User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 21

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


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)


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)


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)


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 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).


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 121117 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)


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)


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:***EDITION*** , the sivandi is not southwestern, it is member of northwestern Iranian language!!! also semnani is northwestern Languages:***EDITION*** caspian languages like the Mazandarani,gilaki,... are member of northwestern Languages, not distinct iranian branch: , , , — 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 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)


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)


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)


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: - 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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)

"...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)


@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: (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)


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)


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? (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)


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)


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. (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)


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 (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)


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


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)


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. (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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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


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)


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]


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)


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, 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

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)


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)


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


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)

Format for Guthrie codes[edit]

Hello. I noticed you use a format for Guthrie codes containing a period, e.g. "S.42" instead of "S42" (for Zulu). Is this common? Might it be documented somewhere? πr2 (tc) 04:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi? πr2 (tc) 02:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, been away. Not sure it matters. I think I've seen it both ways, but honestly can't remember, and don't have the resources with me to check. — kwami (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Changes in DejaVu fonts, Unicode Coverage[edit]

Hello Kwami -- I use Dejavu Fonts every now and then. I am much appreciative of the table you have shared on the fonts. . Few days back I changed the version numbers of Dejavu fonts as it has upped from 2.32 to 2.34 . While it might have been a minor or major change I have no idea. I just changed the version info. as can be seen in the history of the article

You could either share how you are/were able to know how you tested the unicode coverage (some specific tool), or if not please update the table if any changes were observed therein. Looking forward to know from you. Either answer here or at my talk page Shirishag75 (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't remember, and don't have the time to try to dig it up right now. Sorry. — kwami (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


I was wondering where you had gone! :-)

I wrote the current pages on period 8 element, period 9 element, and period 10 element. I've been thinking about putting all the info we have on hypothetical and undiscovered elements into extended periodic table, keeping it together and not having to break at E164 (which is annoying because it is the end of a period but is in the middle of an expected island of stability) and E172? Especially since our articles on E121 and beyond don't seem to say very much that isn't already covered in these period articles or not. I'm also thinking that perhaps all the period articles should be merged, as you said earlier.

So, as I stated at WT:ELEM, maybe we could merge all the period articles as well as the articles for elements beyond 120 (perhaps 119 and 120 could be spared because there have been so many more predictions made about them than any later elements).

What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Kwami -- I just saw an edit to Guyana in which an editor removed West African languages from the list of languages that have influenced Guyanese Creole, with an edit summary saying that West African languages had no influence on Guyanese Creole. Even knowing nothing about Guyanese Creole I find that hard to believe. Is he/she correct? CorinneSD (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No, of course they influenced it. To what extent I don't know, but to remove any mention seems biased. — kwami (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you're back. Thanks for your responses to my queries. I put "West African" back in. CorinneSD (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Can you review the edits just made to Corsica for accuracy? Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume the Italian is correct, though I don't know that it's relevant. Whether Corsican is a dialect of Italian depends on the classification. The Corsican article lists it specifically as a Tuscan dialect and refs it as such. (I haven't verified the ref.) Glottolog classifies Corsican proper & Gallurese as close to Sardinian, and Sassarese as close to Italian; they give their ref at the link. Ethnologue classifies Corsican as close to Sardinian and Gallurese & Sassarese as essentially dialects of Sardinian. So the edit agrees w the language article, as it should, but I'm not sure our classification in the language article is justified. Not my area, though. — kwami (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you know any other editor who would know about this? CorinneSD (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Affricate[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Affricate has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Azerbaijani language article[edit]

What exactly is your problem with the Azerbaijani language article? Why are you constantly reverting the article to an older version from last month? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I just left you a warning.
Because I wasn't here to revert you earlier.
Which part of Eastern Europe is Azeri spoken in, exactly? Unless you mean Dagestan, but that's hardly what people normally mean by Eastern Europe. "Caucasus" would be a more informative term.
I'm glad you now recognize that Azeri is spoken in Iran, and are no longer edit-warring over that.
Ethnologue is not a reliable source. Leave the population figures we have.
As for your IPA transcriptions, I assume they're accurate. I don't have a problem with them.
kwami (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Kwami, please do not lie. You were here last month and I invited you to discuss the issues in the talk page, which you failed to do. You cant suddenly show up one month later and revert back to the last version you were pleased with just because you want to. Now it is up to you to discuss your issues in the talk page and have them resolved. In the meantime, please stop reverting a month's hard work, which others have also contributed to, as that is clearly disruptive and goes against the good intentions of an encyclopedia. Also, please do not attempt to redefine what is Europe and what isn't. Eastern Europe refers to Dagestan and small portions of Azerbaijan, while Western Europe refers to Asia Minor, parts of Azerbaijan and Northern Iran. I used this wording to give a better scope of Azerbaijani's extent. Now regarding Ethnologue, you'll have to show me why it's not a reliable source. Saying it's not reliable isn't enough. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it must have been my clone you saw here last month.
Eastern Europe does not refer to Azerbaijan, but to the eastern part of Europe, and Western Europe does not refer to Anatolia. Anatolia is not in Europe at all.
Do we really need to say that Azeri is spoken where Azeri speakers speak Azeri? Isn't that a bit, well, uninformative?
I tagged the dubious claims. Please don't start edit warring over the tags. — kwami (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I meant Western Asia. Clearly it was a mistake, or did you really think I thought Anatolia is in Western Europe? Good grief, you need to tone down a little bit. Firstly, Azerbaijan is partially situated in Eastern Europe, whether you like this fact or not. Secondly, Azerbaijani is spoken even to the north of Azerbaijan's borders, which is undeniably in Eastern Europe. Thirdly, it's a fact that Azerbaijani is spoken in Eastern Europe and Western Asia. The fact you have an issue with this is rather sad on your part. And yes, you were here last month and failed to discuss any of these issues in the talk page. This isn't your website, Kwami. Learn how to respectfully engage with others in a dialogue instead of just reverting articles to older versions that matched your tastes. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Somali and related languges[edit]

Hi, you seem to know a lot about languages; do you mine assisting me? What do you think of the recent changes on the Aweer, Rendille-Boni languages, and the Somali languages page (such as Macro-Somali)? Do you agree with such changes and classifications? How do you think the Somali languages should be classified? I kept my questions short since I am not sure if you can't assist me. If not, thank you anyways. AcidSnow (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Middayexpress copies a lot of bullshit onto WP. I don't have a problem w Tropylium deleting the stub on Rendille-Boni, though the reclassification of Boni is not sourced. Glottologue supports the split, but not the classification of Boni and Garre as Somali. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Problem is that you can't find Aweer by climbing down the classification, because the links to it have been deleted. Also, we ref Ehret & Ali (1984) for the only mention of it in a superior node, and Ehret only pretends to be a linguist (or an archeologist, for that matter). — kwami (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
If he is pretending to be a linguistic why are we using his classifications? There are also some sources that disagree with Rendille and the others being closly related to Somali other than them being East Cushitic. They also state that Somali language's closest relations are with Afar and Oromo. AcidSnow (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


I'm wondering if you could complete the etymology in the last paragraph of the section Rhubarb#Historical cultivation in the article on Rhubarb. The etymology of "Rhu" is given but not the etymology of "barb". It says "barbarum" but does not translate it. Does it simply mean "wild"? CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nepal Bhasa[edit]

You have no right to change the name of the language.

Before you move the name of a page, please have the courtesy to discuss about it in the Talk page or in the talk page of users who are editing it. It is completely absurd to rename "Nepalbhasa" as Newari. None of the official bodies of Nepalbhasa (including Nepalbhasa Academy and Nepalbhasa Parishad) have ever used that term in either English, Nepali or Nepalbhasa. Also, the term has a derogatory connotation, for which the Government of Nepal decided to use only the term "Nepal Bhasa" nearly two decades ago. Please see the following as well-

File:Its nepal bhasa clipping 9sept95.jpg

--Eukesh (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Governments do not dictate WP usage. We follow common usage, which AFAICT is "Newari". If you believe I am wrong, make a formal move request and present your evidence, rather than move-warring. — kwami (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Trail of tears sign.jpg The Trail of Tears Barnstar
For your tireless contributions to unilaterally relocate Nepal-related articles, on the basis of ultra-legitimate "AFAIK" and "AFAICT" facts, with high disregard to the "non-dictating" facts presented by native regulating bodies, native governments and native wikipedians.--Eukesh (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
You do not dictate WP usage either. And if you disagree, you make a formal move request and present your evidence. Zulufive (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There is citation from book published about the language from its regulating body (Nepal Bhasa Academy) in the opening line itself. Also, there is a discussion in the talk page. Common usage is clearly Nepal Bhasa or Nepalbhasa, including the official usage in Nepal. Please participate in the discussion in the talk page if you have concerns and evidence to support your stance. I am afraid that your actions are highly inappropriate and counterproductive. Please refrain from vandalism and revert the page. Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Dutch Braille[edit]

Hi. I have just changed the phrase "differently than" in this article to "differently from". I notice that when I did this on an earlier occasion you reverted my edit. Unfortunately, the use of "than" in this context is regional (predominantly North American), while the use of "from" is internationally understood. In keeping with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, you'll see that "opportunities for commonality" are encouraged, and I have made the change in this spirit. If you feel uncomfortable with this, please let me know. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Turkish Language[edit]

Good morning,
actually on Talk:Turkish language there is a discussion of the same time that you are having about Azeri language. I would be glad if you could bring there your opinion. The problem there does not seem to be big one at first glance, but this edit is part of an agenda, pursued on different articles, to "Europize" different languages and peoples. Alex2006 (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia[edit]

I was reading the article on the Republic of Macedonia, and I came across something in the Republic of Macedonia#Etymology section that is not clear. Two sentences read:

"It was traditionally derived from the Indo-European root *mak- meaning 'long' or 'slender', but according to modern research by Robert Beekes both terms are of Pre-Greek substrate origin and cannot be explained in terms of Indo-European morphology."

My question is, what are the two terms referred to in the phrase "both terms"? I assume one of them is *mak-, but what is the other one? Would it be the other half of Makednos? I think something might be missing here. CorinneSD (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like they mean both μακεδνός and *mak-. IE morphology would explain derivatives of the latter, unless Beekes is proposing that *mak- is not a valid reconstruction. Not clear what they meant. — kwami (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Azerbaijani language article[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia 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.

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you.

Please stop your abuse of tags. Sources relevant to the article have been restored and the associated tags removed. Please use the article talk page to discuss any of the issues. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you write idiotic things in WP article, you're going to get reverted. Calling Azeri an Eastern European language is like calling Yupik an East Asian language.
Also, when your refs fail verification, you shouldn't delete the tags. That could be construed as vandalism, and in any case can get you blocked. — kwami (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't call Azeri an Eastern European language. I said that it is spoken in parts of Eastern Europe and Western Asia. Previously, the article only mentioned the language being spoken in Western Asia, which isn't the complete truth. It is in fact spoken in parts of Eastern Europe (i.e. Dagestan and European Azerbaijan) as well as parts of Western Asia (i.e. northern Iran, Armenia, etc). I provided sources to verify that Azeri is indeed spoken in what is defined as Eastern Europe. Removing sourced content and re-adding the dubious tag does, in fact, constitute vandalism and I advise you tread the article very carefully the next time you want to cause disruptive editing, lest you want to get blocked. I don't want any trouble but it appears that you do. As I've told you for the past month or so, you're more than welcome to discuss any issue with me in the article talk page, but you haven't so far. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
And it's also spoken in East Asia, Western Europe, North America, ... So what? The geographical description should give the reader some idea of where it's spoken. Saying it's spoken in "Eastern Europe and Western Asia" is not informative. Your sources have also failed verification, I tagged them as failing verification, and you deleted the tags. Try to improve the article, rather than edit warring over sophistry for no apparent purpose. — kwami (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it is spoken natively in parts of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, which is clearly different than your analogy, and the sources did not fail to verify. If you bother checking the sources online, you will see where it is mentioned that these languages are indigenous to some parts of Eastern Europe. Furthermore, I feel you're being disingenuous. You did not tag anything. Instead, you simply reverted the page and hence removed all the sourced content that was added, in addition to re-adding the tags, which constitutes as "abuse of tags", a form of vandalism. You are the one engaged in an edit war for no apparent reason. I'm simply restoring sourced content that was removed by you. We can discuss this issue maturely in the talk page, as I've invited you to do for the last month, and I assure you we can come up with a compromise. Or, you could continue your childish behavior and I'll see to it that you're reported to the administrators for disruptive editing, deliberate persistent removal of content and abuse of tag vandalism. Judging by your past record, it is in your best interest to discuss these issues with me in the talk page. We can come up with a compromise, or you can continue this childish behavior. Which one is it going to be, Kwami? Remember, I don't want to hurt you or any other editor. I prefer we settle it in a civilized way than to have admins taking over the issue. Please be reasonable and cooperate. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
How about this: "Azerbaijani or Azeri (Azərbaycan dili) is a language belonging to the Turkic language family, spoken primarily in parts of Eastern Europe (the Caucasus) and Western Asia (northern Iran) by the Azerbaijani people..."? Is that okay with you? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that works for me. The main problem was that when we say just "Eastern Europe", people think of Poland. I don't see what benefit there is to saying "Eastern Europe" and "Western Asia", but at least this way it does no harm. — kwami (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Kutsuit: Nadia, it seems as if you are trying to get into the article the widest possible chunk of the globe as the place where Azeri is spoken. Normally, in WP articles, the locations where a language is spoken is more specific than Eastern Europe and Western Asia -- even if you add "parts of" before those. Better encylopedic writing would say: "is spoken in the Caucasus region (or the Caucasus region of Eastern Europe) and in northern Iran" -- with links to "Caucasus" and "Iran" so that if readers want to know more they can click on the link. You have to ask yourself, and answer honestly, whether you are trying to aggrandize a language (or a people) at the expense of good writing or contribute well-written, accurate, encylopedic prose to an article. I also think you should try to be more respectful of Kwami who is extremely knowledgeable about languages and is an experienced editor. CorinneSD (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nepal Bhasa[edit]

