User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Request for comment[edit]

Hi! I wanted to bring this change to your notice : Talk:Hindi#Hindi_image--Cubancigar11 (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Have to disagree, but it should be easy enough to compromise. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Merkabah mysticism[edit]

I wonder if you could review the latest edits to Merkabah mysticism in which an editor changed the spelling of "Merkabah" to "Merkavah". CorinneSD (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

With simple spelling differences like this, there's no correct answer. For transliteration of foreign words, we generally go by what we've agreed to here at WP; for regular text (words assimilated into English), by what's more common in the lit. For the latter, a good place to compare is Google Ngram Viewer. If you plug in those variants with "mysticism" included, the spelling with a bee wins out; if you leave out "mysticism", it's closer, but in either case the vee form is closing fast. (Though Ngram cuts off at the year 2000 because of the lag in scanning in books, and the most you can extend it is to 2008.)
Our editor, though, is only arguing that the italicized transliteration should be changed. That seems reasonable at first – a vee is what we'd use for Modern Hebrew – but ISO 259 suggests that for Biblical Hebrew we'd use a bee. (See also Transliteration of Hebrew#Table.) I really don't know. Certainly the ref the editor used would appear to be irrelevant. You might ask at the help/ref desk or a biblical wikiproject which would be more appropriate in this case. — kwami (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thank you. At Google Ngram Viewer, where do you actually "plug in" variants? CorinneSD (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
In the search window at top. There should be an example there. No quotation marks, separate w unspaced commas. — kwami (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles[edit]

I have started a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles. Anomalocaris (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

PUA[edit]

Running the dump file now, but Doabi dialect has some PUAs. I removed a few already. Bgwhite (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that they can't just be deleted without ruining the text. With the boxes, at least the reader recognizes that something is missing. I left a note on the author's page, asking them to clean it up. If nothing happens, I'll delete the section for being illegible. — kwami (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the article: thanks. (Malikhpur) (talk)

Thanks. — kwami (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello Kwamikagami, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what they're talking about. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I haven't either... Peridon (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

Just a tip - when you CSD tag a redirect, make sure the tag goes above the redir code. If it's below, anyone visiting gets taken to the target (and is likely to think the problem's been sorted...). Tagging above cancels out the redir, so the tag will be seen. Peridon (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I purposefully did that so as to not disrupt the redirect. I didn't want to interfere with our readers. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Allaroundamazingbarnstar.png All Around Amazing Barnstar
Dear Kwamikagami, thank you for all of your amazing contributions to language related articles. Your contributions are making a difference here on Wikipedia! Keep up the good work! With regards, AnupamTalk 21:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! — kwami (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

hi[edit]

Hi Kwami, I hate those tag things in texts so what exactly is the problem in the Georgian script article in those sections? Jaqeli (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It means I literally don't know what those passages mean. I don't understand what a "closed circumference" could be on shapes that have no closed lines, or what it means for an arc to take their place on one side, or how you can have a "throat" (I assume that means circle) on a line that has no circle. I've fixed wording like that elsewhere in the article, but I can't fix something I don't understand.
Hey, I like the new image at the top. Very handy. It needs a gloss, though: the transliteration we use in the article, so people can tell what the letters are. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Kwami, Georgian standard keyboard is not used by anyone and why do you keep inserting it instead of the universally used keyboard for Georgian which is Qwerty? And what's your concern exactly on the Georgian Qwerty keyboard template? Jaqeli (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It's what all the typewriters are, and the default option in MS. This is a historical article, so we should follow historical norms, though we can merge the entire keyboard article if you like. Also, your version of the keyboard was inaccurate: you had the caps mixed up with l.c., and also with alt keys, and deleted several keys as well. — kwami (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
What caps exactly and which letters were wrong? Or which keys I've removed exactly? The keyboard was done exactly to the source. Jaqeli (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
What's your source?
The number keys and punctuation were ambiguous: you couldn't tell which was the shift value, except for , and <, . and >, / and ?, and | and ~, which were backwards. ტ and თ were also backwards, and the other letters were inconsistent. You left out N, «, », and ჻.
BTW, why would a Georgian keyboard include the letter N? — kwami (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
True, true. I don't know actually why would we need a Latin N there. Weird. Jaqeli (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Romang language[edit]

Should we move this back to Roma language do you think? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 07:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC).

Don't know. It would have to be dab'd to st like Roma language (Maluku). The current name is unambiguous, but I don't know if it's better otherwise. — kwami (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It always sits uneasily when the name at the top (without qualifiers) is different from the the name used on the infobox, first in bold in the lead and throughout the article, except in COMMONNAME cases. I will adopt your suggestion I think. BTW birthday cake available on my talk page. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 22:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC).

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Երևանցի talk 00:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Piri Reis[edit]

Hmm. It really makes sense. --Cobija (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Backlog drive[edit]

Wiki letter w.svg

Hello Kwamikagami,

WikiProject Orphanage is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive to de-orphan articles which have orphan tags!
The goal is to eliminate the backlog of orphan articles. There are currently 120319 articles which have orphan tags. The drive is running from April 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all editors participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. To add your name in the participants list click here.
So start de-orphaning articles! Click here to see the list of articles need de-orphaning. Visit Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article to know more!

Thanks. Opt-out Instructions by Jim Cartar on behalf of WikiProject Orphanage through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I've already done the backlog of language articles, or at least all I can find. — kwami (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Mount Elbrus[edit]

I noticed an edit to Mount Elbrus in which an editor reversed the order of two modern language descendants of Elbrus/Alborz and added an additional sentence about Alborz. What do you think of these changes? CorinneSD (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the parenthetical, but I don't know what diff the order makes. It may be best to put the better-known language first, as they have. In fact, since AFAIK it's not a Kurdish-speaking area, why bother with Kurdish at all? — kwami (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Brazilian postalveolar sounds[edit]

They are palatalized postalveolar coronal by what it seems, altogether (I also produce and perceive them as such, and can tell the difference quite easily), but you said here that they are not quite the same of alveolopalatal – indeed, there is a source framing Japanese pronunciation of BP as somewhat exaggerated (it's still closer than the palato-alveolar to my ears though), and the Catalan sound is identical to ours –, so I wonder if I should follow the norm adopted for the nasal and the lateral in their respective articles, and instead of writing [ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ], use [ʃʲ ʒʲ tʃʲ dʒʲ] (or, as you used there, [s̠ʲ]) when indicating their palatalization, including given how the sources do not adopt the alveolopalatal symbols?

In the case you or someone else wonders, I am a bit afraid of editing the affricate articles, because their allophony is just much crazier than that of the fricatives (my source says folks have the Old Portuguese use of them instead of the merger even in Cuiabá, that's already 7 or 8 lines of Portuguese dialectal variations), and people get more passionate over the subject (so I can't just put it as if "well, that takes place in Brazil, the end"... or perhaps can, but not without second opinions), so I've been procrastinating over stuff I should've already done. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Ladefoged said that [ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ] is the same as [ʃʲ ʒʲ tʃʲ dʒʲ], and in effect that we don't really need the IPA letters ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ, which is why I distinguished them as s̠ʲ etc. But this is a bit beyond me, and I've come across sounds in this area that I didn't know quite what to do with. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Tin[edit]

In the first sentence in the section Tin#Etymology, we read, "Tin is Germanic; related words are found in the other Germanic languages". Since "Germanic" is a language family, I wonder whether the word "other" is necessary. Perhaps instead of "related words are found in the other Germanic languages", it should read, "related words are found in several Germanic languages". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The existing wording is perfectly understandable, even if not completely logical. "Other" clearly means "other than English", though "the" doesn't work unless it's found in all of them. Your wording also works, though it could be read to imply that English isn't a Germanic language, as if it maybe borrowed "tin" from Germanic languages. Maybe we could say "Tin is an Old English word, related to the name (found?) in other Germanic languages"? It's found at least in Dutch, Frisian, High German, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Faroese, Icelandic, Luxembourgish, Old High German, Old Norse, and is reconstructed for proto-Germanic, so unless it's not found in Gothic (would we even know?), it's pretty safe to simply say it's found in Germanic languages. Maybe we could add that it's not found outside of the Germanic family, except when borrowed from a Germanic language (as in Welsh, Finnish, Polish)? — kwami (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed reply. In the interim, another editor re-worded the entire paragraph. It seems to me to be a great improvement. I left a note on his/her talk page asking whether "traced back to" might be better than "traced down to", but other than that, it sounds all right to me. What do you think of the way it is now? CorinneSD (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving pages[edit]

Please don't forget that when you move a page you should check for double redirects. You left at least two today. Thanks. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There are bots to clean those up. — kwami (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Given that there was an almost 5 hour difference between your move and my fixing of the double redirects I suspect the bots are not working. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 08:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Tags don't solve the problem, you do[edit]

This is one of those situations when we need to be careful to not let the other misinterpret our position. You see, I am not against, I am pro. I am not booing, I am applauding. You pointed to something interesting. What if others interpret that the way you did ? So, let's do the following, let's make it better Kwami. Your knowledge of the topic is enormous. You can change that in a twinkle of an eye. That's more appreciated :) ! Krenakarore TK 09:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know how to fix it, or at least I can't tell what was intended. There might density calculation in there, but if so, I don't know how to replicate it. — kwami (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh ! Well, maybe we could sort it out if you could make yourself more explicit. What is wrong there, once I can't see it ? By the way, your editing as of 13 April are all timely. Thank you for improving the article Kwami :) ! Krenakarore TK 09:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Explained on the talk page. — kwami (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of edits[edit]

I have opened a discussion on all three talk pages, Talk:Uummarmiutun#Unexplained reversion, Talk:Kangiryuarmiutun#Unexplained reversion and Talk:Inuinnaqtun#Reversion of edit. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You think I'm being "petty" for reverting an admitted error that you "should not have made"? And you're duplicating the discussion on three pages? — kwami (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Mi'kmaq[edit]

See my post at Til's page. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

New language modules/templates[edit]

Please see here if you'd like to give me feedback on these. — lfdder 22:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation key for IPAc-pl[edit]

Hi there. Back in October 2013 I asked you for your help with adding pronunciation key to {{IPAc-pl}}. You suggested I gather some support first, I started a discussion at Help_talk:IPA_for_Polish#Mouseover_tooltips_for_IPA_template, I also advertised the discussion at WP:POLAND. So far I have one person supporting the idea (Piotrus) and no opposition, but I guess this is as much support as one can get for such a complicated topic. So, are you still willing to help? //Halibutt 10:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said more about where to discuss this. We really should get feedback from the IPA folks, and evidently not many are watching the IPA-pl talk page. Maybe at WP:LANG or MOS:IPA? I have reservations about giving English equivalents for other languages. It's one thing in a key, but we've always discouraged this kind of thing in articles. They tend to devolve into bastardized pronunciations that are neither English nor the target language, which is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. What you're proposing is a bit different, because it would be set by a centralized discussion, and can be fixed universally if problems crop up, and wouldn't even appear unless the IPA is there, but still I worry that it might encourage bastardized transcriptions in the articles themselves. We're currently in the middle of a bad-faith, ad hominem dispute at Aram Khachaturian about including a bastardized pronunciation there, by an editor who is too ignorant of the situation to be able to distinguish English from Armenian, but who insists that he knows better than everyone else. The same thing could easily happen in Polish articles. — kwami (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Rings of Chariklo[edit]

slakrtalk / 08:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Iranian classification[edit]

hey man, this is source about sivandi: http://www.ethnologue.com/language/siy/***EDITION*** , the sivandi is not southwestern, it is member of northwestern Iranian language!!! also semnani is northwestern Languages: http://www.ethnologue.com/language/smy/***EDITION*** caspian languages like the Mazandarani,gilaki,... are member of northwestern Languages, not distinct iranian branch: http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:560728/FULLTEXT02.pdf , http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:560728/FULLTEXT02.pdf , http://www.ethnologue.com/language/glk , http://www.ethnologue.com/language/mzn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrram (talkcontribs) 08:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ethnologue is not a reliable source. The Iranian articles have been unsourced or poorly sourced for years, so I finally redid them per The Iranian Languages (Routledge 2009). — kwami (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what to do[edit]

I made an edit to Ruki sound law the replaced curly braces with parenthesis. You added three curly brackets in a row, which is a template variable. Did you mean parenthesis or curly bracket? Bgwhite (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant it as visible curly braces in addition to the template. Should've put them inside. I thought parentheses had other meanings, with curly brackets used for sets? — kwami (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Good, it got fixed. I haven't a clue what to do. Bgwhite (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Malta - I said it twice - Read the f...ing law !!![edit]

Civil Unions Act

Article 1: [...] the Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" [...]

Article 6 (1): [...] with regard to a marriage celebrated abroad by two persons of the same sex, article 18 of the Act shall be construed in such a manner as to be applicable to such marriage.

---

Marriage Act

Article 18: A marriage, whether celebrated in Malta or abroad, shall be valid for all purposes of law in Malta [...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knisfo (talkcontribs) 07:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

We're not lawyers. If RS's say something other than what the law appears on the surface to say, then perhaps they understand something we don't. — kwami (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

hotcat[edit]

Kwami, does your hotcat work? Mine does not. It's checked in my preferences but these couple of hours hotcat is dead in my system and does not work. How's yours? Jaqeli (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No, mine hasn't worked since last year. I thought it had been disabled. — kwami (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Reenabled, still don't see it. — kwami (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Weird. It's now working. Can you check again? Maybe it will work for you as well? Jaqeli (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No, still not working for me. — kwami (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Need help[edit]

Hi Kwami, I just developed this article, but its language section remains poorly written. looking at its contribution history, I see that you and a contributor named Stevey7788 are pretty good at linguistics and still active until now. Stevey7788 has stopped to edit recently though. I need you to improve the language section of the article and create a lexically comparative table between Nung sub-dialects, southern zhuang sub-dialects, laotian, thai, tai ahom and tai phake. Not sure if Tai languages is your interest? Psychoneuroimmunology (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I don't have the refs for that. And it would be in a separate language article anyway. The ethnic article would be rather unbalanced with all that linguistic info in it and little on culture or religion. — kwami (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Thanks Psychoneuroimmunology (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation[edit]

Hi. I thought the point of these new marks was that the ole Q mark and E mark could only be put at the end of sentences so COULD NOT be used in the same way as the new marks that can appear within a sentence. Myrvin (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The proposer may have believed that, in which case they were wrong, or they may have intended the new marks to distinguish the two uses of the existing onse. It certainly is an intuitive proposal, but since capitalization indicates the beginning of a new sentence, it's not really needed. Exclamation marks in the middle of a sentence are quite common, and there are some examples in our article. Question marks less so, at least in English, but I added one example I found in a style guide. — kwami (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've moved this to the article's Talk page. Myrvin (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Video[edit]

Kwami, how do you think is it possible to input this video into the Georgian scripts' article? It was published by the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia. Or maybe we can link it? Jaqeli (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

For us to upload it, we'd need to have the proper permission – it would need to be CC3 or whatever. There's also a size limit on uploads. But embedding it in the article would be problematic because of the time it would take to load. It could interfere with the article, especially for people on slow internet connections. It would make an excellent external link, though. I like the stroke order given at the end. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind that I added it. I'd like to use it to improve the stroke-order chart. — kwami (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about this video? Jaqeli (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Naw, that's intended for kids who already know Georgian words. It doesn't show you how to write them. I did find a video of a woman writing on ruled paper. That's quite useful. Also, the stroke order is a bit different than your first video, illustrating some of the variation we see. — kwami (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
See [1]. Jaqeli (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
See again TP on commons. Jaqeli (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
See TP on commons. Jaqeli (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
See TP on commons. Jaqeli (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
See TP on commons. Jaqeli (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
See TP on commons. Jaqeli (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A user needs your help![edit]

Hi Kwami,

Please see this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kwamikagami/Archive_24&diff=prev&oldid=593356712 - I saw it while checking the user creation logs. --Slashme (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

He didn't post in in the archive, but here, and I asked for clarification, but never got a response. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I didn't realise that! --Slashme (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hafez[edit]

I'm in the process of reading the article on Hafez. In the first paragraph in the section "Life" there is mention of two individuals whose first name is Mohammad. I noticed that there is a dot under the "h" in the name. I looked at the article on the Persian alphabet and saw that there are two "h's", one ḥe(-ye jimi), which gives h with a dot under it but just "h" in IPA, and the other he(-ye do-češm), which gives h with no dot under it and just "h" in IPA. I guess Mohammad in Arabic has the ḥe(-ye jimi), but in Persian, I believe the two h's are pronounced the same. I just wonder why the "h" has a dot under it. How are English speakers supposed to know what that means? CorinneSD (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between phonetic transcription (IPA) and transliteration (DIN 31635). The DIN h is, simply, the Persian letter ه in the Latin script and is ح -- the IPA h is how these two letters are pronounced. Think of how though we write car and kinetic, they both map to the same sound (/k/). — lfdder 16:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thank you for that explanation. But that does not explain why the h is written with a dot under it (and how do you write that, anyway? It's not an option in the Special Characters drop-down menu, above.) in English. CorinneSD (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Because that's the letter the people who came up with this transliteration scheme chose. There's nothing more to it. The dot doesn't carry any meaning on its own; it's part of the letter. And it's not written with a dot under it "in English", but in the Latin script. — lfdder 16:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, c/k is a good analogy. These are distinct sounds in Arabic, but they got conflated in Persian, just as several other consonants did, and just as Etruscan c/k/q got conflated in Latin. When transcribing the Persian language, we use /h/ for both, because we're interested in pronunciation. But when transliterating Persian writing, we use the diacritic, because we need to distinguish the two letters. In Arabic, the transcription and transliteration are equivalent (for consonants, not of course for vowels), but in Persian they diverge because the alphabet is only imperfectly adapted to Persian.

Why a dot? In Indic languages, a sub-dot is used for retroflex consonants, in Arabic for emphatic consonants. Neither has anything to do with ح, but I suppose it was used because it was available.

As for how to enter them, well, it just so happens that a couple years ago I added letters for Latin transliteration to the Arabic character box under your edit window. (Though I called them "transcription" by mistake.) This particular letter also appears in the Latin character box. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your explanations. Kwami where is that Arabic character box? I'm still confused, though. I guess I don't understand the difference between transcription and transliteration. Also, if Mohammad with the dot is a transliteration from Persian, and Persian pronounces the "h" as we do, why is it necessary to include the dot? Is it just to show which Persian "h" was used in the spelling in Persian? CorinneSD (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, for your last point. That's the difference between transcription and transliteration. Transliteration is letter-by-letter (thus the "-liter-" in "transliterate"), regardless of pronunciation; transcription is reduction to writing ("-script-") more generally. Imagine we wanted to render English in Cyrillic for Russian speakers. "Team" could be written тийм (tijm), which would tell them how to pronounce it, or теам, which would tell them how to write it. If you write Mohammed with a ḥ, then you can look it up in a Persian dictionary. And since you know ḥ is just pronounced like an h, you can pronounce it too.
As for the character boxes, they were immediately below your edit window when you responded. Just below the lower left corner is a little window that might say something like "Insert", followed by a line of characters to can click on to insert them in your answer. At the right edge of the window, there's a little down-pointing arrow head. Click on the little window, and it will reveal other options. One of them is Arabic. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Kwami. At the risk of annoying you, could you give an example of transcription and transliteration rendering a Russian (or Persian) word into English so that I can see the difference? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, 'transcription' is a rather generic term, so it might be that in can include transliteration, I'm not really sure. I see the two used in contrast, but sometimes it can be ambiguous. I suppose it would be better to specify phonetic or phonemic transcription if you want to be clear.

The Russian word for "him/his" is written "его" in standard orthography. That middle letter is a gee (gamma), so a transliteration would be ego (or jego, depending on your convention for "е" vs "э"). But the Russian spelling is an irregular historical form: that gamma is not pronounced like a g, as it is in most words, but like a v. A phonemic transcription would therefore be something like jevo. If you were teaching Russian in the days before computers, and didn't have a Cyrillic typewriter, then you might want the transliteration ego, so that your students would learn the irregularities of Russian orthography. But if you're writing a Russian phrase book for tourists, who cares how it's written in Russian: you'd transcribe it evo (or yevó or whatever).

The only time transliterations differ from phonemic transcriptions is when the orthography is not phonemic. A pronunciation respelling is a phonemic transcription of English that uses the English alphabet (rather than the IPA) but ignores the original orthography.

BTW, there are different brackets to mark the difference. Angle brackets are commonly used for transliteration, slashes for phonemic transcription, and square brackets for phonetic transcription, so the word spelled "его" could be rendered ego, /jeˈvo/, and [jɨˈvo].

Can't tell from your user page. Do you know any Mandarin? "Flower" might be transliterated huā-ěr, since that's the pinyin for the characters, but transcribed phonemically as huār, which is how it's actually pronounced. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Kwami. From your examples from Russian, above, I wouldn't find transliteration (to ego) very useful. I read the first few paragraphs in the articles Phonetic transcription and Phonemic transcription. In the article on Phonetic transcription it describes the difference between broad transcription and narrow transcription. It seems that "broad transcription" is one kind of phonemic transcription and is less precise than narrow transcription which would use something like the IPA. (A bit confusing.) In your examples showing the different brackets, above, why is "IPA" in caps in the second one and "ipa" in lower-case for the third one?[no difference, just using a different keyboard —kwami] It seems to me that if one does not know the IPA symbols, the second example (/je'vo/) is more helpful than the third example.
I know just a few words of Mandarin, enough to know the tones, but I have studied Russian (quite a while ago) and a few other languages. CorinneSD (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The IPA has nothing to do with this. You're asking what's the difference between width and depth, and getting hung up on whether I give an example in miles or kilometers. Both phonetic and phonemic transcriptions can be given in IPA or any of dozens of other systems, just as distance and depth can be given in meters or leagues or li. For the 3rd edition, the OED switch from their in-house system to IPA, but the level of detail is the same. So, for the 3rd Russian example above, I could have transcribed it [yih-VOE]. Doesn't really matter, as long as you define your symbols. (Though English respellings of Russian words, like "yih-VOE", are never going to be very accurate.)
Broad phonetic transcription is often approximately phonemic, but it doesn't have to be. Narrow transcription gives more detail. For example, you may give a broad phonetic transcription that has those non-phonemic elements that an English speaker is likely to be able to hear, and thus might cause confusion, but ignoring those elements that they'll probably never notice. For example, you might transcribe Spanish /mismo/ (mismo) with a [z], [mizmo], but ignore the exact realization of the /o/.

