User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barnstars   
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 The colubrid Telescopus semiannulatus in an acacia, central Tanzania.
|
Quotes:
Words of the day:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
to do list
|
|
obscure etymologies: Nusakan, Mesarthim, Phact, Alifa al Farkadain, Subra, Zeta Puppis (suhail ħađ̧ar or xađ̧ar), Kakkab, Alya (yet to look up), Spica (alt names), Skat/Pi Aquarii, Albulaan (spelling), Theta Columbae (etym.), Phact (yet to look up),
IPA vs. dictionary-style pronunciation guides
Regarding the recent discussion at Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet... if there really is a desire to offer multiple pronunciation guides, what about not listing them inline but putting them in a box off to the right, like the romanization boxes used for some East Asian articles (for example, I think a lot of articles on Korean things have boxes with multiple romanizations). That might be less cluttersome than trying to put them inline, and easier to code (I don't yet know of any way to toggle pronunciation guides inline without using javascript, but in a right-floating box they could just be in a list, and could be hidden in {{show}}). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's a good idea to bring up at WP:Manual of Style (pronunciation). People might not be crazy about more info boxes though, esp. w the idea that WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, whereas a footnote would fit in unobtrusively in nearly any article. kwami (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- We had similar discussions over IPA for Scots Gaelic place-names. The solution that eventually turned out to be acceptable to all was to have the IPA as the translation guide but to add sound files wherever possible - should work for English too and is less clumsy that have a dozen different transcriptions. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
A
In reply to your comment, I cannot provide an honest answer to you because I simply do not know. I do not even remember editing such an article but anyhow, the matter is redundant now seeing as you have already taken your time to edit the article.
I will change my password in case such a problem has persisted without my knowledge (I haven't logged in for a while). Thanks for bringing it up. ♦ BOHEMIAN ARCADE ♦ • Message me • My contributions 17:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Romanization
Hey - join us at Talk:Hiragana#Colored_background if you have a minute to spare. It's about Romanization in the table. Regards Moooitic (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
Please do not use rollback in a content dispute to revert another user's good-faith edits. As you most likely know, rollback is only to revert obvious bad-faith changes. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Cantonese
You've copped a lot of insults, but I hope we're approaching an end to the wrangling with the anonymous user regarding Cantonese/Yue, etc.
In a narrow sense I think he has a point, i.e., there is such a thing as "Standard Cantonese" that is recognised by everyone, and Taishanese isn't recognised as "dialect" of Standard Cantonese by native speakers. That is, while Taishanese is seen by linguists as a variety of "Cantonese" (Yue) in the broader sense, is not regarded as a dialect of (Standard) "Cantonese" by people who speak those languages. I think that's an important insight.
Anyway, I hope we get to a satisfactory conclusion. I think that this editor has really highlighted how unsatisfactory it is to use "Cantonese" for "Yue Chinese" as a whole.
Bathrobe (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hopefully we can get it moved, then. But when did anyone ever argue Taishanese was a dialect of Standard Cantonese? kwami (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
IPA
There's no need to avoid using phonemic transcriptions simply because they have not been immediately defined. If a user wanted to know what /a/ means in a certain language, they would research the language's phonology. It's alright to be flexible in terms of how things are defined; this is emphasized in the Handbook of the Internation Phonetic Association. There are a few things that are not as flexible, though. You can't use brackets if it is not meant to be a phonetic description. And as for English, /ɹ/ is almost certainly the most accurate way to describe the phoneme as [ɹ] is the most common pronunciation of the phoneme. DJ1AM (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I never said we should avoid them, but we do need to define what we're doing, or the results are ambiguous. kwami (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- The results are not ambiguous for those that do not care about the exact pronunciation and for those that bother to research the phonology a little bit. And I use /a/ instead of /æ/ just as some people use /r/ instead of /ɹ/. I don't really care about the transcription standards that some guys in a Wikipedia group came up with. Unless there is a rule in the IPA handbook for a certain situation, I use my own judgement to decide what would be right. DJ1AM (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- "The results are not ambiguous for those that do not care about the exact pronunciation" ... then why add the pronunciation at all? Since "/a/" is commonly used for both /æ/ and /ɑː/, and you don't define which you intend, what good is it? Should we distinguish them only in positions where they contrast, and use /a/ elsewhere, and expect the reader to figure it out? Why be obscure when we can be clear? kwami (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- The results are not ambiguous for those that do not care about the exact pronunciation and for those that bother to research the phonology a little bit. And I use /a/ instead of /æ/ just as some people use /r/ instead of /ɹ/. I don't really care about the transcription standards that some guys in a Wikipedia group came up with. Unless there is a rule in the IPA handbook for a certain situation, I use my own judgement to decide what would be right. DJ1AM (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
IPA requests
This is kind of related to my earlier suggestion made elsewhere regarding the use of IPA at {{Infobox Korean name}} (if you recall). I was wondering if there is some kind of template/category scheme for requesting that IPA be added to an article, e.g. in the same kind of way that {{Needhangul}} adds a page to Category:Articles needing Korean script or text? PC78 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, {{need-IPA}}. It's an inline template, so you can stick it right where the IPA is needed. It doesn't seem to add a category, but you can work off 'what links here', which is what I think the people patroling it do. kwami (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Actually it appears to be feeding Category:Wikipedia articles with nonstandard pronunciation. I'm not sure if that's wise or intentional, because that category is also fed by {{Cleanup-IPA}} which appears to be used for the opposite purpose. PC78 (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Both are used when IPA is desired. One is inline and the other for the whole section. kwami (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I was misreading the text in the section template. PC78 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I see that you've reverted the change made by User:Jillzilla at 18:31 on 19 August 2009. Her/his edit summary said "Changed pronounciation of "york" to match what the speaker who made the recording said (as I found the page, the recording is of a UK speaker and the IPA is for a North American)."