Cite your sources. Do not make stupid arguments. --Eukesh (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You're making up names. It's up to you to demonstrate they are actually used. — kwami (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, saying that "Nepal Bhasa" is also known as "Nepal Bhasa" (in the info box) is rather idiotic, don't you think? — kwami (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, now that you are talking, lets begin the conversation with the initial action that started all of this- your initial move. You moved the page without a discussion in the talk, without citing sources and without any conversation with any of the users involved in maintenance of the page. Do you think that it was appropriate?--Eukesh (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Kwami, who's making up names? What names? You are the one who has been insisting on using a name that has never been used at any point in history. You have done wholesale vandalism by unilaterally changing the name across a series of articles without discussing it and "taking it to talk" which you are so fond of telling others to do. Zulufive (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Come on, this is silly. "Nepal Bhasa" and "Newari" are both common in the lit. AFAICT, from my own sources, "Newari" is more common, but that's subject to discussion. Calling it "Nepal" is just ridiculous, as is "Nepalbhasa", "Nepalbasa", "GoobyGoobyDoo", or whatever else you have in mind. Calling me a vandal for reverting those changes indicates either that (a) you have no idea what vandalism is, or (b) you're casting aspersions because you have no legitimate argument to make. — kwami (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Somali and related languges[edit]

Hi, you seem to know a lot about languages; do you mine assisting me? What do you think of the recent changes on the Aweer, Rendille-Boni languages, and the Somali languages page (such as Macro-Somali)? Do you agree with such changes and classifications? How do you think the Somali languages should be classified? I kept my questions short since I am not sure if you can't assist me. If not, thank you anyways. AcidSnow (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Middayexpress copies a lot of bullshit onto WP. I don't have a problem w Tropylium deleting the stub on Rendille-Boni, though the reclassification of Boni is not sourced. Glottologue supports the split, but not the classification of Boni and Garre as Somali. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Problem is that you can't find Aweer by climbing down the classification, because the links to it have been deleted. Also, we ref Ehret & Ali (1984) for the only mention of it in a superior node, and Ehret only pretends to be a linguist (or an archeologist, for that matter). — kwami (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
If he is pretending to be a linguistic why are we using his classifications? There are also some sources that disagree with Rendille and the others being closly related to Somali other than them being East Cushitic. They also state that Somali language's closest relations are with Afar and Oromo. AcidSnow (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if this is unacceptable for you, but an archive bot archived this. So I hope you don't mined. Anyways, why do we have a view of a minority as it's classification when it's disagreed upon. I believe we should remove the classification from the infobox but keep it in the classification section as that is were it belongs since it's among the many views held. What do you think? AcidSnow (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've got a lot on my plate right now, and don't have time to look into this. But if you follow the Glottolog link I placed at Somali languages, you'll see it's now been superceded. They've updated to Tosco (2012) for their classification. Maybe we should do the same? Tosco is most likely a better ref than Blench (2006). — kwami (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I see, well respond to this whenever you can. As for Tosco, I think we should keep both of them and removed the classification from the info box and list all of them in the spefic sections. From what I have seen it seems that 2006 is more accepted than the 2012 so far. AcidSnow (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It would also be that the classification of East Cushitic -> Somali-> North, Benadir, Ashraf, and Sab is the most common classification and that Toscos classification is relatively new.[7] This classification is also ver similar to the one used by Ethnolgue[8] It also classifies Rendille as a completely different branch from Somali.[9] Is there something wrong with Ethnolgue? I am not sure but I think I remeber you disagreeing with them. AcidSnow (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

a certain Idea of Europe[edit]

Hallo kwami, I just read the Azerbaijani language article and its history. Formally, I notice that after the insertion of "Eastern Europe" in the introduction, you correctly reverted per WP:BRD, but your revert has been undone with a claim of BRD too. This is a classical case of WP:Disruptive Editing, and you should have asked for an administrator intervention. I had the same problem with the same user two months ago, at the article Largest cities in Europe, but thanks God an admin arrived. Below his comment at Talk:Largest cities in Europe:

Nadia, you refer repeatedly to WP:BRD here on talk and in edit summaries, but you're misconstruing it, as several people have been telling you. The onus was clearly on you to hold off reverting when your WP:bold edit was reverted, and of taking it to talk to try to gain consensus. (a summary of BRD rules follows) ... You've been edit warring to enforce your opinion about "Europe" and your misreading of WP:BRD. Please revert yourself, and don't reinsert your edit until you've gained consensus for it. Bishonen | talk 13:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

After one month, this problem spread to several articles (as far as I know, Turkish Language, Azerbaijani Language and Languages of Europe: I did not study her edit log) and other users, like you and Psychonaut noticed it. I see with regret that - despite previous administrator intervention - with this user we are still at the same point. I wonder if time came for some kind of more incisive action (ANI)? Alex2006 (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hallo kwami, I reverted the introduction of Azerbaijani Language to its pre-edit war state and she was blocked. If needed, we can discuss on the talk page possible changes. I hope that this story is now finished... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead of Azerbaijani Language[edit]

Hallo Kwami, at Talk:Azerbaijani language there is a - very polite - discussion about the lead of the article. If you want to give your opinion, you are welcome (and this is not canvassing :-)). Bye Alex2006 (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[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. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

US English Dialect Page Titles (revived?)[edit]

I think that might take an interest in contributing to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#US English Dialect Page Titles (revived?). Wolfdog (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-linguistic Article[edit]

Should be deleted or redirect to main article. Pure BS: Azerbaijani language dialects. -- (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Easiest just to redirect. — kwami (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus[edit]

Could you please fix these trascriptions (also here)? Thanks.--Carnby (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. — kwami (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


Pages with characters in PUA

  • George Siber bibliography
  • Dahalo language
  • Brendan O'Brien (record producer)
  • Astrological symbols
  • Apostasy in Islam

-- Magioladitis (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like you took care of them. I left a message on one of the contributors' talk page. — kwami (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

PUA - Tributyltin oxide[edit]

Tributyltin oxide Bgwhite (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Revisions and WP:BIRDCON[edit]

You might be able to assist in revising the articles in the three listed categories and in revising the eight individually listed articles at WT:BIRDS#Revisions and WP:BIRDCON (version of 17:14, 3 August 2014).
Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

What footnote?[edit]

Just saw you added this [10] to the old ANI archive. You are making some heavy accusations there. What footnote in what article are you referring to? Fut.Perf. 10:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

From what I remember, the word Gaulish is only used in a footnote to explain why the author doesn't use the word in the article, so a text search of "Gaulish" should turn up the footnote. — kwami (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
In which article, dammit. Fut.Perf. 06:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Whichever article is used as our ref. I don't remember the name, it was months ago. — kwami (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Then kindly retract your accusation that we were misquoting sources. The articles currently used to support that point do support that point. Fut.Perf. 08:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
No. I was attacked for trying to be precise and not misrepresent our sources. I'm not going to retract my defence to continuing attacks (at ANI) just because someone else recognized that I was correct all along. — kwami (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
You made a concrete accusation, claiming that somebody (I suppose me included) severely misrepresented a specific source. You need to provide evidence what source that was, or I will get you blocked for baseless and serious personal attacks. Provide evidence or retract, in your next edit from now. Fut.Perf. 08:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Now at WP:ANI, again. Fut.Perf. 09:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
You're taking me to ANI for refuting allegations when taken to ANI? This is starting to look like a vendetta.
BTW, it was other editors on the talk pages who demonstrated that the sources didn't support them when I challenged them to support their claims. — kwami (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Kwami, you added your gloss of the situation to an archived ANI thread when it wouldn't be seen by others to respond? No? DeCausa (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
It appeared that people were continuing to comment on that page, and so the topic was still open. At least, I received notice that I was mentioned on the archive page, something that I wouldn't think would happen if no-one were mentioning me on the archive page. If that's incorrect (if it's not been modified since being archived) then go ahead and delete my comments. — kwami (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe Kwami is referring to Talk:Gaulish language#Dubious claims. It is certainly true that Eska's scheme does not even include the term "Gaulish" at all, and that Transalpine Celtic (which usually includes what is called "Gaulish", or at least most of it, except the traditional "Cisalpine Gaulish") and Cisalpine Celtic (which includes Lepontic) are on different branchings (Cisalpine Celtic branches off earlier) and hence Gaulish (as commonly understood) cannot be taken to include Lepontic at all, lest one might end up defining Gaulish so broadly as to include Insular Celtic.
Perhaps a little diagram might prove helpful:
  • Hispano-Celtic
  • Nuclear Celtic
    • Cisalpine Celtic (includes Lepontic)
    • Core Celtic
      • Transalpine Celtic (includes Galatian, Noric)
      • Insular Celtic
However, it is also possible that traditional "Cisalpine Gaulish" indeed descends from Transalpine Celtic (i. e., "Gaulish" in the traditional sense, more or less), and that its similarities with Lepontic are due to contact.
I have sympathy, though, for Eska's preference to avoid the term "Gaulish", as it is just too ill-defined and ambiguous. For example, are Galatian and Noric part of Gaulish or not? Hard to tell. Some scholars might tend to include them, or one of them, others not.
Personally, I like Eska's scheme. It might look a little too neat and recursive, but that's what often happens indeed. Just think of Austronesian. An agnostic stemma would include Hispano-Celtic, Cisalpine Celtic, Transalpine Celtic and Insular Celtic all as separate branches. In such a scheme, however, Lepontic would still not be part of "Gaulish" in any reasonable sense and there would still not be a Continental Celtic branch. Kwami is completely right.
I hope I have been able to bring some clarity of thought to the whole discussion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no, this is not what this is about. Kwami was claiming that somebody was blatantly misrepresenting a certain article that allegedly contains a certain footnote (where some author not only doesn't use the term "Gaulish" but explicitly rejects it, and some wikipedia editor allegedly still used that specific article to support a claim regarding Gaulish). This thing won't be settled unless Kwami finally produces the ref to that footnote and the diff to where the editor misused that source. Fut.Perf. 09:39, 6 August 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.[2]
       2. ^ And I hope it's obvious that comment is facetious.

to do[edit]

S.Twa also indigenous, like Kwisi etc. (Inskepe). Kwisi may have once had cattle?

Akrafena and Akofena - Merger Tag[edit]


Articles: Akrafena and Akofena - Merger Tag.

You have placed a merger tag on the above articles in January 2013. Since then there has been no discussion about a merger and I have asked in #Wikipedia-en-help about the merger tags and what should be done. In response to their advice they asked me if I should write to you. If no replies concerning the merger tag, it maybe a good idea that it is either be submitted for an Feedback Request Service or the merger tag removed. Adamdaley (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Feedback may be good. They are both problematic articles, part of a POV edit war by a user who was blocked indefinitely for it. That doesn't mean there is nothing worthwhile in the articles, but I don't have the background or the desire to edit them properly. — kwami (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Would you like to submit the Akrafena for Feedback Request Service? Since I have no knowledge of either article, maybe someone on Wikipedia has sufficient knowledge to improve the articles. Adamdaley (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Feel free. — kwami (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment[edit]

Hi. Please comment: Scythians: Consensus for the lead section: Iranian people or Iranian-speaking people. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Index of synthesis[edit]

Yoruba language#Grammar (version of 17:14, 10 March 2013), uses the expression "index of synthesis", whose meaning is not clear to me. I suggest that Wikipedia have an article "Index of synthesis", and that that reference be wikified to link to that article.
Wavelength (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's just a scale of isolating (probably 1.0) to synthetic or maybe polysynthetic. The scale might even be specific to that paper, or to that school. Easier just to delete and say "highly isolating" unless the editor making the claim wants to create an article on it. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.—Wavelength (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed move of Fouta Djallon to Futa Jalon/Jallon[edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Fouta Djallon, has been proposed to be moved to either Futa Jalon or Futa Jallon. If you are interested in this discussion, please participate by going to the disussion page and adding your comments. Thank you.--A12n (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

pronunciation of "Shuswap" for IPA if you've got a moment[edit]

