User talk:Erutuon/2016

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

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)

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. 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. 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, 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)

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)

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)

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)

This word does not appear in the infoboxes of other generalissmos. It was add by this Pro-Chiang sockpuppet 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)

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)

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)