Very few UK speakers (and even fewer who live in the York area, as I do) pronounce the r, whereas most North Americans would do so. Doesn't it make sense to have a British English pronunciation and matching IPA for an English city rather than a mixture of the two, or, indeed an all-US pronunciation/IPA rendition? (Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick here - I'm no expert on IPA). Best. --GuillaumeTell 16:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's iffy. We generally transcribe the /r/, because its silence before another consonant is automatic, and then add 'locally X' if need be. Maybe we could do that with the sound file? (Usually there's no need, because no-one gets confused by it.) We do the same thing with /tju:n/ for tune, even if locally it's [tu:n]. I notice that when we respell words, people with non-rhotic accents have no problem with keeping the ars, but they sometimes object when it's in the IPA. It's not like we're saying that it's actually pronounced [jork]. (Technically it doesn't have an /r/ phoneme either, unlike say Windsor, which is truly /winz@r/.) kwami (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
IPA template help needed
Hey Kwamikagami, I noticed that you were the one that semi-protected Template:IPA-nl so that's why I'm asking you for help. For usage in the Maastricht article I'm in need of a specific IPA template for "Southern Dutch" (=soft ‹g›/‹ch› pronunciation, as it is normally called) pronunciation (see --> Hard and soft G in Dutch). Whilst Flemish also uses this soft G and the pronunciation of Limburg may resemble it in some form, it does not really fall under that IPA template either. I've also included the "Northern Dutch" (i.e. hard ‹g›/‹ch›) pronunciation in the Maastricht article (especially since the .ogg file speaker uses this). I, however, don't know how to create IPA templates. Could you by any chance help me out? Thanks in advance for your time and help! Kind regards, LightPhoenix (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- We tend not to make templates unless there's a widespread need. We don't yet have one for Persian, for example. One thing to do here would be to add those sounds to the Dutch IPA key. However, generally what we do is use the standard transcription, and then provide a 'local' pronunciation using the generic {{IPA-all}} template. We even do this in English. kwami (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see: I'd forgotten we don't yet have an IPA for Dutch key. I doubt I'll have time over the next week or two to do this, so you might want to ask s.o. else. What I'd expect would be Standard Dutch, maintaining a distinction between /x/ and /ɣ/, with any extra phonemes from Afrikaans and Flemish. Take a look at WP:IPA for Czech and Slovak, for example. kwami (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
re: in-laws
Hi, in response to your earlier question about co-parents-in-law in Korean (sadon), the male and female terms are actually different.[1]
Dictionaries list 査頓 for the Hanja, but one dictionary says that sadon is actually a native-Korean word. --Kjoonlee 08:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kjoon! kwami (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Double comment at AfD:Hakka Malaysians
Hello. Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakka Malaysians. It appears that you accidentally posted the comment twice. You may want to undo the second comment. Cheers, Cnilep (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oops! Sorry. kwami (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Dysnomia (moon)
Hi Kwamikagami, I was wondering why you undid my edits to Dysnomia (moon). The referenced source BrownandSchaller2007 clearly says: `circular orbit with radius 37350km` (not distance), and `mass of Eris` (not mass of the system). These are exactly the changes I made, which you undid. Any particular reason? Trewal (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- 'Radius' and 'distance' mean exactly the same thing. Both are measured from barycentre to barycentre, but the latter term is somewhat more commonplace/accessible. The orbit cannot determine the mass of Eris, so I assume that this is a simplification for the purposes of the abstract: Dysnomia is so small that the mass of the system effectively is the mass of Eris. The readership of the technical article will know this, but we cannot make that assumption for our readers. kwami (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feed-back. I agree that 'radius' and 'distance' can mean exactly the same thing, but the term 'distance' gives more reason for confusion. One should not confuse the surface-to-surface distance (for instance used with LEO-satellites) with the center-to-center distance (which for a circular orbit is equivalent to radius). In this case there is a significant difference between these two types of distance of approx. 1300km or 3-4%. To avoid this possible confusion, the term 'radius' better describes what is meant. As far as the mass of Eris/system is concerned, you are of course correct that the mass of Dysnomia is so small compared to the mass of Eris that it falls within the error-margin of the measurement. This indeed means that the mass of the system effectively is the mass of Eris, and so the two are interchangeable. However, as the referenced source, written by someone who clearly is well aware of the difference between mass of Eris and mass of the system, only mentions the mass of Eris, and is even titled "The Mass of Dwarf Planet Eris", it would only confuse the average non-technical reader if the wiki article 'converts' this to mass of the system. Readers who are interrested but as yet unfamiliar with the relation between orbital period, radius and mass will easily find out this relation when looking further into subjects like orbital period, where the relevant formulas for Small body orbiting a central body and Two bodies orbiting each other are discussed. Readers who are not familiar and also not further interrested in these aspects would only be confused when talking about 'mass of the system' rather than 'mass of Eris'. Trewal (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Haumeids
Can we please rename Category:Haumeids to Category:Haumea family members, or even get rid of it altogether since it's in the Haumea drop-down box? The latter is the terminology used in Haumea-related published papers, the former is a neologism. Iridia (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- No objection to renaming it from me, if that fits in with how we name other minor planet families. Do you need help, or are you just running it by me? But why would we want to get rid of the category? It's simply a way to organize the articles. kwami (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Help would be appreciated - I think because it's a category, there isn't a 'rename' option as normal. Let's go with Category:Haumea family.
- (I had wondered if we need it because we already have the nicer-looking Template:Haumea, which does include the family members). Iridia (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- The template organizes navigation for the reader. Categories, however, organize topics for the editor as much as the reader. Without the category, the Haumeids would be scattered throughout the TNO category, making them harder to organize. Also, the template may in the future change for reasons unrelated to how we categorize the articles, and we don't want one held hostage to the other.
- No, you can't move categories. What you do is change the categories of the articles themselves. Those will be red links. Click on one, and add in its superior category - easiest just to clip & paste from the old category. Then delete the old category once it's empty. Pretty straightforward, but let me know if you run into any problems. (First, though, is your naming in line with the other minor planet family categories? No reason for anyone to object?) kwami (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- All done - thanks for the info and explanation. (Yes, it's in line: see for example Category:Asteroid groups and families). Iridia (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, you can't move categories. What you do is change the categories of the articles themselves. Those will be red links. Click on one, and add in its superior category - easiest just to clip & paste from the old category. Then delete the old category once it's empty. Pretty straightforward, but let me know if you run into any problems. (First, though, is your naming in line with the other minor planet family categories? No reason for anyone to object?) kwami (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Normally I'd just rename the categories, not add new ones, so that once the conversion is complete, the old category would be empty. As it is, the old category needs to be deleted from each of the articles before it's deleted from category space. kwami (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Old category now deleted from each of the articles. (I started doing that and stopped because I saw the 'please do not empty the category' bit on the CfD notice that went on the old category page). Iridia (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Normally I'd just rename the categories, not add new ones, so that once the conversion is complete, the old category would be empty. As it is, the old category needs to be deleted from each of the articles before it's deleted from category space. kwami (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Huh. Okay. I've never seen such a message. I may not be up to date on how we do this. kwami (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Batrachotomus
Hi Kwami,
Could you please add the pronounciation (IPA) for the Batrachotomus article (Greek: batrachos/βάτραχος (frog) and tome/τομή (cutting, slicing). Thank you! Liopleurodon93 (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Stress should be on the cho, since the to has a short vowel. kwami (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I saw the article.. good work! Thanks again! Liopleurodon93 (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Haumeids
I have nominated Category:Haumeids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Iridia (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
| For your quick reply on how to use AutoWikiBrowser to get the list I needed. Thanks so much, Portal:Baseball will be better off thanks to you! Staxringold talkcontribs 02:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
What the hell are you doing?
一年前你濫用管理員職權移動Cantonese為你所喜好的標題Yue Chinese，被絕多數否定。今天又重來，死性不改，這次remove，還不准別人undo。作為母語為粵語的人，跟其他粵語母語者一樣，我們絕對不能接受粵語英文名改為荒唐的“Yue Chinese”。強烈譴責你固執、不當的行為！--Newzebras (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The terminology used in Cantonese is utterly irrelevant to an English-language article: the two common names are 'Cantonese' and 'Yue'. The place for you argument is Cantonese Wikipedia. Are you arguing that Cantonese speakers should dictate how the English language is used? 'Cantonese' is unacceptable for Yue to many (most?) English speakers, because in their minds it means Canton-ese (Canton dialect). There have been interminable arguments about over whether the name 'Cantonese' should be used for Yue or for Canton-ese. And however impassioned you may be about how you want the English language to be, there are Taishanese speakers who are just an adamant that Taishanese is not a dialect of 'Cantonese' as you want us to say. What, we need to be considerate of Canton-ese speakers, but can ignore Taishanese speakers? If you can come up with a different set of English terms that unambiguously differentiates Yue from Canton-ese, I'm all ears. kwami (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
These article edits are considered vandalization
Hello. Thanks for participating in wikipedia. Your contributions are encouraged. However, recently you reverted some of my cited edits. I have provided valid citations for each of the following edits. If you cannot provide valid citations then your edits are not valid. Removing edits containing valid citations is considered vandalism. I will be reverting your changes. Please provide some counter citations to assert your edits, or open a discussion on the respective talk pages before reverting further. In each of the cases, you did not provide any citation nor reference to back up your edits. Regardless of your personal emotions with "territories", they are clearly NOT countries and you cannot make such edits without references. Thanks. // Mark Renier (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- edits to Constituent country: England et. al. are not "clearly countries", you provided no citation. I provided cites that they are not countries
- edits to Kingdom of Denmark: Greenland is not a country, citation provided in edit
- edits to Greenland: Greenland is not a country, citation provided in edit
- edits to Faroe Islands: Faroes are not a country, I have provided a citation to reputable source.