Please see Talk:Shuswap_Country.Skookum1 (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Were you asking for IPA? Not sure what the 'a' is. The OED has /ˈʃʊswɒp/.— kwami (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hm....what else uses [ɒ]? It's not quite like "wop" or "mop", more like "waw" the p.Skookum1 (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Whatever that vowel should be, OED has the second consonant wrong; it should be /ˈʃʊʃwɒp/ as the primary.Skookum1 (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll always remember Quebecois travellers puzzling over placenames in BC e.g. Co-keet-lam instead of Co-quit-lam and "Nana-eemo" instead of "Nanaymo" (where "ay" is more like "buy")Skookum1 (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right with the vowel. /ˈʃʊʃwɑːp/ or /ˈʃuːʃwɑːp/, then. Are you asking because of the Shuswap pages which already have IPA? — kwami (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Didn't realize they did unless you mean Shuswap people.....formerly titled's the Shuswap Country page that prompted me to come to you.Skookum1 (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The people article has /ˈʃuːʃwɑːp/, and that accords with what you're describing. I assume the county is pronounced the same way? Shouldn't be any problem in copying over the IPA for the people. — kwami (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
"country" not "county"....counties in BC are court districts only. "Country" is a traditional appelation for many regions, in the sense "up in that country" and not referring to nationhood. And yeah I just added it to the Country, the Lake and the River articles.....not sure if Shuswap is a dab page, probably should be if not.Skookum1 (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Here are some related links.
Wavelength (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Those are not local sources, one's URL even says "American English"...and the wording of the federal sites seems drawn from the oxford and merriam-webster, which are British and American.......and the Canadian Oxford is in Eastern Canada. The video is a professional model working from a script and is not a local. The sibilant "s" sounds stilted; and the media industry is Vancouver-based and often from the East. Vancouver media mostly get it right.......the cites you give, government of Canada or not, are not authentic sources to me. They're foreign; you might as well use a New Yorker to pronounce it, the way Americans say "Frazhier" instead of "Fraser".Skookum1 (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't give a definitive answer on this, though local pronunciation does tend towards the "shwa" on the second syllable. One of the local Indian bands uses "shawp", though this may be a typo: Little Shuswap Indian Band. Helen Akrigg is an expert on things Shuswap, here's what she says: From Suxwa'pmux, the name of the Interior Salish band which inhabit the area. Their name was spelt in a variety of ways by the early fur-traders: "She Whaps," "Shewhoppes," "Shoo-Schwawps" [note: the preferred modern spelling is Secwepemc, pronounced seWEP-mek].... Unfortunately we have no indication of the origin of the name Shuswap. Source: Akrigg, Helen B. and Akrigg, G.P.V; 1001 British Columbia Place Names; Discovery Press, Vancouver 1969, 1970, 1973. (Jim Cooperman is the other local expert) As this is pretty much a recently invented word, it may be that a dominant pronunciation has not coalesced yet. But definitely in the Kamloops/Salmon Arm region, the folks use "Shoe - shwap".The Interior (Talk) 16:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Rhyming with "map", or with the 'a' sound of "bra"? — kwami (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Definitely "bra". The Interior (Talk) 17:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Then assuming it's truly "shoe" and not the way some people say "shush" ("shoosh"), as the OED had it, then the current IPA should be correct. — kwami (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • According to the texts cited in Dave Robertson's doctoral thesis, the spelling used by native speakers using the phonemic Chinook writing (Duployan shorthand) in the 1890s and early 1900s is evenly split between ʃusw͡ap and ʃuʃw͡ap. It sounds to me like this is six of one, half a dozen of another, and indicates an intermediate articulation. What do we think about a retracted s, /s̱/ ? VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 17:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It's an English transcription, so we need to use an English sound. We can list both. — kwami (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Native English in BC generally doesn't have a "s" sound, it's a bit of a cliche but "Shamon Arm" for "Salmon Arm" would be typical. But as The Interior observed, and I checked with a friend from the Okanagan how he'd say it, he says "shwap".....and yes, this is about it as it is used in English, not by FN people........Dave Robertson I know "professionally", he's from Washington and only interested in things aboriginal though did his doc and postdoc at UVic.......he's fond of insisting on saying "KUM-loopsh" for Kamloops in a very stilted artificial IPA-linguistics-pronunciation.....but not even Kamloops Indian Band members say that....SHWAP is the primary pronunciation, and if you say Shoe-swap over and over you'll see that it's natural for the 's' sound of the "stilted pronunciation" very quickly beomes "shwap"......"bar" isn't quite the right vowel, as observed before it's like the derogative "wop" though "mop" is also the same.Skookum1 (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Just noting re the Salmon/Shamon Arm observation, that BC English in general is very "lazy", especially in the Interior, and things are slurred a lot....trying to think of other examples....focusing that sibilant 's' is not in the style.....I think User:The Interior knows what I mean......and in areas with lots of natives, native English influences non-native English quite a bit, such as this s/sh thing.....the Shuswap is well-known on the Coast as what imported Ontarians call a "cottage area" (we call them "places" or "cabins"....cottages are little rose-gardened houses in Victoria or Penticton) and so always features in weather forecasts and a lot of media people have places there.... I"m sure if we looked up a Vancouver weathercast we'd hear "Shoeshwap" is what I'm saying........Skookum1 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
BC English and its regional variations have never really been studied by linguists, which means that from-BC good citations for stuff like this just don't exist...sometimes BC Names has a pronunciation given...they don't for Shuswap, I looked though not at all entries. There's definitely some place-specific accents or were before media/migration I"m familiar with, and used to think was a personality trait, is the way Vernonites sort of talk from the side of their mouths, a certain style of talking......and lots of the Interior (meaning the region, not the user ;-)) has a decided "twang" heritage from cowboy and mining culture, which has close ties with similar south of the line....such accent differences are subtle, often seemingly just tone of voice or "style".....Victorians do talk different than Lower Mainlanders, though, including younger ones....definitely a field for study though dismissed by Central Canadian-based academia which maintains that WEstern Canadian English is homogenous; despite the noticeable difference between Albertans and even BC Interior people....though in the Okanagan, Shuswap and Columbia/East Kootenay regions there's lots of Calgarians now....Skookum1 (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Us interiorites are definitely a bit sloppy in our speech, probably a combination of isolation, American infiltration, cheap beer, and marijuana. We've probably picked up some of the "mushy" sounds of the original shuswappers, and there's a bit of "twang". A fun thing to watch is a long-time Kamloops resident saying "Kamloops". It turns into something like "counts". My native (indian) friends go the other way, where it becomes "kaaahmloops". The Interior (Talk) 05:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Roberton's version from the original Secwemptsin is "t'KUM-loops" and sounds weird, that long aaaaa that you describe he over-affects (I've heard him do it live).....if I was any good at IPA dictation and had an academic thing to work on, documenting regional/personal/cultural variations in BC English would be kinda fun......and probably involve a lot of beer and dope LOL.Skookum1 (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
If "wop" is how it's pronounced, then the OED vowel is correct after all. Not sure if the two are distinguished in that area. — kwami (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

An Administrative Discussion Involving You[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please see

Ethnologue links[edit]

Hi, thanks for the info. Does that work for any language with a language box?Dapiks (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

English in Guyana[edit]

You may want to participate in the discussion at Talk:English language#Map problem. A poster there says that English is spoken by a majority of the people of Guyana; so that it should be colored dark blue on the map. I notice it was you who changed it to light blue. —teb728 t c 03:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Origin of word Dravida[edit]

I understand you do not agree with my recent edits on Dravidian Languages article. But while reverting the edits you did not give any reasons. It has been documented that one of the earliest reference to world Dravida is by Adi Shankara when he called himself Dravida Shishu. There was also an earlier scholar(pre-Shankara) with the name Dravidacharya from whose name the term may have derived. I have not yet been able to find a source which confirms whether it was he was referring to Dravidacharya so I go by the theory that Dravida means a place where three oceans meet.[1][2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indoscope (talkcontribs) 06:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your edit mangled the existing text.
Also, since dravida just means 'southern', is there any reason to suppose that he was naming himself for the language family? — kwami (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sirah (rapper)[edit]

As the creator and primary editor of International Phonetic Alphabet, I need your help. I have no idea how to enter 'sigh-rah' into an article. Please assist.--Launchballer 21:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Done. I assume "rah" is supposed to be the same sound as at the end of "Sara", and not really meant to be like "rah-rah". — kwami (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


I don't understand why you insist on using the spelling "Jiarongic" and "Jiarong", which are not used by any specialist of these languages, and which look offensive and quite Chinese-imperialistic. Also, by reverting back you deleted some of my corrections. I really don't appreciate.

Rgyalrongskad (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not insisting. As I explained on your talk page, I simply expect good editing. You've messed up the links and the edit history of a couple articles, so I reverted you and explained to you how you can do it better. And if you're going to change to such an unintuitive spelling, I think some discussion would be in order. — kwami (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Ethnologue uses "Jiarong" and "rGyalrongic". Thurgood & LaPolla as well as ELL2 use "rGyalrong". Van Driem notes that "rGya-rong", "rGyal-rong", and "Jiarong" are all found in the lit. "Gyalrong" or "Gyarung" might be a good compromise, as that r- is going to be confusing to most people. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I confess that I may not know how to edit and redirect a page, and if you know a proper way to do it please do, but in the process please revert back to the previous version where I added some material (please have a look at the corrected version before reverting it).

I have worked on these languages for more than ten years, and all the people who do research on these languages, including Jackson Sun, Lin Youjing, myself and a few others, all use "Rgyalrong" or "rGyalrong". Ethnologue is not a reliable source. Actually, in the previous version that you deleted, I added a short paragraph explaining the pronunciation of this name.

I insist that "Rgyalrongic" (or "rGyalrongic") is the correct spelling.

The speakers of Rgyalrongic languages preserve complex clusters, and the "r-" is really pronunced. Nobody would insist to simplify the name Rzhev to "Zhev", so why in this particular case insist on using a spelling that nobody uses? Wikipedia, as I understand it, should represent the scholarly consensus, not impose anything new.

Rgyalrongskad (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that the R is still pronounced.
I moved the articles to a Gy- spelling, which I hope is an improvement. No R-, because the Rgy- names were already occupied by redirects, and I did not have authorization to delete them. You can make a request to move to your preference at WP:Requested moves.
As for restoring your content, I would prefer that you did that yourself, so that you get proper credit in the page history, and so that if people have questions in the future, they'll know that you're the person to talk to. (Otherwise it will look like I'm the author, and I'm not going to be able to answer their questions!) Just please don't delete one article and then create a duplicate elsewhere – the appropriate way to change the name of an article is by moving it. (If the target does not exist, then you can do that yourself. The problem arises when an article already exists at the desired location.)
Also, when you change a link (stuff between double brackets in the edit window, [[like this]]), you should check that it still works. Several of the blue links you edited changed to red, meaning you broke them. (You can check your changes with "show preview".) If you just want to change the name that is displayed, not the target article, you can do this with a pipe, like this: [[target article|displayed name]]. — kwami (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for redirecting to "Rgyalrong languages"! It seems that I don't have the function to redirectmyself, so could you do the same with "Gyalrongic > Rgyalrongic"? Thank you in advance. Rgyalrong is a subgroup of Rgyalrongic in Sun's classification (Rgyalrongic minus Lavrung and Horpa), which I suggest to follow here. A last thing, is it possible to suppress redirection of Japhug, Zbu etc to "Rgyalrong languages"? At some stage when I have time I will write an article for each of these languages.

Rgyalrongskad (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


I'm disappointed but not surprised that you've again chosen violating 3RR over advocating for your preferred changes through discussion. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Roscelese, I'm rejecting the biased changes you keep insisting on despite their near universal rejection by other editors. Rejecting your blind pushing of your own POV is not equivalent to pushing my own. — kwami (talk) 06:20, 11 April 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) 23:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)



If you want to know why few sources of information in English about Kotava are founded, watch this article (even by an approximative automatical translating owing to Google).

Kotava counts a real community of speakers, like only eight or ten other constructed languages. Many original texts and main translations exist, lexicons with some languages (Zulu, Lingala, Swahili, etc.). This group on Facebook can get you a survey.

Regards. YuraniA (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the claims are factually wrong: Romanova also has an ISO code but no WP article.
So, the reason there isn't any material on Kotava available in English is ... (drum roll) a grand conspiracy against a conlang that isn't based on English! Of course, just like they won't tell us where the real UFOs are.
Can you give me an example of a Kotava word, phrase, or clause that can't be readily translated into French? (I can think of things in Esperanto that can't be readily translated into English; just wondering if Kotava is really international.)
If you can provide RS's that Kotava has a notable community, I doubt there would be any problem with recreating the article. It's just that there are hundreds of personal language projects, and hardly any are notable enough to write about. — kwami (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
No, the main purpose of the quoted text is that the Kotava-speakers very little communicate in English, unlike most other fans of auxiliary languages​​, to be coherent with the fundamental aim of such languages​​, arguing that communicate in English does only weaken them. But one consequence of this, among other things, is that Kotava received little response. The same way as in science communication, a publication that does not publish in English is considered unattractive and ignored by the little sphere of international researchers. And as Kotava is an aprioristic language (very different to ​​"western" ones like Esperanto or Interlingua), it's difficult to discover it by a simple pecking flying over.
It is not a matter of conspiracy, just a lack of curiosity. Nevertheless, there are objective facts. Among them, there are hundreds of original texts, hundreds of important translations (see for instance this site:, fully Kotava). There is also an Kotava encyclopaedia (, 2174 articles), etc.
For specific words or phrases, difficult to translate into several languages, maybe:
- kuré = religious wedding (mariage religieux en français)
- yerumá = civil marriage; civil union, civil partnership; free union (mariage civil en français; union libre reconnue; PACS)
Regards. YuraniA (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, you translated those easily enough. There are things in Esperanto I can't say in English except to give an approximation, and Esperanto is culturally Western.
The encyclopedia certainly makes it look as though it's being used. Sources don't need to be in English. The Toki Pona article has been up for deletion four times, and each time people voted to keep it because there are independent references to it, and not just in English. Are there similar references to Kotava in the French press? — kwami (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

() pages[edit]

Further to this discussion, I hope you noticed that I actually did this edit for you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! — kwami (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


I notice that you removed the pronunciation here. That was sourced from the website of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. Do you not think they would know how to pronounce it? But, if you are certain it is incorrect then you presumably know the correct pronunciation, in which case would you mind adding it? Thanks, (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, in Tłı̨chǫ, but not in English. Look at their website: do you really think that Monfwi Gogha De Niitlee is English? — kwami (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
That argument depends on their being a distinct English pronunciation, which is different from the nearest English-language approximation to the native pronunciation. If you know that is the case then you must know what it is, so please add it, preferably with a source. Otherwise I will restore the previous sourced and apparently reliable pronunciation guide. (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Saying it's pronounced "approximately" that way would be okay, but to add a pronunciation that is neither Tłı̨chǫ nor English while implying that it is the English pronunciation is not. On the website it's obvious that they're not giving English pronunciations, but in copying it out of context on WP we loose that context. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
What seems "obvious" to me is that the website is explaining to English speakers how they should pronounce those words. I don't see any other possible purpose of that phonetic guide. (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Rather it is a suggestion for how English speakers without phonetic knowledge may produce an approximation of the the correct pronunciation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as long as we're clear about that, there's no problem. The problem is in implying that that is the established English pronunciation. You see things like this for half-assed pronunciation of Chinese or Arabic or other languages. That doesn't mean the words actually have English pronunciations. (It's also not clear what the approximation is supposed to mean: Does chon rhyme with 'gone', or with 'cone'?) — kwami (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Secular Islam Summit[edit]

I've blocked you for 72 hours for continuing to edit war on Secular Islam Summit after I declined the case and asked for discussion. The fact that you went in there and reverted again not even an hour after I took this action is unfortunate. Please reflect on whether this is the best way to improve Wikipedia and interact with your fellow editors. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least you blocked the POV warrior too. — kwami (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Revert needed[edit]

For anyone watching this page, here are some unsupported edits that showed up on my watch list and need to be reverted:

[11] (E17 reports one self-declared speaker but also declares it extinct; it was reported extinct in the 90s) (fixed)
[12] (edit war on template; now reverted)
The one at Yugh language is supported by Ethnologue; I reverted Wakawaka and Shina, as vandalism. Not sure what's going on on the Template:Language families, so I'd leave that to you. No such user (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The one at Yugh is also contradicted by Ethnologue, which reports that it's extinct under its other ISO code. — kwami (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
[13] (fixed)

Articles for the Rgyalrong languages.