Persian vocabulary[edit]

I don't know if you can help me with this, but you are so knowledgeable that I think perhaps you can. It is in the article Persian vocabulary. I had noticed the error back in September and at that time left a note on the article's talk page Talk:Persian vocabulary, but no one has responded since then. I just remembered that error and my comment yesterday; it took me a while to find the article. I checked again to be sure it is an error, and I am sure it is, and I added an additional note to my earlier comment on the Talk page. I could fix the English, I suppose, but I don't know how to fix the Persian. The Persian letter "g" is missing before the "i" in the final syllable in "danandegi". I know you showed me where to find "Insert Arabic" below the edit window, but Arabic doesn't have a "g", so I can't use that. Can you fix it? CorinneSD (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You could copy & paste the گ from the full word, but user:lfdder gave a reason for not adding it. I have no idea if he's right, but it sounds reasonable. Even if he is right, it might be clearer to add the g in parentheses. — kwami (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
There are many words in Persian that end -gi. I don't think it's a consonant that is just added for pronunciation reasons (which is what Lfdder was referring to, I think; can't remember the word). I'll try to add the letter. Isn't there a Persian expert somewhere on WP? CorinneSD (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
"Epenthetic". Yeah, /g/ would be odd an an epenthetic consonant. More likely, assuming he's more-or-less right, it would be a historical form which has dropped in some environments, like the /n/ in English "an apple".
A couple places you could check: Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran, and anyone who has {{user fa}} (native speakers) or {{user fa-5}}, {{user fa-4}} (good non-native speakers) on their user page. Check the categories linked at the bottom of those templates for people using them. — kwami (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I've posted a link to a paper discussing Persian epenthetic consonants at Talk:Persian vocabulary. IIRC, the author says 'epenthetic' [g] occurs in derivatives of words that used to end with it. — lfdder 01:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Thank you for the information. I'm sorry, Kwami. When I replied just above a few minutes ago, I had not seen Lfdder's second comment. I just spent some time reading the material in the link he provided. (I had never seen such technical-sounding discussions regarding language before!) I skimmed the parts I could barely understand and got to the part about /g/ starting on page 159 and going for several pages. You are right, Kwami. Some scholars think it was part of the word in Middle Persian and just stayed on in some, but not all, forms. See page 160, the paragraphs beginning "Moreover," and "However,". I still haven't gotten to any statement that would explain why it is not written in that table, though. CorinneSD (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, because whatever grammar of the language the table's based on does not distinguish between an -i and a -gi suffix, probably (I think) for the reason that [g] is sort-of kind-of epenthetic (that paper calls it 'latent'). — lfdder 01:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Lfdder! I was just about to leave a note for you after your comment on the article's Talk page, thanking you for the information and the link. Well, I have learned a new word ("epenthetic"). And (sigh) from that paper I have seen how little I know about linguistics. CorinneSD (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like it would go on the root rather than with the suffix.
Some people use "epenthetic" that way, mostly just as a convenience. French liaison is essentially the same thing, but "epenthetic" really means that you can predict what sound it is and where it would go, like the "e" in the plural churches. If you can't predict it, like in French and Persian, then it's not really epenthesis. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
All right (learned some more), but if the "g" is actually written in Persian, which it is, then how would leaving off the "g" in the table help anyone who is trying to learn something about Persian vocabulary? CorinneSD (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
What about adding it to the end of the root in parentheses? — kwami (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Persian alphabet[edit]

In the article Persian alphabet, there is a large table with the alphabet. I noticed several blue asterisks but could not find a key to explain the reason for the asterisks. Perhaps you could figure out what the key should be. CorinneSD (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Corinne, those are the letters covered in the "Exceptions" section directly below the table. I'll see what I can do to make it a bit more intuitive. VanIsaacWScont 15:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it's clearer just to merge the cells. That makes it pretty obvious, doesn't it? I reworded the footnote a bit to match. — kwami (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a lot better, isn't it? VanIsaacWScont 01:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is clearer. CorinneSD (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar![edit]

LGBT-Barnstar1.png The LGBT Barnstar
For your work over at Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States, the article looks vastly improved and I am happy to see there was an agreement made on the results. =) Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! — kwami (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Loveclough[edit]

LOL I presume that this [2] is more than coincidence? Either way, although I know how to pronounce Loveclough I can only guess that your transcription is correct. Maybe you could enlighten me as to the usefulness of the IPA templates? I don't think they are required even at FA level. I'm not particularly opposed to them, but feel that the nett effect is to increase confusion. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No, no coincidence. I saw your comment, and realized that I could only guess at the pronunciation of that name.
As for why we add the IPA, it's because many people want to know how to pronounce the things they're looking up. It makes it difficult to discuss them if you can only do it in writing.
As for why the IPA and not something else, for the same reason we use the metric system. Some Americans complain that metric measurements only make an article confusing, but we're an international encyclopedia, so we need to use international standards.
Besides, you're British! If you can use a British dictionary like the OED, you should be able to read the IPA.
That pronunciation corresponds to "LUFF-cluff", where the 'u' of "cluff" is a full vowel, like the first vowel in "unplugged" vs. the schwa at the beginning of "another". (Or like the 'u' in two pronunciations of "omnibus".) — kwami (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I’m not suggesting that they don’t have a use, just that the number of people who look at them and see info is massively outweighed by the number that think “what is that mess of squiggles?”. I don’t buy the OED IPA argument at all, I was taught the alphabet (and the use of a dictionary) as a small child along with both metric and imperial measurement systems. If afraid phonetics bypassed my education completely. Surely the whole concept is limited by people having accents? Is the IPA widely used in any part of the world?
While I can tell you that Clough is from Old English clōh meaning ravine. And is a little unusual this far north, a few miles further and it would be Gill from the Old Norse (thanks to a small Viking problem we once had). I’d guess you are correct there. However although early spellings seem to use “luff”, today it is just love (can probably thank the Victorians, they did love a systematic approach). --Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
An example that occurs to me is Bury, a town just 20 minutes drive away from me. I'd back you if wanted to change that transcription, but to people where I'm from they all talk funny! :) --Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
So if you encounter a word in writing you've not seen or heard before and its pronunciation isn't obvious, what do you do? I mean, other than throw your hands in the air and go make some tea? — lfdder 23:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Ha, if you don't have to discuss it, it doesn't matter how its pronounced! If somebody else isn't already using it in a conversation how often will you need to? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, say you're reading off a map and you want to go to Dalston Junction (a place you've never heard being said before) and you get lost on the way -- so you think, let's ask someone on the street. That's not a very outlandish scenario, is it? Also, let's not forget that most speakers of English are not native speakers, and they might've not wrapped their heads around the peculiarities of English orthography. The spelling of foot, for example, might lead a non-native speaker to think it's pronounced with a long 'u'. — lfdder 23:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What if it's something both of you have read about? Some people like to be able to say what's on their mind. (I'm one of them.)
Your argument, that providing information that some people are ignorant of is confusing, means that we shouldn't use the metric system – Americans find it confusing. And we shouldn't use UK decimal currency – old folks find it confusing. And we shouldn't use long words – high-school dropouts find them confusing. You may not be able to read the OED, but plenty of people can. And no, accents have little to do with it. We have a basically pan-English transcription system (though we can't accommodate Scots). It's not much different than whichever dictionary system you learned as a child: /ɪ/ is the vowel of "bit", /ɛ/ is the vowel of "bet", etc., regardless of your accent. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
So you're saying that non-native speakers of English (in addition to native speakers) would be advised to learn the IPA in order to learn to pronounce any word in English? Should a guide to the IPA be included in all tourist guidebooks, telephone directories, newspapers, elementary, junior and high school textbooks,....? I think it would take longer to learn the IPA and practice applying it than it would to (a) learn English, and (b) learn to read the pronunciation guide at the bottom of the page of an English dictionary. "a" as in "cat", "a" as in "date", "a" as in "father", etc. You might be interested in a discussion about this very topic at WP:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 12#An idea/suggestion to change Wikipedia's pronunciation key. CorinneSD (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw a Czech–English dictionary, where English pronunciations were respelled in Czech rather than the IPA. But that would mean that we'd need a respelling for every language that a Wikipedia reader is likely to speak, which is obviously impossible.

But the IPA *is* the key at the bottom of the dictionary page! At least it is outside the US. In the US, Webster's has a different set of conventions than Random House, which has a different set that American Heritage. What you're proposing is that we toss out metric in favor of Imperial, and then start arguing over whether to use US or UK Imperial. We're an international dictionary, and we use international standards. BTW, I did create (or at least normalized, I forget which) both a US-dictionary-style key for illiterate Americans, and a respelling key, but neither are much used. The first is unintelligible to non-Americans, and the second causes problems with people misreading it because the syllables are spelled the same as English words with different pronunciations. — kwami (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is all quite interesting but it’s 1AM here so I have to come back tomorrow. I’d be interested in a response to Bury. Oh and lfdder that is a completely outlandish scenario, I’m a man and therefore can’t possibly ever be lost :) --Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
We have Bury pronounced like "berry". If there are multiple pronunciations of the name, it would be useful to provide them, though perhaps in a section on the name rather than in the lead. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Being serious, I know English is a complicated language and pronunciation problems are reasonably commonplace, and we do all so hate to be proved wrong. The concept of a pronunciation guide obviously makes sense. However it does still seem that IPA is something primarily for the language geeks. That it doesn’t seem to be taught in either UK or US schools is surely an issue on English wiki? That said there doesn’t appear to be an obviously better solution (I’m not nearly qualified enough to have an opinion on if CorinneSD’s idea would work any better in practice). I wonder if more could be done in the help files to make IPA less daunting to the completely uninitiated? All I really need to know is where to turn if I encounter another transcription dispute? In fact maybe someone could get involved at Clitheroe before it gets to the edit-war notice board?
Bury is quite common in UK place names and as far as I’m aware is generally pronounced “berry” which I find a little odd as it supposedly comes from Burh. Coming from Burn-lee, I suspect that I’m in a tiny group that just can’t accept a syllable we’re so familiar with, being pronounced differently. Also I note a suspicious lack of IPA in Tomato :) --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
We do have tooltips to help with the IPA. I tried something a bit more elaborate once, but the Wiki software wouldn't support it. I don't know what more we can do. If British dictionaries are now using the IPA, that would seem to indicate they think their readers can handle it. Maybe it's a generational thing. As for Americans not being able to handle it, well, we can't find Mexico on a map of Mexico.
Since you're local, you can help with Bury. It may be that it's pronounced differently than other towns with the same spelling, and that whoever added the pronunciation didn't know that. Or it may be that it is pronounced "berry" by the outside world, but differently by locals. Either way, that's info we should include. — kwami (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind learning the IPA if it were laid out all on one page, with example words in American English, or both American and British English, for as many words as possible. I don't know if there already is such a chart, but I haven't seen one. For some of the sounds which are not found in English, perhaps one or two example words that contain the sound that most nearly approximates that sound would be sufficient. It would be nice if readers could see the IPA pronunciation for a word or name and, if necessary, be able to open up the entire IPA guide I just described. In addition, it would be nice if readers could also click to see the pronunciation using a dictionary-type pronunciation guide. These guides can be made for the various types of English (American, British, Australian, Indian, etc.) This way, readers could look at either or both types of guides. The easy accessibility of the IPA guide with example words might even gradually introduce readers to the IPA system. Kwami, you said you had tried some things, but don't you think the technical people could come up with these kinds of links? CorinneSD (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There is Help:IPA for English. Clicking on a transcription takes you there. — lfdder 23:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, English pronunciation: /ɑː/ will take you to the English guide, French pronunciation: ​[ɑː] will take you to the French guide, IPA: [ɑː] will take you to the generic guide, etc. That's why the transcriptions are all blue: They're links.
Also, from the generic key, each of the letters is linked to a dedicated article, in case the "sounds like X" isn't enough to understand it.
I'd worry about learning the IPA for English or another language you know first. Leave the rest for when you're comfortable with the basics. — kwami (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, thank you. I had seen that article, but got bored by the paragraphs at the beginning and didn't even see the chart below them. I've been looking at the chart, and I am puzzled by a few things. Do you mind if I ask you about them?
1) In the first column ("Full vowels") under the "Vowels" section, it shows a kind of a: and then PALM, father, bra, then below that a kind of backwards a and LOT, pod, John. To me, all six words rhyme (with regard the the vowel sound) exactly, so I wonder why they are indicated as having a different vowel sound.
2) In the "Followed by R" column, it shows "flour" and "flower" with different symbols to the left. To me, these words sound exactly the same, so I wonder why the symbols are different.
3) "Boor, moor, tourist" are grouped together and have a collection of symbols next to them. In that collection of symbols, the first one is the curly capital U that is seen further to the left for "foot, good, full, woman". However, to me, the vowel sound in "boor, moor, tourist" is more like the vowel sound in "goose, food, fool, soon", which has the symbol of a smooth capital U. Why did they use the curly capital U?
4) "Borough and hurry" are grouped together, and "Nurse, word, girl, fern, and furry" are grouped together. But to me, the vowel sound in all seven words is the same, so I wonder why they have different symbols next to them. And besides that, that vowel sound sounds to me like the vowel sound in "foot, good", not the vowel sound in "strut, mud", so I wonder why the symbol next to "borough, hurry" is an upside-down V (plus r).
5) Finally, just above that, "cure" is listed with a collection of symbols beginning with "ju". I understand the vowel sound in "cure" being represented by "ju" + er, kind of like yoo-er, but to me, the vowel sound in "sewer" is not like that. It doesn't have the "yoo" sound. It sounds like the vowel sound in "truer", which is just above "cure". I remember my grandmother used to say "nyoo" for the word "new", but no one says that anymore. Now "new" is pronounced "noo". CorinneSD (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
See the footnotes on mergers. Some people pronounce the words "hoarse" and "horse" the same, some don't. Like Webster's or Random House or any other dictionary, we specify which word has which sound, and if you pronounce them all the same in your dialect, fine — you still know how to pronounce the word. Even within the city, some say "New Yawk" and some say "Noo York". It wouldn't matter if we switched from IPA to some other system, we'd still need to make these distinctions.
I had once planned to address all the gobbledegook above the chart, and forgot. I'll do it now. — kwami (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Karoo[edit]

Kwami, you might be interested in the latest edit to Karoo and the edit summary. CorinneSD (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Formatted. Also the etymology was rather meaningless, though the ref I added is old. — kwami (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Tacitus[edit]

What do you think of the latest edit to Tacitus? CorinneSD (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We have template support for Latin if someone wants it, but that was supposed to be English, which takes priority anyway. — kwami (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Basically, if you add a template "IPA-xx", where the xx is the ISO 639-1 code for the language, we probably already support it. So IPA-la for Latin, IPA-de for German, etc. The commoner languages have separate IPA charts, while many redirect to the generic chart for now. Still good to specify the language, though, for future support. — kwami (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, thank you for this information although I probably won't add such a template myself. I know you added this note because we have been discussing the IPA, but don't you think that editor who changed the pronunciation of Tacitus to classical Latin would be glad to know that a reader could access the IPA pronunciation in classical Latin with just a click? Or do you think it is already clear enough? CorinneSD (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I should tell him. — kwami (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sulfur[edit]

I'm in the process of reading the article on Sulfur, and I read in the section on Sulfur#Spelling and etymology that the word comes from Latin sulphur which comes from a root meaning "to burn" (and not from Greek), but it doesn't say which root or from which earlier language. I even looked at the entry for "sulfur" in the reference given, the On-line Dictionary of Etymology, and that doesn't say what the root was, either. Is there any way you can find what that root was and from which language? CorinneSD (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not Greek, since that is θεῖον, where we get the prefix thio- for sulfur compounds. Also not Arabic, which is كبريت, despite the fact that the Spanish form azufre / açufre has the Arabic article prefixed to it. (Maybe the Spaniards thought anything chemical had to be from Arabic?) It's odd we'd even have borrowed a word like that from French; most languages have their own word for 'sulfur'. I don't have a good resource, but WP-de says that the Latin was sulpur, which was hellenized to sulphur (I was wondering why it would have a ph if it wasn't a Greek loan!), and is ultimately from proto-Indo-European *sl̥p-ŕ̥, meaning something like 'ointment'. They say the Germanic root was also a Latin loan, not a direct pIE inheritance, and that it may have been altered via folk etymology under the influence of *swel "smolder". Thus modern German Schwefel. Maybe that's where someone got the idea that it means "to burn"? Or by association: Brimstone is just sulfur, after all.
BTW, our article says the ph form has been standard since the 14th c, which is nonsense: we did'nt have standardized spelling that far back, and we wouldn't have f in America if we did. According to the OED, sulphur and sulfur date to the 15th c., and sulfur was used in Britain through the 19th century. The Anglo-French (presumably meaning Norman) form, 12th c., was sulfere or sulfre. As happened with other French words, we presumably restored the Latin ph spelling later. — kwami (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow! That's a lot of interesting information. Thank you. I noticed that the last two paragraphs in the section Sulfur#Antiquity discuss the use of sulfur in alchemy in India as early as the 8th century, and in ointments in Europe. Do you think that *swel "smolder" comes from
  • the presence of sulfur at active volcanoes (perhaps in Italy);
  • the use of sulfur in alchemy (the burning of chemicals, etc.); or
  • the use of sulfur ointments to relieve burning (and/or swelling) on the body?
I hope you'll add that information about the proto-Indo-European origin to the article. CorinneSD (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I was going to let you do it, but I can too.
None of the above. There's no connection to *swel, except the words sounded a bit a like, and presumably because people associated sulfur with burning. A folk etymology (the OED calls it a "pseudo-etymology") is when people get confused about the form of an unfamiliar word, and change it into something more familiar, like agnailhangnail, or asparagussparrow grass. — kwami (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh. O.K. I'm sure you're right, but the article said it came from a root meaning "to burn". Perhaps that should be changed. CorinneSD (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I could'nt substantiate the German WP etymology, and what I found has it as derived from a pIE word for 'to burn'. — kwami (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
What you added to the article sounds fine. I'm just wondering why there is no English word (other than sulfur) that is related to all those words from other Germanic languages that you listed. There's even an Old English word. What happened? It just dropped out of the language? CorinneSD (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
A lot of Old English words disappeared. Most were presumably replaced with Norman French equivalents. — kwami (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Guacamole[edit]

We give the pronunciation [ɣwakaˈmole] for guacamole in Spanish, but surely that can't be right? — lfdder 01:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct. [ɣ] is the intersonorant allophone. It would be pronounced that way after the definite article. — kwami (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

SSM Litigation[edit]

I've responded to your comment you left on my talk page; the response is there. I will be listing here any pending SSM cases that are not yet on your map so you can add them. MarkGT (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)\

Just added Inniss v. Aderhold, class-action case in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, filed April 22, and A.L.F.L. v. K.L.L., a Texas (state) District Court case that survived a motion to dismiss (stating plaintiffs lack jurisdiction) and the judge found the Texas Const. def. of marriage (which excl. SSM) unconstitutional. I will be working on adding Arizona (DONE), South Carolina, and Wyoming. No major suits in N.D. or S.D. and I believe Alaska and Montana. Missouri and Nebraska concern same-sex divorce and not marriage, and the Kansas case is for tax purposes, so those three are not significant enough. MarkGT (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC) (amended 28 April 2014)
Also added Barrier v. Vasterling, a Missouri (state) Circuit Court case, and Connolly v. Roche and Majors v. Horne, two cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (federal). MarkGT (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Added GA, AZ, MO, and went ahead with WY (state) and SC & AL (district). No sure what's going on w MS. — kwami (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

Actually it is. Finnish is spoken all the way up to the Norwegian coast. In addition, the picture has not a single bilingual or multilingual area in it. As such, it is fundamentally flawed and misrepresents the linguistic situation in these areas. -Yupik (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No, there are Finnish-speaking communities on the Norwegian coast, but they're separated from the main Finnish area by Norwegian and Saami, as well as by an area that's uninhabited. — kwami (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yet they are not represented *at all*. What about the rest of Finland? Why does the map clearly state that Finnish isn't spoken in those areas and why on earth should we even be putting such a map up in an encyclopedic article? -Yupik (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Because Finnish isn't spoken in those areas? Obviously Finnish is going to be a language you encounter anywhere in Finnland, but that includes the Swedish-speaking areas as well. Maps have to simplify, and two of the ways they do that is by restricting themselves to communities where people live and to where the language is the dominant native language.
It's as accurate as our other maps. No language map is going to be perfect. If you want to improve it, then improve it. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you must not speak Finnish. The areas that are marked out in Finland as not being Finnish-speaking are bilingual or multilingual. The population of Lapland, which has been marked as not speaking Finnish, speaks Finnish. That's not a simplification, that's a falsehood. -Yupik (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Then present your sources and fix accordingly. The sources I checked support the map, at least approximately. Maps differ on the population density required to include an area, rather than leaving it white as uninhabited, as well as whether they map the ancestral or intrusive language, or both, in bilingual areas, etc. These are common simplifications, only "falsehoods" in the sense that all maps are falsehoods. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Tacitus[edit]

Pronunciation guide was changed back to Tak i tus. CorinneSD (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

He didn't change it back, he added the Latin. — kwami (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now. I'm sorry; I didn't notice the first pronunciation. CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Any reason for the revert ?[edit]

I see a revert here. Can you state a reason please ? I see the revert without any reason.--J Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 09:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything. — kwami (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Have you read what I've written ? How can you say that doesn't mean anything ?--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 17:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It says "Odia is among the the first language from the Indo-Aryan linguistic group", right after we say that it's Indo-Aryan. That has no meaning. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Kwami, would you mind if I phrase this in a way that might make more sense for this editor?
Jnanaranjan Sahu, the sentence right before the sentence you added, which is the first sentence of the article, is:
"Oriya..., officially spelled Odia, is an Indian language belonging to the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European language family."
You wrote:
""Odia is among the the first language from the Indo-Aryan linguistic group".
There are at least three different problems with your sentence:
1) You wrote "the the". No sentence needs two of the same definite article in succession.
2) The first sentence gives at least four different pieces of information about Odia. Yours gives one, and what you wrote mostly repeats part of that first sentence, although you used "Indo-Aryan linguistic group" and the first sentence says "an Indian language belonging to the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European language family". Your phrase, "Indo-Aryan linguistic group", does not match any of the phrases used in the first sentence. The first sentence locates Odia in the Indo-European family tree in a much more precise manner than your sentences does. Also, you are not using the right words and phrases in your sentence.
3) It appears that the main point you were trying to make with your sentence is that Odia is "among the first" -- that is, one of the first of several languages in (not "from", as you wrote), the Indo-Aryan branch (not "linguistic group", as you wrote). I'm not an expert in linguistics as Kwami is, but I believe that it is probably nearly impossible to say definitively which of several languages in a branch of Indo-European was "first". First in what sense? First in relation to what? For you to say that it was one of the first, you need to define "first", and then provide (a) a clearly stated claim or hypothesis that has been made by a scholar, and (b) provide proof, or support, with an extensive, detailed, clear argument and many scholarly citations. See WP:RS, WP:REF. You can't just insert that kind of statement in the lead/lede of an article without providing the citations. Note that, later in the article, there is a detailed section on the history of Odia.
So, to summarize: Your statement
  • somewhat repeats information stated in the previous sentence;
  • uses imprecise terms;
  • contains word usage errors; and
  • vaguely makes a claim to being first in something without defining "first" and without providing reliable sources.
It is probably for these reasons, and possibly more reasons, that Kwami said that your statement does not make sense. CorinneSD (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The OP means "First Indo-aryan language to be accorded classical language status." All the best: Rich Farmbrough13:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC).

It would seem so. But we already say that it's "classical" two sentences down, and the claim that it was first is incorrect: Sanskrit was. — kwami (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Rich. I'm sorry I didn't get that, and I apologize if I went on a bit too much. CorinneSD (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
kwami Thank you for the Insight. I've tried to add "among the first languages". CorinneSD Thank You for the elaborated explanation. While you people have given broad ideas about the mistakes in the sentence, Lfdder and Rich have solved the issue and improved the article by adding what I wanted to add with some beautiful sentences and citations . Thank You very much Lfdder and Rich. I came to know about my mistakes and learned more about writing styles. Thank You all.--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 08:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Wait...what do you mean I don't understand polls. Is there something you really feel i don't understand or are you just being rude?2600:1002:B02C:C24F:FCC2:CF1:2016:A065 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Polls seldom reflect actual public opinion. Certainly public opinion hasn't shifted 10 pts in 4 months. One or both of the polls is wrong. We should therefore show both, and let the reader decide. — kwami (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but that would be changing the format of the chart. Previously, the most recent poll was the one that was shown on chart. If the format has changed, then more polls should be added.

Several states are listed for more than one poll. If the polls agree well, then we just use the better or more recent one (though sometimes I've added the figures from an older poll in the last column, as for Texas, to show that they're in agreement). Also, if it's been years since the last poll, we just use the recent one, because public opinion is changing so fast. (We'll need to replace or remove Missouri next month, it's getting near our age limit.) But if recent polls don't agree well, we use both: Utah, Virginia, South Carolina, etc. (So far only two per state.)
That's somewhat arbitrary and not set in stone, but it appears to be acceptable after lots of discussion while redoing the map.
Sorry if I was rude, I assumed you had looked over the chart, and had seen the map, not that you were returning without seeing the recent discussion. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Fonts[edit]

If you go in Firefox's settings, Content, then 'Advanced' under 'Fonts & Colors' and pick 'Other Languages' from the dropdown, what's the sans-serif font? — lfdder 01:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I just checked there. It was "sans-serif". No idea why that would be a problem, but I changed it to a specific font and it works now. But still: Why would that be a problem? — kwami (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, because "sans-serif" isn't a font. I imagine it expects an actual font there. I don't know how it came to be set to "sans-serif" for you. — lfdder 02:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Odd that it would be an option if it's interpreted as s.t. that d n exist. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Corsica[edit]

If you have time, would you look at the latest edit to Corsica? I don't understand why an IP editor added Italian. CorinneSD (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

They didn't add it, they reformatted it. Corsican is arguably Italian, but we don't need both, so deleted. The real question is why Ligurian is in there. Also deleted. — kwami (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, evidently Ligurian is spoken in the southern town of Bonifacio. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
O.K. I'm glad you figured it out. (What's Ligurian?) CorinneSD (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Boron[edit]

I've been reading the article on Boron and, while the more recent etymology is given in the first paragraph of Boron#History and etymology, the ultimate source is given in the second paragraph:

"Boron compounds were known thousands of years ago. Borax was known from the deserts of western Tibet, where it received the name of tincal, derived from the Sanskrit."

I just wondered if you felt like finding the Sanskrit word from which "tincal" was derived. (Also, I wonder what the ultimate root of the Arabic and Persian words is.) CorinneSD (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The descriptions doesn't match the etymology in the OED all that well. Here's what they have:
"Boron" is derived from "borax", the mineral it was isolated from, by analogy with "carbon", since it is chemically similar to carbon. "Borax" is actually re-Latinized; Middle English was boras, from Old French boras, bourras. That may have been from medieval Latin baurach (another English spelling), borac(-/um/em), borax, or maybe directly from Arabic in the 9th c, along with Spanish borrax (> borraj), Italian borrace, and from there into Latin. (Or maybe Arabic > Spanish/Italian > Latin > French? I'm guessing.) The Arabic was (is) بورق bauraq/būraq "natron", "borax". Arabic dictionaries say that it derives from the verb "to glisten", which is spelled the same, but the OED thinks it's actually from the Persian بوره būrah "borax".
In English, "tincal" or "tincar" is crude borax, before it's purified, as mined from lake deposits in Tibet, Persia, and other parts of Asia. The word (pronounced "tinkle" or "tinker" in English) was adopted in the 17th c. from Malay tingkal and from Urdu/Persian/Arabic تنکار tinkār/tankār (thus the two forms in English). The Sanskrit is टांकण ṭānkaṇa, but I don't know which way the borrowing went. — kwami (talk)
Wow! That's quite an etymology! It's probably too much to add to the article, but I have to leave to you the decision as to what, if anything, to change in the article on boron. But thank you for finding and sharing all of that. CorinneSD (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Since the story is really that of borax, I'll move it to that article. — kwami (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand moving the etymology to the borax article, but I don't understand why you removed the entire paragraph about boron compounds. I've been editing articles about the elements, and in every one there is detailed discussion of many of the compounds which include the element. CorinneSD (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Because I didn't read it closely enough. I thought it was about borax. — kwami (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hindustani officiality image[edit]

Hey, I was just looking at this image, and it's quite good and useful. The only problem is Pakistan's colouring - all of the provinces have to have Urdu as their first official language, for example in West Punjab there is no Punjabi immersion nor is one able to speak Punjabi in the provincial parliament. Only in Sindh is there a de jure second provincial language, and it's Sindhi itself - Urdu is the first official language. Thus, I think all of Pakistan should be coloured orange. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 09:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source? — kwami (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes.