- No, a citation for Greenland from 1979 is not valid when the status changed in 2008; even if it were recent, and they did not contradict you by calling it a "country", the CIA Factbook is hardly a reliable source. And if England is not a country, you need to take it up at England. Meanwhile, you do not get to unilaterally redefine the word "country". I see that hardly any of the examples in the article on constituent country are actually "countries" under your definition. I will continue to revert your edits until you get consensus from editors who know what they're talking about. (I do not include myself in that category.) kwami (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for the quick reply. I have provided valid citations for my edits; You have provided zero citations for yours. I asked for you to start discussions before further reversions; you ignored them and reverted again anyway. No valid citations were given for any of your edits. I have requested administrator help to resolve your vandalism. Although you should have done this earlier, please find some citations for the following resolution. Thanks. //Mark Renier (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted edits of yours with spurious citations. That's hardly vandalism. It also appears that other editors agree with me that your edits are unfounded. I don't know about the Faroes - you may have a valid point there, but that's an issue to take up on the talk pages. kwami (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it was hardly vandalism. Please excuse my arrogance. However, can you also see it from my point of view? I submitted edits with citations in good faith. They were reverted with only your commentary and no counter citations. I believe it would have been more proper for you to make your own follow on edits, correcting any mistakes I may have made, with references to what we both now know (the country defn issue), instead of just outright reverting them. This attitude does not make my edits feel welcome at all and I am less inclined to edit today because of the outright reversion without good faith consideration. Isn't that how Wikipedia normally works? I make an edit, you make an edit. I provide a citation, you provide a citation. I am not sorry for bringing this up for editor assistance, because only there did I receive this new information that you yourself also did not know about. // Mark Renier (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps I did bite your head off, and I'm sorry if I did. And I have no problem with you bringing it up for review. The problem from my POV is that I don't have time to hunt down references to justify reverting every incorrect edit I see on Wikipedia: I have 2600 pages on my watch list, and even though many of them are rarely edited, I'd be here all day. Generally I expect such things to go to discussion. It's not like I think I'm never wrong, but in cases like this one the edit and refs were not enough to convince me I was wrong. If an editor I respect (or can see is well respected) then joins in and tells me I don't know what I'm talking about, I'll either drop it or research it enough to be able to defend my point with refs as you suggest, depending on how confident I am and how much free time I have. kwami (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Cantonese cont'd
With so much opposition to your recent move perhaps it would be best for you to stop making all of these changes in all articles that mention "Cantonese" to suit your recent move. Clearly not all editors who have edited those pages are wrong, and now must suddenly conform to this standard that you have imposed. Kindly wait until we can reach some kind of community consensus on this issue, please. Colipon+(Talk) 22:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- If we can identify which topic a link is intended for, we should direct it to that topic rather than a dab. You can always revert it if the page moves again. kwami (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- To be perfectly frank, your move wasn't appropriate in the first place. If you can show that you went through the proper procedures to gather a community consensus on the issue, then that is fine. But until now you have been unable to do this and you have also chosen to ignore almost all the opposing views, generally dismissing them as "wrong" and then going about your business. This encyclopedia belongs to the community, and as such everyone's views should be respected, especially when they give large amounts of supporting evidence. Colipon+(Talk) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- We're all well aware of your point of view. I have not been dismissing people as wrong, I've been searching for unambiguous article names. I've found one in much of the academic literature. So far you have failed to suggest anything else. There is no "evidence", just a lot of talk about why one opinion is more "correct" than another. Find another solution, another way to disambiguate the articles, and I'll be happy to consider it, as will everyone else. kwami (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your attitude is highly offensive, and makes work on these articles very difficult. So far you have failed to suggest anything else. There is no "evidence", just a lot of talk about why one opinion is more "correct" than another.?? This is blatantly false. Please read what I actually said on the talk page. As the person who moved the page rather unilaterally you actually have the burden of proof here, not me. That's not to mention I've added much "evidence" to my edits on the talk page but now suddenly to you there is none. Colipon+(Talk) 08:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I guess we have different ideas of what the word "evidence" means. kwami (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Recently, after a non-involved administrator moved the article to "Cantonese (linguistics)", you decided to move the article back to the name that you had imposed earlier. Again, as an administrator involved in this dispute, it would be proper to seek consensus before making such moves. Until now you have moved the page three times to "Yue Chinese", and you have not gone through the proper procedures to seek consensus in each of those cases. In the absence of a community consensus, and especially in light of the massive opposition that the move to "Yue Chinese" has now gathered, I respectfully ask that the page be moved back to "Cantonese" or "Cantonese (linguistics)" as soon as possible, and then discussion can continue there. I am hopeful that we can seek a solution on this issue together. Thanks! Colipon+(Talk) 23:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, because an anonymous IP dishonestly requested the move as "uncontroversial". The '(linguistics)' tag was removed by consensus over a year ago, as being inappropriate for non-linguistic topics, and no-one in the discussion had suggested we move back to it. kwami (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Template:LangWithName
You might be interested in the change I made to {{LangWithName}} (the core for many language templates such as {{zh-stp}}); it's described at Template talk:LangWithName#Delinking. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rjanag. That should help with articles. Looks like about 350 templates - hopefully it won't take people too long to change them over, esp. with AWB. I might get a few done myself. kwami (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
More on Chinese templates
The more I look, the more I feel the mess at Category:Chinese multilingual support templates is out of control. There seems to be a lot of redundancy with all these templates...redundancy in of itself isn't bad, but it causes problems when one template is updated (like I recently did), since there are like a hundred others that need to be updated as well, and it can't necessarily be done with AWB.
So, to that end, I just created User:Rjanag/zh, a template that I believe has the functionality of all of these templates. The only difference is that you have to use named parameters, not numbered...but I think most of these template calls used named parameters anyway (ie, {{zh-cp|c=某|p=something}}, rather than {{zh-cp|某|something}}). When making it, I was careful to make sure that I didn't lose any of the functionalities contained in any of the other templates. Ideally, this template could be moved to {{zh}} and then all articles could just use that one, and display the relevant Chinese and romanizations based on what templates are used (for example, some would use {{zh|c=something|p=something|l=something}}, while others might use {{zh|s=something|t=something|p=something}}, the difference being that the second one gives both simplified and traditional). Currently, though, {{zh}} is a redirect to {{zh icon}} and a lot of pages seem to use it; it might be used in other ways, too, because its WhatLinksHere says it's included in some random pages (for instance, Quiznos) but I can't find it in the wikitext, suggesting that it's a transclusion within a transclusion....
Anyway, I'm thinking that if it's possible some day for me to go through and manually replace the {{zh}}s with {{zh icon}}s, then I can move this new template to there and slowly start replacing specific templates (like {{zh-cp}}) with this one, in all the articles where they're used. Do you have any thoughts on this? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea, a lot of work. You might want to put your template in mainspace under "zh-testing" or s.t., redirect a common zh-xx template to it, and wait for the complaints to flood in if you've missed s.t., then try another, etc., until you're confident you've got it right, meanwhile migrating from zh to zh icon with AWB (preparse?). Of course, it might not be possible to rd some of the zh-xx templates until the individual articles have named parameters; that could be done with AWB and regex, though I don't know if I'm up to that kind of complexity in regex--I can't get some things to work that look simple on paper. Anyway, no point in editing the individual articles (except for named parameters) until you've redirected all the templates and they're working well. I wouldn't spend my time on it even then; there are bots that can automate the task. kwami (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Impressive, having a template where Cantonese is nor forced to Jyutping would be really good! Akerbeltz (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- One comment: first=t puts Tongyong before Hanyu, but since Taiwan's switched to Hanyu, do we want them linked like that? Would it be possible to have a generic n=x, where n is any ordinal, and x is any parameter, and repeatable (1=t, 2=s, 3=p, etc.)? kwami (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't think about that. I could just get rid of the Tongyong-before-Hanyu bit...the important thing is allowing trad. to go before simp., but I'm not so concerned about the different Pinyin styles. I also considered adding something like first=j to allow Jyutping to go before Pinyin (for Cantonese-related articles), but then again I'm not sure how widely accepted/used Jyutping is as compared to others.