I understand your wanting to help keep up the encyclopedia, but what you're asking here could be considered a form of block evasion - proxy editing on behalf of a blocked user isn't generally allowed. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. You might have pointed out the complaint at ANI so you didn't look like you were threats. Still, you appear to think the other admins here are morons. I can hardly worry about that. — kwami (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
fix Sandawe medial !s
fix Eastern ǂHoan phonolg


Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, accusing me of the grievous sin of keeping track of idiotic edits that need fixing. I think the response there was on point. — kwami (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Etymology and translations[edit]

In chemical elements, we now have the option to add the etymology to the infobox (see for example infobox gold). Could you advise on which phrasing pattern(s) to use? We better do it right first time. Discussion is here. -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion you might be interested[edit]

Talk:Porajmos#Spelling. I will now fix the IPA of the article as far as I can. Lguipontes (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Another discussion you might be interested in[edit]

There's a discussion about hyphenating long-period variable go on. --JorisvS (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: User talk:BDD#Please stop[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kwamikagami. You have new messages at BDD's talk page.
Message added 21:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


As for your edits here, Info regarding Urdu as the register of "Hindustani" is found in the following sections already, please don't move it again to lead. Being a Regster of Hindustani was a history, now Urdu is a "South Asian language in the Indo-Aryan branch in the Indo-Euro pean family of languages"! For more, do discuss it at the articles's talk, Thanks. Faizan -Let's talk! 08:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been discussed many times. We generally oppose nationalist attempts to deny history. — kwami (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello there! This is Wamiq, a user who edited the article Urdu and whose edit you reverted completely. Can you please justify it? Faizan was right when he said that that article was concerned only with Urdu, but that did not mean you remove everything relating to Urdu from before 1900, labelling it as Hindustani or Hindi-Urdu. What you consider Urdu (as being born in 1900) existed much before that (I suppose you already know this, but still?)... So all what you say to be in the realm of Hindustani also comes in the sphere of Urdu (these were synonyms then, Urdu being the official name of the language whereas Hindustani used sometimes in colloquial speech; again I suppose you know this already). Hindi was non-existent before 1867, so calling the language before that as Hindi-Urdu would be an injustice with Urdu. How about replacing that introduction back (after modifications, if you consider appropriate)? Another reservation I have, is regarding your opinion of disregarding Urdu as a seperate language. Urdu should be the broad name of the Hindustani languge as it used to be in the past. This makes Urdu the actual language name as opposed to Hindi and Hindustani. Urdu is not a prejudicial name for a pre-existent language as is Hindi. So it is neither subordinate to Hindustani (in reality being equal to it), nor is equal to Hindi (rather being superordinate to it), which makes it a language in its own right. I hope this is clear now... So would you please review and reconsider your revert? I would be very grateful if you comply with this. Regards.
— Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 16:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The article for Urdu/Hindi/Hindustani before the standards split is under the name Hindustani language. That is Urdu. The article we call "Urdu" is for the modern standard language after the split, since people now claim that Hindi and Urdu are separate languages. For most of their history, they were the same language. Since there are three conceptions, we have three articles. The Hindi article too should be about only modern history, even though Hindu activists might want to claim it's 2,000 years old.
When you talk about Urdu before ca. 1900, you're really talking about what we're calling Hindustani. It's rather odd to make the lead to the Modern Standard Urdu article about Hindustani rather than about Modern Standard Urdu. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks a lot for making that clear to me! Well, can I ask you one thing? You do not seem to be the native speaker of either Hindi or Urdu. Where are you from and how do you know so much about languages which do not seem to be yours? You have put up nothing on your page and your name is so odd, that one could not make a guess regarding you. Please do tell me. Regards!
— Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 21:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right, I don't speak any language from the Subcontinent. I do have a pretty good understanding of linguistics, though, so if you can make a good linguistic argument with good sources you're likely to convince me. I've learned a lot talking to people here, and hardly think I know everything (though evidently more than some do). My user name Kwami is Ghanaian (Akan) for a man born on Saturday, while Kagami is a Japanese joke on my family name. It's not meant to be transparent!
We have a long history of dispute over these articles, going back years, just as we have in other cases where nationalism creeps in, like Serbo-Croatian, Tagalog vs Filipino, Malay vs Malaysian vs Indonesian, Turkish vs Turkic, and minority languages and dialects all over the world. We've also had a difficult time choosing appropriate titles that people can agree on. Personally, I'd like them to be at Hindustani, Modern Standard Hindi, and Modern Standard Urdu. ("Hindi" is an even more difficult name than Urdu, because there is even greater variation as to what people count as Hindi, as you can see in the language section of the Indian census.) I conceive of Modern Standard Hindi as a variety of Urdu, which is the same as Hindustani, but Hindutva activists would go berserk over that just as Serbian nationalists would go berserk if I were to say Serbian is a variety of Croatian (which I think is a fair statement), and just as Indonesians don't like it when I talk to them in Malay and call the language "Malay", though of course that's what it is. And of course Urdu is in turn a Hindi language, but many Pakistanis would throw a fit about that. Though I have met plenty of Hindi and Urdu speakers, as well as Serbs and Croats, who are perfectly willing to accept that they speak the same language as the other. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I have understood the classification of Urdu language into three articles here, but many of my friends haven’t, so they keep on reverting your edit. If you would like to keep it as it is, then no problem, but if you want to fix it back, then what do you think about pasting our conversation over the talk page of Urdu, since many people want to discuss this issue? I think this is the only way of stopping this edit war. Another thing done could be renaming the articles Hindi and Urdu to Modern Standard Hindi and Modern Standard Urdu. This would be more appropriate in my opinion as it would remove misconceptions in the minds of people from both sides. What do you think?
— Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 14:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I did move Hindi to MSH, but there was a vote to move it back on the basis of COMMONNAME. — kwami (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Further discussion to be carried out at Talk:Urdu. Faizan -Let's talk! 15:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Bhojpuri language[edit]

Editing and writing something in a specified manner as par wikipedia's instruction requires really hard work, i don't know whether you know it or not (because i think you just believe in reverting other's contribution). I contributed much to Bhojpuri language page for several months, because Bhojpuri is my mother tongue. And for yes sake, i can't provide much sources from different sites because it's not what you can get on every site. There's no official site for this language and often clubbed with Eastern Hindi language under Hindi language. It's still not an official/scheduled language. It's considered a dialect of Hindi. It's never been officially stated as a Bihari language because it's chiefly spoken in more districts (perhaps 20) in Uttar Pradesh and 5 or 6 districts in Nepal, whereas it is spoken in just 7 districts of Bihar. And however, it is not an eastern indo aryan language because it is more similar to hindi than bengali. It's quite different from Bihari languages like magadhi or maithili, as they are more similar to bengali. And about the sample texts, you can get it approved it by any bhojpuri speaker. And i'm sure, you'll get almost same translation as i did of the text as Article1 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You know it, it's quite impossible to provide a citation. But you can get it approved somewhere by any bhojpuri speaker. You can trust me. I'm not here to vandalise the page. I'm here just to promote my mother tongue because it's the only open platform on whole cyber world where i can contribute "something" to my language. For the nastaliq script, first of all let me introduce myself to youI'm Samir from Ballia dist. UP. And we speak Bhojpuri the same way other peoples speak but we write bhojpuri in nastaliq script whereas many people uses Devanagari. PS: Forgive my english and please try to understand, what did i want to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikieditbh (talkcontribs) 05:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we base Wikipedia articles on reliable sources. Our current sources say Bhojpuri is a Bihari rather than Hindi language. That may be wrong, but you'll need to demonstrate it. It's not something that's obvious just because you're a native speaker, and certainly has nothing to do with where it's spoken: There are more English speakers in America than in Europe, but that doesn't mean it's a Native American language! It would also affect more than this one article, because we classify it elsewhere as a Bihari language. (Though I'm not sure what the difference is: core Indic seems like one big dialect continuum.) — kwami (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Which reliable source proves it a Bihari language? Can you show me? (I'm askin' the same way you asked me to provide a source.) I didn't mean what you said. Of course, English is spoken (as a mother tongue) by more peoles in Americas than in England but it's not the same case here. It's quite different. English was brought to Americas (US/Canada) by English peoples whereas Bhojpuri was not brought in UP from Bihar. Actually it is native to a region known as Purvanchal which lies mainly in easter Uttar Pradesh (east of Awadh) and few districts of Bihar, as i mentioned earlier. About Sample texts, why did you delete that? Was that wrong? If you think so, you can ask as many bhojpuri speakers as you want. You'll get the same answer. I can show you, how Bhojpuri is not a Bihari language, In Bhojpuri, if we ask "What is your name"? We'd say, "Tahaar naam kaa ha", in magadhi, "Tor naam ki helthi", in Maithili, "Ahaanke naam ki che", in Bengali, "Aapnar naam ki ochhe", whereas in Awadhi, it is "Tahaar naam kaa hai" and in Hindi, it'll be "Tumhara naam kyaa hai". Now, please you decide, where we should put Bhojpuri? In Hindi variant or eastern variant. Please, get me notified when you are done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikieditbh (talkcontribs) 06:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You can trust me. I'm not here to vandalise any page. What could be a more reliable source for a language other that a person who is the native speaker of that language. It's impossible to provide citation for each and every line. How could you expect someone to do so. I'm tellin' you, if i write something with spending lot of time and hard work over it, then it'll not be wrong. Because you've nothing to do with this language. And if something it is, it'll matter to me and it's speakers. Think, if i delete every line of a particular page that really matters to you and ask for a source for each and every line. Could you be able to provide? Please be more liberal and not that much logical because sometime, it is needed. So again, i'm saying, you can rely on me. I can be a reliable source for you because i'm here represent my community. It's completely correct, whatever i had written. You can get it approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikieditbh (talkcontribs) 06:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of being a vandal. But one native speaker may say one thing, and another just the opposite, so then what do we do? We need published sources. Our sources for classification are Masica (1991) and Kausen (2006). They can be found in the refs at Indic languages.
I don't object to the texts. I reverted you for unsubstantiated changes to the classification; since you were edit warring over it, I didn't pay attention to what else you were adding. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me the basis of your source but it's still unclear whether Bhojpuri is an Eastern indo aryan language. There's no officially published article proving the same fact. Sorry, i don't agree with yer words "one native speaker may say one thing, and another just the opposite", let me prove yer words in the way it means to me. I'd say "Tum has rahe ho" if i've to say "You're laughing" in Hindi, then other speaker would say, "Main ro raha hoon." Didn't you mean it or did you? Well, i know you didn't mean that but how much one could be different from other? A bit deviation but not "just opposite". If someone (a bhojpuri speaker) objects my written words then i'll be able to manage that by having a conversation with him/her. But you do not speak bhojpuri (after talking this much, i came to this conclusion, sorry if i am wrong) then how can you prove me wrong and delete those sample texts.

And about classification, it is mistakenly considered and written by the first writer (on wikipedia) as a Bihari language because it is spoken natively in a few western part of Bihar. And since then it is written every page of wikipedia and from wikipedia to several blogspots as a Bihari language. I've already showed you that it is not similar to other bihari languages. Pls let me contribute something unobjected and without conflict to this page, because it'll not affect you nor any person. Mywikieditbh (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten sample texts but didn't revert yer changes on classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikieditbh (talkcontribs) 09:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We use sources. Our sources say Bhojpuri is a Bihari language. You can counter that by providing sources to the contrary, and letting people evaluate them on the talk page. — kwami (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do my best and find out some reliable source to prove you my point. Thanks for discussing. Mywikieditbh (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kwamikagami. You have new messages at Talk:Urdu.
Message added 07:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan -Let's talk! 07:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Layout of vowel articles[edit]

Hi Kwami. I noticed that the layout of our vowel articles is just awful. For example, Near-close near-back vowel has a huge blank portion right in the middle, followed by the 100% wide table. I think the main culprit is {{IPA chart vowels}}, which is placed above the tables. However, it is completely redundant -- all articles have {{IPA navigation}} at the botom, which already embeds the former. Since you're an experienced AWB user, would you please make a run of it and remove the offending template from all the vowel articles? No such user (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No time right now. Maybe I'll get to it before this gets archived? — kwami (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Kiix?in (Keeshan) needs IPA[edit]

See talkpage at either link, not sure I've spelled that first one right. The second one will redirect to the first one, or the intended first one.Skookum1 (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't think I can help with that one. Is the question mark supposed to be a glottal stop? — kwami (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yup, or it is normally in BC anyways; usually you see "7" in most orthographies, I'm not familiar with Nuu-chah-nulth-ese.....("Nootka" is a misnomer like Kwakiutl is for Kwak'wala). I'll ask User:OldManRivers, who's Squamish and Nimpkish and teaches Squamish, he may know...the anglicized vowels don't match what you'd think the indigenous spelling indicates huh? That's kinda normal I guess, same with Squamish vs Skwxwu7mesh or however it's spelled.Skookum1 (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, a misnomer just like half the other proper names in English, such as German, Greek, Chinese, Indian (of both hemispheres), and American. I'll keep using it.
I haven't looked at Nootka for years, and the consonants don't match very well either. Assuming Kiix?in is correct, the conversion to IPA is trivial. — kwami (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of PC-ness, but if you read up on the subject, and talk to OldManRivers, who's half-'Namgis himself, it's extremely rude to call someone from another Kwakwaka'wakw group a Kwakiutl....particular groups anyway, as the Lekwiltok readily translate themselves as Southern Kwakiutl....on the other hand they have their origins near Prince Rupert and are closely related to the Kwagyulh there....on the Kwakwaka'wakw social ladder, they're near the bottom of the social rankings of the various people; calling someone from e.g. the Tanakteuk or 'Namgis or another group, aside from the social derogation that they feel from it, would be like calling Quebecois "Acadians"....the infobox should at least have "(misnomer)" next to that, and within BC anyway "Kwak'wala" is now standard usage for "Kwakiutl language. Every bit as inappropriate as calling the Heiltsuk and Wuikinuxv (Owekeeno -> Rivers Inlet people) "Northern Kwakiutl. Same as with "Nootka language".....there's a Nootka dialect, certainly, of the Nuu-chah-nulth language (which SFAIK doesn't have its own name within that language) but "the Nootka language" while it's common English is again very incorrect.....long ago "Aht" was used for all the Southern Wakashan, other than the Kwakwaka'wakw that is, and including Makah....but also the Sto:lo and Musqueam and their neighbours were called "Cowidgin" (Cowichan) because of the same language, albeit different dialects...."Cowidgin Indian by Fraser River near Hope", for example, you'll see on old some old photos. Terminology is a political hot potato in BC, as we've all painfully learned ;-).Skookum1 (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

re this, I'm not the one passing judgment, the Kwak'wala-speaking community are the ones who judged and deemed it unsuitable. I'll wait for OldManRivers to weigh in, I think some of this is footnoted/referenced on the Kwakiutl page.Skookum1 (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What do we do for other cases like this, such as German? "Misnomer" might be okay, but "inappropriate" is opinion, not fact. — kwami (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


