From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

ancient comments[edit]

Tau is T, so maybe the relevance is there? --Dante Alighieri

I Pity the Fool. -mall t get it's hook in type eventhough I have never seen anyone print

Protected page[edit]

I protected the page in light of recent edit-warring. Please resolve your differences instead of keep reverting each other. Many I just semi-protected it due to the frequent reversions to that copyvio version, apparently by a flurry of sockpuppet accounts (the ones I've checked so far are brand new for this purpose). I set it to expire in a week but considering the persistence of the editor suspected to be behind this it may need to be extended. Bryan Derksen 02:02, 18 February 20's always possible that a Macaw 54 sockpuppet might come back, no matter how long we wait for this to happen again. Georgia guy 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not a fan of indefinite protection when it can be in any way avoided. In a case with an isolated persistent vandal like this I'd rather protect for some long but finite time period - say, six months n when it expires see if the vandal actually does come back before re-protecting. Wikipedia thrives on drive-by editing. Bryan Derksen 19:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
That's like saying "You may come back after 6 months", which is a little too kind to this vandal. Georgia guy 19:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The alternative is like saying "no passers-by may ever contribute to this article because once upon a time there was a bad apple who messed with it." I'm willing to keep this thing on my watchlist indefinitely to avoid that, a re-blocking every six months for a few years is not a major amount of work. I've seen even more tenacious vandals than this guy give up and go away. Bryan Derksen 22:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

About the recent edits to the article[edit]

Please read very slowly and carefully:

Almost a day ago, I saw this 75KB article and I wanted to make the Pronunciation of English T section into its own article. However, Macaw 54 has reverted me 3 times. (Even without the section merged, it is still large, 56KB.) Within a week, from now, someone other than Macaw 54 please try to think of what the best thing to do to this large article is. Georgia guy 23:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First, 32kb is a guideline, not a rule. The sound and the letter are not different subjects, and the page loads fine on almost any computer. This is why our article count is so inflated, because we keep on creating entries like this. Noone will care about it if it's called "Pronunciation of English T [sic]." And, no one (including me) will want to edit such an obscure entry.--Macaw 54 00:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Same with many other Wikipedia articles. Look at, for example, Ronald Reagan and Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan. Georgia guy 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"Ronald Reagan" is 102kb.--Macaw 54 00:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
But, it would have been even larger if Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan had been merged in. Why won't anyone other than Macaw 54 respond to my responses?? Georgia guy 00:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to split the article up. Information about this letter should be in its own article, not a network of articles.---Gloriamarie 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not right now. Now the article is okay. This discussion was in the fall of 2006 when Macaw 54 was putting a ton of info in the article that made it big. In November he was blocked and the article was reverted shortly later. The present status is okay. Georgia guy 15:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, here is something I have learned by studying even further:

Since July 4, Macaw 54 has been editing this article by adding more and more stuff into it; please try to compare all other edits from then to now and check to see what opinions you have. Moreover, Macaw 54 has not made very many main-namespace edits apart from the article T since he first came to Wikipedia. Georgia guy 00:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but this page is really not to discuss Macaw 54. That may be done on Macaw 54's talk page. If you have a case for removing or splitting some excess information, please be specific. We can also vote for consensus on a proposed split here. I don't know if your new article will stand, at least not with that title: remember we have another fellow editor (Aeusoes1) who insists that letters are not "pronounced" and has removed all references to letters being "pronounced"...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Please put your info about Aeusoes in more detail. Georgia guy 01:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


I think it's time to focus on what to do with the large sections of the article. Any suggestions?? Georgia guy 14:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's even larger now, 80KB. Georgia guy 16:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Now it's 92KB. Georgia guy 13:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Too big[edit]

I agree that this page is far too big. It has gone beyond glossolalia through a kind of concretization of Tourette's to a point bordering dangerously on graphomania. I have been accused by friend and foe of excessive verbosity but this page takes the cake.

There is no need to debate along what lines the article should be broken. Simply hack off about a third of it, never to be seen again; and skim off another third into Apocrypha of T. In all its baroque splendor, the current page does hold a certain fascination, much as we gawk at the naked 500 pound full suit lady in the sideshow. Liposuction here is however not merely called for; it's a literary emergency. John Reid 08:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How come?--Macaw 54 10:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Troll mag2.JPG

T is for... John Reid 09:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for fun, I replaced the table code in the 'Frequency' section with a simple wikitable. The page shrunk from 123K to 101K. It's still too long though -- slicing it into related articles seems like a good idea to me. -- ArglebargleIV 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the table format shouldn't be too fancy -- simple presentation of the data is best. Also, the BCs definitely should be changed to the (relatively) standard, well, BC. I'll do that. -- ArglebargleIV 19:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The table you've replaced it with is way too crowded and actually looks more complex than the old one. It spills over the side of the page, and there is nothing to distinguish headers from the body. And so on. Even though I have written about the styling of tables, I asked my graphic-designer friend to look at it. He agrees that the simplified layout is unacceptable.--Macaw 54 08:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. It looks better now.
Changing the ADs and BCs is complete. -- ArglebargleIV 20:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