- As for an n=x setup, it should be possible, it would just require lots of messy code—as you can see with the trad./simp. characters, the only way I really know to do it so far is to repeat the code over and over again in different parts of the template. Another option would be to divide the templates into core and shell templates...ie, put all the messy code for displaying simplified characters (for example) into
{{zh-s}}(after usurping that...or I could just give it a new name), do that for everything, and then make{{zh}}itself be nothing more than a shell template that has a big #switch statement deciding which thing to show and when. It sounds like something I can play around with in my userspace for a while...these things always seem to work out better in my head than they do in actual code! - If enough functionality gets added to that, it might even be better to divide this across two templates, the current
{{zh}}template left more or less as-is to be used in most cases (where people aren't concerned about ordering and the current version is sufficient), and something new, like{{zh-full}}or something, which would have extended functionality but also more parameters and more complicated syntax. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- One comment: first=t puts Tongyong before Hanyu, but since Taiwan's switched to Hanyu, do we want them linked like that? Would it be possible to have a generic n=x, where n is any ordinal, and x is any parameter, and repeatable (1=t, 2=s, 3=p, etc.)? kwami (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The people behind Jyutping are just pushy (off Wiki I mean); it has flaws, especially for an English speaking audience, especially the j for [j] and c for [tʃ] thing. Is it not possible to have the ordering flexible, as in, that if you move one above the other manually, they display that way? I must confess to a high degree of ignorance regarding templates. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't foresee too much need for flexibility apart from traditional before simplified. Actually, I'd think we'd want that as the default, with "first=s" as an option. After all, traditional is the international form, with simplified being restricted to mainland China (and maybe Singapore?). kwami (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps...although at this point it will be difficult to change. I didn't notice your message before I started replacing, and now I've basically gone through and replaced many of the traditional-first templates with
{{zh | ....... | first=t}}, and many of the simplified-first with just{{zh}}(but I haven't done all of them...there are still several thousand more, so rather than trying to do them by hand I'm starting to fiddle with bot stuff). So things that already have first=t won't be changed if I update the template, but things that don't (i.e., any articles about mainland China stuff) will be changed, unless a simple way can be found to go and insert first=s into all of them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps...although at this point it will be difficult to change. I didn't notice your message before I started replacing, and now I've basically gone through and replaced many of the traditional-first templates with
- AWB can insert first=s into templates which do not contain first=t, and I assume other bots could easily do the same. It should be ignored unless and until it's defined. kwami (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- It would have to be done by a bot, since there are over 6,000 articles that would need to be edited.
- Also, about the suggetsion above for a template with more flexibility... I threw together a mock-up at User:Rjanag/zh-full (with an example in my sandbox), which gives the user full control (I think) over the order in which they display things. In most cases that much control isn't necessary (and indeed, the vast majority of combinations would be illogical...for instance, you would never put the literal translation or any of the romanizations before the Chinese characters), but after some more tweaks I could probably put it into mainspace in the off-chance that anyone wants more control (over, for example, the order in which various romanizations are displayed in a given article). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- AWB can insert first=s into templates which do not contain first=t, and I assume other bots could easily do the same. It should be ignored unless and until it's defined. kwami (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if it's easy to do and not code intensive, why not. But you might wait until there is an actual demand for a particular option - it might never materialize, or materialize in a way we didn't expect. kwami (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to copy this on the template talk page. kwami (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
AWB
Hi. When you edited Ycatapom Peak you make a syntax error that broke the infobox. I fixed it and it was no big thing. I noticed you used AWB. I know that it is easy to save articles in AWD without checking the results. I've learned the hard way by making the same kind of little mistake and then not catching it by viewing the results. Just a heads up. –droll [chat] 19:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that. Unfortunately, the WP servers have been so slow that preview mode has often been disabled, making it impractical to check large numbers of edits. But I see preparse has started working again recently, so maybe preview is back up as well. kwami (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:WQA
Hello, Kwamikagami. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Wadi el-Hol Scripts
Sorry if creating this tab is inappropriate, I am somewhat unfamiliar with editing ettiquette, as will become apparent shortly. You recently reverted every revision I made this summer, including cited links, and I would like to inquire why? I see now that certain elements of my edits (I am the later (or possibly both) 41.xxx IPs (from Egypt) on the Middle Bronze Age Alphabets article) I created an account thereafter). I realize that some elements of my postings may have been either controversial or perhaps bordering on personal research.
However, I would like to point out that what I added added the first actual citations to various sections as well as new analysis to already present substantive evidence. I am curious what qualifications you have to judge and remove cited material while leaving uncited material unscathed; could you please provide a rationale? Particularly for the inclusion of Arabic letters to the table, I was mostly citing Wiki's pages on letters... which trace the 'etymology' of letters across Semitic languages including Arabic. Why is the presence of Arabic on the chart detrimental? Additionally how has Colless's material been accepted as anything beyond the opinion of one man, with a huge polemical bias and a questionable set of credentials, working out of New Zealand? (Particularly since his blog and his postings on the internet have broadly been criticized (along with everything else) as not reflecting an academic consensus...)
I am truly at a loss, I have only recently begun contributing, generally on obscure personal interests, and I assumed that this article would profit not only from citations but also from alternative analysis to essentially speculative issues. You will note that one of the maybe 2 or 3 actually published articles on the Wadi el-Hol scripts is not present, only Colless's reconstruction is present, though the literature he has published is solely on the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions and not on Wadi el-Hol?
Assuming there is no reasonable explanation of the distinction in verifiability issues, shouldn't all of this material also be removed? Thank you in advance.Msheflin (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, as a semi-related issue. I was looking through the Table on the discussion page (with the Ugaritic) and I noticed that in Ugaritic, the dhayp (I don't have that character handy) character is called dhal in Ugaritic. I am not particularly familiar with the Greek system of writing and I'm wondering if that's where the name dhayp comes from? Like... two things, first of all, the idea that ziqq replaced dhayp I think is an uncited Colless addition. But regardless, where does that name come from, because I would have to assume the Ugaritic name would be earlier, and thus the Arabic and Ugaritic characters would be named and pronounced the same, separated only by a huge gap in time - suggesting continuity rather than replacement as stands now. The Ugaritic character is cited on the Ugaritic page I believe. So where did we come up with the other name? Michael Sheflin 01:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not from Greek AFAICT. I don't know, but I assume that the letter names for Ugaritic are reconstructed, not actually attested anywhere. kwami (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Yea... That's why someone pointed out a while back on the other discussion that taking letter names from modern iterations may be misleading. However, I have never heard that name before and on the table, it is not listed as belonging to a particular language/alphabet. So if Ugarit has any attestation, it would imply that the earlier name was dhal (and that the only remaining/known extant names are also dhal). Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since the Greek names are ultimately derived from Proto-Semitic, that might be a better place to look, no? Akerbeltz (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- How do we know "Proto-Semitic" names? It's not tangibly a language or corpus of scriptures? It's a theoretical predecessor of descendant scripts. Plus the "Proto-Semitic names," as it were, are mostly redacted from later scripts with a heavy emphasis (at least on Wiki) on Hebrew to the detriment of other attestations. Either way, it's not helpful; thank you though. Michael Sheflin (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can't even attest that we actually know the Phoenician, or if it's been reconstructed from the Greek and Hebrew. Mostly sources just give the names, without indicating where they come from.
- But the Greek letter names are derived from the Semitic. They mean nothing in Greek, apart from 'short e', 'double g', and the like. kwami (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Suggests a broader problem with the way Wikipedia allows the inclusion of material as fact. Michael Sheflin (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Dude... I understand that my 'citations needed' were excessive, and if you notice, they all followed a questionable assertion, like southern Egypt was "in the heart of literate Egypt." I think that deserves another citation than the preceding clause, "very similar to the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions." Two questionable (but supportable) assumptions, need two citations in my humble opinion. Why did you revert my links to the meaning of b3l? If it was another does of bulk perversion, could you please return those citation?