"...both provinces [NWFP and Baluchistan] adopted Urdu as the official language. ... The real problem was in Sind." "Pashto is not an official language in Pakistan as it is in Afghanistan though in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (which used to be known as the North-West Frontier Province), and Balochistan Province a total of 27 million people (or 15 percent) speak the language. ... Pashto was allowed to be used in schools as a medium of education for the first time in 1984. Even though Pashto has no official status, there is a long literary tradition of Pashto in Pakistan."

...Pakistan's ruling elite was mistrustful of Pashto despite the Pakhtun nationalist National Awami Party's (NAP) choice of Urdu as the official language of the NWFP...

"...In the end, national language policy, especially in the field of education in the NWFP, had constructed a type of three tiered language hierarchy. Pashto lagged far behind Urdu and English in prestige or development in almost every domain of political or economic power..."

"Because Balochistan is so ethnically and linguistically diverse, the province used Urdu as a link language internally. Using Urdu as the official language was a decision made by the noted Balochi nationalist Ghaus Baksh Bizenjo, a decision which some observers thought was designed to ward off Pashto or Brahui ascendancy in the province. ... In practice, education in the mother tongues ceased altogether in Balochistan..."

"While Indian Punjabi is a thriving written and spoken language, Pakistani Punjabi is fast becoming an oral language and is rarely written anymore. This may be partially attributed to the push for Urdu as the official language and medium of formal instruction in schools in Pakistan's Punjab."

...The language is the second most spoken in Pakistan; an official language in Sindhi province...

"...During Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Regime Sindh Assembly passed a bill declaring Sindhi as the official language of Sindh. ... Government rhough issuing an ordinance in favour of Urdu diffused tension between two groups."

Given this information, I think the map should be updating painting Sindh in light orange (cooficial Sindhi-Urdu) and all the other provinces in dark orange (Urdu only official language). saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 10:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Nastaʿlīq script[edit]

I noticed a new proposal to merge Persian calligraphy with Nastaʿlīq script. Out of curiosity, I looked at the article on Persian calligraphy. I saw what I thought were unusual spellings such as "Avestaa" and "Avestaee", "Pahlavits", etc., particularly in the History section. Would you take a look and review the spellings? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted the section. It was not about Persian calligraphy. It might have been relevant as historical background if it were supported references, but the only relevant ref was a dead link and probably not a RS anyway. — kwami (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage[edit]

Please revert your recent edits to Same-sex marriage. You have changed all the dates from dmy to mdy: prior to your edits, the article only had *two* dates in mdy form (excluding those in refs and templates like the sidebar), so per WP:DATERET, it should remain as dmy unless a discussion agrees otherwise. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a good reason for it: When ordering by date, you order by month before ordering by day. But we evidently can't do that when the article uses d-m-y format. Silly, IMO, but there you are. — kwami (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Dates in tables don't need to be reformatted; the {{dts}} template was created for this. {{dts|4 May 2014}}4 May 2014 and sorts as 02014-05-04-0000 --Redrose64 (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
But scanning dates first by year, then by month, then by day, is made more difficult by presenting the dates by year, then day, then month. — kwami (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say to put the year first. I said to put the dates back how they were, which was day first, but also to wrap them in {{dts}} which displays them in unchanged format - but they sort in the correct order. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
But the year *is* first. Year-day-month is a confusing format. Better to follow ISO year-month-day. Since the only way people will accept that is if we format dates in the text as month-day-year, that's a reasonable format. I'd be happy to restore day-month-year in the text, as long as we don't have year-day-month. — kwami (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Where is the year first? Consider the very first change in this edit. It was dmy; you altered it to mdy; neither is year-first. Then come several dozen where there was no year at all, then some more dmy to mdy changes. Not one of these was year first, either before or after. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Year is first for the majority of changes, in the table organized by year, then month, then day. Again, I'm fine with d-m-y in the text; that wasn't my objection. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see, you're trying to go against Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 20#Dates where both myself and Alarics (talk · contribs) previously explained this to you. You need to revert your edits, and discuss on the article talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It's been over an hour now, and I see that whilst you have made one revert, it hasn't put all of the dates back to how they were. Please fix the rest, or I shall serve a {{uw-disruptive2}} and also rollback, which will undo your good changes as well as the bad. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't be a WP:DICK. If you want to revert, then revert. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

PUA[edit]

@Magioladitis:. Only two PUA's this month.

Bhagat Sain {PUA} िनरंजनु कमला पाती ॥२॥tuheeN niranjan
Sogdia {PUA}􀀁2000 (p. 154 is a Chinese-language ren

Bgwhite (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed the one that was left. I'm surprised there have been so few of these. — kwami (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Blanking articles[edit]

Hello. I see that you've blanked the article South Nyanza languages and the redirect South Nyanza with the edit summary that intended to delete the pages. However, please be noted that blanking the pages is not tantamount to deleting the articles themselves. If you wish to delete an article, the process should be either WP:CSD (if one or more of the speedy deletion criterion applies), WP:PROD (for uncontroversial deletions, but still requiring a rationale), or WP:AFD for the normal discussion process. For redirects, the avenue for discussion would be WP:RFD. I've restored the pages for now. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. KJ «Click Here» 06:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Language naming conventions[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kwamikagami. You have new messages at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page.
Message added 08:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Same-sex marriage links in lead[edit]

Hi, I don't think it's really misleading to have links to the jursdictions themselves. I agree it makes sense to link to articles on same-sex marriage in that jurisdictions, if there were articles that is (I really dislike a bunch of redlinks in the lead section). In any case I think it does not make much of a difference to the average reader whether the links go to the specific or general article. I would even say it is maybe less misleading if they go the the general jurisdiction articles. Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There was more blue in the lead than black, and most of it didn't lead to anything particularly relevant. It's hard to pick out relevant links from a sea of blue. We also shouldn't use linking as a substitute for a dictionary. We have links to Mexico and its states at the top of the lead, but someone seeing Jalisco and clicking on it isn't interested in the state: They want to know what's going on there, and if that's not the article they get, they're going to be frustrated. — kwami (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hindi image[edit]

Please reply here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindi#Hindi_image--Cubancigar11 (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Versions of Chinese characters[edit]

Kwami, you might be interested in a discussion on using the two versions of Chinese characters on Fayenatic london's talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox2[edit]

PotatoBot has read your page and is checking links now. Please don't edit the page until it has been updated by the bot (probably in a few hours if all goes well) – your edits would get overwritten. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Igor Grabar[edit]

I was skimming the article on Igor Grabar and came across something I wanted to ask you about. It is the second and third sentences in the section Igor Grabar#1930s:

"Grabar himself wrote: "I had to choose between the daily mounting administrative burden and creating ... I had no choice. A personal pension granted by Sovnarkom fastened my retirement."

I think "fastened" might be an error. The word "hastened" would make more sense here. Can you read the Russian note there? CorinneSD (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, typo for "hastened". — kwami (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

I've mentioned you and Skookum1s move wars at ANI.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my edits, it would be nice if you said something. This is a rather dickish move. Also, if you have an opinion on the discussion, it would be nice if you commented. We can't read your mind. — kwami (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: SSM cases map, MS should be green[edit]

I note you colored Mississippi "yellow" for a U.S. district court case; however, it should be "green" as the case, Czekala-Chatham v. Melancon is in the state court of appeals. Thanks. MarkGT (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanks!!! MarkGT (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure. — kwami (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Celtic languages[edit]

The edits that I've seen this evening seem to be about removing Insular Celtic as a group, or at least downgrading it as unsupported by sources (plural) and essentially replacing that as a family group with Transalpine–Goidelic–Brittonic. Now as far as I know the latter is theorized only by Eska, and I don't see any significant change in support on the Insular Celtic hypothesis. We don't even have an article on a group such as that. What's triggered your edits? Could you spell out the sources why you are doing this. I had posted on the talk page of Common Brittonic that request and that would be a good place to answer. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

In language info boxes, we tend to not include controversial nodes unless immediately ascending. With Insular, the fact that people are still debating it suggests that the problem isn't going away anytime soon. I'm not sure how to best treat it: Should it only be for Goidelic and Brittonic, analogous to what we do with Altaic? Should it be in all the children articles, in parentheses like we do for Tibeto-Burman, or with a question mark like we do for Nilo-Saharan? Should it simply be listed as if there were no dispute?
Yes, I have been following Eska, as Max Planck judged him to be a good reference for classification. Perhaps you have better? I was trying to get the articles in line, since some were classified as Continental/Insular, and some as Q/P.
The main problem I have is with the clearly invalid families Continental and Q Celtic. Those should definitely be removed from the info boxes, or at best placed in parentheses as a non-family. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Ahem... you seem to have mixed up Cagwinn with Jembana (RIP) on Cuchullain's talk page. I can't receall him talking much about Tartessian at all. I thought I'd better mention this. Paul S (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I was basing this on recent behaviour (though I may well have mixed them up in the back of my mind). Cagwinn currently seems primarily concerned with Koch's ideas on Tartessian. He hasn't said anything else that makes sense to me, so if that isn't what's motivating him, I'm at a loss to understand his hostility. — kwami (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Article on Central Solomons languages[edit]

I have seen that you have edited most of the article on the Central Solomons languages. There is a table of reconstructed pronouns that refers to Ross' article, but I have been looking up Ross' article and there is no such table. Could you tell me where have you taken this table from? It's not only to write the right reference, I'm doing a research on the matter.--Toni P. (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry bout that. — kwami (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Kwami. Anyway, the reference you have put now seems to be the provisional title for the reference that you deleted, which is the one that is published. The pronouns table seems not to be published. Maybe you know something else on the matter? --Toni P. (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't follow. The ref I added is the one with the pronouns. — kwami (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Kwami. I found it finally. The reference you added was the provisional name of a book that was finally published with another name: the one with the reference you deleted after I told you. The right reference with the reconstructed pronouns is Ross 2001, "Is there an East Papuan phylum? Evidence from pronouns", in The boy from Bundaberg. Studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom Dutton. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. I borrowed the book from the library and the pronouns are there, so I'm going to write the right reference in the article.--Toni P. (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. You might want to do the same for the other families that cite it. — kwami (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
This is good, you thank me and ask me to do the same in other articles, and then you undo what I did. I wonder if you expect me to do a lot of changes to undo them all. I continue this discussion in the talk page of the article, which is the right place for this. Pleas see there what I have to say.--Toni P. (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
When the author revises a reconstruction, we should of course use the most recent one. I didn't realize you would change the recent one to an outdated one, I thought you were just going to correct the ref. — kwami (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Dari (Persian dialect)[edit]

A day or two ago, an editor made some changes to the very beginning of the article on Dari (Persian dialect). I left a note on Lysozym's talk page asking whether he/she approved; he/she responded that they're not bad. But I still wonder. The very first one changed the first words in the article from "Dari is" to "Dari Persian is". Since the title of the article is "Dari (Persian dialect)", shouldn't the first words in the article be just "Dari is..."? I don't know about the rest of it. I just thought, since you were so knowledgeable about languages, you could evaluate these edits (made by Metalman). CorinneSD (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The common name is "Dari", not "Dari Persian". The rest of the lead makes it obvious enough that it's a Persian dialect, so the change is not necessary. More problematic is the claim that "Dari" is the Persian name of Afghanistan, which AFAIK is simply wrong. Reverted. — kwami (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Another thing: that editor added the phrase ("in terms of accent"). I am pretty sure that Dari differs in more than just accent from the Persian spoken in Iran. They use some verb forms that are considered "old-fashioned" in modern Persian. CorinneSD (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
And if it were just an accent, our article dab would be wrong. — kwami (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert and the explanation. CorinneSD (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Words without consonants[edit]

  • Why remove ?
  • éon, eóo and eoa have /ɔ/, not /o/.
  • iam has /w̃/.

Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

is an interjection. I guess we don't say explicitly those are excluded, so we could put it back. I wasn't sure about iam. Many sources transcribe am with a final consonant, but almost all also say it's a diphthong. The two possibilities are not distinct in Portuguese, so I don't know which is more accurate. — kwami (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. A correction to the above:
  • éon, has /ɛ/, not /e/.
Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"Kazakh-nogay" languages[edit]

Where you find kazakh-nogay languages? 46.251.216.72 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The clade, if not the name, is found in the Glottolog ref in the info box. I don't know where the names came from. — kwami (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Cendol[edit]

In the article on Cendol, in the "Etymology" section, a sentence ends:

"In Myanmar it is known as mont let saung or မုန့်လက်ဆောင်း."

I was wondering why I cannot see the word at the end of the sentence. I can usually see most words written in other scripts, but I can't see this one.

Also, the third paragraph of the next section starts, "The affluence of Singapore". I wonder whether it shouldn't be "The influence of Singapore". What does the relative affluence of Singapore have to do with cendol? CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I have the same problem, even though I have several Burmese Unicode fonts installed. I suspect that Burmese just has poor OS support. You can fix it by going to the left of your screen, down below the search bar, under 'languages' where the interwiki links are. You should see a gear by 'languages'. Click on it to get your WP language settings, go to the fonts tab, and check the box for 'Download fonts when needed'. Why this works when you already have the fonts you need, I don't know. You should now be able to see Burmese, but headers or other languages may get screwed up, so you'll need to play with it to see what works for you. This was intended to be rolled out as the default interface, but it's still too buggy. — kwami (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. What about "affluence" vs. "influence"? CorinneSD (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
All fixed now. (Corinne asked me to take a look.) Rothorpe (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision on Filipino language[edit]

May I ask why you reverted my contributions to Filipino language? (See [3]) I believe what you did was a mistake. It was not vandalism, and all information changed/added were well-cited.

Regards. 舎利弗 (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You were in effect claiming that Filipino has millions of native speakers who are not Tagalog speakers. Whether Filipino is a standard form of Tagalog, or an artificial language as proponents claim, it doesn't really have native speakers. With your edits, you're saying Filipino is the same as Tagalog, and should therefore be merged into that article. — kwami (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's move this discussion to Talk:Filipino language for the benefit of everyone watching that page. 舎利弗 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, this is sort of a followup to what you said here on your talk page but I found a source that says that almost all Filipinos understood, spoke and wrote Filipino. I would appreciate your reply at Talk:Filipino language#Filipino language and the Filipino people. 舎利弗 (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

PUA[edit]

Israeli Jews has a a character in PUA and needs your attention. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Magioladitis, are you saying Jews have character issue? Isn't that a blocking offense? Really, haven't you seen Greeks? Boy do they have issues. Bgwhite (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. — kwami (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I found one at List of language names. Bgwhite (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Where? It's a long list. — kwami (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I think there are other control characters in there as well. Error report only show first problem and it is, "{200E}* Spoken in: the [[Islamic Repub". Maybe Magioladitis can find those first. Bgwhite (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Next to "Avestan" and "Balinese" there are PUA characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Those are assigned Unicode ranges you just don't have support for. (Me either.) — kwami (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami, Bgwhite: I fixed 3 out of 4 characters. Problem is now next to Klingon. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Emoji too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That was fixed months ago; 'Bonding for Today' reverted it yesterday. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Polabian language[edit]

Kwami, if you want a challenge, there's a lot of missing information in the article on Polabian language. CorinneSD (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The kurds population in the world[edit]

I don't understand why you try to underestimate the population of the kurds in the world? Why are you so eager to undermine the kurds population? Where did you find that the population of the Kurds in the world is 20 million? It's not up to you to decide how many kurds in the world. When people come to Wikipedia they seek facts and you have no right to mislead them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bergman Gotland (talkcontribs) 08:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would you want us to contradict ourselves? Besides, we're not talking about the number of Kurds. — kwami (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

What you are doing is vandalism, stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bergman Gotland (talkcontribs) 22:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

French language[edit]

You've made some errors in the page French language. I hear [oʁøvwaʁ] in the above recording. You must listen the recording before. 162.246.52.229 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Generic phrases should have generic transcriptions, not narrow transcriptions of specific recordings. — kwami (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Mistake[edit]

Sorry, by mistake i reverted your edit, as i want to revert some older edits on Andhra Pradesh page. Actually i used the auto revert option link and used it on older version it also reverted yours.Vin09 (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. — kwami (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision on Okanagan language[edit]

ə is its own vowel sound but can never be stressed. In our current orthography words like skəmxist (bear) dont have an accent mark because i is your only option since ə is never stressed. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.69.154 (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The passage seems to say that a vowel may be /a e i u/ (a full vowel) if stressed, and only [ə] when unstressed. But that would mean that a word could only have one full vowel, yet there are words which have more than one full vowel, such as incitxw 'my house'. Is it only one full vowel per morpheme? Also, we have /k’l/ in k’əl incitxw 'to my house', suggesting that the schwa is epenthetic. Are all schwas epenthetic in Okanagan? — kwami (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

I've replied to you on my talk page. --Hordaland (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Parsi/Farsi[edit]

I believe the article already contains refs, and a cited explanation that: "Farsi is the Arabicized form of Parsi, due to a lack of the 'p' phoneme in Standard Arabic".

Prior to Arab Islamic conquest of Persia, Iranians referred to themselves and their language as Parsi. In fact, the Iranians who fled the prosecution to India are known to this day as Parsi people.

Today both Parsi and Farsi are used as endonyms.

As mentioned Arabic language lacks the four sounds "G", "Č", "P", and "Ž". The word "Parsi" is not the only casualties of this; the name of Pars Province was also changed to Fars. "Chatrang", the Persian word for chess, was changed to "Shatranj". Etc.

Parsi is the original non-Arabicized term, from which derives the English "Persian" (via Hellenic and Latin Persis and Persianus respectively). Ferdowsi author of the Shahnameh, the national epic of Iran, calls the language "Parsi". This term predates "Farsi" by thousands of years. Grinevitski (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Could you tell me why is it on the Serbo-Croatian family languages written all the dialects? I mean, shouldn't it be only language groups and not dialects? Only enwiki promotes all the "families" of dialects, and I can't find it on dewiki, shwiki etc. I already asked JorisvS, and also I would like to hear from you. --MunjaWiki (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the question is. WP-de and WP-sh say that the national standardized forms of SC are based on the Shtokavian dialect, which is the same as what we say. — kwami (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
By this question, I mean look at Croatian language and all those categories under Serbo-Croatian at the right side. There is Shtokavian, Eastern Herzegovinian etc. They're dialects, not languages, so they shouldn't be there. --MunjaWiki (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
By that I mean: If we would write each dialect for i.e. English or German, then that category would be enormous. But mentioning dialects in article, beside info box, is fine. My opinion. --Munja (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I still don't understand. The English and German articles *do* have sections on dialects. — kwami (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Don't understand"[edit]

You say you don't understand what I am talking about, but revert my changes over those articles. You can't put some dialects in language family. --Munja (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no language family. Nearly all of our well-developed language articles cover dialects.
As for your edit, you claimed that the three SW Slavic languages are Serbo-Croatian, Slovene, and Bosnian, which is utter nonsense. — kwami (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the language family is Slavic. South Slavic is a probable branch, and it's conventionally divided into East (the Bulgarian–Macedonian dialect continuum) and West (the Slovene–Kajkavian–Chakavian–Shtokavian dialect continuum). Bosnian is a literary standard for the Shtokavian dialect. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Fine. Let me ask you something. See this map:

File:Serbo croatian dialects historical distribution.png

Linguistics and politics should not mix together. Well name Serbo-Croatian is political and, in my opinion, it should not be used. Also, Serbo-Croatian is a term made recently (in 1945. or a few decades before 1945.), by mixing terms Serbian and Croatian. Oldest document in Bosnian language is Bosnian-Turkish dictionary by Muhamed Hevaji Uskufi Bosnevi in 1632 (over 200 years before SC term). Also, looking at this map, you can see that Shtokavian was not based in Croatia fully, just in part of Slavonia. Also, calling Bosnian just as standardized variety of Serbo-Croatian is wrong, because of facts I already said. Term Shtokavian is older term than Serbo-Croatian, but I know what you want to say: It's same language. YES, it is, almost. But it's totally wrong to call it Serbo-Croatian. I was searching in many books for sentence "Bosnian is standardized variety of S/C", and came up with nothing. --Munja (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Correct about politics, wrong about the history. The term Serbo-Croatian dates at least to the 19th century. It is also the most common English name for the language, and therefore the name we use on WP. Bosnian was only recently invented; the Bosnian–Turkish dictionary is for the dialect of Serbo-Croatian spoken in Bosnia, and has little to do with the modern Bosnian language.
We've debated all this a dozen times, with nationalists who believe their standard or nation is original or superior or being contaminated or whatever. As you say, we don't give such political claims much weight. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Two replies waiting for you at my talk page. Wikarth (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Hehehe... well, considering that you even dont recognize Serb and Croatian as two languages, I can see you have a problem with understanding Norway... Wikarth (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but do I hear fine? You are also calling (my) Bosnian language Serbo-Croatian. S/C term does date to the 19th century, but term Bosnian dates to 16th or even before (according to Bos-Tr dict.). About saying that 16th century Bosnian is different or so from modern Bosnian, I advise you to read Charter of Ban Kulin. He lived after 10th century, spoke on language almost same as modern Bosnian, and I really doubt that he would say: "I speak Serbo-Croatian." Also, term Serbo-Croatian could not be older than Serbian, nor Croatian, like it is case with Czecho-Slovakian. To make combined term you have to have two separate terms. They are make for piolitical reasons to put Bosnian nationality in bad position. --Munja (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
That's because the English name of the language is "Serbo-Croatian". We use English names for things in English Wikipedia. If you succeed in changing the name of the language, so that the most common name for the language of the Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks becomes "Bosnian", then we will of course follow common usage and move the Serbo-Croatian article to "Bosnian". — kwami (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, South Slavic or Yugoslavian would be more common. And family-tree like here is nowhere to be found. On dewiki and bswiki, hrwiki, srwiki, shwiki etc. you can see: BALTO-SLAVIC >> SLAVIC >> SOUTH SLAVIC >> BOSNIAN; You're still putting dead language name as alive language and considering it more living than already standardized form. Term Serbo-Croatian is banned from all ex-Yugoslav republics, because of its nationalistic name. --Munja (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
No, "South Slavic" includes Slovenian and Bulgarian, and practically no-one calls it "Yugoslavian".
WP-de etc. are wrong, as you can verify with even the most elementary reference. The are also not a valid reference for us.
Serbo-Croatian is spoken by 20 million people; calling it "dead" is simply nonsense.
Wikipedia is not an ex-Yugoslav republic. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
User:MunjaWiki is a Bosniak nationalist who already got banned under User:SuperNepoznat (and various of his sockpuppets with which he tried to influence votes). He was also IP-banned for two weeks but as soon as the IP-ban expired, he continued doing what he did before. Thought you should know before wasting more time on discussing with him. 78.1.143.200 (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep, see [4]. Technically, the block has expired so he's entitled to a clean start, but creating yet another account to do that is troubling from the start. No such user (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
He's technically permanently blocked for sockpuppetry. So any edits he makes are grounds for blocking, regardless. CodeCat (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yiddish[edit]

I would like to see second opinions. Please propose the move of Yiddish language to Yiddish at talk:Yiddish language. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to take the time to debate it, but the language is pretty much the only use of the word, so there's no reason for a dab. — kwami (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Pali[edit]

Kwami, is the latest edit to Pali correct? CorinneSD (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not my area, but Pali wasn't written in Devanagari, so I'd say no for that reason. The first spelling matched Nepali WP, but not Hindi, Sanskrit, or other WPs. I have no idea if it might be an acceptable be an acceptable variant, though. — kwami (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
O.K. I saw that you added "Ref?" CorinneSD (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice if they supplied a ref. — kwami (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I know what you meant. CorinneSD (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Fiji[edit]

Are you watching Fiji? Do you agree with the latest edits? CorinneSD (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

How far back? The latest is closer to a standard transliteration of Devanagari. I suspect someone used "th" to mean a dental t rather than an aspirated t, but the transliteration isn't really enough to show you how to pronounce the words either way. — kwami (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I meant mainly the last one, but I thought you could just check to be sure the parentheses were correct in the one right before it. I don't know anything about how the info right at the beginning is supposed to be formatted. Re the last edit, which you addressed above, how do you know it is Devanagari? CorinneSD (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I recognize the script. Formatting's rather inconsistent, but I like to leave English pronunciations out of the parentheses when they're simple enough they don't bog down the lead that way. — kwami (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Macro-Swedish"[edit]

Regarding this,[5] it places "Dalecarlian", "Jamtska" and good ol' Scanian are back to separate language status under "Macro-Swedish". Similar dialects are all just plain Swedish, though. So where does this novel classification come from and why are we linking to it in infoboxes?

