User talk:Chris the speller

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Archives[edit]

Archive 1 (October 2005 – May 2006)

Archive 2 (May 2006 – November 2007)

Proposed deletion of Stefan Schaal[edit]

The article Stefan Schaal has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.

Happy New Year, Chris the speller![edit]

Happy New Year!

Chris the speller,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Corfman[edit]

Please add the names of Roy Moore's accusers. We aren't just a bunch of women! Use our names.#metoo Corf2301! (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't done so, go read WP:VOLUNTARY. Chris the speller ^yack 23:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Nice grammar catches on your part! Wikipedia is a better place with you in it! Here’s to you. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Tanzila Khan[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tanzila Khan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 153.181.48.17 (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP headings are in sentence case: per MOS:AT, "follow sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects), not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects)". Chris the speller ^yack 05:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A better pointer would have been MOS:HEADINGS, which should follow the same guidance. Chris the speller ^yack 05:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your fraction changes[edit]

This is a very unusual interpretation of MOS:FRAC you are using, and you seem to be making this change en masse. If you won't revert yourself, please at least stop and get a consensus for this change first. Fractions spelled out as fractions in prose in a non-mathematical context is unusual. I'd be happy to start a discussion somewhere if desired (probably Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers ?). SnowFire (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and opened up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Clarification_on_mixed_numbers. SnowFire (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are suggesting that I revert myself for following the MoS, an interesting concept. I am not changing spelled-out fractions to figures; I have been changing mixed numbers to figures as stated in the MoS: "Mixed numbers are usually given in figures". Don't feel bad; you are the second editor I have run across today who does not have a good handle on the difference between a fraction and a mixed number. The more of these mixed numbers I fix, the more cases I find of completely wrong formats, such as "3 and a half", "three-and-a-half", "three and half", "3½" (using deprecated precomposed fractions), and often a variety of these in one article; I have brought consistency to these. You are suggesting that I get a consensus, when the MoS was already set by reaching a consensus, so I don't desire that you start a discussion. You should find something to improve in Wikipedia, and let me continue. Chris the speller ^yack 04:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think your changes are good on the merits, you should explain why on the talk page discussion I opened. If there truly ends up being a consensus behind it, fine, but please stop until that is established.

Surely you know that editors can cite the MOS while being wrong about it. I believe you've misunderstood the guidance on mixed numbers. It doesn't say to mandate using the frac template everywhere, it's talking about a very, very specific case that you're applying too broadly. SnowFire (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not '"fixing" a non-existent problem'; if you looked at a few of my changes (not just one), you would see that I am usually fixing really messed-up mixed numbers, as I mentioned on my talk page. I don't plan to stop fixing them. Chris the speller ^yack 04:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally, that is the wrong answer. Mass changes without community buy-in have ended up at ANI before. Like I said, if you can show you actually have consensus behind this, then fine, but if you don't have consensus, then you need to stop, or else the next step is ANI (which is silly for such a minor quibble). Please read WP:WILDFLOWERS - if people are telling you very directly that your "fix" is not actually a "fix" and there is no problem, believe them.

Anyway, if you're really so confident that your changes have consensus, it's no problem to wait a little bit to confirm that is actually true, right? SnowFire (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we share the same name!😎[edit]

Hey there, fellow Chris! We should totally start a club... the Chris Fan Club! Two Chrises are better than one, right? Chris denny 4840 (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "unencyclopedic details" edits.[edit]

I'm not sure that I agree that changing a time frame relating to the number of days or weeks from a subject's birthday to a less precise year of age is really removing an "unencyclopedic detail". It seems to me that is just making the time frame more vague. The fact that such references commonly occur in reporting suggests that it is a detail likely to be of interest to readers. BD2412 T 22:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at WT:MOSBIO#Unimportant age details at time of death. Please take your concerns there. Chris the speller ^yack 23:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the direction, I have weighed in there. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of William J. Spaulding Sr.[edit]

The article William J. Spaulding Sr. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This biography is not notable as there are no pertinent results for "William (J.) Spaulding (Sr.)" and "Lets all Skidaddle to Seattle" even at Newspaper.com.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me. Chris the speller ^yack 03:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance[edit]

Can you help edit. My page? Peaq1 (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Styphelia prostrata‎[edit]

Hello Chris, and thank you for your work. You have correctly fixed many spelling errors on pages I've written about plants. But on this occasion, you are not correct.