You are once again reverting citations... I realize you questioned Tower of Babel's credentials, but its founder, Stratosin or whatever his name is is dead, and it is partnered with the following academic institutions:
The Russian State University of the Humanities (Center of Comparative Linguistics) The Moscow Jewish University The Russian Academy of Sciences (Dept. of History and Philology) The Santa Fe Institute (New Mexico, USA) The City University of Hong Kong The Leiden University
Institutions, not individuals, to me that suggests greater reliability. (Michael Sheflin on friend's laptop) 41.196.211.23 (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not contesting the citation tags, just the manner of using them, as I just said below (probably while you were writing this). Any editor will know that when you cite an entire paragraph, you need to support all claims within that paragraph, so one tag at the end is sufficient. Plus, you were double tagging things which were already tagged.
- Your original research, however, is not appropriate. I'm not questioning Starostin, but the relevance of the material. The fact that you cannot find a given meaning of ba'alat in a particular dictionary does not mean that it does not exist; this would be such an obvious error that it would've been noticed during the last century. If you can find a source that specifically critiques the translation of ba'alat for this reason, that's a different matter. If you're the only one saying it, then publish your conclusions and cite yourself. But no WP:original research: this article is messed up enough as it is. kwami (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You don't understand what synthesis and original research are. Which is amazing because you've done this so long and are notably and deservedly decorated as such. I explained, in a previous post on the MBAA discussion what synthesis is. OR is research I have done. Starotsin has nothing to do with this site; it is the largest Semitic etymology database on the web. This database (in contrast to the uncited assertion that ba'lat means lady (in byblos it did, by the way ba'lat gebel meant the lady of Byblos). Ba'lat was a goddess, so her name is a proper noun too... (not OR, why not read Wikipedia?). Additionally, the taa suffix in virtually every Semitic language is linguistically related to the feminization of the word (in hebrew it is hah (and in some dialects of arabic it is as well)). In current arabic, it is called taa marbuta (final taa) but often pronounced as +eh and sometimes takes the form of taa. This would be like removing a citation, as OR, from a French article claiming that personne is the feminization of person (by claiming that person is attested, and that editors qualified in grammar will realize it is inappropriate, therefore, to remove that citation.
I included the conjugation issue, because again, in most or possibly all known Semitic languages, taa often serves as a conjugation of the verb either for 3rd person singular feminine, first person, or second person. That's not OR, this is a misunderstanding, but I really don't appreciate it. This is also what I meant by hijacking, you are taking too much editorial power without fully appreciating what you are doing. About the citations, I guess I understand your point, but my point is that many of these assertions will be (based on my research (that I am not including...)) not verifiable because they are not correct. Rather than removing things, I thought it would be more appropriate to call attention to them. Please either justify your removals or revert my changes. (MS on friend's laptop) 41.196.211.23 (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ba'alat "lady" is AFAIK the accepted interpretation of the inscription. It may be false. However, saying it's false because of your personal conclusions based on your personal investigation is what we call WP:Original research. Get yourself published in a peer-reviewed journal that it should be translated "tower", and we're good to go. Otherwise it's not appropriate, no matter how correct you know you are. kwami (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- So including other interpretations is an editorial choice I believe you made improperly. I cited nothing about my own conclusion (they're not personal investigations - it's stuff I came across from research at those above academic institutions...). If Ba'lat is accepted (the "a" sound after the 3yn was added far after the arrival of that word btw). So... since there is no citation to Ba'lat as lady (outside of that myth about her name in Lebanon (and the attestation of that word as those other meanings I listed (FYI)), how exactly can we verify it is cited? You'll note I didn't contradict it, I added more of the truth. This is again what I was saying about unqualified editor heavy-handedness. I don't think it's worth contributing to either. This particular articles is substantially ruining the quality of information on Wikipedia and the internet more broadly (based on your questionable and overbearing calls). For that reason I remain concerned, but this is not only vandalism, but a misunderstanding of policy. If Needsmertblonde sees this, could you explain to me how we convene an arbitration? Maybe my prose really is that confusing, or maybe you are in fact guiding this with your own non-verified OR. I'd prefer someone else tell us and then I either go on my way or contribute in a non-hostile work environment. (MS) 41.196.211.23 (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Here[2] is a non-academic statement that it means 'lady', one of many, showing that this interpretation has passed into the general lit. If you wish to "add more truth" (your phrase for "original research", which you still do not seem to understand), and are frustrated by my "vandalism" (another word which you do not appear to understand), then please take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to procede. kwami (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, rereading that paragraph (as it exists now), why is the info (that you said was OR from me) that b3l+t**** as a feminization of b3l also not OR (because it's an identical point). And on that basis, I stupidly did not realize that the first link you removed actually is that citation - along with the two etymologically related meanings of that word according to ToB. So; my OR was actually the citation that is needed, but because it comes from me, you assumed it was OR. I have a problem with this... (MS) 41.196.211.23 (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- It may be OR. We'll have to check that when we get some citations. But that's not an excuse for you to add yet more OR. kwami (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
ZhBot
Hey Kwami, I've prepared a bot to finish up the {{zh}}-related work, and filed a request for approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ZhBot. If you have a moment I would appreciate your input (and an extra set of eyes to make sure everything looks ok!). Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Lea, Lancashire
I've just noticed in this edit in May you asserted that /ˈlɪə/ is the pronunciation of "Lear" not "Leah". To my mind, both are pronounced identically (assuming a silent "r"), and my dictionary agrees (Collins Concise Dictionary, 4th ed, 1999, ISBN 0 00 472257 4). Another editor has just deleted the pronunciation altogether. What do you think the difference is? -- Dr Greg talk 12:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- At this point I no longer remember. Do you pronounce the name as one syllable, or as two? Is the e not pronounced the same as in the noun lea? kwami (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- [copying to the article]
I have restored this article as you should not have deleted it. You were engaged in trying to delete the article through AfD and other methods when you speedy deleted it. If you wish to have the article deleted, you will need to take it to AfD again and go through the process there rather than just deleting the article yourself. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I wasn't, and this is a vanity bio written by the subject, but okay. kwami (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:Velotype.jpg
File:Velotype.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Velotype.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Velotype.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. We can always restore it if Commons decides to delete it. kwami (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
alphabet citations: I may revert the deletion of citation needed, see the talk page
That whole article is lacking inline citations and there is significant dispute about all points and assertions. The only way to get a start on that is look at each citation needed tag and determine if a citation exists. If so, put it in, if not remove the assertion. The number of such tags reflects the quality of the article's references. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, but we don't need two to three 'cn' tags per sentence. That's simply disruptive. When an entire paragraph is uncited, it's usual to put a single tag at the end of the paragraph. kwami (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it's kind of only fair that if you think it is excessive to include more than 1 cite-needed thing per sentence (with more than one assertion) please break the assertions up into individual sentences and put my tags back in at a rate of 1 per sentence. Otherwise, I think what I did was really fair. One x-needed per each claim (at a rate of more-than-one claim/assertion per sentence). This is a chief reason the article is so questionable in general... (Michael Sheflin on friend's laptop) 41.196.211.23 (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- As I just said above, it's unnecessary as well as disruptive. Normal human intelligence is sufficient to see what specifically needs to be cited within the paragraph. Over tagging is like changing "I do not agree with you" to "Not I not agree not with not you". kwami (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- 1)You're probably right; 2) Apparently not; per my other response, that final example is not correct. It's like changing "the green sun is the best" to "the green sun (cite needed) is the best (cite needed)." I'll concede the point, but not the motivation. (MS) 41.196.211.23 (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You've now reverted everything. Again, why did you remove cited material of relevance to the article?