Peter Isotalo 07:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

But we don't classify those as Swedish either, so their Swedish corresponds to our Swedish, and that's the proper code for the link. We're linking it because as far as possible we're linking all languages to Glottolog, just as we do to Ethnologue. That way most languages will have at least two refs, and Glottolog provides a lot of bibliographic info. As for their source, that's given at the link: Patrick V. Stiles. 2013. The Pan-West Germanic Isoglosses and the Subrelationships of West Germanic to Other Branches. NOWELE - North-Western European Evolution 66. 5-38. — kwami (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
We do actually. See Swedish dialects or South Swedish dialects. Glottolog, on the other hand, makes the weird claim that Bornholmsk should be classified as "Scanian", which is quite dubious. Both are historically East Danish dialects, but modern classifications would consider them variants of Swedish and Danish respectively.
Stiles appears to be literally the only source here, but I can't access him right now. I need to get to the local library to check pages 8-10 (it's the same exact ref for every entry among the Germanic languages). It doesn't seem to like a fair representation of the consensus view on Scandinavian dialects. It seems more like a repetition of the oddball Ethnologue classifications, like the claim that Scanian is a separate language. Both Jamtska and Dalecarlian both rely entirely on Glottolog for the classification, which is pretty problematic.
Peter Isotalo 20:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The Jamtska and Dalecarlian articles were written without any input from Glottolog. We can certainly change them to reflect the preponderance of sources. But that's not reason to delete sources. Glottolog isn't a ref for classification so much as a resource for more sources. We don't need to use their classification just because we link them from the info box, any more than we need to follow Ethnologue just because we link to them. There are also plans to update Glottolog so that distinctions between entries better reflect mutual intelligibility. — kwami (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Jamtska and Dalecarlian were written with reference to the older Ethnologue classification if I'm not mistaken. It was just as problematic back then since Ethnologue relied on highly selective sourcing, or just statements from individuals. The whole classification scheme for Swedish is actually just weird. The list of dialects under Swedish, for example, seems like a somewhat random collection of variants like "Svea" (Svealand dialects, apparently), "Eastern Swedish" (which includes all the varieties in Finland also listed) and even Standard Swedish, which isn't even a dialect.
Glottolog obviously isn't reliable as a source in itself, just like Ethnologue.
Peter Isotalo 06:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
We're not using it as a ref, but as a resource. If someone redoes the Swedish articles to incorporate Jamtksa & Darl, then we can change the glottolog code to match. Actually, it's not just Swedish but our coverage of all of Germanic that's a bit dodgy. — kwami (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

174567 Varda[edit]

Just wondering, where did you get the English-style pronunciation you put? (I added the Quenya one later, after wondering for a while how to handle the situaiton.) Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There are pronunciation guides for Tolkien's works, but in this case there's no other possible pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I was more thinking about the moon's name (Ilmarë), which (to me at least) doesn't seem to have an obvious English pronunciation. Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedwriting[edit]

I noticed in the article on Speedwriting that the text to the right of the table is right up against the right-hand border of the table. Is there any way to put some space between the table and the text? Also, do you like the look of that narrow column of text? CorinneSD (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Nepal language, Nepali language, Nepal Bhasa[edit]

Hi Kwami. Hope things are well. Any idea if all this is kosher? Nepal Bhasa vs. Nepali language. They look like different articles but Nepal Bhasa also calls itself "Nepal language" and the infobox at "Nepali language" includes "Nepal Bhasa'. Bhasa is, of course, just another word for language. Any ideas? --regentspark (comment) 15:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's kosher. See Nepalese language. Not unlike "British" meaning both Brittonic and British English. — kwami (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Si5s[edit]

Are you watching Si5s? A bunch of information was truncated from the article by a group involved in one of the two development paths. Slevinski (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Rv'd as apparent COI. Some of the little info that was added may be worthwhile, though. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wayuu people[edit]

I have just finished reading the article on Wayuu people and have made a few edits to improve clarity. More work needs to be done, especially on the Religion section. I'll continue working on it tomorrow. But I have a few questions for you about the table in the section "Clans":

1) If you read the translation of the names of the clan territories, you will see some that look like they belong to one phrase (like "Plays a lot"), but there are two words, one above the other, in the box to the left of them, in the territories column. It looks like there are two territories, but it might be just one territory, translated by the phrase (instead of two territories, each translated as a separate word). Do you see what I mean? If it's really one territory, translated by a phrase in English, then it should be clearly shown as one territory. I don't know if there is anything that can be done, or should be done, about it.

2) If you read all the translations in the translation column, there are one or two that I think might be incorrectly written: 1) "the teeth of out eyes", and 2) "laing eyes", which might really be "lying eyes". What do you think?

3) I see the word "rancheria(s)" spelled both with an accent on the "i" and without (mostly without), throughout the article. Should it have an accent on the "i" in every case? I thought that, since it has apparently been adopted by the Wayuu people to name their houses, perhaps the accent was dropped.CorinneSD (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no time now, don't know anything about the topic. 'Rancheria' is spelled w/o a diacritic in English. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

PUA[edit]

Deleted the refs as not needed and not worth fixing. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Carbon[edit]

I think you might be able to answer a question posted at Talk:Carbon#Greek name origin. CorinneSD (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sbreheny is correct, AFAICT w/o a ref handy. — kwami (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Verbal case[edit]

Hi, Kwami. Are you still interested to expand Verbal case? I don't know whether this treats a notable topic, or it lists loosely related concepts in the manner of WP:Set index articles. Cnilep (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I won't have time to get to it anytime soon. — kwami (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I guess it'll have to stay on the back burner. Cnilep (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Et tu?[edit]

I would be most curious for you to explain to me why you should not be blocked for trolling and harassment if you choose to bait Skookum like this again in the future. Resolute 13:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

How in the world is that "harassment"? I thanked him for breaking from his usual pattern of disruption and making a substantive contribution to WP. He had engaged in yet another mindless edit war (though I didn't call it that). This time, however, he apparently thought better of it on his own, and made an intelligent edit. It was an edit to push his POV, which contradicts the majority of WP, but at least it was rational, and as long as he's rational it's possible to have a rational discussion. I know he's capable of this, but usually he doesn't bother, preferring rants, personal attacks, and straw-man arguments to actual discussion. It was nice to see that he resolved this on his own, without pages of vitriol. — kwami (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Uhh, yeah, no. One who is truly thanking another does not rely on snarky, dismissive and backhanded statements like "thank you for making an intelligent edit" and "I knew you were capable of it if you tried". If that is how you intend to "thank" editors in the future, I would suggest you are better off saying nothing. Resolute 01:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Granted, it is difficult to keep out the snark, since he's such a bad-faith editor (or paranoid, or whatever his problem is). But I was genuinely glad to see him address a conflict by making an intelligent/rational edit for a change. — kwami (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

::nachhiring::[edit]

I think the correct spell of the nachering is nachhiring. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gm420 (talkcontribs) 04:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

At ANI[edit]

See WP:ANI#Kwamikagami edit-warring at Gaulish language. Fut.Perf. 08:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear Japanese language listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nuclear Japanese language. Since you had some involvement with the Nuclear Japanese language redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 08:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Durian[edit]

Do you agree with the IP editor's statement in his/her edit summary regarding Malay being the language of both Malaysia and Indonesia, at Durian? CorinneSD (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Rongorongo Qr3-7 color.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rongorongo Qr3-7 color.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

On something else.[edit]

You'll remember me as the guy who kept inputting flags on List of languages by number of native speakers. I've given up on that, but I feel that instead of the list of areas in the "Mainly Spoken In" of the aforementioned article, I suggest we replace it with a prose, similar to that of the "Native to" section in the Language info boxes. It removes ambiguity and is, frankly, a lot more appealing than a disjointed list of areas which could clog up the cells, as in the case of Spanish. Would you accept? AlexTeddy888 (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Rongorongo T fluted Honolulu (color).jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Rongorongo T fluted Honolulu (color).jpg, which you've attributed to Shawn McLaughlin. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

PUA[edit]

North America Marriage Map[edit]

Hey, do you think it's time to add stay colors to the North American map..? [6] --Prcc27 (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

tête[edit]

The former is [taɪ̯t] and the latter is [tɐɪ̯t] ? 162.247.124.85 (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Pali[edit]

Kwami, I need help understanding something in Pali. An IP editor removed my clarification needed tag and note to editors with an edit summary. This editor very possibly knows what he/she is talking about, but I still don't understand the connection. How can a language not be considered a spoken language...because it was archaic? How are those two things related to each other? CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand how Latin is not considered a spoken language today because it is a "dead" language. Maybe it's just that wording "not be considered" a spoken language by grammarians who lived much later. If it was like Latin is to us today, then I think it would be clearer if it said, "By the time of these grammarians, Pali was no longer a spoken language", or (if it is the case), "Pali was never a spoken language". CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Word of the jour:[1]

Previous words:


  1. ^ It should be obvious from this that I have no idea what a jour is (I think it has something to do with soup), so don't be surprised if I only change the word every couple months or so.

ASL[edit]

Hi,

I wanted to ask you about a couple of edits you recently made to the American Sign Language article:

You removed the statement that "ASL is sometimes written using English orthography." I'm a bit puzzled by this -- ASL is commonly glossed with all-caps English words, and in fact this seems to be the most common way to write ASL. Perhaps the statement should be reworded?
You removed some stuff from the phonology section, saying that "debatable as to whether these are phonemes". I was under the impression that the general linguistic consensus is that these are phonemes -- is there still serious debate about this?

Thanks! Mo-Al (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Glossing isn't writing. You can gloss Japanese using English words too, but no-one would call that written Japanese. It is true that ASL is glossed far more often than it is actually written, but that has to do with the fact that written ASL is so poorly developed.
Van der Hulst & Channon (2010), one of the refs used in the article, claim that handshapes etc. are sub-phonemic features, not individual phonemes. They say it's still debatable whether SLs have segments the way oral languages do. I don't buy all their claims, but I don't know there's any consensus on the matter either. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I see. I'll try to make the ASL article more accurate in these regards. I do think it's worth mentioning the practice of glossing since it's so ubiquitous, but I'll avoid calling it a true "writing system". Mo-Al (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we should note that. Maybe a link to gloss would help. — kwami (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Akan[edit]

A part of Ghana is slowly disappearing from articles and being renamed Akanland. See the edits by MarkMysoe (talk · contribs) and the discussion at WP:BLPN#Nana Akufo-Addo. I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#Ghana. I see you've been interested in this before which is why I'm informing you. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no other part of Ghana. As Mark has pointed out, the only real people in Ghana are the Akan. All the others are illegal immigrants and criminals. Perhaps we should invest in a barbed-wire export business. — kwami (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Lol. At the BLPN discussion they are planning to raise an ANI report. I hadn't noticed the earlier discussion at Wikiproject Africa. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kwamigami. I am sure it was not your intention, but this edit placed the 115 articles that transclude this template into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The template does not meet any of the speedy deletion criterion ("the creator of this template is a fraud" not being a speedy deletion criterion). You will have to nominate the template for deletion using the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion process. I am removing the speedy deletion tag on this basis. -- Dianna (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all the rescue work you've done today on assorted Ghana-related articles! PamD 00:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Linguistics in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Linguistics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Tarkwa[edit]

However disruptive MarkMysoe (talk · contribs) may be, I cannot see how that could possibly justify moving Tarkwa to Tarkwa, Ghana. - with a dot at the end. I leave you to reset the article to a state that you find acceptable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Look again, and you'll see that was an error that has now been deleted. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What "was an error that has now been deleted"? What other Tarkwas are there in there world? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

With a dot at the end. Which you deleted. — kwami (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeju language[edit]

I don't get what you did to that page, and something smells fishy in Jeju language. What's going on?--Seonookim (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you asking? (You wanted the page moved, this had been rejected in the past, so I put it up for discussion, and after a month with no objections, I moved it.) — kwami (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

MOS and non-article pages[edit]

Only articles have to follow MOS on fine points like this (e.g. we do not use contractions in articles, but use them by the thousands in non-articles). The construction "and/or" is frequently helpful in projectpages including guidelines, so the edit summary on this wasn't really appropriate. By coincidence, the edit was a good one – it didn't actually need "and/or" there. But it's not the kind of edit that can be made categorically just to get rid of "and/or", as it will change meaning in negatively impacting ways in too many places. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 01:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That was from a decision on the MOS talk page that the MOS shouldn't violate its own recommendations. There were about a dozen points like that that needed cleaning up. — kwami (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Resilient Barnstar Hires.png The Resilient Barnstar
For your WP rules following Saraikistan (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you? — kwami (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop removing properly placed templates[edit]

I refer to your removal twice of the template 'Unreferenced' from the article Papora-Hoanya language. The article contains no references. In order to help improve the encyclopedia, such pages are usually templated so that interested editors can help find and add sources. Please do not removal properly placed templates, as it is disruptive to the goal of creating a better encyclopedia. FurrySings (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The article refs Ethnologue. If you feel that is inadequate, there is a separate template for insufficient refs. (The ref isn't obvious, but there are thousands of articles like this, and making the refs obvious is too controversial a change to do by bot.) — kwami (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
by saying the article reffed Ethnologue (before I added an explicit ref to the page text) did you mean the ppu link to sil.org, from which one can click through to the ethnologue page for ppu? (The indirection certainly makes that nonobvious as a ref - and I couldn't see anything else, though I might be being stupid.) Dsp13 (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's it. I was once hoping to get all 5,000 or so lang articles overtly ref'd, but it never happened. — kwami (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
OK. I've gone through W-Z in Category:Austronesian language stubs, adding refs to Ethnologue where it seemed appropriate - using Template:Ethnologue16 where Ethnologue seemed a sufficient reference for the template, or ref=e16 in the infobox if at least the number of speakers was in Ethnologue. Does this feel along the right lines to you? (I added a refsneeded template to a couple of pages about language groups, since I wasn't so sure what to do with those.) Dsp13 (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Perfect, as long as you confirmed that those actually are the E16 numbers. (A lot of languages have been exaggerated, though maybe not so many of these.) Great if you can verify (or add) the date as well, as it looks like you have been, so the reader has some idea if the numbers are dated. Though in a case like this[7] IMO it would be best to go the ref=e16 route, as that way we have auto-trackers in place for articles which need to be updated. (If you cross-ref in the text, you can use name=e16.)
With the {{Ethnologue}} template, I worry that some day it will be updated to E17, and all those articles will then look like they're sourced to E17 when they aren't. Maybe best to specifically use {{Ethnologue16}}, though I suppose the call all be switched over when we make the change.
For language groups, if there is an equivalent in E16, you can add sil= to the infobox. (You can add 3 of these in cases where E16 has messed up and the group is broken up, as often happens since they're automated.) Don't know what we'll do for E17 with this; hopefully the SIL code itself will dab. — kwami (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Indian cities[edit]

Please discuss on talk page, and do not delete sourced content. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have restored deleted content, added a couple more sources on Mandi and Nellore, and pasted your delete edit comment onto Talk page and answered it. Everyone would welcome sourced additions to the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
You have no source that "local languages" means English, or that Madras was only changed to Chennai in Indian English and not, say, in American English, etc. — kwami (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
You are edit warring. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
No, you are edit warring. Read WP:BOLD. If your changes are contested, it's up to you to bring them to discussion. As I said, I have no problem with many of them, just with the unsourced claims that I find dubious. — kwami (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The person whose edit is on top is edit warring. And WP:BOLD does not cover either the 2x block deletes, and you were invited to discuss. You still haven't raised an issue which is more than you having not read what you deleted. As it is your deletes have simply jammed up the article preventing further source adding. Please raise a tangible issue on Talk. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not how things work on Wikipedia. Your changes, your responsibility to justify them. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Which is why there is a lengthy reply to your questions. Will you now allow more sources to be added? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
A lengthy reply which doesn't actually answer anything. Responded there. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Answered again, there. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Answered again. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
See Talk. I'm quiet amenable to adding that, and was in the processing of doing so, and sourcing. Will you let work on the article continue now? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Please See Talk. I'm also quiet amenable to changing wording. Will you please restore the article now? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for having restored the page. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:CAPS[edit]

Your edits have just trigged a dozen pages on my watchlist. It is my understanding that WP:CAPS and consensus on religion articles is for items which claim uniqueness that capital G for God is used. Where is there discussion and agreement on this fairly radical change across so many religion articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have located some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#the_God_of_Israel_or_the_god_of_Israel, see comment there. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
BTW, the AWB script I used was written last May, scanning all of WP with no complaints; I just haven't used it for a while. — kwami (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

With regards to Books of Kings, that was my mistake - I misread the edit history. Of course, I didn't start the edit war - the initial change was made by an IP editor here, and it was reverted by Dougweller. So I'm happy to leave that particular article as it is until the discussion is resolved, but I would suggest that you self-revert on the numerous other changes you've made. StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine, easy mistake to make. However, neither making an edit nor reverting it is considered edit warring; that starts with that third edit, restoring the contested material.
This is an established consensus, and I've done AWB sweeps for it before without problem. It's like when s.o. starts edit warring over "Odisha" and I realize I haven't scanned for that for a while; I'll then break out AWB to fix the instances of it that have cropped up across WP since the last time. I will continue to take this as consensus too unless the consensus changes. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at Books of Kings shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

There is no such thing as a "stable article", that's just a lame excuse for edit warring. Yes, I'm guilty too. But it's time to stop reverting discuss. ► Belchfire-TALK 04:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course there is. The article was stable for a year and a half. Until the discussion is concluded, that's how it should remain. Read WP:BOLD. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Volga-Finnic languages[edit]

I think your move of the redirect Volga-Finnic languages to Volga–Finnic languages with a dash is in error. The term is not to be analysed as "Volgaic + (... +) Finnic" or "from the Volga to Finnic" or the like. In this term, "Finnic" does not refer to the Finnic languages (in the narrow sense "Baltic Finnic"), which do not form part of the group at all, but to the Finno-Volgaic languages, of which the Volga-Finnic group comprises the sub-group situated at the Volga, the languages of the so-called Volga Finns. In fact, "Volga Finnic" would be clearer, though still confusing because of the ambiguity of "Finnic". The terminology is awful, I know. But it is important not to confuse Volga-Finnic (which does not include Baltic Finnic) with Finno-Volgaic (which does). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I suppose we can delete it, if you like, since it's an unlikely typo. Just three links to fix. — kwami (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, to the dustbin with it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Korean /s/ and denasalization[edit]

On the subject of Korean /s/, I've added a source at Talk:Ulsan that deals with the debate. Word-initially at least, I think the aspiration must indeed be an important cue.

I must admit I had never noticed any synchronic denasalization in Korean, so I found the following blog post fascinating: John Wells's phonetic blog: denasalized nasals

Kim Young Shin's dissertation referred to in the post goes into more detail, including a summary of the treatment of the topic, but I haven't had time to read it carefully.

As a native Korean speaker, it's something you just simply don't notice until someone points it out to you since it's entirely allophonic and it doesn't really occur to you to consider whether the pronunciation of simple word-initial nasals could be different. — Iceager (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am now reminded of when I first heard the song "Dom andra" by Kent. I thought I wasn't quite hearing a /d/ in the chorus but an /n/, "Vi blev som dom andra", and asked my Swedish friends about this pronunciation, but they didn't really understand what I was talking about. I didn't know about denasalization in Korean at the time, but now I realize it could have been because I was unconsciously mapping the soft /d/ to /n/ because of how I was trained to hear Korean /n/. — Iceager (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, those are very helpful links. This distinction is often subtle, but sometimes it's quite obvious if you're not used to denasalization. — kwami (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC at TITLE[edit]

Kwami, due to the awkward process of starting up the RFC at WT:TITLE#RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal, your expression of support for the proposal was left outside of the RFC section. I expect you'll want to correct that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your requested move...[edit]

...posted at Talk:Hindustani. I reverted it because it was malformed. Hindustani language redirects to Hindi-Urdu. It's not clear to me what you want to do. Please read the instructions at WP:RM, in particular WP:RM#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves, and consider {{subst:move-multi}} request if you want to move more than one page. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted it to be a rd to Hindi-Urdu, as the primary topic. I'll then add a hatnote for the dab page. — kwami (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary![edit]

Please write edit summary --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice 12 January 2013[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Languages of Pakistan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jaredfan (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:Content fork is a valid reason. I will continue to remove cruft from the article. — kwami (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Tito Dutta (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Han subgroups moves[edit]

Re: your moves of "Xiang-speaking peoples" to "Xiang Chinese people", etc.[8][9][10] I think (and I am not the only one; look at their talk pages) that Wikipedia is creating neologisms for concepts that do not exist, by analogy to "Cantonese people", which is a pretty unique case. What was "Gan-speaking people" until your move was originally "Jiangxi people", which is a regional and not ethnolinguistic identity, as provinces in China are pretty disconnected from linguistic regions. These articles are not well-sourced for the concepts that they claim to describe. So while the "Xiang-speaking peoples" concept is pretty dubious but somewhat descriptive, the move to "Xiang Chinese people" is even less descriptive and more dubious. The moves not represent progress towards sourceable articles; would you please revert them? Shrigley (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In what sense are they "peoples"? That's what seemed weirdest to me: If they're not ethnicities, they're certainly not multiple ethnicities! What about "X-Chinese speakers"? — kwami (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
That's probably the best interim title, although it still could falsely imply that "Gan-Chinese speakers" are some cohesive population or group with an ethnic consciousness, like Swedish-speaking population of Finland. I think it would be best to merge Gan-speaking peoples into Gan Chinese, and whatever information that article has about "Jiangxi people" into Jiangxi. However, I think the articles are mostly synthesis and wishful thinking. Similarly, the article Han Chinese subgroups should be axed and rebuilt on the basis of reliable ethnographic sources, and not language cladistics. Perhaps this question should be brought to WikiProject China. Anyway, I highly doubt that Wang Anshi and Ang Lee—listed as exemplars in the infobox—identify as "Gan Chinese people". Shrigley (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, reifying linguistic groupings, as if there were an "Altaic people", is a pet peeve of mine. I'll move to those titles, and support you in merging the articles. — kwami (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I've tagged them for merger, and several more besides. I don't have them on my watch list, however. — kwami (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The articles I left alone are now listed at {{Han subgroups}}. Do you have trouble with any of those? — kwami (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm suspicious of "Ningbo people" (and Wenzhou people for the same reason), since the article seems to be descriptively about people who came from the city of Ningbo or who have an ancestral home there. Also, there are no references for either article. The former could be easily renamed to "List of people from Ningbo", à la List of people from Delhi. The current scope of the article Fuzhou people is clearly "people from the city of Fuzhou", since it lists She and Manchu residents as subgroups. The sources are suspect, actually referring to "Min Dong-speaking people" (Hokchew or Hokchiu are names for the language). I could entertain the idea that there was some ethnogenesis because of migration to Malaysia and other places (which indisputably created the Hokkiens), but the current sources don't prove it. Maybe an AfD is necessary to clarify the concept. Overall, you've done a good job. Shrigley (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted one, renamed the other. (Didn't bother to clean up the lead.) — kwami (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Serbian speakers[edit]

Could you provide the url to where you found this: [11]? --JorisvS (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the url. I checked entries for all countries listed at srp, apart from Albania, which contradicts ELL2. (Turkey & Libya maybe should be discounted too, since Muslims no longer tend to self-ID as Serbs, but that wouldn't change the rounded-off value.) — kwami (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The main site of Ethnologue ([12]) obviously doesn't say anything about the half a million Serbian speakers abroad and I couldn't find it in their entry ([13]). --JorisvS (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In this edit you made an unexplained change of text in the source (quote from Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics) by deleting "and perhaps a million in the diaspora". Can you explain this and your other edits? Cheers.--В и к и T 10:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no source for that claim. I subbed with a sourced figure. You're welcome to find better! — kwami (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
That's not my point. I only want to see what you've seen, but I can't find it because the url is not specific. That's why I asked you to provide the specific url to the page where they said that. --JorisvS (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, I checked the entries for all countries listed at [srp]. There is no single page that I know of. — kwami (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Northern Zhuang vs All Zhuang[edit]

The Zhuang Languages article is about both Southern and Northern Zhuang, therefore the number of native speakers should reflect both Southern and Northern populations. Presently the Zhuang languages article gives a figure whilst sourced which is just for the spwakers of Northern Zhuang. Johnkn63 (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes? If you have a ref, please fix it. But you shouldn't replace ref'd info w unref'd info. — kwami (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Luo[edit]

I think it would be beneficial to the development of the article if you didn't refer to my edits as vandalism. Thank you. Ezeu (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't refer to them as vandalism. I reverted them as unhelpful to the development of the article, as discussed on the talk page. — kwami (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Tidong language[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami, you recently removed a deletion tag from Tidong language. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

() pages[edit]

I believe I have spoken to you before about these "… ()" pages. There is absolutely no point. In the most recent case, why was it not possible for you to simply place {{db-move|Judeo-Aramaic languages|singular is standard}} on Judeo-Aramaic language and wait for it to happen? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That may have worked in that particular case, but in most cases there's too much drama for such an approach to be effective. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please explain yourself - what on earth do you mean by "too much drama"? In any case here is a much more potent reason for you to give up this silly practice. Please see these edits where I have rescued all these pages (many of which you created in the first place) from speedy deletion. First one bot had changed them to point to a () page, then another bot tagged them for deletion because they were redirects to a deleted page. If it happens again, I shall not be so kind, I shall delete them, especially ones created by you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No-one's asking you to do it. If you don't want to, then don't. But if you start vandalizing WP in order to make some silly WP:POINT, creating more work for s.o. else who has to undo your damage, then I will request that your privileges be revoked. We don't need prima donnas on WP. — kwami (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Now you are being simply ridiculous. Please specify which of my edits you consider vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You threatened to delete the articles, "especially ones created by me", if I moved them in ways that you didn't like. Not only would that by pointy, but it would be vandalism in order to be pointy. If I got desysopped for enforcing a closed move request that a disgruntled opponent reverted, I certainly think you should lose your privileges for nonsense like that. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are being ridiculous, I did not threaten to delete any actual articles created by you. I only threatened to delete redirects. And in practice, I probably not do so - I would simply leave them to see if other admins would detect the situation or simply trust the Legobot (talk · contribs) - which usually gets it right - and simply delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not being ridiculous, that's a misunderstanding. You linked to examples of things you would delete, and those were articles and rd's linked from other articles. I assumed that you had chosen a representative example of things you would delete. I don't mind if you delete rd's that aren't being used and aren't likely to be entered in the search window. — kwami (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

