User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 12

Barnstars I, Ling.Nut award this very overdue Linguist's barnstar to Kwamikagami. Thanks for making the Internet not suck. Thanks for taking an interest in the language families of South America - they really need a hand! ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I, Ikiroid, award this Barnstar to Kwami for helping me with effectively editing language pages. The Barnstar of Diligence I, Agnistus award this Barnstar to Kwami for his invaluable contributions to the Origin of hangul article. The Anti-Flame Barnstar I think you deserve a golden fire extinguisher for helping me deal with that misguided revolutionary Serendipodous 10:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC) The Graphic Designer's Barnstar For your wonderful moon mass charts, I offer the Graphic designer's barnstar. Serendipodous 12:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC) The Original Barnstar For transforming Rongorongo from a sketchy, unhelpful mess into a tightly organized family of articles covering the entire Rongorongo corpus in a manner both scholarly and accessible, I award you this Barnstar. May it bring you much mana! Fishal (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC) The Working Man's Barnstar For getting all the EL61 links changed to Haumea (dwarf planet), I think you deserve the working man's barnstar. Must have been tedious as heck. Serendipodous 09:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC) The Original Barnstar Presented for your creation of the Malagasy IPA pages and your tireless transcription efforts. Thank you! Lemurbaby (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC) The Graphic Designer's Barnstar For your contributions to File:IPA chart 2005.png (better seen in the English Wikipedia logs since the move to Commons). In taking linguistics courses as an undergraduate, having a printout-size and easy-to-find IPA reference was indispensable. I will probably be finding printouts of this file mixed in with my college papers for decades to come; that's just how often I used it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC) The Tireless Contributor Barnstar I, Stevey7788, hereby present you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for your tremendously prolific work on languages and linguistics. Excellent articles, wonderful images, and impressive contributions overall! — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC) The Editor's Barnstar For your continued good work in articles on languages. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC) The Teamwork Barnstar I hope the script story will have a happy end :-) Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC) The Original Barnstar Hi there, I noticed that you edited an article that I created (Chay Shegog) and edited the pronunciation. I am a Shegog myself. I'm not bothered about your change at all. The emphasis is how you wrote it so shi-GOG. I noticed that you have done some stuff related to American Indians on Wikipedia. Are you of Native American descent? I've done some research and there is some evidence to suggest that the name Shegog is taken from zhigaag (so like Chicago with two g's and no 'o') which means skunk in the Ojibwe language. But all Shegog's I know pronounce it with a short -og similar to dog. Thanks, Shegan AGirl1191 (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC) The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Thanks for your recent run of newly-created language articles, and for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC) The Original Barnstar thank for contributing us... Liansanga (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC) The Admin's Barnstar For your past excellent service as Administrator, and a sad reminder that sometimes ARBCOM can blow it - big time. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Guardian of Hamari Boli Most sincere gratitude for your invaluable contributions to Hindi-Urdu related articles on English Wikipedia. Forever indebted to you -and wikipedia of course- for telling it like it is.. Amazing how you never gave up and went thru all the troubles dealing with zealots. Bravo! You're one of the inspirations that led to the genesis of http://www.HamariBoli.com edge.walker (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC) The Instructor's Barnstar This Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have performed stellar work in the area of instruction & help for other editors. For your contributions to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and especially for your contributions to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Moreover, in providing examples of how to implemented the Manual in text editing and your great cooperation with me! Magioladitis (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC) The Resilient Barnstar For your WP rules following Saraikistan (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC) The Barnstar of Diligence For your linguistic contributions. We will carry on this professional discussion later because I will be off now. Regards Maria0333 (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC) The Original Barnstar For all-round good work, but especially this edit. Keep it up! Green Giant (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC) All Around Amazing Barnstar Dear Kwamikagami, thank you for all of your amazing contributions to language related articles. Your contributions are making a difference here on Wikipedia! Keep up the good work! With regards, AnupamTalk 21:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC) The LGBT Barnstar For your work over at Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States, the article looks vastly improved and I am happy to see there was an agreement made on the results. =) Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC) The Brilliant Idea Barnstar Good job Sit1101 (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC) The Multiple Barnstar These are just some barnstars for some of the many amazing things you do here on Wikipedia, I don't know what this site would do without you. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC) The Original Barnstar For working to help close RfCs and reduce the backlog. Wugapodes (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC) The Tireless Contributor Barnstar For great, expeditious and lynx-eyed reviewing and correction of all Aboriginal articles,Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC) The Papua New Guinean Barnstar of National Merit Thank you for your many years of tireless work on articles of Papuan languages! Here's something to add to your long list of barnstars. (Although admittedly, this is just for "East New Guinea Highlands languages" and other Papuan languages on the eastern half of the island.) — Sagotreespirit (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC) The Original Barnstar Because you do an incredible amount of good work, and I am more or less in awe at how much you know. Also, I think you do not have enough barnstars. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC) The Special Barnstar For creating the Tyap language article. Thanks! Kambai Akau (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC) The Mathematics Barnstar For getting Kaktovik numerals to good article status. Thank you Akrasia25 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC) The Reviewers Award By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC) The Editor's Barnstar Thanks for your tireless editing and ability to recognize the nuance most miss, do not understand, or fail to research regarding parliamentary law vis-à-vis a supreme court’s jurisdiction specially regarding Nepal Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The colubrid Telescopus semiannulatus in an acacia, central Tanzania.		This user is one of the 40 most active English Wikipedians of all time. This user is a former administrator on the English Wikipedia (verify). Quotes: Only an evil person would eat baby soup. To shew that there is no tautology, no vain repetition of one and the same thing therein. In this country we treat our broads with respect. Words of the day: anti-zombie-fungus fungus

This user is one of the 100 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

IPA on Saulnierville, Nova Scotia

Hi; I just happened to be staying in Clare, of which Saulnierville is one of the component communities; there's a non-IPA pronunciation item on this page, and likely on other articles in the same grouping (Clare#Communities). Please note that the pronunciation should be in Acadian French, and may vary from "regular" Canadian French (Quebec French).Skookum1 (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I just checked, & not on any of the others. Add the Acadian if you like (I'm unfamiliar with it), but we normally use standard French + ɛː, and that's all I was competent to add. — kwami (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Diaeresis

Why are you and Erutuon ripping out content to make Diaeresis into a disambig? Please don't forget WP:FIXDABLINKS. --JaGa^talk 10:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It partly duplicated trema, and once that was accounted for, there was nothing left but a dab. — kwami (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

IPA n vs. m

I generally marvel at your treatment of IPA transcriptions (although I sometimes think a simpler set of IPA characters would help readers more), occasionally I'm baffled. In this edit at Carnival in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, you twice represented an "n" (as in November) with a double-character rendered as m̩: "Fastelavend" = [ˈfastl̩.ˌɒːvm̩t] and "Fastelabend" = [ˈfastl̩.ˌɒːbm̩t]. With some enlargement, I can make out that there is a small dot below the "m", a symbol that I can't find in the International Phonetic Alphabet. I assume it's some kind of modifier. Now, when I listen to myself pronouncing these words, I can't detect any hint of "m" – my lips never close. To me, it's very clearly an "n", just like it is in the root of those words, German: Abend (evening). What does m̩ mean? Curious, Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right.

The stroke under the [m] means it's syllabic, as in English rhythm. You'll notice, I hope, that that wasn't my transcription; I merely linked it up to an IPA template (IPA-xx for misc. minor languages) so that it will be more visible from now on and can be taken care of later on. I barely know any standard German, let alone Low Saxon, but I rather doubt that's correct. (For all I know it was supposed to be standard German, in which case it's obviously wrong.) I tagged it as 'dubious' and added a 'needs IPA' tag to hopefully attract s.o. who knows what they're talking about. You might want to put in a request at WP:IPA for German. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry about the attribution – I clearly misread the diff. I followed you suggestion and asked at IPA for German. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Are "non-Min" and "Ping-Yue" Attested

I notice that you have added the categories non-Min and Ping-Yue to the [Pinghua] page, the categories used should be representative. There are many non's which describe Pinghua, why not say non-hakka? The dividing of Chinese into Min and non-Min then sub-dividing is not a system classification supported by the majority of linguists, the number of speakers of Min is less than 10% of all Chinese speakers, and as such should not be included as if it were a widely accepted convention. The classification of Ping-Yue has some linguist justification, though the categorization should be applied throughout but it is not use in say [Taishanese]. However the use of Ping-Yue on the pages which at present say Yue would lead to many objections, because whilst it has some justification it is not widely accepted convention, which suggests the correct place for information on the relationship between Pinghua and Yue is within the article itself, not a side panel. Johnkn63 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The number of Min speakers is irrelevant to the classification. There are numerous accounts of only being able to trace non-Min back to Middle Chinese, with Min going back further, though you're right, it would be nice if there were a non-negative term for it; I also need to confirm that this implies early divergence rather than simply greater divergence since MC.

• Jerry Norman, 2003, "The Chinese Dialects: Phonology", in Thurgood & LaPolla, The Sino-Tibetan languages, p 81

"It is generally recognized that the Min dialects ... lie outside the mainstream of Chinese linguistic development. ... Where in non-Min dialects ...., Min dialects show ..."

• Edwin Pulleyblank, 1984, Middle Chinese: a study in historical phonology, p 148

"Karlgren found tha, with the exception of Min, all dialects ... could be compredended within the phonological categories of ... the rhyme tables. There is very little in modern dialects ... (always excepting Min), which cannot be ..."

but again you're right; what we reconstruct as "Middle Chinese" is only one lect of many varieties of Chinese spoken at the time, and it doesn't follow that Min diverged earlier simply because they're now more divergent. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

All good points for an article. Regardless of exactly when Min split off from the the mainstream of Chinese development, Min is the name of a branch, the mainstream is usually referred to 'Chinese' not 'non-Min'. By the same line of reasoning 'non-Min' should be divided into 'Ping-Yue' and 'non-Ping-Yue'. The lists of linguistics 'non-'s' is great, but it is very non-conventional to list them in a lects family tree. Johnkn63 (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't follow unless Chinese divides into Ping-Yue and everything else, and I'm not aware that it does. — kwami (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Kwami, I was debating with User:本本一世 on the creditbility of his sources, in section "Population figure citation?" of Sichuanese Mandarin talk page. Can you come and offer a 3rd perspective? --LLTimes (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Generic trojans

Do you still think Jupiter trojan and the like should have lower-case 't'? I do. Rothorpe (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Capital "Trojan" would IMO stand on its own.

I'll move it. It's been stable as lc for a month; the previous move was reverted because it was cut&paste rather than a proper article move.

Oops, Serendipidous changed the caps before I could do so. Should be discussed. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've commented there. Glad you agree. Rothorpe (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is a conflict between grammatical style and common usage. On WP, common usage generally wins out. "Trojan" generally is capitalized even when used as a generic noun. — kwami (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky

Hi! You recently moved the Music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky page. I don't know if you noticed, but there was a move discussion going on on the talk page. The discussion actually favoured the target where you moved the article so no problem there, but apparently you forgot to move the talk page of the article, leaving it at Talk:Music of Pyotr Il'yich Tchaikovsky. I've moved the talk page to the correct location now. Also, when you move an article after a move discussion, could you also close the discussion by at least removing the {{movereq}} tag on the talk page so that people know that the request has been already actioned? Anyway thanks for your work :) Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! Will do. I don't know why talk pages sometimes don't move with their article. — kwami (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's because the software for some reason doesn't delete the talk page even if you tick the "yes, delete the page" box. So if the talk page has any file history it has to be manually deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. — kwami (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian (continued)

Our discussion has been sort of drowned out by the rapid flow of postings at Talk:Croatian language. I'd like to continue the discussion here (or my talk page, I suppose. You decide). I'm particularly interested in the idea that the ~20 isoglosses that Greenburg provides are irrelevant to language (B/C/S/M) identification. What leads you to assert this? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we aren't looking at the same thing. The map of isoglosses he gave does not correspond to ethnic boundaries, but to dialect. There are Croatian words and Serbian words, but they are typically borrowed vs. calqued vocab like the examples he gave, and cannot be easily mapped since Serbs and Croats live near each other. It'd be like trying to find Protestant/Catholic/Mormon isoglosses for English. The only way to get a geographic isogloss for those words would be to have ethnic cleansing. There are a few other things which tend to be Serb or Croat, but AFAIK most are used by both communities, they're just more official in one.

Do you mean the 17 isoglosses on Map 3 of the pdf I linked to? They appear to separate Sloven-Kajkavian on the one hand vs. Chakavian-Shtokavian-Macedonian on the other. I don't see how you'd pick S & C out of that.

I don't know about continuing the discussion. So far the "Croatian is a Slavic language!!!!" crowd have failed to provide any references; IMO Ivan's adequately debunked the unsupported claims that have been made. I'm sure there's a lot more to be said, and we're probably glossing over a lot, but I've spent much more time on this than I'm actually interested in it: European languages aren't my thing. — kwami (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kwami, but the Burgenland Croatian also in Austria, Croatia and Hungary officially language and not dialect. Doncsecz^talk 13:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, please change accordingly. — kwami (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm discussing the issues with Ivan as well, so it's no biggie. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian

The best way to describe all the languages is by using the diasystem method, and the best uniting name for this is Central South Slavic diasystem. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=geh261xgI8sC&pg=PA518&lpg=PA518&dq=weinrich+diasystem&source=bl&ots=DW062gZ5ip&sig=a-zsU_fwYW3iNvlLzGyiJPGrE3s&hl=en&ei=A8mxTPbAA5OuvgObvImwBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false gives the best reasoning. Serbo-Croatian can be as a separate article describing the history behind this standard, however the way the current languages Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegran can be best described through the diasystem method, if you read the pages in the book this makes perfect sense. I would please ask you to reconsider when reverting the edit that I have posted. The Central South Slavic diasystem is used by the European Union. Vodomar (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

'Diasystem' and 'pluricentric standand' are pretty much the same thing in this case. The latter is easier to understand, though.

I once requested that we split the article into SC = the language vs. SC = the Yugoslav bistandard, but was voted down.

The term CSS is generally dismissed as being linguistically inaccurate (we've brought it up before); it's also unfamiliar (even among linguists, let alone the general public) and so fails WP:COMMONNAME.

However, if the EU starts using it, that would change things. Do you have any evidence for that? If, say, Croatia were accepted into the EU with its language being called "Central SS", so that Serbia could be admitted without increasing translation costs, that would be a very good reason to rename the article. — kwami (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait till 2011 I guess. Kwami, just break out the big impressive book of languages you have and just source Vodomar's 's, may as well leave them rather then getting into an edit war over citation tags! It is, after all, a C-class article. I'm sure the numerous sources thrown around in various discussions contain enough to provide some sources for what remains. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I can only empathize with you for trying to keep some resemblance of NPOV in that article and one in the section above. NPOV generally seems a lost cause on Wikipedia in articles that people care deeply about. (I saw your posts on User talk:Courcelles, which I was watching hoping he'd reply on trivial matter than unfortunately requires administrative rights.) Tijfo098 (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for any support you can provide. Israel-Palestine seems to have worked out beautifully (or at least it had a couple years ago when I read the discussion), but it required an insane amount of discussion. I made similar edits to Hindi and Urdu, and I'm been impressed: there's been remarkably little resistance, and what there has been has been mostly rational and thoughtful. Hopefully ARBMAC will keep things reasonable for Croatian. — kwami (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Pashto dialects

Hi, can you kindly check the Pashto dialects new article? Thanks! Khestwol (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will comment there. — kwami (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sex positions

Actually, given that it's about a class of things, the plural seems fine by WP:SINGULAR; I feel no need to move it. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock Puppet to evade block

That anon IP at Croatian language is probably User:Jack Sparrow 3. Sounds like him, especially the "You don't speak Croatian, you don't have any right here" crap. --Taivo (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably. If it keeps up, I may ask for a check, but it hardly seems worth the effort for the ones who have to do the checking. — kwami (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If he keeps flooding the talk page with his invective, though... I leave it up to you as to what to do and the best time to do it. --Taivo (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"SC" - questions

User:Flopy asked some questions on my talk page and requested that you answer as well. I don't mind if you want to answer on my talk page. --Taivo (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI/User:Kubura

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Keristrasza (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good news

Hi, maybe your IPA-trained eye ear might find a hiccup, but I expect you can enjoy listening to my recent this and this. -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was a lot of work!