You see? I haven't really touched your changes, but you keep reverting ALL of mine, as if it were personal; and including cited material of relevance to academic literature that (I shouldn't have to say this) is not MY OPINION. How do you not see the asymmetry here, and how do we start some form of protection so that you aren't the only one editing this article? (MS) 41.196.211.23 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Because it's WP:OR: how many times do I have to say it? Your refusal to understand that your opinions are not "Truth" will not change my mind. Actual refs that this has anything to do with the subject will. kwami (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, you just reverted those refs... Michael Sheflin (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, read it again: references which show that your conclusions from dictionary trawling are a legitimate refutation of a century of scholarship. You need something better than the dictionary itself. Anyway, this has been going on for days without you seeming to get it, and I'm tired of it. Take it up with dispute resolution. Meanwhile I'll protect the admittedly bad article from becoming even worse. kwami (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I beg your pardon. Typing in a root in a dictionary of Semitic etymology, partnered with multiple legitimate institutions, and citing the result is not trawling. Citations to dictionaries are not allowed on Wikipedia for definitions? I have tried to contact a mediator. Additionally, if Ba'lat meaning "lady" (only) is a feminization of Ba'l (lord/master (not cited on that page either, btw)), then why is the translation not "lady (as in lord)" or "female master." Frankly dude... I get it, you're overprotective and insecure, and you don't understand why using a masculine word (or verb) with a "t" at the end is not the same thing as creating OR... it's common sense (to quote someone smarter than myself). But again, since I'm already aware of this - and have helped enshrine a losing battle of actual scholarship in your sea of distant simplicity, feel free to keep on only allowing yourself to edit this article which you started and thus, I guess, own.
- Also, it's a bit contradictory for you to acknowledge (rightly so) that there have been fewer than 5 (say) publications on Wadi el-Hol, but that there has been a century of scholarship. You're correct on both points, but this is infinitely more misleading than the wording: 3 articles have been published on the subject in the last 100 years. Your arrogance is amazing. And since (via your editing) it would be easier to publish on the subject than edit Wikipedia, I will concentrate on that angle. I will participate in any process to try to restore neutrality to this article, but your stubbornness in allowing anyone besides yourself to make changes really bothers me. Michael Sheflin (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, Ba'alat is suggested for proto-Sinaitic, not for Wadi el-Hol. Proto-Sinaitic was described over a century ago; Gardiner published nearly a century ago. Ergo, "a century of scholarship" is about right. And the translation *is* "lady (as in lord)". That's what "lady" means: the feminine of "lord". Check your dictionary. Ergo, the translation of ba'alat the feminine of ba'al. But whether the word may also mean "tower" is irrelevant unless you can demonstrate it's considered to be relevant in the lit. That what "OR" means. Anyway, I'm tired of talking to a wall. Take it to arbitration if you like; please don't post on this page anymore. kwami (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Kosciuszko
Should we put then /kɒskiˈʊʃkoʊ, kɒskiˈɒskoʊ/ for Brooklyn and /kɒziˈɛskoʊ/ for Mississippi? What about the secondary stress on the first syllable? Regards.--Carnby (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, those look like safe bets. I have no idea if there's stress on the first syllable - IMO best leave it off unless we can find s.o. who knows. kwami (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that "kahs-kee-OSS-ko" (for Brooklyn) contains both "ah" and "O(SS)"; following respell key the first one should be (phonemically) /ɑː/ and the second one /ɒ/.--Carnby (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but they're not following our respelling key. People generally aren't very consistent about such things, so there's no way to know whether they consider those vowels to be the same or different. kwami (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: respell
Ah, thanks, that'll make this less tedious. Typing all the <small> tags was annoying. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
IPA tie bars vs. unified graphs
Hey kwami,
I was about to get on AWB and start replacing, for example, tɕ with ʨ...in the process I was also going to replace t͡ɕ with the single-graph version. But then I noticed in the IPA article here that apparently the single versions are no longer standard? If that is the case, should I be replacing everything with the tie-bar versions, rather than vice versa? (I was a bit surprised, because in a recent job of mine, where I was transcribing Monguor texts and converting things from practical orthography to IPA, I was always told to represent single phones with single characters wherever possible, and thus I always used the ʨ/ʦ/ʥ/etc.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the ligatures are not official IPA. The probable reason is that such an approach cannot help but be inconsistent, since few affricates have ligatures available (there is none for tɬ, tθ, kx, qχ, cç, or pf, for example), so individual languages would end up with mixed systems. The idea of the tie bar is that it "ties" digraphs into single characters the way a ligature does, but is universally applicable.
- Also, over the last couple months an editor went through WP replacing ligatures with digraphs, using a tie bar when there was a phonemic distinction between affricate and stop + fricative. The problem is that the tie bar is not widely supported, because Microsoft got it wrong, and also a lot of people think it's distracting. He got a lot of flack for that, and I don't think we have consensus on how to deal with this. kwami (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Toki Pona Trademark
Please explain why you remove this edit. It is well documented in multiple well regarded online articles, including a reference to one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikev (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because, as I've explained several times, you can't copyright either a language or a script. Tolkien couldn't copyright his, and neither can Sonya. kwami (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
That is your opinion. It is documented that this is trademarked. Do you think is is reasonable to undo my comments on the talk page?Erikev (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC).
- No, it is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact. No, it has not been documented. And no, I did not undo your comments on the talk page: You're zero for three. kwami (talk)
Wait: the talk page has centered on copyright, and that's what I was going on. If it's trademarked, that info will be available online. Let me take a look to see if I can find it. Or maybe you can? kwami (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
No, nothing registered in Canada or the US, and no claim to trademark that I can see on her website. kwami (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
IPA-pl
Hi, I think I've now eliminated (at least from article space) all instances where Template:IPA-pl was being used with the multiple pipes in the style of {{IPAr}}. So if you want to change IPA-pl to make it behave the same way as the other IPA-xxx templates (or redirect it to IPA-pol? I don't remember what the plan was) then it ought to be possible now.--Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! It will be nice to be consistent with the ISO coding.
- I did a search through IPAr, and it looks like it is only being used for Polish, correct? It might be a good thing to keep it that way, for ease of maintenance, since AWB can only load 25,000 transclusions from any one template, and there are more than 25k just with Polish. (Just a suggestion, since I won't be maintaining it.) kwami (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK, although someone did add some Japanese respellings to Template:Pho (on which {{IPAr}} is based) - I don't know if they're in use anywhere.--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, there may be a problem with the square brackets on IPA-pl - the old version didn't add brackets, whereas I suppose the current version will be adding them, to be consistent with the other IPA-xx templates. So there may be articles which transclude this template but include brackets, thus leading to double brackets.--Kotniski (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks. There were only a few articles left transcluding IPA-pl, and I deleted the brackets in them. IPA-pol added the brackets automatically, so the move to IPA-pl hasn't affected those articles. kwami (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is also the template {{Audio-IPA-pl}}, which still uses respellings - should those also be converted to IPAr? (IPAr can handle such cases with the AUD parameter).--Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Up to you. It's redundant, but maybe not worth the effort. Unless you can program AWB to automate it.
- If you don't mind, I'd like to request a bot change all transclusions of {{IPAr|pl to {{IPAc-pl (or something similar), and move the template, so that it's clearly for Polish only. Mostly concerns of maintenance issues, but also I wonder what would happen to the server if IPAr were to expand to support 20 or 30 languages. kwami (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've made {{p-pl}}, with the subtemplate {{p1pl}} for the coding, which I was thinking could be a starting point for the new set of (possible) templates (i.e. I was thinking of calling them {{p-xx}} and {{p1xx}}). Since IPAr has only been used for Polish so far (I think, though we'd have to check that the Japanese parameters haven't been used anywhere), that could be redirected to the new Polish-specific template (well not exactly redirected, because there's an extra parameter, but you know what I mean). However I notice that there's a Hungarian version of the template which is called {{IPAc-hu}}, in line with your suggestion above (and which uses {{Huph}} as the subtemplate). So do you have any preference as to which naming system we use? I would prefer p-xx rather than IPAc-xx, just because it's shorter and I can't work out what the "c" is supposed to stand for (the "p" is for pronunciation or phonetics), but I don't mind that much. For the subtemplate, for consistency, I would prefer something where the xx again comes at the end (so p1xx is preferable to xxph). Any thoughts?--Kotniski (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't mind, I'd like to request a bot change all transclusions of {{IPAr|pl to {{IPAc-pl (or something similar), and move the template, so that it's clearly for Polish only. Mostly concerns of maintenance issues, but also I wonder what would happen to the server if IPAr were to expand to support 20 or 30 languages. kwami (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely xx or -xx at the end IMO. I like s.t. with IPA in it if only to make it obvious what it does. Not everyone editing an article will recognize it. kwami (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- All right, let's say IPAc-xx (I see now, "c" stands for "convert";) ). So maybe {{c-xx}} for the subtemplate in that case?--Kotniski (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely xx or -xx at the end IMO. I like s.t. with IPA in it if only to make it obvious what it does. Not everyone editing an article will recognize it. kwami (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I only used IPAc because I have no idea what the r in IPAr stands for. If I knew, I might like it better. As for the subtemplates, I don't think that matters. Very very few people will ever dig into it that far, so I'd say do whatever makes it easiest for you.