Hey dude! As you are one of the forty most active Wikipedians, I just wanted to get some tips on how I can also catch up with you? Faizan -Let's talk! 08:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

First, do you have a life? If you do, you need to do something about that. Moving your pantry next to your computer and your computer into the bathroom should help.
Second, making small corrections or additions to many articles with AWB racks up the edits. For example, you could check all 30,000 (or whatever) transclusions of the English IPA template for common errors, such as letter sequences which are not supported by the English IPA chart that the template links to. Once you get the search program written, you can make thousands of edits fairly quickly. Or, since WP decided to go with the name "Burma" rather than "Myanmar", you could search for the 5,000 (or whatever) remaining links to or inappropriate uses of "Myanmar" and change them to "Burma". Gripping stuff, I know: You'll have stories for your grandchildren. I'm sure they'll be suitably impressed.
Two of the things I did that resulted in large edit numbers were to correct and normalize the IPA transcriptions in most of the languages we supported at the time, while formating them with the correct IPA template; and creating stubs on the several thousand languages with ISO codes that we didn't have yet. That stage is pretty much done, but you could check all 7,000 ISO language articles against the 17th edition of Ethnologue, verify that the number of speakers is correct, add the date of the Ethnologue figure (that is, the date of their source), and generate an auto link to Ethnologue to support it. That could add maybe 5,000 edits to your total. (If you decide to do something like that, let me know: There are some conventions we've been using that aren't necessarily obvious, and Ethnologue has data problems that need to be considered rather than blindly copying them.) If you're into biology, then there are literally millions of articles you could create. Pick a genus or family and create a stub for each species. That should keep you busy for a few lifetimes. — kwami (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this help! I will need more time, obviously I cannot speed up without proper backup. Just a last question, can we only fix or replace Typos mainly with AWB? I mean to say we can do nothing else which can increase edit count? Faizan -Let's talk! 09:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey, see #Layout of vowel articles above. That'll give you a few, and would be good training for AWB if you haven't used it.
If you're into programing, you can create bots that run on autopilot. However, they can be quite disruptive if they run out of control, so you need to pass an audit for each run. Once people know you're reliable and approve you quickly, you'll find there's often a backlog of bot requests; sometimes they can involve tens of thousands of articles. AFAICT, the users with the highest numbers of edits are mostly bot accounts. — kwami (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I will start now, do I have to remove {{IPA chart vowels}}? Faizan -Let's talk! 09:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that's what NoSuchUser wanted, but you'll want to play around with the first one to see what the effects are. Also, if there's been no discussion on the article talk pages, there's always the possibility that someone will object and want to to revert yourself. Charts like that are often useful for navigation, but the consonant articles only have one hidden at the bottom, so doing the same for the vowels wouldn't be out of line. But take a look at Close-mid central rounded vowel: is the chart really doing any harm? Is it doing more good by being visible?
If you get approval for AWB, something like this is trivial, and should get you comfortable with its layout. — kwami (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
He's already AWB approved, and I've fiddled around with it, and the position= parameter doesn't ever help. I think the excising the thing is probably the best course of action. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 09:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
There's a {{clear}} below it in that article. I think we should keep it; it's convenient. — Lfdder (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. Without the {{IPA chart vowels}} template, the "Occurrences" table seems to fit just fine. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 09:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Faizan, what I would do is set up my AWB list with What transcludes page: template:IPA navigation, then use the normal find and replace to replace {{IPA chart vowels}} with nothing. Just remember to actually check all the edits, because AWB does a lot of automatic cleanup stuff, and it isn't always perfect. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 09:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, I got it, I am AWB Approved. Thanks Kwami and Isaac! Faizan -Let's talk! 09:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Request further discussion about SignWriting in Unicode[edit]

Hi! I appreciate your edits on the paragraph explaining the layout issues for SignWriting in Unicode. It's clearer now. I was, however, puzzled why you deleted the next two paragraphs that I had added. Could you leave some further explanation on the talk page? Thanks. AlbertBickford (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Uyghur language[edit]

Hi kwami, I left a note at Talk:Uyghur language#Pronunciation. Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wondering about your Christopher Ehret edits[edit]

Hi Kwami, I was a bit surprised by your edits and thought it worth slowing things down and asking for some opinion. See . I am not going to loose sleep about it, but I find it odd because it seems to me this is a very highly cited author in this area and your sweep of articles mentioning him seems entirely based on his academic titling?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

He may not be the best historical linguist, but it's quite clear that he can, indeed, be considered a linguist. He is widely cited in linguistic literature and he has a clear following in linguistic circles. While he may teach in a history department that doesn't mean anything in terms of linguistics. I teach in an English department, but I'm still a linguist. I think that in this case, kwami's elimination of Ehret's citations just because kwami doesn't think he's a linguist is unjustified and Ehret should be returned to his place. As I start with, he may not be the best historical linguist in certain respects, but we all can't be the best. --Taivo (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
What following? Linguists do not take him seriously. His work is shoddy, he doesn't bother to consider the work that others have done before him, and he hasn't been invited to relevant conferences for years. From what I understand, his reputation among archeologists is similar. Perhaps Afroasiatic is an exception, but his Nilo-Saharan and Khoisan work is ignored unless an author feels the need to overtly dismiss it. He's like Greenberg with Amerindian, though at least Greenberg is respected as a pioneering typologist. Talk to specialists in these fields, and if you bring up a claim that Ehret has made, the response is, well, that's just Ehret, no need to bother with it. — kwami (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(Continued at WP:RSN#Christopher_Ehret_as_a_source_for_Afroasiatic_subjects.)

Shabo language[edit]

Hi Kwami. I don't want to get into an edit war over this. But I am really unhappy that you don't honor my request to discuss things on the talk page before reverting again. People might even be divided on the question whether Ehret is a linguist or not. He may not have the formal training, but neither had Bender nor (as far as I know) Blench nor lots of other good and worthy researchers that you don't mind to cite when you happen to agree with their works - therefore you yourself don't take your slogan "let's stick to linguists for linguistic claims" very serious. Fact is that not all linguists, as you claim, reject Ehret, and more to the point, his works have been published in peer-reviewed linguistic books, so they fulfill all the criteria for works to be cited on Wikipedia, alongside with all other duly published works on the matter. I noticed that you are trying to purge all of Wikipedia of the works of Ehret, and that without engaging in any discussion on the matter. This is POV-pushing behavior that is not encouraged on Wikipedia. I'm going to revert your edit one more time. If you then revert again without beginning a discussion first on the page, I will be forced to call in the help of an unbiased admin. Just as an aside: I don't agree with Ehret myself, but I do believe that it is not right to remove duly published sources from Wikipedia entries, just because one doesn't like them. And this is precisely what you are doing right now. Landroving Linguist (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else cite him for Shabo? This was published in a colloquium proceedings - I could get published as a RS on Shabo if that's all it took!
If it has been published, go ahead, put it in there. Landroving Linguist (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not a matter of me not liking Ehret. It's a matter of experts in the field saying he's not a reliable source. There are good sources out there we can use; we don't need to resort to substandard ones. — kwami (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I just checked Schnoebelen's article. He cites Ehret, without any disparaging remarks. Landroving Linguist (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
He was a student! We're taking students in linguistic programs as experts in the evaluation of whether presentations at conferences are RS's? Why don't we just go to wherever Ehret got his data from (assuming he bothers to cite it), or better yet see what's been published in the 20 years since? — kwami (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, then who is an expert on the field of Shabo linguistics? Except for Schnoebelen no-one has ever written anything on Shabo since Ehret's paper. Except for Schnoebelen no-one could have cited him. And Schnoebelen knew quite well what he was writing about. Landroving Linguist (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying that Ehret is only mentioned in our article because of Schnoebelen? — kwami (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Ehret is mentioned because he published an article on Shabo in a refereed conference proceedings volume, a reliable secondary source according to Wikipedia's standards. BTW, I can accept your adding of RS tags in the article. Better than deleting the information. Landroving Linguist (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick question on Gender-neutral pronoun[edit]


I just had a quick question, did you mean to remove the Chinese, and Malay/Indonisian sections? Those two were well sourced from what I can see. I may be missing what the issue was with those two. If it is something glaringly obvious that I missed feel free to trout me. Thanks! --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind on the Chinese part I see it is also included further down on the page. My apologies! Feel free to ignore my question! --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
As for the other languages, we note in the lead that maybe 5,000 languages have gender-neutral pronouns. I even added a map. There really isn't any point in listing them all and stating over and over again that their pronouns don't have gender, when the purpose of the article is how people handle gender-neutral situations within the constraints of the gendered pronouns of English. Parallel strategies in other gendered languages would be relevant, but not the thousands of languages where there isn't a problem. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
That makes sense to me! Thanks for the explanation. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Just a side comment. In David Lindsay's A Voyage to Arcturus he uses "ae" for the gender-neutral characters, "aer" for the possessive, for for the real world, lots of languages have the neuter gender; in Norwegian the masculine and feminine are now the common gender, there's still the neuter.....I think Nynorsk may still distinguish the feminine, but Bokmal doesn't.Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Both would be worth including, if we can source the diff tween Nynorsk & Bokmal. — kwami (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It's probably on the Nynorsk page somewhere, i.e. the separate feminine and masculine genders vs. the common gender in Bokmal....the creation of the common gender is probably described in the Bokmal article.....another literary item comes to mind, also, in Clive Barker's Imajica there's a race of hermaphrodites, I think he coins a term there too....maybe it's "ae" there and something else in Arcturus, been a long time since I read either one.Skookum1 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, we probably have enough hokey proposals from the real world that it would be trivia to start adding stuff from sci-fi. But Norwegian would definitely be of interest, even if it's really just a dialectical difference. — kwami (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Arcturus is not really sci-fi, it was written in 1917 and is in a class by itself, quite indescribable, really. This section on that page doesn't mention the neutral pronoun but it does mention jale and ulfire and sorbing..... real fascinating read, if you've got the time and the flexible imagination to survive reading it....Skookum1 (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

[undent] re "dialectical difference" re Nynorsk/Bokmal, I believe they're not considered dialects but separate languages; Nynorsk was formed by combining 5 (or 7?) regional dialects into a new language, and I think it's written up that way in Norwegian legislation.Skookum1 (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought they had a different dialectical basis. My point was that this was not actually a reform to the pronouns, but simply a dialectical difference in the pronominal system. While interesting and relevant, it is perhaps not a good parallel to the problems of gender neutrality in English. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Bokmal is based on Danish and was formerly known, and slightly different, as Dano-Norwegian; I had my grandfather's "Learn Norwegian" books, or I guess they were my father's bought for him by his father; very different looking than modern Bokmal......gender neutrality I think is a linguistic discussion there still, and there might be conventions in Nynorsk for non-gendered pronouns for people; the "De" formal is neutral in gender, also. As far as English goes, "they" for the plural gender-neutral is obvious anyway; around here when not knowing an editors' gender I tend to use "he/she"......Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


How do the templates mess up formatting? The formatting looks fine to me with the templates, and aren't we supposed to let the HTML know when we're writing non-English words? Angr (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

For me, the words are all bold and twice the size of the rest of the text, making the page look rather ridiculous. I suppose the templates need to be corrected, or reverted back to what they were originally. I'll bring it up on the template page. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
OK. For me, the words are just in italics and otherwise just like the surrounding text. Maybe it's something in your CSS? Angr (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I asked on the TT page, and s.o. w the same prob figured it out: In FF, you need to make sure your regional Latin-family font prefs (Baltic, Greek, etc.) are all the same. Mine weren't. We should probly h s.t. on the template instruction page about this. — kwami (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. That happened to me too. I asked about it at Wiktionary's Grease pit last year and got the same answer. Angr (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

new page Sinixt language[edit]

Per my request of her, User:Kootenayvolcano has created Sinixt language as what she describes as a stub but which is already a lot more; but it needs the usual infobox, ISO code (if any?), etc. I referred her to you for help making this look like other language pages, but decided to give you a heads-up anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Sinixt are one of the Okanagan peoples. Their language may be a distinct Okanagan dialect. — kwami (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
LOL I just saw that change....this should be interesting.... ;-) Dawson, Teit and Boas they speak of "Shuswap" as including Okanagan, Sinixt, and the now-Colville languages as all being part and parcel of the same, likewise Thompson language and even Lillooet....Skookum1 (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:Minefield should be a WP section somewhere ;-).Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The Sinixt people article and the Okanagan language article both already say this, and that's not a problem, so I don't see why it should be a minefield. — kwami (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You haven't "met" Sinkalip yet. See User talk:Sinkalip....and review his edits this last while.Skookum1 (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
when I hear "cultural sensitivities" invoked as a reason for biased edits, I have to walk away, all that I can do, really. Other indigenous editors listen to reason; but some only want to listen to their reasons.Skookum1 (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Colville cite[edit]

I had a look through it last night; it doesn't say anything about the Ktunaxa now; it did once upon a time, as I recall; that page (the Colville one) is edited/monitored by people from the Colville Rez, might be worth asking on that talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Strecker amino-acid synthesis[edit]

Hi there

Last year, you moved this article from Strecker amino acid synthesis to Strecker amino-acid synthesis. Could you tell me why? Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. "Amino acid" is one word, so it takes a hyphen when modifying another. Otherwise it would mean something like the Strecker acid synthesis of aminos. For anyone familiar with the field the correct reading is so obvious they wouldn't possibly mis-parse it, and the hyphen can be safely dropped (like high school student for high-school student – no-one's going to read the former as school students who are high). But we're a general encyclopedia, so our audience is mostly people who aren't familiar with such things, and full punctuation is clearer. — kwami (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dravidian languages / Your revert[edit]