All my links were to redirects. But can we stop this bickering please? Perhaps you could actually try and explain (with examples) why you create these () pages. I am a bear of very little brain and "too much drama" gives me absolutely no clue as to why you do it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have found, through repeated bad experiences with regular move requests, that it can take weeks or months to go through. It will be denied and the move-request template deleted by someone who doesn't understand why it should be moved, and would rather delete than leave it for someone who knows what they're doing. It will be reposted for comment, because no-one bothered to comment the first time. I might need Google results to prove that it's the common name. It becomes a huge production, wasting a lot of time. That's what I mean by 'drama'. If instead I move it to the intended name with the addition of those silly parentheses, and then request that the rd at the target name be deleted, someone will often come by and move it within a day or two. Maybe one time out of fifty, if that, someone will object to the new name. In that case, I move it back, and no harm done. Moving the occasional name back (which I can do myself) is a lot easier than arguing about fifty moves that no-one actually objects to. So, basically, I add the parentheses because they have a proven track record of getting the job done. — kwami (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I did ask for examples. I am unconvinced. I have never seen any "drama" except in cases which would be controversial by any route, eg. moving Islamic view of Moses to Musa. But remember - if you create Foo () then it is your responsibility to check special:WhatLinksHere/Foo () and fix any links which may appear. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Washo[edit]

Hey Kwamikagami, I've noticed your recent additions to the Washo language page and saw that you edited the consonant section. In that you added the consonants Ŋ, M, L, W. In my experience with learning the language, all letters are written in lowercase form, even though <http://washo.uchicago.edu/consonants.php> shows the letters above as uppercase as well. Also, in listening to the sound files on the uchigaco.edu site, it's hard to hear a difference between the lower and uppercase letters, but it sounds as if there's a minimal huff associated with the uppercase form. I was curious if you had any knowledge of of this and if so what the difference is. Blackbird5555 (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know about the orthography, and wasn't happy with my sources. It may be that these sounds don't have separate letters apart from idiosyncratic linguistic transcriptions. Please revert me on anything I got wrong.
BTW, we don't cap section titles, the Washo Tribe is not a linguistic source, we use English in our articles, etc. — kwami (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I should think the Washo Tribe is a linguistic source on its own language.
There are dialects, though they are not distinct such as the huŋalelti lisp.
Wašiw is English. It's in reference to the language of the Washo people.
t' is said in combination with a slight glottal stop where as ć, ḱ, ṕ have different sounds altogether. Other letters followed by an apostrophe are not said in combination with a slight glottal stop but instead one after the other.
If you know nothing of the Wašiw language, why are you making changes to it? Blackbird5555 (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the orthography. But then, apparently, neither do you. Otherwise I'm following sources; if you have better, please cite.
Of course the Washo Tribe is not a linguistic source. It's a political entity. If the Tribe has conducted research on the genetic affiliations of their language, we can cite their publications. Otherwise, no: linguistic claims require linguistic sources. See WP:Reliable sources.
Your description of t' contradicts the IPA. Perhaps there's an error somewhere? Do you have a source for this?
The name in English is "Washo". Wašiw is fine in italics as a foreign name. — kwami (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Blackbird5555 doesn't really know what he's talking about. I listed all kinds of references at Talk:Washo language. (Since my languages of specialization are Washo's neighbors, I do know something about Washo and Blackbird5555 is, well, incorrect.) --Taivo (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The refs all talk about phonology. Blackbird is making a claim about orthography. (He doesn't seem to distinguish the two, but the actual edit war is over orthography; he's leaving the IPA alone.) Do we know if the Tribe has a preferred orthography? The only ones I've seen are rather crude ad hoc systems used in the non-Washo lit. — kwami (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Then you, Taivo, should know that the neighbors of the Washo have no linguistic connection to them whatsoever. Therefor, the pronunciation of Wašiw words do not match those of its neighbors. Having been involved with the Washo community for years, I do know what I'm talking about. Now just because you list references doesn't make them right. Yes, Jacobsen is referred to a lot when it comes to the Wašiw language, but even the Washo will tell you that he was not 100% correct. The writing system he used is not what is used today as to distinguish the difference between glottal stops and different letters altogether. Blackbird5555 (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
All we ask for is a decent ref. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Republic of The Gambia (with an uppercase T)[edit]

What useful purpose do you hope to serve by causing a bot to change The Gambia into the Gambia in a large number of articles here?
Is it not true that the officials of the Gambian government refer to their own nation as The Gambia (with an uppercase T)?
Thanks. Doc. DocRushing (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Consistency. We use "the" in all the article names on WP. — kwami (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
We probably shouldn't, though. The "The" appears to be part of the proper name, which means it should be uppercase, as with The Hague. --Trovatore (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"The" is normally lower case when part of a proper name. 50 years ago it would be cap'd, but that's getting increasingly rare. "The Hague" is one of the few exceptions, probably because the "the" can't be dropped as it can from Gambia. — kwami (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"Consistency" is no excuse for sloppiness, inaccuracy, or careless inattention to detail.
When the word the is a part of the official name of an entity – as, for example, in The Hague, The Gambia, and The Greyhound Corporation – then we have a duty and responsibility to show honor to the entities and the people involved by printing the names in question in the form which those groups and those people prefer.
To omit the uppercase T – or to change it – is erroneous and presumptuous.
If such uppercase Ts appear less frequently than before – which may or may not be true – that's because of the ignorance, carelessness, or stubbornness of those who make that mistake.
If you wish for your own written work to bear a mark of one who is ignorant, ill-informed, or careless, that's OK.
But it's not OK for you to tamper with the work of others by imposing on it your error and your misguided personal preference.
Please stop messing up the work of others, and please stop using a bot to mess up the work of others.
Thanks. Doc. DocRushing (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
If it's an error, it's not mine. This was established in 2010 when all the Gambia articles were moved to "the". If you want to change that, make a request to move them all back. Until then, I will continue to make these edits.
You also might want to read the warning at the top of the edit window: whatever you write will be changed by others. If you don't like that, you shouldn't edit WP. — kwami (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
And perhaps scan through the country's offical official website, and the website of this university in the Gambia. No stylistic consistency, though the latter strongly prefers lower case. See also this UN-connected page; and UNICEF calls it simply "Gambia". On Wikipedia we have a manual of style to sort out unreliable style in "reliable sources". Choices in styling a name are made by publishers that reproduce the name, not necessarily by the bearer of the name. For example, no one can say "it is integral to my name that it be printed in italics," or " 'Dr' in front of my name has a full stop." So in this case also. OUP chooses "Gambia" or "the Gambia", but "The Hague" (see New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors, 2008). M-W Collegiate, deferred to by The Chicago Manual of Style, agrees exactly. NoeticaTea? 07:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Your complaint at AN3[edit]

Hello Kwami. About WP:AN3#Languages of Pakistan reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: ). Who do you think is a sock? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thought the last IP might be. — kwami (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm Nai[edit]

Hm Nai is mutually unintelligible with Pa-Hng, although it's closely related. Mao Zongwu (1997) covers this in detail. — Stevey7788 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Younuo is definitely not intelligible with either Pa-Hng or Hm Nai. Mao Zongwu (2007) argues that it should form a branch with Pa-Hng, though it would be the most divergent one. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Bača subdialect[edit]

Hi Kwami, you recently moved the page Bača subdialect to Bača dialect. Note that Slovene distinguishes between narečja 'dialects' and govori 'subdialects, local dialects, etc.' I have no objection in principle against renaming the page to Bača dialect (although subdialect is a legitimate term), but then every page for Slovene subdialects should be moved, all the article texts should also be updated, and a good solution should be found for phrasing such as "the dialect ... is divided into three subdialects." There are about 60 such pages; I think it would probably be best to move the page back to Bača subdialect and propose a systematic change for discussion at WikiProject Slovenia. Doremo (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed they should be consistent.
You know more about this than I do, so I'll defer to your judgement. AFAIK, there is no absolute definition of "subdialect", which is why I generally move subdialect, subbranch, subfamily, etc., unless they're in a defining context for this to make sense. Also, does the term here mean accent rather than dialect? An accent is a more minor distinction, typically with differences in pronunciation but little difference in grammar. With larger e.g. national languages, that's usually what the term "dialect" is intended to mean when it's used for the speech of such a small geographic area as Bača. (I see that the Slovene article that interwikis to WP-en 'accent' is naglas, but that's a different definition of accent, as in stress/pitch accent, and should be fixed.) Without knowing the language, it would seem to me that Rovte is the dialect, Tolmin perhaps a subdialect, and Bača an accent. ELL2 would seem to support that, with Rovte being one of seven traditional dialects, each with further diversification (48 'local speech varieties'), of which I take it Tolmin would be one. Sussex & Cubberley (CUP) review the lit and give the reported number of Sloven dialects as between 7 and 50. They speak of the Rovte dialects, plural, thus calling both the Rovte and Tolmin levels 'dialects' depending on analysis; they even omit Rovte from their table of dialectical reflexes of proto-Slavic as insufficiently distinctive to warrant a separate column. There's no discussion in either source about 'dialects' at the Bača level. We get the same thing with English, where local 'dialects' are often better called 'accents'.
Thus, unless you know differently, it would seem to me that I should have moved these articles to Bača accent etc, and the other Slovene 'subdialects' should be the same. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I would avoid the term accent here; the govori exhibit not only distinctive phonological features, but also often include distinctive morphological, word-formational, syntactic, and lexical patterns. The Slovene term podnarečje (literally, pod 'sub' + narečje 'dialect') is also a synonym for govor. They are, of course, "local dialects," but this would be more cumbersome as an article title than "subdialect," which is a legitimate term. Doremo (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, whatever you think is best. Most articles with names like this are clearly wrong, so I tend to change them without doing a lot of research first. — kwami (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've moved it back again. Doremo (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Escuse me[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami and escuse me for revert your edition in Acento prosódico, I thought that those were the correct interwikis. Thanks. JaviP96 08:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm having a problem at WP-hr, but after that, the bots should fix things up.
And if you think stress (linguistics) is a better WP-en IW than accent (phonetics), please go ahead and change it. — kwami (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: help[edit]

You did this and you don't see why others felt it was a bad change?! :) How about you do what you would do on en:, and actually bother to explain to people what happened with en:Accent (linguistics), rather than edit-war? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I see now you posted on the talk page there after the 3RR violation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no 3RR violation. I also explained the reason on each person's talk page before reverting them, just as I did with Galician in the thread above. The last response was that I shouldn't do the edit because I don't speak Croatian, not because there was anything wrong with it. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Austro-Asiatic -> Austroasiatic[edit]

Please see Talk:Austro-Asiatic languages#Requested move and your e-mail. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Assistance required (continued harassment from anonymous editor)[edit]

Hoping you can assist here, as an admin. If you could, please review this[14] anonymous user's Talk page (you may not remember, but you took part in a discussion some months ago, concerning his harassment towards me on his actual Talk page).

His latest strategy is cloning my username (save for the extra "s" at the end) and even proclaiming his intent to cause mischief. You can find his page here: [15]. The account created is "Apple2gss", note the extra "s" tacked onto the end.--Apple2gs (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:INTDABLINK is policy.[edit]

Greetings! WP:INTDABLINK is policy. If you are unable to conform your conduct to the policies of this project, please let me know and I'll be glad to address the situation appropriately. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to explain what you mean.
Oh, I see. Forgot about that detail. — kwami (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
No worries. If you dislike the appearance you can replace the hatnote with {{Other uses|Accent (disambiguation){{!}}Accent}}, and it will hide the parenthetical. However, it may be useful for readers to know that a link is taking them to a disambiguation page. Cheers again! bd2412 T 16:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Using AWB[edit]

I am disappointed you have run your script again to change capitalization of "God" in certain articles. The discussion is still ongoing. The rules at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser clearly state "Do not make controversial edits with it" and "The Wikipedia tenet "be bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus." You have been warned. StAnselm (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

We've had the consensus for years: We capitalize titles, not deities of favored religions. That AWB script is years old. The current discussion is on whether we should change it. — kwami (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I think StAnselm has it right here - please stop making these controversial changes without consensus. Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me be clear: you're not going to edit-war these changes into Wikipedia. Please try building consensus instead. Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

LTR[edit]

Can you please check my edit here and fix if necessary? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the words were in the wrong order. Should be fixed now. — kwami (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Please edit Donghak Peasant Revolution! Seonookim (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

See comment in Talk:Sibilant[edit]

I wrote a response to a very old comment of yours, along with a long commentary about an issue that still confuses me. Could you take a look? Benwing (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Ben. I am not familiar with these sounds. I've heard them, but not enough to be able to answer questions like that. As for which diacritics would be best, maybe we could check if the IPA has published anything. They do cover quite a few languages in their journal, though the quality is not consistent. — kwami (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nahuatl dialects[edit]

Please move the Nahuatl dialects back to where they were and start a discussion proposal for movement. They appear as dialects in the literature, not separate languages. The division between central, eastern etc. is a dialectological division. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Basically I think we can bypass the dialect/langauge issue by just having them all located at Central Nahuatl, Eastern Nahuatl etc. Since Nahuatl is only the name for the language not the ethnic group. A discussion seems in order. For example on the main Nahuatl page?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Peripheral is already like that. Currently 'Central Nahuatl' is a rd. to Tlaxcala–Puebla Nahuatl, as that's the E16 name. — kwami (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a wrong redirect - Morelos Nahuatl, State of Mexico Nahuatl and Northern Puebla Nahuatl are also Central dialects. The official usage in Mexico now is to call Nahuatl a "linguistic group" and then talk about individual local "varieties".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Central dialects, yes, but not Central Nahuatl in ISO. I put in a request to delete and move, but we can keep Central Nahuatl language as a rd. to Tlaxcala–Puebla for the ISO links. — kwami (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Parentheses in language article titles[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami. You've recently moved a couple of language pages to titles containing empty parentheses (specifically Gujari language () and Southern Luo language ()) - I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason for this format (I'm assuming it's some etymological convention that I'm not aware of) but try as I might, I haven't found it yet. Rather than spend half-a-day trawling through MOS and language projects, I thought I'd just ask you to educate me - so I am: what's the deal with the empty brackets? Cheers, Yunshui  13:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't move to the proper name, so I've tagged them for deletion and for these to be moved. Much, much more efficient. — kwami (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You have renamed lots of articles on languages and dialects. Was this discussed? Where?

While I generally like consistent naming schemes, I think in the case of articles such as Riograndenser Hunsrückisch this is slightly problematic because of the ambiguous status as a language or dialect. In other cases it might be a matter of political POV. Hans Adler 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Riograndenser Hunsrückisch is presented as a dialect of a dialect. I don't see anything, such as being established as a standard language, that might override its identity as a dialect. If I'm wrong, feel free to reverse me. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
According to this article (in German), what obviously started as a local dialect of German now has its own Portuguese-based orthography and is taught at schools. Its speakers appear to have lost exposure to Standard German, and to no longer understand it. (I only found out about this right now, as I was looking for it.) On the other hand it would be quite a stretch to refer to it as a dialect of (Brazilian) Portuguese, as it appears to be far from mutually comprehensible with it.
This seems to be the natural development for minority languages of this kind. Something similar has happened to Pennsylvania German, which started as another German dialect (Pfälzisch, which is extremely close to the original Hunsrück dialect) and for some reason is now referred to as a language even though some of its highly religious speakers still use bibles in a form of Standard German that is only slightly antiquated and speak with an approximation to it in certain situations.
So, I wouldn't go so far as to say that you are wrong. But I don't think you are right either. I am just uneasy about this. I see no need to get closure about such an arbitrary distinction. I guess the speakers will have a tradition of referring to their variation as a dialect, so they are unlikely to protest. But still it doesn't seem completely right. Hans Adler 10:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
After some further research I am now going to implement the old merger proposal, see Talk:Brazilian German#Merger proposal. (I think it even came from you?) It appears that Brazilian German is essentially a synonym for Riograndenser Hunsrückisch in the wide sense (as an emerging language), of which Riograndenser Hunsrückisch in the narrow sense is a dialect family spoken in Rio Grande do Sul. That makes the title problem disappear. Hans Adler 11:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Oops. After yet further research, there are some areas of Brazil where a language variant based on Pommersch, a dialect from the other end of Germany (now mostly Polish) dominates and is official. [Edit: "official" was overstating it, according to better sources.] With that information, the merger really doesn't seem appropriate. Hans Adler 11:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. How's Riograndenser Hunsrückisch German? — kwami (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I've found some pretty good sources and learned a lot about this Brazilian German. Apparently there are Hunsrückisch speaking and Pommersch speaking municipalities very close to each other, though most of the Hunsrückisch speakers live further in the south than most of the Pommersch speakers. In any case they seem to communicate with each other in their own version(s) of Standard German. I think this is a strong reason against merging, and your proposed title sounds reasonable. But it is a (non-obviously) descriptive title where the English name of the language/dialect could have stood simply on its own. Hans Adler 20:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Old Southwestern Chinese[edit]

Where did you get this info? This proposal certainly is quite intriguing, and surprising. We might want to ask David Bradley himself about this.

I tried searching these books, but didn't find any mention of Old Southwestern Chinese at all.

Stevey7788 (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRON[edit]

Can you take another look at my proposal. It has changed significantly since you last voted to oppose. Consider changing your vote. I would like to have a few more votes before adding it to the infoboxes and modifying MOS:PRON. Consensus, I believe, is quickly building but your earlier Oppose vote still remains.— አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Still think this is a matter for MOS:LEAD. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hindustani grammar[edit]

Hello! Remember me? How are you doing? I came across the Hindustani grammar article which I worked on a while back and found that a huge amount of information was removed, especially the Hindi-Urdu. Could you take a look at the issue? Khuda hafiz, AnupamTalk 07:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you give an example? — kwami (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Dear User:Kwamikagami, yes, if you compare the two revisions, all the scripts and former examples have been removed. The original article was drafted by User:Magicalsaumy, with the scripts being added by User:Kitabparast. These however, are all gone. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 09:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
That was over six years ago! The article has been substantially rewritten since then, largely by Tuncrypt, it would seem. Hindustani script has been removed, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing: for many readers it simply made the article look cluttered. You can certainly start a discussion on the talk page on whether it should be restored; if there isn't enough traffic there, you might try at Wikiproject languages. (Serbo-Croatian grammar has similar issues, but there each item has two transcriptions rather than the three we had at Hindustani.) As for examples being removed, you'll have to specify. A lot's been changed. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Austroasiatic languages[edit]

Hey Kwami, Austro-Asiatic languages has just been renamed to Austroasiatic languages. Would you mind changing all the "Austro-Asiatic"'s on Wikipedia to "Austroasiatic" using AWB? Thanks. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've got a lot to do today, but I can take care of any odd redirects. There are 400 links to Austro-Asiatic languages, however. If you want to try AWB, it's rather easy to do simple things like this. At the bottom-left of the screen, choose "what links here" under 'source', enter "Austro-Asiatic languages" in the 'what links to' window, and hit 'make list'. Choose the 'options' tab to the right of that, click 'normal settings', and enter "Austro-Asiatic" and "Austroasiatic" in the 'find' and 'replace' windows. (Don't make it case sensitive, or you won't catch l.c. entries.) Then go to the 'start' tab, add a default edit summary in the window, and click 'start'. You'll need to sign in to your WP account. When an article pops up, double-click on a paragraph in the top display window to cancel the bot changes to that paragraph, or make any additional manual changes that you like in the bottom edit window. Then click 'Save'. If AWB skips articles in the list, that's probably because the link is in a template, not in the article itself. You can also go to 'Options' at the top of the window, click on 'pre-parse mode', hit 'Start', and leave; AWB will go through and remove all articles from the list that don't have the search item in them. — kwami (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! — Stevey7788 (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I let it run in the background while I was doing other stuff. 3 articles remain, which I left for various reasons. — kwami (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Could we have more informative edit summaries in future for this and particularly your "BS" ones, please? (Did you forget to change the summary? Also, some of your edits didn't actually do anything other than genfixes, which tends to annoy people.) Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 20:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Example? I think there was one article w massive gen fixes, which I'll allow some times.
There were no automated "BS" fixes. After deleting the same literal bullshit pasted into four articles, I tend to abbreviate the summary. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Clearly the wrong edit summary; and then a few where removing a hyphen was deemed to be "removing bs" rather than the better (but still somewhat cryptic) "rd": [16]; [17]; [18]; [19]. If you're going to do a batch of very similar edits, it really doesn't take very long to change the edit summary to something far more informative. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 23:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Oops! I've made mistakes like that before, and thought I was being more careful this time. Sorry. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I can't say it bothers me greatly, but some people sget o agitated about this kind of thing, and no-one really wants that kind of fuss. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 00:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

IPA for...Inuit?[edit]

A while ago, User:Guillermo2149 created a few IPA for X pages (specifically for Kazakh, Cherokee, Malayalam, Inupiak, and Inuktitut). I've redirected the Cherokee and Inupiak to Help:IPA and adjusted the relevant IPA templates for the others, but I'm not sure if I've handled the Inuit languages correctly. Should Help:IPA for Inupiak instead redirect to Help:IPA for Inuktitut? Should both be redirected to a more encompassing Help:IPA for Inuit languages as {{IPA-iu}} sort of suggests? What do you think? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 04:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't need to expand the table much to cover both, so that's what I'd do. But you'd need to make sure you do cover Inupiak. — kwami (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how to cover it, since our article on it isn't very clear about the differences. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 20:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe best to leave it as is, then. Would any of the current transclusions not be covered? Other than maybe [j] vs [dʒ], I don't know that there'd be much difference. — kwami (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Gambia[edit]

Dear Kwamikagami, I am just a bit puzzled to understand why you changed "The Gambia" to "the Gambia" in John Samuel Budgett since the article itself is called "The Gambia"? Can you help me to understand? Thanks. Budhen (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The article begins with a capital letter "The" because all titles do, it should not be capitalized within a sentence.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. The Gambia, like The Hague, is a proper noun, including the The. If you're not going to capitalize the The then you shouldn't use it at all (just plain Gambia is an acceptable, though no longer official, name for the country). --Trovatore (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Then you should request that those dozens of articles be moved back. Sources do not appear to be on your side, however. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
That's not my preference. I think we should capitalize the The. --Trovatore (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
That's what I just suggested. It would be odd to have it l.c. in the title and cap'd in the text. — kwami (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Their government website [20] does seem to suggest that they prefer "The Gambia".  — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
They're inconsistent. It's obviously just a style issue to them. — kwami (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
On this point Kwami continues to demand that everything at the Wikipedia must conform to his personal belief or preference despite the preference of the people of The Gambia.
Although there is some inconsistency even in the official materials of The Republic of The Gambia, an uppercase T in The Gambia nonetheless appears to be the predominant usage in their work.
The slight inconsistency seems to result at least in part from the inaccuracies introduced by the IT functionaries, who generally are notorious for their careless inattention to the details in the editorial content.
Kwami and his bot have uprooted and changed at the Wikipedia every instance of the uppercase T in The Gambia to the lowercase, and now he points to his own changes as the "proof" of his position!
How's that for academic disingenuity or intellectual dishonesty?
Best wishes to all,
Doc.
DocRushing (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
*Sigh* Again, if you wish to move those dozens of articles (I count 89) back to "The", make a move request. The move to "the" was done back in 2010 with no input from me; recently I've just regularized our usage. Unless, of course, the people who did the moves back then were all my sock-puppets. Maybe you should run a sock check? — kwami (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Your repeated violations of WP:Prune and WP:TPO[edit]

Your wholesale deletion (twice) of user contributions to the Swahili language discussion page is in clear violation of both WP:Prune and WP:TPO, especially considering that an editor has objected to them. You should revert yourself immediately. The deletions are here and here. The editor's objection is here. AfricaTanz (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are not contributions. Talk pages are for discussions on improving the article, not for your personal collection of web links. You have your own pages for stuff like that, and if there's something you're working on, you have your own sandbox. Not in public, please. — kwami (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Your insinuation that the editor in question is me is wrong. I am a neutral third party who objects to your repeated reversions of that editor's talk page post in flagrant disregard of Wikipedia practices and procedures. You should revert yourself immediately, per the links I have already cited, lest this problem be escalated. AfricaTanz (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you are not familiar with the colloquial "general you." That is what Kwami was using when he said "your personal collection of web links."
I stand behind Kwami's choice. The talk page is not the place for an indiscriminate collection of weblinks. It's tantamount to spamming. WP:TPO does say that gibberish can be removed. I'd suggest a more elaborate edit summary or post at the user's talk page, since they're fairly new. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 20:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
e.g.Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 20:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that this former administrator, who lost the bits at Arbcom, can speak for himself or herself about what was meant by "you". A failure to self-revert will lead to escalation is all I'll say. AfricaTanz (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a tangential dig will really get people on your side. I guess you're out of honey. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 21:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a "side", "honey". This is soley about what's allowed on Wikipedia. AfricaTanz (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Might be best for you to just be quiet, and drop this matter. You don't sound like an editor, just a problem-creator.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Saying you don't have a side doesn't make any sense. You have a position that Kwami's behavior is not appropriate. He and I disagree with your position, we thus have different sides on the matter.
I've already invited the other editor to either contextualize their list of links or put them somewhere else, so the ball is now in their court. Sticking around here with unctuousness and threats of "escalation" is a waste of everybody's time. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

interesting note[edit]

http://www.wral.com/polish-is-2nd-most-spoken-language-in-england/12041561/ HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Somehow I thought Britain was a bit more diverse than that already. I guess w the Asian population divided by language, it makes sense.
Ah, poor Welsh. — kwami (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Devanagari ka for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Devanagari ka is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devanagari ka until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GSMR (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Foo ()[edit]

Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs) has deleted redirects which you created at Bhaca dialect and IsiBhaca. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that! — kwami (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Base map[edit]

What base map did you create File:World marriage-equality laws.svg from? There are some odd territory issues I want to look at. Thanks, CMD (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

From the old map. Yeah, if you could verify the islands on both, that would be helpful. — kwami (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The old map seems far more up to date. Islands seem to have disappeared in the creation of the new one, and some islands that are there are not the ones in the original, as their ids have gone a bit funny. I don't see how that could've happened, as we're not even talking about new areas in many cases. I'm thinking it may be easiest to recreate World marriage-equality laws from the old map again. What both could use that they currently lack is separate objects for England+Wales and Scotland, in the same way as some American, Brazilian, and Mexican states have their own objects. Are you able to do that? (I could do it, but only crudely by eyeballing a map and manually adjusting the object shapes.) CMD (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd say just copy over any missing islands. I may have thinned out the Antilles a bit. I didn't know they came with IDs. UK: I'd have to eyeball it too, since any map with them would likely be a different projection. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
As much as I sympathise with thinning out the Antilles, as we're showing the number of places of something, the individual circles do help with numbers, if not specific countries. I'll give separating the legal areas of the UK a go then, if that makes sense to you. CMD (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I thinned them out because I couldn't identify them. I placed new dots based on a labeled map.
Yes, separating the UK may be a good idea, unless the leg all comes through at once. — kwami (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Lawu[edit]

http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/2012-067_lwu.pdf

Well, no, it's a completely new language that was discovered recently. There's Lavu language (see also Lisoish languages), but that one has over 10,000 speakers. Lawu, as described by Cathryn Yang, has only 50 speakers.