A few of the sound files are clipped. They only play the end, or just part of the middle: ɡ, f, v, ɬ, ɮ. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Then let's focus on ɡ Voiced velar plosive: to me it sounds the whole sound file is played. Can you confirm the sound file itself is OK: To me it's technical (and fun), I cannot judge a phonetic sound now way. -DePiep (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Oops, back into context ;-) -DePiep (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be [ˈɡɑː, ɑːˈɡɑː], but all I hear is [ɑːˈɡᵊ]. — kwami (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So, the soundfile is wrong, not the new audio-chart. The filename (in my templates) is determined by using IPA-symbol --> {{IPAsound}}. So its ɡ --> Voiced velar plosive --> file:Voiced velar plosive.ogg. Again, I cannot change the file. ~.ogg-file wrong --> result wrong. -DePiep (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I rather doubt it's as simple as the sound file being wrong, because that would've been caught. I assume it's a matter of it not being properly supported, some formatting that's different between the files for /g/ and /k/. But I think you're right is assuming it's not your table. The table seems fine. — kwami (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The explanatory text with Voiced velar plosive, file:voiced velar plosive.ogg , says the sound you hear is as intended: "Pronunciation of a voiced velar plosive, [ɡ] between two [a]s : [aɡa]." So not a technical hiccup. -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't hear the second [a]. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is, that the creator (uploader) of that file described it as not being [ˈɡɑː, ɑːˈɡɑː] as one might expect. So no formatting or support thing then. -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert...

hello... I understand if you have some concerns about my addition. I thought it was meaningful, and decent info. I'm a little confused by what you said in your edit (revert) comment, that the edit was "misleading", and "just as it would be to say about English numbers." I'm not totally sure what you mean. Are you saying that Asimov (a giant when it came to understanding things like this) was wrong? Or that Roman numerals can't be scrambled that way, though generally won't be? And "decreasing value" is what's normally done? The point is that it's accurate and good-faith. And according to Wikipedia policy, only actual vandalism or truly inaccurate things, (or totally unrelated things), should be summarily "reverted". Undoing or reverting, per WP recommendation and guidelines, should be done rarely.... And not for good faith accurate edits or additions. I hope we can maybe work something out, or maybe move it or modify my contrib here, instead of just totally removing it. Let me know what you think. And thanks for your attention to this. ResearchRave (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it was in good faith, but that doesn't mean it was accurate. The year 1982 could be worded "nine hundred one thousand two and eighty", and it would be understandable, but that doesn't mean anyone actually says it that way. Do you have any refs that Roman numerals are ever used out of order?

You're correct, only vandalism should be summarily reverted. But any edit that does not improve the article can be undone. (I don't see much point in the distinction, but it's one of politeness.) — kwami (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian" article name

Do you think the title "Differences between Serbo-Croatian standard varieties" would be a more suitable article name than "Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian"? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the current name, as I suspect that most people looking into it are coming from the POV of the national languages. — kwami (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Montenegrin? --JorisvS (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not yet really standardized, though we could add it as well. I guess I don't object too much to the change of name, I just think it's more transparent as is. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Yet it is already mentioned in the article (and is included in the map). It would be strange not to include those bit and pieces of Montenegrin that are already kind of standardized, but IMO this should be reflected in the title. I'd say "Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian" is then really too cumbersome a title, though, I concur, more transparent. And if we change it to the suggested title I'd expect a surge of POV editors we are all too familiar with. --JorisvS (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It should certainly be added, if anyone wants to take it on. That's independent of the move, however.

If we are going to move, might I suggest "Differences between the national varieties of Serbo-Croatian"? Seems to flow better with that word order. — kwami (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing of File:Masses of all moons.png

Hi there, there was a request at WP:GL/I to vectorize File:Masses of all moons.png. I was hoping you could direct me to a source that has the numbers you used to create the graph so I can make an accurate vector. Thanks, Shep^Talk 22:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I simply used the masses in the articles. The current listed masses may have been updated slightly, but I doubt enough to make any significant difference. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Shep^Talk 20:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Stockholm pronunciation

Hi, I'm sorry to disturb you but I need some help about the Swedish pronunciation of Stockholm. The discussion continues here.--Carnby (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm the wrong person to ask! — kwami (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The distinct Urdu language

I speak American* (and so can you!)

*Actually, not.

First off, Kwami, we in the reality-based community are supposed to pretend to take Fox "News" seriously. After all, even the current muslin secular socialist POTUS does.

Well of course Urdu and Hindi are the same language -- but that's an observation from mere common sense, whereas it might be better to say that a language is a dialect with an army and navy; and as we know all too well, both India and Pakistan most certainly do have them, air forces, and even WMDs. (Though it's all a jolly good show.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

;) But on a more serious note, Hindi and Urdu aren't even different dialects. If Urdu were based on the dialect of Lucknow and Hindi on Varanasi, I'd have less problem accepting them as separate "languages". But when Hindi and Urdu speakers can't even tell each other apart, it becomes too much to swallow. This is a religious difference, more along the lines of Irish militants asking people to recite the alphabet to figure out which side they're on. — kwami (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And certainly a thick mist of silliness does hang over many en:WP articles related the subcontinent. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

IPA pages

Question for you - hopefully an easy one. I created Wikipedia:IPA_for_Manx_Gaelic so we can use the {{IPA-gv formatting as we have for {{IPA-gd etc to direct folk at a more relevant page than just the generic IPA page. But somehow the formatting isn't working (see Cammag for example) - it doesn't look like a redirect that's needed, so I'm doing something wrong but what? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to create {{IPA-gv}}. Every language extension needs a separate template; even the empty ones (without dedicated keys) are redirects to IPA-all. You can copy the coding from {{IPA-gd}}. — kwami (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, many thanks! Not that many languages in that list actually, oddly enough. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Differing points of view

The new definition captures the differing opinions of the two camps of taught that has burnt a endless number of hours on this debate on the Croatian Language. This is in the spirit of Wikipedia - as this should be inclusive not exclusive of differing and valid opinions. Vodomar (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are not two differing points of view within the linguistic references. You cannot claim Ethnologue to be a reference because it clearly includes Croatian within "Serbo-Croatian". You, yourself, have accepted their use of the term "macrolanguage" for Serbo-Croatian, which clearly and unequivocally includes Croatian. You have no sound references whatsoever within the English linguistic literature that do not include Croatian within a language usually called "Serbo-Croatian". There is no difference of opinion in the specialist literature on this. You have a POV that you are pushing, but you have no sound references for it. Your edit is just WP:WEASELly including your unreferenced POV. --Taivo (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My gosh, all of you, WP:LEADFIXATION. Create a section in the article to fully explain both points of view, the linguistic and the social. Leave the lead alone for awhile. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's actually already discussed in the second paragraph of the lead. The first sentence should reflect the consensus of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. --Taivo (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, that doesn't matter. It should be discussed in the article itself, not just the lead. Perhaps having both opinions explained in the article more fully will help solve things. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to airing the details of Croatian nationalist sentiment concerning the language in the article. That's where it belongs, not in the first sentence. --Taivo (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We already have it in the SC article, and link to that, since it's not really a big deal for Croatian itself. But it wouldn't hurt to summarize it there. — kwami (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it is a big deal for Croatian itself. I'll try and draft a section, can't put it in now though, obviously. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping one of our level-headed Croat editors would draft what was needed, but I guess it ain't happening. — kwami (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, unless they're looking at this thread, they may not have thought of it. Altogether waaay to much focus on the lead. Lead Fixation, I'm sure there's a wikilink to it somewhere... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought Flopy might. — kwami (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No doubt his input would be very useful. Oh well, there's three days to do it. Remind me why I'm associated with you lot again? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have two hypotheses: (1) insanity, and (2) masochism. — kwami (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going with 2. Anyway, unfortunately it was hard to separate fluff from actual sourced information in those long talk pages, but I created a bare-bones statement of fact attempt here. The EU was rather disappointing, it was happy to call Bosnian a standard of Serbo-croatian, but shied away from stating Croatian or Serbian were the same language, saying only they were closely related. I pulled the sources directly off the talk pages, with the assumption they say what editors said what they said in the talk page if I couldn't access/understand them. I'll alert Flopy and Ivan to the sandbox, hopefully they'll be able to add better sources for both opinions in southcentralslavicdialectsystemserbocroatianBCS. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wish I could find the ref: the EU has apparently indicated that it is not willing to accept Serbian and Croatian as distinct official languages, due to translation costs. I don't know what that will mean for Croatia's accession. — kwami (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Those sources will become plentiful by next year I reckon. I now want a copy of that giant ethnologue book, that would look impressive to visitors. Feel free to edit the sandbox, if that wasn't obvious. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I was at a book fair where they were selling the 15th ed. for US$20. They might still do that, if you just want it for your coffee table. — kwami (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There's this [1] which suggests that the European Greens tabled a motion like that but were rejected, dunno if something more detailed is around. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Because of some private obligations I will not be activ in next few days. I am also sysop on Croatia Wikipedia and bussy there because of that. For now: [2], [3] (".....with Croatian being treated as the 24th official language in the EU."), [4]. My problem is that my English should be better to be able write in the articles. --Flopy (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to be picky Kwami, but you should undo your change to the Croatian language article. It's not fair if the rest of us can't edit :( Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

My edit has nothing to do with any dispute in the article. It's due to an edit war over the map, where the uploader insists that "Bosnian" and "Bosniak" are separate languages, and reverts my corrections. Rather than edit war with him, I changed to the new file name. — kwami (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well, it is done as best as I can now. I was struggling to find a title, so feel free to suggest a better one. I tried best to explain both views, and my intent is to directly copy paste it into the article as its own level two section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ganga -> Ganges

I have been observed that you have changed Ganga -> Ganges in many articles. In some articles, Ganga (Ganges in Hinduism) is used as denoting the goddess of the river, where the word Ganga is the right word. Please check the context before mechanically replacing the term using AWB. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been redirecting Ganga to that article where I've noticed it. The goddess, the Ganga dynasties, various celebrities and films named Ganga, and even the Kenyan city of Ganga were all linked to the article on the river. The links should now be more precise, though I'm sure I missed some out of the hundreds that needed changing. — kwami (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ganges is the exonym of the river. The source in Chapekar uses the word Ganga, why are you changing it to Ganges. What is sp/rd, replaced: Ganga? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We use Ganges on WP as the English name, unless there's specific reason for Ganga. We hardly need to follow the choices of our sources, especially as they may contradict one another. — kwami (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The use of exonyms is discouraged. Wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth. The quoted matter should shoe fidelity to the source. What does the edit summary sp/rd, replaced: Ganga mean? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've asked twice at the naming guideline pages whether national or international names should be used on WP, and used Ganga/Ganges as an example. I was told that it wasn't a good example, because it was so obvious that it should be "Ganges" that there was no point in discussing it. Their reason was that both Ganga and Ganges are used within India, whereas only Ganges is used outside India, so on WP the term to use is "Ganges". If you want to use the provincial form, then the way to go is to first get Ganges moved to Ganga.

It's also not true that exonyms are dispreferred. We use lots: Germany, Greece, China, Japan, even India itself. — kwami (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that exonyms in general are fine when they're the common name in English, but is it really true that Ganges is the name in English of the goddess, as opposed to the river that embodies the goddess? Granted that it's a subtle distinction, but I have never heard of Ganges as the name of a goddess, only as the name of a river. Not that I'd ever heard of Ganga at all, or of the goddess (I knew that the river was considered sacred, but not a goddess), so obviously I'm no authority, but it strikes me as at least plausible that the name of the goddess would be different from the name of the river, even though they're the same thing (see Hesperus is Phosphorus). --Trovatore (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as I've said above, that the goddess should be Ganga, and I've corrected links to the Ganges when it was the goddess. Sometimes, however, "Ganges" is simply anthropomorphized, in which case I could see arguments for either. There are also situations where it's appropriate to use the local form, such as with etymologies of names which contain Ganga. — kwami (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I can only speak for the name India which is what Indians themselves call India, when referring to it in English, however the Indian spelling for the River Ganga is Ganga in English too. See this link [5], Times of India, Hindustan Times and others use the appellation Ganga, only BBC and Australians use the archaic Ganges, perhaps if you wish, I will put a disclaimer that Indian English spellings and endonyms are used in the said article. I have seen such disclaimers elsewhere. Using Ganges is like using Cawnpore for Kanpur! The Bangladeshis call their capital Dhaka, the British persist in using Dacca, same story for Canton and Guanzhou. It is similar here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tried asking how in general we should handle this, and have failed to get an answer. But Ganges is not "archaic", it's the normal word for the river. In India, both forms are used by the government. Outside of India, pretty much only "Ganges" is used. Everyone knows what the Ganges is, but most English speakers have never heard of "Ganga". If you polled people, I suspect that most would think you mean marijuana. — kwami (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have substantiated my arguments with an example. You are merely speculating. I have suggested that a disclaimer be put on the article. The name also carries links. A large proportion of English speakers are from the Indian sub-continent, they all know what Ganga means. How can River Ganga be confused with marijuana? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you ask people what "Ganga" means, they'll think you mean "marijuana". (e.g.)

My Webster's dictionary, for example, has a 100-page appendix of geographical names. "Ganga" is not listed. It's not even listed as an alternate form under "Ganges", which of course is listed. So it's a question of a local/national form which no-one else will recognize, vs. an international form which everyone will recognize. That's why on the guide talk pages they said it's no contest.

Using British etc. spellings is a different matter: everyone can read it even if they don't use it themselves. Using names that normal English speakers outside the country don't know, when there's a perfectly good name that they do know, violates WP:COMMONNAME. — kwami (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yogesh, sometimes the commonly known names change - Peking is now Beijing and most folk can relate Mumbai to Bombay. But the thing is, it's a retroactive step to introduce these into dictionaries and encyclopaedias; they don't prescribe new words, they list "what's out there in common use". Now it may be that in *India* people know what Ganga refers to but in terms of global English, I must concur with kwami. Without context, my first guess would have been weed (see Ganga (disambiguation)), with context, I might have guessed at Ganges but wouldn't have been sure. One day, when as many people abroad use Ganga for Ganges, same as they do Beijing, then fine, but not until then. And I suspect that might not happen, Mumbai and Beijing are cities that are permanently in the news. The Ganges/Ganga just doesn't crop up often enough for that to happen I feel. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And as an aside, it cuts both ways. If we were to expect people to abandon all historical place name variants, however inaccurate, I'm assuming all of India would stop calling Germany Germany and start calling it Deutschland? Some of these names are just part of the history of a people and their language. You probably call Alexander the Great something no Greek would ever understand... Akerbeltz (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no scope for ambiguity with internal links provided. The river's Indian name is not only Ganga, but also that is what it is called in English too in India and the subcontinent, hundereds of millions of English users. There is a clear understanding in Wikipedia that the subject should govern the style of spelling of the article. Chapekar brothers is an Indian subject and so uses Indian spellings including for proper nouns. I have provided proof that Indian publications like Times of India, Hindustan Times, the government, others use Ganga, for hundreds of millions of Indians Ganga leaves no scope for any ambiguity? Many times Britishers pronounced Gandhi Ghandi, should that spelling be used. There are many instances for that spelling too. [6] Germany is called Germany by the Germans in English, India is called India by Indians in English, the river is called Ganga by Indians in English. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

See this search result for river Ganga. I do not see any link to marijuana anywhere [7]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well of course, if you put "river" in it! What would you expect? See this search result for smoke ganga. I don't see a link to the Ganges anywhere.[8] Most of our articles didn't say "River Ganga", they just said "Ganga". But even "River Ganga" is inadequate: it's obviously a river, but people won't know which river.