( 03:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC))[edit]

( 03:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC))


The base of this article isn't bad, but there is a level of detail here which is probably excessive. First thing, I think that the abbreviations need to be moved to another article (T (abbreviation), perhaps?). This will make finding the abbreviation list much easier for those who are looking for it. Also, the "Other Abbreviations" section looks to be just a list of some of the articles that begin with T, and can probably be removed. -- ArglebargleIV 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and did it. I think it is more useful with that split. -- ArglebargleIV 21:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
And it is still large; 79KB. Georgia guy 21:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Very true -- needs more work, I think. -- ArglebargleIV 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you waited until I was finished with the article before making such dramatic changes. That way, we'll have a more complete picture to work with. I was trying to work with you by making those suggestions, so let's try to reach a more-complete consensus before doing such things.--Macaw 54 05:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the abbreviations/disambiguation section doesn't belong here. It is a potentially useful section all by itself, and should be moved off immediately. How does having it in a separate article (with pointers back-and-forth) prevent you from working on the rest of the article? And what is the purpose of the "other abbreviations" section, other than a list of things that begin with the letter T? -- ArglebargleIV 13:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, it seems that AD and BC are the recommended abbreviations on Wikipedia, see Anno Domini. We might consider changing those back. -- ArglebargleIV 19:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not a style guide. They probably weren't paying attention. A.D. and B.C. is what Merriam Webster's Manual for Writers and Editors recommends. World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, and The Oxford English Dictionary use periods as well. Since it is an initialism (with each letter pronounced) rather than an acronym (with them pronounced as a word, e.g., NATO), this is the norm. As for editing the entry, I'm still moving, adding, and revising sections. I don't want to have to switch between articles, and I may come up with a better idea on what to do after I know more about the article.--Macaw 54 19:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. "Other abbreviations" isn't a list of words that begin with T, because in such a case, the list would be much longer.
What is "Other abbreviations" supposed to be, then? The article is way too big, and shold be split into separate, interlinked articles, probably one for each of main secitons would be a good start. The abbreviations has been once again moved off into a disambiguation page -- it just does not belong here, and could be useful to a lot of people as a disambiguation page. -- ArglebargleIV 00:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a list of abbreviations that I didn't write usage summaries for.--Macaw 54 08:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What are your sources for it? It does look like just a random selection of "T" words to me, I can't figure out what the criteria are for deciding which words get listed here and which don't. For example, "Tuna" is included in the list but "Turbot" isn't. "Theft" is there but "Terrorism" isn't. Why one but not the other? Bryan 08:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Because terrorism is not often abbreviated as T.--Macaw 54 08:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
And how do I go about checking this? You're just making an assertion here, no different from if I were to make the assertion that "terrorism is often abbreviated as T." Bryan 08:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Check my source below.[1]--Macaw 54 09:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Once I got the ISBN off of Amazon the bibliographic details were easy to come by. It doesn't appear to be in any of my local libraries, but now others can step in if they choose. I suspect it may still be worth splitting this list out of here, perhaps over to the disambiguation page as well, but at least the content is verifiable now. Since I assume you've got access to a copy, perhaps you could look for the book's explanation for how they chose which words to list and which not to? Bryan 09:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I have access to the e-book. This is from the preface: "Most entries in AIAD are specifically identified with the United States. Thousands of British and Canadian terms can also be found. Other non-U.S. acronyms most likely to be encountered in magazines and daily newspapers are included as well . . . No attempt is made to list acronyms of local businesses or associations, local units of government, or other terms in limited use. Obsolete terms are retained for their historical interest." So, the terms included in the list are not rare.--Macaw 54 09:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that a list of words which are abbreviated as 'T' by themselves, or a list of words which are abbreviated as T as part of a acronym? -- ArglebargleIV 11:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, the abbreviations section is currently an exact duplicate of the T (disambiguation) page and that looks like the right place to put something like this. There's no need for such redundancy, especially in such an oversized article, and indeed it's likely that over time the two lists will diverge inappropriately as people add new entries to one or the other but not both. Bryan 07:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That "other abbreviations" section, on the other hand, is tricky. Most of the items listed there aren't links, so it doesn't seem like something that would fit as a disambiguation page. But more importantly, I don't see any basis for why these particular T-words are listed here. What is the criteria for inclusion? Bryan 07:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a list of words that are abbreviated as T. I have listed all known words in English that are abbreviated as T. That's it. That's the criterion for inclusion. The list of other abbreviations is set off because the abbreviations have no usage descriptions.--Macaw 54 08:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't really help me much. "All known" by what source? Is this some dictionary somewhere that's done an exhaustive review of literature and evaluated commonality, or is it just anything that anyone happens to see abbreviated that way in instant messages? How do I decide whether to include a new word or evaluate the ones here to determine whether they're incorrect? Bryan 08:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. There's the 4-volume Acronyms, Initialisms, and Abbreviations Dictionary. 37th ed.. Bohdan Romaniuk, Ed. (Detroit: 2006).--Macaw 54 08:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Finally. I'll add this to the article and we can perhaps move on to more important matters. Bryan 09:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Macaw 54 has copied the disambig page and the other abbreviations list back to here again (and redirected the disambig page). I don't see the point of it. Even apart from that, this article is turning into a long monograph instead of an encyclopedia article. I also don't think it should be using fonts the way it does -- those Windows/Mac fonts aren't guaranteed everythere. The article has a sourcing problem as well -- only four references? -- ArglebargleIV 11:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the split and added an "unreferenced" tag to the other abbreviations section in hopes of getting some sort of inclusion critera. Also a references section and some ref markup. I haven't looked at the rest of the article in detail yet, I figure I'll wait until I can make sure the obvious simple improvements like this split can be made to stick first. Bryan 15:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
There, now I've given the disambiguation page a major organizational overhaul to make it much easier to find things in there. Hopefully this demonstrates why it's useful to split such things off. Bryan 00:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Further splits?[edit]