Why did you revert my rewrite attempt? Those edits were perfectly sourced, stylistically relevant and improved the overall quality of the article, especially relating to understanding Proto-Dravidian. You obviously intentionally interrupt my work for some reason. Kindly explain your behaviour or this will become very very ugly as I've put much time in it.-- Dravidian  Hero  20:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you remain mum in this case, I will discuss it on ANI. I want a neutral public opinion, maybe I'll get you warned or something similar. I know you are a hell of a senior, but such kind of sabotage must be considered disruptive enough.-- Dravidian  Hero  22:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Dravidian  Hero  22:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Try the talk page. Some of your changes may have been for the better, but I reverted because many of them were not. — kwami (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Sex-based and non-sex-based gender sytems.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Sex-based and non-sex-based gender sytems.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [14], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

  • state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
  • add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ALH (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at [15] and indeed, its license is not suitable for Wikipedia. Not every CC license is; it has to be CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. But this image is CC-BY-NC-ND, which by excluding commercial use and derivative works is not free enough for Wikipedia. Also, the base map is taken straight from Google Maps, whose terms on reuse are also anything but free. So unfortunately the image really did have to be deleted. Angr (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


Back when you created Alveolo-palatal lateral approximant and Alveolo-palatal nasal, why did you include certain languages, but not others, even though several were not directly sourced? Maybe you could add your input to User talk:Lfdder#Alveolo-palatals. --JorisvS (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"Templates to auto-respell IPA format"[edit]

"Templates to auto-respell IPA format" are discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 132#Templates to auto-respell IPA format (version of 23:37, 2 May 2013).
Wavelength (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

CfRs on Nuxalk, Sto:lo and St'at'imc categories[edit]

I know I'm not supposed to poll but this is ethnolinguistics related and you've done a lot for tribe names and general linguistic corrections for FN and NA articles, of course, so it seemed natural to let you know about it. NB the St'at'imc one can't be "Lillooet" as a cat name, despite the article name (which was changed recently when you (?) moved e.g. St'at'imcets to Lillooet language). The tribal council goes by both Lillooet Tribal Council and St'at'imc Nation; the disadvantage the latter name has is that unless you've been taught you have know way to know that's really pronounced more or less "Slatliumh" like you see in the old maps and histories ("Nlaka'pamux" shows up as Haukamaugh); so though Lillooet people exists as an ethnography article and Lillooet language as a linguistics one, the self-identifier of the main organization of the whole grouping is St'at'imc Nation....though the vintage '70s spelling is still used by the Lower Stl'atl'imx and also the Nequatque Band (D'Arcy). The main thrust of these CfRs is to make them easy to type; not to harmonize them with their main articles, and re the fact that the common usages in media and local publications, unless pointedly ethnographic in nature, don't have the diacriticals (other than the colon in Sto:lo). Wanted to add Sto:lo category several times today to IR redirects but didn't want to spend all that time copy-pasting, which adds up when you're doing dozens of entries...I'll throw this by {{NorthAmNative}} too; CfD is a kinda quiet place lately.....not that I'm looking for action/opposition LOL. Oh here is the Sto:lo CfR, the other two are immediately above it.Skookum1 (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with ease-of-editing arguments for article names, but category names are a case where I think they're justified.
BTW, I've argued against using en dashes in cat names for the same reason, even though I'm one of the ones pushing them in article names; after a bot came through and changed a bunch of cat names to dashes and I complained about it, a solution was found where you could type a hyphen and it would auto-correct to a dash. The same kind of solution should be available to Sto:lo if people insist on the diacritics, or if there's a bot which keeps adding them. — kwami (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The diacritical are only advocated/used by member bands of one of the two tribal councils, not sure what the non-TC ones a general usage "Sto:lo" without other diacriticals is now commonplace and the most widely used.Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Please note BrownHairedGirl's comment on the Nuxalk CfR re the main article title.....I'm going to have to make Nuxalk people separate from the government article, as is standard, but worried it will become Bella Coola people; see my comments in reply to GoodOlfactory on the St'atimc section too.Skookum1 (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
the negative responses coming from the CfD are from people who insist that the main articles and cat names should match.....but since you went and changed all the main articles to "X people" from their ethnonyms, that's resulting in unpalatable results, e.g. the insistence now the Category:Squamish people is viable as an alternative; it's not. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_4#Category:Squamish.Skookum1 (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

British county names[edit]

Just pointing out that this hasn't gone unnoticed: [16]. I'm not sure of your reasoning, but it may awake discussions from three years ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

We should use the same IPA conventions for all English counties unless we give the local pronunciations – and those need to be clearly marked as such. The majority were in keeping with the British–American–Australian consensus at WP:PRON, but a few have diverged from our standards since I last checked them. — kwami (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

[17] The local pronunciation does not may have have a rhotic R. Please provide proof that it does - I am from Worcestershire. I would assume that an encyclopediac entry should use standard British pronunciation and not some very local argot.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: There are three very distinct accents covering the county, from Birmingham to Hereford. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you want to add the local pronunciation, I'm afraid you'll have to do the research. (Especially since you're from there!) Or perhaps you could make a request on some project's talk page?
PS. A British encyclopedia would use standard British pronunciation. But we're not a British encyclopedia. We write for all nationalities, or at least we try to. — kwami (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Dravidian  Hero  05:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Fix "pronounced as": François Villon, Khawaja Nazimuddin, Chipewyan people, Oerth, Apparatchik, Pencoed

Khmu people[edit]

Khmu people have only you with a registered account, so I ask your advice as to what I should do with the following:

Royal Institute of Thailand#1999_edition online has a similar def. 2.

I implore your advice before making any changes to the existing article. Addition of the term would entail changing Kha from a redirect to a disambiguation, which would then need numerous additions for similar-sounding Thai words with the same transliteration, but a different Thai spellings and meanings. It would also call for an addition to Racial_slurs#K.

With that out of the way, I could attempt using the single source for the Holy Man's Rebellion (1901-1902).

As to that, I puzzled as to why Charles Keyes would refer to such as "Millenialism," "Millennialism" or "Millenarianism," when it seems to me a clear cut case of Messianism, given that this particular Holy Man was putting himself forward as the Buddhist Maitreya.

Hold on: I just looked up his tribal affiliation and found these three articles.

Should I just go hide my head?

(I'm vopying this to my talk page; if you reply there, I'll get an email notfication.) —Pawyilee (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


Hi, Kwamikagami. "Uranus" ends in an "s," and I was always taught to put only an apostrophe to form the possessive when singular words end in "s." However, when I Googled to find something to support my case, the first three links say that it is now common to include another "s." I wonder if this is a difference between American (me) and British English, or if this is now the case everywhere, but this is the first time I'm hearing about this. Interesting! For reference, this is the fourth most popular link (first one that agrees with me!): JustAMuggle (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't add another ess to plurals that already take an ess, but I'm used to seeing an ess if you would pronounce it. AFAIK it's not a US/UK thing; for example, John C. Wells at University College London (editor of the Longman Pronouncing Dictionary) uses Wells's (pronounced as two syllables) for his own name. (See "John Wells's phonetic blog",[18] which is quite British.)
D'oh! Okay, you are American. If anything, I would think a second ess is more common in the US than in the UK. Let's see: the Chicago Manual of Style says to add apostrophe-ess even when the noun ends in an ess, ex, or zee (Dickens's, Dow Jones's; unless of course it's a plural), but further down notes that it's "acceptable" to add only an apostrophe, especially in journalism. Garner's Modern American Usage say basically the same thing; they even go through the history of the AP Stylebook gradually scaling back on the rule against it, though many journal editors use apostrophe-ess despite AP guidelines. Garner's says there is an exception for biblical and classical names which end in /zəs/ or /iːz/, where you only add an apostrophe: Aristophanes', Jesus', Moses', Xerxes', and also an exception for a word ending in /s/ or /z/ before the word "sake" (for appearance' sake). So no, it doesn't look like it's American either, just an old rule that's gradually being abandoned, as more and more people write as they speak. — kwami (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Indic letter articles[edit]

So we got absolutely no feedback on Indic/Devanagari articles at writing systems, and it even got so stale it archived, so it looks like it's up to us on this one. I've done a mock up of the first quarter of an Indic letter article at Ka (Indic), with a template {{Indic glyph}}, based on {{Phoenician glyph}}, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether this looks like a good place to proceed from, and also see what you would add in to this guy. I'm currently looking to get feedback on uploading Tocharian letter images, and I've commented out a whole bunch of scripts that would just be continuations of the same sort of content. I watchlist your talk page, the article, and template talk pages, so comment, add stuff, remove stuff, and we'll see if we can start to build this content up. If we can get this one article up to a really full content, it may also give us a good feel on how it compares to the Semitic letter articles, and whether we should actually be doing content forks of some of the script families, like the Devanagari ka article. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 05:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to best go about this; it is redundant to have both a consolidated Indic article and separate Nagari, Bengali, etc. articles. — kwami (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
What I'm really trying to do is explore what content we want to fork, and which we want to keep in one place - like a nice table of genetic relationship between characters. I also think the best defense against AfDs like Devanagari ka is to establish that an article with all of these characters is far too unwieldy. I think it's worth the time to explore forking off (I don't know all the proper indic script family names) as much as articles on the eastern Nagari letters, the western Nagari, the Sharada family, the Grantha family, Indonesian scripts, Tai scripts, Philippine scripts, and then have the X (Indic) as a catch-all for all the miscellaneous, ie Brahmi, Tocharian, Kharoshthi, Kalinga, Kannada, Telugu, etc. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 21:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Vanisaac, I prefer that Wikipedia have a separate article on each Indic character shown at
Wavelength (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, almost certainly, each of those would at least be the locus of a separate article. Ka (Indic), as it is currently, is kind of designed as a proof by contradiction so that we can justify forks for the Devanagari, Bengali, Punjabi, etc. But we also need a place where all of those characters are at least briefly discussed, their genetic relationship explained, and all the individual articles can be linked together. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 21:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Origin of Urdu words[edit]

Hi, Kwami! Just wanted to discuss with YOU the origin of Urdu as discussed at Talk:Urdu. I am totally confused. I do not have the time to research right now (just 10 days to go for my first exam), that is why I am better asking you. I have always read and we are always told that Urdu formed through mixing of different languages in the Mughal Army. Later on, it gained popularity in the Mughal reign. In the British period, it replaced Persian as official language, at which Hindus resented and Sanskritised Urdu, renaming it Hindi and advocated the replacement of foreign Urdu with the native Hindi. After Independence, Pakistan standradised Urdu and made it its official language and India made standradised Hindi, its national language. And that is the reason for a small number of Urdu speakers, because it was not a natural language associated with any ethnic group. It was just progressed by Muslims and so it came to be labelled as the common language of all Muslims. There must be something in Taivo’s explanation, but it doesn’t fit into this picture. Our textbooks and dictionaries along with our teachers endorse the idea. To quote an example from our Urdu textbook for class nine (relating to spelling conventions): When a word ends in a long ā sound, there are two ways of writing it down, one is -ā and the other is -ah. For words of Arabic or Persian (which I classify as Western) origin, most words having long ā sound at the end are written -ah, whereas words of Hindi (this is ironical, words in Urdu cannot be derived from Hindi, but think the author(s) meant words of Hindu, i.e., Sanskrit/Prakrit origin, which I classify as Eastern) origin are transcribed with -ā instead of -ah in most cases. Now see, this clearly gives the notion that most words belong to these two categories (my teacher actually said this while telling us the rule, besides dictionaries also list those Urdu words also used in Hindi as being borrowed from Hindi) and this process of eliminating words to each language, leaves few words which do not fit anywhere and could be classified as being a native Urdu innovation. That was my point over there. I hope you have understood my view. What do you think about this? Thanks in advance. Regards.