Anyway, I'm not the one you need to convince, it's everyone else in the world outside India. Consensus is for "Ganges"; if you wish to change the consensus, you should bring it up at the main article, as various Indian editors have done many times before. — kwami (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many words in English that have the same spellings but different meanings; we understand the meaning by the context. In the article Chapekar was referring to a bath he took in the river Ganga, with the initial letter capitalised. No scope for any ambiguity. Please comment on Ghandi too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about 'Ghandi'. "Ganga" is not an English word outside India. If you want to change the WP consensus, then start a discussion. Even if you convince me, the article will stay at "Ganges" until you convince others to move it, and if the article is at Ganges, we should call it Ganges. — kwami (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

See the article Xuanzang, see the many Romanisations, when I went to school (1970s) we used the spelling Hiuen Tsiang, my daughter’s text book uses the spelling Yuan Chwang, would you go on editing all other variations? Each article has an equilibrium, the Ganges article has achieved its for the moment. The Chapekar brothers article uses the spelling Ganga, there is no ambiguity about what it refers too. Why do you have a problem with that. Ghandi is just an example how, names are difficult to pronounce, and so they are changed to what is comfortable to that language. Ganga is an Indian spelling for an Indian river, which is referred to in an Indian article. Why should it be objected to?

Because no-one outside India understands it! Why is that so difficult to understand? For the same reason we don't give the distance to the Moon in cubits. For the same reason we don't speak of the dihydrogen oxide of the Ganges.

You can repeat yourself all you want, but that's not likely to convince anyone. If you want a discussion, go to WP:MOS and start one. — kwami (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That is what links are for, to get around such problems. Please compare with the Xuanzang example. Even cars dont drive on the same side of the road everywhere on the earth, there are bound to be some fitting problems, that is why we have adapters, pages linking here and there, internal links, and the [[xxxx|yyyy]] facility available. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Xuanzang example is utterly irrelevant: there is no established name, and we use pinyin because WP convention is to use pinyin.

Let me try this again: if you want a discussion on using Indian-English names in Indian articles, go to the MOS and start a discussion on using Indian-English names in Indian articles. — kwami (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not we discuss it first here let me understand you, if pinyin is considered standard for Chinese articles, why similar conventions are not considered for India? There is a certain standard/ convention/ practice of Romanisation of Indian names by Indians. Why the double standards?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There are! We use "Ganges" instead of Ganga for the same reason we use "India" and "China" instead of Bharat and Zhongguo: it's English! Please, take this discussion somewhere else. You apparently will not understand, and I'm getting tired of hitting my head against a wall. — kwami (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't be upset. Please do not reply if you do not wish. But look at Beijing which is a pinyin spelling, apparently China is used instead of the pinyin spelling Zhongguo, but for Beijing the pinyin spelling is used, to there are exceptions to this rule. Your comparision Bharat and India is incorrect as this is about Romanisation and what spellings are used for sounds, more accurate would be Poona x Pune, Cawnpore x Kanpur, Jubblepore x Jabalpur, you don't use Jubblepore neither should you use Ganges at least in an Indian article, on an Indian subject. Don't bother to reply. Perhaps I would understand your viewpoint, perhaps you would mine. In the mean while will Ganga (Ganges) do?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's a reason to use Ganga, as when mentioning that the Ganga dynasty may be named after it or s.t. like that, then yes, fine. But otherwise we normally go by common English usage. Personally, I'd by fine with "Peking" too, but Beijing is now established English usage, not just in China, but everywhere. For example, in my dictionary, under "Peking" it says: See BEIJING. When that happens with Ganges and Ganga, then we'll use that too. Meanwhile, the international form of the name is "Ganges", and since we're an international encyclopedia, that's the form we should use. — kwami (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

See you on the (Ganges) Ganga talk pageYogesh Khandke (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please participate in the discussion on talk:Ganges, it could take a new turn.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sino-Tibetan

The issue is while there appears to be consensus that Tibetan, Burmese, Tangut, Newar etc. are related langauges the position of Sinitic is controversial. Matisoff says Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman are two branches of Sino-Tibetan. Van Driem rejects this and regards Sinitic as just another branch of Tibeto-Burman. Laurent Sagart, Guillaume Jacques and probably most people working in France agree in essence with van Driem, but prefer to call the family 'Sino-Tibetan' rather than Tibeto Burman. (The Chinese linguists for political reasons see Daic and Hmong-Mian as other branches along with Sinitic and TB in ST.) My objection is that the introductory summary should not give preference to any one of these views, and it was giving preference to Matisoff's. Tibetologist (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Sino-Tibetan" is historically just the French name of "Tibeto-Burman", so its use in French is not relevant to English naming. It was adopted into English specifically for a classification where Sinitic is a primary branch, with TB being restricted to a second branch of not-Sinitic. Van Driem, for example, uses TB as the name for the entire family exactly because he does not accept the ST theory of Sinitic as a primary branch. So, going at least by these sources, TB may include or not include Sinitic, depending on POV, but ST by definition includes TB as a primary division of it. The question then is not whether Sinitic is a primary branch of ST, but whether the ST theory is correct, rather like arguing whether Indo-Hittite or Niger-Kordofanian are correct rather than whether Hittite and Kordofanian are primary branches of those proposals. If a proposal is rejected, the solution IMO is to return to the name that predated the proposal: Indo-European, Niger-Congo, Tibeto-Burman. All the details of classification are handled at Tibeto-Burman for precisely this reason, with Sino-Tibetan covering that theory in particular. — kwami (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but French scholars use 'Sino-Tibetan' to refer to 'Tibeto-Burman' also when they write in English. This use of the word 'Sino-Tibetan' is just as much a part of the literature as the useage by Matisoff. I would be confortable with a wording such as "'Sino-Tibetan' predominantly refers a hypothesized language family of which Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman are primary members, but can secondarily be usedinterchangeably with 'Tibeto-Burman (q.v.)" or something like that. Tibetologist (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a shot. — kwami (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

The unsourced thing in your map is linguistic situation in Plav municipality. My map is made completely in accordance with data from listed sources, while your map does not provide a source that would claim that people in Plav are speakers of Bosnian. PANONIAN 11:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your map is improperly sourced because it claims that "Bosnian" and "Bosniak" are separate languages rather than alternate names allowed in the census. I'm at a loss how you could not understand that, but I won't waste my time with you any further. — kwami (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It is you who could not understand that census does not "allow alternate names", but list only languages which are considered different by the Statistical office. You repeat yourself over and over but you fail to provide a source that say that people in Plav are speakers of Bosnian. PANONIAN 11:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hindi

Are you sure that you aren't edit warring in turn? This doesn't appear to me to be a clear case of vandalism. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Who was accused of vandalism? I don't see what you're referring to.

The problem with that article is that "Hindi" has multiple meanings, and it would be hard to assign one of them primacy. There are already articles for the ausbausprache (Standard Hindi), the abstandsprache (Hindi-Urdu), and the dachsprache (Hindi languages), so promoting one of those topics as the subject of the Hindi article would merely turn it into a content fork and lead to its merger. At the least I think we should discuss its place among all the other articles before radically changing its content. — kwami (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock in Linguistics

Hi kwamikagami,

Is it maybe time to call WP: Duck on the obvious supriyya sock currently disrupting Linguistics? I'm not getting involved this time in the discussion, and on-going edit war because I have better things to do with my time, but I've been watching from the sidelines and think that the evidence is mounting from the content of this user's edits, the games the user is playing, and the style of editing (e.g. making an edit, being reverted and then accusing the reverter of not following a non-existent consensus) all reveal the pattern we've seen with Supriyya and all her socks. Maunus tried to do a check user but all the old socks were stale so they wouldn't do it. Nevertheless, I think maybe WP: Duck is in order. Comhreir (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to review to see if it's that obvious. But FS has been blocked for edit warring, and I'm willing to block 'em again if it continues. We could maybe try a 1RR limit on FS too. Let's see if 'e learns to cooperate after the block. — kwami (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I could be wrong, but my suspicions have been mounting for a while. Best Comhreir (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Mergings

Hi Kwami, I noticed you added a merge template back into Hyderabadi Urdu after I removed it. When I get bored I have a have a go at the Merge backlog. I have no interest one way or the other if they are merged and my knowledge on the topic is too limited to make an argument either way. However, I read through the discussion and there were four comments opposed to the merge and none supporting it. If you do think the articles should be merged (you seem pretty knowledgeable on languages) I was hoping you wouldn't mind putting a comment as to why under the discussion. That way if it stays there for three more years it will be easier to decide what to do for a lay person like myself. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't care that much myself. I didn't see your merge tag, and hadn't seen the comments on the talk page. I put it there because, once you remove the phrases (not what WP is generally about), there isn't much content to the article, and it could easily be covered at Dakhini. But I'll undo myself. — kwami (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Tribes and peoples

Hi just noticed your various Entiat (tribe) -> Entiat tribe and the like. The problem with this is the dual meaning of "tribe" in American English, with one meaning referring to the governments of various reservations. In the Canadian model, with one or two exceptions I can think of (Tlowitsis Tribe, which is a government, vs Tlowitsis which is teh actual people)., the normal "dab" is "people", as in Nicola people or Okanagan people, though in many cases the endonym is used (Secwepemc, Shishalh for the people, without "people", while the normative linguistic/English usage is generally used for the language (e.g. Squamish language). Anyway, there's quite a contrast between the Entiat and, for example, the Colvilles. "Colville tribe" would tend to refer to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and NB there was no historical "Colville people" in the singular sense; the Colville Reservation contains the remnants of various peoples, including the core Okanagan group; a Canadian example would be Cowichan peoples (vs Cowichan Tribes, which is a government). A further issue of concern is that there remain un-split articles where governments are covered on the same article as ethno history (e.g. Muckleshoot Tribe, I think). The prevalence of "tribe" in US English to mean band organizations tends against it being used for ethnographic peoples, like teh Entiat or other peoples who do not have tribal organizations (currently or in the past) or who are part of larger confederacies such as those at Colville and Grand Ronde....consistency in these matters has long been wanting, I just wanted to point out the discrepancies/issues.....i.e. of using "tribe" vs "people", an d also note that many sources might play loosey-goosey with "Nation", capitalized or otherwise (capitalized in Canada tends to mean a government, though poeple will still use it for e.g. the Nlaka'pamux Nation, but taht as a term formally excludes most of the Nlaka'pamux (Thompson) population because of its political overtones. One article title that for a long time has been needing resolution is Mohawk nation, small-n....Mohawk people and Mohawk (tribe) currently, I think, redirect there...NB "Mohawk Nation" is a government.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know the details of most of these, so I'm sure I'm failing to correct a lot of them. I'm attempting to remove the designation "tribe" (at least in the title, if not often in the text) from articles that are about ethnicities/nations rather than actually about tribes of ethnicities/nations. If I leave the designation "tribe" for an independent ethnic group, like the Entiat, it's an error.

I've been reading capitalized "Tribe" as a govt (it is in dozens of articles), and lc "tribe" as a sub-ethnic group, like the 12 tribes of Israel or the Germanic tribes.

Could you do me the favor of taking a look at my user contributions, and letting me know which I got wrong? A list of new/current location → desired location would be great. I just moved Mohawk people. — kwami (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are the articles I've moved (or in a few cases maybe just edited today):

Acquackanonk tribe

Ais people

Apalachicola people

Bannock people

Biloxi people

Bitterroot Salish tribe

Cahokia tribe

Catawba people

Cathlamet tribe

Chatot people

Chelan tribe

Cheraw people

Chetco people

Colville tribe

Coso people

Doeg tribe

Entiat tribe

Erie people

Eufaula people

Great Basin peoples

Hackensack tribe

Ibi tribe

Iowa people

Kato people

Kaw people

Kichai people

Mayaca people

Miami people

Mohawk people

Mono people

Natchitoches people

Navesink tribe

Nespelem tribe

Niantic people

Omaha people

Oneida people

Onondaga people

Oswegatchie people

Otoe people

Ouachita poeple

Palus tribe

Pend d'Oreilles tribe

Peoria tribe

Piscataway tribe

Raritan tribe

Roanoke tribe

Rumachenanck tribe

Sanpoil tribe

Schaghticoke tribe

Shakori people

Shasta people

Tamaroa tribe

Tappan tribe

Tula people

Tuscarora people

Ute people

Vermilion tribe

Waxhaw tribe

Yazoo tribe

Yuki people

Yurok people

Zia people

Here are the ones on my list I haven't moved yet (just adding a 'p' for 'people', '-' for 'keep', etc. would be enough - you don't need to spell it out)

Androscoggin tribe →

Cathlamet (tribe) →

Chesapeake (tribe) →

Chickahominy (tribe) →

Chicora tribe →

Clackamas (tribe) →

Congaree (tribe) →

Coos (tribe) →

Cowlitz (tribe) →

Duwamish (tribe) →

Esopus tribe →

History of the Duwamish tribe →

Klickitat (tribe) →

Monacan (tribe) →

Multnomah (tribe) →

Nisqually (tribe) →

Nooksack (tribe) →

Patuxet tribe →

Pee Dee (tribe) →

Pocomoke Indian Tribe →

Puyallup (tribe) →

Rappahannock Tribe →

Rogue River (tribe) →

Sahewamish (tribe) →

Sammamish (tribe) →

Santee tribe →

Shoalwater Bay Tribe →

Siletz (tribe) →

Skokomish (tribe) →

Snohomish (tribe) →

Snoqualmie (tribe) →

Spirit Lake Tribe →

Squaxin Island Tribe →

Stillaguamish (tribe) →

Swinomish (tribe) →

Tillamook (tribe) →

Timpanog tribe →

Umatilla (tribe) →

Umpqua (tribe) →

Walla Walla (tribe) →

Warm Springs (tribe) →

There are also a few "X tribe"s that I've skipped over w/o change that aren't on this list; I can post them as well if you like. These are all listed somewhere under Category:Native American tribes by state, so they don't address Canada etc., and maybe some US peoples that didn't get listed by state. I can easily expand the search if you like; if I have your judgement to go on, I could do it quickly. — kwami (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's another to consider. I recently created Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. I opted for that name because that is what they call themselves--apparently both the people and the government. This whole topic of how best to title pages like this is tricky. So please change this page's name as well if it makes sense to. Pfly (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd stay with what you did, because that's a proper name for the government, not the common name of a people. — kwami (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ack, just saw changes in my watchlist, e.g. Nisqually (tribe) to Nisqually tribe. I've been having web access/WIFI problems and swept up in other things even since last night, when I meant to reply to your note. Because of the legal use of the term in the US, and also some delicate political languages and connotations in Canada (as elsewhere), the preferred format for ethno-oriented articles would be Nisqually people, Walla Walla people etc. "Warm Springs tribe" if used would tend to mean the government of teh Warm Springs Reservation, for example; and "tribe" has complicated associations in CAnada, where dozens of "tribes" may make up a "people", with the latter often defined simply by a common language (and sometimes nopt much more, at least historically). In cases like Shoalwater Bay Tribe and Squaxin Island Tribe, those names stay the same because those are legally-chartered governments, defined as tribal governments, whereas the peoples who were moved there are best just termed "peoples". e.g. Sahewamish (tribe) should be Sawhewamish people not Sahewamish tribe. But please note in many cases there's mplicit redundancy - that "-mish" ending means "people". Similarly Kwakwaka'wakw does not need to be Kwakwaka'wakw people because Kwakwaka'wakw means "Speakers of Kwak'wala"...almost more properly it should be Kwakwaka'wakw peoples because they historically share a common language and culture but were very separate (and often hostile) as tribes ....but even "peoples" is redundant because the term also implies it. In some cases like Sto:lo, which really is the name of the Fraser River in Halkomelem, the term is used to mean the people in English, though the proper usage would be "Sto:lo people". I meant to get at annotating the above list, I have to go out for the afternoon and hope that my WIFI is working alter on; please hang on we'll go over them one-by-one.Skookum1 (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Favour

Could you unlock Template:Countries of Asia? I wish to edit it per the argument I put forward here on the 19th which has received no response, which per WP:SILENCE I'm going to assume is consensus. Unfortunately, it was fully locked for some random reason two years ago, so I can't change it. If there's something else I should do now and you can't unlock per some policy, then it'd be could if you could just direct me to that. Thanks. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Knocked down to 'semi'. — kwami (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

More political balkan complications

Apparently the Republic Srpska considers Bosnian to be a dialect of the Croatian language. Also, Serb politicians have been using "Croatisms" (word of the day there). Funfunfun Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and "linguists" saying there should be a law against it—those are the loonies we're dealing with. Read on for more. — kwami (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused, I thought that Srpska would want Bosnian to be a form of Serbian. Maybe they're trying to purify the "Serbian language"? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Purer = smaller, but then smaller = purer. Good enough for the Repubs in the US. (Besides, that makes more "thems" to scare people with. And Srpska is probably more concerned with entrenching its de facto borders than trying to claim additional territory, since even Serbia no longer backs them up.) — kwami (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED on the topics of WP:ARBMAC area that need notification about ARBMAC