First, softly-hairy. Your change to "softly hairy ascending or erect branches" implies that the branches are soft. It is the hairs (on the branches) that are soft. "Softly-hairy" is used by plant taxonomists to describe plant hairs.

Secondly, your reference to MOS:SMALLFONT is not applicable in this situation. The critical words/phrases are "within page elements that already use a smaller font ", "most" and "plain text". You will also notice that the authors of S. prostrata ((R.Br.) Spreng.) are small. (Its done automatically in the taxobox, editors of plant taxoboxes do not need to "small" the authors). The authors of synonyms must be "smalled" - because it is not done automatically. I think it it will be clear to you, that having R.Br. in large font is incorrect. I'd refer you to Featured Articles like Banksia serrata, Banksia ericifolia, Acacia pycnantha, Lambertia formosa and many others, that the authors of synonyms are "smalled".

Happy to discuss this here, or on my Talk Page. Gderrin (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In MOS:SCIENTIFIC it says "In the article body, wrap the authority information in {{small}} or <small>...</small>." But the infobox is not part of the article body, and MOS:SMALLFONT is quite clear that a smaller font should never be used in an infobox. There seems to be a conflict between the actual usage in featured articles and one or the other section of the MoS. You might want to look into squaring the accepted usage with MOS:SMALLFONT, and maybe squaring the two sections of the MOS with each other, or cllarifying them. Meanwhile, the use of "softly-hairy" is quite opposed to MOS:HYPHEN, no matter what plant taxonomists commonly use: see also WP:SSF; WP editors determine punctuation style within WP, not plant specialists. Cheers! Chris the speller ^yack 04:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Chris, but you have avoided anwering my points. "Softly hairy ascending or erect branches" implies that the branches are soft. It is the hairs (on the branches) that are soft. "Softly hairy ascending or erect branches" is grammatically incorrect as is "softly hairy, ascending or erect branches". Softly-hairy is a compound modifier. I have edited the article to avoid confusion.

The synonym Astroloma prostratum R.Br. is incorrect, when the binomnial name is Styphelia prostrata (R.Br.) Spreng. however you interpret MOS:SMALLFONT. Would you be prepared to remove smalled authors in any featured plant article as you have done at Styphelia prostrata? Gderrin (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Softly hairy ascending or erect branches" does not imply the branches are soft. I didn't read it that way, and no one applying rules of English grammar would either. "Softly" is an adverb modifying "hairy", so it means the ascending erect branches are hairy in a soft way. That's kind of an awkward way to say the hairs are soft, but if that is common in plant taxonomists' vernacular (and there's no practical way to say it in general English), it works for me. Not all compound modifiers are hyphenated. If Chris had taken the time to be more specific than just to say MOS:HYPHEN doesn't allow "softly-hairy", I'm sure he would have directed you to the sentence therein that starts, "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb". Basically, because "softly" couldn't possibly modify anything but "hairy", there's no case for hyphenation. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of an automatic taxobox is explicitly stated in the WP:WikiProject Plants/Automated taxobox system. (See here.[1]) Gderrin (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is a taxobox a special case of an infobox, or is it something different? If it's different, and there is consensus to use a smaller font for authority information, then that exception should be noted in MOS:SMALLFONT. if a taxobox is an infobox, then MOS:SMALLFONT is in direct opposition to the use of small fonts, so something needs to be worked out. Also, MOS:SCIENTIFIC needs work, as it states "(This need not be done in a taxobox, which handles this automatically.)", and that is apparently not true. This mess should be cleaned up, or I won't be the last editor to step in it. For now, I will refrain from removing small markup from "synonyms" parameters. Chris the speller ^yack 20:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris the speller, please use your browser's Developer Tools / Inspector feature to look at font sizes. You should see that small text inside most taxobox fields results in 85% font size, which is acceptable per MOS. Taxboxes look like infoboxes in form, but they do not produce smaller text by default. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]