- (And although I think we should have "IPA" in the formal template, if typing "IPA" all the time is too onerous, you could always create a shortcut redirect.) kwami (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think "r" stood for respelling, but "c" is just as good. In that case I'll move {{Huph}} to {{c-hu}} and move the new Polish templates to the corresponding positions (and I'll try and find out what's with the Japanese).--Kotniski (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- (And although I think we should have "IPA" in the formal template, if typing "IPA" all the time is too onerous, you could always create a shortcut redirect.) kwami (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Theta Serpentis
Use it, or don't. What's up there is not correct. It means the tail or rump, not the sheep. Michael Sheflin (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's one I wasn't able to confirm. kwami (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Kwami, you're better on African languages than I am - I think this page needs a quick check. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely needs cleanup, though I know next to nothing of Nilotic languages. kwami (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Your attention
Is drawn. ÷seresin 05:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. kwami (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Category:Cantonese (linguistics)
I have restored the category Category:Cantonese (linguistics) as I couldn't find a discussion about its deletion. If it needs to be deleted or renamed then it should be listed up at WP:CfD. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's redundant with Category:Cantonese language. kwami (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
IPAc-hu template
Do you think you could remove the small "Hungarian pronunciation: " from the start of Template:IPAc-hu? This would make it consistent with the Polish one, and with the Japanese and English ones I started in the same series. I've checked all the article space transclusions and none of them require these extra words (except for one which I've reworded accordingly).--Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, can you just copy the entire content of {{IPAc-hu/Temp}} into {{IPAc-hu}}? (The examples will work correctly once it's in place.) This will make it correspond to the Polish and other IPAc templates, adding the audio file feature etc. and documentation.--Kotniski (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Or alternatively, unprotect the template (it has very few transclusions, so it's not exactly high-risk).--Kotniski (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Done, and bumped down the protection level. kwami (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Kotniski (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Done, and bumped down the protection level. kwami (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Or alternatively, unprotect the template (it has very few transclusions, so it's not exactly high-risk).--Kotniski (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
David Bowie
Hi, I think the final vowel in Bowie is not long: the pronunciation found in this page was an IPA transcription of this one. There's also an audio file here (an American speaker) where the final vowel seems to be /i/. Cheers--Carnby (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Hello, i'm looking for informations about this image : File:Uranian system schematic.jpg. I know it's old, but do you remember where you got this image ? (like nasa's website or something), just to add a better source to the description on Commons. Thanks ! --Lilyu (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I believe it was from [rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/Sect19_20.html here]. kwami (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you very much for you fast answer :) i'll try to check that website when it's back online :) --Lilyu (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Great, it's back online, it's correct : good job for remembering on which webpage you found an image 4 years earlier !
--Lilyu (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Great, it's back online, it's correct : good job for remembering on which webpage you found an image 4 years earlier !
- Ok, thank you very much for you fast answer :) i'll try to check that website when it's back online :) --Lilyu (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Modern evolution of Esperanto
Are any references available for the things you wrote in Modern_evolution_of_Esperanto? Rikat (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- A lot in the Plena analiza gramatiko, other stuff by Harlow--I'd have to review it, which I don't have much time for right now. kwami (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Kwami, would you consider part protecting this page for a few day? There's a couple of ppl pushing a weirder than usual "greater basque country" pov on that page and it's beginning to take up considerable amounts of my time policing it. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, but edit warring/POV disputes are not the same as "vandalism". (Unless I'm missing s.t. here.) kwami (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's a mixture of both. For example, the user(s) (I think it's the same but not sure) keep changing the percentages (without apparent reason or justification) from 92% for Irish to 80% so Basque has a higher incidence. It was getting close to the 3RR, over, if you count the IP user from last night. POV because the user in question is trying to change all incidences (on the affected pages) of Basque Country to Greater Basque Country. No response to friendly suggestions either.
- Thanks for protecting it - maybe he'll calm down a little. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
IPA for Occitan
I don't know if you noticed, but I've undone your attempt to add Occitan to the IPA pronunciation key for Catalan. I haven't gone through and fixed pages that use {{IPA-ca}} for Occitan pronunciation since I thought you might want to create an WP:IPA for Occitan and {{IPA-oc}}. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- There aren't enough of them to be worth the effort. I believe the effect of your changes is that the Occitan and Provencal transcriptions are now ID'd as Catalan. kwami (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Biographies
Kwami, I have the following problems with the edits and unfortunately very little time to follow you:
1-A few scholars have bothered....,and then a contradiction follows:3 scholars opinions are stated.”A few scholars heve bothered...” is insulting for a biography.You may decide rewording it.”Some scholars have strongly contested” or something like that should be read.
2-De Hoz critics are only for one book :the first one “El origen de los Vascos” (Origin of the Basques).This was done in 1999.This should be stated for a biography.Critics do not apply to all other books published later
http://books.google.com/books?q=Arnaiz-Villena&btnG=Buscar+libros&hl=es
3-The apparent Pichler critics come from an unreliable publication.Has he written these critics?This should have been removed according to Vandenberg mediation
4-Dumu Eduba is too repetitive:it needs to be stated that Lakarra only studied 32 words out of thousands and from this cannot be inferred that 85% of the linguistics work is wrong.You may decide to rewrite this and synthesize what Dumu Eduba wants to add.