The disambiguation split seems to be stable now, but the article is still 84 kilobytes so perhaps we should consider whether further sub-articles are warranted and if so which sections should be split off. Here are my thoughts:

  • The list of abbreviations has a reference now so it no longer seems like just a random assortment of words, but IMO it's still a bit out of place here and might be more appropriately moved over to the disambiguation page as well. This won't reduce the article's size dramatically but every bit helps.
  • The pronunciation section has rather a lot of material on the pronunciation of "th", but there's already a separate article called Pronunciation of English th so perhaps a lot of this material could be moved over there. I'm sure there's a lot of redundant material here so it would also be good for Wikipedia structurally to reduce that.
  • The "Form" section is rather large and is also image-heavy, perhaps split it off into its own article as well?

Anyone have any thoughts on these, or other ideas? Bryan 22:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

NO. That would make the information harder to find. The entry right now isn't hurting anyone. Encyclopedias have redundant information. For example, there will be overlap between "George Washington" and "Revolutionary War," because the information is relevant to both subjects. I let you split off that section to the disambiguation page, but can't always have everything you want. I'm not going to allow you to split it off.--Macaw 54 22:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
You didn't "let" me split the disambig page, you edit warred to prevent it when it was first attempted. Let's not keep on fighting about this. You've contributed a lot of stuff to this article but that doesn't mean you have final say over what happens to it, in fact we have a specific policy about that sort of thing (WP:OWN). I'm interested in other peoples' input too, and from the talk page above it looks like there's a lot of agreement that this page is overly large. Perhaps we should start a request for comment? Bryan 23:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The only reason you guys are here is because either (1) Georgia Guy invited you, or (2) you were looking at Special:Long Pages. None of you have a history of editing these pages. But, all of you have an agenda. You think that the length of a page is more important than (1) accessability, (2) aesthetics, and (3) relevance.--Macaw 54 05:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Georgia Guy did not invite me, and I stumbled upon T all by my lonesome.
IMO, the excessive length of this page has a direct negative impact on accessibility and relevance. The length of this page makes accessing specific information harder, and it is difficult to see the relevance to the data here to everything else in the Wikipedia when the article attempts to cover everything. Splitting parts of the article off will improve comprehension, IMO. -- ArglebargleIV 20:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Same here, I've never interacted with Georgia Guy that I can recall. I share Arglebargle's opinion that really long articles are unweildy, we're not writing chapters in a book. Wikipedia has developed a common style of "general overview" article branching out into a number of "specific detail" articles that I think works quite well, and I've argued for moving long articles to that style before. I have nothing against the letter T and I wouldn't do anything that I thought harmed Wikipedia's coverage of the subject. My agenda is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the subject. Bryan 05:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
As for redundancy, I think it's a good idea to minimize it wherever possible. The "th" pronunciation sections here and the Pronunciation of English th article cover the same ground but in different ways. Someone who reads only one may miss out on important stuff and someone who reads both may come away annoyed at having to spend all that extra effort to get it all (not to mention the possibility of encountering contradictions between the two). I'd say the same thing if there was a major overlap like this between George Washington and Revolutionary War. I'd probably suggest creating an article titled something along the lines of "George Washington's involvement in the American Revolutionary War" to hold the material common to both and link to it from both of those main articles. Bryan 05:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So, any further comments, suggestions or complaints before I get started on some of this? Bryan 18:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I propose that you finish splitting off the abbreviations and merge the material pertaining to th, but that you don't touch the material relating to the letter's form. However, the th merge would be a true merge, and any unique material would be added to the other entries.--Macaw 54 19:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a decent compromise, the "form" suggestion was my least certain one. I'll do that and see what everyone thinks. Bryan 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There, I've given it a shot. All of the material I removed from this article is incorporated into Pronunciation of English th; since I'm not an expert on this subject there may be some small areas of overlap but there was nothing that was particularly obvious to me. I've rearranged Pronunciation of English th extensively to bring together similar topics to hopefully make it easier to edit as a coherent whole. This article is now down to 69 kilobytes, which IMO is a decent size to settle at unless other good split lines become apparent. How's it look to you? Bryan 02:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
At 70 kB this article is still too big. Split it, I don't care how. New material should not be added from anywhere until the page gets down to half its present size. This is a critical issue for some users. John Reid 18:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
But that takes server spaceMadZarkoff (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Macaw 54[edit]