Great find. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, Yang mentioned in the ISO code change request that it's a Central Loloish ( = Lisoish) language. We can go ahead and create a stub anyways. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your linguistic contributions. We will carry on this professional discussion later because I will be off now. Regards Maria0333 (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. We really do need RS's, though. Hopefully the new research will clarify things. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Mezzogiorno[edit]

Hi Kwami-- I was looking at Mezzogiorno and was very surprised by both the pronunciation and the IPA given - and then found that you had corrected it a year ago on 26/1/12, changing "med͡zːo'd͡ʒɔːrno" to "meddzoˈdʒɔːrno". I don't speak Italian, and don't know IPA. But I've always heard, and said, "mĕt'sōjôr`nō" (from Columbia Encyclopedia), with the "zz" pronounced as it would be in German, as "ts", not "dz". Or perhaps the "dz" sound is Southern Italian? Milkunderwood (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, never mind. I've finally thought to look at Mezzo: "It is pronounced /ˈmɛtso/ in English, but /ˈmɛddzo/ in Italian." Milkunderwood (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I figured it might be s.t. like that. People forget the Italian script is defective. — kwami (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't really buy the geminated d's (especially the one in the giorno part), unless it's specifically a Southern Italy thing, which I wouldn't know about. By the way, I raised a similar point at Venice, which claimed (implausibly to me) that the t sound in Venezia is geminated. --Trovatore (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It's spelled geminated, so why wouldn't it be pronounced that way? I don't know about Venezia. — kwami (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I've been out of the country for a long time, but I just don't hear it that way. I think it's the same z sound as in orzo, which I would never have thought of as geminated. Let's see, what words are there with a geminated d? Not too many that I can think of — Buddha probably, but that's not a native word, and addio and addirittura. I don't know, to me it's just not intuitive to report it as geminated. --Trovatore (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
You could be right. There are Italian pronunciation dictionaries we could check, but that might be different from what people actually say. — kwami (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What about the "e" shown in "med", as opposed to "mɛd"? Milkunderwood (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Could be. I didn't know enough to fix the pronunciation, only the transcription. — kwami (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah - that makes sense. Maybe Trovatore will come back and see this. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Il Nuovo DOP has an open e – at least, that's what I assume ⟨ę⟩ is, and what I hear.[21] I'll correct the article. — kwami (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Consonants are geminate in both mezzogiorno and Venezia according to the dict. — kwami (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, check out garzantilinguistica.it (requires free registration). It doesn't have IPA, but it gives veneziano as [ve-ne-zià-no]. To see how it treats gemination, note that it gives addio as [ad-dì-o]. --Trovatore (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I had always just assumed that Italian sounds as it's spelled. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, a lot of people do. Excepting foreign words, which of course might be odd, Italian lacks letters for /dz, ɛ, ɔ/, and so doubles up with /ts, e, o/. — kwami (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I would be a little cautious about identifying "open e" with [ɛ]. It's true that it's a decent phonetic rendering, but in many parts of the country there's no real phonemic distinction. A minimal pair is pèsca ("peach") vs pésca ("fishing"), but in most of Italy (maybe everywhere but Tuscany) people will be hard-pressed to tell you which is which. --Trovatore (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
They distinguish them in Sicily, too. But we transcribe standard Italian unless we note otherwise, so we make the distinction. — kwami (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, but I'm not sure that [ɛ] is necessarily a good representation for everyone who does make the distinction. --Trovatore (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, the place to take that up would be Help:IPA for Italian. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Local copy[edit]

Hi! I was wondering why you would want local copies of those images to be kept here. Couldn't think of any reason. Can you please explain? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, so that in a year or two from now, when they're deleted from Commons, we won't need to resurrect them. — kwami (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Why would they be deleted from Commons? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Because it's Commons. Sooner or later someone may think of some reason why they need to be deleted. Safer to keep them local. — kwami (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
That same reason of deletion would apply here as well. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure, the same reasons apply, but reason itself is not such a problem here on WP. Commons is a real pain in the ass. It can take weeks to jump through all the hoops. That's why I never upload anything there. — kwami (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Not a good reason at all! So should we keep duplicates of all files on all Wikipedias? What's the purpose of Commons then? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'd keep local duplicates of everything apart from alterations of basic Commons maps, where there is no question that the image is free. Let's suppose I take a useful photo, upload it to Commons as a free release, and embed it in several articles where it is needed. I leave WP. Then someone challenges the photo, because there's no proof that I took it and therefore had the right to release it. Since I'm no longer here to fill out the paperwork, the photo is deleted, and those articles suffer. If I'm still here, I could at least upload a copy locally, and screw Commons, but if I'm not, WP suffers. — kwami (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Still not buying it. I will put those images for deletion and then you may sell your ideas to admins. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Are you willing to keep the articles that use them on your watchlist, and recover them when they get deleted? — kwami (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What's that name?[edit]

I saw that you were recently seen around the Hungarian language page, and that someone here had positive things to say about you linguistically.  :-) So I ask...

I was reading in article Uralic languages and came across a mention of a person, "Gy. Laszlo". I thought "Gregory", maybe "Guy"? Finally I looked around on Google and looked at some likely hits in Google books. From side-by-side mentions of both "Gy. Laszlo" and "Gyula Laszlo" I have to think "Gy." must be "Gyula". Hye, the article Gyula Laszlo even mentions Hungarian.

Can you think who to ask about this? It would be good to add this to Gyula (name) and of course fix Uralic languages to say "Gyula Laszlo". Oh, and add to Gy! Maybe even a mention at Gyula Laszlo?

Who do you go to when things bother you?   :-)   Shenme (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"Gy" is a letter of the Hungarian alphabet, so the initials for "Laszlo Gyula" are "L. Gy." Ref #7 at Hungarian language gives a quote by Laszlo Gyula that might be from the same book.
As for who I go to, usually someone who's had something intelligent to say in a related article. — kwami (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Putoh[edit]

Hi Kwami,

I'm not well verse in Linguistics and not sure what defines a language vs a dialect, nevertheless, will give you my opinion based on my findings. Putuk, according to Ethnologue, is an alternate name of Putoh. In Kalimantan, Putuk and Lundayeh is used interchangeably. In Brunei and Sarawak, Lun Bawang and Lundayeh are similar enough to be considered as dialect of each other. By extension, Putuk and Lun Bawang are of the same stock, or the least is a dialect of each other.

Having said that, I'd rather you refer to a linguistics study to ascertain that, instead of taking my word for it since I'm not a professional lunguist :) --Danazach (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry can't be of much help. I can confirm on the similarity between Lun Bawang and Lundayeh (since I'm of Lun Bawang descent living in a majority Lundayeh community), but can't say the same about Putoh/Putok/Putuk. --Danazach (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Words "grammarian" and "grammatician"[edit]

At this moment, Category:Grammarians of English contains the article "Norman Lewis (grammatician)". Is there a reason to distinguish "grammarian" from "grammatician" on Wikipedia? For convenience, here are links to definitions.

Wavelength (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"Grammatician" isn't even listed in the OED (at least not in the 2nd edition), so I'd say go with "grammarian". — kwami (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I have moved the article to "Norman Lewis (grammarian)". (I am curious about Wiktionary's source[s].)
Wavelength (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
It sounds right, somehow. Analogy w mathematician? — kwami (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
A non-Wiktionarian may have coined the word without being aware that the other word already existed.
Wavelength (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
So you're a Wikipedarian. (Looks like the def would imply a non-admin.) — kwami (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Paman languages.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paman languages.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thalochi[edit]

Thanks for your great contributions to Wikipedia Language Articles. You being a true professional referring Mascica. But there is an aspect we should give due consideration is what the locals feel about their dialect because the are better Judge of how much their dialect approximates with any Language. So please check various district local web sites and give them as a reference on those articles. That will be a graet help. Please tell me your email because I will send you some important Microsoft excel data. sheets if u like. Maria0333 (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure.
How locals feel about their language is only relevant to sociolinguistics. I had a friend, a native speaker of English, who insisted that English was a Romance language, and that I was ridiculous for thinking it was Germanic. Just because someone speaks a language doesn't mean they know anything about its classification.
I am concerned about Jangvi, as Masica doesn't go into detail. — kwami (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about one individual (Your Friend) but I am talking about Million of locals. Can we ignor them. You are reverting and trying to engage me an edit war but I will not revert them now. But I expect that you will realize and will do some research on Local web sites. Linguistic books present new theory after every few years but we need to check ground realities through local resources. You are a professional so I respect you.Maria0333 (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Local opinion is only a source for local opinion. For a linguistic claim we need a linguistic source. That's just how an encyclopedia works. People can be extraordinarily ignorant about their language, and millions of people just means millions who can be ignorant. Similarly, we wouldn't use local opinion for the nutritional value of the food they eat, nor about the mineral composition of the soil they till: what they believe may be very different from what is demonstrable. (In the US, for a long time people thought the soil in the Midwest was poor, when it's actually quite rich.) The basics our our sourcing policy is at WP:RS.
Also, what you're calling "edit warring" is me reverting you when you say the same thing twice, or moving minor detail out of the first sentence. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with basics of sourcing policy at WP:RS thats why i am asking you to please help these articles by adding local reliable sources. People could be confused about Food/ Soil contents but when a local can visit Lahore or Multan he can easily assess about the mutual intangibility of his dialect with language spoken in those cities because it is not a rocket science. Hope you will buy my point. Maria0333 (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Maria, I hope you understand that "local" and "reliable source" are actually contradictory for almost any linguistic topid under WP:RS guidelines. To take your example at face value, I could drive to the airport, catch a couple planes, and end up in Scotland tomorrow, where I can find individuals who are completely incomprehensible to me, even though they are speaking the English language. In that case, my subjective assessment that the Scotsman is speaking another language is completely erroneous, we just speak such vastly divergent dialects that we can't understand each other, even though there are many dialects with which both of us would be able to communicate with absolutely no reduced comprehension. Locals are, in fact, incredibly stupid about their language, largely because a person's experience of their language is so prejudiced towards their local dialect. An example of the last would be for me, as a speaker of Pacific Northwest English, I would say that /t/ is not allowed in the coda, even though this is demonstrably false in almost every other English dialect. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 08:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually fault lies with us (linguistics) because we ignore the difference of definition of Language and definition of a dialect...Language means a totally incomprehensible for example English and Urdu. Although Urdu is actually a mix of many languages including English and lexical similarity is nearly 25% but it is of no use because there is no mutual intelligibility that why URDU is a different language from English. But when Geirision or Masica try to classify Chateesgarhi as a separate language then local people like us use to laugh because these are 80% comprehensible to us (Urdu/Hindi Speakers) and in fact a dialect with around 65% lexical similarity. Similarly Northern most Punjabi dialect Dogri is mutually intangible and comprehensible with southern most Derawali dialect of Punjabi. But out of blue moon in 1920 here comes Sir Geirison in India Pakistan and conduct a survey and divide Hindi/Urdu in to ten languages and Punjabi in to 2 languages one Eastern Punjabi other western Punjabi for which he just for seek of his self connivance uses the Punjabi word 'LAHNDA' which means Western. At the sudden LAHNDA emerges as a Language ignoring the fact that people of eastern and western dialects have no problem of calling them selves Punjabi and can easily communicate with each other. They failed to convince others what they are doing out of 200 words comparisons that's why every other person is not accepting these fake classifications. Examples Dhani, Pothohari, Shahpuri, Jhangvi, Jaangli, Chenavari, Thalochi People never accept these research and claim themselves as punjabi. Few exceptions are Southern dialects Multani Dera wali and Riasti (Bahawalpuri) who in 1964 after reading these researches under an political agenda (The wish to DEGRADE lahore The Capital Of Punjab against MULTAN because its older city then Lahore). So agenda was a separate identity creation with the name of Saraiki (Suddenly emerged in 1964) and to create a separate province (which could not be made till date). So Saraiki is claimed as a separate language not on the basis of Mutual intangibility but a matter of SOCIO POLITICO GAME. Similarly Hindko is extremly close to Punjabi of Lahore. But again the socio political game (Hindko is spoken in a Punjab's rival province KPK where Pashto speakers are in majority who call hindko as Punjabi and ask them to leave KPK, that's why Hindko people Claim and say NO NO we are not Punjabi we speak a separate language and they put forward Geirison research forward. So Hinko and Saraiki people today agree with these research but all other Punjabi Urdu/Hindi dialect people do not accept fake classifications. I call it fake because in Gerison research he says LAHNDA as separate language on the basis of 3 grounds. Number 1. Phonology. Punjabi 'B' 'D' with breath going out LAHNDA 'B' and 'D' breath going in. 'Bh', 'Gh' (Lahnda) = 'P', 'K' (Punjabi). QUESTION ARISES ARE THESE MAJOR DIFFERENCES? Number 2. Future and Past Tense. In Punjabi all the structure of Future is same as LAHNDA, only difference is the 'GA' in the end is replaced by 'S' in the middle. example KHA AN GAA= KHA S AN. In the past tense 'S' in the start is replaced by 'H' in the end example Mea Saan= Mea Haan. QUESTION AGAIN ARISES ARE THESE MAJOR DIFFRENCES? Number three: 5% Verbs/vocabulary minor borrowings from neighboring languages (Punjabi from Urdu and Lahanda from Sindhi) which is a natural practice by every language different dialects i.e. . Examples To Go= Vnj in sindhi and lahnda= Ja in Urdu and Punjabi. So we (Linguists) fail because we ignore the basic concepts of what is a language and what is a dialect. we are more calculators rather then real world ground reality analyzers. Thats why Govt of india recently rejected gierison work as not reliable one and has announced a fresh Language Research. U can search it on internet for ready reference. HOPE 2 CONVINCE YOU BECAUSE I HAVE SOUND GROUNDS FOR ALL THIS Maria0333 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The lang/dialect question is a problem all over the world, not just in India. When that research is out, we can cite it as well.
BTW, Ethnologue divides up Indian dialects into an ever larger number of languages. Where I have linguistic sources that merge them, I've been doing that, which is why we sometimes get a dozen ISO codes for a single language. On the other hand, in many cases we have a single ISO code for a dozen languages which people insist are the same, despite not being able to understand one another. It' very difficult to apply the same criterion to all the languages of the world, because no one source evaluates them all.
Masica notes that no-one has ever enumerated Indian languages on the basis on mutual intelligibility. People have tried, but there are three problems: There are few dividing lines in a dialect continuum like Indic (but I doubt most people would accept that Sindhi and Bengali are the same language); there is a lot of unidirectional intelligibility; and there are a lot of cases where people insist they can understand each other, but that's only because of passive bilingualism. These problems have defeated past attempts at determining languages based on true mutual intelligibility. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You are very right. I am a young professor in NUML (National University of Modern Languages). I dont say any one wrong or correct but in my humble opinion whenever a situation like Indo Pak arises we should follow a two step approach. Step 1. Determine lexical similarity of Morphological, and syntactical similar dialects on the basis of larger vocabulary (800-1000 Words ) comparison and if it is above 65% then Step 2. Conduct a survey of nearly 300-500 less mobile rural people with a definite question CAN YOU COMMUNICATE WITH LAHORIS (FOR EXAMPLE) IN YOUR OWN LANGUAGE? If Survey result is more then 50 % as YES then those dialects are not separate languages. And you trust me Hindko and Punjabi are nearly 95% same because when i see a hindko drama on TV I try to locate the differences and I end up with nearly nothing. People of Hindko area watch APNA a punjabi channel as their first choice over other channels. For Saraiki its also nearly 90% to Punjabi. I am telling u because I am a local and In my opinion being a linguist and local I am the best person to Judge these things which a foreign Linguist or A local Lay man can not Judge. Potowari-Pahari is how ever is the most divergent Punjabi dialect as compare to two above because it involves Dardic (Kashmiri Vocabulary injections but still it is easily mutually intangible with Majhi. Interestingly foreign Linguistics classify URDU and HINDI as different languages on the basis that there writing system is different and Hindi has SANSKRIT VOCABULARY and URDU has PERSIAN and ARABIC vocabulary. But THEY ignore the same rule for BENGALI (INDIA vs BANGLA DESH) and Punjabi (INDIA vs PAKISTAN). For Dhani Shahpuri,Jandali,Riasti Jaangli, Jhangvi, Thalochi very very important aspect which is being ignored. Gerison came before IRRIGATION SYSTEM was set so the area was known as Jungle baar or Thal/Choolistan desert with sparse population but in 1930's land was converted to cultivated area by Majhi settlers so demography changed so the dialects got to a closer and adjusted to a hybrid form. 1947 Post partition of indo Pak. Hindu and Sikh locals (Jhangvi/Jaangli/Thalochi...) shifted to India and they were replaced by Muslim Standard Punjabi settlers so demography again changed and further hybridization took place. Thats why these dialect people are now very close to Majhi and consider them self as Punjabi. Even today the land in Thal and Choolistan deserts are being allotted to Majhi farmers. So slowly the things are even further closing down. Another fact is that it is a modern era of mass transportation so as the mobility between LAHORE the capital and Locals is increasing the language through out Pakistani Punjab is in a process of uniformity. Last but not the least Punjabi is derived from Name Punjab. The name "Punjab" means "five waters" in Persian (punjab) and refers to Indus River and its tributaries. So Had Only Majhi been the Punjabi then shouldnt it be called DOabi because Majhi is restricted to 2 rivers. Today the ground reality is that Punjabi has two Major groups; 1. Eastern Punjabi dialects (Malwi, Powadi , Doabi etc) spoken in India with different culture, religion, writing system and Sansikrat and Hindi vocablary. 2. Western HYBRIDIZED Punjabi which comprise of modern Majhi (which has injections of old LAHNDA dialects) and Modern Hybrid Lahnda dialects (Potowari, Dhani, Shahpuri, Multani, Riasti, Derawali, Jhangvi, Jaangli etc) spoken in old Lahnda areas. All these dialects are spoken in Pakistani Punjab area and have common culture, religion, writing system and Persian and Arabic vocabulary. Today all Pakistani Punjab is as close as never in terms of mutual understandably. A very fresh survey will show this fact i am dead sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria0333 (talkcontribs) 17:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the official language of India is Urdu. They just don't like calling it that. And we do have a single article on Hindustani language. The problem with accepting the opinions of local editors, however, is that tomorrow we may get someone who insists just the opposite. It would be great if you could locate some support for this, and not just for Punjabi lects, but for Bhili, Sindhi, Gujarati, Hindi, Bihari, Oriya, Bangla-Assamese, etc. I'd have no objection to merging their dialects into the main articles, but I'd want to be sure we don't just end up splitting them up again in a year.
You speak of mutual intelligibility of Siraiki and Majhi, but wouldn't the same be true of Siraiki and Sindhi? Of Sindhi and Gujarati? There are intermediate dialects between all the major languages, so yes, you can take a Panjabi-centric view, but if you took a Sindhi-centered view you'd end up with different "languages", with no good way to decide between the two results. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing such useful thoughts. Actually I can speak almost all Pakistani Major Languages i,e, Urdu, Punjabi (All dialects including So called languages Hindko Saraiki and Pothohari), Sindhi, Pashto (North and south dialects), Brahvi (A Dravidian language spoken in Baluchistan), Little bit Balochi and Persion. I am good in English and in child hood i have hobby of learning languages so i learnt little bit Arabic, French, German and few others . I have a collection of more then 50 different language's learning books in my library. Because I know Sindhi very well so let me tell u that Saraiki is actually the word of sindhi which means Head side dialect. Throughout history the northern 10 District of Sindh Province were called Saraiki. which was in fact Sindhi Saraiki. THe punjab's saraiki emerged in 1964. Punjab's Saraiki is very different from Sindhi. Although it have some vocabulary sharing with sindhi. If you see the map u will be clear why i am saying this because First major Sindhi settlement in North is Ghotki on east side of indus river and Last major settlement of Riasti Saraiki/punjabi had been Rahim yaar khan (Before new settlement of Majhi Punjabi people in saqidabad near Sindh border). The distance between Ghotki and Rahim yar khan is 120 KM with very less population because of Desert around. So historically the space between Riasti and Sindhi Saraiki never allowed a common transitional dialect. But on west side of River Indus Dera wali of Rajan pur is bit more closer to sindhi saraiki. Dera wali is spoken in three districts (Rajan pur,D G Khan and Muzzafargarh) NOTE this division is the only division where Majhi settlers (15%) are least in population and ethnically Balouch tribes are living. So Derawali is not hybridized much. Thalochi and Riasti are so much hybridized with Majhi due to new settlements and cultivation of Thal and Choolistan that Riasti and Thalochi people has rejected to be part of Proposed new Saraiki Province. Multani the standard dialect of Saraiki is in fact closest by distance and in terms of closeness to majhi and Multan division has in fact Majhi majority as per 1998 Census. Ratio between Punjabi,Saraiki and Haryanvi in Multan division is 51:36:13 Respectively. So very obviously hybridization taking effect on multani. You are right Hindustani is Urdu but typical Indian ego. U marked Jhangvi/Jaangli/Chenavari/Rachnavi as unclassified dialect but actually it is the source of punjabi heritage for example it is credited with the creation of the famous epic Punjabi romance stories of Heer Ranjha and Mirza Sahiba. As i told u about the continuous hybridization These dialects in 2013 are very much close to Majhi as compare to 1920's and these are going to get more closer because of the fact that most of people of these dialect work in factories of Lahore and Faisalabad. Inter provincial transfers has also changed the demography that's why Sahiwal Okara and Pak Pattan district people opted out of Multan Division in to a new Division. when ever saraiki nationalist try to claim the areas above multan as saraikistan they are out rightly rejected by Khanewal Vehari Jhang Toba Tek singh Chaniot Sahiwal Okara Pakpattan Sargodha Khaushab Chakwal and Mianwali's people. Their language was niether part of Southren Lahnda (Saraiki) but the standard Lahnda and today's Hybridized forms of Standard Lahnda (Jhangvi/Jaangli/Chenavari/Rachnavi/Shahpuri) are even more divergent from so called Saraiki Language. You know when ever Majhi vocabulary is different from Lahnda dialects. it is basically due to urdu borrowings. Today Urdu is effecting all Pakistani local Languages so that process is also converting Lahnda dialects vocabulary in to Urdu so ultimately more closer to Majhi. IN MY OPINION clear cut indo aryan languages are Bangali, Punjabi, Sindhi, Gujrati, Marhati,Hindi/Urdu, Oriya, Nepali, Kashmiri and Assamees. Other minors and dialects claimed as languages are neither recognized officially in india nor in Pakistan.Maria0333 (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

As a linguist, I could care less what's official. That's simply political fashion. Officially, Urdu and Manak Hindi are different languages. What I'd be interested in is which of these minor unofficial varieties are unintelligible to others. You could have a village of 100 people who insist their variety is a mere dialect of something else, but if you're a speaker of that something and move to that village and after a couple weeks of osmosis still can't understand it, then it's a different language no matter what people say. There's also the matter of history: two languages may have separated long ago, but due to mutual influence are now seen as being quite similar. Yet to the historical linguist their differences may be substantial. Anyway, it would be nice to get some better research on this. Ethnologue tends to go overboard, but relying on official status is also inadequate. — kwami (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually said that in my opinion after comparing and listening to various indo aryan dialects i can easily judge that Actual Language Level could be given to above mentioned list.Dravidian and others not included by me because i am not in a position to compare and understand them. Bhilli however could also be in this list but not bahari. As far as Punjabi and relevant dialect articles are concerned I am very clear about it and it should be grouped as I am making edits on relevant pages. Please Check them and we can discuss and readjust them.Maria0333 (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, since you appear to be relying on objective criteria. However, there's a potential problem: We have lots of language activists at the Indo-Pakistani articles, so how do we defend your changes when they start edit warring with you, insisting that Siraiki (or whatever) is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LANGUAGE ITS NOT RELATED TO PANJABI AT ALL STOP CULTURAL GENOCIDE OF THE SIRAIKI PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! Okay, maybe a milder version of that that isn't so obviously whacko. How do we justify treating Siraiki as a dialect of Panjabi, to editors or admins who know nothing of the topic, when people insist that it's a separate language, and use references to Ethnologue or Masica to support their argument? — kwami (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for treating me objective. I actually understand the Nationalist and Socio political editors so i will do it in a way in which It will present two way picture for example Saraiki is a language as per this this and this however it is also considered as Punjabi dialect as per this this and this. So that all the contrasting views could be covered effectively. Please give me 24 hours so that i can work out appropriate and objective edits. Then you review them because your professional guidance is very important for me. I believe in true professionalism which I could only achieve with a stronger coordination with professionals like you. Maria0333 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the languages, and I don't know the lit, so I'll trust your judgement. I've been trying to get at least schematic coverage of all the world's languages on WP, but had kept away from Indic because there were such obvious problems. Finally this past week I came back; Lahnda was the last real mess within Indic to clean up since I tackled Bhili a couple months ago. (Now, AFAICT, the only family that still needs an overhaul is Austronesian.) But I'm operating largely out of ignorance (I don't know much about Indo-European), so your knowledge is invaluable. I'll try to leave the articles alone unless you need my input on something. — kwami (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for trusting my local knowledge. Unfortunately I was suffering with fever for one and half day so I was not able to make valuable editing to the related articles, but i have tried a bit. Hope to make more useful inputs. Your efforts for world languages are incredible and your critical reviews are very important and valuable for me. BEST REGARDS Maria0333 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Pro-Wailing Wall Committee[edit]

