. That makes the value quite misleading. I don't know if that's good mathematical reasoning, but it seems like a common-sense fudging of the numbers. I think I might have gone with less precision when dealing with halves or tenths of millimeters, though, to avoid really small fractions.

I haven't been doing that much with conversion lately, but maybe I will get to it again. Thanks for the appreciation.

I was glad to see someone filling in an article on a rhododendron subgroup. In the past I've looked for information on what group a species belongs to, but there wasn't an article that covered it. It would be nice if there were more information on that. — Eru·tuon 22:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion is never use fractions less than sixteenths, use decimals. I have several of my dad's engineering/architectural scales and they seldom go less that 1/16.

I am also an amateur botanist. The organization of species into subgenus or groups is very subjective. There is enough controversy about genus and species. It appears that transferring the Ledum species into Rhododendron is not that widely accepted. The GBIF database is the only authority that has done it for most species (but not all). I plan on looking into other online databases. I do not have ready access to the journal articles and I don't think one article makes a consensus. I have been working mostly on how to present the information. I have been having problems with footnotes.User-duck (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Errors in HTML/CSS fix

Hi, I just realized you had made errors like year="2" 007|volume="3"7|number="3"|pages="3"41–350 at English phonology in this edit. I've fixed them, but they apparently went unnoticed for more than a year! So you might want to check if you have made similar errors in other articles. Thanks. Nardog (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: Ouch. That's really bad. I did a search for insource:/[a-z]=\"[0-9]\"[0-9]/ and it didn't come up with anything on a page that I would have edited, and I looked through everything in my edit history with a summary mentioning CSS but found nothing, so I suspect I only did that particular regex replacement once. — Eru·tuon 19:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Buhse

Template:Buhse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Granby, Colorado

Hi! I had a question about your September 19, 2016 edit of the Granby, Colorado page. You changed the average annual precipitation from 14.2 to 4.2 inches. The link on the climate box doesn't show the 4.2 inches. Is this from another source? Thanks!Lastexpofan (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lastexpofan: I actually didn't insert that statistic. It was already there in the wikitext; I corrected the parameter name in the edit you mention, and then the statistic showed up in the displayed text. It is definitely wrong. — Eru·tuon 22:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Erutuon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

I was rereading some of the old discussions we had years ago, and I noticed how I acted somewhat odd and overexplanatory during them. I just wanted to thank you for putting up with me back then so that we could reach something which would improve Wikipedia. Tharthan (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)