Hi, Kwamikagami. Has it occured to you that you're involved in the topics that are covered by WP:ARBMAC?
E.g,, here [9] you've deleted {{citation needed}} on the article Serbo-Croatian. Was that difficult to insert the inline citation? You know, the page and the line that speaks about that? Kwamikagami, we need sources and citations, not honorable scouts word.
E.g., this change on article Croatian language is not the seeking consensus or compromise. In some parts, you've inserted wrong information (that the official language of Croatia is Serbo-Croatian). It never was.
Also you don't know the problem of Church Slavonic and its importance for the development of Slavic languages [10]. Read Brozović's work, there's explanation there. If you like Britannica, why don't you read it? Britannica speaks explicitly and solely about Croatian Church Slavonic.
Kwamikagami, have you ever seen how many times does your name appears here [11] with the words "(Reverted edits by (your opponent)...." "(Undid revision .... by (your opponent)". Kwamikagami, you're not right by default.
E.g., here. Your edit here [12] on the article South Slavic languages is the example of rude vandalism. You deleted the whole referenced sections. You deleted the line about Kajkavian Ikavians, you deleted the info about New and Old Shtokavian accentuation. Your version is full of nonexisting terms (e.g., you deleted "East" from "East Herzegovina" - so which one is that "Herzegovina dialect"?; e.g. you invented "ikavian subdialect of Štokavian"...). Where were your sources for those deletions and where were sources for your inventions (WP:OR)?
E.g. the article [13] Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. You have inserted your map [14] that's your personal POV. Serbian user (PANONIAN) gave you reference that proves you wrong. You gave objection "the second objection is falsification of census results because map is made to reflect census results.".
You've also been involved on the template {{South Slavic languages sidebar}} [15]. Bunch of reverts, unappropriate expressions in edit summaries [16], plus indefinite protection [17], false allegations of consensus [18] (since users disagreed on that, see history).
Further, you've heavily WP:INVOLVED yourself in the article Croatian grammar. You've protected the article on your version [19] indefinitely. You've been reverting the opponents' versions. See how many times your edits were [20] "reverted edits by (your opponent)", "undid revision by (your opponent). You've ignored the argumentation on the talkpage Talk:Croatian grammar.
For engaging in articles that fall under the ruling of WP:ARBMAC, user Knepferle posted following notification of WP:ARBMAC [21]. Only in your case, that diff would be somehow widened and it would sound like this:

• Please note that the article Croatian language, Serbo-Croatian language, Croatian grammar, South Slavic languages, Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, {{South Slavic languages sidebar}} and other articles relating to the Balkans fall under the ruling of WP:ARBMAC. Note in particular Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, which states

"Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision."

Repeated blanket reversions, repeatedly and knowingly restoring material with large amounts of poor English and grammatical errors, and repeated introduction of material rejected by consensus all fall below the expected standards of behaviour at this project.

Admin Courcelles suggested me to file WP:AE. I'm not calling for revolution, arbitration, request for this/that... I've just wanted that you get the proper information, just as it has been hte case with any other involved user on those topics. Bye, Kubura (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, do you have a point, or are you just trolling again? Sorry, I won't bite. — kwami (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There's one born every minute

Were you aware of this? Note under the detailed description: "Source: Wikipedia". It even includes "free updates". --Taivo (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah. They're in violation of copyright, aren't they? I love how the titles are obviously done by machine: there doesn't appear to be any human effort in them whatsoever. I've always wondered how many people actually buy those things. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Zulu

Hi. Now that you've moved Zulu to Zulu people and moved the disambiguation page to Zulu, please don't forget to WP:FIXDABLINKS. At a minimum, it would have been an excellent idea to have changed the link at the top of the disambiguation page so that it pointed to the article you moved. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I did. The minimum, at least. Sorry about the others.

BTW, a huge number of the links to Zulu are for the language, not the people, which is why the MOS advices the bare root being a dab page. — kwami (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

frr vs gv

I'm probably just not getting it - why is this robot forever changing [22] the ISO1 code for Manx Gaelic to the ISO2/3 code for North Frisian? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

They're separate changes. The Manx iw was redundant with gv:Gaelg. — kwami (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Linguistic legitimacy

Is this covered anywhere else in Wikipedia besides the article on famous phrase "a language is a dialect ..."? There are some more general sources, e.g. [23] Tijfo098 (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a specific article, but it is discussed at varieties of Chinese and varieties of Arabic, among other places. There's currently a rather bizarre dispute going on as to whether Cantonese really has its own writing system.

The 'fun' one that's going on right now is Serbo-Croatian, where Serbian and Croatian aren't even distinct dialects, yet the 'dialects' of Croatian are arguably distinct languages. — kwami (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Chinguacousy Secondary School

Hey thats nice of you to lock Chinguacousy Secondary School to protect it from vandalism but the information is out of date. I'd like to make note that Russell Peters attended Chinguacousy in grades 9 & 10. Also the current Principal is Karen Hobbins, not Jan Courtin. Sources: school website & attendance at the institution.Shamandalie27 (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Your choice: I can unprotect it, leaving it open to vandalism, or you can wait three days until your account is considered established, and edit it regardless of it being protected. — kwami (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright I didn't know about the 3 day thing. 174.93.123.246 (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

IPA-bg

Dear Kwamikagami, I do not think that your redirect IPA-bg => IPA-mk is appropriate, both in principle and as particular application (e.g in Tryavna Peak). Apcbg (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We were simply using IPA-mk for Bulgarian, and actually most Bulgarian pronunciations still use that template. It makes no difference to the reader, but if you want to make a dedicated IPA-bg template to do the same thing, knock yourself out. — kwami (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Apcbg (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Consonant templates

I caught your message at the help desk and was just having a look when I saw you'd fixed it. But notice that your templates have placed the Alveolar approximant article into Category:Consonant templates, so something must be wrong with the template definitions. I think the "category" call needs to be hidden inside <noinclude> ... </noinclude> - see Help:Noinclude -- John of Reading (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I got that mixed up with the opposite of 'onlyinclude'. Will fix. — kwami (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In case it becomes controversial later on, I approve of the prose templates you've recently made and incorporated into article space. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Shouldn't be a problem, I don't think. In some cases I'm adding text specific to a single article or not using a template at all; we can expand on that if some of the generalities aren't appropriate. (Please fix or let me know if I overlook something.) — kwami (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed our claim that nasals are 'central'. That may be an assumption to get them to fit into some binary model, but the statement is physically meaningless. Likewise, my /f/ and /v/ are lateral, not central, but they're often lumped in as 'central', so I removed the claim from labials as well. — kwami (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

{{IPAlink}} accepts unnamed 2nd parameter for "showsymbol="

All three templates now also take a 2nd unnamed parameter for "showsymbol=". I have documented it, without a preference, both inputs are accepted. Please drop a note when something strange appears. -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

re: Formatting IPA (Cape Verdean Creole)

Instead of going on in an edition war, I’ d rather discuss with you first.

You did remove the slashes, but it seems that it is an error in formatting. Another user has noticed that, and corrected it. I can understand the usage of the template, but what I don’t understand is why you are insistingly putting asterisks before the original words. Is it some rule defined here in Wikipedia?

Thanks

Ten Islands (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me that those were the original words, only a comparison with what the creole is not. Asterisks denote two things: reconstructions, and non-existent forms. You could argue that the forms I added the asterisks to are either. Also, slashes would maintain that the forms are phonemic in creole, and I didn't know if they were. — kwami (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer. That’s what I suspected: I didn’t make usage of the asterisk to show reconstructions in the English article, but it incidentally appears in the Portuguese one — the word *djuêdju is the most probable reconstruction for the words duêdju (South), zuêdj’ (Northeast) and juêi’ (Northwest). I don’t know if you are aware but most of the forms listed, if they do not exist in a variant the exist in another. From now on, I’ll be more careful, and if I can’t find any source reporting the existence of a certain form, I’ll put an asterisk before it. See you. Ten Islands (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best. My main concern, actually, was in templating the IPA so that it formats correctly in IE. The other edits were incidental, and I don't know the language to make intelligent decisions about it. — kwami (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Templates {{sibilant}} etc.

Hi. I'm looking at these and thinking they're prose templates, i.e., violations of WP:Template namespace. Your thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean the line "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." We have prose & content templates all over the place, like our consonant and vowel charts. AFAIK no-one pays much attention to that guideline, at least not in such a literal sense. (That template is transcluded in 9 articles, {{voiced}} in 63.) — kwami (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you check the related talk page, there is currently an ongoing discussion regarding a reword of that very line. We ought to chime in on the matter. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Chimed. — kwami (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Folk etymology

I am having some difficulty with an editor who does not seem to understand or accept that Folk etymology is a well defined term in historical linguistics. Can you recommend to what discussion board I should take this matter if it becomes necessary? I will watch this space, you can respond to me here. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, the editor involved has asserted that he regards Snopes as an ideal source for his notions, that unless I can find a reliable source that declares his conflations invalid I cannot reverse them, and he has even mistaken my attempt to clarify to him the academic nature of the concept Folk Etymology by translating the text of the German article for him as my providing a source, and has added that translation from the German article into the article itself with a challenge to me to provide the cite for the "reference".

I would like to get the input of some other editors who have some knowledge of linguistics, rather than trying to fight an edit war on my own. Can you recommend to me where I might ask for comments from editors with some knowledge of the subject? It would also help if I could get the article rated as a linguistics article. Can you provide any guidance on that? Thanks.μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You can try WP:Wikiproject Languages. I've just found a quote in the ELL2 however which appears to support his usage. — kwami (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is that sloppy and occasional usage by non-linguists doesn't justify treating the notion as on par with the linguistic concept. If necessary there should be separate articles - but he has not provided any sources sufficient to show even this. I would be happy to read the source you allude to. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Qoph

Hi kwami. This edit introduced an error in the lead: the IPAblink template doesn't recognize [kˀ]. I'm not sure how to fix it myself, so I thought I'd let you know. --JorisvS (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two 'spacing modifier' diacritics, U02E4 'small reversed glottal stop' kˤ and U02C1 'reversed glottal stop' kˁ. One is supported by WP, the other by Wiktionary. Let me check it out. (What a pain!) — kwami (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The 'small' version, U02E4 (though they look the same size to me) is an addition from the 1989 IPA,[24] so would seem to be the proper one. That's the one we use on WP, and which you get from the IPA edit window, and the code listed it the IPA Handbook. How it differs from the other one, and why anyone would want to different encodings, is beyond me. They were both added with Unicode 1.1, and Unicode acknowledges they may be confused.[25][26] — kwami (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

{{IPAsound}}

Hi. I plan to improve the template {{IPAsound}} and related stuff. To me, it is a template -- wiki-technical stuff. Do you have any ideas or itches I could take care of? (IPA POV allowed) -DePiep (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

None that I can think of off-hand. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

-) =smile by keyboard here/but the semicolon behaves bad. :-) -DePiep (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Greetings, K. You posted the following at my talkp-age: You have reached WP:3RR at Folk etymology. If you continue edit warring, you will be blocked. If you do not think you can get justice on the talk page, please pursue WP:RFC or other avenues of dispute resolution. — kwami (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Explain yourself. Itis you and Medeis who are edit warring (in his case canvassing as well) and this now constitutes harassment and hounding. Go through those ediuts and edit dates again. Andthen by all means take things up at WP:ANI. This conduct is really out of line. DavidOaks (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is just silly. Medeis asked for my opinion, and I gave it. He has the sources, you have junk, at least in what I looked at. And you are edit warring over that junk. — kwami (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning

You have reached WP:3RR at Charles Hapgood. Please stop edit warring and take it to Talk, or I will report you to WP:ANI. It is you who have violated WP:3RR and were aske dto go to discussion but instead you give me a warning and revert the edit. A discussion has been started-do not revert this edit again until a consensus has been reached.Thanos5150 (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll try to be more careful of your edit warring in the future, though I'm not quite sure how that works. — kwami (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Folk etymology

I've posted a note at WP:ANI. As you are engaged in the discussion, you may want to follow things there.DavidOaks (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN3. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:IPA-arz

Please, see Template talk:IPA-arz. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles Hapgood

I'd advise you not to edit this article today (of course you can use the talk page). I'll check the issue myself, but you are at 3RR I believe and I'm sure you don't want to go over that. I try never to go past 2. If you edit again today I wouldn't be surprised if you were blocked and given that Thanos has been blocked it would be reasonable if you were blocked. Please don't take offense at this, just try and make sure you don't even give the appearance of edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I wasn't planning on editing it again any time soon. — kwami (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits to article Tetragrammaton

Unfortunately, there was no distinct letter J in the ancient Roman alphabet ("J" was at best a non-distinctive swash glyph variant of "I"), but your edits imply that there was... AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. Silly me. That wasn't quite the fix I thought it was. — kwami (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Álava

User:Attilios unilaterally moved this page (see [27]), without debate or reference to the fact that's not the format for most provinces (also ignoring Gipuzkoa and Biscay in the same cat). I left a message on his page but he's not answering. Do you reckon you could move it back before grass grows on it? Akerbeltz (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. — kwami (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Akerbeltz (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Labouchere

Re this, are you sure? My experience with French-looking British noble names is they might not be pronounced as they are in French. For all we know, this might be La-BOO-sher or some other curious Britishism (e.g. "Beauchamp" - "Beecham" in British).Skookum1 (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure. As for my change, note that English does not have coda /ɛr./. As for the stress, I have no idea, and so left that part unchanged. — kwami (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll throw it by the UK Nobility WP/workgroup, someone there may know.Skookum1 (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sardinian

Procedural question I guess. There's a creeping Movanification of the etymology aspects which keep trying to make out that Basque is a substratum language for Sardinina. Chief culprit are users who think that Michel Morvan's web dictionary is a reliable source [28] (the usual comparison of surface form sh*** and ignoring of historical phonology... But I'm definitely fighting a loosing battle there; a quick look on wikis in other languages makes me really feel like there's someone close to Morvan who's trying to push his career by inserting as many links to his name/dictionary on Wikipedia as possible (see edits by User:BANTASAN such as [29] or [30]. I'm not asking you to sort this but I'm unsure of what to do as it's only marginally my area of expertise and doesn't seem to fall into any obvious problem category. Part of the problem is that fringe stuff like Morvan is so easy to come up with and then it take a long time for someone to bother taking it apart in a publication, ultimately making Wikipedia a platform for their junk. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's fringe, I'd take it up at WP:Fringe; otherwise the linguistics project and general RFC per RS's. But I'll keep an eye on it too. — kwami (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

IPA improvement at Tahash footnote #1

Thanks! I'm right now attempting an over-all polishing-up of the article Tahash (making notes first) and saw your recent IPA edit. I'm still so new to Wikipedia participating (about two weeks) that I didn't know about the template you used to such good effect. So thanks for pitching in there. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Added a couple more. There's also {{IPA-he}} specifically for Hebrew. — kwami (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Tumbulgum

Hi Kwamikagami. As a favour, could you please take a look at the IPA rendering of the pronunciation of Tumbulgum. A folk pronunciation can be found at [31]—"proun. tum-BULgim not tumble-gum". Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That looks good as far as I can tell, though I can't be sure what the respelling is supposed to mean. — kwami (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

• Revision as of 01:36, 15 November 2010
• Revision as of 05:53, 15 November 2010
• Revision as of 07:37, 15 November 2010

One more will be a violation of 3RR. I recommend against it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Lisa, you're engaged in vandalism, or the next thing to it. Reverting vandalism does not count toward 3RR. In any case, the entire passage was deleted as irrelevant, so there's nothing further to fight over. — kwami (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI re DavidOaks

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I am required to notify you that you were mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing_and_edit_warring_by_User:DavidOaks_at_Folk_etymology

μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am dismayed that no action is being taken at the ANI complaint. We now have a recruited editor arguing that there is academic bias against folkloristics just as might be expected given the targeted canvassing. It would seem highly inappropriate to recruit a dozen linguists. I am loath even to file any noticeboard requests. Can you suggest the proper thing to do to move the article discussion toward sources and away from rule by a recruited mob? And do you think perhaps my complaint against the canvasser was filed in the wrong place? μηδείς (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm an admin, but I don't actually do much with it, and am not terribly familiar with policy. Remember, though, it's not the quantity of the argument that matters, but the quality. A hundred people screaming, but without evidence, lose out to one who quietly submits RS's. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work. IMO, you don't need to respond to every argument, point for point, just hold out for evidence. So far, the evidence seems to be on your side.

