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.

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]

Assistance Needed[edit]

Could you possibly proofread the article regarding Max Baker-Hytch? Your help would be appreciated. --153.170.47.139 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done - it was pretty clean. Chris the speller ^yack 18:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you were one of the contributors on the article page, so, you are notified on

Hermann Ehrhardt[edit]

I don't agree with your intermpretation of the MOS here. In context, Brigade is a proper name, just abbreviated to avoid redundancy. But since my interest is accuracy & completeness of content, I'm not going to get too excited about it one way or the other. GHStPaulMN (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to interpret MOS:MILTERMS; it speaks clearly. It says that "Formal names of military units" are proper names and therefore capitalized. "Marinebrigade Ehrhardt" is a formal name; "the brigade" is not. Chris the speller ^yack 13:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]