We've discovered that Macaw 54, a major contributor to this article and page, is a sock puppet of serial plagiarist and banned user Primetime. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime. Any material he sought to add was undoubtedly copied from someone else and should be removed. Note the same user has also engaged in contentious edits to A and J. -Will Beback 09:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh criminy. That's going to be a lot of stuff to clean up. :( Here's the last version before Macaw touched the article: [2] (30 June 2006). Looks like we're going to have to virtually start over again. Hopefully there were some useful edits by other people between then and now that we'll be able to salvage. Bryan 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

second most common letter in the English language[edit]

Is this sentence correct? It's just hard to believe that T is more used than some vowels like A, U etc.--Westermarck 20:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Added a reference obtained at Letter frequencies. I guess that's somewhat a duplication of resources, but someone else can always take care of that if so. --Deviattor (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How in the world could that material be a copyright violation?[edit]

(cur) (last)  17:58, 5 February 2007 ArglebargleIV (Talk | contribs) (Reverting to essentially last
version before User:Macaw64 (sock of User:Primetime) started expanding it (largely with copyvio material).)

Is the edit summary that removed the 133 edits made by Macaw 54 from July 4 to October 4, 2006. This is what the article looked like before the reversion with many of the sources cited at the bottom. I have some questions. First, how could the following public-domain additions, available online, and cited, be copyright violations: [3], [4], [5], [6]? Second, how could errors like these slip into a final published product: [7], [8], [9]? He reverted it, as you can see, like it was no big deal whatsoever. But, the fact that the edits were well-sourced (I can provide even more sources), made over such a long period of time, and made with errors that were later corrected proves that they are not copyright violations.--Rage 74 03:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Macaw64 was a sock of Primetime, known for inserting copyvio material in articles. The idea was to go back to a safe version, and examine any expansions from there. If you have sourced material, add it in, but provide the sources as well. Besides, the article was too freaking long -- this is an encyclopedia, not a warehouse for extensive monographs. -- ArglebargleIV 04:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Taw" has no relation to "cross" in hebrew[edit]

This line from the article seems wrong:

> Taw was the last letter of the Western Semitic and Hebrew alphabets, and probably represented a cross.

Though I'm not an expert on the subject, I do know Hebrew. The last letter in Hebrew is pronounced "taf" nowadays and it is used as a "t" sound. In certain older accents of religious people, they use this letter as an "s" sound (datiim vs dasiim eg). Also, the letter has no resemblance to a cross, here it is:


That's how the letter has looked since the days of the first testament iiuc. Also, nowadays "ט", the ninth letter in hebrew, is used as a "t" sound as well. So maybe you can go check that out.

-- (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So I had a look at The World's Writing Systems (ed. Daniels & Bright). Taw in most of the early Semitic scripts was indeed a cross or saltire. —Tamfang (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Expanding content of article, in a reasonable way[edit]

Hi! It sound like the article previously got a bit out of control in length, but I don't think it has to be this short. I think it would be on-topic and useful to add some info on pronunciation in languages other than English, so I'll be doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiralTurtle (talkcontribs) 00:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

T as in TART[edit]

Usage In English, 〈t〉 often denotes the voiceless alveolar plosive (International Phonetic Alphabet and X-SAMPA: /t/), as in "tart",

HOWEVER, are we speaking of the English initial "T" of 'Tart', or does the voiceless alveolar plosive ALSO apply to the end "t" of 'Tart' ??

Perhaps the substitution of another example other than 'Tart', if it is the former, might be preferable ? Might 'Today' be used ?? (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)