Please let me know your opinion. Best regards --Virginal6 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty busy in real life, so I'm not too interested in editing the article myself. As for that percentage, it's perfectly normal to take a representative sample and see how it holds up. If it looks like garbage, why would anyone take the time to check everything? I don't think the article claims anything more than that. As for early critics being used today, AFAIK the claims haven't changed very much, so they should still be applicable. It would be different if you (he?) had said, "Ah! De Hoz is correct, I must change my approach." But AFAIK that hasn't happened. Anyway, there are a couple editors who have been sympathetic to your objections in the past, and some material has been removed because of this. IMO, the thing to do is to state explicitly what your objections are on the article talk page. If you don't feel you're getting a fair shake, you can contact the editors who have proven sympathetic in the past. If you still don't like the article, you can try the dispute resolution suggestions at WP:autobiography. But if people agree that the article accurately reflects the published sources, then there isn't much else you can do. kwami (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK,thank you .I will follow your guidelines,but I only wanted to remove mistakes or assertions which misguide readers ,and DEFINETIVELY ,not removing criticisms.Regards--Virginal6 (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
To save you some time
[3] ÷seresin 23:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, close enough. Thanks for letting me know. kwami (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Epirus Region Page
If you check the Epirus (region) page this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EpirusEduMap.jpg is clearly original research and clearly Greek POV. I put an original tag on it and it gets removed. A user claims it comes from all of these sources, but this is still original research to read several sources and create a map from them. As well, other sources from linguistics or anthropology do not come up with these same conclusions. Azalea pomp (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- You mean because it includes Thrace & Illyria & Macedon without being clear that they are "environs"? Or is there s.t. more afoot? kwami (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have given an example on how it claims to be using these sources in its creation, but is it really? I gave the example of the John Wilkes source having Byllis as Illyrian yet the map has it as Greek. To claim Macedonians as Greek is not claim any linguist would state as fact as so little of Macedonian is known to make such a claim. I have given a counter map from an academic source which was made by an academic to demonstrate how very different this map is. I am not saying that one map is better than the other, but I don't think people should put maps on Wikipedia that are clearly not based on an actual map created by an academic. This map was created by a user who supposedly read these sources and came up with conclusions. Azalea pomp (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it looks dubious. If he can't come up with supporting refs, I think the file should be marked for deletion on Commons, and removed from the article here. But that's a discussion for the article talk page. kwami (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I had to "or" tag the Mycenaean sites map because I am looking at the original source and it does not correlate with the map from the source. It is difficult to get to normal conversations with POV pushers. :/ Azalea pomp (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it looks dubious. If he can't come up with supporting refs, I think the file should be marked for deletion on Commons, and removed from the article here. But that's a discussion for the article talk page. kwami (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know if you have checked the Epirus (region) talk page, but we have made some progress in acknowledging the errors of the maps. I have read through many of the sources and found that the Wikipedia created maps do not correlate well enough with the maps/info in the sources. There have been some fixing of the maps, but there is still some POV issues. The Ottoman era map clearly shows two principle ethnic groups in Epirus yet in the text of the article, the POV pushers want to ignore the map on the page. lol I don't think an article should contradict itself. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you check the Epirus (region) talk page, I have now brought up the point that we should just exclude Macedonia/Macedonians from the map at all due to the fact that it is the Epirus page. What do you think? Azalea pomp (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of shibboleths
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of shibboleths. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shibboleths. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
IPA-hu
I'm very sorry about that. My edit to {{IPA-hu}} dropped a closing bracket. I fixed it and tested the result on the lead to Béla Bartók. Eubulides (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I figured it was s.t. simple like that. kwami (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Ping
I've sent you an e-mail, if you reply to me I can pass along the Langdon paper for the AAH. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
in-line diacritic
Hey there, for ever ago you mentioned that the OED has a citation where the h of ch, sh, th is described as effectively being an "in-line diacritic". Could you please refer me to a concrete example of this usage? Thanks, Dan ☺ 18:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Henry Sweet (1877) A Handbook of Phonetics, p 174–175: "Even letters with accents and diacritics [...] being only cast for a few founts, act practically as new letters. [...] We may consider the h in sh and th simply as a diacritic written for convenience on a line with the letter it modifies." —kwami (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just thought the article Diacritic might benefit from a mention of this usage of the term. And Akerbeltz's comment makes me think that some information about the way diacritics came to be would be nice too. Dan ☺ 00:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- I know a couple of them: cz > ç; nn, an > ñ, ã. I thought å was from ao and only replaced aa; likewise, I'd like to see that German ä, ö have the same ae, oe origin as Swedish. But yeah, the history should be there. kwami (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- For ä, ö and ü, German today still allows ae, oe and ue as alternative spellings, commonplace whenever ä, ö and ü are not available or hard to produce. Would it be pushing it to suggest that the "ch" in German "sch" functions as an inline diacritic, changing the sound from /s/ to /ʃ/? Dan ☺ 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I have seen them described as such but I can't for the life of me remember where. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you're jumping the gun here, Kwami
Given how oddly the IAU has handled dwarf planet inclusion and exclusion over the last three years, I would rather wait until an official pronouncement before I start rewriting candidate pages. Serendipodous 21:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- But these are all candidates. There are no official pronouncements. kwami (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Angle brackets
I might not've paid attention to your recent changes of the single-guillemets to the angle brackets, but this discussion has me thinking about what basis our policy of using them to mark off orthographic items is. If we don't have a stated policy on it, we ought to make sure our choice is accurate before we construct one and encourage other editors to do the same. A search of the specific angle brackets included turned up the article Bracket, which says:
Chevrons are part of standard Chinese, and Korean punctuation, where they generally enclose the titles of books: ︿ and ﹀ or ︽ and ︾ for traditional vertical printing, and 〈 and 〉 or 《 and 》 for horizontal printing.
Which makes me think that the guillemets are actually correct. What led you to believe it was 〈 and 〉?— Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're right. I had just plugged them into Wiktionary, they came up as angle brackets, and I naively took that at face value. We shouldn't be using CJK punctuation. But the orthographic symbols are angle brackets. Guillemots are just an approximation. (I think that much of the use of guillemots may be my fault. I've long used them because they're easy to type, and have replaced the less than/greater than signs with them, and it wasn't until s.o. objected that their height was incorrect that it dawned on me that I wasn't actually helping things much -- though it's much easier to automate a replacement of guillemots than the ubiquitous less/greater than signs.) kwami (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, and the problem with ⟨ ⟩, which seem to be the most correct, is that they don't show up at all on my computer. The CJK angle brackets do seem to be preferable since they're closest to what we're looking for. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh. Damn.
- They're in the maths section of Unicode. I've just been checking Google Books, and many texts use either <...> or guillemots as an approximation, even though they call them "angle brackets". However, I did found this,[4] which uses true angle brackets for literal transliterations of Syriac, and closer to home this,[5] which makes the [x], /x/, <x> distinction. (Also here, here, here, etc.) So it seems pretty clear that when sources say "angle brackets" are used for this, they actually do mean "angle brackets", even if not all printers stock them.
- The CJK angle brackets mess up character spacing, and probably will cause font issues with a lot of people. (Not everyone has CJK compatibility installed.) Maybe we should just go back to guillemots, then, even if they are only half height and technically incorrect. At least they'd be easy to convert in the future (there are very few cases of guillemots being used in their normal capacity on WP, and mostly in ref sections), whereas <...> have to be converted mostly manually. kwami (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, and the problem with ⟨ ⟩, which seem to be the most correct, is that they don't show up at all on my computer. The CJK angle brackets do seem to be preferable since they're closest to what we're looking for. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- To me all newly introduced proper "angle brackets" show up as square boxes (unsupported characters). I suppose I'm not the only one seeing this. It would be better to go back to plain keyboard characters. −Woodstone (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Converted them (~ 50 articles) to gillemets, which will be easier to reconvert than <...>. kwami (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing, though I wasn't sure if the spacing weirdness was just me. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 16:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Converted them (~ 50 articles) to gillemets, which will be easier to reconvert than <...>. kwami (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Heard back from SIL. They say U+2329 and U+232A are currently supported in their fonts. Will bring this up at Talk:IPA. kwami (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Belizean Creole
Hi. I see that you moved "Belizean Kriol language" to "Belizean Creole". "Creole" is fine to me but I think that we should keep the "language" in the article name. Frst, "Creole language" may sound redundant to linguists, but outside linguistics "Creole" often also means a ethnic group, so the title as it is now is ambiguous. Also the "creole" of linguists is a generic term and should be lower case, whereas here it is part of the language name. In fact, the name almost certainly meant in origin "the language spoken by the Creole people of Belize" rather that "the creole language of Belize". Finally, even though the language is almost always called just "Belizean Creole", its is general practice in WP to append "language" to the name of languages. Compare "English language", "Greek language", etc. What do you think? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- We make an exception for creoles. If you check the 'See also' section, you'll see ten creole articles, none of which use the phrase "creole language". It just isn't normal English. (Or at least AFAIK it isn't--I could be wrong here :).) If you want to change it, I think the appropriate venue would be the WP language project, so that all such articles could be considered together. kwami (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Kwami, you may remember me asking for some broad feedback on the Erromintxela article some time ago. I did eventually nominate it for GA and - much to my surprise and please - was passed on most things (including the wordlists) straight away. The main outstanding criticism centres around the lead and some stylistic issues. As writing style is definitely one of my weaker points, I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping me sort out the article? With all those featured articles under your belt, you probably have a much better graps on what might need changing - I'd be much obliged. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. I've started copy editing. kwami (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks mate! I've answered your question on the GA nomination page by the way. Just my slightly convoluted style, I know what I meant but looking at it again, probably no one else does ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Done for now. I've a few more questions. I'll come back later for the bits after the word tables. kwami (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
to do
delete {{IPAr}}