—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 05:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Urdu is Hindustani. It is mixed the same way that English is mixed. Most of the basic vocabulary is Hindi (Indic) in the same way that most basic English vocabulary is Germanic. "Hindi" here doesn't mean Modern Standard Hindi, which is just a version of Urdu that didn't even exist at the time and should really be given a less ambiguous name, but rather one of the Hindi languages, specifically the Khari Boli dialect of Delhi (or, before that, whichever dialect further west that Urdu/Hindustani was originally based on, before the court moved to Delhi). A lot of Persian vocabulary was adopted by Hindustani/Urdu speakers (that is, by local Indians) from the Persian-speaking Moghul court in Delhi, just as a lot of French vocabulary was adopted by English speakers from the Norman French court in London. A lot of Arabic vocab was adopted due to the Muslim religion, just as a lot of Latin vocabulary was adopted by English speakers due to the Christian religion. Each language even had a third influence: Chagatai Turkish in Urdu due to the Chagatai elements in the army, and Danish/Scandinavian in English due to the Danelaw. But Urdu wasn't "invented" from above any more than English was "invented"; you can't remove the "Hindi" (Indic) vocabulary from Urdu any more than you can remove the Germanic vocabulary from English, because at its core it *is* Indic. And whatever the history of Urdu, that is also the history of (Modern Standard) Hindi, because, as you noted, Hindi is Urdu.
BTW, not all of the Sanskrit influence in Urdu is due to Hindu nationalists in the period leading up to independence: All during the Moghul Empire, the majority of the population was Hindu, so even Muslims of that time used Sanskrit words, just as Hindus used Persian and Arabic words.
The problem you're having with the word "Hindi" is that it doesn't mean just one thing. Hindi can be any dialect of the Hindi Belt, such as Awadhi, Bhojpuri, Chhattisgarhi, or Hindustani/Khari Boli/Dehlavi. So when someone says word X in Urdu comes from "Hindi", you need to ask what they mean by "Hindi", because it obviously isn't the modern official language of India. (Maybe some Hindu nationalists really do mean it that way, but if they do, they're ignorant of their own history.) What they usually mean when they say a word is "Hindi" is that it is one of the original words, before the addition of Persian and Arabic. A few words probably came from other Hindi languages after the main era of Persian and Arabic borrowings, just as English adopted Dutch, Swedish, German, and other Germanic words after the main era of French and Latin borrowings, but I suspect there aren't all that many of them.
There are a couple ways that a new language can be created: As an artificial language project, like Esperanto, or as a creole. Urdu is neither: It's simply the local Indic language that was adopted by the Moghul army and court (that's why it was called "Hindustani": it was the existing local language of Hindustan), and it subsequently underwent strong influences from the other languages spoken by the army and court. But the additions are almost entirely vocabulary. Basic vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar remain Indic, not some kind of artificial mixture, just as the basic vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar of English remains Germanic. (Yes, there are a few Persian influences in Urdu pronunciation and grammar, just as there are a few French influences in English pronunciation and grammar, but they are minor compared to the massive inheritance from the Indic origin of the language.)
You have used the spurious invented-language argument to explain the relatively small number of native Urdu speakers, but that's an artificial definition of Urdu. Urdu is really just Hindustani as spoken by Muslims, and there are probably something like 250–300 million Hindustani speakers. The number of "Urdu" speakers is just the fraction of Hindustani speakers who are Muslims; the others call their language "Hindi" even though it's really the same language. There are fewer "Urdu" than "Hindi" speakers because there are fewer Muslims than Hindus in India, and also because the definition of "Hindi" is often expanded to include other languages such as Awadhi, Bhojpuri, Chhattisgarhi, which together add hundreds of millions of additional speakers. If you ignore religion and look just at language, then there are more native speakers Urdu/Hindustani than there are native speakers of Punjabi; in fact, Urdu is one of the largest languages in the world. — kwami (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I’ve understood and got it completely into my bones. There is a serious flaw in the popular understanding of Urdu history. The accepted facts here are just rumours. Thank you once again for helping me differentiate between the actual fact and the accepted fiction. I am highly obliged to you. But just one more thing. When and how did it come into existence (before the Mughal army)? and how come it be so popular in the northern part of the subcontinent (being the lingua franca)? I had read the history of English earlier, but it never struck my mind that the history of my own language would be so similar to English. Well, thanks once again. Regards.
—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 19:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, don't take my word for everything! If you have good linguistic sources that contradict me, I may very well be wrong. The above is merely my understanding of the history based on my memory of the sources I have access to.
As for popular misunderstanding, I think the same kind of thing happens in popular descriptions of English and other languages. Urdu, however, has the additional complication of nationalistic and religious motivations for telling the history a particular way, so it might be more difficult to disentangle the two. That is, in those aspects it might be closer to, say, Croatian than to English. (Of course, no analogy is going to be exact.)
Before the Mughal invasion/conquest (or whatever the acceptable term is), there was (and still is) a a series of interrelated dialects across northern India. Along the Ganges and other major rivers, where the ground was flat and travel was easy, there was a lot of mixing of populations, so the neighbouring dialects stayed all pretty close to one another. Wherever the Mughals set up court, there was contact with the local population. I think Urdu got its start at the capital before Delhi, but I'm fuzzy on the history. When the court moved to Delhi, this incipient Urdu was brought along, and affected the learning of the Dehlavi dialect, so that Urdu shifted bases to Dehlavi but retained traces of that earlier Hindi dialect. (Whatever it was, it was similar to Dehlavi. When dialects are closely related, it's often difficult to tell centuries later which one contributed which elements to the literary language that emerged from them.) So Hindustani isn't exactly Khari Boli. Or at least that's my understanding. A fairly minor detail, however: whichever dialects influenced the emerging standard, they were all "Hindi", just like whichever English dialects went into standard English (and there was a lot of dialect mixing in the history of English too), they were still all closely related, and clearly distinct from Danish, French, Welsh, etc. You see the same thing in other imperial languages: Modern Standard Chinese is based on Beijing dialect, but strongly influenced by the many other dialects of Mandarin that people brought to the captital; Modern Standard German has been influenced by various German dialects; even Koranic Arabic has sources both in the dialects of Mecca/Medina, the new capital, and of eastern Arabia, which was the language of pre-Islamic Arabic poetry. If I remember correctly, that's one reason the usage of the letter alif is so irregular: They were trying to capture two dialects with one orthography.
And I'm sorry: The Mughals were originally Chagatai and only later became Persianized. I got it backwards.
As for why it's popular in the north, I think Urdu is strongest where Mughal influence was the strongest, but also where it was closest to the local dialect. I believe the Moghuls first set up court in Peshawar, but Hindistani/Urdu is of little use there today, and I don't think Mughal power was ever all that dominant in Afghanistan, in the south of India, or in Bengal (though maybe I'm wrong about that being a reason). As for why Urdu rather than Persian, easy: Urdu was easier for the local people to learn, because it was so similar to what they already spoke. Braj Bhasa, for example, was one of the main Hindu literary standards in the north, and it's very close to Hindustani/Urdu; you might say it's even a dialect of the same language. Both Persian and Urdu spread with the Mughal administration, but Persian was a quite foreign language to the local population, and so not as good a contact language / lingua franca as Urdu. By the time you got to Bengal, however, the local language was different enough that even Urdu was no longer all that easy to learn, and certainly in the Dravidian south it was a very foreign language, so Urdu never took hold there the way it did in the north. Even today many people speaking Awadhi, Chhattisgarhi, Bhojpuri, Rajasthani, etc. will tell you their language is "Hindi", because it's not all that different from Dehlavi. I imagine people had much the same notion in the Mughal era: If their speech was close to that of the court in Delhi, which was the elite language and so the one that many people aspired to, they would say it was a dialect of Hindustani/Urdu; only where it was obviously distinct, or where it had a separate literary history, as in Bengal, would people think they spoke a different language. But I don't know the details of any of this. — kwami (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot all the more! I am more informed now, nonetheless.
—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 23:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Kwami has done a good job of explaining the linguistic history underlying Urdu. --Taivo (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nsibidi J. K. Macgregor[edit]

What are you reasons for removing the Macgregor claim in the origin section of the nsibidi article? Ukabia - talk 18:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

My reason is in the edit summary: that source is over a hundred years old. Picking a source that old because it's the only one you agree with is cherrypicking. We can do better. — kwami (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Much of the article still relies on Macgregors and Dayrells works (so I didn't 'pick' the source, it was already there), and other sources reference them as well. The part about baboons teaching the symbols is widely quoted and an important part of the origin tales of nsibidi. Also I wasn't aware there was a rule on wikipedia for the age of a source, especially when it has been challenged with a recent source, and when much of the research is based on these same sources. Ukabia - talk 19:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
There isn't. I'll take another look. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

ǃKung people[edit]

Hi Kwami. I was wondering if you could take a look at ǃKung people? The lead needs some work. At present, it says that "The ǃKung, also spelled ǃXun, are a Bushman people living in the Kalahari Desert in Namibia, Botswana and in Angola. They speak the ǃKung language, noted for using click consonants, generally classified as part of the Khoisan language family." This is a problem in that Khoisan is no longer accepted. I know enough to see that the article isn't right, but not enough to fix it, which is why I'm asking you. (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ghana edits[edit]

I agree some of it is factually wrong but have you read all the edits. a lot of it is correct and the newest and most up to date information. I think rather than delete what seems to have taken hours if not days to do(finding new images, videos and content) try to integrate what he/she has done with what was there previously. Medicineman84 (talk)

You're welcome to restore the improvements, but purposefully adding false statements is disruptive. I reverted to the last version without the false statements. I have already spent many hours cleaning garbage out of that article, and don't wish to spend more. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you writing your post as if I made the edit? The edits were not made by me. I too have written a lot of this Ghana page. It seems the new person is energetic and has found 2013 quality information for example why report the life expectancy at 60 if it is 68 now! Ghana has vastly changed even within the last 2 years due to several factors including oil production etc etc. I think that is what the person who wrote this article tried to reflect.

Medicineman84 (talk)

Fine. And you're welcome to restore the factual information. — kwami (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time !! Maybe you can coordinate something! I just found it rude that someone put in what looked like hours of work with one click without fully reading all of it you deleted it all without even starting a discussion. Admittedly the person did the same thing to the work that was there before but still...

Medicineman84 (talk)

You don't have the time, so I'm supposed to do it? All the work is still there in the page history. Anyone who wants to separate the wheat from the chaff is able to do so. I would rather delete good info than allow the posting of falsehoods, and I'm not going to sift through it myself.
It's true that I didn't read through everything. If an editor cannot understand a newspaper article, there's a good chance they cannot understand the other sources they used either. Discussing edits with people who don't understand their own sources is generally a huge waste of time. I have come across a few who are able to discuss such things intelligently and adjust their editing to meet our standards, but that doesn't happen very often. Maybe this editor is one of them, but I'm not willing to put in the hours needed to find out. — kwami (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles moved contrary to RMs[edit]

Hi, subject that has come up before re India place names, can't recall exact article(s). I'm not sure how many of these there are Talk:Kutenai people, but I've commented there and suggest you should locate all articles you have moved contrary to RM results before others do. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

aboriginal names in Canada[edit]

your argument that aboriginal names are not part of English Wikipedia and "can't be pronounced" falls flat on its face just by a glance at List of place names in Canada of aboriginal origin. Without looking at the articles, tell me how "Cheam" and "Botanie Mountain" are pronounced, or the name of the place I'm from, Shalalth. And re the many ch-names, many are pronounced with "sh", not "ch", and "everyone" knows that. i.e. Chemainus vs. Chezacut, respectively. Then there's Cheakamus, Tsawwassen and Gingolx. Your pretension about all this, like your presumptive dismissal of Kwakwaka'wakw dislike of the term "Kwakiutl", is getting more than tiresome and chauvinistic, it's obstructive and, frankly, more than a bit racist, intentional or not, and will lead to Wikipedia being held in disregard by the peoples whose articles you think you have a right to rename according to how non-natives in other countries THINK is their correct name.Skookum1 (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ucluelet and many others in BC, Sheshatshiu, where a friend comes from in Labrador, and Shubenacadie in NS all come to mind......damn it's a long list of names that are acceptable in Canadian English and that have articles and that aren't "obvious pronunciations". If I got into smaller places, it's an even longer list. And there's non-native words/names too, Craigellachie as mentioned elsewhere, and how would you suppose to pronounce Agassiz? or Quesnel?Skookum1 (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm racist because you are incapable of providing English pronunciations for these names? All I ask is that you demonstrate that they've been assimilated into English. I've never argued that a pronunciation should be "obvious", only that an English pronunciation should exist. Yet you keep reverting to this straw man: Are you unable to make a rational arguement? Others have made the same point. I suppose they're racist too? What I'm hearing is that you know best, that you are unable to support your POV, but we should accept it anyway because "racism". I suppose if you don't pronounce Vietnamese place names with their correct tone that makes you a racist too? — kwami (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

For those who are interested, the proposed moves are at:

Talk:Lillooet people#Requested move
Talk:Kutenai people#Requested move 2
Talk:Thompson people#Requested move
Talk:Shuswap people#Requested move
Talk:Chilcotin people#Requested move

For all I know, all of the proposed names are assimilated into English and have established English pronunciations. But Skookum has not provided any evidence of that. Using a foreign name in print is not uncommon, nor is code switching for people who know the language, but I suspect that does not make it accessible to many of our readers. IMO "authenticity" takes a back seat to accessibility, commonality, etc., but maybe that's not the consensus on WP. — kwami (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, Skookum1 has presented you with multiple sources and all you can do is go WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You, my friend, are acting like a troll, and this is inappropriate. Montanabw(talk) 17:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
If he did, they were lost in all the "outrage" (TLDRT). He said that he knew of some people who should know, and that I should do the research to support his claims. No. If he makes the claims, he should be the one to find supporting evidence. He may very well be right, but other editors have said the same as me. The links of his I did follow did not say what he claimed they did, so he doesn't have much credibility. — kwami (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Skookum now claims to know the English pronunciations of these names, but refuses to share them with the rest of us. Quite a bizarre way to present an argument. — kwami (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I would support a final request for Kwami to stop moving ethnic group and language articles without prior discussion. It is a longstanding problem that he makes these kinds of moves in bulk without trying to gauge consensus first. MOves like these are always sensitive and complex because there are justifiable rationales both for and against, and the consensus in the literature is never straightforward to establish. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of European Esperanto Union for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article European Esperanto Union 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/European Esperanto Union 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 notice from the top of the article. pbp 16:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


I really was going to drop the "actually" and I was pretty sure that I had done it. Thanks for catching it for me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I figured you hit 'save' and your connection dropped or something. Mine's been flaky recently. — kwami (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of languages by number of native speakers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration link — you're not being warned[edit]

You may notice that I've linked your username at WP:ARCA, but don't worry that I'm trying to drag you into something. I'm simply quoting something you wrote in 2010 as part of my request for clarification, since you appeared to be as confused then as I am now. Feel free to ignore it unless you want to chime in. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

An award for you, in recognition of your service to the world's Endangered Languages ...[edit]

Salish schoolbus snqwiiqwo missoula 2011.jpg The Endangered Language Immersion School Bus Pass
You've earned a free pass on the Endangered Language Immersion Schoolbus of your choice-- this one is Montana Salish-- for all your work on language articles! Djembayz (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Salish works for me! — kwami (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Old Southwestern Chinese[edit]

I've tagged Old Southwestern Chinese and raised a query on the talk page, as I was unable to find it in the reference given. Kanguole 12:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

List of linguists[edit]

Hi Kwami. Just to let you know that I've started a new section about your removal of Christopher Ehret from List of linguists at Talk:List of linguists#Christopher Ehret. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Filipino language[edit]

I've responded on the talk page.

I take it seriously when someone accuses me of censorship. I consider your choice of phrasing incredibly loaded, and non-NPOV. I didn't remove the phrase to censor the content, but to remove something that wasn't neutral. Let's discuss this more civilly on the Talk page without resorting to such outlandish statements. Dan0 00 (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We have discussed this, and it does seem to reflect the lit. "Neutral" doesn't mean anodyne, just not our own POV. I don't see any section on the talk page to respond to. — kwami (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Final {{IPA-en}} conversions[edit]

It's been a while, but I'm making a push to convert the remaining {{IPA-en}} transclusions to {{IPAc-en}}. Please keep an eye on Ill-formatted IPAc-en transclusions for a while since I'm not always able to fix improper IPA.

On a related note, I like the idea of using hovering tooltips for pronunciation & etymological information (eg, Ouroboros). Do you have an opinion on this, or know where it should be brought up?