There are probably better ways to go about this, but a couple possibilities: RFC on merging the old material with the current article, or RFC on moving the article; a rejection of those would mean de facto support of the status quo. IMO we don't need to get that formal, though, at least not yet.

I guess this all seems pretty mild to me compared to the nut cases on the Croatian articles, screaming that we're denying Croats their human rights by acknowledging that Croatian is an ethnically based standard of the Serbo-Croatian (abstand) language. There are even articles in Croatian newspapers about how evil Wikipedia is, and rallying of all sorts on WP-hr, with several of them being blocked for disruption. — kwami (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The original complex ANI against DavidOaks was archived without comment. I have reopened it here in regards only to his votestacking. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Upon refiling the complaint for canvassing one editor seemed to think I was accusing him of conspiring with DavidOaks and an admin assumed Oaks was notifying interested parties from all fields. They have reopened the complaint for comments here. An opinion on the nonsilliness of the issue there would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

IPA at Christian

Hi! I realized I should have written you a note; your recent AWB edit to fix the IPA in Christian seems to have removed the IPA pronounciation entirely. I'm guessing that was not intentional, so I undid the edit, but figured I should let you know. Thanks!

-- Joren (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that was intentional. Besides the word having multiple pronunciations, like /ˈkrɪʃtʃən/, and so requiring more space than that to do it justice, it's something that you can find in a dictionary. We only add pronunciations to words that the reader is unlikely to be able to find otherwise, or which are likely to cause confusion. See WP:DICT.

But thanks for letting me know--I can't track all the "fixes" (that was just the automatic edit summary), and a lot of people don't bother.

If you really think a transcription is warranted, I will try to fix it up a bit. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok then. I'm not really in favor of the IPA being there, but I didn't know your edit had been intentional. Usually when I see "fix" I'm thinking a broken template or something, not removal, so I thought maybe it was a AWB issue. In a sense, I guess it was; there's no way to make it say "removing IPA per WP:DICT" or something so others know it's intentional? Anyway, I'll restore your version then. Nevermind, looks like you got to it already.

-- Joren (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I could change the summary, but then I always forget to change it back, so I'd end up with a hundred IPA fixes summarized as 'removing IPA'. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

AWB bug

This edit [32] did not fix any IPA. However, it broke one of the reference templates by deleting a pair of closing braces. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

AWB's genfixes just remove dead link outside the citation. I guess is some custom script or editor's mistake. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. AWB makes general 'fixes' when I edit, and they aren't always actually fixes. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mel Tjeerdsma

Thanks for fixing the IPA on Mel Tjeerdsma. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. That is definitely a name that requires a pronunciation guide! — kwami (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Lemur names & pronunciations in Malagasy

I appreciate you adding the pronunciations of lemur names in Malagasy to the various lemur articles. I'm not very skilled at using IPA, so it's a huge help! However, we need to be careful about the use of some of the names. The biggest problem comes from the word maky. In Malagasy, maky has multiple meanings. Technically, it's the most commonly used name in the south and west for the Ring-tailed Lemur. Around Isalo, I know it's called hira. Unfortunately, maky is also used by some to refer to lemurs in general... probably due to the Ring-tailed Lemur being the national icon. However, official Malagasy (as taught in Tana) dictates that the proper word for lemur is gìdro. Some sources also list the word for lemur as babakoto... even rajako and ankomba. In the case of babakoto, that is also the name for the Indri, while gìdro also refers to some true lemurs. So, as you can see, the word for lemur depends not only on the dialect, but also on what tourist-drawing lemur comes to mind first.

For now, I'm going to remove the change to the Lemur article because it may require an paragraph of explanation to properly cover. (We also can't use Wiki to push one name over another.) Also, don't take offense if I shift things around a bit or do other clean-up with your edits. Best, – VisionHolder « talk » 22:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for any help you can give. I don't know Malagasy, and was hoping that someone like you would come along and fix up any errors. I'm also adding IPA to some of the cities of Madagascar, as well as a few other animals; just check my 'user contributions'. Even if you're not skilled at the IPA, you could check that I haven't dropped vowels inappropriately, left vowels in that I should have dropped, wrote [ə] when there's 2ary stress and it should be [a], or placed the stress on the wrong syllable. As long as those things are correct, we should be good.

For lemur, I followed WP-mg, but I wouldn't be surprised that's not accurate, esp. if there is no Malagasy word that corresponds to the English.

If you want to discuss any changes, please do it here, as I don't have many of the articles on my watch list. — kwami (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I will do my best to help with the IPA, per your request, but phonetics is very challenging for me. Fortunately, the pronunciations are pretty easy once you know the rules. What I would like to do is add a small, downloadable audio clip where I pronounce the various names... but I would want someone who knows Malagasy to verify before I upload them.

Unfortunately, WP-mg is a bit of a mess. When I went to Madagascar for 3 months, I was determined to learn the "proper" name for lemur (so that I could fix it), which resulted in interview after interview with Malagasy who couldn't agree. Some strongly insisted gìdro, while others shook their head and calmly stated that it was maky, though official Malagasy (Tana dialect) was babakoto. The answer, from what I've gathered, is that the Malagasy language as a single entity does not exist. The language is made up of many dialects, and you just have to adjust to the region your in or to the person with whom you are speaking. "Official Malagasy" is still taking shape. There's the Tana dialect, but there are also many concepts and objects that simply don't have words in Malagasy... so the people at the universities slowly create Malagasy words, sometimes using the French word or sometimes favoring their native dialect. (Sadly, work is slow since English and French are preferred languages.) In the case of lemurs, it's based on what they're familiar with seeing. Pondiky, for instance, is used to describe any kind of mouse lemur, regardless of the species, but only in a certain region. You simply can't differentiate the Gray-brown Mouse Lemur from the Gray Mouse Lemur in Malagasy in regions where they overlap. They're all pondiky. (Btw, the Gray Mouse Lemur articles has several names that could use IPA pronunciations, if you have time, though it's probably best to put it in the body, not the lead. It's in the Gray Mouse Lemur section.)

All of this talk about Malagasy names has convinced me that I need to write a short article about Malagasy lemur names. I can probably get it published in Lemur News. I've been wanting to discuss this issue in the articles, but there's nothing out there about it, and I didn't want to violate WP:Synth or WP:OR. Anyway, thanks again! – VisionHolder « talk » 23:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's very possible that Malagasy doesn't have a word for lemur, but rather different words for different lemurs, or groups of lemurs. Languages which evolve independently are highly unlikely to divide up species the same way, but if French is the prestige language and has a word 'lemur', then of course Malagasy "should" as well, thus the confusion. (In a language I work on, tortoises and flightless birds are grouped with mammals, and lizards with bugs--along the lines of "beasts" and "creepy-crawlies" rather than mammals, reptiles, and insects, which in any case derive from relatively modern taxonomy rather than European cultural traditions.)

If you could clarify some of the phonetic rules for me where I've made mistakes, I'd appreciate it. Devoicing of final vowels, for example: I've just discovered that in Sakalava final m, n, ŋ were dropped, whereas in Merina an a was added -- but specifically a voiceless [ḁ]. — kwami (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The pronunciation rules are easy enough to fit on two pages of text, but not easy enough to describe here. And honestly, it would be best if you checked your own work. (I think you are right on most of it, but just looking at IPA gives me a headache. This is why I prefer audio clips.) Since I see that you have an email option enabled on your account, I'm going to photocopy two pages from a Malagasy grammar guide and send them to you. You'll need to reply to my initial email before I'll be able to send them. I hope that will be helpful for you. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Great! I've also dropped a line for the native speaker who added the IPA to the phrases section of the language article. — kwami (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed one of your changes on the Indri article, and I'm not sure if I agree. You changed it to: [ˈiɳɖʐʲ]. Instead of "ʐ", shouldn't it be "[ r ]" (Alveolar trill)? But, again, this is why I'm not much help with IPA. Maybe you're right... – VisionHolder « talk » 01:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've looked all over for a good description of what <tr, dr, ndr> actually sound like, and can't find anything. But there are other Austronesian languages with claims of similar sounds, such as Fijian, and in such cases they are very rarely trilled--perhaps just in careful speech. The native speaker writing in our language article transcribes them all without a trill, so I've been following his lead. But that's an issue we can deal with once the key is set up. Once all the articles are linked, if we decide to change our conventions, it's easy enough to go through them all with AWB. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. You're the expert in this area, not I. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

re : Malagasy pronunciations

Hello Kwamikagami,

Most of your IPA transcription were good, but you made many errors in accentuation and in palatalization of consonants, you dropped when you shouldn't, but you made some errors in transcripting names and consonants, for example, you forgot to put deformations (palatal, labial, voiceless a) on some articles ([33], [34]) and you added unessential vowels (in Tsiroanomandidy) and/or inexistent consonant (as ʃ which don't exist at all (maybe you have confused this with the palatalized /s^j/) or tʃ where th nearest phoneme is tr (Malagasy pronunciation: [ʈʂ])). Now, most of them have been fixed by me.

I'm also using a different sign when noting voiceless a. According to you, the voiceless a is ə̥ but in the article about malagasy language, I have noted them /^a/ because the voiceless a is between the "open schwa" (ɐ) and the "real schwa", but it is voiceless and its pronunciations can change from one region to another (lightly, however) ; I followed your standards because I am not a linguist and I don't know if you are a linguist.

Best regards from France.

--Jagwar - (( talk )) 14:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Murray, Utah

I've noticed that you have changed the pronunciation on the Murray, Utah article twice. I just wanted to let you know that Utah English pronounces Murray with the NURSE vowel, not the STRUT vowel. Ntsimp (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ntsimp is correct. --Taivo (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's irrelevant. We are not specifying a local pronunciation, which in any case is predictable. — kwami (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If we're dealing with a locale that is commonly known, such as New Orleans or Chicago, there is a point to a more "common" pronunciation, but when we're dealing with locales that are not known beyond an hour's drive away, then the local pronunciation should take precedence over a pronunciation imposed by someone from outside the area. Compare the local pronunciations of Hooper, Utah and Mantua, Utah. A "standard" pronunciation would be unrecognizable to a local. Compare this to the commonsense way that we treat the Ukrainian versus Russian names in Ukraine. The two cities that are encountered with any frequency in English are Kyiv and Odesa. With these cities, the most common English spellings are the Russian ones--Kiev and Odessa--so that's what we use in Wikipedia. All the other cities, that are rarely encountered in English, are respelled into Ukrainian where there is a difference--Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, etc. The same practice should be followed for pronunciations. --Taivo (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That would require changing how English pronunciations are given across the encyclopedia, and therefore some consensus on the matter. The existing convention is pretty clear: we give a transcription to guide the reader in pronouncing the name. If we're doing something else, such as indicating a specific dialect that the reader is not likely to use, then we need to inform the reader of that. Anyway, your Mantua and Hooper examples are irrelevant: those are in our general English transcription, and you don't need to have the local accent to make sense of them. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the pronunciation should indicate the pronunciation as used by those who live there. It's completely irrelevant how someone in New York City or London or Los Angeles or Chicago or Denver pronounces it. We are here to give accurate information, and if you are putting in false information, that's damaging the encyclopedia. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You should bring that up and get a consensus for change at the WP:MOS. Meanwhile, we continue with the existing consensus, which is to tell our readers how to pronounce the words and names they are looking up.

There's no problem with adding local dialect/accent, but we need to be clear that it's local dialect/accent, just as with Japanese place names we need to be clear whether the pronunciation we're giving is the Japanese or English one. The default, unless otherwise specified, is the general/diaphonemic English we have on our IPA key. — kwami (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to change the MOS as it doesn't indicate that false information should be placed into articles. Sure, please the general pronunciation to begin with, but if someone who knows how it is actually pronounced comes along, and they can prove it, then we go with that. We are here to provide correct information, and insisting on doing otherwise (especially doing it while trying to hide behind the MOS, and trying to use it to keep blatantly and provably false information in an article) is not productive. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no "false information" except what you've written here. You might want to read the top of WP:IPA for English so that you know what you're talking about before you start making accusations of bad faith. — kwami (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The pronunciation of Murray, Utah that is being placed there is a "transcription to guide the reader in pronouncing the name" and is in accordance with the transcriptions standards on IPA for English--there are no unusual symbols being employed whatsoever. The truth is that Murray, Utah is not pronounced the same as Murray River, Australia or any other Murrays, just as Mantua, Utah isn't pronounced the same as Mantua, Italy. There aren't any non-standard sounds or symbols being employed, so the function "to guide the reader in pronouncing the name" is exactly being followed in this case. --Taivo (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that people from Murray, Utah, would pronounce the Murray River differently than their own town? The difference is simply due to a phonological merger, not an essential difference like Mantua, Utah, and Mantua, Italy. Presenting them as having different pronunciations when they're the same would be the misinformation.

The point of the IPA transcriptions is to give everyone a guide to the pronunciation, not just those who happen to speak the same dialect as the inhabitants of the town. For the latter, we need to inform the reader that the pronunciation may not work in their dialect. — kwami (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The question will always be in the cases of locales that are not widely known and not subject to the dictates of common English usage, "Whose pronunciation is more important?"--that of the mythical speaker of the mythical non-dialectal English, or that of the locals. --Taivo (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Give whichever one you like. Just tell the reader. Unless otherwise stated, pronunciations are generic English. What's so difficult with supplying the reader with enough info to understand the transcription? How is the reader supposed to guess whether you've decided that the local or generic pronunciation is more important in any particular case? Perhaps we can add a list of IPA editors and their criteria to pop up with the mouse-over, and add the editor's signature to the transcription, so the reader can see that, for IPA by Taivo, towns with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants are transcribed in local dialect. — kwami (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea ;) I want my popup in the shape of a beehive, 'cuz I'm from Utah. --Taivo (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

IPA for Malagasy

Great work on the IPA-mg and WP:IPA for Malagasy. You turned that around so quickly, it's wonderful. I'd love to give you a barnstar - I've heard people talk about that but I don't actually know how to do it. Let me see if I can figure it out! - Lemurbaby (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Presented for your creation of the Malagasy IPA pages and your tireless transcription efforts. Thank you! Lemurbaby (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

I'm sure you've noticed it, but something got screwed up with your talk page's formatting a couple of sections ago. I looked at the coding around the point where it happened, but couldn't see anything. But I'm not an expert in wikicodes. --Taivo (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I got it. Ucucha 13:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It was the outdent template. — kwami (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. You accidentally created a table. Ucucha 13:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Edit conflict: I changed the template and that seemed to solve the problem. — kwami (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. It was just mildly annoying :) --Taivo (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy vowel

What's going on here? Are we now transcribing the happY vowel with ɪ instead of i? —Angr (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really. We never completely converted to ‹i›, but meanwhile have ‹i› for both the happy vowel and for /iː/. I've been converting many of these to ‹iː›, but have found that I've had to look up some of the names more than once, and so changed some of the less obvious happy vowels to ‹ɪ›. I was planning on bringing that up on the key's talk page: How practical is it to use ‹i› for the happy vowel, if it's not a reliable indicator of that vowel? I originally opposed using ‹ɪ›, but that's only because it's unfamiliar to me, and now wish I hadn't. Unless someone who makes the distinction is willing to police those thousands of articles, I think the symbol is going to become meaningless. — kwami (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixing dab links

You've been asked before, several times, politely, to remember to WP:FIXDABLINKS when you create a new disambiguation page or redirect an article title to an existing disambiguation page. Within the past 24 hours, you've done it again with Quechua and Aymara. I'm assuming good faith, and I'm assuming that these moves were justified. However, each of them left hundreds of incorrect links behind. You did not even check for use of these links in templates, or in redirects such as Aymara ethnic group where the need to fix the links was most obvious. If you are going to make changes to Wikipedia, you should at least make sure that you are not making the encyclopedia less accurate and less useful. Before your changes, all the links to Quechua and Aymara at least took readers to a relevant article; now they do not. Please refrain from creating big messes like this and leaving them for others to clean up. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for assuming good faith. That apparently required some effort.