This is a proper name and should appear in its original spelling. We can't change it just because we think it is wrong. The guidance of the MOS is for ordinary English phrases, not proper names. Zerotalk 13:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That is the original spelling. We don't need to retain the original styling. Different accounts style it differently, according to their own house styles. "You Gotta Have Balls" uses a dash, for example. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what organization "You Gotta Have Balls" is referring to, but it isn't the organization our article is about, nor is it a reliable source (see historical errors on the same page). I have many highly-reliable sources that use a hyphen. Zerotalk 10:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
How is that relevant? I bet nearly all of your sources use a serif font. Does that mean that non-serif is wrong because it's not the "original spelling"? Should we override user preferences and force the article to display in a serif font, with the argument that "we can't change the name just because"? — kwami (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Your analogy doesn't work. The claimed rationale for the dash is semantic, not stylistic. Zerotalk 13:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
And if you pronounced it with a hyphen, as the (pro-wailing) wall committee, people would think you're being a smart-ass. Are you really going to tell me it's OR to claim that the name contains the phrase "Wailing Wall"? A little common sense, please. — kwami (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
It isn't our business to change proper names if we think they are wrong. Of course it meant "pro-(Wailing Wall)" and not "(pro-Wailing) Wall", but the practice of using a dash instead of a hyphen to distinguish those cases is an Americanism. Contemporary sources, like the Royal Commission that reported on it extensively, used a hyphen. So did contemporary British newspapers (remember this was a British Mandate). I checked scans of quite a few. Zerotalk 14:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what a "name" is. We're not changing the name. It's also not an americanism, and even if it were, it'd be one we've chosen for wikipedia. Unless I'm missing something about the styling of proper names, but we fit book titles and other things to the MOS. — kwami (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent major revisions of article content[edit]

Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian are not merely characterized as standard languages of the 21st century, but also represent historical literary entities which at large developed independently and, moreover, predate the formation of 'Serbo-Croatian'. Appropriating 'Bosnian', 'Croatian', and 'Serbian' linguistic history to a classification coined only in the 19th century and officially embraced in the 20th century, is quite frankly out of order, as is this PoV edit [22] which clearly downplays the historical prevalence of the name 'Bosnian'. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing more than 5000 characters (!!!) from a seemingly stable article on a rather controversial subject, and without providing any proper motivation nor reason is, well what should I say, rich [23]. I have restored certain parts (19th century and on which deal with the status of the Bosnian language) and left out the "early development" you transferred to Serbo-Croatian. Though, should you wish to again invoke "historical names" of Serbo-Croatian, make sure to include Bosnian. Moreover, any historical usage of "Serbian", "Croatian" and "Bosnian" would predate "Serbo-Croatian" only domestically, as "Serbo-Croatian" would definitely enter English in parallel with (and not supposedly after) Serbian, Croatian, or Bosnian (the OED for example records the first reference to "Serbian language" in 1867). As such, do you really think Bosniaks/Bosnians (whatever) referred to their language as "Serbian", "Croatian" or "Illyrian" during the 400 years or so of the Sanjak of Bosnia and the Eyalet of Bosnia? Not to mention that a citation describing this is already included into the article: Prior to the 19th century, they were collectively called "Illyric", "Slavic", "Slavonian", "Bosnian", "Dalmatian", "Serbian" or "Croatian". Out of these, should we then, let's say, cherry-pick Serbian, Croatian and Illyrian? Yes that sounds like a splendid idea. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
If we need to add names, then add the names rather than complaining about them. We've talked about this on the talk page, and no-one has demonstrated that they were distinct languages until recently. If they were a single language, then that part of the history belongs in the article on the single language. Anything else would distort history. That, at least, has been the conclusion on the talk page. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Acknowledged, I only opt for the final result to be a neutral and objective piece of written material, which I believe will require a proper amount of attention reserved for the description of historical regionalisms (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, etc.) within the article on S-C. Currently, the merge is a mess without any convenient way of telling which unit of literary heritage belongs to what medieval state. I guess what I'm hinting at is the use of a certain number of subsections dealing with the historical heritage of S-C in the medieval Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian states separately (after all these were distinct geopolitical entities very early on; distinctions which, at least indirectly, led to the formation of contemporary separate standards for what is one and the same language). In light of that, I do agree it is best to focus the individual articles on the standardization processes, although, also providing - at least briefly - a historic background of Serbo-Croatian in respective region during the middle ages as this is relevant for obtaining a deeper insight into why separate standards are so fiercely pushed today. It would be utterly complacent to maintain that such attitudes are exclusively the result of recent socio-political events. I do also receive the impression that any criticism of "Serbo-Croatian" as a term is strictly suppressed by the editorship; rather more the criticism of S-C itself is criticized in the article by referring to it as "prejudice". However, in reality, it is obvious why (perhaps above all) Bosniaks/Bosnians would find this term insufficient in the context; an objection I would hardly consider "prejudiced" but rather justified, albeit somewhat self-inflicted given the Bosniaks own linguistic negligence in the 19th century. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
That sounds entirely reasonable. I realize that the article is a bit of a mess. It does need expert review; it would be wonderful if you could provide that.
As for name "prejudice", that's mostly a hardline response to those who claim that the language was invented by Tito, that Serbian and Croatian are no more related to each other than they are to Russian, and that to suggest otherwise is cultural genocide. I don't really care what we call the language, but "Serbo-Croatian" is the WP:COMMONNAME in English. I'd be just as happy to call it "Shtokavian" and to treat Chakavian and Kajkavian as separate languages, but those are extremely obscure terms in English, and would be gibberish to most of our readers. Or for that matter, I'd be happy to call the entire language "Croatian" because that's where the dialect diversity is, or "Serbian" because that's where the population is, or "Bosnian" because that's where all three standards co-exist. Any of those would be logical, but obviously impractical. Calling it Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian or Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian is tiresome, and calling it BCS or BCMS is jargony. Anyway, if we can separate what to call the language from claims that it doesn't exist, as purely a decision over nomenclature, we might have a more productive discussion. (I'm not implying anything negative about you with that comment, just observing that much of the debate has been motivated by a political POV rather than by an attempt to actually improve the article.) — kwami (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your wierd () creations[edit]

Well done for this edit. I shall expect to see the same on any future occasions - but without creating a double redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-move Morelos Nahuatl back to Tetelcingo Nahuatl[edit]

Hey, Kwami, just letting you know I moved the Tetelcingo Nahuatl page back to its own name. It (nhg) is not the same thing as Morelos Nahuatl (nhm). – User:Lavintzin

Okay. Fixed up the populations. I've been trying to get stub coverage for all the world's languages, so sometimes I consolidate to make the job easier. No problem w splitting things up later. — kwami (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

language or dialect[edit]

Hello Kwamikagami

With your great lingual knowledge, I assume you are most familiar with the old phrase "A language is a dialect with an army and navy"?

About your recent change to the Kalix language article. There is a lot to learn about stigmatized minority cultures and their struggle against opposing state officials, who claim that all similar languages are dialects of their national standard, thus denying their official status. It is usually much better to read what linguists says, than laws made by politicians.

I assume you haven't realized that your change of the article in january is a very offensive act against the local Kalix language community, who have discussed the "language or dialect" question for many years, and thus chosen the word "language". I made this wikipedia user to be able to write to you, but can you contact us on the kalix language website? We would like to know your involvement.

The spelling of Kalix / Calis / KöLis is a long story: The retroflex flap l or L or rl, the vocal a or ö, the ending s or x, the initial k or c. You can read about it in the local history books. Just as Kiruna road signs recently changed to 'Giron' when Saami language has (unwillingly) been accpeted by swedish authority, you must be aware of that spelling can be a very crucial thing for local identities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inuegouvah (talkcontribs) 07:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Any linguistic material you have would be of interest. I can easily believe that "northern Swedish" is a separate language. However, it would seem that Kalix is still a dialect of that language: by your own admission, it is mutually intelligible with other dialects in the area. When a bunch of varieties are all mutually intelligible, they constitute dialects of one language. Maybe we could say that Kalix is a dialect of Bothnian, and Bothnian is a separate language from Swedish? Anyway, linguistic references supporting your POV would be helpful.
As for being offended, it's not our job to make people feel good about themselves. Croats get offended that we deny that Serbian and Croatian are separate languages (except as official standards), and Hindus get offended that we deny that Hindi and Urdu are separate languages. But it's pretty clear from the literature that they are not. Show us the literature, and we'll be happy to make Kalix or Bothnian or whatever a "language".
As for spelling, we go by the common name in English, which would be "Kalix" (or maybe "Calis"?), just as it is "Swedish".
Since you're signed up, you should be able to respond here, or better yet on the Kalix page. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

External links in language articles[edit]

Hi,

I've noticed you're deleting a lot of external links to Ethnologue and Linguistlist like you did here.

Can I ask you why, there is no comment in the edit summary and it looks to be useful content? Alex Sims (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There are already links to Ethnologue in those articles, so they were redundant. Linglist is not a RS, and seldom has useful info; it's a source of last resort when Ethn. has no entry (and ideally even Ethnologue would be used primarily for ISO stuff). I deleted other sites that were off-line, had no useful content, or weren't about the language in the article. I left anything substantial, such as recordings or bibliographies. — kwami (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Anchors in section headings[edit]

I have the same concerns and problems as those raised by numerous other editors. Would it be possible to write the anchor code so that a pipelink doesn't scroll all the way down to the anchor but stops, say, two rows above? That way we could inser the anchor just past the section heading and it would still link in the desired way. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I assume it's possible, but I have no idea how to do it. We'd probably want two types of anchor, because sometimes an anchor is placed in running text or a link, and then you want to go to it directly. For those in the section headings, we could have a bot convert them to the new anchor. But you'll need to discuss this with the people who do the programming. — kwami (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Paman languages.png at files for deletion.[edit]

I did my best to stand up for your right to tag these files as {{Keep local}}, but I think that letting them know here why you don't want to have to deal with commons would go a way to getting them to respect the tag that was applied as instructed at WP:WHYCOMMONS. I'm a bit dismayed at how eager they are to just ignore the wishes of editors who want to keep local copies of files, so I think it would be good to get your experience and perspective. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 22:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hadn't been following that. Responded there. — kwami (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

move Proto-Slavic to History of the Slavic languages?[edit]

I suggested renaming as indicated above as part of the process of splitting up Proto-Slavic into two articles, one on Proto-Slavic per se and the other on the History of the Slavic languages. The renaming is because most of the text will go into the latter article and I'd like to preserve as much history as possible. I can't do the move myself because it needs to be moved over a redirect. Aeusoes entered a move request 7 days ago into the talk page of Proto-Slavic; so far, no objections from any of the people working on the Proto-Slavic article. Can you go ahead and move this? Thx. Benwing (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not any more. That's why I've been moving to all the silly names with "()" at the end. But since you're the one to move the history article around, maybe just add a {{delete}} template to it, and give as the reason moving the article back to where you found it. Anything that doesn't involve other people usually gets done pretty fast. — kwami (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Gambia[edit]

Explain why you have reverted my change. They have a letter from the country's own government instructing the use and capitalization of "The". Fry1989 eh? 20:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see that, only that you said the BBC styles it that way. The letter would make a good ref if it's available. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say "the BBC says/styles...", I gave the link saying it says The is capitalized. In any case, the BBC is a reputable and reliable source. Even without the letter, is there reason to not consider the article valid? Fry1989 eh? 20:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
They also have The Thames with a capital 'The', but we don't do that either. Yes, they do have a letter from the PM from 1964. But if you look at the Gambian statehouse site linked from our country article, you'll see that even the Gambian government is inconsistent about the 'The' these days. They tend to capitalize in headers but not in running text. — kwami (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, the full phrase generally does seem to be capitalized on the govt website. But the BBC, in that very article discussing the article, does not capitalize it in the long form of "the Republic of the Gambia". I reverted myself on this and then reverted myself again. — kwami (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't care about inconsistencies, if that letter exists, it's clearly the policy of the government of that country. I'll go fishing for the letter if I have to, but I don't see why it's necessary. Are you disputing the BBC's reliability regarding the existence of that letter? Fry1989 eh? 21:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
A 1964 letter instructing people to use the article so that they don't confuse Gambia with Zambia is not the most pertinent source for us half a century later. More relevant is current govt usage, and the usage of publishers who concern themselves with such details, and there we have no agreement. The govt of the Gambia flatly contradicts the 1964 letter by not capitalizing the short form of the name, which was the only form cited from that letter. For all we know the letter reflected the opinion of the then PM, not official govt policy. Even if it was official policy, it either is no longer, or is not followed by the govt, and so has effectively lapsed. — kwami (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
That's ridiculous conjecture. That's like saying just because somebody doesn't spell a word properly (and there's a lot of people who can't spell), that lapses the official spelling of the word! I guess I will have to go fishing for that letter, because it overrides either of our opinions. If it exists, and I can get it, you're going to have to prove that it is no longer in effect. Fry1989 eh? 21:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The proof is in the Gambian government's own usage. You're saying that the Gambian govt press office doesn't know how to spell the name of their own country? On a website where thousands of people could have pointed out the error? That the BBC doesn't know how to spell the name of a country in an article where they're discussing how to spell the name? The citation of the letter also never mentions the long form of the name, which is what you're using it for.
If you can find the letter, it would be interesting to see if they actually specify that the 'the' must be capitalized, or if they merely capitalized it because that's what people did in those days, (edit conflict) and if they specify that it is (or was) actually official (which means it's legislated somewhere), or if the PM was merely expressing his preference when queried by the UK govt. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The proof is in the Government's policy, not whether or not some website designer properly followed it out. There's a big difference between not spelling the name of the country right, and not properly capitalising one of the letters, however the principle of the example I gave you remains. If I receive the letter, I expect some form of proof it is no longer official policy or in effect, not the assumption that because people don't do it right, that means the policy has lapsed. I agree that the letter itself will be interesting. Fry1989 eh? 21:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Can i use images instead of PUA characters in articles about lateral fricatives, affricates, and retroflex lateral flap, etc.??? ???‽‽‽!!!?‽!?‽!?‽!? 17:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We could use them in addition. (In fact, we already do.) One problem is that they don't match the style or the size of the displayed font, and having some characters at 28pt and these at 12pt looks odd and is difficult to read. (That's the main reason I reverted your edit.) Also, while not universal, the PUA codes are supported by all SIL fonts, which are widely used and specified by our CSS styling for IPA. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
If you have SIL fonts, I want know price of Doulos SIL. ???‽‽‽!!!?‽!?‽!?‽!? 13:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
SIL fonts are free. That's one reason they're so widely used. Gentium is nicer than Doulos, though. Download links are at Gentium. (Or here.) There's also Doulos SIL and Charis SIL if you want them. — kwami (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Checking_language_links[edit]

Hi, saw your bot request linked above. To clarify, you want a list of all links from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages/Primary_language_names_in_Ethnologue_16_by_ISO_code where neither the iso3 or any of the lcn parameters in the article are the same as the link label on the list page? In the case of the lcn parameters, the corresponding ldn title doesn't matter(variant spellings screw this up), yes? Also what are you referring to by circular links? User:Mutley1989

Hi Mutley,
Correct and correct. I merely wish to confirm that we have appropriate WP articles for the all the ISO codes/names. (Except of course in the case of red links.)
At [primary language names in Ethnologue 16 by ISO code], we list the official ISO names associated with the ISO codes. Very often we'll choose a different language name for the WP article, and often conflate several codes into one article (SIL is a bit over-zealous sometimes in splitting up languages sometimes), but that doesn't matter: I just want to be sure that there isn't a copy error, and that when a reader enters the ISO name in the search window, they get taken to the appropriate article. As you point out, matching names would make this task very difficult. All I'm looking for is matching the ISO codes.
By circular links, I mean cases where we have a WP article on a language family that includes links to all the languages in that family. However, sometimes some of the language links merely link back to the family article. Because those links are blue, I don't always notice them when reviewing our language coverage. I suspect that we may have a hundred or so links which really should be red, so that editors see that the articles still need to be created. This bot request should catch that. I'll either create stubs for them myself, or request that the links be deleted and list them under 'articles to be created' at Wikiproject Languages.
In other cases, we may have an article on the language, but the ISO name still links to the language family or some other inappropriate location. — kwami (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Just started running this now. How about links like this (linked from abs)?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ambonese_Malay_language&redirect=no My script caught this becuase I didn't account for multiple language infoboxes on one page. Also some of the links go to disambiguation pages, I presume you want those included? Mutley1989 (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful!
That Malay page is an outlier. There won't be many like that, so it won't matter much if you return them. If it's easy for you to search multiple boxes, even better, but no biggie if you don't.
Yes, dab pages can be returned. Probably easier for the bot than following to all the destination articles. However, if the dab pages can be listed separately, that would be useful. (If that's not convenient, I can sort them myself easily enough by doing an AWB run.) — kwami (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Separating the disambiguation pages is trivial as the code to catch them is seperate. I'm not sure about the ones with multiple infoboxes, I'm not sure how consistent the naming and formatting is. Mutley1989 (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, then. Better to be safe and for me to review them manually. — kwami (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That script has finished, let me know if you want these formatting differently, or anything else doing with it:

Bot results[edit]

Wrong or missing ISO codes, or unusually structured pages (157 pages)

[*wrong article, no hat note. Crossed out: fixed.]

Need to fix: *amb, *bct, *cuw, *dpp, *etb, *@hoy, *ney, *nji (check if dup's dialect), *nkd (??), *nld (= Dutch; mix up Flemish w/ Vlaams/West Flemish; also pop.), *sgj (add lc2?), *uan, *@url, *vgr (mix up on parent pages too),

aha, aqm, ast (ok), atm (ok), bbk, bdj (ok), bik (rd'd), bkk, buw (ok), bxs, bya (rd'd), ckh, cma (ok), csz (ok), daf (split), dbw, def, dep, djl (split), doh (ok), duq, elu (ok), ers (ok), fil (ok), frs (ok), gac (ok), gba (no good link), gdn, ggr (retired), gla (ok), gmb, grj (ok), grn (ok), hei (ok), hmn (ok), hmn (ok), hre, ikt (ok), iku (ok), ilw, izi (retired), kdx (ok), keo (ok), kfl (ok), kiz (ok), kjf, kko (ok), krs (no 1-to-1 correspondence), ksp (ok), ktv, kwb (ok), kyl (ok), lab, lav (retired), lax (ok), lbn, ldd (rd'd), lgk, man (ok), mec (ok), meg, mld (retired), mnt (retired), mwd (retired), myi (no box), myq (retired), nbx (retired), nge (rd'd), nhm, nlr (retired), nqn (ok), nsc (no box, footnote), onx (no box, footnote), pcr (retired), pku (rd'd), plk, ppr, ppt (ok), rji, rjs, rmm (ok), sbe (rd'd), sdg, smd (ok), smp, soh (ok), soo (ok), syr (no single article), taw (rd'd), tbc, tge, tgq, tmh (ok), tpr, tsi (ok), tuh, twn, unx (ok), uur, vas, vki (add to no-article list), vra (ok), wgo, wit (retired), wrv, xep (ok), xia (retired), ych (ok), yha, yif (ok), yiy (retired), ymh (ok), ymt (duplicate), yos (retired), yrk, yug (duplicate), yyz (ok), zkd (ok)

Disambiguation pages (66 pages):

aac, ado, amy, aol, bao, bbd, bnp, bod, bsh, byf, (*)byy, cua, dij, dok, dzd, (*)ekl, giu, gnq, grg, haa, hmj, ikk, juu, knd, koh, kue, kuq, lij, llb, lmi, loj, mcs, mem, mgt, mkl, mla, moz, mqz, mvh, nbn, nco, ndn, niq, nlx, nrz, nuj, pby, pdu, pep, pie, pmm, prs, rem, sbm, (*)sgo, slt, smq, sre, svr, tob, tou, vmg, wgb, wkd, zkb, (*)zkh

bqp, daq, hbo, *kgm, kls, lir, llu, mwi, pal, rop, tbw, tcm, wpc, (*)ylm, zpb

[* no article]

Pages that caused an error or my infobox parser to fail, these are mostly disambiguation pages after a redirect (I should have followed the redirects before testing if they were disambiguation pages), pages without infoboxes or possibly just other bugs in my script (32 pages):

bmy, brw, ime, mmj, okm, prd, prp, rer, ron, tbb

[no info boxes]

Mutley1989 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I fixed or verified most, & moved a dozen to the project page for further attention. — kwami (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to see you still active[edit]

Hello Kwamikagami, good to see you still banging around here! I went on extended IRL-work-induced hiatus for about half a year, and am just recently back to editing, so far all at Wiktionary. Anyway, I accidentally hit my Watchlist link for WP instead of WT and saw your name on the list of changes. Good to see you still editing. Illegitimi non carborundum, what?  :) Kind regards, -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 02:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and good to have you back. — kwami (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thompson River Salish people wrong move....[edit]

If anything it should have been "Thompson people".......that longer name may be used by few ethnologists, but it's not common usage at all.....I hope you didn't move Sto:lo to Fraser River Salish people or Nuxalk to Bella Coola people. Very controversial from the BC end of things...the norm and accepted reality in BC now is to use the native names, in some cases very necessary, e.g. Kwakwa'kawakw is NOT acceptable as "Kwakiutl people" nor is "Nuu-chah-nulth" acceptable as "Nootka people". Likewise Gitxsan is NOT "Interior Tsimshian" as they were once referred to. Just noticed this after puzzling over Danezaa people, the normal but out-of-date English name is Beaver people.......OldManRivers is gone now but between him and the NorthAmNative project and myself we had reason to use the native names rather than those of the colonizing culture; St'at'imc I hope isn't Lillooet people now.......Syilx yes could be moved to Okanagan people but the Thompson move is inappropriate unless to Thompson people; Nlaka'pamux is a very established term in BC now, and "Thompson River Salish people" confuses the matter because most of them live long the Fraser or in the Nicola, not on the Thompson.Skookum1 (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Moved.
The point of names is to refer to something, and that doesn't work if the reader doesn't recognize them. Most of these endonyms are both obscure and inaccessible, whereas the exonyms are reasonably familiar. Arguing for native forms when writing in English is like arguing that "Chinese" should be moved to Hànrén, or that "Georgians" should be moved to Kartvelebi – or perhaps those should be 漢人 and ქართველები to be even more authentic? — kwami (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I know, it's my problem with St'at'imc vs even Stl'atl'imx or the older Stlatliumh (which is closer to the actual pronunciation). The /t'/ is from their own adaptation of the Roman alphabet and is deliberately non-English in derivation (Van Wijk).....and the category name includes diacriticals on it, as well. Within Canada the native names are now the preferred norm, but that's not global; I see Skwxwu7mesh has been normalized to Squamish people though OldManRivers fought for a long time to even use the special characters there, e.g. underscore-W, superscript x etc.......thorny subject; "Sto:lo" is really the name of the Fraser River; at one time they were just the Fraser River Salish, in olden times the name Cowichan (Cowidgin in older documents) because they spoke the same language, though a different dialect, than the Cowichan peoples. Wuikyala is the name used for the Rivers Inlet people's language; still known by the latter in global ethnology....."only in Canada" usages beg the question - "Canadian English on Canadian articles"...so the current usage in Canada, by that logic, should prevail...Skookum1 (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC).
I see Okanagan people has been moved, but the lede doesn't even have "Syilx" in it now....it has this: "ʔukʷnaʔqínx, they are part of the cat clan Interior Salish ethnological and linguistic groupings" not sure where that cat claim came from, they have more than one clan.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
From the responses I've gotten at ENGVAR, that policy does not mean we preferentially use obscure local terms instead of universal or international terms. Rather, it means that we use Canadian spelling in Canadian articles. But I've had a hard time getting this made explicit, because people keep saying it's so obvious it doesn't need to be said – except of course that it's not and it does. — kwami (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
"obscure local terms" is a non sequitur when the major papers use the proper names now, without diacriticals of course.....standard Canadian usage, e.g. Mi'kmaq vs Micmac....not sure what's become of Peigan and Blood and such...Dene gets confusing because it's simultaneously all Athabaskans, including the Dineh, and they're all mutually comprehensible and identify as a common "nation" continent-wide, like the Cree, but it's in "exclusive" use as band names in the NWT......nb on all thgeir names, Tahltan, Chilcotin, etc, the -tan ending is "people" same as -mc, -mx etc on Interior Salishan names, so "St'at'imc people" is redundant (means "people of Sat'", which is the name for the central fishing ground on the Fraser just north of the town of Lillooet.Skookum1 (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Norwegians name for themselves is normanna = North-men......ditto Greek people can't be Hellenika nor Basque people as Euskara. Thing in Canada is the use of "settler" or "colonizer" names is a political football.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:4179 Toutatis (Chang'e 2).jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:4179 Toutatis (Chang'e 2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cia-Cia road sign.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cia-Cia road sign.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Punjabi[edit]