--deflective (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to with Ouroboros. — kwami (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
All the pronunciation & etymological information for Ouroboros can be seen by hovering the mouse over the superscript [a] after the name. It's a tidy way to make the information available without cluttering up the main page. --deflective (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
That would be very handy, except that the font is so small on my browser that it's illegible. But it's cool that the mouse-over has mouse-overs. — kwami (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The text appears to have the 'small' tag effect. Can you read other small text? How about if you mouseover the [1] at the bottom of the second paragraph?
There may also be a way to increase the size of the text in a tooltip. --deflective (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I can read English orthography, but IPA is too detailed to be legible at that scale. — kwami (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The font appears to be the same size as {{IPAc-en}}'s mouseovers. In general, if someone finds the mouseovers useful then the tooltip should work for them as well. Your point about detailed alphabets is well made tho. If etymology is included in a tooltip then languages with intricate characters would be in there as well.
Note though, you can always click the [a] to see it all in full size. --deflective (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
It's half the size of the IPAc mouseovers. — kwami (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Experimenting, it seems to depend on the size settings of the browser (ctrl+, ctrl-, ctrl0). --deflective (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have implemented a version of the tooltip with a big font at Ouroboros. Note that the text in the notes section is also affected (click the [a]). Any thoughts? --deflective (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's still barely legible on my browser, but it's a good idea regardless, and other readers will probably have better luck. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The conversions are now finished. All transclusions of {{IPA-en}} in articles (including portals) now use {{IPAc-en}}, the remaining occurrences are in user & talk spaces. Thanks for your help with this.

Once or twice a month from now on, I'll convert newly introduced {{IPA-en}} transclusions. --deflective (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


I noticed that you reverted my edit on the grounds that your computer did not at the time have a font with the glyph concerned, even though the character which is found in the Kangxi Dictionary, and has been in Unicode for about two decades (see ). Replacing well established characters with images, gives the misleading impression that there is non easy way to use a character, however articles should embody good practice, following ISO 10646 is well established in wikipedia. The reference given for the same character also uses U+34FE 㓾 ⿰犀刂 (see ). The correct solution in such a case is to install a font with complete ExtA in it, see List_of_CJK_fonts which has for example download link . Please by all means add a footnote telling people how to resolve such a problem by downloading a font. Johnkn63 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a dozen or so Chinese fonts, including several professional ones. Since normal fonts do not have that character, how would the reader know which font to download? — kwami (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Alan Wood has a fair introduction to Ext A where he lists a dozen or so fonts which have this character and suugestions on how to check. Problems can be two folder either no installed font with a certain character or even though a suitable font installed it does not show up in a particular application such as the browser. There are currently 75 thousand Chinese characters in Unicode, which is more than the number of characters that can held be a single font file, therefore only Chinese fonts that have two ttf font files could have. What operating system are you using, and what browser?Johnkn63 (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
PC & FF. — kwami (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Firefox usually pretty good for such things. I presume by PC you mean some version of windows Windows in which case Andrew West's freeware Babelpad is a good way to check what different fonts have, webpage . Johnkn63 (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


I read the reference. The Italian language is spoken by 55 million of people (natives) and 61 million of people (Total) Italian (Ethnologue) . According to Ethnologue Venetian Venetian (Ethnologue), Lombard Lombard (Ethnologue) and Neapolitan Neapolitan (Ethnologue) have less speakers than what the article says. Therefore please pay attention to changes you revert. --Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Read it again. It says 61 million, not 55, and the 55 includes L2 speakers. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Answer my questions. How many speakers Venetian, Lombard and Neapolitan have according to Ethnologue? Why Italian is in the "30 to 50 million native speakers chart" although it has more than 60 million of speakers? --Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
We go by native speakers, not L2 speakers. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Northern Ndebele language[edit]

Paragraph 2 of the article "Southern Ndebele language" (version of 13:01, 14 May 2013) says "The Zimbabwean and South African Ndebele dialect is closer to Zulu than other Nguni dialects". Does that mean "Northern Ndebele is closer to Zulu than it [Northern Ndebele] is to other Nguni dialects" or does it mean "Northern Ndebele is closer to Zulu than other Nguni dialects are to Zulu"?
Wavelength (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure, but they'd be equivalent, wouldn't they? N. Ndebele might be considered a variety of Zulu. — kwami (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
In the English alphabet, A is closer to Y than Z (A is closer to Y than A is to Z; A is not closer to Y than Z is to Y). I have studied parts of related articles, including "Nguni languages" (version of 21:48, 29 March 2013), whose section "Language classification" says that "Nguni languages might better be construed as a dialect continuum than as a cluster of separate languages." I still have not resolved the ambiguity, so I have decided to leave the matter for now, without spending more time on it.
Wavelength (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre[edit]

Good Article Recruitment - Completion Award.png
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Eurasiatic languages[edit]

Hello Kwami. If you can find the time, could you look at Eurasiatic languages? There are some details there that need attention, as noted in edit summaries. Thanks. (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving articles counter RM results, again[edit]

Hello Kwamikagami, you should have seen a red notification square twice already when your name was linked, but just in case, there is a discussion about your latest moves counter RM results at Talk:Ji-Lu Mandarin. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

On Burushaski[edit]

Greetings, Kwamikagami! I wanted to ask you about your recent reverting of my edits on the language isolates page. To be honest, I could seriously care less about you deleting the mention of the Indo-European proposal, as that's obviously a fringe theory put forth by a quite nationalistic linguist. However, why don't you consider Bengtson a reliable source? He's a renowned American linguist, and I was simply quoting a proposal that he happened to put forward. I know that you might not accept the Dene-Caucasian proposal (I don't either, just putting that out there), but I know that a number of linguists do, and many of them consider this to be a valid hypothesis. Wikipedia is supposed to be an all-encompassing, non-biased encyclopedia, and it should include a broad range of opinions and speculations. --Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mostly the IE stuff, per the edit summary. I also deleted Karasuk, which I had originally added, as no-one has followed up on it. As for the other, you didn't have DC, you had Yeniseian-Caucasic, and AFAIK no-one proposes that. — kwami (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

() pages[edit]

All the redirects listed in this page are in danger of being deleted because of your practice of creating () pages. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Then fix them, or let me know when I can fix them. — kwami (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"Let me know when I can fix them". What a strange question - a quick check of Lahnda language () would have told you that they required immediate fixing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

What is this like, a lesson for him? If there's a point you want to make, you should be straight about it. — Lfdder (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I saw that you changed the page name of Gronings into Gronings dialect. I think that Groningen dialect or Groningen Low Saxon is a better name. In English no one would ever say the word Gronings, but rather "Groningen dialect"/"Groningen language"/"Groningen (Low) Saxon", referring to the name of the province, similar to "Yorkshire dialect", rather than "Yorkshirian dialect" or something. I prefer the name Groningen Low Saxon, since the word dialect has a negative connotation and to reiterate that Gronings is not a dialect of Dutch, but a variety of Low Saxon. Grönneger 1 (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Either of those would be fine.
We call dialects "dialects" regardless of whether people like the word, and we don't title our article "Yorkshire English". However, if you added "Low Saxon" to Groningen, I doubt anyone would notice. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

changes in dravidian[edit]

hey thanks for reverting the dravidian language section but the thing here is to give the reader authenticated version of the topic may i know where are you from ?? and tell me the reasons to change to the previous versions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alurujaya (talkcontribs) 08:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC) User:Alurujaya (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I found you falsifying references, and so started reverting changes of yours that seemed dubious. I reverted the Drav lang article further because other editors had also made dubious changes; sorry if legit changes got caught up. — kwami (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Activated debates[edit]

Hi Kwami. I invite you to feedback on my views in Talk:List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations, I'm encouraging all involved since January to do so. Adam37 (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi! Some of your removings of links are mistaken.

The Kotava encyclopaedia counts 2176 real articles, for example:

The Nok culture: [19]
The geography of Tanzania: [20]
Congo: [21]

And the Wikikrenteem website, dedicated to the literature, original texts and translations in Kotava is a rich and very interesting resource. Examples:

The Diary of a Chairmaid: [22]
The french writer Octave Mirbeau: [23]
The famous novel by Sholokhov: [24]

I'm sorry but these links are not fakes! - Wikimistusik (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The ones I checked didn't go anywhere. I didn't check them all. — kwami (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Iranic vs. Iranian[edit]


  • Iranian means "belonging to, or coming from, Iran or people of Iran".
  • Iranic is a technical name of a class of peoples or languages that do not necessarily come from geographic Iran.

Even though the the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, Tajik and Dari are correctly called Iranic languages rather than "Iranian" languages. See here: [25].

The original author was correct in using Iranic in the article.

By analogy, Burmese, Thai and Lao alphabets are Indic scripts but not "Indian" scripts. See e.g. here: Help:Multilingual support (Indic).

Regards, kashmiri TALK 18:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not a common distinction. "Iranian" is the usual technical term for what you refer to; "Iranic" is so rare as to be almost negligible. I can see why some authors prefer it, but it's been around for a long time without ever really catching on. If you want to substitute a rare term for a common technical term, I suggest you take it to Wikiproject Languages. If people agree with you that in the interests of clarity we should ignore common linguistic usage, then there shouldn't be any problem in substituting "Iranic" for "Iranian" across the board. But since linguistic usage is against you, you'll have find it hard going without some sort of local consensus. — kwami (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage and Doma[edit]

The doma ruling is complicated that's why it was put as recognized by federal law only. A couple married in Massachusetts moving to Alabama would still have most of the federal benefits and would still have federal recognition of their marriage. Here's Lyle from SCOTUS Blog

"With the demise of the Defense of Marriage Act’s benefits ban in Section 3, for legally married gays and lesbians, the Court immediately — even if inadvertently — gave rise to a situation in which couples living in states that will not allow them to marry because they are homosexuals will still be able to qualify for federal benefits, many of which are handed out or managed by state governments" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predictor92 (talkcontribs) 19:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not really the question. We don't list Denmark, which has a similar situation. I raised the point for discussion on the template talk page. — kwami (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Denmark's situation is different than this situation. The courts ruling makes the ruling more similar to the current situation in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten at a certain level with the exception of no state registration(again we are talking about federal level here)

But state recognition is the whole point! But we should discuss there. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
But state law doesn't trumpet over federal law. The US Constitution states that federal law trumpets over state law. States would still have to grant some federal benefits to gay couples married. Also gay couples from overseas countries are no longer being deported. I think there should be strips for the USA, with grey and teal stripped because of the situation of gay marriage being recognized by federal law, but not state law.Gay conservative (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The details have not been clarified, but regardless, Arkansas does not recognize or perform SSM, so any suggestion that they do would be inappropriate. Should we add stripes to Greenland because Denmark doesn't deport SSM couples? The legal states should have been striped while DOMA was in effect, as SSM was not fully recognized there. Now that DOMA has been repealed, the striping should become solid blue, but that's what we already have. The repeal of DOMA means that the map is no longer inaccurate. No changes are needed. — kwami (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Again I never said state law recognizes or performs SSM. Here's what I said. Ok so if I get married in Maryland and move to Tennessee than may marriage is still recognized by the US federal government and would get some federal benefits. As for Greenland it has civil unions and colored blue so can't do anything about that. Again why isn't there a disclaimer at least so people who do browse the map know that at least the federal US government recognizes same-sex unions? People are still gonna think DOMA is in law and gay couples can be deported, which is not the case anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gay conservative (talkcontribs) 09:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The click consonant representation in IPA[edit]

Please, see that conversation Talk:Mfecane#The click consonant representation in IPA. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


HI. You participated in a recent discussion that was referenced in another recent discussion. That current discussion is at WT:LEAD#MOS:BOLDTITLE and its application to specific situations, further concerning that general policy application. You may be interested in the new discussion, as it directly applies to your previous issue for which there was insufficient input for consensus. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 12:52 am, Today (UTC−4)

using the same spelling as the article title[edit]

I am disappointed by your latest edits in Jilu Mandarin and Jiaoliao Mandarin. In the MOS talk page, one of the few things in which all people agreed was that the article text should use the same spelling as the article title. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

But it does. Same spelling doesn't mean that alt spellings can't be listed. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Did I miss something? The alternative spelling is already mentioned. In one article it's in the first sentence, in the other it's at the end of the first paragraph. In both cases it's bolded. Do you want to mention it also in the infobox? {{Infobox_language}} has an "altname" parameter. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I did. I saw a reduction from two names to one; I didn't rv. Ji-Lu once the 2nd was added. — kwami (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Your changes[edit]

I know you are very eager to bump up your edit count by any means. However I do think you should go a little slower and check results. I have already corrected three language pages tonight. fyi {{e17}} generates a reference. As you inserted into Samarokena language, Sumeri language and South Bolivian Quechua. John of Cromer (talk) mytime= Sat 21:55, wikitime= 20:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

No need. A bot will take care of it within a couple hours. — kwami (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Vietnamese language[edit]

When did you decide that Mon-Khmer is another name for Austro-Asiatic? Are you a linguist? has constructed the Vietnamese family tree. If Austro-Asiatic and Mon-khmer are the same, then would have put either one in the family tree.

Sonic99 (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ethnologue is not a very reliable source, and anyway the classification used here on WP treats them as essentially synonyms. And yes, I am a linguist. — kwami (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

IPA for Australian languages[edit]

Hi Kwami, why did you revert my changes to the example English words? They are closer to the target sounds than the original examples, after all. Dougg (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

They don't work for Australian English. — kwami (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but wrt to indicating a retroflex pronunciation, nothing works for Australian English, certainly not 'strudle' and 'drew'! But Australian's are familiar enough with US English to get it through reference to it, which is why I added the footnote as well. Dougg (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It might work, then. Maybe see what people think at one of the English templates? — kwami (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what these 'English templates' are, or how to find them (so many of WP's tools are hard to find). Can you be a bit more explicit about what you're suggestion, thanks? Dougg (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I searched and found 'Template:Australian English', if that's what you were referring to. That got me to the manual of style section on pronunciation and respellings. I then lost interest. It seems self-evident to me that 'strudle' and 'drew' are very misleading ways of indicating how to pronounce a retroflex stop, whereas referring to the US pronunciation of words such as 'card, partner' gets us as close as we can get with English, and is very familiar to all Australians. Many learner's guides to Australian languages use this kind of comparison, for example 'card, girl, burn', to get people on the road to a decent pronunciation. Dougg (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Besides the template of the chart itself, you might want to try Help:IPA for English or IPA chart for English dialects. — kwami (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)