Don't lecture others when you don't know what you're talking about yourself. True, I haven't yet got to Aymara, but I have redirected about a hundred links to Quechua, including all double redirects and all templates. It's also not true that the previous situation was better: hundreds of links took the reader to the wrong page, whereas now they at least take them to a dab, which is a step in the right direction.

Next time you "politely" lecture someone, you might try to actually be polite. It will get you further. Since you're rude and I'm tired, you can clean up the Aymara links yourself. — kwami (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. I looked at your contributions and, as you say, you have indeed fixed a lot of Quechua links. I should have done this before posting the above message. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Folk etymology (folklore)

You can delete thge talk page as well, I have copied its contents to folk etymology.μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi 2

You have been very decent with me in that you did not put up administrator airs , inspite of the long ping-pong battle we had. I do not want to jump to conclusions. Please do not take it otherwise, but what is this[35]]? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just what it looks like. He had made comments months ago that were relevant to the debate we're having now. — kwami (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It was before I brought the issue up at Article titles[36], any way I have been reading this[37], you state BombayxMumbai isn't about spellings, they have different etymologies. Bombay - Portuguese is but one of the stories, may be Mumbai is derived from Portuguese Bombai and then Mumbadevi named after Mumbai. We need to look at old records, 17 th century to know the truth. Ganga we will discuss on Gang a/es talk page.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That may be true. Regardless, however, they're two different names, or at least two different forms, not different spellings of the same name. Like I said, Ganges and Ganga are likewise two different forms. If they were just different spellings, then they would have nothing to do with speech, but their spoken forms are different too. When you read an article aloud, it makes no difference whether 'honor' is spelled ‹honour› or ‹honor›. However, it does make a difference whether the river is called 'Ganges' or 'Ganga', because they are pronounced differently. — kwami (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

For the same thing it was pointed that I was canvassing, it is clear I contactd the for move side, selectively and I understand it is votestacking, why isn't it in this case? I am not accusing, I want to know? As I said Gang a/es will be discussed on its talk page, one cannot have too many threads running. Am I allowed to change Ganges to Ganga in the Chapekar brothers article? I want to get on with wikilife. Though I learnt a lot in the past few days. Getting back to your honour/ honor example, which for a change I understand clearly. But here one is referring to Romanisation of non-native sounds, and not simplification of spellings of English words. You are much better at this than I am, I suppose you would understand. The English native hears a sound for example the Indian surname More, they hear the sound which is like mo - ray, and wonder how they would Romanise it, perhaps Moray, but in India it is Romanised as More, though I have written spelllngs/ Romanisation, with the pinyin analogy it should be clear that I am talking about Romanisation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would count as canvassing, since he was already involved in the dispute, and in the guideline that dealt with it.

• That is votestacking, calling those of know views to the party. Nevermind! It shows 2000 edits or 200000, all of us are human.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't just different romanization of the same sounds, but involves different sounds, like Bombay vs. Mumbai. One is the Greek form, the other the Hindi. They're two different words, like Bangla vs. Bengali, or Hindi vs. Hindustani, or Nepali vs. Newari. A difference in romanisation would be Ganga vs. Gaṅgā.

Come to think of it, we don't really use pinyin for China either: we tend to drop the tone marks. — kwami (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do we use tone marks in English?!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question about Chapekar?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

So? What about it? — kwami (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

spurious?

What do you want to say with spurious IPA ? You also know Middle Chinese#Reconstructed phonology. You mustn't use the word such as spurious. Maybe you prefer Bernhard Karlgren to Wan Li. Anyway it is not important for me which system we prefer. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

'Spurious' referred to non-IPA being passed off as IPA, not to my opinion of the validity of the reconstruction. I suspect, however, that I changed the edit summary for a prior article and forgot to change it back when I edited this one, a problem I have with AWB. — kwami (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Samoan language

Hi Kwamikagami. I have been working on Samoan language to try and clean it up after a plea for help from User:Teinesavaii. I am stuck on the Grammar section (haven't even started looking at Phonology and the rest). The problem is that the material has been taken from a 1890s grammar which doesn't make much sense at all. It had a lot of case stuff (a la Latin/Greek) which I have tried to reduce. Any chance you could take a look and give us some advice? Kahuroa (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Anything that old for a Polynesian language is going to be detrimental. The case roles are completely unlike those of European languages, and people didn't understand that back then. I wouldn't trust anything older than maybe 1990, and even then I'd be cautious. I don't have time right now, and I don't know anything about Samoan, but I'll see what I can do when I get some time. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Indian English

Rather than go round and round on the Ganges/Ganga issue, your expert skills are probably better spent on improving the IndE article itself, which is in a rather poor state right now. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not my area of interest, but thanks. And I don't plan on going around and around with the Ganges: the consensus is pretty clear that it should stay where it is, with only a walled-garden excepting. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language

Just a heads up of where the influx of Croatian editors came from and their mentality: [38] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know I was Serbian. I'll have to ask my mother about that one: I don't think my father will be pleased! — kwami (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

WP: Edit War re: Roentgenium

I take issue with being the only protagonist being warned for engaging in an Edit War in regards to Roentgenium. Perhaps you are just warning me because you disagree with me?

I have attempted to reach a compromise position, and that is represented in the history for the page with my good faith edits trying to take into account the other side's objections. The other side refuses to engage in the meat of the discussion as to whether the edit that I (and another) have attempted to put forward.

Instead of swooping in on talk pages of protagonists with whom you (apparently?) disagree, why don't you contribute to the discussion?

Danjel (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So, your first assumption in a dispute is to assume bad faith? No wonder you're not effective as an editor. As I suggested, read WP:BOLD so you have some idea how things work around here. — kwami (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Acting against my good faith is not bad faith. I assume that the other side is approaching this from a different philosophical position (ie, deletionism) to mine. I shouldn't have to explain this.

I don't need to be told how things work around here. I've been here for a while. As for WP:Bold, read it, understood it, hence the basis of the edits I put forward. As for understanding how things work around here, have you read: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and Wikipedia:Civility?

If you're going to participate in discussion (and I do want you to participate), then be reasonable. If you can't be reasonable, in the face of my repeated attempts to invite you to engage in discussion... - Danjel (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You're the one violating the user guidelines. It doesn't seem that you understand BOLD, NPA, or civility: pointing out that you're in the wrong, or that you'll get blocked if you continue inappropriate behaviour, isn't uncivil, much less a personal attack. I don't have any particular interest or knowledge in this topic, so I won't be participating in the discussion. I didn't warn you because I disagree with you, but because your behaviour is inappropriate, and I will enforce the guidelines. — kwami (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In your response to me: "No wonder you're not effective as an editor", "...so you have some idea..." and your "so..." rewording of my first response to you is inappropriate, uncivil, a personal attack, etc. - Danjel (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

But when you disrupt the encyclopedia and other editors revert you, you *aren't* effective as an editor! Don't you get it? This is a cooperative enterprise. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. When your edits are reasonably challenged, work it out on the talk page. Period. — kwami (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Disrupt" in this context is extraordinarily subjective.

"Cooperative enterprise", exactly. Which is why, as I said in my first response to you, I tried to take into account the other side's perspective.

It *WAS* taken to talk pages, which you would have seen if you had looked into the issue at all instead of just shooting from the hip. I also stated this above.

Hello, Kwamikagami. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding uncivility and unproductiveness in this discussion. The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. --Danjel (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read our basic guidelines again. You take it to the talk page and resolve it. You don't take it to the talk page as an excuse to continue edit warring. — kwami (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you even seen the talk pages concerned?

User_talk:Materialscientist

User_talk:Danjel#Re:Roentgenium

Talk:Roentgenium#New_discovery_of_natural_Rg_by_Marinov

--Danjel (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The one for the article, yes. You work out consensus there first, then put it back in the article. — kwami (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus between two people? We were talking about it on our talk pages because we were the two that were involved (not counting the other guy he also reverted).

He said this:

"See WP:RS and this post. There were dozens such "discoveries" in the field of new elements. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)"

Which was demonstrably not the point of my post. My post stated that claims had been made, not that the claims were true.

Further, arXiv is a reliable source. You seem to be somewhat involved in Linguistics, right? Would you throw out any edits based on field-related news being covered on Language Log?

So I pointed out his misreading on his talk page, edited to reflect his skepticism about the author of the work and reentered the work. My post to his talk page:

You're being a bit overprotective of the Roentgenium article. arXiv is a valid source for reporting of news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjel (talk • contribs) 03:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my class arrived as I was editting up your page. Should have been more detailed (and should have signed!).

The validity or non-validity of the claim isn't at issue. My edit stated that the claim has been made, and quoted a reliable source (arXiv /is/ a reliable source for science news).

I've edited the article again to reflect the previous false claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjel (talk • contribs) 03:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

He shifted the goalposts to notability and reverted again, even though he had conceded the notability in his post to my page. I reinstated the edit.

So... -Danjel (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks as though you guys have come to an agreement. It could well be a significant discovery; that wasn't my problem with it. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have (no thanks to you). Most of those talk posts between Materialscientist and I occured /before/ your jumping into the situation. So, you "warned" me for edit warring on the basis of three posts, where I was talking to the other side, trying to incorporate their views and trying to move the discussion forward.

In other words, you were shooting from the hip without properly taking into account what was happening. Your influence on the situation, through your personal attacks and incivility was extremely negative. You're in the wrong. -Danjel (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

*Sigh* Whatever. As long as you aren't edit warring any more, I don't really care. — kwami (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Cape Verdean Creole

Sorry, I haven’t understood[39]: what exactly needs clarification? Thanks. Ten Islands (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

‹ƞ› is not an IPA character. I have no idea what "a simple nasality" is supposed to mean, and I doubt your other readers will either. Can you either convert to IPA, or explain what it means here or on the talk page, and I can convert? — kwami (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The engma was used in various Native American systems to indicate nasality on a nearby segment in "normal" orthographies; for example uƞ in Lakhota was/is used to indicate /ũ/. I think that's what he means. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

But it's a stand-alone segment. What would [ ̃ sta] mean? It looks like it's supposed to be a homorganic nasal, but I wouldn't know how to interpret {{IPA[ƞ ɐ̃ˈdɐ]}} in that case. — kwami (talk)

Nonconstructive edits on Semitic articles

Although I have talked to you before, you continue messing up articles containing Semitic transcription. Semitic is transcribed in various ways. I know you only know one system and you think everybody uses it, but this is not true. The way you're trying to force your rather limited knowledge in Semitic linguistics on every article is childish. STOP IT.--HD86 (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember ever seeing you before. You might want to explain what you're talking about. If you wish to clean up crappy articles yourself, then do it. If I make mistakes, then clean them up, or point them out and I'll clean them up myself. Meanwhile, stop whining. — kwami (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You're mixing IPA and romanization. If you want to use a romanization system other than the one used in most Arabic articles on WP, I won't argue about it. But bastardized systems are unhelpful: Pick one. — kwami (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I were you, I could have eaisily deduced that someone who wrote a complete aticle on something knows about the subject better than me the random passer by with little or no background. It is BAD that you don't even remember what I told you last time. If you ignore what I am telling you, then I think there is no point of arguing anymore and we must get someone else to sovle this issue. If you can't even recollect the simple things I'm telling you, then you are obviously not willing to solve matters by discussion. This is also not the first time you override my rv and try to force your edit on me. You have a clear tendency to edit warring. You MUST understand what others are telling you. You CANNOT force anything on them.--HD86 (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Those criticism all apply in both directions HD86.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The transcription systems used in the articles I wrote are not "bastards." They are quite common transcription systems. They look bastards ONLY to YOU because you haven't seen them before. Try to remember well this time.--HD86 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

HD86 you need to show that the combined use of symbols from romanized transcription and IPA is justified. Where is this transcription system used? ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this is not a "combined use of symbols from romanized transcription and IPA." Second, before arguing one should read first about the subject. Here's, I googled a reference for you:

http://www.lingfil.uu.se/afro/semitiska/forskarutbildning/transcription-of-arabicEN.pdf

See page 7 where it says:

In the table below the alternatives “Ling” and “Lit” refer to the practice in academic studies of linguistics and literary history respectively,

This is not the first time I discuss this subject, but the gentleman does not even remember talking to me. This is a problem.--HD86 (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The source states that in linguistic description one can use either the IPA symbol or the ʾ. It doesn't say that one has preference over the other. I think Kwami is justified in preferring a transcription that doesn't require insertion {{IPA|ʔ}} into words. You will need to somehow justify that using ʔ is preferable to using ʾ. Using sources is the right way to do it - but this particular source doesn't support that argument.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please concentrate. This statement by you is WRONG:

The source states that in linguistic description one can use either the IPA symbol or the ʾ.

Where did you see that in the source? The source never says anything about IPA. Try to read carefully. As for the rest of your talk, I don't care what your personal opinions are. You can keep them for yourself. The symobles I used in the srticle are quite commonly used by specialists and they are very suitable. I need a worthy opinion that says otherwise to reconsider them.--HD86 (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

ʔ is an IPA symbol - that is the reason you need to use the {{IPA|}} - template for it to show. The "ling" column shows that both symbols can be used. You are the one who is stating personal opinion and trying to pass it as fact. Please prove by using sources that you transcription scheme is the most common. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

HD86, I warn you to keep civil here. You have crossed the line several times into incivility in this thread. One more example of incivility and I will report you. Discuss this civilly or do not discuss it at all. --Taivo (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Maunus is correct that the link HD86 provided says:

"In the table above two signs separated by comma (e.g. “ǧ, j”) constitute two optional variants. Choose one of them, and then use it [consistently] throughout a document." (pg. 10, top)

It clearly says that one can use either of the symbols as long as one does it consistently. Thus, Kwami's changes are not at all out of line. --Taivo (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a formatting issue as much as anything. Two problems: (1) the letters are formatted as IPA when this is not an IPA transcription; (2) different letters are formatted differently within the same word, resulting in a screwy screen display unless the browser is set to override hard formatting.

I made this edit as part of a clean-up of IPA transcriptions. One of the general changes I'm making is to expand the IPA template over the entire transcription, rather than leaving it restricted to specific letters, which results in a more consistent and legible display. The other is getting rid of non-IPA symbols within IPA formatting, either by converting them to IPA, or by changing the formatting to something more appropriate, such as {{unicode}}.

Apart from new transcriptions added in the meantime, of the 28,000 articles with IPA transclusions, there are only 80 left with non-IPA letters formatted as if they were IPA. This was one of them. I don't particularly care which romanization convention is used, or whether it's IPA, just not romanization being passed off as IPA. — kwami (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

IPA for Thicke

Hi. Why do you keep adding a stress indicator (') to "Thicke". It is superfluous and not to be used, since the name has only one syllable. Aikclaes (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it's stressed. Some one-syllable words in English are stressed, and some aren't. Esp. in names, you get screwy results if you forget the stress: It isn't ROB-inthik, it's ROB-in THIK. (If someone were to add IPA for the first name, they probably wouldn't think to add stress to the last name.) — kwami (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, since only his surname is in IPA, and it is one syllable, a stress indicator is incorrect. If you want to indicate the stress for his whole name, then his whole name has to be in IPA. But this isn't a good idea, since it is only his last name which might be mispronounced. I have separated his nome de plume now, so the IPA is no longer incorrect. Aikclaes (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

How is it incorrect? His name is phonemically stressed. Therefore a complete phonemic transcription will indicate stress. — kwami (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to show the stress of the phonemes of his full name, feel free to add IPA for his full name (although this is unnecessary, as I have explained). Having stress indicated for a single phoneme is _not correct_ IPA practice, so why do you keep wanting to enforce a rule that no-one except you understands? Please learn basic IPA and stop vandalising this article or I will report it. Aikclaes (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, when a full name is read in English, stress always falls on the surname - yet another reason why your own IPA stress rule is not needed. Aikclaes (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly why it is needed: if we write it as unstressed, that would mean stress should not fall on the surname. 20:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that. Please learn elementary IPA. I am reporting you now. Aikclaes (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would ask the same of you. You've made enough intelligent contributions with the IPA that I would expect you to understand basic concepts such as "phonemic". There is no symbol for /unstressed/; instead, we use the lack of a symbol for /stressed/. And "vandalism"? Perhaps you could use a dictionary to figure out what the word means. — kwami (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me for the using the word vandalism for your actions. I take it back. However, I don't understand what you're trying to say in your third sentence. Aikclaes (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgiven.