Thanks for feedback so ultimately helping to improve the article.Maria0333 (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC) NONE OF YOUR INSERTED TAGS ARE REMOVED BY ME. I Dont know about PK5ABI. so dont mess me with others acts. I believe in professionalism and mature behavior of giving respect and earning respect. Best Regards Maria0333 (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Mountbatten Brailler.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mountbatten Brailler.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Montfortian dialect[edit]

Thank you for your updates. I kind of forgot about it :) There is one addition however that isn't entirely truthful. You added in the infobox that Montfortian is an Eastern Limburgish dialect. Even though this map might tell that, the situation is not that uniform. Within the area where Eastern Limburgish is spoken (typical for Eastern Limburgish is sjt-, sjl-, sjm- etc.), several towns, including Montfort, have st-, sl-, sm-. Therefore, Montfortian is a Central Limburgish instead of an Eastern Limburgish dialect :) For more information about this isoglos, see: [24] second paragraph (if you don't speak Dutch, Google Translate works pretty well with this one). --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I linked from Limburgish (as an eastern dialect) so it wouldn't be an orphan. Corrected both.
You wouldn't believe the number of half-finished language articles scattered around in user space. It seems I find them a couple weeks after creating a stub on the same language, so it ends up looking like I did all the work. — kwami (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :) Well, anyone checking the page history would know you didn't start them :) --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Decalogue[edit]

I'm confused by your edit summary, where you reverted my edit per me at talk. I haven't said anything at talk. --JFH (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You proposed deleting it, then deleted the proposal, saying maybe you could be convinced. That didn't seem compatible with simply deleting the dab w/o discussion. Also, it's a dab for more than just the biblical decalogues. — kwami (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
K, at first I thought the Ten Commandments was the primary topic, but then when I looked further it seemed decalogue never means the other option in he dab, making it superfluous altogether. I'll take it you disagree and start a conversation. --JFH (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
On third thought, there were other items in he dab, so I'm back to just thinking the ten 10 Comms is primary. --JFH (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I follow where you're headed. (is otion "notion"?) — kwami (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure you noticed that Ethical Decalogue redirects to Ten Commandments. Would you please respond at Talk:Decalogue? --JFH (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

kwami, you got mail. --regentspark (comment) 02:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Saraiki[edit]

kwami, could you comment here. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 13:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Flemish[edit]

Please explain why you have moved Flemish and Flemish:talk to Belgian Dutch dialects. Are you aware of the historic differences beteen Belgium and the Netherlands (Holland)? The existense of the word "Flemish" has undergone a slow and pernicious eridification. Please undo your move at once. It is neither valid nor beneficial to Our Reader. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am still working on the articles. The existing setup was schizophrenic. The lead was a dab, not the lead to a proper article. We now have two articles: Belgian Dutch (Flemish in the colloquial sense), and Flemish/Vlaams (Flemish in the linguistic sense). This is proper for an encyclopedia, and is beneficial to our readers. — kwami (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, finished. Now the multiple linguistic article which refer to "Flemish" in the linguistic sense connect to the correct article. The hatnotes disambiguate the linguistic article 'Flemish' from the socio-political article 'Belgian Dutch'. 'Flemish' is technically incorrect for the latter, and this avoids starting an article as if it were a disambiguation page.
I'm cleaning up the ISO language redirects, so that people searching for the ISO name of a language will end up at the proper article. Of the 5,000 or so language articles on Wikipedia, a dozen failed. "Flemish" was one of them. According to the ISO, "Flemish" should be a redirect to "Dutch", and "Vlaams" should direct to East/West Flemish. That won't work for our purposes, where "Flemish" generally means "Vlaams". I think the current setup should take care of it.
If your objection is labeling the more general article "Dutch", then maybe we could move it to "Belgian Flemish/Dutch" or something similar. (Not all Flemish is Belgian, after all.) — kwami (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the bluster. As a Vlaams speaker, I was afraid my "taal" was losing another rung on the ladder of existence. I'm glad to see it was in good hands. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Extended thought ...in good hands includes User:Fram and any other editor that makes an earnest (and Honest) attempt to rectify this long staanding editorial "carbuncle". ```Buster Seven Talk 17:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Good. I'm glad we're okay. Could you share your conception of what Flemish is? Is it just Dutch spoken south of the border, even if indistinguishable from what's north of the border (that is, do we have another Serbian/Croatian or Hindi/Urdu situation here), or is it something that is objectively distinct? If the latter, which dialects does it include? I always thought it was East & West Flemish (+ Zealandic etc.), and that Belgian Brabantian etc. was Dutch, but one of my refs claims that East Flemish is a subdialect of Brabantian, which would imply that it's not Flemish ... I don't know how justified that assessment is. — kwami (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I really don't know about all that. During the intervening time I have read the eight years of discussions above [and elsewhere] and realize that we are right back where we started. With User:Fram's re-move, a page now exists @ Wikipedia called Flemish. IMHO, that is as it should be. In my experience (as a Flemish speaker of the "pure" Antwerp regional dialect/taal) how I speak is quite different from the Dutch spoken just across the border in Holland. I am of Flemish heritage, not Dutch. I speak and think Flemish, not Dutch. It may be POV, but so be it. As long as the result is an article called Flemish, I'll let you scholars work out the details. ```Buster Seven Talk 09:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The Ethnologue entry has become confused over the years, but it does look like they mean Flemish proper (as a separate language) to be West Flemish specifically. You can see that in their map, and in several of the descriptions. That's just gotten conflated with Flemish as Belgian Dutch, as in the population figures, but since 'Flemish' is also an alternative name for Dutch, I think we're pretty safe in saying ISO "Vlaams" is West Flemish. Not that we need to follow Ethnologue, of course, but it's so commonly used as a reference that I think we need to account for it. A couple of my other refs use "Flemish" for the language of Flanders as well. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I know you have good intentions with maintaining the linguistic articles. However I do not like you (not familiar with the actual situation) screwed up the articles without prior discussion. A kind of dab in the lead section is not ideal, but it was a relatively good solution since the term "Flemish" is ambiguous but requires more explanation than just a dab. Also the Ethnologue entry is very ambiguous so the best way was to redirect ISO 639:vls to the article Flemish where the various meaning were explained. It is a very difficult term since we should explain the actual linguistic situation as well as the usage of particular terms as well as the "official" uses of terms. So in my opinion you should not have moved and created pages without any prior discussion. I care about articles related to Flemish but I am tired of this recurring re-structuring each several months/years. Thanks, SPQRobin (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

An unencyclopedic dab section for the lead is not necessary, and [vls] is not Flemish but specifically West Flemish. — kwami (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
What is "unencyclopedic" about that? And Ethnologue mentions 6 million people for [vls], the population of the Flemish Region. It even mentions that the dialects are Westvlaams, Oostvlaams, Antwerps, Limburgs, Brabants. The map on the other hand only shows West Flanders as "Vlaams". SPQRobin (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Read our article guidelines.
That was a mistake. They just corrected it today: 1.2 million in both Belgium and Netherlands. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion request[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami. Please see my edit summary here about your request regarding Belgian Dutch. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Kwamikagami. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 23:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

-- Cheers, Riley 23:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good! — kwami (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:500 lira coin with braille.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:500 lira coin with braille.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Arabic braille converter.png[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Arabic braille converter.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:Australian language families.png[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Australian language families.png.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

saraiki language[edit]

saraiki dialect is redundant with the Riasti dialect, Shah puri dialect, Multani dialect, Multani language, Thalochi dialect, Thalochi ,Derawali dialect articles. I suggest merging these articles , as the all these are same. And also be Redirected to Saraiki language. Also Jhangvi dialect is dialect of Saraiki. Kindly See these External Links

We have plenty of coverage of both a language and its dialects, so there's nothing wrong with that in principle. As for Jhangvi, talk to Maria about that. They're overhauling the Punjabi stuff right now. — kwami (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


another mistake in Rongorongo articles[edit]

Hi Kwami, there is one more mistake with illustrations of rongorongo articles. Poike tablet is illustrated with this image. The description states that those are surface glyphs of the Poike tablet. As a source this site of Lorena Bettocchi is given: link. The page discusses the Poike tablet and then the image in question appears. But afterwords there is a description that this photo is of another unrelated ta'u tablet from a different museum in Santiago. So it is not the Poike. Cheers --xRiffRaffx (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that! — kwami (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Asturian language[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami, (I undid the last edition without login me. I didn't remember my pass XD ) I'm an Asturian speaker. Please, reconsider your opinion. Asturian is not a dialect. It's a language. The fact of being in the Asturleonese family hasn't got enough sense to say that is a "dialect". It's the same error that if I write a article named "English dialect". Of course, it's a dialect of Anglic, but nobody speaks anglic, or Anglo-frisian, or West-Germanic because that's impossible. Asturleonese is not a language. Nobody speaks "Asturleonese". Asturleonese is an older name for the language spoken many times ago. It's only a subgroup. Please, reconsider your opinion. Would you change Catalan language, or Galician language to Catalan dialect or Galician dialect? No. This is the same case. --Astur (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Asturian and Leonese are mutually intelligible. That makes them dialects of one language according to the most common definition of "dialect". You can bring it up on the talk page if you like, but copy-paste moves are reverted as a matter of course. — kwami (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Then, English UK and English USA are dialects. Are you going to rename it's articles? --Astur (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of course they're dialects. No-one would dispute that. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Then, I would like to see you moving English language to English dialect. Are you going to use the same rule? All languages are dialects, and all dialects are languages. The difference to catalogue in a group or the other is a fine line. If you are trying to describe a language and you need to explain about the "family", you can of course, use This language is a dialect of X... That's correct. But it's not correct in an encyclopedia use that adjective in the title because it needs a fuller explanation and it sounds derogative. The text is clear: "Asturian (Asturian: Asturianu or Bable) is a Romance language of the West Iberian group, Astur-Leonese Subgroup, spoken in the Spanish province of Asturias by the Asturian people" You can add and describe all the features of the language within the body of the article. And, of course, why it's considerated a dialect. No problem in that. But the title of the article has not changed since 2006 and I see no reason to change it now.

Regards --Astur (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Asturian, Leonese and Asturleonese are not different dialects, are different names for the same language so I porposed to merge the 3 Articles, in the ISO code lists "EN" is the code for English (the language, no the dialects), "AST" is the code for Asturian, Bable, Leonese and Asturleonese (differents names for the same language) http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php --Mikel (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Then we can merge them into a single language article, presumably under the name Asturian. Or we can make Asturian the umbrella article, and Leonese specific to that dialect. Doesn't matter much to me; probably best to discuss it on the talk page.
BTW, Ethnologue says the dialects of Asturian (or whatever) are Bable, Eastern, Leonese, Montañes, and Western. Assuming they are correct, they are not different names for the same thing. — kwami (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Move article to Asturian language[edit]

Hi Kwamikagami,

I've worked in wrong called Asturian dialect only to show you with trusted references that asturian is not a dialect. As you said above:

«Asturian and Leonese are mutually intelligible. That makes them dialects of one language according to the most common definition of "dialect". You can bring it up on the talk page if you like, but copy-paste moves are reverted as a matter of course. — kwami (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)»

This "one language" is Latin. Nowadays, nobody speaks latin. The dialects derived from Latin, today, are languages​​. And, as you can see in the art 4: "Asturian language will enjoy protection [...] whilst its local dialects and voluntary apprenticeship will always be respected." That means that 1, Asturian is a language with local dialects. 2, Asturian was a dialect of Latin 1000 years ago. 3, Asturian language and Leonese language are the same language: you only cross a line between provincies, but it's the same language. The fact of two names for the same language is due a political reasons. The same happens with Castilian: in Spain is called 'Spanish', 'Argentinian' in Argentina...etc.

I hope you understand now that article's title must be changed to the previous title. I volunteer to change and improve it. I'm administrator in Asturian Wikipedia. Regards --Astur (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Punjabi Page[edit]

Hey Kwamikagami

You seem to have deleted/undid my section on the Punjab page could you give me a bit of perspective to why you did so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jujhar.pannu (talkcontribs) 04:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was a non-sequitur. If the subject of Gurmukhi comes up later, we might explain the etymology (though that would be better on the Gurmukhi article), but there's no reason to give it when we aren't even talking about Gurmukhi. — kwami (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


That is incorrect I listed the meaning of Shahmucki and Devagani the other two forms of Punjabi alongside Gurmukhi. There are three ways of writing Punjabi Gurumucki, Shahmuki, and Devagani (and also the writing for blind people but that doesn't count) I was explaining the etymology of all the three types of Punjabi which you may see now. I will re-add it if you see no further problems.
To save you time I attached below what I originally posted.
"The word Gurmukhi translates into 'Guru's mouth'[3], Shahmukhi means 'from the King's mouth'[4] and Devanagari means 'The container of divine light.'[5]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jujhar.pannu (talkcontribs) 23:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. It's still a non-sequitur. I could give the etymology of "shampoo", but it wouldn't belong either. Besides, if you think "Devanagari" means "container of divine light", then I suspect your other etymologies might be wrong too. — kwami (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Punjabi is a beautiful language it’s a shame you don’t speak it. In Punjabi etymology is very important and in this aspect it is very different than other languages.. In Punjabi almost each word is a compound of two words and if you understand those two words than you know what the that word means.. For example the word Jaanvar means jaan-life/force and var – inside together Jaanvar means animal. Punjabi is a very poetic language, the entire Sri Guru Granth Sahib is written in Rhyme at Genius-level Poetic Measures not to mention the actual content.
Spelling comes very easy to writers as it is written exactly the same way it is spoken it in fact when reading Gurmukhi and Devanagari you open your mouth the same way each letter is twisting your tongue to the shape of the letter.
Devanagari – Deva means light but Deva (Deity spelled weird in English it actually sounds like Devaty) also refers to the Divine Gods this is because the Deities guide you towards the truth that is why they are metaphorized as Light/Deva. Nagari – means boundary from where one place begins. The other two, Gur-mukhi and Shah-Mukhi are common words and everyone knows what they mean. In Sikhism to further illustrate the picture so you can comprehend what these words mean in regards to contrast, GurMukh has been compared with MunMukh many many many many times. MunMukh means one who is egotistical / under the spell of the 5 evils/thieves that take you away from God/Guru. kwami (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hope you will be fine. Friend Thanks for your advise. Yes you are very right if we dont move and instead redirect an article we loose the history. I will ensure the compliance to this principal. Thanks for guidance and BEST wishes Maria0333 (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


Kwamikagami, Please respond on the talk the page for the article Adjectival phrase. --Tjo3ya (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

SaypU (universal alphabet)[edit]

Some people are proposing that SaypU (Spell As You Pronounce Universal) be used as a universal alphabet.

Wavelength (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Universala skribo (unueca ortografio)[edit]

The book Universala skribo, by Manuel Halvelik, is about a universal alphabet for all languages. I have a copy.

Wavelength (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wavelength. Busy right now, will try to get back to you in a few days. — kwami (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Naro examples[edit]

Long overdue, but now done: Click examples for Naro language from Visser's dictionary that I got through ILL. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! That helps a lot. — kwami (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Asturian[edit]

Where are you trying to move this article? Things seem to have gotten a bit mixed up. Rmhermen (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Asturian language. People seem to agree for the most part that that article should refer to the language as a whole. Fixing it up a bit so that it has that scope. — kwami (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Zhuang Language links[edit]

Yongbei Zhuang, ISO 639-3, ybz and Standard Zhuang are two different things, there should not be a redirect from Yongbei Zhuang to Standard Zhuang, by means write an article on Yongbei Zhuang, this is something that someone should do. The redirection of Yongbei Zhuang to Standard Zhuang is something that needs to be corrected (if it was a spmething that could be corrected by clicking undo I would have done so already) it really can not be left as it is. The redirect from Wuming Language to standard Zhuang is also less than ideal, though there are some contexts where people do use the phrase Wuming Zhuang to refere to Standard Zhuang.Johnkn63 (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, please fix as appropriate. Which ISO-3 code would be appropriate for Standard Zhuang? We do say, "Its pronunciation is based on that of the Yongbei Zhuang dialect of Shuangqiao in Wuming County". Or should we mark it as 'none'?
simply put ISO-3 does not have a code for standard Zhuang as such, the ISO-3 codes are based on the results of various survey's of Zhuang, so none would be the best. Whilst phonemes of standard Zhuang come from Shuangqiao in Wuming County the spelling of inividual words is not based on the Shuangqiao pronunciation, hence the example of head for which a Shuangqiao speaker would say ɣau˥, but standard Zhuang is kʲau˥ because the standard spelling is gyaeuj. Remove the whole Yongbei Zhuang dialect redirect page would be a solution, otherwise writing a Yongbei Zhuang article.Johnkn63 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the Yongbei Zhuang redirect from a redirect to the start of an article, this is an entry in ethnologue and the should be a wikipedia article on it. By comparison IMHO the redirect Wuming Dialect should be deleted.Johnkn63 (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
There is also a redirect Wuming language to Standard Zhuang which is confusing to say the least as the Standard Zhuang article has a section on the differences between Standard and Wuming Zhuang. Are you able to delete the Wuming dialect and Wuming language redirects? To minimise the intermediate damage I have changed the Wuming Dialect link so it links to Wuming Language. Johnkn63 (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I redirected the following to Yongbei Zhuang: ISO 639:zyb, Yongbei Zhuang language, Wuming Zhuang, Wuming Zhuang language, Wuming dialect, Wuming language, Wu-ming language. — kwami (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, do you have any idea what happened to Qianjiang and Yongchun Zhuang in E12, if they were merged into something else or found spurious? — kwami (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't have an immediate answer to this question, though I may be able to confirm the answer at least for one of these. The "Hongshui He Zhuang dialect intelligibility survey" may answer the question regarding Qianjiang Zhuang, in that North and South of the river where placed in Liuqian Zhuang zlq and Eastern Hongshuihe Zhuang zeh. Johnkn63 (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
It's south of the river, so I'm assuming Eastern Hongshuihe Zhuang [zeh]. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Yongchun is to the best of my knowledge now part of zzj, Zuojiang Zhuang. Johnkn63 (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Stevey7788 says he thinks it's Dai Zhuang. I'll alert him to this. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Lewis Strauss[edit]

Is it /ˈstrɔːs/, just like the famous Levi? Cheers!--Carnby (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. But according to the CS Monitor,[25] it's "oddly, Straws", which I would presume would be /ˈstrɔːz/, though you can't be sure what intended. You get the same thing in his bio here,[26] though of course one may have copied off the other.
New Scientist Apr 18, 1963, p. 141, says "pronounced Straws by request".[27] Red Cloud at Dawn p. 42 also says "pronounced 'Straws'." But again, we have to guess what they mean. Did it really end in a /z/? You might want to check "The Trials of J. Robert Oppenheimer" on American Experience (PBS); I would assume they would have checked with the family. (There's a 1.4GB torrent available, if it's worth the download.) — kwami (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Attraction of Lewi/z/ Strau/z/?--Carnby (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nora language[edit]

The Nora language (it's recently been changed from Norra) is actually most similar to the Khamyang language (maybe a dialect of it), and both are Tai languages. Nora is now extinct. See http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/2012-034.pdf

Lama is actually not related, since it's Tibeto-Burman rather than Tai. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Merged per Bradley. — kwami (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
For sure, you're very welcome. Thanks for all your hard work too. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Phonetic transcription of Xhosa name[edit]

Dear Kwami

I see that you are in charge of the phonological section in the Xhosa article. Could you help me with a transcription of this Xhosa name: Nakhane Mahlakahlaka? He is a South African artist; I have an article about him in preparation: User:SkaraB/Nakhane_Touré_draft

Many thanks

SkaraB 13:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the script is defective so the orthography is not enough info to go on. It doesn't show tone and vowel length, for example. The consonants are no problem, though: [nakʰanɛ maɬakaɬaka]. Do you have a recording of him saying his name in Xhosa? — kwami (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Defaka language[edit]

Hi. I ve translated the article of Defaka language to catalan wikipedia. I ve seen the references are't into the article. I don't know if you can arrange it. If you do it, i ll be gratefull if you tell me for arrange the catalan version also. Excuse my intromission and my english. Thanks you.--Pitxiquin (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The last three refs listed are the main ones. — kwami (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for advising but missing your support on my map on Wiki commons because you appear to be most rational editor whom I have communicated on Wiki pedia Maria0333 (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I might have time to check up on this are comment later, but it would take some research, and right now I have too many other projects. — kwami (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

NA cat re Nootka Jargon?[edit]

Re Category:Native American-based pidgins and creoles that's misnamed if it's meant to include Canadian aboriginal pidgins and creoles.......Category:Pidgins and creoles of the indigenous peoples of North America would be the proper form......Skookum1 (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ya, just saw it on Chinook Jargon too and noting the Inuit pidgin French and the Algonquian-Basque pidgin it definitely needs to NOT be named "Native American"........not snitting at you, but you should know better, Kwami, that's not an acceptable word on this side of the border and is very jarring when we encounter it; First Nations people don't like it one bit; they'll go with "Native North American" but definitely NOT "Native American".Skookum1 (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Didn't even think of that. Is that because they take "American" to mean "US"? Oddly, it doesn't have that connotation south of the border.
Just put in a category redirect, and create the desired category, and bots will take care of the rest. — kwami (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
BTW you want mot du jour, "du jour" just means "today's".....soup du jour is "today's soup".Skookum1 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
(Yes, I actually know what jour means. I'm being facetious, as there's no way I'm going to change it every day: it's month-old soup du jour. — kwami (talk))
Skookum, I've gone ahead and moved it to Category:North America Native-based pidgins and creoles, for parity with other subcategories of Category:Pidgins and creoles? VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 21:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
And yes, I know that some of them are Category:South America Native-based pidgins and creoles. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 21:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The capital-N Native is problematic for various reasons; the preferred usage is "indigenous people(s)"....also "North America" should be "North American" ditto South America(n)....in that construction, that is - "indigenous peoples of North America" is {{NorthAmNative}} standard form now.Skookum1 (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. — kwami (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Can that be a Speedy? Since you created it, seems easiest for your to nominate it. NB there are other Native American-named categories, e.g. Category:Native American mythology, if it hasn't been renamed by now, that should get the similar treatment. Maybe a bulk CfD?Skookum1 (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Asturian language[edit]

As you know, after our agreement on languages ​​(Asturian language), I started working on the article on the Asturian language to improve it. But the user Jotamar disagrees, and is deleting and reverting data that you had written. Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asturian_language#Deletion_of_official_data I'd wish that we can all talk. Thank you --Astur (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Saraiki language[edit]

Dear,

Saraiki is a language, it is not a dialect. Riasti dialect, Shah puri dialect, Multani dialect, Multani language, Thalochi dialect, Thalochi ,Derawali dialect articles. I suggest merging these articles , as the all these are same. And also be Redirected to Saraiki language. Also Jhangvi dialect is dialect of Saraiki. Kindly See these External Links http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=skr http://globalrecordings.net/en/language/16338

  • Department of Saraiki, Islamia University, Bahawalpur was established in 1989[1] and Department of Saraiki, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan[2] was established in 2006. Saraiki is taught as subject in schools and colleges at higher secondary, intermediate and degree level.

Allama Iqbal open university Islamabad,[3] and Al-Khair university Bhimbir have their Pakistani Linguistics Departments. They are offering M.Phil. and Ph.D in Saraiki. Five T V channels and Ten Radio Stations are Serving Saraiki language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.110.14 (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. As long as you have good sources to back up your claims. I don't care if the dialects are merged or not, but one of the problems is that a Saraiki speaker will claim that X is a dialect of Saraiki, while a Punjabi will claim that it's a dialect of Punjabi, and then they will start fighting and be an annoyance to the rest of us. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear thanks. Kindly Saraiki language page recovered. you may see in box that all dialects of saraiki are written.182.186.13.81 (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Bhojpuri language[edit]

About this edit, Bhojpuri language claims that it is part of Eastern Hindi, so I think something needs some cleanup. --JorisvS (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Mywikieditbh made that change. We'd probably want a ref. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm just looking for consistency between our articles and within them. The lead still calls it part of Eastern Hindi. --JorisvS (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Kwamikagami. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Are there neutrality issues at this article?. Thank you. --Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Potatobot ISO[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kwamikagami. You have new messages at Anypodetos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mixtec dialects etc.[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kwamikagami. You have new messages at Taivo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Great Lakes[edit]

Why [28]? I missed that source [29]. Do you mean these data are preliminary and thus unreliable? Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

For one thing, it sounds like the dates may be off: Toronto in 2012 vs Chicago in 2011. But even so it admits that there are several million more people in Chicago. — kwami (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It admits there are several million more people in the surrounding area; not in the city of Chicago.--Asher196 (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it admits there are several million more in Chicago. In an article like this people are interested in how many people there are, not in municipal boundaries. — kwami (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Great Lakes[edit]

Please stop your WP:edit warring. WP:3RR. 7&6=thirteen () 19:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not the status quo, which is why s.o. else just reverted you too. — kwami (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Verification request[edit]

Please verify the new additions/removals to theses articles. It seems that incorrect info are inserted and reliable info was removed:

Thanks. Zheek (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

For Azeri, they just don't seem to understand what a hat note is for.
Can't evaluate Bactrian, but you can always ask for refs! "Greek script" is an improvement, though: The Greek alphabet was for Greek. — kwami (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
OK. I will ask other editors about the new changes to the Bactrian language article. Thanks again. Zheek (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yiddish Sign Language[edit]

Kwami, you may be right in saying that it does not exist. But as long as it has an ISO code, it's difficult to demand it be removed. I suggest you submit a request for the ISO to retire the code: Change Requests for the 2013 cycle are now being accepted. Submit Change Request forms by email to the Registration Authority at iso639-3@sil.org . I enjoy seeing your edits on so many pages I also edit. Pete unseth (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking for it to be removed. I'm only tagging it as needing references, which it does. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).