The only way to know that a syllable is unstressed (unless it happens to have a reduced vowel) is because it lacks a mark for stress. Therefore if we omit stress marks from stressed syllables, there's no way to know from the transcription whether or not they're stressed.

Granted, many dictionaries don't bother with stress marks for monosyllables, taking them as understood. For many English speakers this is good enough, as long as we're dealing with names originating in familiar languages like French or Italian. However, not all of our readers are native English speakers, many are not familiar with other European languages, and not all names in Anglophone countries originate from familiar European languages.

Take Tom de la Rue, for example. If you weren't familiar with the conventions for pronouncing French names in English, what would you make of */tɒm dɛ lə ruː/? The la obviously can't be stressed, because of the schwa, but what about the rest? And might there be variation between de la Rues who stress the de instead of the the Rue, or maybe stress both? The reader has no way to tell, and thus the transcription is incomplete. (I'm not sure I know: he was British, as is De La Rue Inc, and the Brits have different stress assignment for French names than we Yanks: For all I know, it's /ˈdɛ lə ruː/ rather than /dɛ lə ˈruː/.)

In the case of Thicke, you may find it obvious. But it isn't incorrect to be complete, and it may help readers with a tenuous grasp of English stress assignment. I've run across readers who believe that monosyllabic English words are unstressed, and their "proof" is that their dictionary gives them no stress mark! Better IMO to be complete (this is, after all, supposed to be a phonemic transcription) and mark stress wherever it occurs. — kwami (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User talk:Kwamikagami

FYI that the above was filed. I rejected it because it is clearly unsuitable for formal mediation, but be aware that the request was filed, and please note also my comments in the "Decision of the Mediation Committee" section. Regards, AGK 00:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Central Atlas Tamazight

Please make sure to leave a GA quality summary of the main article in situ in the phonology section. Also why do you consider that to be a content fork?·Maunus·ƛ· 22:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Same info, verbatim, in the two articles.

I don't understand what you're asking for GA. — kwami (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You are taking an entire section out of a GA article - leaving only a link to the phonology article. If somebody comes afterwards and puts on a GA review the article will fail on that account. There should of course be a summary of the phonology of the language in the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am reverting your removal of the phonology from the main article - if the spinnout article only contains the same material that is in the main article the right thing is to merge from the spinnout to the mother article (i.e. delete the spinnout) - not remove the section in the main article leaving it without any of the important material on phonology.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. — kwami (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

IPAslink on Sesotho orthography

Hi, Kwami.

Regarding your recent changes. Although they're very neat and elegant (a good thing), the IPAslink template has broken half of the links, in that they now go to the generic Aspiration article instead of the perfectly valid articles for the actual sounds (the only sound without its own article being the aspirated velar affricate).

Is this Eurocentric myopia a known soon-to-be-fixed limitation of IPAslink? Because otherwise I'll have to revert your well-intentioned edits.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 05:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, my bad. any C's which have their own articles should be in the IPAlink templates. We don't have separate articles for aspirated consonants, though, so the default is to direct the reader to the article on aspiration. (In most language articles, there would be a tenuis phoneme that directs the reader to that article.) Easy enough to fix, though: just add in the unaspirated homologue as a 1st parameter. — kwami (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Proof (truth)

HI Kwamigakami. In the article on Proof (truth) I noticed your judgment of "Even in mathematics there is no fixed criterion for sufficiency; for example an experienced mathematician may find a short demonstration of a theorem sufficient where a novice would need more details" as being "nonsensical". As an experienced mathematician myself, having worked in the field for forty years, I am puzzled why you would find this "nonsensical" given that it is very true, not to mention very obvious to any experienced practitioner of mathematics. Are you an experienced mathematician yourself? Or do you have some other basis for making this judgment that allows you to override the judgment of experienced mathematicians in such matters? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand what "proof" means. In math, I thought the only kind of proof was formal proof. (In the sciences the term "proof" is not normally used, since a theory can never be proven in that sense.) Of course, an experienced mathematician would be able to skip details that a novice would need to see spelled out, but are you saying there are mathematicians who claim to prove things without having formal proof? (And no, I'm not a mathematician.) — kwami (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Google scholar results

Kwami, I don't understand the changes you made to the Google Scholar results. Could you explain? --JN466 12:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I went through the results from 2010 to see which were actually about the river, not about the delta or plain or anything else. "Ganges River dolphin" doesn't count for "Ganges", and the "XXganga River" in Sri Lanka doesn't count for Ganga. Citations also don't count, as they generally aren't from 2010. In some cases there was not enough info to tell, but most I could determine. — kwami (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we should exclude articles on the river's delta, or the river plain it formed. And what is the rationale for deleting the ten-year results? Is it just that it is too much work checking through them? --JN466 12:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't going to go through a thousand refs, and without confirmation, they aren't worth much.

In the previous discussion, people had argued that "Ganges delta" and "Hotel Ganges" were not reason to call the river "Ganges", so I excluded such things. — kwami (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's take it to the article talk page. --JN466 12:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to bother. It's pretty clear "Ganga" is preferred within India, and "Ganges" outside India, so we keep coming back to the original question: do we use local or international names for our article titles? — kwami (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Google scholar is an international forum; the publications using Ganga are mostly from Springer, Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, Wiley etc., which are actually Western publishers. Don't you agree that it is correct to state that in international scholarly publishing, Ganga predominates? --JN466 12:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at the authors' names. Those who use "Ganga" are almost entirely Indian, whereas those who use "Ganges" are split between Indians and other nationalities. I would consider the latter to be international. Where the thing is published is IMO not particularly relevant: editors aren't going to refuse the name "Ganga", since it is used in English. — kwami (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Flamarande

Kwami, my honest advice in the Ganga/Ganges matter is the following: just leave them. "Our side" presented its argument already and we voted according to their conscience. We did our duty.

"Their side" is simply preaching and are focused in always having the last word in any argumentation whatsoever. If that includes denying that the name Ganga is simply virtually unknown outside of the Indian subcontinent so be it. If that includes denying that there are more British and American English-speakers (both using Ganges) than Indian-speakers in this planet, so be it.

It is simply better to leave this issue to the very-late administrator (I wish him good luck). I will be surprised if he rules in favour of Ganga but even if this happens (probably due political and political correct reasons) at least I can be sure that I'm innocent. Just leave them to their preaching. Flamarande (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(1)That is unfortunate Flam., you have to assume good faith, if my argument is proved inadequate, I will withdraw the proposal, but calling names, isn't a good counter-argument, come up with facts. (2)I came here as I was suggesting a new procedure to Kwami, but I have second thoughts and I am going to use the Ganges talk page for it. (3)Flam what you are doing could be canvassing, please use the Ganges discussion page, there are no us-and them, cowboys and Injuns, we are all Wikipedians. (4)Please come back to the party. You have not answered my question about the sensitivity with names double-standards. (5)I assume that since you have texted here you are watching this place. (6)No hard feelings friend. (7)There are no permanent positions there was an editor who called me all sorts of names and taunts, I will give you diffs if you wish, but suddenly I found him on the same side as me at another very important place. ergo there are no us and them it is all us. (8)Sorry for having gate-crashed Kwami, and thanks Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Flam. discounting the miners, all of us are on the planet.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Yogesh, you're definitely on a different plane of existence ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Korruski^Talk 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Victoria, British Columbia IPA

I was by this article tonight and happened to glance at the IPA, which seems to indicate a diphthong on the second syllable, and while I've heard Americans pronounce it that way, with a schwa in the diphthong, it should be remembered that the British pronunciation, as I remember it frmo my British Victorian friends, is much more of a clear "o", emphatically so, and this has played out in the inherited local pronunciation. Maybe it's the same on Queen Victoria's article, though; it just struck me as odd-looking, or derived from somebody with slangy, younger pronunciation.Skookum1 (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an abstract transcription for those who still distinguish horse and hoarse. Most Brits don't these days, but since people in other countries do, and dictionaries like the OED continue to support it, it doesn't hurt to keep it. That is, if you don't distinguish those words, pronounce Victoria as you would either; if you do, pronounce it as you would hoarse. If we made it a concrete phonetic transcription, I'm not sure it would reflect any particular dialect, but that's not what we're going for. Of course, you can always add the local pronunciation, if you think it would be useful to have. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no IPA on Queen Victoria, so that doesn't help me....I'm gonna have to find a BCer who knows IPA well and get their opinion on /vɪkˈtɔəriə/. To me that second syllable looks "drawled", and certainly might be how someone from Seattle might pronounce it - "aw-uh" rather than simply "o" (which is that o with the upside down omega for length, I guess...but even then when I see the upside down omega it implies a diphthong/drawl to me....rather than a "clipped", brief "o", which btw you'll typically find on Taseko and Chilko and so on (though any of those names can also be drawled, but not in the original language or by most BCers). User:OldManRivers isn't around anymore but he knew his IPA, I'd ask his opinion (he's from North Vancouver - but may have a "native accent", too, I've never spoken to him in person).Skookum1 (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The OED has /vɪktɔərɪa/ for both the queen and the Latin word for victory, as well as all derivations. Dictionary.com gives vik-tawr-ee-uh, -tohr-, which is their way of saying it's the conflated pronunciation for most people, but the hoarse vowel for those who distinguish it. So I don't see any reason to think it's incorrect. The only question would be whether you wish a local pronunciation in addition to or, since this is an easy word to look up, instead of the diaphonemic one. — kwami (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Somebody just created this [40] map, introducing an artificial geographical differentiation that no wiki seems to support. Plus he's started replacing existing maps with it. As it's an issue that affects several wikis and commons, I'm not sure where to raise this issue. Any suggestions? Akerbeltz (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, from refs like this one (1918) they are synonymous, but the recent EB doesn't cover it under its own name or the Bay of Biscay, and only mentions it in two articles, Asturias and A Coruña. I'm not sure where you'd go for inter-wiki problems, but you could start at ANI. Meanwhile I'll start removing the map as OR. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Continued at Talk:Bay of Biscay. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For your contributions to File:IPA chart 2005.png (better seen in the English Wikipedia logs since the move to Commons). In taking linguistics courses as an undergraduate, having a printout-size and easy-to-find IPA reference was indispensable. I will probably be finding printouts of this file mixed in with my college papers for decades to come; that's just how often I used it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like it. Just note that the arrangement differs somewhat from what the IPA itself puts out. Nothing substantial, just IMO more accessible. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Unicode in article on Etruscan

I believe you just expanded the unicode on a number of Etruscan words. Now in the list of Etruscan words all the unicode words are a bit larger than the others, and in a different font, e.g. θesan vs. tin-. Looks kind of weird! Should we a) add the unicode template (if that's the right word) to all of them - or am I using the wrong fonts? Thanks. Jpaulm (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

All the words should have the same format. Before my edit, fonts were mixed within words, which was even worse! But the only odd letters here are Greek, and AFAIK Internet-Explorer has no problem displaying simple Greek. The point of the unicode template is to compensate for the crappy design of IE; if IE can display a text properly without the template, it shouldn't be used. I just tested on my IE browser, and we seem to be fine without the template. — kwami (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Have removed the unicode template except in the character table, and IMO it looks much better (I use Firefox)! Actually one of the Greek words (ἄσκος) was also marked as unicode, and none of the others were - maybe they weren't sure about the alpha. The single letters in the character table use a mixture of IPA and unicode templates - I wasn't sure about changing them - they look a bit complex... Jpaulm (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the Greek word is that IE can't display Greek with diacritics. The proper template for that is {{polytonic}}, though if you're going to use it for one Greek word (not Greek letters in Etruscan), you probably should for all, for consistency. I'd leave the IPA templating, because not only do some symbols need it, but it ID's the letters as IPA. (The unicode template doesn't do anything useful like that, apart from IE displays.) I'd either drop the unicode templating from the tables, or at least add it to all letters so they display in the same font. — kwami (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

IE may have had trouble with the diacritic at one time, but it looks fine now on my 64-bit machine and my 32-bit one, without the unicode template (also on Firefox)! I'll try removing the rest of the unicode templates - cautiously! Jpaulm (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hemelein

Do you happenstance have a source for this Al Hamalain/Hemelein Prima somewhere? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If that was originally from me, (and everything has gotten mixed up since my original was divided up), then it would probably be from Allen. But Allen only notes ρ & σ Boötes as Kang Ho, and it wasn't in my last edit of that article. It appears to have been added by an anon. IP here. (Two edits later he fixed up the formatting.) That editor was only here on two days back in Oct 2006, so we prob'ly can't ask for sources. All their contribs should therefore be checked. (Not saying they're bad edits, I just don't know: this is a similar ID which left refs.)

I just found your fix-it page. I had a bunch of links above; I'm moving them to User:Rursus/star_name_desinformation. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Very good! Now I know where to look: circa early October 2006 in the constellations articles. I've seen before that User:Richontaban invented a lot of star names that survived for a long time and was properly edited by other users in good faith. When one observes an edit that seemingly contains weird information, it is usually performed by an editor in good faith, and very seldomly a disruptor. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 23:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And sometimes into Feb 2007. There aren't (m)any IPs starting with 168.223 that aren't suspicious. Because they are also editing articles on other topics I think we should expand this at ANI or elsewhere for more collaboration. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you've ever talked to this guy. Could it be he has some spurious sources he's working off of? Or don't you want to tip him off? — kwami (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought he's inactive since of circa 2007, and speaking with an IP is only meaningful when caught in the act. If he's still active, it is most probably under another account. For sure that guy have no spurious sources for stars such as biceps, ignyc atled and booboo – he has a mocking sense of humor and doesn't (didn't?) quite care about people trying to learn truth from Wikipedia. I hope the childish edits was a sign of immaturity, and that he be peaceful and well behaved under a hypotetical new account. See you in a few days. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Richontaban was active up to a year ago. If you think he's the same person, it's potential sockpuppetry, though the trail's a bit cold.

Given some of the existing names, I could believe ignyC atleD for Delta Cygni, but yeah, the others seem rather unlikely!

BTW, I posted notice at WP:ANI. — kwami (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Antipodes

I just wanted to point out that while this list is definitely interesting on its own merits, it has next to nothing to do with the topic of the article it has been added to (Geography of Russia). Do you think it could be moved to a more appropriate location and linked to from this articles instead? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 9, 2010; 21:59 (UTC)

Where else would you put it? It's about geography, and about Russia. — kwami (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's geography alright, but to Russia it is only related tangentially. The information is just too specific and narrow for a broad overview of the Russian geography the article is supposed to be about. Any way to move it to the antipodes article, perhaps? I don't know where else, but it certainly feels out of place where it is now...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 10, 2010; 00:05 (UTC)

Way too much detail for the antipodes article. That is broad enough as it is. It's also directly related to Russia, just as sister cities are directly related to the cities. I can't think of a better place for it. This is the kind of question kids have about their country, and so IMO should be in an article on the country. AFAIK there isn't a more detailed Russian geography article where it would fit better. — kwami (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't find the antipodes information adds much of value to the article about the Russian geography (but you've probably already figured out as much :)). However, since I see no other place to put it, let it remain for the time being (perhaps a bright idea hits me on the head in the future...). Anyway, thanks for your prompt replies. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 10, 2010; 01:39 (UTC)

Yeah, you might call it trivia, but it's the kind that fascinates people. Sister cities are formed because they're close to antipodal, and people are always curious as to what is under their feet, or what would be the most distant place on Earth they could possibly go. — kwami (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's useless or trivia-ish—I, for one, found it an interesting read, and I'm sure many others will enjoy it as well. I'm just not comfortable about having something so specialized in what's supposed to be a very broad overview of geography...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 10, 2010; 02:03 (UTC)

I'd be happy with someplace more appropriate. However, I have added these sections for a couple dozen countries. Having them always in the geography articles makes them easy to find, and if there were someplace more specific in the case of Russia, a corresponding article might not exist for Chile. — kwami (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's always an option of creating a dedicated article, which can then be neatly summarized and linked to in something as broad as geography of Russia...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 10, 2010; 03:37 (UTC)

On a related note, apparently, I'm not the only one to feel uneasy about this—another editor requested comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography#Antipodes. I've added my two rubles as well. Thought you should know, too. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 10, 2010; 03:47 (UTC)

Your Wisdom has been Noted

I just wanted to let you know that one of your comments has been included (and attributed to you) as part of my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . Thanks, and if you object then let me know :o)   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I feel smarter already!

About the map next to it: I'm amazed at the number of penguins who contribute to WP. I didn't think coastal Antarctica was wired. The must be using cell phones. — kwami (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't help myself.[41] I think I need a break! — kwami (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In defense of the penguins - there isn't much else to do in Antarctica ;o)  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I think we may need to check Penguin for WP:COI.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I, Stevey7788, hereby present you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for your tremendously prolific work on languages and linguistics. Excellent articles, wonderful images, and impressive contributions overall! — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!! — kwami (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Edit War"

Blatantly stating "the English is poor" doesn't prove anything nor does restoring wrong grammar support that opinion. Also, the "substantial change" regarding the Holy War exists, please verify it through my justifications in discussion page and fix the citation necessarily instead of deleting it. --Truflip99 (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's up to you to provide the citations, and up to you to settle your disagreements without disrupting the article. As for an example of poor English, you were actually arguing for the phrase "arrive to", when that isn't English at all, at least not in any dialect I'm familiar with. — kwami (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kwami!

I think you are very wise linguistically :)

I would need your help as there is an edit war on the Valencian language article.

It seems there is not an agreement to classify Catalan and Valencian. This is pretty ambiguous and unclear as there are linguists who think it should be included with the Gallo-Romance language, while many others with the Ibero-Romance languages. How shall we classify both Catalan and Valencian?

• Gallo-Romance
  • Occitano-Romance
    • Catalan-Valencian-Balearic

or

• Ibero-Romance
  • East Iberian
    • Catalan-Valencian-Balearic

Romance language classification

In my opinion Catalan is a transitional language, Ibero-Romance, due to lexical influence from Arabic/Mozarabic, akin to Portuguese and Spanish. And Gallo-Romance language, due to common lexical roots from latin with these languages. But this is not a very proper assertion. What is it then? :D

Also, the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia as AVL and IEC, agree Catalan and Valencian are the same linguistic system, despite indivual and political thoughts. How can this be applied on the English Wikipedia? Thank you in advance :D Jaume87 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there isn't any one answer to that, as you've noticed. Dialect nets do not easily lend themselves to discrete classifications. (Are borrowings rather than inheritance really the way dialects are classified?) IMO we need to choose one classification for all of Romance and then use it for all varieties. That way if there's any argument, we can tell people they need to take it up with WP:Romance or wherever the discussion board is, and convince them. Without that kind of across-the-board convention, we'll end up with arguments on every article. So, if the classification in the map you provided is accepted, then Catalan will be listed as Occitanic; if not, probably as Iberian. (Both POV's need to be covered, of course; I assume you're asking about which to use in the info box.) Either way, though, I don't see how anyone could argue that Valencian is a separate language. AFAIK it should be easy to demonstrate that it's a separate standard of the same language; it's fine to call it the "Valencian language", since the term is so ambiguous, but that shouldn't carry over into making it a separate branch of Indo-European in the taxonomy, as some Croats seem to want to do with their language.

ELL only classifies Cat as a fairly prototypical Romance language, which isn't any help. The main dialectical division, however, is between eastern and western; Valencian is a western dialect. So not only is it not a separate language, in this view it isn't even a separate branch of Catalan.

[Eastern, according to the ELL, includes Northern/rossellonès (Andorra, Perpinyà), Central (Girona, Barcelona, Tarragona/Reus), Ballearic, and alguerès (Alghero, in Sardinia). Western includes NW (Lleida/Fraga, Tortosa) and Valencian.]

Ah, here, in the Occitan article: "The language to which Occitan is most closely related is Catalan, and it is increasingly common to classify both as members of an Occitano-Romance group, distinct from North Gallo-Romance and Ibero-Romance proper." That agrees with your POV and your map. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. The flow chart at Romance_languages#Classification_and_related_languages does not agree with the map right next to it. The map agrees with ELL is not classifying Catalan as a Gallo-Romance language. Based on those two sources [remembering that it would be best to get agreement for all of Romance, and of course that obscure intermediate nodes like "Continental" might be best left out], I'd adjust the taxonomy as follows:

Valencian
Language family	Indo-European Italic Romance Continental Romance Western Romance Occitano-Romance Catalan Western Catalan Valencian
Language codes
ISO 639-3	–

— kwami (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Boothroyd, British Columbia has non-IPA pron.

Hi; just discovered this while tidying up; is there a standard tag I can add to draw your attention to these? If possible not just IPA but some more English-speaker friendly alternative I know is out there; BCGNIS actually often provides pronunciation of this kind, but not in IPA (which if I ever get hired by them, I'll try and change).Skookum1 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, {{need-IPA}}. There's at least one person who regularly goes over that cat, and when I tag s.t. not too esoteric (more familiar languages), they usually get cleaned up fairly quickly, though I haven't gone over it in a while. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Jupiter proposal

Hello! Would you be interested in forming WikiProject Jupiter? If so, please show your support by clicking on the link above!--Novus Orator 04:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Discretionary Sanctions

This is a courtesy note to inform you that articles and discussions about Gibraltar or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar are subject to a discretionary sanctions remedy. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions. You are being notified per the actions logged here. Any disruptive, uncivil, or generally problematic conduct may lead to discretionary sanctions imposed by an administrator. This warning is not an indication of any wrong doing on your part. It is simply a general notice to recent editors in the topic area. Thank you for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

IPA in Tone letter

"Tone letter" explicitly refers to IPA, but has no clear description about that. To me: I'd expect an IPA-overview and, being me, a Unicode list. Probably a separate section. Am I right? -DePiep (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, to Chao's convention, which was adopted by the IPA. The extra section is probably a good idea.

I'm not sure these are the only "tone letters", though. Take Hmong orthography, or similarly Zhuang, or Chao's Chinese transliterations. I'd think those would be called "tone letters" too, though I can't find a ref that actually calls them that. (Well, Gwoyeu Romatzyh has "tonal spelling", since there isn't one letter per toneme like in Hmong or Zhuang, but you get what I mean.) — kwami (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a list of seven. Could be extended with likes U+02CA ˊ MODIFIER LETTER ACUTE ACCENT ("high-rising tone (IPA)")? Edit as you think good. you get what I mean is more smiling than correct ;-). -DePiep (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Diacritics aren't letters, so I'd leave those out. (They're covered in the general article on tone.) I'm adding a section on non-IPA tone letters. — kwami (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

All right with me. I just noted it because they have, in Unicode, a "tone (IPA)" note (see pdf link). -DePiep (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

We need to describe what the "bopomofo" yin/yang tone "marks" do. I've never seen them in the context of zhuyin. Are they diacritics, or letters? There are maybe a dozen other tone "marks" in the IPA, which might be as much letters as these two are. I don't know. — kwami (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

re the "bopomofo" pair: If you think they are unfounded in that place, please delete them. I only put them there because the Unicode-pdf said a reference to "(IPA)". -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Linguistic Background

Hi given your linguistic background and recent invovelemnt, I thought you may be interest in improving the article using this [42]. Thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hindi-Urdu IPA

Hi Kwamikagami, I think you made an error in your recent revert in the IPA for Hindi-Urdu article driven by misunderstandings caused by allophony. I want to discuss this a bit. Please take a peek at its talk page and respond. Thanks! -Hunnjazal (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Urdu speakers do not hear English the same way that English speakers hear Urdu. English /θ/ is a terrible approximation of Urdu /t/, even if going the other way round, that's how Urdu approximates it. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking

What if we changed the name of List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium to List of Solar System statistics, and simply stated in the intro that hydrostatic equilibrium was a requirement for inclusion? Serendi^podous 23:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As much as I don't like the current name, that seems too vague to me. — kwami (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Macedonian language

Perhaps your wording wasn't perfect, but it suggested that Macedonian is a variety of Serbo-Croatian. FYI, the standard varieties of Serbo-Croatian are Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin (which is arguably still in a process of codification). --124.169.79.79 (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't badly worded, it was just a screw up. Sorry! — kwami (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:R3ap3R.inc#Not_good_faith. Personally, I think you might have acted a bit too fast, but I haven't thoroughly examined the issue. The phrasing in the article is misleading, and I agree with the revert, but not sure about the block. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It may have been hasty, and I would've been happy to unblock if he'd said s.t. like 'sorry, my bad. I saw all the refs and assumed they were legit' (like my screw up just above). In fact, I came back here because while I was away I thought something like that might have happened, and the block was too hasty. But he shows no sign of recognizing his error. Just the opposite: "even if said argument had merit" suggests he still thinks racist vandalism is appropriate; he's defending himself on purely legalistic grounds. I see no reason to unblock him. — kwami (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edit in question in a little more detail, here is what I see that verifies "Terms used to describe the Khoisan people include monkey":

• [43] → "Nothing is more curious than this stunted family of African dwarfs.In appearance they are little above the monkey tribe,and scarcely better than the mere brutes of the field"
• [44] → I am not seeing anything here.
• [45] → "Cuvier, shown here, described Baartman’s movements as having "something brusque and capricious about them that recalled those of monkeys." Cuvier used such descriptions to demonstrate the superiority of the European races. Several "scientific" papers were written about Baartman, using her as proof of the superiority of the white race."
• [46] → "Mbeki quoted Baron Georges Couvier, a French scientist who dissected Baartman's body after her death, as saying: "Her moves had something that reminded one of the monkey and her external genitalia recalled those of the orang-utang"."
• [47] → Looks like they're describing "ʒìrí" as a word for monkey, but I fail to see the context in this paper.

It looks like the first part is right, but it is not explained in context that the term monkey was used in a pejorative manner (as clearly shown in the one reference above).

There is another issue with regards to the next part of that contested edit: referring to Khoisan haplotypes 1A and the structure of their λ-DNA segments → with sources that point to scientific papers which mention nothing about he Khoisan tribe. I don't know how you folks interpret this, but one can conclude that synthesis of sources is going on, trying to link DNA evidence as to why the Khoisan were being referred to as monkeys some time ago.

As far as the block is concerned, I don't know if I see "falsification of refs"; at the worst, there is WP:SYN going on. I find it too significant of a stretch to call this "racist vandalism", as I don't think that was the intention (also, keep in mind, Wikipedia is not censored).

Hence, I recommend unblocking and explaining to the user what he may not be doing correctly. –MuZemike 02:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is that the Khoisan are called "monkey" because of certain genetic traits. It's not even synthesis (nowhere is KS DNA compared to monkey DNA), it's forgery. Now, this user may not be the anon who wrote that, but he's defending it, and rather than acknowledging he made an error (which I would've been happy to unblock him for), he's threatening me, saying he'll make my life miserable and has lots of powerful friends. That's not the response of someone who's made an honest mistake. The more he talks, the more he sounds like a vandal. I'm not going to second-guess anyone else who sees fit to unblock him, but am no longer willing to do it myself. — kwami (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you got diffs for the harassment, then it can be argued that the block was justified. –MuZemike 02:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The threats were after the block. I came back after taking a shower, when I should be doing other thing, because I thought I might need to undo the block, but all I saw was defense of the vandalism, and then threats when I didn't unblock. Nowhere is there any recognition that the edit might not have been appropriate. — kwami (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

They were not threats, see the conversation @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:R3ap3R.inc#Unblock if you like. Thx R3ap3R.inc (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This[48] certainly sounds like a threat to me: cave in to my demands, or I will lawyer it up to make your life miserable. But then, if you don't think it's racist to call people monkeys, perhaps you really don't see that as a threat. Anyway, you're unblocked now. — kwami (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:R3ap3R.inc

Hi, I've unblocked this editor as it seems that they made an honest mistake in reverting an edit they believed to be vandalism but in fact reintroduced vandalism to the article. I don't think this was their intent and I see nothing in their history that would make me think otherwise, so I've unblocked. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. — kwami (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Inuit languages

I just noticed that you had moved some but not all the articles on Inuit languages. For example Inuinnaqtun and Kangiryuarmiutun but not Inuktitut or Inuvialuktun. However, given that they are unique names shouldn't Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) apply? Inuinnaqtun/Kangiryuarmiutun/Inuvialuktun is the language and Inuinnaq/Kangiryuarmiut/Inuvialuit are the people. Cheers. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 11:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, probably, though they're not names most readers would recognize. Given that there are so many alternate names for many of these lects, and for the people, often differing more grammatically than lexically (but with the grammatical differences opaque to the English speaker), if there's a form in use common to both people and language, that would probably be best: Inupik language, Inupik people, just as we use Swahili language, Swahili people rather than Kiswahili, Waswahili per those conventions you cited. We already do that with Inuit and Inuit language. Is that something you could advise on or help with? — kwami (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that other than Inuktitut most of the other names for the various languages/dialects will be unknown to the majority of readers. I think some of the articles on languages and people might be in the wrong places. For example Inupik people (the article title reads "real people people") and Inupik language should probably be at Iñupiat or Inupiat, see Inupiat Heritage Center, and Iñupiatun or Inupiatun (or with language on the end) or even Inupiaq language (which it turns out is also spoken in Greenland), see Inupiaq [Inupiat] - Alaska Native Cultural Profile. At the same time the Inuit language does not really exist. There are Inuit languages/dialects but not one single language and should probably be merged into Eskimo-Aleut languages. I don't speak Inuinnaqtun (or any of the Inuit languages) but I might be able to help a bit. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 22:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you moved Inuinnaqtun to Inuinnaq language. I think it needs moving again as Inuinnaq language does not seem to exist. Either Inuinnaqtun language or Inuinnaqtun seem to be more common. Cheers. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 12:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to the statement of the webpage Inupiaq is not spoken in Greenland - the North Greenlandic, thule language is called Inuktun language - it is closer to Inupik than other Greenlandic varieties but its not the same as Inupik.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised by that and hadn't been able to find anything else to support it. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IPA for Colognian

Hi, I may not have understood what you are trying to tell me, but I understand that you see some "standard(s)(?)" of IPA notation violated. You writing gives me the impression of you being an IPA expert, which I am not. I do not understand, what you think is wrong, so it may be helpful to explain that, but independent of the peculiarities of quoting a source which is a source. In the book, they make some remarks on their use of IPA which may nourish suspicions that they went to a "broader than broad" transcription. Being a native Colognian speaker, and being used to half a dozen different language dictionaries using IPA transcriptions, I feel able to check the transcriptions in the book. I found some which I would have made differently.

• You altered [ɐ̯] to something else. Why? If this is not a problem of browser fonts and special character editing: In the book there is a turned lower case "a" with a little rounded arc below having its open side facing downwards. You turned the arc upside down and put it on top of the character. As to my understanding this is similar but not the same. Both marks say that there is a very short tone, and the one you did not want says in addition that it firmly integrates with an adjacent sound so that you cannot put a stop between them without loosing this short sound. From my own knowledge, I confirm that I have several sample words for this, and the transcriptions in the book must therefore be correct. Can you tell me, what your objections are?

I have few more questions, but I am running out of time for now. Thank you. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm out of time myself, but there are several bizarre uses of the IPA in their convention. The worst is using a length mark for tone. No reader is going to understand that unless they are familiar with that particular convention. The whole point of a phonetic transcription in the IPA is that a reader should be able to follow it without any such background: even if you know nothing of the language, you should be able to give a reasonable approximation of the pronunciation. A lot of readers are unfamiliar with the IPA, and this key will be used for articles that are not about Colognian, so our conventions should be as accessible as possible.

Other problems:

we don't need to list tone with every vowel, just as we don't need to list 'a, 'e, 'i, etc. separately as stressed vowels. That just makes things difficult to find.

x,χ: pick one. When would we ever make that distinction in a transcription?

ŋ͜k, k͜s, etc: these aren't single consonants in Colognian, as the transcription erroneously indicates. And why would we want to list consonant clusters anyway?

ɔ̯: this is a non-syllabic vowel. That means that Ovve has one syllable (pronounced something like [wvə]), and fott has none. That's just wrong.

a͜ɪ: that's not how you normally transcribe diphthongs. Should be aɪ̯.

iˑ͜ɐ: is this a diphthong, or a vowel sequence? The tonic restrictions suggest the latter, but I don't know. How is that ɐ̯ different from the ɐ̯ in erfonge, Ühr?

— kwami (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)